Memory-focused cognitive therapy for cocaine use disorder: Rationale, design and protocol for an external pilot randomised controlled trial

Virtual reality cue-exposure therapy in reducing cocaine craving: the Promoting Innovative COgnitive behavioral therapy for Cocaine use disorder (PICOC) study protocol for a randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Cocaine craving is a central symptom of cocaine use disorders (CUD). Virtual reality cue-exposure therapy for craving (VRCET) allows more immersive, realistic, and controllable exposure than traditional non-VR cue-exposure therapy (CET), whose efficacy is limited in treating substance use disorders. The purpose of this study is to evaluate the efficacy and acceptability of VRCET, as a stand-alone and add-on intervention (i.e., combined with cognitive therapy), compared to a picture-based CET (PCET), in reducing self-reported cocaine craving in inpatients hospitalized for CUD.

METHODS

Fifty-four inpatients hospitalized for CUD will be randomized in one of two intensive 3-week treatment arms: 10 meetings/2-week treatment of VRCET plus 5 meetings/1-week treatment of memory-focused cognitive therapy (MFCT; experimental arm), or 15 meetings/3-week treatment of PCET (active control arm). The Craving Experience Questionnaire (CEQ - F & S) will be used to assess the primary outcome, i.e., the post-treatment decrease of self-reported cocaine craving frequency (within the past 2 weeks) and intensity scores (in VR exposure to cocaine cues). Secondary endpoints include urinary, physiological, and self-reported cocaine use-related measures. Assessments are scheduled at pretreatment, after 2 weeks of treatment (i.e., VRCET vs. PCET), post-treatment (3 weeks, i.e., VRCET + MFCT vs. PCET), and at 1-month follow-up. Acceptability will be evaluated via (i) the Spatial Presence for Immersive Environments - Cybersickness along VRCET and (ii) the Client Satisfaction Questionnaires after 2 weeks of treatment and post-treatment.

DISCUSSION

This study will be the first to evaluate the acceptability and efficacy of VRCET for CUD, as a psychotherapeutic add-on, to reduce both cocaine craving frequency and intensity. Additionally, this study will provide evidence about the specific interest of VRCET, compared to a non-VR-based CET, as a cue reactivity and exposure paradigm for treating substance use disorders.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

NCT05833529 [clinicaltrials.gov]. Prospectively registered on April 17, 2023.

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.

Extended-release pharmacotherapy for opioid use disorder (EXPO): protocol for an open-label randomised controlled trial of the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of injectable buprenorphine versus sublingual tablet buprenorphine and oral liquid methadone

BACKGROUND

Sublingual tablet buprenorphine (BUP-SL) and oral liquid methadone (MET) are the daily, standard-of-care (SOC) opioid agonist treatment medications for opioid use disorder (OUD). A sizable proportion of the OUD treatment population is not exposed to sufficient treatment to attain the desired clinical benefit. Two promising therapeutic technologies address this deficit: long-acting injectable buprenorphine and personalised psychosocial interventions (PSI). This study will determine (A) the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness - monthly injectable, extended-release (BUP-XR) in a head-to-head comparison with BUP-SL and MET, and (B) the effectiveness of BUP-XR with adjunctive PSI versus BUP-SL and MET with PSI. Safety, retention, craving, substance use, quality-adjusted life years, social functioning, and subjective recovery from OUD will be also evaluated.

METHODS

This is a pragmatic, multi-centre, open-label, parallel-group, superiority RCT, with a qualitative (mixed-methods) evaluation. The study population is adults. The setting is five National Health Service community treatment centres in England and Scotland. At each centre, participants will be randomly allocated (1:1) to BUP-XR or SOC. At the London study co-ordinating centre, there will also be allocation of participants to BUP-XR with PSI or SOC with PSI. With 24 weeks of study treatment, the primary outcome is days of abstinence from non-medical opioids during study weeks 2-24 combined with up to 12 urine drug screen tests for opioids. For 90% power (alpha, 5%; 15% inflation for attrition), 304 participants are needed for the BUP-XR versus SOC comparison. With the same planning parameters, 300 participants are needed for the BUP-XR and PSI versus SOC and PSI comparison. Statistical and health economic analysis plans will be published before data-lock on the Open Science Framework. Findings will be reported in accordance with the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials and Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards.

DISCUSSION

This pragmatic randomised controlled trial is the first evaluation of injectable BUP-XR versus the SOC medications BUP-SL and MET, with personalised PSI. If there is evidence for the superiority of BUP-XR over SOC medication, study findings will have substantial implications for OUD clinical practice and treatment policy in the UK and elsewhere.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

EU Clinical Trials register 2018-004460-63.

Acute impact of self-guided mental imagery on craving in cocaine use disorder: a mixed-methods analysis of a randomized controlled trial

Mental imagery manipulations are used to treat several psychological disorders, but their utility in treating cocaine use disorder (CUD) is unknown. Using prompted re-experiences and simulations with contrasting valence, we assessed the acute impact of a deliberate mental imagery task on cocaine craving.

DESIGN

A quantitative-qualitative 'mixed-methods' analysis of data collected for a randomized controlled trial that was stopped prematurely.

SETTING

UK National Health Service addictions treatment clinic and outpatient clinical research facility (laboratory).

PARTICIPANTS

Adults with CUD. The original target sample was 120. All participants enrolled at the point the original trial was stopped were included (38 enrolled, 31 completed study).

INTERVENTIONS

Personalized (3-minute) cue-exposure (handling cocaine paraphernalia and watching video of drug preparation), immediately followed by a single 5-minute, audio-recorded, self-guided and verbally described imagery task with random assignment to one of four conditions: two mental imagery memory re-experiences (positive image before initiation to cocaine use or a negative image of a 'worst time' adverse cocaine use episode) or two future simulations (positive theme of recovery from CUD or negative theme of worsened CUD).

MEASUREMENTS

Task transcripts were rated for imagery detail using five dimensions using a six-point scale of imagery detail (ID) (total score = 0-25) and thematically coded. The outcome measure was cocaine craving using the Craving Experiences Questionnaire-strengths version (CEQ-S11; score = 0-110) reported at baseline, arrival at the laboratory, and immediately after the cue-exposure and mental imagery tasks.

FINDINGS

A mixed-effects, longitudinal, restricted linear regression, with the past-positive imagery condition as referent, showed main effects of reduced craving after the imagery task (b = -29.2, 95% confidence interval (CI) = -45.3 to -13.1, P-value < 0.001) and increased craving for the future-negative task (b = 14.2, 95% CI = 0.1-28.4, P-value 0.049). There was a future-negative task by post-imagery craving interaction (b = 28.1, 95% CI = 0.1-56.1, P-value 0.049). A theory-driven, deductive/inductive qualitative analysis of the transcripts revealed six major themes: sensory characteristics, CUD vicious cycle, self-care, emotions and appraisals, social role and CUD recovery. Positively themed simulations included interpersonal connections and rewarding activity; negative images included personal adversity, with appraisals of self-criticism and hopelessness. Transcripts with more imagery detail were not associated with significantly greater reductions in craving in the positive or negative imagery task (r = -0.32, 95% CI = -0.69 to 0.13 and r = 0.06, 95% CI = -0.58 to 0.53, respectively).

CONCLUSION

In people with cocaine use disorder, after cue-exposure, a self-guided imagery task with positive themes reduced craving, whereas mental imagery simulating worsened cocaine use disorder did not appear to.

Memory-Focused Cognitive Therapy for Cocaine Use Disorder: Theory, Procedures and Preliminary Evidence From an External Pilot Randomised Controlled Trial

BACKGROUND

Cocaine use disorder (CUD) is a debilitating condition with no NICE-recommended medication or specific psychosocial interventions. In the United Kingdom (UK), general counselling (treatment-as-usual; TAU) is widely delivered, but has limited effectiveness. We tested the feasibility, safety and preliminary efficacy of a novel, adjunctive psychosocial intervention for CUD, called 'memory-focused cognitive therapy' (MFCT).

METHODS

We did a two-arm, external pilot randomised controlled trial at a specialist community National Health Service addictions clinic in London, UK. 30 adults (≥18years), voluntarily seeking treatment for CUD (enrolled ≥14days; all with moderate-to-severe DSM5 CUD), were individually randomised (1:1) to a control group (ongoing TAU; 3×90min CUD cognitive conceptualisation assessments; 2×30min cocaine-related cue-induction procedures; and 3×30min research follow-ups); or to an intervention group (ongoing TAU; 3×90min cognitive conceptualisation assessments; 2×30min cocaine-related cue-induction procedures; 5×120min, one-to-one, MFCT sessions [in 1week]; and 3×60min research follow-ups and MFCT-relapse prevention). The primary outcome was the total percentage score on the frequency version of the Craving Experiences Questionnaire (CEQ-F) at 1-month follow-up after the intensive intervention week (clinical endpoint; recall period past 2weeks; higher score indicating greater craving). Secondary outcomes at the 1-month follow-up were percentage days abstinent (PDA) from cocaine, and longest period (days) of continuous abstinence (LPA) in the prior 28days. Outcomes were analysed as an unadjusted group mean difference (with Hedge's g effect size [ES]) and a 95% Confidence Interval [CI] for the primary outcome and a 90% CI for the secondary outcomes. Exploratory, multivariable linear (primary outcome) and Poisson regression models (secondary outcomes), with sex, age, months of regular cocaine use, baseline outcome score, and group estimated the effectiveness of the intervention. The trial is registered with the ISCRTN (ISRCTN16462783).

FINDINGS

Between July 15, 2015, and November 27, 2016, 58 patients were assessed for eligibility and 30 participants were randomised (14 to the control group and 16 to the intervention). With outcome data collected for all participants at the endpoint, the intervention group mean CEQ-F score (14·77; SD 21·47) was lower than the control group mean (51·75; SD 22·72); ES -1·62; 95% CI -2·45 to -0·80. MFCT was associated with more cocaine abstinence in the intervention group (PDA 85·94; SD 18·96) than the control group (PDA 54·59; SD 30·29); ES 1·19; 90% CI 0·54 to 1·84. There was also greater maximum abstinence in the intervention group (LPA 15·69; SD 10·10) than the control group (6·00; SD 7·36); ES 1·06; 90% CI 0·41 to 1·70. Exploratory, confounder-adjusted regression models for this preliminary effect supported the treatment association for reduced craving experiences (CEQ-F Coef. -28·25; 95% CI -45·15 to -11·35); more abstinence (PDA Incidence Rate Ratio [IRR] 1·56; 95% CI 1·31 to 1·88); and greater maximum abstinence (LPA IRR 2·56; 95% CI 1·96 to 3·35), although relative weak unmeasured confounding could overturn these model-adjusted exposure-outcome associations. There were four serious adverse events (among three participants). None were judged related to study procedures or interventions.

INTERPRETATION

In this first external pilot randomised controlled trial of MFCT for CUD, we have shown that the intervention and control procedures and acceptable feasible and safe, and report preliminary evidence that MFCT is associated with reduced craving and increased abstinence. These findings support progression to a substantive trial.

FUNDING SOURCE

UK National Institute for Health Research, Biomedical Research Centre.