The Efficacy of Contingency Management on Cocaine Craving, using Prize-based Reinforcement of Abstinence in Cocaine Users

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.

A Systematic Review of the Efficacy of Contingency Management for Substance Use Disorders in Low and Middle Income Countries

BACKGROUND

The impact of illicit substance use is especially devastating in low-resourced countries where factors such as poverty, unemployment, and inadequate services impede successful treatment. Contingency management (CM) is a treatment for substance use disorders that has shown to be effective in eliciting behaviour change. The efficacy of CM interventions in low and middle income countries (LMICs) has been under explored.

METHODS

The aim of this systematic review of randomized controlled trials was to assess measures of CM efficacy in addressing substance use disorders, while also considering contextual moderators of CM in LMICs. A search of PubMed, Scopus, and Cochrane library databases yielded 18 studies for inclusion, from which relevant data were extracted using modified versions of the Cochrane Characteristics of Studies tool.

RESULTS

Two studies were located in a low-income country, two in lower-middle income countries, and fourteen in upper middle-income countries. Overall, estimated efficacy estimates were similar to those from higher income countries. However, context-specific challenges that warrant further investigation included limited access to trained staff and structural and financial constraints.

CONCLUSIONS

While CM in LMICs is in its early stages of development, efficacy estimates were not substantially different compared to high income countries. Challenges such as costs, willingness to implement, and the stigma associated with addiction sets the stage for further research in these contexts.

Assessment tools for the measurement of the self-efficacy of drug users: protocol for a systematic review

INTRODUCTION

The abuse of alcohol and other drugs is a worldwide problem, the treatment of which poses a challenge to healthcare workers.

OBJECTIVE

This study presents a proposal for a systematic review to analyse the psychometric properties of assessment tools developed to measure the self-efficacy of drug users with regard to resisting the urge to take drugs in high-risk situations.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

The guiding question was based on PICOS (Population Intervention Comparator Outcome Setting), and the report of the methods of review protocol was written in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Protocols (PRISMA-P). Searches will be performed in the PsycINFO, Cochrane, Pubmed, Web of Science, SCOPUS and CINAHL databases, followed by the use of the 'snowball' strategy. The inclusion criteria for the articles will be (1) assessment tool validation studies; (2) assessment tools developed to measure self-efficacy; (3) quantitative measures; (4) measures designed for use on adults; (5) data from self-reports of the participants; (6) studies involving a description of psychometric properties of the measures; and (7) studies that explain how the level of self-efficacy is scored. The search, selection and analysis will be performed by two independent reviewers. In cases of a divergence of opinion, a third reviewer will be consulted. The COSMIN checklist will be used for the appraisal of the methodological quality of the assessment tools and the certainty of the evidence in the articles (risk of bias) will be analysed using the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) approach.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

This protocol does not require ethical approval. However, this protocol is part of the thesis entitled Drug-Taking Confidence Questionnaire for use in Brazil, presented for obtaining a doctorate in neuropsychiatry and behavioural sciences from the Federal University of Pernambuco, and has received approval from the human research ethics committee of the Federal University of Pernambuco (reference number: 1.179.162).The results will be disseminated to clinicians and researchers through peer-reviewed publications and conferences.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42017068555.

A Novel Therapy for cocaine dependence during abstinence: A randomized clinical trial

Background

Topiramate is an anticonvulsant drug and an ideal candidate for reducing the craving in people relying on cocaine. Contingency management is one of the common therapies in the domain of addiction.

Objective

The present study aimed to evaluate and compare three medication methods of Topiramate (TPM), Contingency Management (CM) and the combined TPM treatment and cash intervention on craving during abstinence.

Methods

This randomized clinical trial was conducted at Bijan Center for Substance Abuse Treatment in Tehran, Iran, from December 15, 2014 to November 20, 2015. One hundred males (Age range=18–34; SD=4.11) undergoing abstinence were assigned randomly to four groups (n=25) of Topiramate (TPM), Contingency Management (CM) and the Combined Method plus a placebo control group. Treatment was provided for twelve weeks for the experiment groups, and only the control group received the placebo. Participants in the Cash-based and CM Condition had an identical 12-week escalating schedule of reinforcement (cash-based incentives worth $0, $20, $40, and $80). Also, in the Topiramate group, participants’ dosage ranged between 25–300 mg/day in escalating doses) 25, 50, 100, 150, 200, 250, 300). In addition, all subjects received brief behavioral compliance enhancement treatment (BBCET). Participants took a urine test twice a week, with a given threshold of > 300 ng/ml, and indicators of cocaine craving (response rate= 91%) was evaluated in two phases of pre-test and post-test. We used Chi square, ANCOVA Univariate Model and Scheffe’s post hoc to analyze the primary and secondary outcomes. Also, the qualitative data resulted from demographic evaluations were coded and analyzed by the instrument of analysis of qualitative data i.e. Atlas.ti, Version 5.2.

Results

The results showed that all three types of treatment played a significant efficacy in reducing the craving. The mean (95% CI) scores of craving was 12.04 (p=0.05) with TPM, 13.89 (p=0.05) with CM, 10.92 (p=0.01) with Mix and 16.89 (p>0.05) with control. Moreover, the highest variance explaining the changes in craving was assigned to the combined treatment (p<0.01).

Conclusions

The findings of this study, while having applicable aspects in this domain, can be helpful in planning supplementary remedial procedures.

Trial registration

The trial was registered at the Thai Clinical Trial Registration Center with the TCR ID: TCTR20170112001.

Funding

The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.