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

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.

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.

Use of Topiramate in the Spectrum of Addictive and Eating Disorders: A Systematic Review Comparing Treatment Schemes, Efficacy, and Safety Features

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

Topiramate has been approved by the US Food and Drug Administration for the treatment of epilepsy since the 1990s, and it has also been used off-label in the treatment of many types of addictive disorders. To date, no systematic review has embraced the entire field of addiction, both substance use and behavioral addictions, including eating disorders, to compare topiramate-based protocols and the related level of evidence in each addictive disorder. Our objective is to fill this gap.

METHODS

A systematic search was conducted using the MEDLINE, PsycINFO, and Cochrane databases without a date or language limit. All trials and meta-analyses assessing the efficacy of topiramate in alcohol use disorder; cocaine use disorder; methamphetamine, nicotine, cannabis, opiate, and benzodiazepine use disorders; binge eating disorder; bulimia; and pathological gambling were analyzed. The quality of the studies was rated using the Cochrane Risk-of-Bias tool for randomized trials (ROB-2), the Risk of Bias In Nonrandomized Studies (ROBINS-I), or the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) checklist, depending on the study design. Safety features were assessed based on a wider non-systematic review.

RESULTS

Sixty-two articles were reviewed. Treatment protocols were relatively homogenous across addictive disorders, with slow dose titration schemes and a maximum dose range of 200-400 mg per day. The most supportive evidence for topiramate efficacy was found in alcohol use disorder for drinking reduction parameters only. To a lesser extent, topiramate could be a promising therapeutic option for binge eating disorder and cocaine use disorder. Evidence was weak for other addictive disorders. No major tolerability issues were found, provided that basic safety rules were followed. Adverse drug reactions could lead to early treatment discontinuation.

DISCUSSION

Though off-label, addiction specialists should consider topiramate as a second-line option for drinking reduction in alcohol use disorder, as well as for binge eating disorder or cocaine use disorder.

Topiramate for the Treatment of Dually Dependent on Opiates and Cocaine: A Single-center Placebo-controlled Trial

BACKGROUND

Topiramate facilitates gamma aminobutyric acid (GABA) transference and an ideal candidate for reducing cocaine use in methadone patients. The present study evaluated topiramate in Dual dependence on opiate and cocaine.

METHODS

This placebo-controlled study (Clinical Trial Registration Code: TCTR20170201001) conducted during the period 2013-2014, Cocaine-dependent individuals maintained on methadone (n=50) were randomized to receive topiramate or identical placebo capsules. Participants' dosage ranged between 25-300 mg/day (12 wk) in escalating doses. Methadone Doses started at 30 mg/day (median 100 mg/day; range 20 -140 mg/day). In addition, all subjects received brief behavioral compliance enhancement treatment (BBCET). The data were analyzed by Chi-square Test, generalized estimating equations (GEE) models, linear mixed effects (LME) model and Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA). Primary outcome measures included twelve weekly urine drug screens (cocaine abstinence, detection of benzoylecgonine) and treatment retention. Secondary outcome measures included correlation between cocaine craving with cocaine urine samples and Side effects of depression.

RESULTS

Topiramate was not better than placebo in reducing cocaine use. The secondary outcome showed that Topiramate was better than placebo in reducing cocaine craving. The mean [99% confidence interval (CI)] scores of cocaine craving were 24.31 (18.61-30.01) in experimental group and 21.84 (16.86-26.81) in control group (all P > 0.01). Retention and correlation between cocaine craving and cocaine urine samples were not significantly different between the groups. Topiramate usage was not associated with increase in depression symptoms as a side effect (P>0.05).

CONCLUSION

The efficacy of topiramate in cocaine treatment is limited and needs the similar controlled clinical trials and can be used as a complementary intervention.