Enhanced continuing care provided in parallel to intensive outpatient treatment does not improve outcomes for patients with cocaine dependence

The ASAM/AAAP Clinical Practice Guideline on the Management of Stimulant Use Disorder

The American Society of Addiction Medicine/American Academy of Addiction Psychiatry (ASAM/AAAP) Clinical Practice Guideline on the Management of Stimulant Use Disorder provides guidance on evidence-based strategies for the treatment of stimulant use disorders (StUDs), stimulant intoxication, and stimulant withdrawal, as well as secondary and tertiary prevention of harms associated with stimulant use. The Clinical Guideline Committee (CGC) comprised experts from ASAM and AAAP representing a range of clinical settings and patient populations. The guideline was developed following modified GRADE methodology. The process included a systematic literature review as well as several targeted supplemental searches. The CGC utilized Evidence to Decision tables to review available evidence and rate the strength of each recommendation. The clinical practice guideline was revised based on external stakeholder review. Key takeaways included: Contingency management represents the current standard of care for treatment of StUDs; Pharmacotherapies may be utilized off-label to treat StUDs; Acute stimulant intoxication can result in life-threatening complications that should be addressed in an appropriate level of care; Secondary and tertiary prevention strategies should be used to reduce harms related to risky stimulant use.

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.

Digital approaches to continuing care

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

To provide an update of studies on the effectiveness of digital and telephonic approaches to providing remote continuing care for substance use disorders.

RECENT FINDINGS

Effective continuing care can be provided via smartphone apps, text messaging, interactive voice response, and structured telephone counseling. The remote continuing care interventions with the strongest evidence of efficacy are the Addiction Comprehensive Health Enhancement Support System app and Telephone Monitoring and Counseling. Positive effects for these intervention on drinking outcomes in patients with alcohol use disorders were replicated in a recent randomized controlled study.

SUMMARY

Continuing care is widely believed to be an important component of treatment for substance use disorders, especially for sustaining positive outcomes. However, many individuals do not attend clinic-based continuing care, due to a variety of reasons, including competing work and family responsibilities, disabilities, transportation challenges, and recently the COVID-19 pandemic. Remote continuing care, provided via smartphone apps, text messaging, and various telephonic approaches, has been shown to be effective, and could be used to provide continuing care to patients who would otherwise not receive it. Further work is needed to determine how to effectively combine more traditional continuing care with newer digitized and telephonic approaches.

Impact of Continuing Care on Recovery From Substance Use Disorder

Continuing care is widely believed to be an important component of effective treatment for substance use disorder, particularly for those individuals with greater problem severity. The purpose of this review was to examine the research literature on continuing care for alcohol and drug use disorders, including studies that addressed efficacy, moderators, mechanisms of action, and economic impact. This narrative review first considered findings from prior reviews (published through 2014), followed by a more detailed examination of studies published more recently. The review found that research has generally supported the efficacy of continuing care for both adolescents and adults, but the picture is complex. Reviews find relatively small effects when results from individual studies are combined. However, continuing care of longer duration that includes more active efforts to keep patients engaged may produce more consistently positive results. Moreover, patients at higher risk for relapse may benefit to a greater degree from continuing care. Several newer approaches for the provision of continuing care show promise. These include incentives for abstinence and automated mobile health interventions to augment more conventional counselor-delivered interventions. Primary care can be used to provide medications for opioid and alcohol use disorders over extended periods, although more research is needed to determine the optimal mix of behavioral treatments and other psychosocial services in this setting. Regardless of the intervention selected for use, the status of most patients will change and evolve over time, and interventions need to include provisions to assess patients on a regular basis and to change or adapt treatment when warranted.

Assessing Changes in Symptoms of Depression and Anxiety During Four Weeks of Cannabis Abstinence Among Adolescents

Background: Cannabis use is prevalent among adolescents, and many report using in attempts to alleviate negative mood and anxiety. Abstinence from substances such as alcohol and tobacco has been reported to improve symptoms of anxiety and depression. Few studies have examined the effect of cannabis abstinence on symptoms of anxiety and depression. Objective: To test the effect of 4 weeks of continuous cannabis abstinence on depressive and anxious symptoms. Methods: Healthy, non-treatment seeking adolescents who used cannabis at least weekly (n = 179) were randomized to either 4 weeks of cannabis abstinence achieved through a contingency management paradigm (CB-Abst) or cannabis use monitoring without an abstinence requirement (CB-Mon). Abstinence was assessed by self-report verified with quantitative assay of urine for cannabinoids. Anxiety and depressive symptoms were assessed weekly with the Mood and Anxiety Symptom Questionnaire (MASQ). Results: Symptoms of depression and anxiety decreased throughout the study for all participants (MASQ-AA: stnd beta = -0.08, p = 0.01, MASQ-GDA: stnd beta = -0.11, p = 0.003, MASQ-GDD: stnd beta = -0.08, p = 0.02) and did not differ significantly between randomization groups (p's > 0.46). Exploratory analyses revealed a trend that abstinence may be associated with greater improvement in symptoms of anxiety and depression among those using cannabis to cope with negative affect and those with potentially hazardous levels of cannabis use. Conclusions: Among adolescents who use cannabis at least weekly, 4 weeks of cannabis abstinence was not associated with a significant change in anxiety or depressive symptoms compared to continued use. For recreational cannabis users who may be concerned about reducing their use for fear of increased symptoms of anxiety and depression, findings suggest that significant symptom worsening may not occur within the first 4 weeks of abstinence. Further studies are needed in clinical populations where anxiety and depression symptoms are measured more frequently and for a longer period of abstinence. Future studies are also needed to determine whether there are subgroups of adolescents who are uniquely impacted by sustained cannabis abstinence.

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.

The effects of continuing care on emerging adult outcomes following residential addiction treatment

BACKGROUND

Professional continuing care services enhance recovery rates among adults and adolescents, though less is known about emerging adults (18-25 years old). Despite benefit shown from emerging adults' participation in 12-step mutual-help organizations (MHOs), it is unclear whether participation offers benefit independent of professional continuing care services. Greater knowledge in this area would inform clinical referral and linkage efforts.

METHODS

Emerging adults (N=284; 74% male; 95% Caucasian) were assessed during the year after residential treatment on outpatient sessions per week, percent days in residential treatment and residing in a sober living environment, substance use disorder (SUD) medication use, active 12-step MHO involvement (e.g., having a sponsor, completing step work, contact with members outside meetings), and continuous abstinence (dichotomized yes/no). One generalized estimating equation (GEE) model tested the unique effect of each professional service on abstinence, and, in a separate GEE model, the unique effect of 12-step MHO involvement on abstinence over and above professional services, independent of individual covariates.

RESULTS

Apart from SUD medication, all professional continuing care services were significantly associated with abstinence over and above individual factors. In the more comprehensive model, relative to zero 12-step MHO activities, odds of abstinence were 1.3 times greater if patients were involved in one activity, and 3.2 times greater if involved in five activities (lowest mean number of activities in the sample across all follow-ups).

CONCLUSIONS

Both active involvement in 12-step MHOs and recovery-supportive, professional services that link patients with these community-based resources may enhance outcomes for emerging adults after residential treatment.

The effectiveness of telephone counselling in the treatment of illicit drug and alcohol use concerns

INTRODUCTION

Technology-assisted substance use interventions such as 'high-tech' internet-based treatments are thought to be effective; however, the relatively 'low-tech' use of telephone counselling does not yet have an established evidence base. This paper reviews the literature including articles with information on the use of telephone counselling for the treatment of illicit drug or alcohol use.

METHODS

A systematic literature search using a set of telephone counselling and substance-related terms was conducted across four electronic databases. English studies prior to June 2014 that involved the use of telephone counselling with the treatment of illicit drug or alcohol use as a primary or secondary outcome were included. Review papers, opinion pieces, letters or editorials, case studies, published abstracts, and posters were excluded. In all, 94 publications were included in the review.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

The literature was supportive of telephone counselling for the treatment of alcohol use in the short term; however, literature regarding illicit drug use was particularly scarce. The generalisability of findings was limited by evident methodological issues in the included studies.

The Use of New Communications Technologies to Evaluate and Intervene in Substance Use Disorders

The widespread availability of high speed, mobile cellular telephones and other advances in communication technology have the potential to change the way that interventions for substance use disorders (SUD) are delivered and how progress is monitored. This article reviews recent research on the use of new technology to monitor progress and deliver interventions for SUD. Several studies of telephone-based interventions show positive effects, but sometimes only in certain subgroups. However, other studies produced negative results. Studies support the use of interactive voice response (IVR) and personal digital assistants (PDAs) to conduct assessments, but there is little data on whether IVR- or PDA-based interventions improve outcomes. Text messaging has received comparatively little research, but appears promising as a means to conduct assessments and deliver automated interventions. Finally, smartphone technology provides the widest range of features and interventions and the greatest flexibility, but few intervention studies that use them have been conducted.

Beyond bricks and mortar: recent research on substance use disorder recovery management

Scientific advances in the past 15 years have clearly highlighted the need for recovery management approaches to help individuals sustain recovery from chronic substance use disorders. This article reviews some of the recent findings related to recovery management: (1) continuing care, (2) recovery management checkups, (3) 12-step or mutual aid, and (4) technology-based interventions. The core assumption underlying these approaches is that earlier detection and re-intervention will improve long-term outcomes by minimizing the harmful consequences of the condition and maximizing or promoting opportunities for maintaining healthy levels of functioning in related life domains. Economic analysis is important because it can take a year or longer for such interventions to offset their costs. The article also examines the potential of smartphones and other recent technological developments to facilitate more cost-effective recovery management options.

Recovery Support for Adolescents with Substance use Disorders: The Impact of Recovery Support Telephone Calls Provided by Pre-Professional Volunteers

The present quasi-experiment examined the direct and indirect effects of recovery support telephone calls following adolescent substance use disorder treatment. Six-month outcome data from 202 adolescents who had received recovery support calls from primarily pre-professional (i.e., college-level social service students) volunteers was compared to 6-month outcome data from a matched comparison sample of adolescents (n = 404). Results suggested adolescents in the recovery support sample had significantly greater reductions in their recovery environment risk relative to the comparison sample (β = -.17). Path analysis also suggested that the reduction in recovery environment risk produced by recovery support calls had indirect impacts (via recovery environment risk) on reductions in social risk (β = .22), substance use (β = .23), and substance-related problems (β = .16). Finally, moderation analyses suggested the effects of recovery support calls did not differ by gender, but were significantly greater for adolescents with lower levels of treatment readiness. In addition to providing rare empirical support for the effectiveness of recovery support services, an important contribution of this study is that it provides evidence that recovery support services do not necessarily have to be "peer-based," at least in terms of the recovery support service provider having the experiential credentials of being "in recovery." If replicated, this latter finding may have particularly important implications for helping increase the recovery support workforce.