Quantifying hepatitis C transmission risk using a new weighted scoring system for the Blood-Borne Virus Transmission Risk Assessment Questionnaire (BBV-TRAQ): Applications for community-based HCV surveillance, education and prevention

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>The hepatitis C virus (HCV) is a major cause of drug-related morbidity and mortality, with incidence data implicating a wide range of HCV transmission risk practices. The Blood-Borne Virus Transmission Risk Assessment Questionnaire (BBV-TRAQ) is a content valid instrument that comprehensively assesses HCV risk practices. This study examines the properties of a new weighted BBV-TRAQ designed to quantify HCV transmission risk among injecting drug users (IDU).</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>Analyses of cross-sectional surveys of Australian IDU (N = 450) were used to generate normative data and explore the properties of a weighted BBV-TRAQ. Items weights were assigned according to expert key informant ratings of HCV risk practices performed during the development stages of the BBV-TRAQ. A range of item weights was tested and psychometric properties explored. A weighting scheme was recommended based on the plausibility of normative subscale data in relation to research evidence and the ability of BBV-TRAQ scores to discriminate between HCV positive and negative participants.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>While retaining the psychometric properties of the unweighted scale and demonstrating good internal reliability. By taking into account the <it>relative </it>transmission risk of a broad range of putative HCV practices, the weighted BBV-TRAQ produced promising predictive validity results among IDU based on self-report HCV status, particularly among young and less experienced injectors.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>Brief, easy to administer and score, and inexpensive to apply, the utility of the BBV-TRAQ for community based education and prevention is enhanced by the application of item weights, potentially offering a valid surrogate measure for HCV infection among IDU.</p

Methodology for the Randomised Injecting Opioid Treatment Trial (RIOTT): evaluating injectable methadone and injectable heroin treatment versus optimised oral methadone treatment in the UK

Whilst unsupervised injectable methadone and diamorphine treatment has been part of the British treatment system for decades, the numbers receiving injectable opioid treatment (IOT) has been steadily diminishing in recent years. In contrast, there has been a recent expansion of supervised injectable diamorphine programs under trial conditions in a number of European and North American cities, although the evidence regarding the safety, efficacy and cost effectiveness of this treatment approach remains equivocal. Recent British clinical guidance indicates that IOT should be a second-line treatment for those patients in high-quality oral methadone treatment who continue to regularly inject heroin, and that treatment be initiated in newly-developed supervised injecting clinics. The Randomised Injectable Opioid Treatment Trial (RIOTT) is a multisite, prospective open-label randomised controlled trial (RCT) examining the role of treatment with injected opioids (methadone and heroin) for the management of heroin dependence in patients not responding to conventional substitution treatment. Specifically, the study examines whether efforts should be made to optimise methadone treatment for such patients (e.g. regular attendance, supervised dosing, high oral doses, access to psychosocial services), or whether such patients should be treated with injected methadone or heroin. Eligible patients (in oral substitution treatment and injecting illicit heroin on a regular basis) are randomised to one of three conditions: (1) optimized oral methadone treatment (Control group); (2) injected methadone treatment; or (3) injected heroin treatment (with access to oral methadone doses). Subjects are followed up for 6-months, with between-group comparisons on an intention-to-treat basis across a range of outcome measures. The primary outcome is the proportion of patients who discontinue regular illicit heroin use (operationalised as providing >50% urine drug screens negative for markers of illicit heroin in months 4 to 6). Secondary outcomes include measures of other drug use, injecting practices, health and psychosocial functioning, criminal activity, patient satisfaction and incremental cost effectiveness. The study aims to recruit 150 subjects, with 50 patients per group, and is to be conducted in supervised injecting clinics across England

Clinical case conference : strategies for transferring from methadone to buprenorphine

The mainstay of treatment for opioid use disorder are medications, methadone (a full opioid agonist), or buprenorphine (a partial opioid agonist), in conjunction with psychosocial interventions. Both treatments are effective but safety, efficacy, and patient preference can lead to a decision to change from one treatment to the other. Transfer from buprenorphine to methadone is not clinically challenging; however, changing from methadone to buprenorphine is more complex. Published reports describe varied approaches to manage this transfer to both minimize patient symptoms associated with withdrawal from methadone and reduce risk of precipitating withdrawal symptoms with introduction of the partial agonist buprenorphine [Lintzeris et al. J Addict Med. 2020; in press]. There is no single approach for methadone to buprenorphine that is superior to others and no approach that is suitable for all case presentations. This case conference describes three different approaches to achieve a successful methadone to buprenorphine transfer and provides commentary on how the case may be managed based on published transfer "strategies.

Same-day use of opioids and other central nervous system depressants amongst people who tamper with pharmaceutical opioids: A retrospective 7-day diary study

Objective The aims were to determine: (i) quantity and frequency of same-day use of opioids with benzodiazepines and/or alcohol amongst people who regularly tamper with pharmaceutical opioids; and (ii) socio-demographic, mental health, harms and treatment profile associated with same-day use of high doses. Method The cohort (n = 437) completed a retrospective 7-day diary detailing opioid, benzodiazepine, and alcohol intake. Oral morphine equivalent (OME) units and diazepam equivalent units (DEU) were calculated, with \u3e200 mg OME, \u3e40 mg DEU and \u3e4 standard alcoholic drinks (each 10 g alcohol) considered a high dose . Results One-half (47%) exclusively consumed opioids without benzodiazepines/alcohol; 26% had days of opioid use with and without benzodiazepines/alcohol; and 26% always used opioids and benzodiazepines/alcohol. Same-day use of opioids with benzodiazepines/alcohol typically occurred on 1-3 days in the past week. Six in ten (61%) participants reported high dose opioid use on at least one day; one in five (20%) reported high dose opioid and high dose benzodiazepine/alcohol use on at least one day. The latter group were more likely to use prescribed opioid substitution therapy, often alongside diverted pharmaceutical opioids. Socio-demographic and clinical profiles did not vary according to high dose opioid, alcohol and benzodiazepine use, and there was no association with harms. Conclusions Same-day use of opioids with benzodiazepines/alcohol, and high dose combinations, are common amongst people who tamper with pharmaceutical opioids. Assessment of concomitant benzodiazepine/alcohol use during opioid therapy, implementation of real-time prescription monitoring systems, and research to clarify upper safe limits for polydrug depressant use, are potential implications

Diversion of prescribed opioids by people living with chronic pain: Results from an Australian community sample

Introduction and Aims There has been an increase in prescription of opioids for chronic non‐cancer pain, and concern exists over possible diversion of prescription opioids to the illicit marketplace. Recent media coverage suggests that elderly patients sell their prescribed opioids for additional income. This study investigated the extent to which an Australian community sample of chronic pain patients prescribed opioids reported supplying their prescribed opioids to others. Design and Methods Participants living with chronic non‐cancer pain and prescribed opioids for their pain (n = 952) were recruited across Australia via advertisements at pharmacies. A telephone interview included questions about their pain condition and opioid medication. Results Participants had been living with pain for a mean of 14.2 years; most common conditions included chronic back/neck problems and arthritis/rheumatism. Around half (43%) were currently prescribed one opioid, and 55% had been prescribed 2-5 opioids; the most common was oxycodone. Forty‐two participants (4%) reported ever supplying prescribed opioids to another person; one participant reported receiving payment. Participants who supplied opioids to others were younger (odds ratio 0.97, 95% confidence interval 0.95-0.99) and engaged in a greater number of aberrant behaviours relating to their opioid medication (odds ratio 1.77, 95% confidence interval 1.45-2.17), including tampering with doses, taking opioids by alternative routes, seeing doctors to obtain extra opioids and refilling prescriptions early. Discussion and Conclusion Few people with chronic non‐cancer pain divert their opioids to others. Media reports of elderly patients selling their opioids to supplement their income may be reflective of exceptional cases. Future studies may investigate the extent to which other patient groups divert prescription opioids to the illicit marketplace

Agreement between definitions of pharmaceutical opioid use disorders and dependence in people taking opioids for chronic non-cancer pain (POINT): a cohort study

Background Classification of patients with pharmaceutical opioid use disorder and dependence varies depending on which definition is used. We compared how WHO\u27s ICD-10 and proposed ICD-11 and the American Psychiatric Association\u27s DSM-IV and DSM-5 classified individuals in a community-based sample of Australians with chronic non-cancer pain for which opioids have been prescribed. Methods We studied participants in the Pain and Opioid IN Treatment (POINT) cohort, a 2 year prospective cohort study of 1514 people prescribed pharmaceutical opioids for their chronic pain who were recruited in 2012–13 from community-based pharmacies across Australia. After giving patients the Composite International Diagnostic Interview about their opioid use, we assessed which patients would be categorised as having disorders of pharmaceutical opioid use by ICD-10, the draft ICD-11, DSM-IV, and DSM-5. We examined agreement between classification systems, and tested the unidimensionality of the syndrome with confirmatory factor analysis. Findings We included 1422 participants (median time of pain disorder 10 years [IQR 5–20]; median length of strong opioid prescription 4 years [IQR 1·5–10·0]; mean age 58 years). Similar proportions of individuals met lifetime criteria for dependence with DSM-IV (127; 8·9%), ICD-10 (121; 8·5%), and ICD-11 (141; 9·9%). Criteria in DSM-5 classified 127 (8·9%) participants with moderate or severe use disorder. There was excellent agreement between ICD-10, ICD-11 and DSM-IV dependence (κ\u3e0·90). However, there was only fair to moderate agreement between ICD-10 and DSM-IV dependence diagnoses, and DSM-5 use disorder (mild, moderate, or severe). There was only good agreement between moderate to severe use disorder in DSM-5 and the other definitions. Criteria for all definitions loaded well on a single factor; the best model fit was for the definition for dependence in the draft ICD-11, the worst was in DSM-5. Interpretation Classification of problematic pharmaceutical opioid use varies across editions of ICD and DSM. The much lower levels of agreement between DSM-5 and other definitions than between other definitions might be attributed to DSM-5 containing an increased number of criteria and treating dependence and problematic use as a continuum. The more parsimonious ICD-11 dependence definition showed excellent model fit and excellent agreement with previous classificatory systems

Effect of cannabis use in people with chronic non-cancer pain prescribed opioids: findings from a 4-year prospective cohort study

Background Interest in the use of cannabis and cannabinoids to treat chronic non-cancer pain is increasing, because of their potential to reduce opioid dose requirements. We aimed to investigate cannabis use in people living with chronic non-cancer pain who had been prescribed opioids, including their reasons for use and perceived effectiveness of cannabis; associations between amount of cannabis use and pain, mental health, and opioid use; the effect of cannabis use on pain severity and interference over time; and potential opioid-sparing effects of cannabis. Methods The Pain and Opioids IN Treatment study is a prospective, national, observational cohort of people with chronic non-cancer pain prescribed opioids. Participants were recruited through community pharmacies across Australia, completed baseline interviews, and were followed up with phone interviews or self-complete questionnaires yearly for 4 years. Recruitment took place from August 13, 2012, to April 8, 2014. Participants were asked about lifetime and past year chronic pain conditions, duration of chronic non-cancer pain, pain self-efficacy, whether pain was neuropathic, lifetime and past 12-month cannabis use, number of days cannabis was used in the past month, and current depression and generalised anxiety disorder. We also estimated daily oral morphine equivalent doses of opioids. We used logistic regression to investigate cross-sectional associations with frequency of cannabis use, and lagged mixed-effects models to examine temporal associations between cannabis use and outcomes. Findings 1514 participants completed the baseline interview and were included in the study from Aug 20, 2012, to April 14, 2014. Cannabis use was common, and by 4-year follow-up, 295 (24%) participants had used cannabis for pain. Interest in using cannabis for pain increased from 364 (33%) participants (at baseline) to 723 (60%) participants (at 4 years). At 4-year follow-up, compared with people with no cannabis use, we found that participants who used cannabis had a greater pain severity score (risk ratio 1·14, 95% CI 1·01-1·29, for less frequent cannabis use; and 1·17, 1·03-1·32, for daily or near-daily cannabis use), greater pain interference score (1·21, 1·09-1·35; and 1·14, 1·03-1·26), lower pain self-efficacy scores (0·97, 0·96-1·00; and 0·98, 0·96-1·00), and greater generalised anxiety disorder severity scores (1·07, 1·03-1·12; and 1·10, 1·06-1·15). We found no evidence of a temporal relationship between cannabis use and pain severity or pain interference, and no evidence that cannabis use reduced prescribed opioid use or increased rates of opioid discontinuation. Interpretation Cannabis use was common in people with chronic non-cancer pain who had been prescribed opioids, but we found no evidence that cannabis use improved patient outcomes. People who used cannabis had greater pain and lower self-efficacy in managing pain, and there was no evidence that cannabis use reduced pain severity or interference or exerted an opioid-sparing effect. As cannabis use for medicinal purposes increases globally, it is important that large well designed clinical trials, which include people with complex comorbidities, are conducted to determine the efficacy of cannabis for chronic non-cancer pain