Visual Representation Tools for Improving Addiction Treatment Outcomes

Evaluating comparative effectiveness of psychosocial interventions adjunctive to opioid agonist therapy for opioid use disorder: A systematic review with network meta-analyses

BACKGROUND

Guidelines recommend that individuals with opioid use disorder (OUD) receive pharmacological and psychosocial interventions; however, the most appropriate psychosocial intervention is not known. In collaboration with people with lived experience, clinicians, and policy makers, we sought to assess the relative benefits of psychosocial interventions as an adjunct to opioid agonist therapy (OAT) among persons with OUD.

METHODS

A review protocol was registered a priori (CRD42018090761), and a comprehensive search for randomized controlled trials (RCT) was conducted from database inception to June 2020 in MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials. Established methods for study selection and data extraction were used. Primary outcomes were treatment retention and opioid use (measured by urinalysis for opioid use and opioid abstinence outcomes). Odds ratios were estimated using network meta-analyses (NMA) as appropriate based on available evidence, and in remaining cases alternative approaches to synthesis were used.

RESULTS

Seventy-two RCTs met the inclusion criteria. Risk of bias evaluations commonly identified study limitations and poor reporting with regard to methods used for allocation concealment and selective outcome reporting. Due to inconsistency in reporting of outcome measures, only 48 RCTs (20 unique interventions, 5,404 participants) were included for NMA of treatment retention, where statistically significant differences were found when psychosocial interventions were used as an adjunct to OAT as compared to OAT-only. The addition of rewards-based interventions such as contingency management (alone or with community reinforcement approach) to OAT was superior to OAT-only. Few statistically significant differences between psychosocial interventions were identified among any other pairwise comparisons. Heterogeneity in reporting formats precluded an NMA for opioid use. A structured synthesis was undertaken for the remaining outcomes which included opioid use (n = 18 studies) and opioid abstinence (n = 35 studies), where the majority of studies found no significant difference between OAT plus psychosocial interventions as compared to OAT-only.

CONCLUSIONS

This systematic review offers a comprehensive synthesis of the available evidence and the limitations of current trials of psychosocial interventions applied as an adjunct to OAT for OUD. Clinicians and health services may wish to consider integrating contingency management in addition to OAT for OUD in their settings to improve treatment retention. Aside from treatment retention, few differences were consistently found between psychosocial interventions adjunctive to OAT and OAT-only. There is a need for high-quality RCTs to establish more definitive conclusions.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

PROSPERO registration CRD42018090761.

Using the Behavior Change Technique Taxonomy v1 to conceptualize the clinical content of Breaking Free Online: a computer-assisted therapy program for substance use disorders

BACKGROUND

In recent years, research within the field of health psychology has made significant progress in terms of advancing and standardizing the science of developing, evaluating and reporting complex behavioral change interventions. A major part of this work has involved the development of an evidence-based Behavior Change Technique Taxonomy v1 (BCTTv1), as a means of describing the active components contained within such complex interventions. To date, however, this standardized approach derived from health psychology research has not been applied to the development of complex interventions for the treatment of substance use disorders (SUD). Therefore, this paper uses Breaking Free Online (BFO), a computer-assisted therapy program for SUD, as an example of how the clinical techniques contained within such an intervention might be mapped onto the BCTTv1.

METHOD

The developers of BFO were able to produce a full list of the clinical techniques contained within BFO. Exploratory mapping of the BCTTv1 onto the clinical content of the BFO program was conducted separately by the authors of the paper. This included the developers of the BFO program and psychology professionals working within the SUD field. These coded techniques were reviewed by the authors and any discrepancies in the coding were discussed between all authors until an agreement was reached.

RESULTS

The BCTTv1 was mapped onto the clinical content of the BFO program. At least one behavioral change technique was found in 12 out of 16 grouping categories within the BCTTv1. A total of 26 out of 93 behavior change techniques were identified across the clinical content of the program.

CONCLUSION

This exploratory mapping exercise has identified the specific behavior change techniques contained within BFO, and has provided a means of describing these techniques in a standardized way using the BCTTv1 terminology. It has also provided an opportunity for the BCTTv1 mapping process to be reported to the wider SUD treatment community, as it may have real utility in the development and evaluation of other psychosocial and behavioral change interventions within this field.

Factors affecting cognitive function of opiate-dependent patients

BACKGROUND

A wide range of studies found that opiate-dependent patients suffer from cognitive impairment due to a number of different factors. However, this issue has never been examined systematically. Thus, the aim of the present study is to provide a comprehensive analysis of factors that might contribute to cognitive impairment of opiate-dependent patients and specifically differentiates between various cognitive abilities as these might be impacted differently.

METHODS

Based on a comprehensive review of the literature with regard to previous findings and suggestions about which factors might affect cognitive functioning, we assessed a wide variety of variables related to substance use and opiate-dependence as well as demographic and socioeconomic variables. Cognitive functioning was assessed through a neuropsychological test-battery.

RESULTS

We found that the duration of opiate dependence and maintenance treatment, as well as additional substance consumption (alcohol, amphetamines, and cocaine) are the main variables contributing to cognitive impairment in the domains of attention and executive function. Comorbid depressive symptoms negatively affected reaction times. There was no evidence for the role of demographic variables like age and education on cognitive functioning.

CONCLUSIONS

Our findings suggest that it might be important in the treatment of opiate dependence to address the consumption of additional substances and to closely monitor the negative effects of maintenance treatment on cognitive functioning.

Psychosocial combined with agonist maintenance treatments versus agonist maintenance treatments alone for treatment of opioid dependence

BACKGROUND

Maintenance treatments are effective in retaining patients in treatment and suppressing heroin use. Questions remain regarding the efficacy of additional psychosocial services.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the effectiveness of any psychosocial plus any agonist maintenance treatment versus standard agonist treatment for opiate dependence

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched the Cochrane Drugs and Alcohol Group trials register (June 2011), Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (Issue 6, 2011), PUBMED (1996 to 2011); EMBASE (January 1980 to 2011); CINAHL (January 2003 to 2011); PsycINFO (1985 to 2003) and reference list of articles.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials and controlled clinical trial comparing any psychosocial plus any agonist with any agonist alone for opiate dependence.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors independently assessed trial quality quality and extracted data.

MAIN RESULTS

35 studies, 4319 participants, were included. These studies considered thirteen different psychosocial interventions. Comparing any psychosocial plus any maintenance pharmacological treatment to standard maintenance treatment, results do not show benefit for retention in treatment, 27 studies, 3124 participants, RR 1.03 (95% CI 0.98 to 1.07), abstinence by opiate during the treatment, 8 studies, 1002 participants, RR 1.12 (95% CI 0.92 to 1.37), compliance, three studies, MD 0.43 (95% CI -0.05 to 0.92), psychiatric symptoms, 3 studies, MD 0.02 (-0.28 to 0.31), depression, 3 studies, MD -1.70 (95% CI -3.91 to 0.51) and results at the end of follow up as number of participants still in treatment, 3 studies, 250 participants, RR 0.90 (95% CI 0.77 to 1.07) and participants abstinent by opioid, 3 studies, 181 participants, RR 1.15 (95% CI 0.98 to 1.36). Comparing the different psychosocial approaches, results are never statistically significant for all the comparisons and outcomes.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

For the considered outcomes, it seems that adding any psychosocial support to standard maintenance treatments do not add additional benefits. Data do not show differences also for contingency approaches, contrary to all expectations. Duration of the studies was too short to analyse relevant outcomes such as mortality. It should be noted that the control intervention used in the studies included in the review on maintenance treatments, is a program that routinely offers counselling sessions in addition to methadone; thus the review, actually, did not evaluate the question of whether any ancillary psychosocial intervention is needed when methadone maintenance is provided, but the narrower question of whether a specific more structured intervention provides any additional benefit to a standard psychosocial support. These interventions probably can be measured and evaluated by employing diverse criteria for evaluating treatment outcomes, aimed to rigorously assess changes in emotional, interpersonal, vocational and physical health areas of life functioning.