A randomized, controlled, pilot trial of methylphenidate and cognitive-behavioral group therapy for cocaine dependence in heroin prescription

Methylphenidate as a treatment option for substance use disorder: a transdiagnostic perspective

A transition in viewing mental disorders from conditions defined as a set of unique characteristics to one of the quantitative variations on a collection of dimensions allows overlap between disorders. The overlap can be utilized to extend to treatment approaches. Here, we consider the overlap between attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder and substance use disorder to probe the suitability to use methylphenidate as a treatment for substance use disorder. Both disorders are characterized by maladaptive goal-directed behavior, impaired cognitive control, hyperactive phasic dopaminergic neurotransmission in the striatum, prefrontal hypoactivation, and reduced frontal cortex gray matter volume/density. In addition, methylphenidate has been shown to improve cognitive control and normalize associated brain activation in substance use disorder patients and clinical trials have found methylphenidate to improve clinical outcomes. Despite the theoretical basis and promising, but preliminary, outcomes, many questions remain unanswered. Most prominent is whether all patients who are addicted to different substances may equally profit from methylphenidate treatment.

Concomitant Drug Use among Opioid-Dependent Patients with and without Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder: Does Methylphenidate Merit a Trial?

INTRODUCTION

Concomitant drug use is common among opioid-dependent patients in maintenance therapy. Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), a common comorbidity among opioid users, is associated with a higher risk of concomitant drug use. Earlier studies showed that methylphenidate (MPH) can reduce cocaine consumption among patients with ADHD. The use of MPH as an agonist-replacement or maintenance therapy in cocaine-dependent patients without ADHD is also common in Switzerland, despite a lack of supporting evidence. The aim of this study was to assess concomitant cocaine, amphetamine, MDMA, MPH, and heroin use among patients in opioid maintenance therapy either with or without comorbid ADHD. We expected stimulant consumption to be higher in patients with cocaine dependence and comorbid ADHD and that use of MPH would not lead to a reduction in cocaine consumption in patients without ADHD. We therefore evaluated correlations between use of MPH and cocaine consumption and between MPH consumption and cocaine craving within the two groups.

METHODS

This cross-sectional study included 94 opioid-dependent patients in maintenance therapy in an outpatient department of the Psychiatric Hospital of Zurich. The patients were divided into two groups based on comorbid ADHD; a group with ADHD (N = 27) and a group without ADHD (N = 67). Drug use was assessed using 3-month hair analysis.

RESULTS

We did not find significant differences in the number of patients using cocaine, amphetamine, MDMA, or heroin between groups with or without ADHD. With respect to cocaine use, 85.2 percent of patients in the ADHD group and 73.1 percent in the non-ADHD group were users. The non-ADHD group showed a significant positive correlation between the concentration of MPH and cocaine in hair samples (p < 0.05), and a positive correlation between cocaine craving and the concentration of MPH in hair samples (p = 0.065). These two trends were not evident in the ADHD group.

CONCLUSION

Among patients without ADHD, use of MPH correlates with higher cocaine consumption and craving. Conversely, no significant correlation was found between MPH and cocaine use in patients with ADHD. Our study adds to the evidence that MPH confers negative effects in cocaine users without ADHD and should thus have no place in the treatment of these patients.

Pharmacotherapy treatment of stimulant use disorder

Stimulant use disorder (SUD) is a public health problem in the United States that is associated with increased morbidity and mortality. Psychosocial interventions, such as cognitive behavioral therapy and contingency management, are the main treatment modality for SUDs and no pharmacotherapy is currently FDA approved for this indication. Although some medications show promising data for the treatment of SUD, the evidence remains inconsistent, and the clinical application is limited due to the heterogenicity of the population and the lack of studies in patients with various comorbidities. Selection of pharmacotherapy treatment for methamphetamine intoxication, persistent methamphetamine-associated psychosis with methamphetamine use disorder, and cocaine use disorder in patients with co-occurring OUD are discussed in 3 patient cases.

Comparison of Treatments for Cocaine Use Disorder Among Adults: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

IMPORTANCE

In the US and the United Kingdom, cocaine use is the second leading cause of illicit drug overdose death. Psychosocial treatments for cocaine use disorder are limited, and no pharmacotherapy is approved for use in the US or Europe.

OBJECTIVE

To compare treatments for active cocaine use among adults.

DATA SOURCES

PubMed and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews were searched for clinical trials published between December 31, 1995, and December 31, 2017.

STUDY SELECTION

This meta-analysis was registered on Covidence.org (study 8731) on December 31, 2015. Clinical trials were included if they (1) had the term cocaine in the article title; (2) were published between December 31, 1995, and December 31, 2017; (3) were written in English; (4) enrolled outpatients 18 years or older with active cocaine use at baseline; and (5) reported treatment group size, treatment duration, retention rates, and urinalysis results for the presence of cocaine metabolites. A study was excluded if (1) more than 25% of participants were not active cocaine users or more than 80% of participants had negative test results for the presence of cocaine metabolites at baseline and (2) it reported only pooled urinalysis results indicating the presence of multiple substances and did not report the specific proportion of positive test results for cocaine metabolites. Multiple reviewers reached criteria consensus. Of 831 records screened, 157 studies (18.9%) met selection criteria and were included in the analysis.

DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS

This study followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) guideline. Search results were imported from PubMed XML into Covidence.org then Microsoft Excel. Data extraction was completed in 2 iterations to ensure fidelity. Analyses included a multilevel random-effects model, a multilevel mixed-effects meta-regression model, and sensitivity analyses. Treatments were clustered into 11 categories (psychotherapy, contingency management programs, placebo, opioids, psychostimulants, anticonvulsants, dopamine agonists, antidepressants, antipsychotics, miscellaneous medications, and other therapies). Missing data were imputed using multiple imputation by chained equations. The significance threshold for all analyses was P = .05. Data were analyzed using the metafor and mice packages in R software, version 3.3.2 (R Foundation for Statistical Computing). Data were analyzed from January 1, 2018, to February 28, 2021.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

The primary outcome was the intention-to-treat logarithm of the odds ratio (OR) of having a negative urinalysis result for the presence of cocaine metabolites at the end of each treatment period compared with baseline. The hypothesis, which was formulated after data collection, was that no treatment category would have a significant association with objective reductions in cocaine use.

RESULTS

A total of 157 studies comprising 402 treatment groups and 15 842 participants were included. Excluding other therapies, the largest treatment groups across all studies were psychotherapy (mean [SD] number of participants, 40.04 [36.88]) and contingency management programs (mean [SD] number of participants, 37.51 [25.51]). Only contingency management programs were significantly associated with an increased likelihood of having a negative test result for the presence of cocaine (OR, 2.13; 95% CI, 1.62-2.80), and this association remained significant in all sensitivity analyses.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

In this meta-analysis, contingency management programs were associated with reductions in cocaine use among adults. Research efforts and policies that align with this treatment modality may benefit those who actively use cocaine and attenuate societal burdens.

A systematic review and meta-analysis of medications for stimulant use disorders in patients with co-occurring opioid use disorders

BACKGROUND

Stimulant (cocaine and/or methamphetamine) use has increased among people with opioid use disorder. We conducted a systematic review of medications for stimulant use disorders in this population.

METHODS

We searched for randomized controlled trials in multiple databases through April 2019, and dual-screened studies using pre-specified inclusion criteria. Primary outcomes were abstinence defined as stimulant-negative urine screens for ≥3 consecutive weeks; overall use as the proportion of stimulant-negative urine specimens; and retention as the proportion of participants who completed treatment. We rated strength of evidence using established criteria and conducted meta-analyses of comparable interventions and outcomes.

RESULTS

Thirty-four trials of 22 medications focused on cocaine use disorder in patients with opioid use disorder. Most studies enrolled participants stabilized on opioid maintenence therapy, generally methadone. None of the six studies that assessed abstinence found significant differences between groups. We found moderate-strength evidence that antidepressants (desipramine, bupropion, and fluoxetine) worsened retention. There was moderate-strength evidence that disulfiram worsened treatment retention (N = 605, RR 0.86, 95 % CI 0.77 to 0.95). We found low-strength evidence that psychostimulants (mazindol and dexamphetamine) may reduce cocaine use, though the difference was not statistically significant (standard mean difference 0.35 [95 % CI -0.05 to 0.74]). There was only 1 trial for methamphetamine use disorder, which showed insufficient-strength evidence for naltrexone.

CONCLUSIONS

Co-occurring stimulant/opioid use disorder is an important problem for targeting future research. Medication trials for methamphetamine use disorder are lacking in this population. Most of the medications studied for cocaine use were ineffective, although psychostimulants warrant further study.

Prescription psychostimulants for the treatment of stimulant use disorder: a systematic review and meta-analysis

RATIONALE

Agonist-based pharmacologic intervention is an accepted approach in treatment of opioid and tobacco use disorders.

OBJECTIVES

We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate usefulness of an agonist approach as treatment of (psycho)stimulant use disorder (PSUD).

METHODS

We reviewed PubMed/Medline, LILACS, and ClinicalTrials.gov databases searching for randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-design studies evaluating outcomes of individuals treated for cocaine- or amphetamine-type substance use disorder. We combined results of all trials that included the following prescription psychostimulants (PPs): modafinil, methylphenidate, or amphetamines (mixed amphetamine salts, lisdexamphetamine, and dextroamphetamine). The combined sample consisted of 2889 patients. Outcomes of interest included the following: drug abstinence (defined as 2-3 weeks of sustained abstinence and the average maximum days of consecutive abstinence), percentage of drug-negative urine tests across trial, and retention in treatment. We conducted random-effects meta-analyses and assessed quality of evidence using the GRADE system.

RESULTS

Thirty-eight trials were included. Treatment with PPs increases rates of sustained abstinence [risk ratio (RR) = 1.45, 95% confidence interval (CI) = (1.10, 1.92)] and duration of abstinence [mean difference (MD) = 3.34, 95% CI = (1.06, 5.62)] in patients with PSUD, particularly those with cocaine use disorder (very low-quality evidence). Prescription amphetamines were particularly efficacious in promoting sustained abstinence in patients with cocaine use disorder [RR = 2.44, 95% CI = (1.66, 3.58)], and higher doses of PPs were particularly efficacious for treatment of cocaine use disorder [RR = 1.95, 95% CI = (1.38, 2.77)] (moderate-quality evidence). Treatment with prescription amphetamines also yielded more cocaine-negative urines [MD = 8.37%, 95% CI = (3.75, 12.98)]. There was no effect of PPs on the retention in treatment.

CONCLUSION

Prescription psychostimulants, particularly prescription amphetamines given in robust doses, have a clinically significant beneficial effect to promote abstinence in the treatment of individuals with PSUD, specifically the population with cocaine use disorder.

Combined Pharmacotherapy and Cognitive Behavioral Therapy for Adults With Alcohol or Substance Use Disorders: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

IMPORTANCE

Substance use disorders (SUDs) represent a pressing public health concern. Combined behavioral and pharmacological interventions are considered best practices for addiction. Cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) is a first-line intervention, yet the superiority of CBT compared with other behavioral treatments when combined with pharmacotherapy remains unclear. An understanding of the effects of combined CBT and pharmacotherapy will inform best-practice guidelines for treatment of SUD.

OBJECTIVE

To conduct a meta-analysis of the published literature on combined CBT and pharmacotherapy for adult alcohol use disorder (AUD) or other SUDs.

DATA SOURCES

PubMed, Cochrane Register, MEDLINE, PsychINFO, and Embase databases from January 1, 1990, through July 31, 2019, were searched. Keywords were specified in 3 categories: treatment type, outcome type, and study design. Collected data were analyzed through September 30, 2019.

STUDY SELECTION

Two independent raters reviewed abstracts and full-text articles. English language articles describing randomized clinical trials examining CBT in combination with pharmacotherapy for AUD and SUD were included.

DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS

Inverse-variance weighted, random-effects estimates of effect size were pooled into 3 clinically informative subgroups: (1) CBT plus pharmacotherapy compared with usual care plus pharmacotherapy, (2) CBT plus pharmacotherapy compared with another specific therapy plus pharmacotherapy, and (3) CBT added to usual care and pharmacotherapy compared with usual care and pharmacotherapy alone. Sensitivity analyses included assessment of study quality, pooled effect size heterogeneity, publication bias, and primary substance moderator effects.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

Substance use frequency and quantity outcomes after treatment and during follow-up were examined.

RESULTS

The sample included 62 effect sizes from 30 unique randomized clinical trials that examined CBT in combination with some form of pharmacotherapy for AUD and SUD. The primary substances targeted in the clinical trial sample were alcohol (15 [50%]), followed by cocaine (7 [23%]) and opioids (6 [20%]). The mean (SD) age of the patient sample was 39 (6) years, with a mean (SD) of 28% (12%) female participants per study. The following pharmacotherapies were used: naltrexone hydrochloride and/or acamprosate calcium (26 of 62 effect sizes [42%]), methadone hydrochloride or combined buprenorphine hydrochloride and naltrexone (11 of 62 [18%]), disulfiram (5 of 62 [8%]), and another pharmacotherapy or mixture of pharmacotherapies (20 of 62 [32%]). Random-effects pooled estimates showed a benefit associated with combined CBT and pharmacotherapy over usual care (g range, 0.18-0.28; k = 9). However, CBT did not perform better than another specific therapy, and evidence for the addition of CBT as an add-on to combined usual care and pharmacotherapy was mixed. Moderator analysis showed variability in effect direction and magnitude by primary drug target.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

The present study supports the efficacy of combined CBT and pharmacotherapy compared with usual care and pharmacotherapy. Cognitive behavioral therapy did not perform better than another evidence-based modality (eg, motivational enhancement therapy, contingency management) in this context or as an add-on to combined usual care and pharmacotherapy. These findings suggest that best practices in addiction treatment should include pharmacotherapy plus CBT or another evidence-based therapy, rather than usual clinical management or nonspecific counseling services.

Stimulant safe supply: a potential opportunity to respond to the overdose epidemic

Background

Occurring against the backdrop of an overdose crisis, stimulant use and stimulant-involved deaths in North America are increasing at an alarming rate. Many of these deaths are being attributed to fentanyl and related analogs, which have been increasingly found within street-level stimulant supplies. Within this, people experiencing socio-economic marginalization are at the greatest risk of overdose and other harms from adulterated stimulants. Current treatments for stimulant use disorder have limited effectiveness, and even less applicability to the lived realities of marginalized stimulant users. Emerging technologies, such as drug checking, are being implemented to support safer stimulant use, but the accessibility and utility of these technologies to stimulant users are framed by experiences of vulnerability that render them largely ineffective.

Stimulant safe supply

Solutions that provide a legal and safe supply of non-adulterated stimulants of known quality, and within a health care framework, are needed to directly address the risk of an increasingly adulterated stimulant supply. Similar innovative opioid-focused interventions are being piloted with medications that have a similar pharmacological effect as their illicit counterparts. While there are currently no approved pharmacotherapies for stimulant use, research has demonstrated a number of stimulant medications that are promising substitutes for cocaine and methamphetamine use. Much like with opioid-focused pharmacotherapies, having a consistent and safe supply of stimulants can lead to improved health outcomes and will drastically reduce overdose risk. However, for a stimulant safe supply intervention to be a success, it must provide the high and performance-enhancing effects that people seek from the illicit market, which requires doses and user agency that trials to date have not provided.

Conclusion

Efforts are needed to investigate the feasibility of pharmacological stimulant-based interventions that address safe supply needs. The promise of similar opioid-focused approaches in addressing both overdose-related risks and experiences related to vulnerability underscores the need to advance safe supply approaches targeted towards people who use stimulants. Given the current overdose crisis and rising stimulant use across North America, the implementation and evaluation of such novel stimulant-focused interventions should be a public health priority.

Pharmacotherapeutic strategies for the treatment of attention-deficit hyperactivity (ADHD) disorder with comorbid substance-use disorder (SUD)

INTRODUCTION

Substance use disorder (SUD) is very common amongst patients with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). The two disorders share partially overlapping features and SUD in ADHD is characterized by an early age of onset, high likelihood of poly-substance use, increased risk of suicide attempts, more hospitalizations, and scarce treatment adherence.

AREAS COVERED

This paper reviews randomized active comparator-controlled or placebo-controlled trials evaluating the use of pharmacotherapy in patients with ADHD and SUD. The authors include open label and observational studies.

EXPERT OPINION

Stimulant and non-stimulant treatments should be used to aid ADHD symptomatology in patients with SUD. SUD seems to be less responsive, suggesting a relative independence of the two conditions. For this reason, the association of ADHD-specific drugs and SUD-treatments should be recommended in a large proportion of patients suffering from both disorders. The rate and the quality of ADHD response to specific pharmacological treatments is highly variable, depending on the dose and the duration of the treatment, the age of the patient, and the severity and the chronicity of addiction. Further research is necessary to explore the divergences in treatment response of different ADHD subtypes in different subtypes of SUD.

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.

Environmental, genetic and epigenetic contributions to cocaine addiction

Decades of research on cocaine has produced volumes of data that have answered many important questions about the nature of this highly addictive drug. Sadly, none of this information has translated into the development of effective therapies for the treatment of cocaine addiction. This review endeavors to assess the current state of cocaine research in an attempt to identify novel pathways for therapeutic development. For example, risk of cocaine addiction is highly heritable but genome-wide analyses comparing cocaine-dependent individuals to controls have not resulted in promising targets for drug development. Is this because the genetics of addiction is too complex or because the existing research methodologies are inadequate? Likewise, animal studies have revealed dozens of enduring changes in gene expression following prolonged exposure to cocaine, none of which have translated into therapeutics either because the resulting compounds were ineffective or produced intolerable side-effects. Recently, attention has focused on epigenetic modifications resulting from repeated cocaine intake, some of which appear to be heritable through changes in the germline. While epigenetic changes represent new vistas for therapeutic development, selective manipulation of epigenetic marks is currently challenging even in animals such that translational potential is a distant prospect. This review will reveal that despite the enormous progress made in understanding the molecular and physiological bases of cocaine addiction, there is much that remains a mystery. Continued advances in genetics and molecular biology hold potential for revealing multiple pathways toward the development of treatments for the continuing scourge of cocaine addiction.

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.

Psychostimulant drugs for cocaine dependence

BACKGROUND

Cocaine dependence is a severe disorder for which no medication has been approved. Like opioids for heroin dependence, replacement therapy with psychostimulants could be an effective therapy for treatment.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of psychostimulants for cocaine abuse and dependence. Specific outcomes include sustained cocaine abstinence and retention in treatment. We also studied the influence of type of drug and comorbid disorders on psychostimulant efficacy.

SEARCH METHODS

This is an update of the review previously published in 2010. For this updated review, we searched the Cochrane Drugs and Alcohol Group Trials Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase and PsycINFO up to 15 February 2016. We handsearched references of obtained articles and consulted experts in the field.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised parallel group controlled clinical trials comparing the efficacy of a psychostimulant drug versus placebo.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 26 studies involving 2366 participants. The included studies assessed nine drugs: bupropion, dexamphetamine, lisdexamfetamine, methylphenidate, modafinil, mazindol, methamphetamine, mixed amphetamine salts and selegiline. We did not consider any study to be at low risk of bias for all domains included in the Cochrane 'Risk of bias' tool. Attrition bias was the most frequently suspected potential source of bias of the included studies. We found very low quality evidence that psychostimulants improved sustained cocaine abstinence (risk ratio (RR) 1.36, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.05 to 1.77, P = 0.02), but they did not reduce cocaine use (standardised mean difference (SMD) 0.16, 95% CI -0.02 to 0.33) among participants who continued to use it. Furthermore, we found moderate quality evidence that psychostimulants did not improve retention in treatment (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.93 to 1.06). The proportion of adverse event-induced dropouts and cardiovascular adverse event-induced dropouts was similar for psychostimulants and placebo (RD 0.00, 95% CI -0.01 to 0.01; RD 0.00, 95% CI -0.02 to 0.01, respectively). When we included the type of drug as a moderating variable, the proportion of patients achieving sustained cocaine abstinence was higher with bupropion and dexamphetamine than with placebo. Psychostimulants also appeared to increase the proportion of patients achieving sustained cocaine and heroin abstinence amongst methadone-maintained, dual heroin-cocaine addicts. Retention to treatment was low, though, so our results may be compromised by attrition bias. We found no evidence of publication bias.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

This review found mixed results. Psychostimulants improved cocaine abstinence compared to placebo in some analyses but did not improve treatment retention. Since treatment dropout was high, we cannot rule out the possibility that these results were influenced by attrition bias. Existing evidence does not clearly demonstrate the efficacy of any pharmacological treatment for cocaine dependence, but substitution treatment with psychostimulants appears promising and deserves further investigation.

Efficacy of cocaine contingency management in heroin-assisted treatment: Results of a randomized controlled trial

AIMS

To determine the efficacy of contingency management (CM), targeting cocaine use, as an add-on intervention for heroin dependent patients in supervised heroin-assisted treatment (HAT) with frequent cocaine use.

DESIGN

Multi-center, open-label, parallel group, randomized controlled trial.

SETTING

Twelve specialized addiction treatment centers for HAT in The Netherlands; April 2006-January 2011.

PARTICIPANTS

214 chronic, treatment-refractory heroin dependent patients in HAT, with frequent cocaine use.

INTERVENTIONS

Routine, daily supervised diacetylmorphine treatment, co-prescribed with oral methadone (HAT), with and without 6 months contingency management for cocaine use as an add-on intervention; HAT+CM and HAT-only, respectively.

MEASUREMENTS

Primary outcome was the longest, uninterrupted duration of cocaine abstinence, based upon laboratory urinalysis. Secondary outcome measures included other cocaine-related measures, treatment retention in HAT, and multi-domain health-related treatment response.

FINDINGS

In an intention-to-treat analysis, HAT+CM was more effective than HAT-only in promoting longer, uninterrupted duration of cocaine abstinence (3.7 weeks versus 1.6 weeks; negative binomial regression: Exp(B)=2.34, 95%-CI: 1.70-3.23; p<0.001). This result remained significant in sensitivity analyses and was supported by all secondary, cocaine-related outcome measures. Treatment retention in HAT was high (91.6%) with no difference between the groups. The improvement in multi-domain health-related treatment response during the trial was numerically higher in HAT+CM (from 37.4% to 53.1%; +15.7%) than in HAT-only (from 44.5% to 46.5%; +2.0%), but this difference was statistically not significant.

CONCLUSIONS

Contingency management is an effective add-on intervention to promote longer, uninterrupted periods of cocaine abstinence in chronic, treatment-refractory heroin dependent patients in heroin-assisted treatment with frequent cocaine use. The trial has been registered in The Netherlands National Trial Register under clinical trial registration number NTR4728.

Sustained-release dexamfetamine in the treatment of chronic cocaine-dependent patients on heroin-assisted treatment: a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Heroin-assisted treatment is effective for methadone treatment-refractory heroin-dependent patients, but continued comorbid cocaine dependence remains problematic. Sustained-release dexamfetamine is a promising agonist pharmacotherapy for cocaine dependence and we aimed to assess its acceptance, efficacy, and safety.

METHODS

In this multicentre, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial, patients who were treatment-refractory, as indicated by at least two earlier failed treatments aimed at reducing or abstaining from cocaine use, and who regularly (≥8 days/month) used crack-cocaine were enrolled from four heroin-assisted treatment centres in the Netherlands. Eligible patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive either 12 weeks of daily, supervised prescription of 60 mg/day oral sustained-release dexamfetamine or placebo in addition to co-prescribed methadone and diacetylmorphine. Randomisation was done by the collaborating pharmacist, using a computer-generated random number sequence with stratification by treatment centre in blocks of four per stratum. Randomisation was masked to patients, staff, and researchers throughout the study. The primary outcome was the number of self-reported days of cocaine use during study treatment, assessed every 4 weeks. Primary and safety analyses were done in the intention-to-treat population. The study was registered with the European Union Drug Regulating Authorities Clinical Trials (EUdraCT 2013-004024-11) and with The Netherlands Trial Register (NTR2576).

FINDINGS

Between Aug 8, 2014, and Feb 27, 2015, 111 patients were assessed for eligibility, of whom 73 were enrolled and randomised; 38 patients were assigned to the sustained-release dexamfetamine group and 35 to the placebo group. Sustained-release dexamfetamine treatment resulted in significantly fewer days of cocaine use than placebo treatment (mean 44·9 days [SD 29·4] vs 60·6 days [24·3], respectively [95% CI of difference 3·1-28·4]; p=0·031; Cohen's standardised effect size d=0·58). One or more adverse events were reported by 28 (74%) patients in the dexamfetamine group and by 16 (46%) patients in the placebo group. Most adverse events were transient and well-tolerated.

INTERPRETATION

Sustained-release dexamfetamine is a well accepted, effective, and safe agonist pharmacotherapy for comorbid treatment-refractory cocaine dependence in heroin-dependent patients in heroin-assisted treatment. Future research should aim to replicate these findings in chronic cocaine-dependent and other stimulant-dependent patients in more routine treatment settings, including strategies to optimise treatment adherence like medication management interventions and contingency management.

FUNDING

Netherlands Organisation for Health Research and Development.

Novel interventions to prevent HIV and HCV among persons who inject drugs

Persons who inject drugs (PWID) are at high risk for infection with and poor outcomes from HIV and hepatitis C virus (HCV). Well-established interventions for HIV/HCV prevention among PWID include syringe access, opioid agonist maintenance treatment, and supervised injection facilities, yet these interventions remain unavailable or inadequately resourced in much of the world. We review recent literature on biomedical and behavioral interventions to reduce the burden of HIV/HCV among PWID, with an emphasis on randomized controlled trials and quasi-experimental studies. Since 2013, there have been significant advancements in utilizing antiviral therapy and behavioral interventions for prevention among PWID, including approaches that address the unique needs of couples and sex workers. In addition, there have been significant developments in pharmacotherapies for substance use and the implementation of naloxone for opioid overdose prevention. Notwithstanding multiple ongoing structural challenges in delivering HIV/HCV prevention interventions to PWID, these emerging and rigorously evaluated interventions expand possibilities for prevention among PWID.

Clinical potential of methylphenidate in the treatment of cocaine addiction: a review of the current evidence

Background

Cocaine use continues to be a public health problem, yet there is no proven effective pharmacotherapy for cocaine dependence. A promising approach to treating cocaine dependence may be agonist-replacement therapy, which is already used effectively in the treatment of opioid and tobacco dependence. The replacement approach for cocaine dependence posits that administration of a long-acting stimulant medication should normalize the neurochemical and behavioral perturbations resulting from chronic cocaine use. One potential medication to be substituted for cocaine is methylphenidate (MPH), as this stimulant possesses pharmacobehavioral properties similar to those of cocaine.

Aim

To provide a qualitative review addressing the rationale for the use of MPH as a cocaine substitute and its clinical potential in the treatment of cocaine dependence.

Methods

We searched MEDLINE for clinical studies using MPH in patients with cocaine abuse/dependence and screened the bibliographies of the articles found for pertinent literature.

Results

MPH, like cocaine, increases synaptic dopamine by inhibiting dopamine reuptake. The discriminative properties, reinforcing potential, and subjective effects of MPH and cocaine are almost identical and, importantly, MPH has been found to substitute for cocaine in animals and human volunteers under laboratory conditions. When taken orally in therapeutic doses, its abuse liability, however, appears low, which is especially true for extended-release MPH preparations. Though there are promising data in the literature, mainly from case reports and open-label studies, the results of randomized controlled trials have been disappointing so far and do not corroborate the use of MPH as a substitute for cocaine dependence in patients without attention deficit hyperactivity disorder.

Conclusion

Clinical studies evaluating MPH substitution for cocaine dependence have provided inconsistent findings. However, the negative findings may be explained by specific study characteristics, among them dosing, duration of treatment, or sample size. This needs to be considered when discussing the potential of MPH as replacement therapy for cocaine dependence. Finally, based on the results, we suggest possible directions for future research.

Use of Preclinical Drug vs. Food Choice Procedures to Evaluate Candidate Medications for Cocaine Addiction

Drug addiction is a disease that manifests as an inappropriate allocation of behavior towards the procurement and use of the abused substance and away from other behaviors that produce more adaptive reinforcers (e.g. exercise, work, family and social relationships). The goal of treating drug addiction is not only to decrease drug-maintained behaviors, but also to promote a reallocation of behavior towards alternative, nondrug reinforcers. Experimental procedures that offer concurrent access to both a drug reinforcer and an alternative, nondrug reinforcer provide a research tool for assessment of medication effects on drug choice and behavioral allocation. Choice procedures are currently the standard in human laboratory research on medications development. Preclinical choice procedures have been utilized in biomedical research since the early 1940's, and during the last 10-15 years, their use for evaluation of medications to treat drug addiction has increased. We propose here that parallel use of choice procedures in preclinical and clinical studies will facilitate translational research on development of medications to treat cocaine addiction. In support of this proposition, a review of the literature suggests strong concordance between preclinical effectiveness of candidate medications to modify cocaine choice in nonhuman primates and rodents and clinical effectiveness of these medications to modify either cocaine choice in human laboratory studies or metrics of cocaine abuse in patients with cocaine use disorder. The strongest evidence for medication effectiveness in preclinical choice studies has been obtained with maintenance on the monoamine releaser d-amphetamine, a candidate agonist medication for cocaine use analogous to use of methadone to treat heroin abuse or nicotine formulations to treat tobacco dependence.

Differences in methylphenidate abuse rates among methadone maintenance treatment patients in two clinics

Methylphenidate, an amphetamine-like prescription medication for attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) was suspected as being abused among methadone maintenance treatment (MMT) patients. We tested its presence in the routine urine monitoring of all patients in both Tel Aviv and Las Vegas MMT clinics. Data on demographic and addiction history, ADHD (Wender Utah Rating Scale), cognitive impairment (Mini Mental State Exam), and lifetime DSM-IV-TR psychiatric diagnosis from admission were retrieved, and retention following 6 months. None of the 190 patients in Las Vegas tested positive for methylphenidate, while 14.7% (45/306) did in Tel Aviv. Abusers were less educated (p = 0.01), had higher ADHD scores (p = 0.02), lower cognitive scores (p = 0.05), and a higher benzodiazepine (BDZ) abuse rate (p < 0.0005), with no difference in age, gender, duration in MMT, cannabis, opiates, and cocaine abuse and infectious disease. Of the methylphenidate abuse 42.2% have take-home methadone dose privileges. Not like opiate use, being methylphenidate positive did not relate to 6-months retention. Compared to Tel Aviv, Las Vegas patients were more educated, with lower BDZ, and cocaine abuse. The greater abuse of methylphenidate among ADHD subjects might indicate their using it as self-medication, raising a possible indication for its prescription for that subgroup of MMT patients. The high rate of methylphenidate abuse in Israel needs future study.

Dopamine reuptake transporter (DAT) "inverse agonism"--a novel hypothesis to explain the enigmatic pharmacology of cocaine

The long held view is cocaine's pharmacological effects are mediated by monoamine reuptake inhibition. However, drugs with rapid brain penetration like sibutramine, bupropion, mazindol and tesofensine, which are equal to or more potent than cocaine as dopamine reuptake inhibitors, produce no discernable subjective effects such as drug "highs" or euphoria in drug-experienced human volunteers. Moreover they are dysphoric and aversive when given at high doses. In vivo experiments in animals demonstrate that cocaine's monoaminergic pharmacology is profoundly different from that of other prescribed monoamine reuptake inhibitors, with the exception of methylphenidate. These findings led us to conclude that the highly unusual stimulant profile of cocaine and related compounds, eg methylphenidate, is not mediated by monoamine reuptake inhibition alone. We describe the experimental findings which suggest cocaine serves as a negative allosteric modulator to alter the function of the dopamine reuptake transporter (DAT) and reverse its direction of transport. This results in a firing-dependent, retro-transport of dopamine into the synaptic cleft. The proposed mechanism of cocaine is, therefore, different from other small molecule negative allostereric modulators of the monoamine reuptake transporters, eg SoRI-6238, which merely reduce the rate of inward transport. Because the physiological role of DAT is to remove dopamine from the synapse and the action of cocaine is the opposite of this, we have postulated that cocaine's effect is analogous to an inverse agonist. If this hypothesis is validated then cocaine is the prototypical compound that exemplifies a new class of monoaminergic drugs; DAT "inverse agonists". This article is part of the Special Issue entitled 'CNS Stimulants'.

Pharmacotherapy for stimulant-related disorders

Stimulant-related disorders (SRD) continue to be an important public health problem for which there are presently no approved pharmacotherapies. Although behavioral interventions provide some benefit response varies. The development of novel and effective pharmacotherapies continues to be a research priority. Understanding neural mechanisms critical to the action of stimulants has helped reveal several potential pharmacotherapies that have already shown promise in controlled clinical trials. Common to some of these medications is the ability to reverse neural deficits in individuals with SRD. Results from thoroughly conducted clinical trials continue to broaden our knowledge increasing the possibility of soon developing effective pharmacotherapies for SRD.

The relevance of social contexts and social action in reducing substance use and victimization among women participating in an HIV prevention intervention in Cape Town, South Africa

Objectives

To examine qualitatively how women’s social context and community mobilization (eg, mobilizing women to take social action and engaging their community in social change) influence substance use abstinence and victimization among women participating in a human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) intervention in Cape Town, South Africa.

Methods

Thirty women who had participated in a randomized controlled trial of a group-delivered intervention to address substance use, gender-based violence, and associated risk for HIV (The Women’s Health CoOp) were selected to participate in semi-structured interviews about their perceived impact of the intervention on their substance use and exposure to victimization. The Women’s CoOp intervention involved creating a new positive social environment for women within a group setting that also fostered women’s social action (eg, educating peers or family members) in the community. Interviews were analyzed using content analysis and coded to examine women’s descriptions of social contexts and social action, and the influence of these on women’s substance use abstinence and exposure to victimization.

Results

Social support (eg, via program staff and other participants) and social action (eg, engaging others in the community on issues relevant to substance use prevention or other health topics) promoted within the program, as well as outside social influences within women’s life contexts (eg, support from non-substance using family or male partners, leaving male partners or other peer relationships characterized by drug use, or finding employment) were key factors reported by women in terms of facilitating their substance use abstinence and in reducing women’s exposures to victimization.

Conclusion

Findings highlight the potential for group-delivered interventions that include mobilizing women to take social action in the larger community to be effective approaches for facilitating substance use abstinence, reductions in victimization, and ultimately, to address the intersection between substance use, violence, and HIV risk among women in this high HIV prevalence setting.