Pilot cluster-randomised trial of adjunctive motivational interviewing to reduce crack cocaine use in clients on methadone maintenance

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.

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.

Efficacy of Group Motivational Interviewing in the Degree of Drug Craving in the Addicts Under the Methadone Maintenance Treatment (MMT) in South East of Iran

BACKGROUND

Craving is one of the important factors having an effective role in the addiction relapse. As an important factor in the therapy failure, this clinical phenomenon has to be diagnosed and treated.

OBJECTIVE

The present research aimed at determining the efficacy of group motivational interviewing in the degree of drug craving in the addicts under the Methadone Maintenance Treatment (MMT).

METHOD

This is a quasi-experimental study carried out on 100 addicted men (aged 18-50 years), who were under the MMT in a drug abstinence clinic affiliated with University of Medical Sciences (Iran) in the second half of 2014. The research sample was selected by the availability criteria based on the inclusion and exclusion criteria, and upon matching, it was divided randomly into two groups of 50 (control and treatment). The treatment group first received 5 sessions of group motivational counseling; then it entered the therapy process. The control group received the usual treatment of the drug abstinence clinic. To assess the drug craving degree (in the pretest, 2, 6 and 12 months after the abstinence), the Visual Cue-induced Craving Task, scored 0 to 100, was used. The data were analyzed by the descriptive statistics through independent t-test, and repeated measures analysis of variance.

RESULTS

The means of craving degrees in the control group, 2, 6 and 12 months after the abstinence (73.28 ± 7.52, 65.83 ± 6.69 and 61.25±5.17, respectively) were significantly (p=0.0001) higher than those in the treatment group (68.94 ± 10.53, 40.48 ± 11.78 and 32.51 ± 9.00). Moreover, the mean of retention in the treatment was 9.24 ± 2.45 months in the treatment group that was significantly (p=0.001) higher than the 4.88 ± 3.65 months of retention in the control group.

CONCLUSION

The research results support the fact that motivational interviewing decreases the degree of drug craving, and increases the probability of the addicts' retention in long-term therapeutic abstinence programs. Therefore, the use of such an approach as a pretreatment and a complementary therapy in changing health behaviors is recommended.

Revisão sistemática sobre tratamentos psicológicos para problemas relacionados ao crack

OBJETIVO: O objetivo deste artigo é apresentar uma revisão sistemática da literatura sobre tratamentos psicológicos oferecidos para usuários de crack. MÉTODOS: Foi realizada uma revisão sistemática por meio de uma busca na literatura internacional e nacional, indexada nas bases de dados Medline, SciELO, Lilacs e Web of Science. Os descritores utilizados foram: crack or crack cocaine or cocaine smokers (crack) and psychosocial treatment or psycotherapy or psychosocial treatment (tratamento psicológico) e a busca incluiu artigos publicados no período de 2001 a 2011. RESULTADOS: No total foram encontrados 155 artigos por meio dos descritores utilizados. Os artigos foram agrupados em três dimensões: tratamentos psicossociais na internação e cuidados continuados, relaxamento respiratório e outras técnicas comportamentais e abordagens fundamentadas na Entrevista Motivacional, Cognitivo-Comportamental e Modelo Transteórico de Mudança. CONCLUSÃO: Com base nos estudos examinados, pode ser formulado um elenco de algumas intervenções que estão sendo estudadas para o tratamento de usuários de crack e algumas apresentam resultados satisfatórios. Os poucos esforços de comparação entre técnicas resultaram em evidências de pouca ou nenhuma diferença, ainda que se registre o benefício para os usuários na aplicação de qualquer delas. Não existe consenso acerca da efetividade no tratamento de usuários de crack. Parece oportuno e necessário o aprofundamento dos estudos nesse campo.

Motivational interviewing for substance abuse

BACKGROUND

There are 76.3 million people with alcohol use disorders worldwide and 15.3 million with drug use disorders. Motivational interviewing (MI) is a client-centred, semi-directive method for enhancing intrinsic motivation to change by exploring and resolving ambivalence. The intervention is used widely, and therefore it is important to find out whether it helps, harms or is ineffective.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effectiveness of motivational interviewing for substance abuse on drug use, retention in treatment, readiness to change, and number of repeat convictions.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched 18 electronic databases, 5 web sites, 4 mailing lists, and reference lists from included studies and reviews. Search dates were November 30, 2010 for Cochrane Library, Medline, Embase and PsychINFO.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomized controlled trials with persons dependent or abusing substance. Interventions were MI or motivational enhancement therapy. The outcomes were extent of substance abuse, retention in treatment, motivation for change, repeat conviction.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Three authors independently assessed studies for inclusion, and two authors extracted data. Results were categorized into (1) MI versus no-treatment control, (2) MI versus treatment as usual, (3) MI versus assessment and feedback, and (4) MI versus other active treatment. Within each category, we computed meta-analyses separately for post-intervention, short, medium and long follow-ups.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 59 studies with a total of 13,342 participants. Compared to no treatment control MI showed a significant effect on substance use which was strongest at post-intervention SMD 0.79, (95% CI 0.48 to 1.09) and weaker at short SMD 0.17 (95% CI 0.09 to 0.26], and medium follow-up SMD 0.15 (95% CI 0.04 to 0.25]). For long follow-up, the effect was not significant SMD 0.06 (95% CI-0.16 to 0.28). There were no significant differences between MI and treatment as usual for either follow-up post-intervention, short and medium follow up. MI did better than assessment and feedback for medium follow-up SMD 0.38 (95% CI 0.10 to 0.66). For short follow-up, there was no significant effect . For other active intervention there were no significant effects for either follow-up.There was not enough data to conclude about effects of MI on the secondary outcomes.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

MI can reduce the extent of substance abuse compared to no intervention. The evidence is mostly of low quality, so further research is very likely to have an important impact on our confidence in the estimate of effect and is likely to change the estimate.