A randomized study of contingency management in cocaine-dependent patients with severe and persistent mental health disorders

A Systematic Review of the Efficacy of Contingency Management for Substance Use Disorders in Low and Middle Income Countries

BACKGROUND

The impact of illicit substance use is especially devastating in low-resourced countries where factors such as poverty, unemployment, and inadequate services impede successful treatment. Contingency management (CM) is a treatment for substance use disorders that has shown to be effective in eliciting behaviour change. The efficacy of CM interventions in low and middle income countries (LMICs) has been under explored.

METHODS

The aim of this systematic review of randomized controlled trials was to assess measures of CM efficacy in addressing substance use disorders, while also considering contextual moderators of CM in LMICs. A search of PubMed, Scopus, and Cochrane library databases yielded 18 studies for inclusion, from which relevant data were extracted using modified versions of the Cochrane Characteristics of Studies tool.

RESULTS

Two studies were located in a low-income country, two in lower-middle income countries, and fourteen in upper middle-income countries. Overall, estimated efficacy estimates were similar to those from higher income countries. However, context-specific challenges that warrant further investigation included limited access to trained staff and structural and financial constraints.

CONCLUSIONS

While CM in LMICs is in its early stages of development, efficacy estimates were not substantially different compared to high income countries. Challenges such as costs, willingness to implement, and the stigma associated with addiction sets the stage for further research in these contexts.

Psychosocial Interventions for Individuals With Comorbid Psychosis and Substance Use Disorders: Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Randomized Studies

BACKGROUND AND HYPOTHESIS

Substance use is highly prevalent among people with schizophrenia (SCZ) and related disorders, however, there is no broad-spectrum pharmacotherapy that concurrently addresses both addiction and psychotic symptoms. Psychosocial (PS) interventions, which have yielded promising results in treating psychosis and substance dependence separately, demonstrate potential but have not been systematically evaluated when combined.

STUDY DESIGN

Systematic review and random-effects meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) investigating PS interventions for individuals with comorbid substance use and psychotic disorders, encompassing SCZ and schizophrenia spectrum disorders (SSD). We included relevant studies published from MEDLINE, PsycINFO, and Google Scholar through May 2023.

STUDY RESULTS

We included 35 RCTs (5176 participants total; approximately 2840 with SSD). Intervention durations ranged from 30 min to 3 years. Meta-analysis did not identify a statistically significant pooled PS intervention effect on the main primary outcome, substance use (18 studies; 803 intervention, 733 control participants; standardized mean difference, -0.05 standard deviation [SD]; 95% CI, -0.16, 0.07 SD; I2 = 18%). PS intervention effects on other outcomes were also not statistically significant. Overall GRADE certainty of evidence was low.

CONCLUSIONS

At present, the literature lacks sufficient evidence supporting the use of PS interventions as opposed to alternative therapeutic approaches for significantly improving substance use, symptomatology, or functioning in people with SCZ and related disorders. However, firm conclusions were precluded by low certainty of evidence. Further RCTs are needed to determine the efficacy of PS treatments for people with dual-diagnoses (DD), either alone or in combination with pharmacotherapy.

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.

Contingency Management for Treatment of Cannabis Use Disorder in Co-Occurring Mental Health Disorders: A Systematic Review

Amongst individuals with a mental health disorder, a comorbid diagnosis of cannabis use disorder (CUD) is associated with numerous adverse consequences, including more severe symptom profiles, poorer treatment response, and reduced psychosocial functioning. Contingency management (CM), a method to specifically reinforce target behavior attainment (e.g., substance use abstinence), may provide an effective intervention in treating cannabis use in patients with a dual diagnosis of CUD and a mental health disorder. A systematic search examining the effects of CM on cannabis use, clinical, cognitive, and psychosocial outcomes in patients with a mental health disorder on PubMed, PsycINFO, and EMBASE databases up to November 2022 was performed. Six studies met inclusion criteria for our review. We found CM to be efficacious in producing cannabis use reductions and abstinence amongst individuals with a psychotic-spectrum or major depressive disorder. Additional longitudinal studies with larger sample sizes, other psychiatric populations, and longer follow-up periods are needed to evaluate the sustained effects of CM.

Psychedelic-Assisted Therapy for Substance Use Disorders and Potential Mechanisms of Action

Substance use disorders (SUD) represent a significant public health issue with a high need for novel and efficacious treatment options. In light of this high unmet need, recent results reporting beneficial outcomes of psychedelic-assisted therapy in SUD are particularly relevant. However, several questions remain with regard to this treatment approach. The clinical mechanisms of action of psychedelic substances in the treatment of SUD are not well understood. Closing this knowledge gap is critical to inform and optimize the psychotherapeutic embedding of the acute substance administration. In this chapter, we discuss potential mechanisms that have implications on psychotherapeutic approaches including induced neuroplasticity, alterations in brain network connectivity, reward and emotion processing, social connectedness, insight, and mystical experiences. Furthermore, we outline considerations and approaches that leverage these mechanisms in order to optimize the therapeutic embedding by maximizing synergy between substance effects and psychotherapy. Understanding the mechanisms of action, developing psychotherapeutic approaches accordingly, and evaluating their synergistic efficacy in scientific studies will be critical to advance the framework of psychedelic-assisted therapy for addiction, create evidence-based approaches, and achieve the best treatment outcome for patients with SUD.

Dropout Rates in Psychosocial Interventions for People With Both Severe Mental Illness and Substance Misuse: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

INTRODUCTION

Over the years, many psychosocial interventions for individual having both a psychotic spectrum disorder and a substance use disorder diagnoses have been developed and studied. However, there is a high dropout rate among this clinical population.

OBJECTIVES

This meta-analysis aims to replicate a previous meta-analysis on the effects of psychosocial treatment for dual disorders, while including and determining the dropout rates in those type of interventions.

METHOD

Based on a Cochrane systematic review conducted in 2019, we conducted a meta-analysis including 40 randomized clinical trials on psychosocial treatment among persons suffering from schizophrenia spectrum disorder and substance use disorder.

RESULTS

A dropout rate of 27,2% was obtained. Stimulants use significantly affected dropout rates. Age, gender, diagnosis, alcohol and cannabis abuse, and duration of treatment did not affect dropout rates.

CONCLUSION

The 27,2% rate of dropout from psychosocial treatment highlights the need to engage participants having a dual diagnosis from the start by focusing on therapeutic alliance and motivation for treatment.

What are the ethical implications of using prize-based contingency management in substance use? A scoping review

BACKGROUND

The area of substance use is notable for its early uptake of incentives and wealth of research on the topic. This is particularly true for prize-based contingency management (PB-CM), a particular type of incentive that uses a fishbowl prize-draw design. Given that PB-CM interventions are gaining momentum to address the dual public health crises of opiate and stimulant use in North America and beyond, it is imperative that we better understand and critically analyze their implications.

PURPOSE

The purpose of this scoping review paper is to identify the characteristics of PB-CM interventions for people who use substances and explore ethical implications documented in the literature as well as emerging ethical implications that merit further consideration.

METHODS

The PRISMA-ScR checklist was used in conjunction with Arksey and O'Malley's methodological framework to guide this scoping review. We completed a two-pronged analysis of 52 research articles retrieved through a comprehensive search across three key scholarly databases. After extracting descriptive data from each article, we used 9 key domains to identify characteristics of the interventions followed by an analysis of ethical implications.

RESULTS

We analyzed the characteristics of PB-CM interventions which were predominantly quantitative studies aimed at studying the efficacy of PB-CM interventions. All of the interventions used a prize-draw format with a classic magnitude of 50%. Most of the interventions combined both negative and positive direction to reward processes, behaviors, and/or outcomes. One ethical implication was identified in the literature: the risk of gambling relapse. We also found three emerging ethical implications by further analyzing participant characteristics, intervention designs, and potential impact on the patient-provider relationship. These implications include the potential deceptive nature of PB-CM, the emphasis placed on the individual behaviors to the detriment of social and structural determinants of health, and failures to address vulnerability and power dynamics.

CONCLUSIONS

This scoping review offers important insights into the ethics on PB-CM and its implications for research ethics, clinical ethics, and public health ethics. Additionally, it raises important questions that can inform future research and dialogues to further tease out the ethical issues associated with PB-CM.

Comparison of Treatments for Cocaine Use Disorder Among Adults: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

IMPORTANCE

In the US and the United Kingdom, cocaine use is the second leading cause of illicit drug overdose death. Psychosocial treatments for cocaine use disorder are limited, and no pharmacotherapy is approved for use in the US or Europe.

OBJECTIVE

To compare treatments for active cocaine use among adults.

DATA SOURCES

PubMed and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews were searched for clinical trials published between December 31, 1995, and December 31, 2017.

STUDY SELECTION

This meta-analysis was registered on Covidence.org (study 8731) on December 31, 2015. Clinical trials were included if they (1) had the term cocaine in the article title; (2) were published between December 31, 1995, and December 31, 2017; (3) were written in English; (4) enrolled outpatients 18 years or older with active cocaine use at baseline; and (5) reported treatment group size, treatment duration, retention rates, and urinalysis results for the presence of cocaine metabolites. A study was excluded if (1) more than 25% of participants were not active cocaine users or more than 80% of participants had negative test results for the presence of cocaine metabolites at baseline and (2) it reported only pooled urinalysis results indicating the presence of multiple substances and did not report the specific proportion of positive test results for cocaine metabolites. Multiple reviewers reached criteria consensus. Of 831 records screened, 157 studies (18.9%) met selection criteria and were included in the analysis.

DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS

This study followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) guideline. Search results were imported from PubMed XML into Covidence.org then Microsoft Excel. Data extraction was completed in 2 iterations to ensure fidelity. Analyses included a multilevel random-effects model, a multilevel mixed-effects meta-regression model, and sensitivity analyses. Treatments were clustered into 11 categories (psychotherapy, contingency management programs, placebo, opioids, psychostimulants, anticonvulsants, dopamine agonists, antidepressants, antipsychotics, miscellaneous medications, and other therapies). Missing data were imputed using multiple imputation by chained equations. The significance threshold for all analyses was P = .05. Data were analyzed using the metafor and mice packages in R software, version 3.3.2 (R Foundation for Statistical Computing). Data were analyzed from January 1, 2018, to February 28, 2021.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

The primary outcome was the intention-to-treat logarithm of the odds ratio (OR) of having a negative urinalysis result for the presence of cocaine metabolites at the end of each treatment period compared with baseline. The hypothesis, which was formulated after data collection, was that no treatment category would have a significant association with objective reductions in cocaine use.

RESULTS

A total of 157 studies comprising 402 treatment groups and 15 842 participants were included. Excluding other therapies, the largest treatment groups across all studies were psychotherapy (mean [SD] number of participants, 40.04 [36.88]) and contingency management programs (mean [SD] number of participants, 37.51 [25.51]). Only contingency management programs were significantly associated with an increased likelihood of having a negative test result for the presence of cocaine (OR, 2.13; 95% CI, 1.62-2.80), and this association remained significant in all sensitivity analyses.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

In this meta-analysis, contingency management programs were associated with reductions in cocaine use among adults. Research efforts and policies that align with this treatment modality may benefit those who actively use cocaine and attenuate societal burdens.

Psychosocial interventions for people with both severe mental illness and substance misuse

BACKGROUND

Even low levels of substance misuse by people with a severe mental illness can have detrimental effects.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of psychosocial interventions for reduction in substance use in people with a serious mental illness compared with standard care.

SEARCH METHODS

The Information Specialist of the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group (CSG) searched the CSG Trials Register (2 May 2018), which is based on regular searches of major medical and scientific databases.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included all randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing psychosocial interventions for substance misuse with standard care in people with serious mental illness.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Review authors independently selected studies, extracted data and appraised study quality. For binary outcomes, we calculated standard estimates of risk ratio (RR) and their 95% confidence intervals (CIs) on an intention-to-treat basis. For continuous outcomes, we calculated the mean difference (MD) between groups. Where meta-analyses were possible, we pooled data using a random-effects model. Using the GRADE approach, we identified seven patient-centred outcomes and assessed the quality of evidence for these within each comparison.

MAIN RESULTS

Our review now includes 41 trials with a total of 4024 participants. We have identified nine comparisons within the included trials and present a summary of our main findings for seven of these below. We were unable to summarise many findings due to skewed data or because trials did not measure the outcome of interest. In general, evidence was rated as low- or very-low quality due to high or unclear risks of bias because of poor trial methods, or inadequately reported methods, and imprecision due to small sample sizes, low event rates and wide confidence intervals. 1. Integrated models of care versus standard care (36 months) No clear differences were found between treatment groups for loss to treatment (RR 1.09, 95% CI 0.82 to 1.45; participants = 603; studies = 3; low-quality evidence), death (RR 1.18, 95% CI 0.39 to 3.57; participants = 421; studies = 2; low-quality evidence), alcohol use (RR 1.15, 95% CI 0.84 to 1.56; participants = 143; studies = 1; low-quality evidence), substance use (drug) (RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.63 to 1.25; participants = 85; studies = 1; low-quality evidence), global assessment of functioning (GAF) scores (MD 0.40, 95% CI -2.47 to 3.27; participants = 170; studies = 1; low-quality evidence), or general life satisfaction (QOLI) scores (MD 0.10, 95% CI -0.18 to 0.38; participants = 373; studies = 2; moderate-quality evidence). 2. Non-integrated models of care versus standard care There was no clear difference between treatment groups for numbers lost to treatment at 12 months (RR 1.21, 95% CI 0.73 to 1.99; participants = 134; studies = 3; very low-quality evidence). 3. Cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT) versus standard care There was no clear difference between treatment groups for numbers lost to treatment at three months (RR 1.12, 95% CI 0.44 to 2.86; participants = 152; studies = 2; low-quality evidence), cannabis use at six months (RR 1.30, 95% CI 0.79 to 2.15; participants = 47; studies = 1; very low-quality evidence) or mental state insight (IS) scores by three months (MD 0.52, 95% CI -0.78 to 1.82; participants = 105; studies = 1; low-quality evidence). 4. Contingency management versus standard care We found no clear differences between treatment groups for numbers lost to treatment at three months (RR 1.55, 95% CI 1.13 to 2.11; participants = 255; studies = 2; moderate-quality evidence), number of stimulant positive urine tests at six months (RR 0.83, 95% CI 0.65 to 1.06; participants = 176; studies = 1) or hospitalisations (RR 0.21, 95% CI 0.05 to 0.93; participants = 176; studies = 1); both low-quality evidence. 5. Motivational interviewing (MI) versus standard care We found no clear differences between treatment groups for numbers lost to treatment at six months (RR 1.71, 95% CI 0.63 to 4.64; participants = 62; studies = 1). A clear difference, favouring MI, was observed for abstaining from alcohol (RR 0.36, 95% CI 0.17 to 0.75; participants = 28; studies = 1) but not other substances (MD -0.07, 95% CI -0.56 to 0.42; participants = 89; studies = 1), and no differences were observed in mental state general severity (SCL-90-R) scores (MD -0.19, 95% CI -0.59 to 0.21; participants = 30; studies = 1). All very low-quality evidence. 6. Skills training versus standard care At 12 months, there were no clear differences between treatment groups for numbers lost to treatment (RR 1.42, 95% CI 0.20 to 10.10; participants = 122; studies = 3) or death (RR 0.15, 95% CI 0.02 to 1.42; participants = 121; studies = 1). Very low-quality, and low-quality evidence, respectively. 7. CBT + MI versus standard care At 12 months, there was no clear difference between treatment groups for numbers lost to treatment (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.62 to 1.59; participants = 327; studies = 1; low-quality evidence), number of deaths (RR 0.60, 95% CI 0.20 to 1.76; participants = 603; studies = 4; low-quality evidence), relapse (RR 0.50, 95% CI 0.24 to 1.04; participants = 36; studies = 1; very low-quality evidence), or GAF scores (MD 1.24, 95% CI -1.86 to 4.34; participants = 445; studies = 4; very low-quality evidence). There was also no clear difference in reduction of drug use by six months (MD 0.19, 95% CI -0.22 to 0.60; participants = 119; studies = 1; low-quality evidence).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We included 41 RCTs but were unable to use much data for analyses. There is currently no high-quality evidence to support any one psychosocial treatment over standard care for important outcomes such as remaining in treatment, reduction in substance use or improving mental or global state in people with serious mental illnesses and substance misuse. Furthermore, methodological difficulties exist which hinder pooling and interpreting results. Further high-quality trials are required which address these concerns and improve the evidence in this important area.

Comparative efficacy and acceptability of psychosocial interventions for individuals with cocaine and amphetamine addiction: A systematic review and network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Clinical guidelines recommend psychosocial interventions for cocaine and/or amphetamine addiction as first-line treatment, but it is still unclear which intervention, if any, should be offered first. We aimed to estimate the comparative effectiveness of all available psychosocial interventions (alone or in combination) for the short- and long-term treatment of people with cocaine and/or amphetamine addiction.

METHODS AND FINDINGS

We searched published and unpublished randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing any structured psychosocial intervention against an active control or treatment as usual (TAU) for the treatment of cocaine and/or amphetamine addiction in adults. Primary outcome measures were efficacy (proportion of patients in abstinence, assessed by urinalysis) and acceptability (proportion of patients who dropped out due to any cause) at the end of treatment, but we also measured the acute (12 weeks) and long-term (longest duration of study follow-up) effects of the interventions and the longest duration of abstinence. Odds ratios (ORs) and standardised mean differences were estimated using pairwise and network meta-analysis with random effects. The risk of bias of the included studies was assessed with the Cochrane tool, and the strength of evidence with the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach. We followed the PRISMA for Network Meta-Analyses (PRISMA-NMA) guidelines, and the protocol was registered in PROSPERO (CRD 42017042900). We included 50 RCTs evaluating 12 psychosocial interventions or TAU in 6,942 participants. The strength of evidence ranged from high to very low. Compared to TAU, contingency management (CM) plus community reinforcement approach was the only intervention that increased the number of abstinent patients at the end of treatment (OR 2.84, 95% CI 1.24-6.51, P = 0.013), and also at 12 weeks (OR 7.60, 95% CI 2.03-28.37, P = 0.002) and at longest follow-up (OR 3.08, 95% CI 1.33-7.17, P = 0.008). At the end of treatment, CM plus community reinforcement approach had the highest number of statistically significant results in head-to-head comparisons, being more efficacious than cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT) (OR 2.44, 95% CI 1.02-5.88, P = 0.045), non-contingent rewards (OR 3.31, 95% CI 1.32-8.28, P = 0.010), and 12-step programme plus non-contingent rewards (OR 4.07, 95% CI 1.13-14.69, P = 0.031). CM plus community reinforcement approach was also associated with fewer dropouts than TAU, both at 12 weeks and the end of treatment (OR 3.92, P < 0.001, and 3.63, P < 0.001, respectively). At the longest follow-up, community reinforcement approach was more effective than non-contingent rewards, supportive-expressive psychodynamic therapy, TAU, and 12-step programme (OR ranging between 2.71, P = 0.026, and 4.58, P = 0.001), but the combination of community reinforcement approach with CM was superior also to CBT alone, CM alone, CM plus CBT, and 12-step programme plus non-contingent rewards (ORs between 2.50, P = 0.039, and 5.22, P < 0.001). The main limitations of our study were the quality of included studies and the lack of blinding, which may have increased the risk of performance bias. However, our analyses were based on objective outcomes, which are less likely to be biased.

CONCLUSIONS

To our knowledge, this network meta-analysis is the most comprehensive synthesis of data for psychosocial interventions in individuals with cocaine and/or amphetamine addiction. Our findings provide the best evidence base currently available to guide decision-making about psychosocial interventions for individuals with cocaine and/or amphetamine addiction and should inform patients, clinicians, and policy-makers.

Effectiveness of Integrated Dual Diagnosis Treatment (IDDT) in severe mental illness outpatients with a co-occurring substance use disorder

Integrating substance use disorder treatment with psychiatric treatment is considered more favourable then treating these disorders parallel or sequential, but the evidence base is inconclusive. We examined the effectiveness of Integrated Dual Diagnosis Treatment (IDDT) on substance use in severe mental illness outpatients with substance use disorders. IDDT is a collaborative, multidisciplinary team approach in which motivational interviewing is a key element. In addition, we also examined the effects of IDDT implementation on skills and knowledge of mental health care professionals. A randomized controlled stepped-wedge cluster trial was performed in 6 functional assertive cummunity treatment teams. We included 37 clinicians who were given a three-day IDDT training. Our primary outcome was days of substance use at follow up, 12 months after IDDT implementation. This was assessed in 154 included patients and was measured with the Measurement in the Addiction for Triage and Evaluation. After implementation of IDDT we found a reduction in the number of days patients used alcohol or drugs, but no improvements on other secondary outcomes such as psychopathology, functioning, therapeutic alliance or motivation to change. Also, IDDT training did not seem to improve clinicians' knowledge, attitudes and motivational interviewing skills. Effects on our secondary outcomes may have been limited by the absence of a training effect in our clinicians. Our study clearly underlines the complexity of disseminating IDDT and in particular motivational interviewing.

Contingency management treatment for substance use disorders: How far has it come, and where does it need to go?

Contingency management (CM) interventions consistently improve substance abuse treatment outcomes, yet CM remains a highly controversial intervention and is rarely implemented in practice settings. This article briefly outlines the evidence base of CM and then describes 4 of the most often-cited concerns about it: philosophical, motivational, durability, and economic. Data supporting and refuting each of these issues are reviewed. The article concludes with suggestions to address these matters and other important areas for CM research and implementation, with the aims of improving uptake of this efficacious intervention in practice settings and outcomes of patients with substance use disorders. (PsycINFO Database Record

A review of the literature on contingency management in the treatment of substance use disorders, 2009-2014

This report describes a systematic literature review of voucher and related monetary-based contingency management (CM) interventions for substance use disorders (SUDs) over 5.2years (November 2009 through December 2014). Reports were identified using the search engine PubMed, expert consultations, and published bibliographies. For inclusion, reports had to (a) involve monetary-based CM; (b) appear in a peer-reviewed journal; (c) include an experimental comparison condition; (d) describe an original study; (e) assess efficacy using inferential statistics; (f) use a research design allowing treatment effects to be attributed to CM. Sixty-nine reports met inclusion criteria and were categorized into 7 research trends: (1) extending CM to special populations, (2) parametric studies, (3) extending CM to community clinics, (4) combining CM with pharmacotherapies, (5) incorporating technology into CM, (6) investigating longer-term outcomes, (7) using CM as a research tool. The vast majority (59/69, 86%) of studies reported significant (p<0.05) during-treatment effects. Twenty-eight (28/59, 47%) of those studies included at least one follow-up visit after CM was discontinued, with eight (8/28, 29%) reporting significant (p<0.05) effects. Average effect size (Cohen's d) during treatment was 0.62 (95% CI: 0.54, 0.70) and post-treatment it was 0.26 (95% CI: 0.11, 0.41). Overall, the literature on voucher-based CM over the past 5years documents sustained growth, high treatment efficacy, moderate to large effect sizes during treatment that weaken but remain evident following treatment termination, and breadth across a diverse set of SUDs, populations, and settings consistent with and extending results from prior reviews.

Psychosocial interventions for psychostimulant misuse

BACKGROUND

Psychostimulant misuse is a continuously growing medical and social burden. There is no evidence proving the efficacy of pharmacotherapy. Psychosocial interventions could be a valid approach to help patients in reducing or ceasing drug consumption.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of psychosocial interventions for psychostimulant misuse in adults.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Drugs and Alcohol Group Specialised Register (via CRSLive); Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL); MEDLINE; EMBASE; CINAHL; Web of Science and PsycINFO, from inception to November 2015. We also searched for ongoing and unpublished studies via ClinicalTrials.gov (www.clinicaltrials.gov) and the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) (apps.who.int/trialsearch/).All searches included non-English language literature. We handsearched references of topic-related systematic reviews and the included studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials comparing any psychosocial intervention with no intervention, treatment as usual (TAU) or a different intervention in adults with psychostimulant misuse or dependence.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used the standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane.

MAIN RESULTS

We included a total of 52 trials (6923 participants).The psychosocial interventions considered in the studies were: cognitive behavioural therapy (19 studies), contingency management (25 studies), motivational interviewing (5 studies), interpersonal therapy (3 studies), psychodynamic therapy (1 study), 12-step facilitation (4 studies).We judged most of the studies to be at unclear risk of selection bias; blinding of personnel and participants was not possible for the type of intervention, so all the studies were at high risk of performance bias with regard to subjective outcomes; the majority of studies did not specify whether the outcome assessors were blind. We did not consider it likely that the objective outcomes were influenced by lack of blinding.The comparisons made were: any psychosocial intervention versus no intervention (32 studies), any psychosocial intervention versus TAU (6 studies), and one psychosocial intervention versus an alternative psychosocial intervention (13 studies). Five of included studies did not provide any useful data for inclusion in statistical synthesis.We found that, when compared to no intervention, any psychosocial treatment: reduced the dropout rate (risk ratio (RR): 0.83, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.76 to -0.91, 24 studies, 3393 participants, moderate quality evidence); increased continuous abstinence at the end of treatment (RR: 2.14, 95% CI 1.27 to -3.59, 8 studies, 1241 participants, low quality evidence); did not significantly increase continuous abstinence at the longest follow-up (RR: 2.12, 95% CI 0.77 to -5.86, 4 studies, 324 participants, low quality evidence); significantly increased the longest period of abstinence: (standardised mean difference (SMD): 0.48, 95% CI 0.34 to 0.63, 10 studies, 1354 participants, high quality evidence). However, it should be noted that the in the vast majority of the studies in this comparison the specific psychosocial treatment assessed in the experimental arm was given in add on to treatment as usual or to another specific psychosocial or pharmacological treatment which was received by both groups. So, many of the control groups in this comparison were not really untreated. Receiving some amount of treatment is not the same as not receiving any intervention, so we could argue that the overall effect of the experimental psychosocial treatment could be smaller if given in add on to TAU or to another intervention than if given to participants not receiving any intervention; this could translate to a smaller magnitude of the effect of the psychosocial intervention when it is given in add on.When compared to TAU, any psychosocial treatment reduced dropout rate (RR: 0.72, 95% CI 0.59 to 0.89, 6 studies, 516 participants, moderate quality evidence), did not increase continuous abstinence at the end of treatment (RR: 1.27, 95% CI 0.94 to 1.72, 2 studies, 224 participants, low quality evidence), did not increase longest period of abstinence (MD -3.15 days, 95% CI -10.35 to 4.05, 1 study, 110 participants, low quality evidence). No studies in this comparison assessed the outcome of continuous abstinence at longest follow-up.There were few studies comparing two or more psychosocial interventions, with small sample sizes and considerable heterogeneity in terms of the types of interventions assessed. None reported significant results.None of the studies reported harms related to psychosocial interventions.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The addition of any psychosocial treatment to treatment as usual (usually characterised by group counselling or case management) probably reduces the dropout rate and increases the longest period of abstinence. It may increase the number of people achieving continuous abstinence at the end of treatment, although this might not be maintained at longest follow-up. The most studied and the most promising psychosocial approach to be added to treatment as usual is probably contingency management. However, the other approaches were only analysed in a few small studies, so we cannot rule out the possibility that the results were not significant because of imprecision. When compared to TAU, any psychosocial treatment may improve adherence, but it may not improve abstinence at the end of treatment or the longest period of abstinence.The majority of the studies took place in the United States, and this could limit the generalisability of the findings, because the effects of psychosocial treatments could be strongly influenced by the social context and ethnicity. The results of our review do not answer the most relevant clinical question, demonstrating which is the most effective type of psychosocial approach.Further studies should directly compare contingency management with the other psychosocial approaches.

Nursing interventions for substance use during psychiatric hospital admissions: Clinical context and predictors

Empirical information about how nurses manage substance use on psychiatric wards is lacking. The aims of the study were to identify the frequency and clinical features of incidents among a sample of inpatients over a 12-month period and how nursing staff intervened. Electronic, anonymized inpatient records were searched for incidents of substance use on 17 acute psychiatric wards in four hospitals in London. Searches were conducted for all patients admitted during 2012 and details of incidents and patient characteristics were extracted for analysis. Substance use was reported for 291 patients, with 25 incidents per 100 patients admitted to hospital. Only half of the incidents were followed by a response that specifically addressed the patients' substance use behaviour. These interactions usually concerned the circumstances and reasons for use, but rarely involved specific support for patients' substance use problems. The likelihood of staff taking any form of action was increased if the patient had been formally admitted, and was reduced if the patient was subject to containment during the shift or had a history of self-harm. The results demonstrate that nurses require specific training and guidance on supporting substance using patients.

Patients with diabetes respond well to contingency management treatment targeting alcohol and substance use

Alcohol and drug use contribute to the pathogenesis of diabetes and are associated with adverse health outcomes, but little research exists on treatments for substance use disorders (SUDs) in patients with diabetes. The aim of this study was to evaluate contingency management (CM) treatments targeting substance use in patients with diabetes. A secondary analysis evaluated the main and interactive effects of diabetes status and treatment condition on outcomes of 681 substance abusers. All participants were enrolled in randomized clinical trials comparing CM to standard care (SC). Overall, CM treatment improved outcomes. There was also a significant treatment condition X diabetes status interaction effect in terms of duration of abstinence achieved and proportion of negative samples submitted; patients with diabetes responded even more favorably than their counterparts without diabetes when receiving CM. Analyses of post-treatment effects revealed that patients with diabetes, regardless of the type of SUD treatment to which they were earlier assigned, were more likely than those without diabetes to be abstinent at the nine-month follow-up. The findings suggest CM may be an effective treatment for this vulnerable subgroup of substance-abusing patients.

Lost in translation? Moving contingency management and cognitive behavioral therapy into clinical practice

In the treatment of addictions, the gap between the availability of evidence-based therapies and their limited implementation in practice has not yet been bridged. Two empirically validated behavioral therapies, contingency management (CM) and cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT), exemplify this challenge. Both have a relatively strong level of empirical support but each has weak and uneven adoption in clinical practice. This review highlights examples of how barriers to their implementation in practice have been addressed systematically, using the Stage Model of Behavioral Therapies Development as an organizing framework. For CM, barriers such as cost and ideology have been addressed through the development of lower-cost and other adaptations to make it more community friendly. For CBT, barriers such as relative complexity, lack of trained providers, and need for supervision have been addressed via conversion to standardized computer-assisted versions that can serve as clinician extenders. Although these and other modifications have rendered both interventions more disseminable, diffusion of innovation remains a complex, often unpredictable process. The existing specialty addiction-treatment system may require significant reforms to fully implement CBT and CM, particularly greater focus on definable treatment goals and performance-based outcomes.

Behavioral Interventions for Individuals Dually-Diagnosed with a Severe Mental Illness and a Substance Use Disorder

The prevalence of substance abuse among severely mentally ill individuals (SMI) with a schizophrenia-spectrum or bipolar disorder is about three times the rate of the general population. However, few effective interventions exist to address the problem. In this paper, we evaluate recent studies of behavioral interventions for substance abuse among SMI individuals. These include cognitive-behavioral, motivational interviewing, and contingency management interventions, as well as combinations thereof. Consistent with prior systematic reviews, ours indicates that no behavioral intervention has clearly demonstrated efficacy beyond that of usual care. Unfortunately, most of the reviewed studies suffer from methodological problems that hamper detection of treatment effects. Also, it can be argued that interventions tested thus far may not be well-suited for this cognitively-impaired population. A programmatic series of studies is needed to further develop and test behavioral interventions for treating substance abuse in this population.

Psychostimulant addiction treatment

Treatment of psychostimulant addiction has been a major, and not fully met, challenge. For opioid addiction, there is strong evidence for the effectiveness of several medications. For psychostimulants, there is no corresponding form of agonist maintenance that has met criteria for regulatory approval or generally accepted use. Stimulant-use disorders remain prevalent and can result in both short-term and long-term adverse consequences. The mainstay of treatment remains behavioral interventions. In this paper, we discuss those interventions and some promising candidates in the search for pharmacological interventions. This article is part of the Special Issue entitled 'CNS Stimulants'.

New developments in behavioral treatments for substance use disorders

After decades of defining which behavioral treatments are effective for treating addictions, the focus has shifted to exploring how these treatments work, how best to disseminate and implement them in the community, and what underlying factors can be manipulated in order to increase the rates of treatment success. These pursuits have led to advances in our understanding of the mechanisms of treatment effects, the incorporation of technology into the delivery of current treatments and development of novel applications to support relapse prevention, as well as the inclusion of neurocognitive approaches to target the automatic and higher-order processes underlying addictive behaviors. Although such advances have the promise of leading to better treatments for more individuals, there is still much work required for these promises to be realized. The following review will highlight some of these recent developments and provide a glimpse into the future of behavioral treatments.