What are the policy implications of the evidence on cannabis and psychosis?

Objective: To explore the implications for mental health services, for health education about the risks of cannabis use, and for public policy toward cannabis use of observational evidence that cannabis use is a contributory cause of psychosis. Method: Using comparative analyses of similar evidence for the harmful effects of alcohol, tobacco, and amphetamine use, we considered the relation between observational evidence and action on cannabis. We examined arguments on the grounds of public health prudence for discouraging cannabis use by young individuals. With the assumption that the relation may be causal, we considered recommendations for policy in mental health services, health education, and public policy toward cannabis. Results: The observational evidence and biological plausibility of the hypothesis that cannabis is a contributory cause of psychosis is at least as strong as evidence for causal relations between heavy alcohol and amphetamine use and psychosis. On public health grounds, there is a good case for discouraging cannabis use among adolescents and young adults. It remains uncertain how best to discourage use and at whom campaigns to reduce cannabis use should be targeted. Conclusions: We should discourage young adults seeking treatment in mental health services from using cannabis and inform them of the probable mental health risks of cannabis use, especially of early and frequent use. We must exercise caution in liberalizing cannabis laws in ways that may increase young individuals' access to cannabis, decrease their age of first use, or increase their frequency of cannabis use. We should consider the feasibility of reducing the availability of high-potency cannabis products.

A cost-effectiveness analysis of heroin detoxification methods in the Australian National Evaluation of Pharmacotherapies for Opioid Dependence (NEPOD)

This economic evaluation was part of the Australian National Evaluation of Pharmacotherapies for Opioid Dependence (NEPOD) project. Data from four trials of heroin detoxification methods, involving 365 participants, were pooled to enable a comprehensive comparison of the cost-effectiveness of five inpatient and outpatient detoxification methods. This study took the perspective of the treatment provider in assessing resource use and costs. Two short-term outcome measures were used-achievement of an initial 7-day period of abstinence, and entry into ongoing post-detoxification treatment. The mean costs of the various detoxification methods ranged widely, from AUD $491 (buprenorphine-based outpatient); to AUD $605 for conventional outpatient; AUD $1404 for conventional inpatient; AUD $1990 for rapid detoxification under sedation; and to AUD $2689 for anaesthesia per episode. An incremental cost-effectiveness analysis was carried out using conventional outpatient detoxification as the base comparator. The buprenorphine-based outpatient detoxification method was found to be the most cost-effective method overall, and rapid opioid detoxification under sedation was the most costeffective inpatient method.

Genes and gene expression in the brains of human alcoholics

Chronic alcohol misuse by human subjects leads to neuronal loss in regions such as the superior frontal cortex (SFC). Propensity to alcoholism is associated with several genes. γ-Aminobutyric acid (GABA)A receptor expression differs between alcoholics and controls, whereas glutamate receptor differences are muted. We determined whether genotype differentiated the regional presentation of GABAA and glutamate-NMDA (N-methyl-d-aspartate) receptors in SFC. Autopsy tissue was obtained from alcoholics without comorbid disease, alcoholics with liver cirrhosis, and matched controls. ADH1C, DRD2B, EAAT2, and APOE genotypes modulated GABAA-β subunit protein expression in SFC toward a less-effective form of the receptor. Most genotypes did not divide alcoholics and controls on glutamate-NMDA receptor pharmacology, although gender and cirrhosis did. Genotype may affect amino acid transmission locally to influence neuronal vulnerability.

Using intervention time series analyses to assess the effects of imperfectly identifiable natural events: A general method and example

BACKGROUND: Intervention time series analysis (ITSA) is an important method for analysing the effect of sudden events on time series data. ITSA methods are quasi-experimental in nature and the validity of modelling with these methods depends upon assumptions about the timing of the intervention and the response of the process to it. METHOD: This paper describes how to apply ITSA to analyse the impact of unplanned events on time series when the timing of the event is not accurately known, and so the problems of ITSA methods are magnified by uncertainty in the point of onset of the unplanned intervention. RESULTS: The methods are illustrated using the example of the Australian Heroin Shortage of 2001, which provided an opportunity to study the health and social consequences of an abrupt change in heroin availability in an environment of widespread harm reduction measures. CONCLUSION: Application of these methods enables valuable insights about the consequences of unplanned and poorly identified interventions while minimising the risk of spurious results.

Does naltrexone treatment lead to depression? Findings from a randomized controlled trial in subjects with opioid dependence

Objective: Dysphoria and depression have been cited as side effects of the opioid antagonist naltrexone. We aimed to assess whether depressive symptoms are a clinically relevant side effect in a population receiving naltrexone as a treatment for opioid dependence. Methods: We carried out a randomized controlled, open-label trial comparing rapid opiate detoxification under anesthesia and naltrexone treatment with continued methadone maintenance at the Alcohol and Drug Service, Royal Brisbane and Women's Hospital, Brisbane, Australia. The study subjects were patients stabilized on methadone maintenance treatment for heroin dependence who wished to transfer to naltrexone treatment. The Beck Depression Inventory, State-Trait Anxiety Inventory and Opiate Treatment Index subscales for heroin use and social functioning were used at baseline and follow-up assessments at 1, 2, 3 and 6 months. Results: Forty-two participants were allocated to receive naltrexone treatment, whereas 38 continued methadone maintenance as the control condition. Participants who received naltrexone did not exhibit worsening of depressive symptoms. In participants attending all follow-up assessments, there was a trend for those receiving naltrexone to exhibit an improvement in depression over time compared with the control group. Participants who were adherent to naltrexone treatment exhibited fewer depressive symptoms than those who were nonadherent. Conclusions: These results suggest that depression need not be considered a common adverse effect of naltrexone treatment or a treatment contraindication and that engaging with or adhering to naltrexone treatment may be associated with fewer depressive symptoms.

Combined acamprosate and naltrexone, with cognitive behavioural therapy is superior to either medication alone for alcohol abstinence: A single centres' experience with pharmacotherapy

Aims: To compare treatment outcomes amongst patients offered pharmacotherapy with either naltrexone or acamprosate used singly or in combination, in a 12-week outpatient cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT) programme for alcohol dependence. Methods: We matched 236 patients across gender, age group, prior alcohol detoxification, and dependence severity and conducted a cohort comparison study of three medication groups (CBT+acamprosate, CBT+naltrexone, CBT+combined medication) which included 59 patients per group. Outcome measures included programme attendance, programme abstinence and for those who relapsed, cumulative abstinence duration (CAD) and days to first breach (DFB). Secondary analyses compared the remaining matched 59 subjects who declined medication with the pharmacotherapy groups. Results: Across medication groups, CBT+ combined medication produced the greatest improvement across all outcome measures. Although a trend favoured the CBT+ combined group, differences did not reach statistical significance. Programme attendance: CBT + Acamprosate group (66.1%), CBT + Naltrexone group (79.7%), and in the CBT + Combined group (83.1%). Abstinence rates were 50.8, 66.1, and 67.8%, respectively. For those that did not complete the programme abstinent, the average number of days abstinent (CAD) were 45.07, 49.95, and 53.58 days, respectively. The average numbers of days to first breach (DFB) was 26.79, 26.7, and 37.32 days. When the focal group (CBT + combined) was compared with patients who declined medication (CBT-alone), significant differences were observed across all outcome indices. Withdrawal due to adverse medication effects was minimal. Conclusions: The addition of both medications (naltrexone and acamprosate) resulted in measurable benefit and was well tolerated. In this patient population naltrexone with CBT is as effective as combined medication with CBT, but the trend favours combination medication.

Improvement in measures of psychological distress amongst amphetamine misusers treated with brief cognitive-behavioural therapy (CBT)

This trial of cognitive-behavioural therapy (CBT) based amphetamine abstinence program (n = 507) focused on refusal self-efficacy, improved coping, improved problem solving and planning for relapse prevention. Measures included the Severity of Dependence Scale (SDS), the General Health Questionnaire-28 (GHQ-28) and Amphetamine Refusal Self-Efficacy. Psychiatric case identification (caseness) across the four GHQ-28 sub-scales was compared with Australian normative data. Almost 90% were amphetamine-dependent (SDS 8.15 +/- 3.17). Pretreatment, all GHQ-28 sub-scale measures were below reported Australian population values. Caseness was substantially higher than Australian normative values {Somatic Symptoms (52.3%), Anxiety (68%), Social Dysfunction (46.5%) and Depression (33.7%). One hundred and sixty-eight subjects (33%) completed and reported program abstinence. Program completers reported improvement across all GHQ-28 sub-scales Somatic Symptoms (p < 0.001), Anxiety (p < 0.001), Social Dysfunction (p < 0.001) and Depression (p < 0.001)}. They also reported improvement in amphetamine refusal self-efficacy (p < 0.001). Improvement remained significant following intention-to-treat analyses, imputing baseline data for subjects that withdrew from the program. The GHQ-28 sub-scales, Amphetamine Refusal Self-Efficacy Questionnaire and the SDS successfully predicted treatment compliance through a discriminant analysis function (p

Reflections on the development and implementation of an early warning system for ecstasy and related drug markets in Australia

Regular and systematic monitoring of drug markets provides the basis for evidence-based policy. In Australia, trends in ecstasy and related drug (ERD) markets have been monitored in selected jurisdictions since 2000 and nationally since 2003, by the Party Drugs Initiative (PDI). The PDI maximises the validity of conclusions by triangulating information from (a) interviews with regular ecstasy users (REU), (b) interviews with key experts and (c) indicator data. There is currently no other system in Australia for monitoring these markets systematically; however, the value of the PDI has been constrained by the quality of available data. Difficulties in recruiting and interviewing appropriate consumers (REU) and key experts have been experienced, but largely overcome. Limitations of available indicator data from both health and law enforcement continue to present challenges and there remains considerable scope for enhancing existing routine data collection systems, to facilitate monitoring of ERD markets. With an expanding market for ecstasy and related drugs in Australia, and in the context of indicator data that continue to be limited in scope and detail, there is a strong argument for the continued collection of annual, comparable data from a sentinel group of REU, such as those recruited for the PDI.

A survey of regular ecstasy users' knowledge and practices around determining pill content and purity: Implications for policy and practice.

Objective: To examine the methods used by a sample of regular ecstasy users to determine the content and purity of ecstasy pills, their knowledge of the limitations of available pill testing methods, and how pill test results would influence their drug use behaviour. Method: Data were collected from regular ecstasy users (n = 810) recruited from all eight capital cities of Australia. Data were analysed using multiple logistic regression and chi-square (chi(2)) tests of association. Open-ended responses were coded for themes. Results: The majority of the sample(84%) reported attempting to find out the content and purity of ecstasy at least some of the time, most commonly asking friends or dealers. Less than one quarter (22%) reported personal use of testing kits. There was a moderate level of awareness of the limitations of testing kits among those who reported having used them. Over half (57%) of those reporting personal use of testing kits reported that they would not take a pill if test results indicated that it contained ketamine and over three quarters (76%) reported that they would not take an "unknown" pill (producing no reaction in a reagent test). Finally, a considerable majority (63%) expressed interest in pill testing should it be more widely available. Conclusions: The majority of regular ecstasy users sampled in this Australian study report previous attempts to determine the content and purity of pills sold as ecstasy. Although only a small proportion have used testing kits, many report that they would do so if they were more widely available. The results of pill tests may influence drug use if they indicate that pills contain substances which ecstasy users do not want to ingest or are of unknown content. More detailed research examining ways in which pill testing may influence drug use is required to inform evidence-based policy. (c) 2006 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Comparative cost-effectiveness of policy instruments for reducing the global burden of alcohol, tobacco and illicit drug use

Alcohol, tobacco and illicit drug use together pose a formidable challenge to international public health. Building on earlier estimates of the demonstrated burden of alcohol, tobacco and illicit drug use at the global level, this review aims to consider the comparative cost-effectiveness of evidence-based interventions for reducing the global burden of disease from these three risk factors. Although the number of published cost-effectiveness studies in the addictions field is now extensive ( reviewed briefly here) there are a series of practical problems in using them for sector-wide decision making, including methodological heterogeneity, differences in analytical reference point and the specificity of findings to a particular context. In response to these limitations, a more generalised form of cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) is proposed, which enables like-with-like comparisons of the relative efficiency of preventive or individual-based strategies to be made, not only within but also across diseases or their risk factors. The application of generalised CEA to a range of personal and non-personal interventions for reducing the burden of addictive substances is described. While such a development avoids many of the obstacles that have plagued earlier attempts and in so doing opens up new opportunities to address important policy questions, there remain a number of caveats to population-level analysis of this kind, particularly when conducted at the global level. These issues are the subject of the final section of this review.