Psychosocial interventions to reduce alcohol consumption in concurrent problem alcohol and illicit drug users

Trends in Mortality Related to Hepatitis B and C from 1990 to 2019 in the Western Pacific Region

Background/Aims

: This study aimed to analyze the trends in mortality attributed to hepatitis B and C around the Western Pacific region from 1990 to 2019.

Methods

: We used data from the Global Burden of Disease Study for a systematic analysis. The deaths related to hepatitis B and C were analyzed by age, sex, year, risk factors, geographical location, and Socio-demographic Index (SDI).

Results

: From 1990 to 2019, the annual total deaths from hepatitis B decreased from 0.266 to 0.210 million and those from hepatitis C increased from 0.119 to 0.142 million in the Western Pacific region. The age-standardized mortality rate (ASMR) of hepatitis B and C decreased by 63.5% and 48.0%, respectively. The declines in the ASMR related to hepatitis B and C were only detected in 12 and two Western Pacific countries, respectively. As the major risk factors, the contribution of alcohol use to hepatitis B deaths was 52% and drug use to hepatitis C was 80%. In males and females, the ASMR attributed to hepatitis B decreased by 61% and 71%, respectively, and the ASMR attributed to hepatitis C decreased by 43% and 55%, respectively. The association between SDI and ASMRs suggested that hepatitis B and C, respectively, showed an overall decline and stable trends as the SDI improved in the Western Pacific region.

Conclusions

: Although the mortality rate from hepatitis B and C decreased from 1990 to 2019, notable variation was observed among 27 Western Pacific countries. Efforts targeting hepatitis B and C prevention and treatment are still required in this region, especially for the pandemic countries.

Modeling the Therapeutic Process of Patients with Cocaine Use Disorders: A Guide for Predicting Readmission

INTRODUCTION

Patients with cocaine use disorders have very high readmission rates. Our aim was to model the relationships between attributes of patients with cocaine use disorder at the beginning of treatment, therapeutic process indicators of time in treatment or proportion of appointments attended, and treatment outcomes, including outcomes at discharge and non-readmissions posttreatment as indicators of therapeutic success.

METHOD

A retrospective observational design was used with 10,298 cocaine use disorder patients. Electronic health records were used for statistical analysis of the data. Randomized subsample 1 (n = 5,150) was used for exploratory analysis and subsample 2 (n = 5,148) for modeling relationships between the variables.

RESULTS

Patients attributes at intake (e.g., legal services as the source of referral) were of limited significance in explaining time in treatment, proportion of appointments attended, and treatment outcomes. Time in treatment and proportion of appointments attended emerged as significant factors in explaining outcomes at discharge. However, readmissions were primarily explained by time in treatment and outcomes at discharge, although referrals to addiction centers by health services also appeared to be relevant for explaining readmission.

DISCUSSION/CONCLUSION

Our study has shown that maintaining a sufficient appointment attendance rate and remaining in treatment for a longer duration are critical therapeutic process indicators for explaining outcomes at the point of discharge and therapeutic success, as indicated by a reduced likelihood of readmissions. Patients who remained in treatment for an extended period were found to have a reduced risk of future readmissions. In addition, our study highlights the importance of maintaining a satisfactory appointment attendance rate to attain successful short- and medium-term therapeutic discharge outcomes. These guidelines could help to increase the efficiency of patient treatment and alleviate the suffering of both patients and their families.

Psychosocial interventions for stimulant use disorder

BACKGROUND

Stimulant use disorder is a continuously growing medical and social burden without approved medications available for its treatment. Psychosocial interventions could be a valid approach to help people reduce or cease stimulant consumption. This is an update of a Cochrane review first published in 2016.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the efficacy and safety of psychosocial interventions for stimulant use disorder in adults.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Drugs and Alcohol Group Specialised Register, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, three other databases, and two trials registers in September 2023. All searches included non-English language literature. We handsearched the references of topic-related systematic reviews and the included studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing any psychosocial intervention with no intervention, treatment as usual (TAU), or a different intervention in adults with stimulant use disorder.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used the standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane.

MAIN RESULTS

We included a total of 64 RCTs (8241 participants). Seventy-three percent of studies included participants with cocaine or crack cocaine use disorder; 3.1% included participants with amphetamine use disorder; 10.9% included participants with methamphetamine use disorder; and 12.5% included participants with any stimulant use disorder. In 18 studies, all participants were in methadone maintenance treatment. In our primary comparison of any psychosocial treatment to no intervention, we included studies which compared a psychosocial intervention plus TAU to TAU alone. In this comparison, 12 studies evaluated cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT), 27 contingency management, three motivational interviewing, one study looked at psychodynamic therapy, and one study evaluated CBT plus contingency management. We also compared any psychosocial intervention to TAU. In this comparison, seven studies evaluated CBT, two contingency management, two motivational interviewing, and one evaluated a combination of CBT plus motivational interviewing. Seven studies compared contingency management reinforcement related to abstinence versus contingency management not related to abstinence. Finally, seven studies compared two different psychosocial approaches. We judged 65.6% of the studies to be at low risk of bias for random sequence generation and 19% at low risk for allocation concealment. Blinding of personnel and participants was not possible for the type of intervention, so we judged all the studies to be at high risk of performance bias for subjective outcomes but at low risk for objective outcomes. We judged 22% of the studies to be at low risk of detection bias for subjective outcomes. We judged most of the studies (69%) to be at low risk of attrition bias. When compared to no intervention, we found that psychosocial treatments: reduce the dropout rate (risk ratio (RR) 0.82, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.74 to 0.91; 30 studies, 4078 participants; high-certainty evidence); make little to no difference to point abstinence at the end of treatment (RR 1.15, 95% CI 0.94 to 1.41; 12 studies, 1293 participants; high-certainty evidence); make little to no difference to point abstinence at the longest follow-up (RR 1.22, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.62; 9 studies, 1187 participants; high-certainty evidence); probably increase continuous abstinence at the end of treatment (RR 1.89, 95% CI 1.20 to 2.97; 12 studies, 1770 participants; moderate-certainty evidence); may make little to no difference in continuous abstinence at the longest follow-up (RR 1.14, 95% CI 0.89 to 1.46; 4 studies, 295 participants; low-certainty evidence); reduce the frequency of drug intake at the end of treatment (standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.35, 95% CI -0.50 to -0.19; 10 studies, 1215 participants; high-certainty evidence); and increase the longest period of abstinence (SMD 0.54, 95% CI 0.41 to 0.68; 17 studies, 2118 participants; high-certainty evidence). When compared to TAU, we found that psychosocial treatments reduce the dropout rate (RR 0.79, 95% CI 0.65 to 0.97; 9 studies, 735 participants; high-certainty evidence) and may make little to no difference in point abstinence at the end of treatment (RR 1.67, 95% CI 0.64 to 4.31; 1 study, 128 participants; low-certainty evidence). We are uncertain whether they make any difference in point abstinence at the longest follow-up (RR 1.31, 95% CI 0.86 to 1.99; 2 studies, 124 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Compared to TAU, psychosocial treatments may make little to no difference in continuous abstinence at the end of treatment (RR 1.18, 95% CI 0.92 to 1.53; 1 study, 128 participants; low-certainty evidence); probably make little to no difference in the frequency of drug intake at the end of treatment (SMD -1.17, 95% CI -2.81 to 0.47, 4 studies, 479 participants, moderate-certainty evidence); and may make little to no difference in the longest period of abstinence (SMD -0.16, 95% CI -0.54 to 0.21; 1 study, 110 participants; low-certainty evidence). None of the studies for this comparison assessed continuous abstinence at the longest follow-up. Only five studies reported harms related to psychosocial interventions; four of them stated that no adverse events occurred.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

This review's findings indicate that psychosocial treatments can help people with stimulant use disorder by reducing dropout rates. This conclusion is based on high-certainty evidence from comparisons of psychosocial interventions with both no treatment and TAU. This is an important finding because many people with stimulant use disorders leave treatment prematurely. Stimulant use disorders are chronic, lifelong, relapsing mental disorders, which require substantial therapeutic efforts to achieve abstinence. For those who are not yet able to achieve complete abstinence, retention in treatment may help to reduce the risks associated with stimulant use. In addition, psychosocial interventions reduce stimulant use compared to no treatment, but they may make little to no difference to stimulant use when compared to TAU. The most studied and promising psychosocial approach is contingency management. Relatively few studies explored the other approaches, so we cannot rule out the possibility that the results were imprecise due to small sample sizes.

Motivational interviewing for substance use reduction

BACKGROUND

Substance use is a global issue, with around 30 to 35 million individuals estimated to have a substance-use disorder. Motivational interviewing (MI) is a client-centred method that aims to strengthen a person's motivation and commitment to a specific goal by exploring their reasons for change and resolving ambivalence, in an atmosphere of acceptance and compassion. This review updates the 2011 version by Smedslund and colleagues.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effectiveness of motivational interviewing for substance use on the extent of substance use, readiness to change, and retention in treatment.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched 18 electronic databases, six websites, four mailing lists, and the reference lists of included studies and reviews. The last search dates were in February 2021 and November 2022.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials with individuals using drugs, alcohol, or both. Interventions were MI or motivational enhancement therapy (MET), delivered individually and face to face. Eligible control interventions were no intervention, treatment as usual, assessment and feedback, or other active intervention.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane, and assessed the certainty of evidence with GRADE. We conducted meta-analyses for the three outcomes (extent of substance use, readiness to change, retention in treatment) at four time points (post-intervention, short-, medium-, and long-term follow-up).

MAIN RESULTS

We included 93 studies with 22,776 participants. MI was delivered in one to nine sessions. Session durations varied, from as little as 10 minutes to as long as 148 minutes per session, across included studies. Study settings included inpatient and outpatient clinics, universities, army recruitment centres, veterans' health centres, and prisons. We judged 69 studies to be at high risk of bias in at least one domain and 24 studies to be at low or unclear risk. Comparing MI to no intervention revealed a small to moderate effect of MI in substance use post-intervention (standardised mean difference (SMD) 0.48, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.07 to 0.89; I2 = 75%; 6 studies, 471 participants; low-certainty evidence). The effect was weaker at short-term follow-up (SMD 0.20, 95% CI 0.12 to 0.28; 19 studies, 3351 participants; very low-certainty evidence). This comparison revealed a difference in favour of MI at medium-term follow-up (SMD 0.12, 95% CI 0.05 to 0.20; 16 studies, 3137 participants; low-certainty evidence) and no difference at long-term follow-up (SMD 0.12, 95% CI -0.00 to 0.25; 9 studies, 1525 participants; very low-certainty evidence). There was no difference in readiness to change (SMD 0.05, 95% CI -0.11 to 0.22; 5 studies, 1495 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Retention in treatment was slightly higher with MI (SMD 0.26, 95% CI -0.00 to 0.52; 2 studies, 427 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Comparing MI to treatment as usual revealed a very small negative effect in substance use post-intervention (SMD -0.14, 95% CI -0.27 to -0.02; 5 studies, 976 participants; very low-certainty evidence). There was no difference at short-term follow-up (SMD 0.07, 95% CI -0.03 to 0.17; 14 studies, 3066 participants), a very small benefit of MI at medium-term follow-up (SMD 0.12, 95% CI 0.02 to 0.22; 9 studies, 1624 participants), and no difference at long-term follow-up (SMD 0.06, 95% CI -0.05 to 0.17; 8 studies, 1449 participants), all with low-certainty evidence. There was no difference in readiness to change (SMD 0.06, 95% CI -0.27 to 0.39; 2 studies, 150 participants) and retention in treatment (SMD -0.09, 95% CI -0.34 to 0.16; 5 studies, 1295 participants), both with very low-certainty evidence. Comparing MI to assessment and feedback revealed no difference in substance use at short-term follow-up (SMD 0.09, 95% CI -0.05 to 0.23; 7 studies, 854 participants; low-certainty evidence). A small benefit for MI was shown at medium-term (SMD 0.24, 95% CI 0.08 to 0.40; 6 studies, 688 participants) and long-term follow-up (SMD 0.24, 95% CI 0.07 to 0.41; 3 studies, 448 participants), both with moderate-certainty evidence. None of the studies in this comparison measured substance use at the post-intervention time point, readiness to change, and retention in treatment. Comparing MI to another active intervention revealed no difference in substance use at any follow-up time point, all with low-certainty evidence: post-intervention (SMD 0.07, 95% CI -0.15 to 0.29; 3 studies, 338 participants); short-term (SMD 0.05, 95% CI -0.03 to 0.13; 18 studies, 2795 participants); medium-term (SMD 0.08, 95% CI -0.01 to 0.17; 15 studies, 2352 participants); and long-term follow-up (SMD 0.03, 95% CI -0.07 to 0.13; 10 studies, 1908 participants). There was no difference in readiness to change (SMD 0.15, 95% CI -0.00 to 0.30; 5 studies, 988 participants; low-certainty evidence) and retention in treatment (SMD -0.04, 95% CI -0.23 to 0.14; 12 studies, 1945 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). We downgraded the certainty of evidence due to inconsistency, study limitations, publication bias, and imprecision.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Motivational interviewing may reduce substance use compared with no intervention up to a short follow-up period. MI probably reduces substance use slightly compared with assessment and feedback over medium- and long-term periods. MI may make little to no difference to substance use compared to treatment as usual and another active intervention. It is unclear if MI has an effect on readiness to change and retention in treatment. The studies included in this review were heterogeneous in many respects, including the characteristics of participants, substance(s) used, and interventions. Given the widespread use of MI and the many studies examining MI, it is very important that counsellors adhere to and report quality conditions so that only studies in which the intervention implemented was actually MI are included in evidence syntheses and systematic reviews. Overall, we have moderate to no confidence in the evidence, which forces us to be careful about our conclusions. Consequently, future studies are likely to change the findings and conclusions of this review.

Which interventions for alcohol use should be included in a universal healthcare benefit package? An umbrella review of targeted interventions to address harmful drinking and dependence

BACKGROUND

This study aimed to identify targeted interventions for the prevention and treatment of harmful alcohol use. Umbrella review methodology was used to summarise the effectiveness across a broad range of interventions, in order to identify which interventions should be considered for inclusion within universal health coverage schemes in low- and middle-income countries.

METHODS AND FINDINGS

We included systematic reviews with meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) on targeted interventions addressing alcohol use in harmful drinkers or individuals with alcohol use disorder. We only included outcomes related to alcohol consumption, heavy drinking, binge drinking, abstinence, or alcohol-attributable accident, injury, morbidity or mortality. PubMed, Embase, PsycINFO, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, and the International HTA Database were searched from inception to 3 September 2021. Risk of bias of reviews was assessed using the AMSTAR2 tool. After reviewing the abstracts of 9,167 articles, results were summarised narratively and certainty in the body of evidence for each intervention was assessed using GRADE. In total, 86 studies met the inclusion criteria, of which the majority reported outcomes for brief intervention (30 studies) or pharmacological interventions (29 studies). Overall, methodological quality of included studies was low.

CONCLUSIONS

For harmful drinking, brief interventions, cognitive behavioural therapy, and motivational interviewing showed a small effect, whereas mentoring in adolescents and children may have a significant long-term effect. For alcohol use disorder, social network approaches and acamprosate showed evidence of a significant and durable effect. More evidence is required on the effectiveness of gamma-hydroxybutyric acid (GHB), nalmefene, and quetiapine, as well as optimal combinations of pharmacological and psychosocial interventions. As an umbrella review, we were unable to identify the extent to which variation between studies stemmed from differences in intervention delivery or variation between country contexts. Further research is required on applicability of findings across settings and best practice for implementation. Funded by the Thai Health Promotion Foundation, grant number 61-00-1812.

Music therapy for people with substance use disorders

BACKGROUND

Substance use disorder (SUD) is the continued use of one or more psychoactive substances, including alcohol, despite negative effects on health, functioning, and social relations. Problematic drug use has increased by 10% globally since 2013, and harmful use of alcohol is associated with 5.3% of all deaths. Direct effects of music therapy (MT) on problematic substance use are not known, but it may be helpful in alleviating associated psychological symptoms and decreasing substance craving.

OBJECTIVES

To compare the effect of music therapy (MT) in addition to standard care versus standard care alone, or to standard care plus an active control intervention, on psychological symptoms, substance craving, motivation for treatment, and motivation to stay clean/sober.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the following databases (from inception to 1 February 2021): the Cochrane Drugs and Alcohol Specialised Register; CENTRAL; MEDLINE (PubMed); eight other databases, and two trials registries. We handsearched reference lists of all retrieved studies and relevant systematic reviews.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials comparing MT plus standard care to standard care alone, or MT plus standard care to active intervention plus standard care for people with SUD.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard Cochrane methodology.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 21 trials involving 1984 people. We found moderate-certainty evidence of a medium effect favouring MT plus standard care over standard care alone for substance craving (standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.66, 95% confidence interval (CI) -1.23 to -0.10; 3 studies, 254 participants), with significant subgroup differences indicating greater reduction in craving for MT intervention lasting one to three months; and small-to-medium effect favouring MT for motivation for treatment/change (SMD 0.41, 95% CI 0.21 to 0.61; 5 studies, 408 participants). We found no clear evidence of a beneficial effect on depression (SMD -0.33, 95% CI -0.72 to 0.07; 3 studies, 100 participants), or motivation to stay sober/clean (SMD 0.22, 95% CI -0.02 to 0.47; 3 studies, 269 participants), though effect sizes ranged from large favourable effect to no effect, and we are uncertain about the result. There was no evidence of beneficial effect on anxiety (mean difference (MD) -0.17, 95% CI -4.39 to 4.05; 1 study, 60 participants), though we are uncertain about the result. There was no meaningful effect for retention in treatment for participants receiving MT plus standard care as compared to standard care alone (risk ratio (RR) 0.99, 95% 0.93 to 1.05; 6 studies, 199 participants). There was a moderate effect on motivation for treatment/change when comparing MT plus standard care to another active intervention plus standard care (SMD 0.46, 95% CI -0.00 to 0.93; 5 studies, 411 participants), and certainty in the result was moderate. We found no clear evidence of an effect of MT on motivation to stay sober/clean when compared to active intervention, though effect sizes ranged from large favourable effect to no effect, and we are uncertain about the result (MD 0.34, 95% CI -0.11 to 0.78; 3 studies, 258 participants). There was no clear evidence of effect on substance craving (SMD -0.04, 95% CI -0.56 to 0.48; 3 studies, 232 participants), depression (MD -1.49, 95% CI -4.98 to 2.00; 1 study, 110 participants), or substance use (RR 1.05, 95% CI 0.85 to 1.29; 1 study, 140 participants) at one-month follow-up when comparing MT plus standard care to active intervention plus standard care. There were no data on adverse effects. Unclear risk of selection bias applied to most studies due to incomplete description of processes of randomisation and allocation concealment. All studies were at unclear risk of detection bias due to lack of blinding of outcome assessors for subjective outcomes (mostly self-report). We judged that bias arising from such lack of blinding would not differ between groups. Similarly, it is not possible to blind participants and providers to MT. We consider knowledge of receiving this type of therapy as part of the therapeutic effect itself, and thus all studies were at low risk of performance bias for subjective outcomes.  We downgraded all outcomes one level for imprecision due to optimal information size not being met, and two levels for outcomes with very low sample size.  AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Results from this review suggest that MT as 'add on' treatment to standard care can lead to moderate reductions in substance craving and can increase motivation for treatment/change for people with SUDs receiving treatment in detoxification and short-term rehabilitation settings. Greater reduction in craving is associated with MT lasting longer than a single session. We have moderate-to-low confidence in our findings as the included studies were downgraded in certainty due to imprecision, and most included studies were conducted by the same researcher in the same detoxification unit, which considerably impacts the transferability of findings.

Preliminary Effectiveness of a Remotely Monitored Blood Alcohol Concentration Device as Treatment Modality: Protocol for a Randomized Controlled Trial

Background

Alcohol use disorder is a chronic disorder with a high likelihood of relapse. The consistent monitoring of blood alcohol concentration through breathalyzers is critical to identifying relapse or misuse. Smartphone apps as a replacement of or in conjunction with breathalyzers have shown limited effectiveness. Yet, there has been little research that has effectively utilized wireless or Wi-Fi–enabled breathalyzers that can accurately, securely, and reliably measure blood alcohol concentration.

Objective

The purpose of this study is to evaluate the impact of a wireless blood alcohol concentration device in collaboration with long-term treatment on dropout rates, psychological distress, treatment motivation, quality of life, and need for higher levels of follow-up care for patients with alcohol use disorder.

Methods

The randomized clinical trial will include two arms, access to the wireless breathalyzer versus no access to the breathalyzer, while both groups have access to treatment. Evaluation will last 3 months with a 6-week follow-up, during which each participant will be interviewed at admission, 1 month in, 2 months in, 3 months in, and follow-up. Individuals will be recruited online through a secure telehealth meeting invitation. Outcomes will focus on the impact of the wireless breathalyzer within the alcohol use disorder population, and the combined effect on psychological distress, treatment motivation, and quality of life. In addition, we intend to investigate the impact of the breathalyzer on dropout rates and participants’ need for higher levels of follow-up care and treatment.

Results

The recruitment of this study started in July 2020 and will run until 2022.

Conclusions

This information will be important to develop cost-effective treatments for alcohol dependence. Ongoing monitoring allows treatment providers to take an individualized disease management approach and facilitates timely intervention by the treatment provider.

Trial Registration

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04380116; http://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04380116

International Registered Report Identifier (IRRID)

DERR1-10.2196/30186

Differential Influence of Pueraria lobata Root Extract and Its Main Isoflavones on Ghrelin Levels in Alcohol-Treated Rats

The study was carried out on alcohol-preferring male Wistar rats. The following drugs were repeatedly (28×) administered: acamprosate (500 mg/kg, p.o.), naltrexone (0.1 mg/kg, i.p), and Pueraria lobata (kudzu) root extract (KU) (500 mg/kg, p.o.) and its isoflavones: daidzin (40 mg/kg, p.o.) and puerarin (150 mg/kg, p.o.). Their effects on a voluntary alcohol intake were assessed. KU and alcohol were also given for 9 days in an experiment on alcohol tolerance development. Finally, total and active ghrelin levels in peripheral blood serum were measured by ELISA method. Acamprosate, naltrexone, daidzin, and puerarin, reducing the alcohol intake, caused an increase in both forms of ghrelin levels. On the contrary, though KU inhibited the alcohol intake and alcohol tolerance development, it reduced ghrelin levels in alcohol-preferring rats. The changes of ghrelin concentration could play a role as an indicator of the currently used drugs. The other effect on the KU-induced shift in ghrelin levels in the presence of alcohol requires further detailed study.

Practice Habits, Knowledge, and Attitudes of Hepatologists to Alcohol Use Disorder Medication: Sobering Gaps and Opportunities

Supplemental Digital Content is available in the text.

The prevalence of alcohol use disorder (AUD) and alcohol-associated liver disease is increasing in the United States. Efficacious AUD pharmacotherapies, while available, are, for protean reasons, underutilized. Hepatology providers may be in a position to bridge the pharmacotherapeutic gap between availability and utilization of AUD pharmacotherapies. Our aim was to ascertain the current practice, knowledge and attitudes of hepatology physicians in the United States, and identify opportunities on how to increase AUD medication prescribing.

Oxytocin-enhanced group therapy for methamphetamine use disorder: Randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Methamphetamine (METH) use is a public health crisis that disproportionately affects men who have sex with men (MSM). There are currently no FDA-approved pharmacological interventions to treat methamphetamine use disorder (MUD). MUD is associated with social impairments and extremely high treatment attrition rates. Administration of oxytocin, a neuropeptide involved in social attachment, may be a novel approach to addressing these issues. Moreover, oxytocin administration has shown promise for reducing METH-related addictive behavior in animal models, but has not yet been investigated in clinical trials for MUD. Last, oxytocin is known to modulate stress responsivity via regulation of the autonomic nervous system, which is dysregulated in METH users. We hypothesize that oxytocin, in combination with group psychotherapy, will increase treatment engagement, reduce addiction behavior, and mitigate stress hyperreactivity.

METHODS

This is a randomized, double blind trial of oxytocin 40-IU (n = 24) or placebo (n = 24) administered intranasally prior to each of six weekly motivational interviewing group therapy (MIGT) sessions for MUD in MSM.

PRIMARY OUTCOME

(a) session attendance.

SECONDARY OUTCOMES

(b) group cohesion, (c) anxiety, (d) METH craving, (e) METH use, and (f) in-session cardiac physiology.

RESULTS

Participants receiving oxytocin had significantly higher group therapy attendance than those receiving placebo, OR 3.26, 95% CI [1.27-8.41], p = .014. There was a small effect of oxytocin on group cohension, but not anxiety or craving. METH use did not change over the six-week MIGT course in either treatment arm. Participants receiving oxytocin had lower average heart rates during MIGT sessions and higher heart rate variability. There were positive main effects of MIGT over Time regardless of study drug.

CONCLUSIONS

This evidence, and the lack of any serious adverse events, suggests that oxytocin may safely increase treatment attendance. One possible mechanism by which it may do so is its modulation of the autonomic nervous system. Further investigation is warranted.

Prevention, screening, and treatment for heavy drinking and alcohol use disorder

Heavy drinking and alcohol use disorder are major public health problems. Practitioners not specialising in alcohol treatment are often unaware of the guidelines for preventing, identifying, and treating heavy drinking and alcohol use disorder. However, a consensus exists that clinically useful and valuable tools are available to address these issues. Here, we review existing information and developments from the past 5 years in these areas. We also include information on heavy drinking and alcohol use disorder among individuals with co-occurring psychiatric disorders, including drug use disorders. Areas covered include prevention; screening, brief intervention, and referral for treatment; evidence-based behavioural interventions; medication-assisted treatment; technology-based interventions (eHealth and mHealth); and population-level interventions. We also discuss the key topics for future research.

Motivational interviewing for smoking cessation

BACKGROUND

Motivational Interviewing (MI) is a directive patient-centred style of counselling, designed to help people to explore and resolve ambivalence about behaviour change. It was developed as a treatment for alcohol abuse, but may help people to a make a successful attempt to stop smoking.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the efficacy of MI for smoking cessation compared with no treatment, in addition to another form of smoking cessation treatment, and compared with other types of smoking cessation treatment. We also investigated whether more intensive MI is more effective than less intensive MI for smoking cessation.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group Specialised Register for studies using the term motivat* NEAR2 (interview* OR enhanc* OR session* OR counsel* OR practi* OR behav*) in the title or abstract, or motivation* as a keyword. We also searched trial registries to identify unpublished studies. Date of the most recent search: August 2018.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials in which MI or its variants were offered to smokers to assist smoking cessation. We excluded trials that did not assess cessation as an outcome, with follow-up less than six months, and with additional non-MI intervention components not matched between arms. We excluded trials in pregnant women as these are covered elsewhere.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We followed standard Cochrane methods. Smoking cessation was measured after at least six months, using the most rigorous definition available, on an intention-to-treat basis. We calculated risk ratios (RR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) for smoking cessation for each study, where possible. We grouped eligible studies according to the type of comparison. We carried out meta-analyses where appropriate, using Mantel-Haenszel random-effects models. We extracted data on mental health outcomes and quality of life and summarised these narratively.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified 37 eligible studies involving over 15,000 participants who smoked tobacco. The majority of studies recruited participants with particular characteristics, often from groups of people who are less likely to seek support to stop smoking than the general population. Although a few studies recruited participants who intended to stop smoking soon or had no intentions to quit, most recruited a population without regard to their intention to quit. MI was conducted in one to 12 sessions, with the total duration of MI ranging from five to 315 minutes across studies. We judged four of the 37 studies to be at low risk of bias, and 11 to be at high risk, but restricting the analysis only to those studies at low or unclear risk did not significantly alter results, apart from in one case - our analysis comparing higher to lower intensity MI.We found low-certainty evidence, limited by risk of bias and imprecision, comparing the effect of MI to no treatment for smoking cessation (RR = 0.84, 95% CI 0.63 to 1.12; I² = 0%; adjusted N = 684). One study was excluded from this analysis as the participants recruited (incarcerated men) were not comparable to the other participants included in the analysis, resulting in substantial statistical heterogeneity when all studies were pooled (I² = 87%). Enhancing existing smoking cessation support with additional MI, compared with existing support alone, gave an RR of 1.07 (95% CI 0.85 to 1.36; adjusted N = 4167; I² = 47%), and MI compared with other forms of smoking cessation support gave an RR of 1.24 (95% CI 0.91 to 1.69; I² = 54%; N = 5192). We judged both of these estimates to be of low certainty due to heterogeneity and imprecision. Low-certainty evidence detected a benefit of higher intensity MI when compared with lower intensity MI (RR 1.23, 95% CI 1.11 to 1.37; adjusted N = 5620; I² = 0%). The evidence was limited because three of the five studies in this comparison were at risk of bias. Excluding them gave an RR of 1.00 (95% CI 0.65 to 1.54; I² = n/a; N = 482), changing the interpretation of the results.Mental health and quality of life outcomes were reported in only one study, providing little evidence on whether MI improves mental well-being.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is insufficient evidence to show whether or not MI helps people to stop smoking compared with no intervention, as an addition to other types of behavioural support for smoking cessation, or compared with other types of behavioural support for smoking cessation. It is also unclear whether more intensive MI is more effective than less intensive MI. All estimates of treatment effect were of low certainty because of concerns about bias in the trials, imprecision and inconsistency. Consequently, future trials are likely to change these conclusions. There is almost no evidence on whether MI for smoking cessation improves mental well-being.