Premium
Perceptions of extended‐release buprenorphine injections for opioid use disorder among people who regularly use opioids in Australia
Author(s) -
Larance Briony,
Degenhardt Louisa,
Grebely Jason,
Nielsen Suzanne,
Bruno Raimondo,
Dietze Paul,
Lancaster Kari,
Larney Sarah,
Santo Thomas,
Shanahan Marian,
Memedovic Sonja,
Ali Robert,
Farrell Michael
Publication year - 2020
Publication title -
addiction
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 2.424
H-Index - 193
eISSN - 1360-0443
pISSN - 0965-2140
DOI - 10.1111/add.14941
Subject(s) - buprenorphine , medicine , opioid use disorder , confidence interval , heroin , dosing , odds ratio , opioid , anesthesia , demography , emergency medicine , psychiatry , drug , receptor , sociology
Aims To examine perceptions of extended‐release (XR) buprenorphine injections among people who regularly use opioids in Australia. Design Cross‐sectional survey prior to implementation. XR‐buprenorphine was registered in Australia in November 2018. Setting Sydney, Melbourne and Hobart. Participants A total of 402 people who regularly use opioids interviewed December 2017 to March 2018. Measurements Primary outcome concerned the proportion of participants who believed XR‐buprenorphine would be a good treatment option for them, preferred weekly versus monthly injections and perceived advantages/disadvantages of XR‐buprenorphine. Independent variables concerned the demographic characteristics and features of current opioid agonist treatment (OAT; medication‐type, dose, prescriber/dosing setting, unsupervised doses, out‐of‐pocket expenses and travel distance). Findings Sixty‐eight per cent [95% confidence interval (CI) = 63–73%] believed XR‐buprenorphine was a good treatment option for them. They were more likely to report being younger [26–35 versus > 55 years; odds ratio (OR) = 3.16, 95% CI = 1.12–8.89; P = 0.029], being female (OR = 1.67, 95% CI = 1.04–2.69; P = 0.034), < 10 years school education (OR = 1.87, 95% CI = 1.12–3.12; P = 0.016) and past‐month heroin (OR = 1.81, 95% CI = 1.15–2.85; P = 0.006) and methamphetamine use (OR = 1.90, 95% CI = 1.20–3.01; P = 0.006). Fifty‐four per cent reported no preference for weekly versus monthly injections, 7% preferred weekly and 39% preferred monthly. Among OAT recipients ( n = 255), believing XR‐buprenorphine was a good treatment option was associated with shorter treatment episodes (1–2 versus ≥ 2 years; OR = 3.93, 95% CI = 1.26–12.22; P = 0.018), fewer unsupervised doses (≤ 8 doses past‐month versus no take‐aways; OR = 0.50; 95% CI = 0.27–0.93; P = 0.028) and longer travel distance (≥ 5 versus < 5 km; OR = 2.10, 95% CI = 1.20–3.65; P = 0.009). Sixty‐nine per cent reported ‘no problems or concerns’ with potential differences in availability, flexibility and location of XR‐buprenorphine. Conclusions Among regular opioid users in Australia, perceptions of extended‐release buprenorphine as a good treatment option are associated with being female, recent illicit drug use and factors relating to the (in)convenience of current opioid agonist treatment.