Search

BACKGROUND - In the Czech Republic, education in addiction science consists of a distinctive and interconnected system of non-medical healthcare education on the Bachelor’s (Bc) and Master’s (MA) levels, followed by a doctoral study programme (PhD). Addictology (addiction science) as a new term is defined as a distinct and independent field of scientific inquiry on addictive behaviours and the risk environment of substance use, aiming at scientific and professional excellence relevant to society. AIMS - This case study seeks to identify, describe and explain important events in shaping the historical context of the Czech education and research programmes in addictology. DESIGN - The historical review is based on qualitative content analysis of central written documents. RESULTS - In the 19th century Czech territory, problematic alcohol use was addressed through self-help activities in the second half of the nineteenth century. During the 1950s and 1960s, a new generation of Czech psychiatrists emerged with an interest in alcohol treatment and in research of hallucinogenic drugs. A patient education bulletin Apolinárský zápisník [Apolinar Diary] was launched in 1951 and was later also used for education of treatment professionals in connection with other self-help and quasi-self-help activities. The monographs Alkoholism (1957) and Toxicomany (1973) conceptualised the core of abstinence-oriented historical traditions and developments. A separation of approaches to legal and illegal drugs can be observed in the 1970s. In 1967, a new and intensive training model was introduced for psychiatrists and psychotherapists, leading into specialisation in psychotherapy and addiction. Because of the Iron Curtain, Czech practitioners had to develop their own concept of addiction and ideas on training psychotherapists so they could not be labelled western or anti-state, or be subject to intense state control.

Background and aims: Not all people experiencing opioid dependence benefit from oral opioid agonist treatment. The aim of this study was to examine perceptions of (supervised) injectable opioid agonist treatment (iOAT) (described as 'an opioid similar to heroin self‐injected at a clinic several times a day') among people who regularly use opioids and determine how common iOAT eligibility criteria accord with interest in iOAT. Design Cross‐sectional survey Setting: Sydney, Melbourne and Hobart, Australia Participants: A total of 344 people (63% male) who use opioids regularly and had ever injected opioids, interviewed December 2017–March 2018. The mean age of participants was 41.5 years [standard deviation (SD) = 8.5]. Measurements Primary outcome measures were interest in iOAT, factors associated with interest and the proportion of participants who would be eligible using common criteria from trials and guidelines. We examined willingness to travel for iOAT, medication preferences and perspectives on whom should receive iOAT. Findings Overall, 53% of participants (n = 182) believed that iOAT would be a good treatment option for them. Participants who believed that iOAT was a good treatment option for them were more likely to be male [adjusted odds ratio (aOR) = 1.76, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 1.10–2.82], have used heroin in the past month (aOR = 6.03, 95% CI = 2.86–12.71), currently regularly inject opioids (aOR = 1.84, 95% CI = 1.16–2.91) and have met ICD‐10 criteria for opioid dependence (aOR = 3.46, 95% CI = 1.65–7.24). Those interested in iOAT had commenced more treatment episodes (aOR =1.06, 95% CI = 1.00–1.12). Among those interested in iOAT (n = 182), 26% (n = 48) met common eligibility criteria for iOAT. Conclusions: Interest in injectable opioid agonist treatment does not appear to be universal among people who regularly use opioids. Among study participants who expressed interest in injectable opioid agonist treatment, most did not meet common eligibility criteria. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aims: The indicator of availability has been used in the risk assessment (RA) of new psychoactive substances (NPS). This paper aims to examine the pre- and post-control availability of 25I-NBOMe, AH-7921, MDPV and MXE, which were assessed by the EMCDDA.Methods: Data were collected by a semi-automated software tool (I-TREND SASF) on e-shops in national languages (Czech, French, Dutch, Polish and English) that offered shipping of these compounds into the respective countries; frequency analysis was used.Findings: The number of e-shops selling these substances decreased between III/2014 and XII/2015 (except for AH-7921). Both increases and decreases were found on the country-level for all the compounds (except for an overall decrease for MXE). In one instance an NPS disappeared from this market in 2015 (25I-NBOMe in NL); 25I-NBOMe and AH-7921 in France and AH-7921 in Poland appeared for the first time in 2015 after they were put under control. The e-shops listing AH-7921, 25I-NBOMe and MDPV in XII/2015 ranked higher in terms of “popularity” than in III/2014. The IP addresses were more likely to be outside the EU in 2015 than in 2014.Conclusions: We found no evidence that national-level compound bans contributed to the changes in online NPS markets. Indicators of the accessibility, availability, popularity, and IP origin should be considered in RA. Data triangulation with street markets and the darknet is needed as well as more research into the “displacement” and “replacement” effects of control laws. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

Introduction: Supervised injectable opioid treatment (SIOT) is an evidence-based intervention targeting opioid-dependent people for whom existing treatments have been ineffective. This project will primarily assess the feasibility and the acceptability of time-limited SIOT using injectable hydromorphone delivered in an existing Australian public opioid treatment programme, with secondary outcomes of safety, cost, changes in drug use and other health outcomes. If feasible, the goal is to scale up the intervention to be more widely available in Australia., Methods and Analysis: Between 20 and 30 participants will be offered two times per day hydromorphone to inject under direct observation, in addition to their current opioid agonist treatment (OAT), for up to 2 years. At the end of 2 years of supervised hydromorphone treatment, participants will be continued on standard OAT only. Informed consent will be obtained from all participants included in the study. This is a single-site, uncontrolled, open-label study where quantitative and qualitative interview data will be collected at baseline, 12 months and lastly at 3 months following their final hydromorphone dose. The main outcome measures are feasibility, as assessed by recruitment, retention and participation in treatment, and acceptability to participants, clinic staff and other stakeholders assessed by qualitative interviews. Secondary outcome measures of safety, as assessed by adverse events, and cost will also be assessed, as well as a range of other drug and health outcomes., Ethics and Dissemination: This study received ethical approval from the St Vincent's Hospital Human Research Ethics Committee (2019/ETH00418). This will be the first study of time-limited SIOT in the Australian setting. All results will be submitted to peer-reviewed journals, scientific conferences and local practice meetings. A preliminary report on outcomes will also be presented to local health policy makers. A consumer and community forum will also be held to feedback results to a broader audience., Trial Registration Number: ACTRN12621001729819., Competing Interests: Competing interests: JS, through his university, has worked with several pharmaceutical companies to identify new or improved treatments and his employer (King’s College London) has received grants, travel costs and/or consultancy payments. None of these is related to the FOpIT study described in this paper. NL has received funding for independent research from Indivior and Camurus for work unrelated to this project. KJS and NE have received funding from the Australian Department of Health and Aged Care, and is employed by the University of New South Wales and St Vincent’s Hospital, Sydney. WvdB has worked with several pharmaceutical companies to identify new or improved treatments and received speaker fees, travel costs and/or consultancy payments. None of these is related to the FOpIT study described in this paper., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2024. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)