Substance use and response to psychiatric treatment in methadone-treated outpatients with comorbid psychiatric disorder

Predictors of Retention and Drug Use Among Patients With Opioid Use Disorder Transferred to a Specialty "Second Chance" Methadone Program

Background

Many patients in methadone treatment have difficulty achieving or maintaining drug abstinence, and many clinics have policies that lead to discharging these patients. We designed a pilot "Second Chance" (SC) program for patients scheduled to be discharged from other local methadone clinics to be transferred to our clinic.

Aim

Determine whether SC patients' retention and opioid use is related to physical or mental health conditions, non-opioid substance use, or treatment features.

Methods

From December 2012 to December 2014, this program enrolled 70 patients who were discharged from other clinics in the area; we were their last remaining option for methadone treatment. Unlike the clinic's standard policies, the treatment focus for SC patients was retention rather than abstinence. This program focused on connection to care (eg, psychiatric services) and enabled patients to continue receiving services despite ongoing substance use. Each patient was assessed at treatment entry and followed until June 2016 to evaluate outcomes.

Results

SC patients receiving disability benefits (n = 37) vs. non-disabled (n = 33) had significantly (P < .05) higher rates of current DSM-IV Axis I psychiatric diagnosis (97% vs 70%), prescriptions for opioids (84% vs 55%) and benzodiazepines (65% vs 27%), and higher methadone doses at admission (58 vs 46 mg) but did not differ significantly in rates of 6-month or 1-year retention (77% and 56%, respectively) or all-drug use (39% positive urine drug screens). Methadone doses >65 mg predicted significantly longer retention and less opioid use, but these effects were not moderated by baseline characteristics.

Conclusions

Patients in methadone treatment struggling to achieve abstinence may benefit from retention-oriented harm-reduction programs. Higher methadone doses can improve retention and opioid abstinence despite psychiatric comorbidities. Further work is needed to improve program implementation and outcomes in this complex population.

Sensitivity and specificity of self-reported psychiatric diagnoses amongst patients treated for opioid use disorder

BACKGROUND

Patients with opioid use disorder (OUD) frequently present with comorbid psychiatric illnesses which have significant implications for their treatment outcomes. Notably, these are often identified by self-report. Our study examined the sensitivity and specificity of self-reported psychiatric diagnoses against a structured diagnostic interview in a cohort of patients receiving outpatient pharmacological treatment for OUD.

METHODS

Using cross-sectional data from adults receiving outpatient opioid agonist treatment for OUD in clinics across Ontario, Canada, we compared participants' self-reported psychiatric diagnoses with those identified by the Mini Neuropsychiatric Interview (MINI) Version 6.0 administered at the time of study entry. Sensitivity and specificity were calculated for self-report of psychiatric diagnoses.

RESULTS

Amongst a sample of 683 participants, 24% (n = 162) reported having a comorbid psychiatric disorder. Only 104 of these 162 individuals (64%) reporting a comorbidity met criteria for a psychiatric disorder as per the MINI; meanwhile, 304 (75%) participants who self-reported no psychiatric comorbidity were in fact identified to meet MINI criteria for a psychiatric disorder. The sensitivity and specificity for any self-reported psychiatric diagnoses were 25.5% (95% CI 21.3, 30.0) and 78.9% (95% CI 73.6, 83.6), respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Our findings raise questions about the utility of self-reported psychiatric comorbidity in patients with OUD, particularly in the context of low sensitivity of self-reported diagnoses. Several factors may contribute to this including remittance and relapse of some psychiatric illnesses, underdiagnosis, and the challenge of differentiating psychiatric and substance-induced disorders. These findings highlight that other methods should be considered in order to identify comorbid psychiatric disorders in patients with OUD.

Sex-based differences in psychiatric symptoms and opioid abstinence during buprenorphine/naloxone treatment in adolescents with opioid use disorders

BACKGROUND

Recent studies indicate that sex-based differences exist in co-occurring psychiatric symptoms and disorders among individuals with opioid use disorders (OUD). Whether these associations are present in adolescent samples and change during OUD treatment is poorly understood.

OBJECTIVES

In the current study, we examined sex-based differences in psychiatric symptoms and relationships among sex, psychiatric symptoms, and opioid use outcomes in youth with OUD receiving buprenorphine/naloxone (Bup/Nal) and psychosocial treatment.

METHODS

The study randomly assigned one hundred and fifty-two youth (15-21 years old) diagnosed with OUD to either 12 weeks of treatment with Bup/Nal or up to 2 weeks of Bup/Nal detoxification with both treatment arms receiving weekly drug counseling as part of a multisite clinical trial (NIDA-CTN-0010). We compared psychiatric symptoms, assessed via the Youth Self Report (YSR) at baseline and week 12, across male and female OUD participants. The study used logistic regression models to identify sex and psychiatric symptom variables that were predictors of opioid positive urine (OPU) at week 12.

RESULTS

Compared to males, females with OUD had higher mean psychiatric symptom scores at baseline across broad-band and narrow-band symptom domains. The study observed significant reductions in psychiatric symptom scores in both males and females during treatment, and by week 12, females only differed from males on anxious-depressive symptom scores. Females, in general, and youth of both sexes presenting to treatment with higher anxious depression scores were less likely to have a week-12 OPU.

CONCLUSIONS

Clinically significant sex-based differences in psychiatric symptoms are present at baseline among youth with OUD receiving Bup/Nal-assisted treatment and mostly resolve during treatment.

The lived experience of Australian opioid replacement therapy recipients in a community-based program in regional Victoria

INTRODUCTION AND AIMS

Treatment of opioid dependence through opioid replacement therapy is widely recognised as effective. Nonetheless, while there has been a community-based program in the state of Victoria for over two decades, consumer experiences have received little attention. This study aimed to describe the experiences of opioid replacement therapy consumers living in rural and regional areas of the state.

DESIGN AND METHODS

A qualitative design employed an interpretative phenomenological approach. Sixteen consumers were interviewed. Thematic analysis was conducted by the researchers to examine the phenomena of consumers' experiences and findings were verified by a stakeholder group.

RESULTS

Findings centred on themes of consumers' experience of becoming recipients; consumer perceptions of pharmacists and pharmacy settings and psychosocial impacts on consumers. A majority of participants believed opioid replacement therapy brought increased normality to their life, however systemic and psychosocial barriers impacted on well-being. The pharmacy setting itself as a public dosing space commonly provoked feelings of stigma and discrimination among consumers. Other barriers prominently reported were restrictions on number of takeaways, cost of dispensing and lack of access to medical practitioners and allied supports.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS

There were psychosocial impacts on opioid replacement therapy consumers relating to financial and social burdens, stigma and discrimination. Access to medical care and a choice of pharmacy appeared to be restricted in rural regions. The findings suggest a need to address, in particular, the financial and dispensing point burdens experienced by consumers to facilitate program retention.

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.

Borderline personality disorder and substance use disorders: an updated review

For decades, clinicians and researchers have recognized that borderline personality disorder (BPD) and substance use disorders (SUDs) are often diagnosed within the same person (e.g., (Gunderson JG. Borderline personality disorder: A clinical guide. Washington, D.C.: American Psychiatric Press, 2001; Leichsenring et al., Lancet 377:74-84, 2011; Paris J. Borderline personality disorder: A multidimensional approach. American Psychiatric Pub, 1994; Trull et al., Clin Psychol Rev 20:235-53, 2000)). Previously, we documented the extent of this co-occurrence and offered a number of methodological and theoretical explanations for the co-occurrence (Trull et al., Clin Psychol Rev 20:235-53, 2000). Here, we provide an updated review of the literature on the co-occurrence between borderline personality disorder (BPD) and substance use disorders (SUDs) from 70 studies published from 2000 to 2017, and we compare the co-occurrence of these disorders to that documented by a previous review of 36 studies over 15 years ago (Trull et al., Clin Psychol Rev 20:235-53, 2000).

Methadone complications amongst opioid-dependent patients in Malaysia: A case series

INTRODUCTION AND AIMS

Opioid dependence remains the main type of illicit substance used in Malaysia, which has an estimated 187 771 opiate users. There are currently 333 active methadone maintenance treatment centres nationwide. Although methadone has proven to be an effective maintenance therapy, it has clinical concerns which can have an impact on its effectiveness and safety.

DESIGN, METHODS AND RESULTS

A case series of seven patients from Malaysian private and public hospital settings who had an adverse reaction with methadone is discussed.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION

Despite methadone being an effective therapy for opioid dependence, there is a need for other alternative effective therapies, such as naltrexone, buprenorphine and the co-formulation of buprenorphine-naloxone, to be made available to physicians in both public and private sectors. There is need for individual treatment consideration to avoid adverse effects, drug-drug interactions, overdosing and in the presence of co-morbidities. An emphasis on safe storage of takeaway methadone is also needed. [George P, Vicknasingam B, Thurairajasingam S, Ramasamy P, Mohd Yusof H, Yasin MABM, Shah ZUBS. Methadone complications amongst opioid-dependent patients in Malaysia: A case series. Drug Alcohol Rev 2018;37:147-151].

Update on pharmacotherapy for treatment of opioid use disorder

INTRODUCTION

Opioid Use Disorder (OUD) is a significant public health concern, negatively impacting the medical, psychological, and social domains of an individual's life as well as creating substantial burdens for society. Effective treatment interventions are necessary for reduction of OUD and its consequences. Pharmacotherapy represents a central component of management. Areas covered: This review focuses on pharmacologic strategies for OUD treatment, discussing both primary as well as adjunctive therapy modalities. We will discuss both medications used during detoxification to treat withdrawal, as well as those used as maintenance therapy. Detox medications include alpha-2 adrenergic agonists, such as clonidine, as well as the μ-opioid agonist, methadone, and the μ-opioid partial agonist, buprenorphine. Opioid maintenance treatment (OMT) is also discussed, focusing on those medications meant to substitute abused opioids and includes the agonists, methadone and buprenorphine, as well as supervised intravenous heroin, and opioid antagonist, naltrexone. Expert opinion: Medication therapy for treatment of OUD has demonstrated efficacy and is of great clinical benefit. While agonist treatment with methadone or buprenorphine remains the gold standard, there is an important place for use of long-acting antagonist therapy with naltrexone. Continued investigation into treatment paradigms and behavioral platforms which optimize medication therapy is most needed.