Effectiveness of incorporating contingency management into a public treatment program for people who use crack cocaine in Brazil. A single-blind randomized controlled trial

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.

Intervention diversity predicts social rehabilitation indicators at discharge in Therapeutic Communities

INTRODUCTION

The Therapeutic Community Model narrows the gap in substance use disorder's network of assistance in Brazil by offering residential treatment to socially vulnerable populations. Due to a historical lack of evidence-based approaches, the government has established treatment guidelines and has been trying to implement training and monitoring methods.

METHOD

This study analysed real-world data from the monitoring system implemented in the largest network of institutions receiving public funds in the State of Sao Paulo. Data came from 8109 records of individuals admitted between 2014 and 2016 in 48 institutions.

RESULTS

Results showed that less than half of the sample was exposed to at least one therapeutic activity from each of the recreational, spiritual, educational and selfcare intervention domains, as proposed by the national guidelines. Social rehabilitation outcome (SRO) defined by housing and self-support at discharge was reported by 21 % of the sample, who stayed in residential treatment for 82.6 days in average. More than half completed the therapeutic programme while 27.3 % dropout. Treatment duration and the diversity of the interventions offered were significantly associated with SRO when mutually adjusted. Chances of SRO increased nearly 5 times when residents were offered the full range of intervention domains, even when controlling for treatment duration. Treatment duration increased chances of SRO in a dose-response manner with a threefold increase for stays up to 90 days and over 9 times for stays longer than 90 days.

CONCLUSION

Our findings offer evidence to promote treatment guidelines compliance and to pave the way for the implementation of monitoring systems for this modality of treatment in Brazil and abroad.

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.

Recovery incentives program: California's contingency management benefit

OBJECTIVE

The role of methamphetamine and cocaine use in California's drug poisoning (overdose) crisis has dramatically increased in the past five (5) years and has disproportionately affected American Indian, Alaska Native, and Black Californians. No FDA-approved medications currently exist for the treatment of individuals with stimulant use disorder (StimUD). Outside the Veteran's Administration, the Recovery Incentives Program: California's Contingency Management Benefit is the first large scale implementation of contingency management (CM). CM is the behavioral treatment with the most evidence and largest effect sizes for StimUD.

METHODS

The Program uses a CM protocol where participants can receive a maximum of $599 over a six-month period, contingent upon 36 stimulant-negative urine test results. Urine tests are conducted using a set of approved, CLIA-waived, point-of-care urine drug tests (UDTs). To ensure fidelity to the CM protocol and to prevent fraud, waste, and abuse, all aspects of incentive accounting and distribution are managed electronically via a custom-developed software system. Incentive distribution utilizes electronic gift cards. A significant innovation of the project is the conceptualization of the CM Coordinator, a designated and highly trained and supervised individual responsible for all aspects of CM operation in a specific site.

RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS

The California Department of Health Care Services contracted with UCLA to develop and implement a robust evaluation of the Program; goals include evaluating the effectiveness of real-world implementation and facilitating quality improvement. The project will likely significantly impact the use of CM for StimUD nationally and may well reduce stimulant-related drug poisoning deaths.

Automated Reinforcement Management System: Feasibility study findings of an app-based contingency management treatment for alcohol use disorder

Alcohol Use Disorder (AUD) is the most prevalent substance use disorder in the United States and is directly related to 5% of all annually reported deaths worldwide. Contingency Management (CM) is among the most effective interventions for AUD, with recent technological advancements allowing CM to be provided remotely. Objective: To evaluate the feasibility and acceptability of a mobile Automated Reinforcement Management System (ARMS) designed to provide CM for AUD remotely. Methods: Twelve participants with mild or moderate AUD were exposed to ARMS in a A-B-A within-subject experimental design where they were required to submit three breathalyzer samples per day. During the B phase participants could earned rewards with monetary value for submitting negative samples. Feasibility was determined by the proportion of samples submitted and retention in the study and acceptability was based on participants self-reported experience. Results: The mean number of samples submitted per day was 2.02 out of 3. The proportion of samples submitted in each phase was 81.5%, 69.4% and 49.4%, respectively. Participants were retained for a mean of 7.5 (SD=1.1) out of 8 weeks with 10 participants (83.3%) completing the study. All participants found the app easy to use and stated it helped them reduce their alcohol use. Eleven (91.7%) would recommend the app as an adjunct to AUD treatment. Preliminary indicators of efficacy are also presented. Conclusions: ARMS has shown to be feasible and well accepted. If shown effective, ARMS can serve as an adjunctive treatment for AUD.

A preliminary investigation of schedule parameters on cocaine abstinence in contingency management

Contingency management (CM) interventions are the most effective psychosocial interventions for substance use disorders. However, further investigation is needed to create the most robust intervention possible. This study investigated the effects of 1) reinforcer magnitude; and 2) fixed and escalating and resetting incentives on cocaine abstinence in an outpatient trial. In this analysis, 34 treatment-seeking individuals with Cocaine Use Disorder received either high or low value incentives for providing a benzoylecgonine-negative urine sample or were in a control condition and received incentives for providing a urine sample regardless of the results. Participants received either escalating and resetting incentives, wherein the value of each incentive increased with consecutive negative samples and reset to the initial level upon a positive sample (Experiment 1), or fixed incentives, wherein they received the same value incentive for each negative urine sample they provided (Experiment 2). Large incentives produced more abstinence, although escalating and resetting reinforcer values did not have a differential effect. Large, fixed incentives promoted abstinence faster than other reinforcers, whereas smaller incentives resulted in poor abstinence and took many visits to achieve initial abstinence. Future research comparing different schedules on cocaine abstinence in a randomized control trial with a larger sample size is required.