Prevalence of Heavy Alcohol Use Among People Receiving Methadone Following Change to Methadose

Is extended release naltrexone superior to buprenorphine-naloxone to reduce drinking among outpatients receiving treatment for opioid use disorder? A secondary analysis of the CTN X:BOT trial

BACKGROUND

The comparative effectiveness of extended-release naltrexone versus buprenorphine-naloxone for opioid relapse prevention (X:BOT) trial showed that following induction, treatment with the sublingual agonist (buprenorphine-naloxone, BUP-NX) or injected antagonist (extended release naltrexone, XR-NTX) produced similar reductions in opioid relapse in injection users with opioid use disorder (OUD). Because XR-NTX reduces drinking in alcohol use disorder (AUD), we conducted a secondary analysis of the X:BOT sample of patients successfully inducted onto treatment to determine whether XR-NTX (n = 204) was superior to BUP-NX (n = 270) in reducing drinking or heavy drinking in patients with OUD.

METHODS

Standard drink units consumed were measured using the Timeline Follow-back method. Mixed-models regression was used to examine the monthly frequency of any drinking and heavy drinking over 6 months of treatment. We used a proportional hazard survival analysis to examine the time to first drink.

RESULTS

Both treatment groups reduced drinking from baseline to posttreatment (small to medium effect), but no differences between groups were detected. However, only 29% (n = 136) of the sample had AUD and 19% (n = 26/136) of those were abstinent before treatment. Analysis of a subsample enriched for possible drinking included 136 individuals with an AUD diagnosis plus 43 who did not have AUD, but reported at least one day of heavy drinking prior to the study. However, this subsample reported only 32% of days of any drinking with a median of only 13% of days designated as "heavy." Within this subsample, at baseline, the BUP-NX group reported more mean drinks per drinking day than the XR-NTX group (p = 0.03); however, there were no other significant group differences on drinking observed before, during, or at the end of treatment.

CONCLUSIONS

There was an overall reduction in drinking during treatment of OUD using both agonist and antagonist medications, so that the hypothesis that XR-NTX would be superior to BUP-NX was not supported. The study is limited by low levels of comorbid AUD or heavy drinking observed in X:BOT trial participants seeking treatment for OUD.

Psychosocial interventions to reduce alcohol consumption in concurrent problem alcohol and illicit drug users

BACKGROUND

Problem alcohol use is common among people who use illicit drugs (PWID) and is associated with adverse health outcomes. It is also an important factor contributing to a poor prognosis among drug users with hepatitis C virus (HCV) as it impacts on progression to hepatic cirrhosis or opioid overdose in PWID.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effectiveness of psychosocial interventions to reduce alcohol consumption in PWID (users of opioids and stimulants).

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Drugs and Alcohol Group trials register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, and PsycINFO, from inception up to August 2017, and the reference lists of eligible articles. We also searched: 1) conference proceedings (online archives only) of the Society for the Study of Addiction, International Harm Reduction Association, International Conference on Alcohol Harm Reduction and American Association for the Treatment of Opioid Dependence; and 2) online registers of clinical trials: Current Controlled Trials, ClinicalTrials.gov, Center Watch and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials comparing psychosocial interventions with other psychosocial treatment, or treatment as usual, in adult PWIDs (aged at least 18 years) with concurrent problem alcohol use.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used the standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane.

MAIN RESULTS

We included seven trials (825 participants). We judged the majority of the trials to have a high or unclear risk of bias.The psychosocial interventions considered in the studies were: cognitive-behavioural coping skills training (one study), twelve-step programme (one study), brief intervention (three studies), motivational interviewing (two studies), and brief motivational interviewing (one study). Two studies were considered in two comparisons. There were no data for the secondary outcome, alcohol-related harm. The results were as follows.Comparison 1: cognitive-behavioural coping skills training versus twelve-step programme (one study, 41 participants)There was no significant difference between groups for either of the primary outcomes (alcohol abstinence assessed with Substance Abuse Calendar and breathalyser at one year: risk ratio (RR) 2.38 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.10 to 55.06); and retention in treatment, measured at end of treatment: RR 0.89 (95% CI 0.62 to 1.29), or for any of the secondary outcomes reported. The quality of evidence for the primary outcomes was very low.Comparison 2: brief intervention versus treatment as usual (three studies, 197 participants)There was no significant difference between groups for either of the primary outcomes (alcohol use, measured as scores on the Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test (AUDIT) or Alcohol, Smoking and Substance Involvement Screening Test (ASSIST) at three months: standardised mean difference (SMD) 0.07 (95% CI -0.24 to 0.37); and retention in treatment, measured at three months: RR 0.94 (95% CI 0.78 to 1.13), or for any of the secondary outcomes reported. The quality of evidence for the primary outcomes was low.Comparison 3: motivational interviewing versus treatment as usual or educational intervention only (three studies, 462 participants)There was no significant difference between groups for either of the primary outcomes (alcohol use, measured as scores on the AUDIT or ASSIST at three months: SMD 0.04 (95% CI -0.29 to 0.37); and retention in treatment, measured at three months: RR 0.93 (95% CI 0.60 to 1.43), or for any of the secondary outcomes reported. The quality of evidence for the primary outcomes was low.Comparison 4: brief motivational intervention (BMI) versus assessment only (one study, 187 participants)More people reduced alcohol use (by seven or more days in the past month, measured at six months) in the BMI group than in the control group (RR 1.67; 95% CI 1.08 to 2.60). There was no difference between groups for the other primary outcome, retention in treatment, measured at end of treatment: RR 0.98 (95% CI 0.94 to 1.02), or for any of the secondary outcomes reported. The quality of evidence for the primary outcomes was moderate.Comparison 5: motivational interviewing (intensive) versus motivational interviewing (one study, 163 participants)There was no significant difference between groups for either of the primary outcomes (alcohol use, measured using the Addiction Severity Index-alcohol score (ASI) at two months: MD 0.03 (95% CI 0.02 to 0.08); and retention in treatment, measured at end of treatment: RR 17.63 (95% CI 1.03 to 300.48), or for any of the secondary outcomes reported. The quality of evidence for the primary outcomes was low.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We found low to very low-quality evidence to suggest that there is no difference in effectiveness between different types of psychosocial interventions to reduce alcohol consumption among people who use illicit drugs, and that brief interventions are not superior to assessment-only or to treatment as usual. No firm conclusions can be made because of the paucity of the data and the low quality of the retrieved studies.