Contingency management facilitates the use of postexposure prophylaxis among stimulant-using men who have sex with men

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 Integrated Harm Reduction Among Men Who Have Sex with Men Who Use Methamphetamine in Los Angeles: A Pilot Assessment

Methamphetamine (MA) use is associated with HIV transmission among men who have sex with men (MSM) and lapses in medication adherence. Contingency Management (CM) is effective in reducing MA use, but studies of CM to support adherence to HIV prevention or treatment are limited. We conducted a pilot trial of a CM intervention to reduce MA use and improve PrEP/ART adherence among MSM prescribed a tenofovir (TFV)-based regimen for HIV prevention or treatment. Participants were randomly assigned to receive escalating incentives for either MA abstinence or TFV adherence (based on point-of-care urine testing), and to a monitoring schedule of either 2 or 3 visits/week for 4 weeks. 19 MSM were randomized to either CM for MA use or CM for PrEP/ART adherence (median age: 38; IQR: 28-46) and 15 were living with HIV. Participants attended 95.7% (67/70) of scheduled visits in the 2x/week arm and 74.8% (74/99) in the 3x/week arm. TFV adherence was higher among participants in the TFV adherence arm with 93.5% (n = 72/77) of urine samples positive for TFV, compared to 76.6% (n = 49/64) in the MA abstinence arm (p = 0.007). Participants in the MA abstinence arm had more urine samples negative for MA metabolites (20.3%, n = 13/64) than those receiving CM for TFV adherence (6.5%, n = 5/77; p = 0.021). A CM model for MA abstinence and PrEP/ART adherence using twice-weekly visits and urine testing for MA and TFV for MSM who use MA is feasible and potentially effective as an integrated harm reduction strategy.

Antiretroviral Drugs for Treatment and Prevention of HIV Infection in Adults: 2022 Recommendations of the International Antiviral Society-USA Panel

Importance

Recent advances in treatment and prevention of HIV warrant updated recommendations to guide optimal practice.

Objective

Based on a critical evaluation of new data, to provide clinicians with recommendations on use of antiretroviral drugs for the treatment and prevention of HIV, laboratory monitoring, care of people aging with HIV, substance use disorder and HIV, and new challenges in people with HIV, including COVID-19 and monkeypox virus infection.

Evidence Review

A panel of volunteer expert physician scientists were appointed to update the 2020 consensus recommendations. Relevant evidence in the literature (PubMed and Embase searches, which initially yielded 7891 unique citations, of which 834 were considered relevant) and studies presented at peer-reviewed scientific conferences between January 2020 and October 2022 were considered.

Findings

Initiation of antiretroviral therapy (ART) is recommended as soon as possible after diagnosis of HIV. Barriers to care should be addressed, including ensuring access to ART and adherence support. Integrase strand transfer inhibitor-containing regimens remain the mainstay of initial therapy. For people who have achieved viral suppression with a daily oral regimen, long-acting injectable therapy with cabotegravir plus rilpivirine given as infrequently as every 2 months is now an option. Weight gain and metabolic complications have been linked to certain antiretroviral medications; novel strategies to ameliorate these complications are needed. Management of comorbidities throughout the life span is increasingly important, because people with HIV are living longer and confronting the health challenges of aging. In addition, management of substance use disorder in people with HIV requires an evidence-based, integrated approach. Options for preexposure prophylaxis include oral medications (tenofovir disoproxil fumarate or tenofovir alafenamide plus emtricitabine) and, for the first time, a long-acting injectable agent, cabotegravir. Recent global health emergencies, like the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic and monkeypox virus outbreak, continue to have a major effect on people with HIV and the delivery of services. To address these and other challenges, an equity-based approach is essential.

Conclusions and Relevance

Advances in treatment and prevention of HIV continue to improve outcomes, but challenges and opportunities remain.

Feasibility, Acceptability, and Preliminary Efficacy of a Gamified Mobile Health Contingency Management Intervention for PrEP Adherence Among Black MSM

Oral HIV pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) is effective at preventing HIV. However, low adherence is common and undermines these protective effects. This is particularly relevant for groups with disproportionately higher rates of HIV, including Black men who have sex with men (MSM). The current study tested the feasibility, acceptability, and preliminary efficacy of a gamified mobile health contingency management intervention for PrEP adherence-called mSMART (Mobile App-Based Personalized Solutions for Medication Adherence of Rx Pill Tool). Fifteen Black MSM already prescribed PrEP in the community completed baseline and follow-up assessments separated by 8 weeks of using mSMART. Regarding feasibility, there was no study attrition, no mSMART functional difficulties that significantly interfered with use, and a mean rate of 82% daily mSMART use. Acceptability ratings were in the moderately to extremely satisfied range for factors such as willingness to recommend mSMART to others and user-friendliness, and in the low range for ratings on difficulty learning how to use mSMART. Scores on a system usability measure were in the acceptable range for 73% of the sample. Qualitative analysis of follow-up interviews identified individual components of mSMART that could be modified in future iterations to make it more engaging. PrEP composite adherence scores from biomarkers indicated an improvement from baseline to follow-up with a medium effect size, as well as a decrease in the number of perceived barriers to medication adherence. Findings indicate a future efficacy trial is needed to examine the effects of this gamified mobile health contingency management intervention on PrEP adherence.

Running with Scissors: a Systematic Review of Substance Use and the Pre-exposure Prophylaxis Care Continuum Among Sexual Minority Men

Purpose of Review

Patterns of sexualized drug use, including stimulants (e.g., methamphetamine) and chemsex drugs, are key drivers of HIV incidence among sexual minority men (SMM). Although pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) mitigates HIV risk, there is no consensus regarding the associations of substance use with the PrEP care continuum.

Recent Findings

SMM who use substances are as likely or more likely to use PrEP. Although SMM who use stimulants experience greater difficulties with daily oral PrEP adherence, some evidence shows that SMM who use stimulants or chemsex drugs may achieve better adherence in the context of recent condomless anal sex. Finally, SMM who use substances may experience greater difficulties with PrEP persistence (including retention in PrEP care).

Summary

SMM who use stimulants and other substances would benefit from more comprehensive efforts to support PrEP re-uptake, adherence, and persistence, including delivering behavioral interventions, considering event-based dosing, and providing injectable PrEP.

A scoping review of alcohol, tobacco, and other drug use treatment interventions for sexual and gender minority populations

BACKGROUND

Alcohol, tobacco, and other drug use are among the most prevalent and important health disparities affecting sexual and gender minority (SGM; e.g., lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender) populations. Although numerous government agencies and health experts have called for substance use intervention studies to address these disparities, such studies continue to be relatively rare.

METHOD

We conducted a scoping review of prevention and drug treatment intervention studies for alcohol, tobacco, and other drug use that were conducted with SGM adults. We searched three databases to identify pertinent English-language, peer-reviewed articles published between 1985 and 2019.

RESULTS

Our search yielded 71 articles. The majority focused on sexual minority men and studied individual or group psychotherapies for alcohol, tobacco, or methamphetamine use.

CONCLUSION

Our findings highlight the need for intervention research focused on sexual minority women and gender minority individuals and on cannabis and opioid use. There is also a need for more research that evaluates dyadic, population-level, and medication interventions.

A Theory-Based mHealth Intervention (Getting Off) for Methamphetamine-Using Men Who Have Sex With Men: Protocol for a Randomized Controlled Trial

Background

Methamphetamine (meth) use among men who have sex with men (MSM) is associated with increased HIV prevalence and transmission and substandard advancement along the HIV prevention and care continuum. Given the growth of mobile health (mHealth) technologies, it is no longer necessary to limit meth treatment options to physical, brick-and-mortar sites, and administration using generic, nontailored content.

Objective

In a 2-arm randomized controlled trial (RCT; N=300), we aim to evaluate the use of an mHealth intervention (Getting Off) to assess the impact and noninferiority of a cross-platform app (developed from a manualized meth treatment intervention) to help MSM reduce meth use and HIV sexual risk behaviors and improve their advancement along the HIV prevention and care continuum (HIV testing, pre-exposure prophylaxis uptake and persistence, and antiretroviral therapy uptake and adherence).

Methods

Participants will be randomized into 2 arms: arm A, with immediate access to the app (immediate delivery: n=150), or arm B, with delayed access to the app after a 30-day period (delayed delivery: n=150). Participants in both arms will use the same Getting Off app and will have 30 days to complete the 24 sessions. Participants will be assessed at the 1-, 2- (delayed delivery arm only), 3-, 6-, and 9-month timepoints to determine observed treatment effects and will be compared with a historical matched sample of participants (n=~600) who received the brick-and-mortar group-based Getting Off intervention.

Results

Recruitment began in January 2019 for phase 1, the formative phase. In January and February 2019, 4 focus groups (N=36) were formed to provide input on the adaptation of the group-based manual intervention to a mobile app. Data collection for phase 2, the RCT, is expected to be completed in January 2023. The final results are anticipated in April 2023.

Conclusions

By creating a culturally responsive mobile app, Getting Off aims to reduce meth use and improve sexual health outcomes among meth-using MSM. The Getting Off app could have significant public health impact by greatly expanding access to effective, affordable, private, culturally competent, and highly scalable meth treatment for MSM.

Trial Registration

Clinicaltrials.gov NCT03884946; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03884946

International Registered Report Identifier (IRRID)

DERR1-10.2196/22572

Adaptation of contingency management for stimulant use disorder during the COVID-19 pandemic

The current coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic has rapidly spread across the world. Individuals with stimulant use disorder are a vulnerable population, who are particularly at risk of negative outcomes during this pandemic due to several risk factors, including mental and physical comorbidities, weakened immune responses, high-risk behaviors, and barriers to healthcare access. Engaging patients with stimulant use disorder in regular treatment has become even more difficult during this pandemic, which has resulted in many cuts to addiction treatment programs. The most effective treatment options for stimulant use disorder are psychosocial interventions, which rely heavily on in-person interactions, posing an added challenge during physical distancing. In particular, contingency management (CM) is a behavioral therapy that utilizes tangible reinforcements to incentivize targeted behavior changes, and is an effective treatment intervention used for stimulant use disorder. This paper highlights the treatment challenges for individuals with stimulant use disorder and the importance of adapting CM programs during COVID-19. We present strategies for how CM can be adapted and its role expanded in a safe way during the COVID-19 pandemic to help prevent infection spread, stimulant use relapse, and worsened psychosocial consequences.

•

Stimulant users face increased risk of relapse and infection during a pandemic.

•

Contingency management is an effective treatment for stimulant use disorder.

•

Contingency management can be adapted to mitigate negative outcomes of COVID-19.

A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Combination Behavioral Interventions Co-Targeting Psychosocial Syndemics and HIV-Related Health Behaviors for Sexual Minority Men

In the U.S., sexual minority men (SMM) are disproportionately affected by HIV. Interventions are needed to increase HIV prevention and treatment behaviors, especially among syndemically exposed SMM. In recent years, researchers have created and tested combination behavioral interventions co-targeting syndemics and HIV-related health behaviors. We evaluated that literature via systematic review and meta-analysis, identifying 44 trials targeting mental health symptoms, alcohol use, and drug use, as well as sexual risk behavior, antiretroviral adherence, and healthcare engagement. For the randomized controlled trials, we computed between-group, pre-post effect sizes and tested them via random-effects models. Results supported the efficacy of combined interventions with significant, small, positive effects for improving mental health and reducing substance use (d = .20, CIs: 0.12, .29), and reducing sexual risk behavior and improving antiretroviral adherence (d = .16, CIs: .03, .30). Stratification analyses indicate that longer (9+ sessions) and individual (vs. group) interventions resulted in stronger effects on syndemic but not health behavior outcomes. Intervention developers should attend to intervention intensity and format. More evidence is needed about the importance of additional factors, such as novel intervention targets and cultural tailoring, as well as broadening the focus to multi-level interventions to address both interpersonal and structural mechanisms of change.

Stimulant Use and Study Protocol Completion: Assessing the Ability of Men Who Have Sex with Men to Collect Dried Blood Spots for Laboratory Measurement of HIV Viral Load

Stimulant use is associated with higher HIV viral load (VL) and sexual HIV transmission risk among men who have sex with men (MSM) living with HIV. There is little research on willingness of drug users living with HIV to fully participate in studies, especially those involving self-collection of biomarker data. This study presents findings from an at-home dried blood spot collection study measuring laboratory-quantified VL among U.S. HIV-positive MSM who reported high-risk sexual behavior and/or suboptimal antiretroviral therapy (ART) adherence to assess the association between drug-use behavior and (1) ability to complete a study protocol and (2) VL outcomes. Among recruited participants (n = 766), 35% reported stimulant drug use (amphetamines, cocaine, crack, crystal meth, ecstasy, or a combination of stimulant drugs), 39% reported using other drugs (heroin, marijuana, prescription opioids, and others), and 27% reported no drug use in the past 3 months. In all, 61% of enrolled participants completed the study protocol. Stimulant drug users were less likely (ARR 0.84; 95% CI 0.72-0.98) to complete the protocol than other drug users. Furthermore, other drug users were significantly less likely than non-drug users (ARR 0.52; 95% CI 0.28-0.97) to have an HIV VL result ≥ 1500 copies/mL. This study provides important estimates regarding the likelihood of participation in biomedical research activities among HIV-positive MSM with varying drug-use behaviors, showing that it is feasible to conduct such biomedical studies with drug-using MSM who report high-risk sexual behavior and struggle with their ART adherence.

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.

Smartphone-Based Contingency Management Intervention to Improve Pre-Exposure Prophylaxis Adherence: Pilot Trial

Background

Pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) provides a strong preventative benefit to individuals at risk for HIV. While PrEP adherence is highly correlated with its efficacy, adherence rates are variable both across and within persons.

Objective

The objective of this study was to develop and pilot-test a smartphone-based intervention, known as mSMART, that targets PrEP adherence. mSMART provides contingency management in the form of monetary incentives for daily PrEP adherence based on a real-time adherence assessment using a camera-based medication event-monitoring tool as well as medication reminders, PrEP education, individualized behavioral strategies to address PrEP adherence barriers, and medication adherence feedback.

Methods

This was a 4-week open-label, phase I trial in a community sample of young men who have sex with men already on PrEP (N=10).

Results

Although adherence composite scores corresponding to PrEP biomarkers indicated that 90% (9/10) of the sample already had an acceptable baseline adherence in the protective range, by the end of the 4-week period, the scores improved for 30% (3/10) of the sample—adherence did not worsen for any participants. Participants reported mean PrEP adherence rates of 91% via daily entries in mSMART. At the end of the 4-week period, participants indicated acceptable ratings of satisfaction, usability, and willingness to recommend mSMART to others. There were no technical difficulties associated with smartphone compatibility, user misunderstandings about mSMART features that interfered with daily use, or study attrition.

Conclusions

This study is the first to apply contingency management to PrEP adherence. Findings indicated that mSMART is feasible and acceptable. Such an adherence intervention administered via a user-friendly smartphone app can allow for widespread dissemination. Future efficacy trials are needed.

Trial Registration

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02895893; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02895893 (Accessed by Webcite at http://www.webcitation.org/72JskjDJq)

Sexualised drug taking among men who have sex with men: a systematic review

AIMS:

Sexualised drug taking is increasingly reported on national and international levels. We aim to review existing evidence of the relationship between recreational drug use (RDU) and sexual intercourse among men who have sex with men (MSM).

METHODS:

We reviewed published abstracts and full articles identified from Cochrane, MEDLINE and Embase databases from November 2010 to 2017. We included any existing studies investigating RDU in MSM and at least one of the following: high-risk sexual practices, sexually transmitted infections (STIs) or barriers to accessing specialist support.

RESULTS:

In total, 112 studies were included. Of them, 38 studies specifically reported the prevalence of chemsex-related drug use. Links with sexualised drug taking and high-risk sexual practices including condomless sex and group sex were reported by several studies. Recreational drug use in the sexual setting appears linked to the acquisition of STIs, including hepatitis C, syphilis and gonorrhoea. Reports of adverse mental health outcomes are increasingly described, with several studies documenting chemsex-related inpatient admission. A paucity of research addressing barriers to those accessing specialist drug support services was identified.

CONCLUSION:

This review demonstrates the complex interplay between recreational drug use, high-risk sexual practices and STIs. It identifies the description of adverse mental health outcomes in the chemsex setting, thus highlighting the need for a multidisciplinary approach across specialties in the management of those adversely affected. Finally, it illuminates the need for future research into perceived barriers of those who require access to support services to ensure timely and comprehensive support provision.

Buspirone maintenance does not alter the reinforcing, subjective, and cardiovascular effects of intranasal methamphetamine

BACKGROUND

Medications development efforts for methamphetamine-use disorder have targeted central monoamines because these systems are directly involved in the effects of methamphetamine. Buspirone is a dopamine autoreceptor and D3 receptor antagonist and partial agonist at serotonin 1A receptors, making it a logical candidate medication for methamphetamine-use disorder. Buspirone effects on abuse-related behaviors of methamphetamine have been mixed in clinical and preclinical studies. Experimental research using maintenance dosing, which models therapeutic use, is limited. This study evaluated the influence of buspirone maintenance on the reinforcing effects of methamphetamine using a self-administration procedure, which has predictive validity for clinical efficacy. The impact of buspirone maintenance on the subjective and cardiovascular response to methamphetamine was also determined.

METHODS

Eight research participants (1 female) reporting recent illicit stimulant use completed a placebo-controlled, crossover, double-blind protocol in which the pharmacodynamic effects of intranasal methamphetamine (0, 15, and 30mg) were assessed after at least 6days of buspirone (0 and 45mg/day) maintenance.

RESULTS

Intranasal methamphetamine functioned as a reinforcer and produced prototypical stimulant-like subjective (e.g., increased ratings of Good Effects and Like Drug) and cardiovascular (e.g., elevated blood pressure) effects. These effects of methamphetamine were similar under buspirone and placebo maintenance conditions. Maintenance on buspirone was well tolerated and devoid of effects when administered alone.

CONCLUSIONS

These data suggest that buspirone is unlikely to be an effective pharmacotherapy for methamphetamine-use disorder. Given the central role of monoamines in methamphetamine-use disorder, it is reasonable for future studies to continue to target these systems.

Contingent Vs. Non-Contingent Rewards: Time-Based Intervention Response Patterns Among Stimulant-Using Men Who Have Sex With Men

Stimulant use rates are higher among men who have sex with men (MSM) than the general population. Contingency management (CM) may be an effective intervention for reducing stimulant use in this population. To specify both the mechanism and temporal effects of contingent reward on behavior change, logistic growth trajectory modeling (LGTM) was used to contrast a non-contingent matched rewards condition (i.e., non-contingent yoked controls; NCYC) to a voucher-based CM intervention (maximum=$430) to reduce stimulant use among MSM. Stimulant-using MSM were randomized to either a CM intervention (n=70) or a NCYC condition (n=70). Results from a LGTM (analytical sample n=119; nCM=61; nNCYC=58) indicated four distinct intervention response patterns: responders (i.e., predicted >90% stimulant metabolite-free urinalyses; 64.7% of sample); worsening intervention response (14.3%); non-responders (12.6%); and, single-positive (8.4%); all estimated trajectory coefficients were significant at p<0.03 (2-tailed). Participants receiving CM were significantly overrepresented in the responder (64%) and single-positive (80%) categories (χ2(3)=29.04; p<0.001); all non-responders and 76.5% of the worsening intervention response category were in the NCYC condition. Results demonstrate the utility of trajectory modeling and further support the contingent application of reward as the operative mechanism associated with patterns of stimulant abstinence with CM applied to a sample of stimulant-using MSM outside the context of formal drug treatment.

Outcomes from a Homegrown HIV Prevention Program for Extremely High-risk, Substance-using Men who have Sex with Men with Multiple Health Disparities

From February 2010 through December 2014, 585 substance-using MSM were enrolled into a "homegrown" risk reduction intervention. Participants evidenced significant iterative factor reductions in the odds of substance use including alcohol (AOR=0.79) and marijuana (AOR=0.78; both p≤0.05) and marginally significant reductions in the odds of methamphetamine use (AOR=0.83; p≤0.07). Participants also evidenced significant reductions in sexual risks including the odds of reporting drug/alcohol use before or during sex (AOR=0.80) and of condomless anal intercourse (AOR=0.72; all significant at p≤0.05). Results demonstrate that the homegrown intervention was effective at reducing HIV risk behaviors among high-risk MSM.

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.