Comparison of methadone and buprenorphine for opiate detoxification (LEEDS trial): a randomised controlled trial

Interventions to reduce harms related to drug use among people who experience incarceration: systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Mortality, suicide, self-harm, and substance use are elevated among people who are incarcerated. There is a wide range of heterogeneous interventions aimed at reducing these harms in this population. Previous reviews have focused on specific interventions or limited their findings to drug use and recidivism and have not explored interventions delivered after release from prison. Our aim is to examine the effect of interventions delivered to people who use drugs during incarceration or after release from incarceration, on a wide range of outcomes.

METHODS

In this systematic review and meta-analysis, we searched Embase, MEDLINE, and PsycINFO databases up until Sept 12, 2023 for studies published from Jan 1, 1980 onwards. All studies evaluating the effectiveness of any intervention on drug use, recidivism outcomes, sexual or injecting risk behaviours, or mortality among people who use psychoactive drugs and who were currently or recently incarcerated were included. Studies without a comparator or measuring only alcohol use were excluded. Data extracted from each study included demographic characteristics, interventions, and comparisons. Pooled odds ratios and risk ratios were calculated using random-effects meta-analyses.

FINDINGS

We identified 126 eligible studies (47 randomised controlled trials and 79 observational studies) encompassing 18 interventions; receiving opioid-agonist treatment (OAT) in prison reduced the risk of death in prison (one study; hazard ratio 0·25; 95% CI 0·13-0·48), whereas receiving OAT in the first 4 weeks following release reduced risk of death in the community (two studies; relative risk 0·24; 95% CI 0·15-0·37). Therapeutic community interventions reduced re-arrest at 6-12 months (six studies; odds ratio [OR] 0·72; 95% CI 0·55-0·95) and reincarceration at 24 months (two studies; OR 0·66; 95% CI 0·48-0·96). There was scarce evidence that OAT and syringe service provision are effective in reducing injecting risk behaviours and needle and syringe sharing.

INTERPRETATION

There are effective interventions to reduce mortality and recidivism for people who use drugs who have been incarcerated. Nonetheless, there are also substantial gaps in the research examining the effect of interventions on risk behaviours and mortality during incarceration and a need for randomised designs examining outcomes for people who use drugs after release.

FUNDING

Australian National Health and Medical Research Council.

What is the ideal time to begin tapering opioid agonist treatment? A protocol for a retrospective population-based comparative effectiveness study in British Columbia, Canada

INTRODUCTION

Opioid agonist treatment (OAT) tapering involves a gradual reduction in daily medication dose to ultimately reach a state of opioid abstinence. Due to the high risk of relapse and overdose after tapering, this practice is not recommended by clinical guidelines, however, clients may still request to taper off medication. The ideal time to initiate an OAT taper is not known. However, ethically, taper plans should acknowledge clients' preferences and autonomy but apply principles of shared informed decision-making regarding safety and efficacy. Linked population-level data capturing real-world tapering practices provide a valuable opportunity to improve existing evidence on when to contemplate starting an OAT taper. Our objective is to determine the comparative effectiveness of alternative times from OAT initiation at which a taper can be initiated, with a primary outcome of taper completion, as observed in clinical practice in British Columbia (BC), Canada.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

We propose a population-level retrospective observational study with a linkage of eight provincial health administrative databases in BC, Canada (01 January 2010 to 17 March 2020). Our primary outcomes include taper completion and all-cause mortality during treatment. We propose a 'per-protocol' target trial to compare different durations to taper initiation on the likelihood of taper completion. A range of sensitivity analyses will be used to assess the heterogeneity and robustness of the results including assessment of effectiveness and safety.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

The protocol, cohort creation and analysis plan have been classified and approved as a quality improvement initiative by Providence Health Care Research Ethics Board and the Simon Fraser University Office of Research Ethics. Results will be disseminated to local advocacy groups and decision-makers, national and international clinical guideline developers, presented at international conferences and published in peer-reviewed journals electronically and in print.

Facilitators and barriers to collaboration between drug courts and community-based medication for opioid use disorder providers

INTRODUCTION

Access to medications for opioid use disorder (MOUD) is limited for individuals in drug courts - programs that leverage sanctions for mandatory substance use treatment. Drug courts rely on community agencies to provide MOUD. However, relationships with MOUD agencies, which impact access to treatment, are understudied. We examined barriers and facilitators from drug court staffs' perspectives to understand how to enhance collaborations with MOUD providers.

METHODS

Drug court staff (n = 21) from seven courts participated in semi-structured interviews about their experience in collaborating with MOUD providers. Interviews were informed by the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research. Inductive (theory-based) and deductive (ground-up) approaches were used for analyses.

RESULTS

Facilitator and barrier themes centered around the needs and resources of drug court participants, external policies such MOUD access in jails, networking with external agencies, and beliefs about MOUD providers. Drug court staff preferred working with agencies that offered MOUD alongside comprehensive services. Drug courts benefited when jails offered MOUD in-house and facilitated community referrals. Existing relationships with providers and responsive communication eased referrals and served to educate the courts about MOUD. Barriers included logistical limitations (limited hours, few methadone providers) and inadequate communication patterns between providers and drug court staff. A lack of confidence in providers' prescribing practices and concerns around perceived overmedication of participants impacted referrals, interagency collaboration, and further burdened the participants.

CONCLUSIONS

Collaboration between drug courts and MOUD providers was driven by patient needs, external policies, communication patterns, and perceptions. Interventions to increase access MOUD for drug court participants will need to incorporate collaboration strategies while considering the unique features of drug courts.

Relative effectiveness of medications for opioid-related disorders: A systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

INTRODUCTION

Several pharmacotherapeutic interventions are available for maintenance treatment for opioid-related disorders. However, previous meta-analyses have been limited to pairwise comparisons of these interventions, and their efficacy relative to all others remains unclear. Our objective was to unify findings from different healthcare practices and generate evidence to strengthen clinical treatment protocols for the most widely prescribed medications for opioid-use disorders.

METHODS

We searched Medline, EMBASE, PsycINFO, CENTRAL, and ClinicalTrials.gov for all relevant randomized controlled trials (RCT) from database inception to February 12, 2022. Primary outcome was treatment retention, and secondary outcome was opioid use measured by urinalysis. We calculated risk ratios (RR) and 95% credible interval (CrI) using Bayesian network meta-analysis (NMA) for available evidence. We assessed the credibility of the NMA using the Confidence in Network Meta-Analysis tool.

RESULTS

Seventy-nine RCTs met the inclusion criteria. Due to heterogeneity in measuring opioid use and reporting format between studies, we conducted NMA only for treatment retention. Methadone was the highest ranked intervention (Surface Under the Cumulative Ranking [SUCRA] = 0.901) in the network with control being the lowest (SUCRA = 0.000). Methadone was superior to buprenorphine for treatment retention (RR = 1.22; 95% CrI = 1.06-1.40) and buprenorphine superior to naltrexone (RR = 1.39; 95% CrI = 1.10-1.80). However, due to a limited number of high-quality trials, confidence in the network estimates of other treatment pairs involving naltrexone and slow-release oral morphine (SROM) remains low.

CONCLUSION

All treatments had higher retention than the non-pharmacotherapeutic control group. However, additional high-quality RCTs are needed to estimate more accurately the extent of efficacy of naltrexone and SROM relative to other medications. For pharmacotherapies with established efficacy profiles, assessment of their long-term comparative effectiveness may be warranted.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

This systematic review has been registered with PROSPERO (https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero) (identifier CRD42021256212).

Innovating for real-world care: A systematic review of interventions to improve post-detoxification outcomes for opioid use disorder

BACKGROUND

Inpatient detoxification is a common health care entry point for people with Opioid Use Disorder (OUD). However, many patients return to opioid use after discharge and also do not access OUD treatment. This systematic review reports on the features and findings of research on interventions developed specifically to improve substance use outcomes and treatment linkage after inpatient detoxification for OUD.

METHODS

Of 6419 articles, 64 met inclusion criteria for the current review. Articles were coded on key domains including sample characteristics, study methods and outcome measures, bias indicators, intervention type, and findings.

RESULTS

Many studies did not report sample characteristics, including demographics and co-occurring psychiatric and substance use disorders, which may impact postdetoxification OUD treatment outcomes and the generalizability of interventions. Slightly more than half of studies examined interventions that were primarily medical in nature, though only a third focused on initiating medication treatment beyond detoxification. Medical and combination interventions that focused on initiating medications for OUD generally performed well, as did psychological interventions with one or more reinforcement-based components.

CONCLUSIONS

Research efforts to improve post-detoxification outcomes would benefit from clearer reporting of sample characteristics that are associated with treatment and recovery outcomes, including diagnostic comorbidities. Findings also support the need to identify ways to introduce medication for opioid use disorder (MOUD) and other effective treatments including reinforcement-based interventions during detoxification or soon after.

Dose Escalation of Naltrexone to Reduce Stress Responses Associated With Opioid Antagonist Induction: A Double-blind Randomized Trial

CONTEXT

To describe the role of opioid antagonist induction in reducing stress response and withdrawal symptoms.

OBJECTIVE

Complexity of naltrexone induction is limiting broader applicability of opioid antagonist-assisted abstinence. The aim of this clinical trial was to assess the stress response to 2 low-dose naltrexone induction protocols under minimal oral sedation.

DESIGN

Double-blind randomized controlled trial.

SETTING

Open setting in-patient unit.

PARTICIPANTS

Adults with opioid use disorder, and at least a year-long history of opioid use.

INTERVENTION PROTOCOL

Patients received either a single 12.5 mg naltrexone oral dose (SI group) or escalating dosage regimen starting from 50 μg up to a cumulative dose of 12.5 mg (ED group).

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE

Differences in cortisol and adrenocorticotropic hormone (ACTH) concentrations 1 hour after the start of naltrexone induction.

RESULTS

In all, 124 patients were enrolled and 68 remained in the trial at the point of randomization-33 in SI and 35 in ED group. Eight patients were excluded from final analysis. Plasma cortisol and ACTH concentrations were significantly higher in SI group; mean difference between groups 313 nmol/L (95% confidence interval [CI] 182-444, P < 0.001) and 36.9 pg/mL (95% CI 12.3-61.4, P = 0.004), respectively.

SECONDARY OUTCOMES

SI patients experienced significant increases in plasma cortisol and ACTH concentrations, and withdrawal scores. In ED group these measures remained at or below baseline throughout the 24-hour period from start of naltrexone induction.

CONCLUSIONS

Contrary to a single 12.5-mg dose, the escalating naltrexone dosing regimen produced no significant increase in stress response and withdrawal scores during antagonist induction.

The future of precision medicine in opioid use disorder: inclusion of patient-important outcomes in clinical trials

Opioid use has reached an epidemic proportion in Canada and the United States that is mostly attributed to excess availability of prescribed opioids for pain. This excess in opioid use led to an increase in the prevalence of opioid use disorder (OUD) requiring treatment. The most common treatment recommendations include medication-assisted treatment (MAT) combined with psychosocial interventions. Clinical trials investigating the effectiveness of MAT, however, have a limited focus on effectiveness measures that overlook patient-important outcomes. Despite MAT, patients with OUD continue to suffer negative consequences of opioid use. Patient goals and personalized medicine are overlooked in clinical trials and guidelines, thus missing an opportunity to improve prognosis of OUD by considering precision medicine in addiction trials. In this mixed-methods study, patients with OUD receiving MAT (n=2,031, mean age 39.1 years [SD 10.7], 44% female) were interviewed to identify patient goals for MAT. The most frequently reported patient-important outcomes were to stop treatment (39%) and to avoid all drugs (25%). These results are inconsistent with treatment recommendations and trial outcome measures. We discuss theses inconsistencies and make recommendations to incorporate these outcomes to achieve patient-centered and personalized treatment strategies.

Canadian Guidelines on Opioid Use Disorder Among Older Adults

BACKGROUND

In Canada, rates of hospital admission from opioid overdose are higher for older adults (≥ 65) than younger adults, and opioid use disorder (OUD) is a growing concern. In response, Health Canada commissioned the Canadian Coalition of Seniors' Mental Health to create guidelines for the prevention, screening, assessment, and treatment of OUD in older adults.

METHODS

A systematic review of English language literature from 2008-2018 regarding OUD in adults was conducted. Previously published guidelines were evaluated using AGREE II, and key guidelines updated using ADAPTE method, by drawing on current literature. Recommendations were created and assessed using the GRADE method.

RESULTS

Thirty-two recommendations were created. Prevention recommendations: it is key to prioritize non-pharmacological and non-opioid strategies to treat acute and chronic noncancer pain. Assessment recommendations: a comprehensive assessment is important to help discern contributions of other medical conditions. Treatment recommendations: buprenorphine is first line for both withdrawal management and maintenance therapy, while methadone, slow-release oral morphine, or naltrexone can be used as alternatives under certain circumstances; non-pharmacological treatments should be offered as an integrated part of care.

CONCLUSION

These guidelines provide practical and timely clinical recommendations on the prevention, assessment, and treatment of OUD in older adults within the Canadian context.

Interventions for female drug-using offenders

BACKGROUND

This review represents one in a family of three reviews focusing on the effectiveness of interventions in reducing drug use and criminal activity for offenders.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effectiveness of interventions for female drug-using offenders in reducing criminal activity, or drug use, or both.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched 12 electronic bibliographic databases up to February 2019.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs).

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 13 trials with 2560 participants. Interventions were delivered in prison (7/13 studies, 53%) and community (6/13 studies, 47%) settings. The rating of bias was affected by the lack of clear reporting by authors, and we rated many items as 'unclear'. In two studies (190 participants) collaborative case management in comparison to treatment as usual did not reduce drug use (risk ratio (RR) 0.65, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.20 to 2.12; 1 study, 77 participants; low-certainty evidence), reincarceration at nine months (RR 0.71, 95% CI 0.32 to 1.57; 1 study, 77 participants; low-certainty evidence), and number of subsequent arrests at 12 months (RR 1.11, 95% CI 0.83 to 1.49; 1 study, 113 participants; low-certainty evidence). One study (36 participants) comparing buprenorphine to placebo showed no significant reduction in self-reported drug use at end of treatment (RR 0.57, 95% CI 0.27 to 1.20) and three months (RR 0.58, 95% CI 0.25 to 1.35); very low-certainty evidence. No adverse events were reported. One study (38 participants) comparing interpersonal psychotherapy to a psychoeducational intervention did not find reduction in drug use at three months (RR 0.67, 95% CI 0.30 to 1.50; low-certainty evidence). One study (31 participants) comparing acceptance and commitment therapy (ACT) to a waiting list showed no significant reduction in self-reported drug use using the Addiction Severity Index (mean difference (MD) -0.04, 95% CI -0.37 to 0.29) and abstinence from drug use at six months (RR 2.89, 95% CI 0.73 to 11.43); low-certainty evidence. One study (314 participants) comparing cognitive behavioural skills to a therapeutic community programme and aftercare showed no significant reduction in self-reported drug use (RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.58 to 1.27), re-arrest for any type of crime (RR 0.73, 95% CI 0.52 to 1.03); criminal activity (RR 0.80, 95% CI 0.63 to 1.03), or drug-related crime (RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.68 to 1.32). A significant reduction for arrested (not for parole) violations at six months follow-up was significantly in favour of cognitive behavioural skills (RR 0.43, 95% CI 0.25 to 0.77; very low-certainty evidence). A second study with 115 participants comparing cognitive behavioural skills to an alternative substance abuse treatment showed no significant reduction in reincarceration at 12 months (RR 0.70, 95% CI 0.43 to 1.12; low certainty-evidence. One study (44 participants) comparing cognitive behavioural skills and standard therapy versus treatment as usual showed no significant reduction in Addiction Severity Index (ASI) drug score at three months (MD 0.02, 95% CI -0.05 to 0.09) and six months (MD -0.02, 95% CI -0.09 to 0.05), and incarceration at three months (RR 0.46, 95% CI 0.04 to 4.68) and six months (RR 0.51, 95% CI 0.20 to 1.27); very low-certainty evidence. One study (171 participants) comparing a single computerised intervention versus case management showed no significant reduction in the number of days not using drugs at three months (MD -0.89, 95% CI -4.83 to 3.05; low certainty-evidence). One study (116 participants) comparing dialectic behavioural therapy and case management (DBT-CM) versus a health promotion intervention showed no significant reduction at six months follow-up in positive drug testing (RR 0.67, 95% CI 0.43 to 1.03), number of people not using marijuana (RR 1.23, 95% CI 0.95 to 1.59), crack (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.87 to 1.14), cocaine (RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.93 to 1.12), heroin (RR 1.05, 95% CI 0.98 to 1.13), methamphetamine (RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.87 to 1.20), and self-reported drug use for any drug (RR 1.20, 95% CI 0.92 to 1.56); very low-certainty evidence. One study (211 participants) comparing a therapeutic community programme versus work release showed no significant reduction in marijuana use at six months (RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.19 to 5.65), nor 18 months (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.07 to 14.45), heroin use at six months (RR 1.59, 95% CI 0.49 to 5.14), nor 18 months (RR 1.92, 95% CI 0.24 to 15.37), crack use at six months (RR 2.07, 95% CI 0.41 to 10.41), nor 18 months (RR 1.64, 95% CI 0.19 to 14.06), cocaine use at six months (RR 1.09, 95% CI 0.79 to 1.50), nor 18 months (RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.64 to 1.35). It also showed no significant reduction in incarceration for drug offences at 18 months (RR 1.45, 95% CI 0.87 to 2.42); with overall very low- to low-certainty evidence. One study (511 participants) comparing intensive discharge planning and case management versus prison only showed no significant reduction in use of marijuana (RR 0.79, 95% CI 0.53 to 1.16), hard drugs (RR 1.12, 95% CI 0.88 to 1.43), crack cocaine (RR 1.08, 95% CI 0.75 to 1.54), nor positive hair testing for marijuana (RR 0.75, 95% CI 0.55 to 1.03); it found a significant reduction in arrests (RR 0.19, 95% CI 0.04 to 0.87), but no significant reduction in drug charges (RR 1.07, 95% CI 0.75 to 1.53) nor incarceration (RR 1.09, 95% CI 0.86 to 1.39); moderate-certainty evidence. One narrative study summary (211 participants) comparing buprenorphine pre- and post-release from prison showed no significant reduction in drug use at 12 months post-release; low certainty-evidence. No adverse effects were reported.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The studies showed a high degree of heterogeneity for types of comparisons, outcome measures and small samples. Descriptions of treatment modalities are required. On one outcome of arrest (no parole violations), we identified a significant reduction when cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT) was compared to a therapeutic community programme. But for all other outcomes, none of the interventions were effective. Larger trials are required to increase the precision of confidence about the certainty of evidence.

Opioid-related treatment, interventions, and outcomes among incarcerated persons: A systematic review

BACKGROUND

Worldwide opioid-related overdose has become a major public health crisis. People with opioid use disorder (OUD) are overrepresented in the criminal justice system and at higher risk for opioid-related mortality. However, correctional facilities frequently adopt an abstinence-only approach, seldom offering the gold standard opioid agonist treatment (OAT) to incarcerated persons with OUD. In an attempt to inform adequate management of OUD among incarcerated persons, we conducted a systematic review of opioid-related interventions delivered before, during, and after incarceration.

METHODS AND FINDINGS

We systematically reviewed 8 electronic databases for original, peer-reviewed literature published between January 2008 and October 2019. Our review included studies conducted among adult participants with OUD who were incarcerated or recently released into the community (≤90 days post-incarceration). The search identified 2,356 articles, 46 of which met the inclusion criteria based on assessments by 2 independent reviewers. Thirty studies were conducted in North America, 9 in Europe, and 7 in Asia/Oceania. The systematic review included 22 randomized control trials (RCTs), 3 non-randomized clinical trials, and 21 observational studies. Eight observational studies utilized administrative data and included large sample sizes (median of 10,419 [range 2273-131,472] participants), and 13 observational studies utilized primary data, with a median of 140 (range 27-960) participants. RCTs and non-randomized clinical trials included a median of 198 (range 15-1,557) and 44 (range 27-382) participants, respectively. Twelve studies included only men, 1 study included only women, and in the remaining 33 studies, the percentage of women was below 30%. The majority of study participants were middle-aged adults (36-55 years). Participants treated at a correctional facility with methadone maintenance treatment (MMT) or buprenorphine (BPN)/naloxone (NLX) had lower rates of illicit opioid use, had higher adherence to OUD treatment, were less likely to be re-incarcerated, and were more likely to be working 1 year post-incarceration. Participants who received MMT or BPN/NLX while incarcerated had fewer nonfatal overdoses and lower mortality. The main limitation of our systematic review is the high heterogeneity of studies (different designs, settings, populations, treatments, and outcomes), precluding a meta-analysis. Other study limitations include the insufficient data about incarcerated women with OUD, and the lack of information about incarcerated populations with OUD who are not included in published research.

CONCLUSIONS

In this carefully conducted systematic review, we found that correctional facilities should scale up OAT among incarcerated persons with OUD. The strategy is likely to decrease opioid-related overdose and mortality, reduce opioid use and other risky behaviors during and after incarceration, and improve retention in addiction treatment after prison release. Immediate OAT after prison release and additional preventive strategies such as the distribution of NLX kits to at-risk individuals upon release greatly decrease the occurrence of opioid-related overdose and mortality. In an effort to mitigate the impact of the opioid-related overdose crisis, it is crucial to scale up OAT and opioid-related overdose prevention strategies (e.g., NLX) within a continuum of treatment before, during, and after incarceration.

Interventions for drug-using offenders with co-occurring mental health problems

BACKGROUND

This review represents one from a family of three reviews focusing on interventions for drug-using offenders. Many people under the care of the criminal justice system have co-occurring mental health problems and drug misuse problems; it is important to identify the most effective treatments for this vulnerable population.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effectiveness of interventions for drug-using offenders with co-occurring mental health problems in reducing criminal activity or drug use, or both.This review addresses the following questions.• Does any treatment for drug-using offenders with co-occurring mental health problems reduce drug use?• Does any treatment for drug-using offenders with co-occurring mental health problems reduce criminal activity?• Does the treatment setting (court, community, prison/secure establishment) affect intervention outcome(s)?• Does the type of treatment affect treatment outcome(s)?

SEARCH METHODS

We searched 12 databases up to February 2019 and checked the reference lists of included studies. We contacted experts in the field for further information.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials designed to prevent relapse of drug use and/or criminal activity among drug-using offenders with co-occurring mental health problems.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard methodological procedures as expected by Cochrane .

MAIN RESULTS

We included 13 studies with a total of 2606 participants. Interventions were delivered in prison (eight studies; 61%), in court (two studies; 15%), in the community (two studies; 15%), or at a medium secure hospital (one study; 8%). Main sources of bias were unclear risk of selection bias and high risk of detection bias.Four studies compared a therapeutic community intervention versus (1) treatment as usual (two studies; 266 participants), providing moderate-certainty evidence that participants who received the intervention were less likely to be involved in subsequent criminal activity (risk ratio (RR) 0.67, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.53 to 0.84) or returned to prison (RR 0.40, 95% CI 0.24 to 0.67); (2) a cognitive-behavioural therapy (one study; 314 participants), reporting no significant reduction in self-reported drug use (RR 0.78, 95% CI 0.46 to 1.32), re-arrest for any type of crime (RR 0.69, 95% CI 0.44 to 1.09), criminal activity (RR 0.74, 95% CI 0.52 to 1.05), or drug-related crime (RR 0.87, 95% CI 0.56 to 1.36), yielding low-certainty evidence; and (3) a waiting list control (one study; 478 participants), showing a significant reduction in return to prison for those people engaging in the therapeutic community (RR 0.60, 95% CI 0.46 to 0.79), providing moderate-certainty evidence.One study (235 participants) compared a mental health treatment court with an assertive case management model versus treatment as usual, showing no significant reduction at 12 months' follow-up on an Addictive Severity Index (ASI) self-report of drug use (mean difference (MD) 0.00, 95% CI -0.03 to 0.03), conviction for a new crime (RR 1.05, 95% CI 0.90 to 1.22), or re-incarceration to jail (RR 0.79, 95% CI 0.62 to 1.01), providing low-certainty evidence.Four studies compared motivational interviewing/mindfulness and cognitive skills with relaxation therapy (one study), a waiting list control (one study), or treatment as usual (two studies). In comparison to relaxation training, one study reported narrative information on marijuana use at three-month follow-up assessment. Researchers reported a main effect < .007 with participants in the motivational interviewing group, showing fewer problems than participants in the relaxation training group, with moderate-certainty evidence. In comparison to a waiting list control, one study reported no significant reduction in self-reported drug use based on the ASI (MD -0.04, 95% CI -0.37 to 0.29) and on abstinence from drug use (RR 2.89, 95% CI 0.73 to 11.43), presenting low-certainty evidence at six months (31 participants). In comparison to treatment as usual, two studies (with 40 participants) found no significant reduction in frequency of marijuana use at three months post release (MD -1.05, 95% CI -2.39 to 0.29) nor time to first arrest (MD 0.87, 95% CI -0.12 to 1.86), along with a small reduction in frequency of re-arrest (MD -0.66, 95% CI -1.31 to -0.01) up to 36 months, yielding low-certainty evidence; the other study with 80 participants found no significant reduction in positive drug screens at 12 months (MD -0.7, 95% CI -3.5 to 2.1), providing very low-certainty evidence.Two studies reported on the use of multi-systemic therapy involving juveniles and families versus treatment as usual and adolescent substance abuse therapy. In comparing treatment as usual, researchers found no significant reduction up to seven months in drug dependence on the Drug Use Disorders Identification Test (DUDIT) score (MD -0.22, 95% CI -2.51 to 2.07) nor in arrests (RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.70 to 1.36), providing low-certainty evidence (156 participants). In comparison to an adolescent substance abuse therapy, one study (112 participants) found significant reduction in re-arrests up to 24 months (MD 0.24, 95% CI 0.76 to 0.28), based on low-certainty evidence.One study (38 participants) reported on the use of interpersonal psychotherapy in comparison to a psychoeducational intervention. Investigators found no significant reduction in self-reported drug use at three months (RR 0.67, 95% CI 0.30 to 1.50), providing very low-certainty evidence. The final study (29 participants) compared legal defence service and wrap-around social work services versus legal defence service only and found no significant reductions in the number of new offences committed at 12 months (RR 0.64, 95% CI 0.07 to 6.01), yielding very low-certainty evidence.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Therapeutic community interventions and mental health treatment courts may help people to reduce subsequent drug use and/or criminal activity. For other interventions such as interpersonal psychotherapy, multi-systemic therapy, legal defence wrap-around services, and motivational interviewing, the evidence is more uncertain. Studies showed a high degree of variation, warranting a degree of caution in interpreting the magnitude of effect and the direction of benefit for treatment outcomes.

Methods for delivering the UK's multi-centre prison-based naloxone-on-release pilot randomised trial (N-ALIVE): Europe's largest prison-based randomised controlled trial

INTRODUCTION AND AIMS

Naloxone is an opioid antagonist used for emergency resuscitation following opioid overdose. Prisoners with a history of heroin use by injection have a high risk of drug-related death in the first weeks after prison-release. The N-ALIVE trial was planned as a large prison-based randomised controlled trial (RCT) to test the effectiveness of naloxone-on-release in the prevention of fatal opiate overdoses soon after release. The N-ALIVE pilot trial was conducted to test the main trial's assumptions on recruitment of prisons and prisoners, and the logistics for ensuring that participants received their N-ALIVE pack on release.

DESIGN AND METHODS

Adult prisoners who had ever injected heroin, were incarcerated for ≥7 days and were expected to be released within 3 months were eligible. Participants were randomised to receive, on liberation, a pack containing a single 'rescue' injection of naloxone or a control pack with no naloxone syringe. The trial was double-blind prior to prison-release.

RESULTS

We randomised 1685 prisoners (842 naloxone; 843 control) across 16 prisons in England. We stopped randomisation on 8 December 2014 because only one-third of administrations of naloxone-on-release were to the randomised ex-prisoner; two-thirds were to others whom we were not tracing.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS

Prevention RCTs are seldom conducted within prisons; we demonstrated the feasibility of conducting a multi-prison RCT to prevent fatality from opioid overdose in the outside community. We terminated the N-ALIVE trial due to the infeasibility of individualised randomisation to naloxone-on-release. Large RCTs are feasible within prisons.

Treatment outcomes in patients with opioid use disorder initiated by prescription: a systematic review protocol

BACKGROUND

In North America, opioid use has become a public health crisis with policy makers declaring it a state of emergency. Opioid substitution therapy (OST) is a harm-reduction method used in treating opioid use disorder. While OST has shown to be successful in improving treatment outcomes, there is still a great degree of variability among patients. This cohort of patients has shifted from young males using heroin to a greater number of older people and women using prescription opioids. The primary objective of this review is to examine the literature on the association between the first exposure to opioids through prescription versus illicit use and OST treatment outcomes.

METHOD

An electronic search will be conducted on the EMBASE, MEDLINE, PsycINFO, and Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL) databases. Two independent reviewers will conduct the initial title and abstract screenings using predetermined criteria for inclusion and exclusion. Reviewers will then conduct full-text data extraction using a pilot-tested data extraction form in duplicate. A third author will resolve disagreements if consensus cannot be reached. Quality and risk of bias assessment will be conducted along with a sensitivity analysis for all included studies. Qualitative summary of the evidence will be provided, and when possible, a meta-analysis will be conducted, along with heterogeneity calculation. The reporting of this protocol follows the PRISMA-P.

DISCUSSION

We expect that this review will help determine whether patients that were initially exposed to opioids through a prescription differ in OST treatment outcomes in comparison to people who used opioids through illicit means. We hope that this review will provide evidence related to prescription opioids exposure and future treatment outcomes, which will aid clinicians in their decisions to prescribe opioids or not for specific populations at risk.

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION

PROSPERO CRD42017058143.

Buprenorphine/naloxone versus methadone and lofexidine in community stabilisation and detoxification: A randomised controlled trial of low dose short-term opiate-dependent individuals

Buprenorphine/naloxone, methadone and lofexidine are medications with utility in the treatment of opiate withdrawal. We report the first randomised controlled trial to compare the effects of these two medications on withdrawal symptoms and outcome during opiate induction/stabilisation and detoxification. A double-blind randomised controlled trial was conducted in an outpatient satellite clinic of a specialist drug service. Eighty opiate dependent individuals meeting DSM-IV criteria for opiate dependence, using ⩽ ½ g heroin smoked/chased or ¼ g heroin injected or ⩽ 30mg methadone, with ⩽ 3 years of opioid dependency, underwent a short-term opiate treatment programme involving induction/stabilisation on methadone 30mg or buprenorphine/naloxone 4mg/1mg, followed by detoxification (where the methadone group was assisted by lofexidine). The main outcome measures were urine drug screens for opiates and withdrawal and craving questionnaires. There were no overall differences in positive urine drug screens and drop-outs during any phase of the study. During induction/stabilisation, withdrawal symptoms subsided more slowly for buprenorphine/naloxone than for methadone, and craving was significantly higher in the buprenorphine/naloxone group ( p<0.05, 95% confidence interval -3.5, -0.38). During detoxification, withdrawal symptoms were significantly greater and the peak of withdrawal was earlier for the methadone/lofexidine group than the buprenorphine/naloxone group ( p<0.01, 95% confidence interval 3.0, 8.3). Methadone/lofexidine and buprenorphine/naloxone had comparable outcomes during rapid outpatient stabilisation and detoxification in low dose opiate users.

Buprenorphine for managing opioid withdrawal

BACKGROUND

Managed withdrawal is a necessary step prior to drug-free treatment or as the endpoint of substitution treatment.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of buprenorphine versus tapered doses of methadone, alpha2-adrenergic agonists, symptomatic medications or placebo, or different buprenorphine regimens for managing opioid withdrawal, in terms of the intensity of the withdrawal syndrome experienced, duration and completion of treatment, and adverse effects.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL, Issue 11, 2016), MEDLINE (1946 to December week 1, 2016), Embase (to 22 December 2016), PsycINFO (1806 to December week 3, 2016), and the Web of Science (to 22 December 2016) and handsearched the reference lists of articles.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials of interventions using buprenorphine to modify the signs and symptoms of withdrawal in participants who were primarily opioid dependent. Comparison interventions involved reducing doses of methadone, alpha2-adrenergic agonists (clonidine or lofexidine), symptomatic medications or placebo, and different buprenorphine-based regimens.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 27 studies involving 3048 participants. The main comparators were clonidine or lofexidine (14 studies). Six studies compared buprenorphine versus methadone, and seven compared different rates of buprenorphine dose reduction. We assessed 12 studies as being at high risk of bias in at least one of seven domains of methodological quality. Six of these studies compared buprenorphine with clonidine or lofexidine and two with methadone; the other four studies compared different rates of buprenorphine dose reduction.For the comparison of buprenorphine and methadone in tapered doses, meta-analysis was not possible for the outcomes of intensity of withdrawal or adverse effects. However, information reported by the individual studies was suggestive of buprenorphine and methadone having similar capacity to ameliorate opioid withdrawal, without clinically significant adverse effects. The meta-analyses that were possible support a conclusion of no difference between buprenorphine and methadone in terms of average treatment duration (mean difference (MD) 1.30 days, 95% confidence interval (CI) -8.11 to 10.72; N = 82; studies = 2; low quality) or treatment completion rates (risk ratio (RR) 1.04, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.20; N = 457; studies = 5; moderate quality).Relative to clonidine or lofexidine, buprenorphine was associated with a lower average withdrawal score (indicating less severe withdrawal) during the treatment episode, with an effect size that is considered to be small to moderate (standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.43, 95% CI -0.58 to -0.28; N = 902; studies = 7; moderate quality). Patients receiving buprenorphine stayed in treatment for longer, with an effect size that is considered to be large (SMD 0.92, 95% CI 0.57 to 1.27; N = 558; studies = 5; moderate quality) and were more likely to complete withdrawal treatment (RR 1.59, 95% CI 1.23 to 2.06; N = 1264; studies = 12; moderate quality). At the same time there was no significant difference in the incidence of adverse effects, but dropout due to adverse effects may be more likely with clonidine (RR 0.20, 95% CI 0.04 to 1.15; N = 134; studies = 3; low quality). The difference in treatment completion rates translates to a number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome of 4 (95% CI 3 to 6), indicating that for every four people treated with buprenorphine, we can expect that one additional person will complete treatment than with clonidine or lofexidine.For studies comparing different rates of reduction of the buprenorphine dose, meta-analysis was possible only for treatment completion, with separate analyses for inpatient and outpatient settings. The results were diverse, and we assessed the quality of evidence as being very low. It remains very uncertain what effect the rate of dose taper has on treatment outcome.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Buprenorphine is more effective than clonidine or lofexidine for managing opioid withdrawal in terms of severity of withdrawal, duration of withdrawal treatment, and the likelihood of treatment completion.Buprenorphine and methadone appear to be equally effective, but data are limited. It remains possible that the pattern of withdrawal experienced may differ and that withdrawal symptoms may resolve more quickly with buprenorphine.It is not possible to draw any conclusions from the available evidence on the relative effectiveness of different rates of tapering the buprenorphine dose. The divergent findings of studies included in this review suggest that there may be multiple factors affecting the response to the rate of dose taper. One such factor could be whether or not the initial treatment plan includes a transition to subsequent relapse prevention treatment with naltrexone. Indeed, the use of buprenorphine to support transition to naltrexone treatment is an aspect worthy of further research.Most participants in the studies included in this review were male. None of the studies reported outcomes on the basis of sex, preventing any exploration of differences related to this variable. Consideration of sex as a factor influencing response to withdrawal treatment would be relevant research for selecting the most appropriate type of intervention for each individual.

Opioid substitution therapy: Lowering the treatment thresholds

BACKGROUND

Opioid substitution therapy (OST) has been established as the gold standard in treating opioid use disorders. Nevertheless, there is still a debate regarding the qualitative characteristics that define the optimal OST intervention, namely the treatment threshold. The aim of this review is twofold: first, to provide a summary and definition of "treatment thresholds", and second, to outline these thresholds and describe how they related to low and high threshold treatment characteristics and outcomes.

METHOD

We searched the main databases of Medline, PubMed, PsycInfo, EMBASE, CINAHL and the Cochrane Library. Original published research papers, reviews, and meta-analyses, containing the eligible keywords: "opioid substitution", "OST", "low threshold", "high threshold" were searched alone and in combination, up to June, 2015.

RESULTS

Treatment thresholds were defined as barriers a patient may face prior to and during treatment. The variables of these barriers were classified into treatment accessibility barriers and treatment design barriers. There are increasing numbers of studies implementing low threshold designs with an increasing body of evidence suggesting better treatment outcomes compared to high threshold designs.

CONCLUSION

Clinical characteristics of low threshold treatments that were identified to increase the effectiveness of OST intervention include increasing accessibility so as to avoid waiting lists, using personalized treatment options regarding medication choice and dose titration, flexible treatment duration, a treatment design that focuses on maintenance and harm reduction with emphasis on the retention of low adherence patients.

Pharmacological interventions for drug-using offenders

BACKGROUND

The review represents one in a family of four reviews focusing on a range of different interventions for drug-using offenders. This specific review considers pharmacological interventions aimed at reducing drug use or criminal activity, or both, for illicit drug-using offenders.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effectiveness of pharmacological interventions for drug-using offenders in reducing criminal activity or drug use, or both.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched Fourteen electronic bibliographic databases up to May 2014 and five additional Web resources (between 2004 and November 2011). We contacted experts in the field for further information.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials assessing the efficacy of any pharmacological intervention a component of which is designed to reduce, eliminate or prevent relapse of drug use or criminal activity, or both, in drug-using offenders. We also report data on the cost and cost-effectiveness of interventions.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard methodological procedures as expected by Cochrane.

MAIN RESULTS

Fourteen trials with 2647 participants met the inclusion criteria. The interventions included in this review report on agonistic pharmacological interventions (buprenorphine, methadone and naltrexone) compared to no intervention, other non-pharmacological treatments (e.g. counselling) and other pharmacological drugs. The methodological trial quality was poorly described, and most studies were rated as 'unclear' by the reviewers. The biggest threats to risk of bias were generated through blinding (performance and detection bias) and incomplete outcome data (attrition bias). Studies could not be combined all together because the comparisons were too different. Only subgroup analysis for type of pharmacological treatment were done. When compared to non-pharmacological, we found low quality evidence that agonist treatments are not effective in reducing drug use or criminal activity, objective results (biological) (two studies, 237 participants (RR 0.72 (95% CI 0.51 to 1.00); subjective (self-report), (three studies, 317 participants (RR 0.61 95% CI 0.31 to 1.18); self-report drug use (three studies, 510 participants (SMD: -0.62 (95% CI -0.85 to -0.39). We found low quality of evidence that antagonist treatment was not effective in reducing drug use (one study, 63 participants (RR 0.69, 95% CI 0.28 to 1.70) but we found moderate quality of evidence that they significantly reduced criminal activity (two studies, 114 participants, (RR 0.40, 95% CI 0.21 to 0.74).Findings on the effects of individual pharmacological interventions on drug use and criminal activity showed mixed results. In the comparison of methadone to buprenorphine, diamorphine and naltrexone, no significant differences were displayed for either treatment for self report dichotomous drug use (two studies, 370 participants (RR 1.04, 95% CI 0.69 to 1.55), continuous measures of drug use (one study, 81 participants, (mean difference (MD) 0.70, 95% CI -5.33 to 6.73); or criminal activity (one study, 116 participants, (RR 1.25, 95% CI 0.83 to 1.88) between methadone and buprenorphine. Similar results were found for comparisons with diamorphine with no significant differences between the drugs for self report dichotomous drug use for arrest (one study, 825 participants, (RR 1.25, 95% CI 1.03 to 1.51) or naltrexone for dichotomous measures of reincarceration (one study, 44 participants, (RR 1.10, 95% CI 0.37 to 3.26), and continuous outcome measure of crime, (MD -0.50, 95% CI -8.04 to 7.04) or self report drug use (MD 4.60, 95% CI -3.54 to 12.74).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

When compared to non-pharmacological treatment, agonist treatments did not seem effective in reducing drug use or criminal activity. Antagonist treatments were not effective in reducing drug use but significantly reduced criminal activity. When comparing the drugs to one another we found no significant differences between the drug comparisons (methadone versus buprenorphine, diamorphine and naltrexone) on any of the outcome measures. Caution should be taken when interpreting these findings, as the conclusions are based on a small number of trials, and generalisation of these study findings should be limited mainly to male adult offenders. Additionally, many studies were rated at high risk of bias.

Interventions for drug-using offenders with co-occurring mental illness

BACKGROUND

This is an updated version of an original Cochrane review published in Issue 3 2006 (Perry 2006). The review represents one from a family of four reviews focusing on interventions for drug-using offenders. This specific review considers interventions aimed at reducing drug use or criminal activity, or both for drug-using offenders with co-occurring mental illness.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effectiveness of interventions for drug-using offenders with co-occurring mental illness in reducing criminal activity or drug use, or both.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched 14 electronic bibliographic databases up to May 2014 and 5 Internet resources (searched between 2004 and 11 November 2009). We contacted experts in the field for further information.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials designed to reduce, eliminate, or prevent relapse of drug use and criminal activity, or both in drug-using offenders with co-occurring mental illness. We also reported data on the cost and cost-effectiveness of interventions.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard methodological procedures expected by The Cochrane Collaboration.

MAIN RESULTS

Eight trials with 2058 participants met the inclusion criteria. The methodological quality of the trials was generally difficult to rate due to a lack of clear reporting. On most 'Risk of bias' items, we rated the majority of studies as unclear. Overall, we could not statistically combine the results due to the heterogenous nature of the different study interventions and comparison groups. A narrative summary of the findings identified that the interventions reported limited success with reducing self report drug use, but did have some impact on re-incarceration rates, but not re-arrest. In the single comparisons, we found moderate-quality evidence that therapeutic communities determine a reduction in re-incarceration but reported less success for outcomes of re-arrest, moderate quality of evidence and self report drug use. Three single studies evaluating case management via a mental health drug court (very low quality of evidence), motivational interviewing and cognitive skills (low and very low quality of evidence) and interpersonal psychotherapy (very low quality of evidence) did not report significant reductions in criminal activity and self report drug use respectively. Quality of evidence for these three types of interventions was low to very low. The trials reported some cost information, but it was not sufficient to be able to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of the interventions.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Two of the five trials showed some promising results for the use of therapeutic communities and aftercare, but only in relation to reducing subsequent re-incarceration. Overall, the studies showed a high degree of variation, warranting a degree of caution in the interpretation of the magnitude of effect and direction of benefit for treatment outcomes. More evaluations are required to assess the effectiveness of interventions for drug-using offenders with co-occurring mental health problems.

Interventions for female drug-using offenders

BACKGROUND

This is an updated version of a Cochrane review first published in Issue 3, 2006 (Perry 2006). The review represents one in a family of four reviews focusing on the effectiveness of interventions in reducing drug use and criminal activity for offenders. This specific review considers interventions for female drug-using offenders.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effectiveness of interventions for female drug-using offenders in reducing criminal activity, or drug use, or both.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched 14 electronic bibliographic databases up to May 2014 and five additional Website resources (between 2004 and November 2011). We contacted experts in the field for further information.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) designed to reduce, eliminate or prevent relapse of drug use or criminal activity in female drug-using offenders. We also reported data on the cost and cost-effectiveness of interventions.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard methodological procedures expected by The Cochrane Collaboration.

MAIN RESULTS

Nine trials with 1792 participants met the inclusion criteria. Trial quality and risks of bias varied across each study. We rated the majority of studies as being at 'unclear' risk of bias due to a lack of descriptive information. We divided the studies into different categories for the purpose of meta-analyses: for any psychosocial treatments in comparison to treatment as usual we found low quality evidence that there were no significant differences in arrest rates, (two studies; 489 participants; risk ratio (RR) 0.82, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.45 to 1.52) or drug use (one study; 77 participants; RR 0.65, 95% CI 0.20 to 2.12), but we found moderate quality evidence that there was a significant reduction in reincarceration, (three studies; 630 participants; RR 0.46, 95% CI 0.34 to 0.64). Pharmacological intervention using buprenorphine in comparison to a placebo did not significantly reduce self reported drug use (one study; 36 participants; RR 0.58, 95% CI 0.25 to 1.35). No cost or cost-effectiveness evidence was reported in the studies.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Three of the nine trials show a positive trend towards the use of any psychosocial treatment in comparison to treatment as usual showing an overall significant reduction in subsequent reincarceration, but not arrest rates or drug use. Pharmacological interventions in comparison to a placebo did not significantly reduce drug use and did not measure criminal activity. Four different treatment comparisons showed varying results and were not combined due to differences in the intervention and comparison groups. The studies overall showed a high degree of heterogeneity for types of comparisons and outcome measures assessed, which limited the possibility to pool the data. Descriptions of treatment modalities are required to identify the important elements for treatment success in drug-using female offenders. More trials are required to increase the precision of confidence with which we can draw conclusions about the effectiveness of treatments for female drug-using offenders.

Factors associated with willingness to participate in a pharmacologic addiction treatment clinical trial among people who use drugs

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

Although new medications are needed to address the harms of drug addiction, rates of willingness to participate in addiction treatment trials among people who use drugs (PWUD), have not been well characterized.

METHODS

One thousand twenty PWUD enrolled in two community-recruited cohorts in Vancouver, Canada, were asked whether they would be willing to participate in a pharmacologic addiction treatment trial. Logistic regression was used to identify factors independently associated with a willingness to participate.

RESULTS

Among the 1,020 PWUD surveyed between June 1, 2013 and November 30, 2013, 58.3% indicated a willingness to participate. In multivariate analysis, factors independently associated with a willingness to participate in a pharmacologic addiction treatment trial included: daily heroin injection (Adjusted Odds Ratio [AOR] = 1.75; 95% Confidence Interval [CI]: 1.13 - 2.72); daily crack smoking (AOR = 1.81; 95% CI: 1.23 - 2.66); sex work involvement (AOR = 2.22; 95% CI: 1.21 - 4.06); HIV seropositivity (AOR = 1.49; 95% CI: 1.15 - 1.94); and methadone maintenance therapy participation (AOR = 1.77; 95% CI: 1.37-2.30).

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS

High rates of willingness to participate in a pharmacologic addiction treatment trial were observed in this setting. Importantly, high-risk drug and sexual activities were positively associated with a willingness to participate, which may suggest a desire for new treatment interventions among PWUD engaged in high-risk behavior.

SCIENTIFIC SIGNIFICANCE

These results highlight the viability of studies seeking to enroll representative samples of PWUD engaged in high-risk drug use.

A systematic review of randomized controlled trials of interventions to improve the health of persons during imprisonment and in the year after release

We systematically reviewed randomized controlled trials of interventions to improve the health of people during imprisonment or in the year after release. We searched 14 biomedical and social science databases in 2014, and identified 95 studies. Most studies involved only men or a majority of men (70/83 studies in which gender was specified); only 16 studies focused on adolescents. Most studies were conducted in the United States (n = 57). The risk of bias for outcomes in almost all studies was unclear or high (n = 91). In 59 studies, interventions led to improved mental health, substance use, infectious diseases, or health service utilization outcomes; in 42 of these studies, outcomes were measured in the community after release. Improving the health of people who experience imprisonment requires knowledge generation and knowledge translation, including implementation of effective interventions.

Pharmacological interventions for drug-using offenders

BACKGROUND

The review represents one in a family of four reviews focusing on a range of different interventions for drug-using offenders. This specific review considers pharmacological interventions aimed at reducing drug use and/or criminal activity for illicit drug-using offenders.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effectiveness of pharmacological interventions for drug-using offenders in reducing criminal activity and/or drug use.

SEARCH METHODS

Fourteen electronic bibliographic databases (searched between 2004 and 21 March 2013) and five additional Web resources (searched between 2004 and 11 November 2011) were searched. Experts in the field were contacted for further information.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials assessing the efficacy of any pharmacological interventions for reducing, eliminating or preventing relapse in drug-using offenders were included. Data on the cost and cost-effectiveness of interventions were reported.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard methodological procedures as expected by The Cochrane Collaboration.

MAIN RESULTS

A total of 76 trials across the four reviews were identified. After a process of prescreening had been completed, 17 trials were judged to meet the inclusion criteria for this specific review (six of the 17 trials are awaiting classification for the review). The remaining 11 trials contained a total of 2,678 participants. Nine of the eleven studies used samples with a majority of men. The interventions (buprenorphine, methadone and naltrexone) were compared to non pharmacological treatments (e.g., counselling) and other pharmacological drugs. The methodological trial quality was poorly described, and most studies were rated as 'unclear' by the reviewers. The biggest threats to risk of bias were generated through blinding (performance and detection bias) and incomplete outcome data (attrition bias). When combined, the results suggest that pharmacological interventions do significantly reduce subsequent drug use using biological measures, (three studies, 300 participants, RR 0.71 (95% CI 0.52 to 0.97)), self report dichotomous data (three studies, 317 participants, RR 0.42, (95% CI 0.22 to 0.81)) and continuous measures (one study, MD -59.66 (95% CI -120.60 to 1.28)) . In the subgroups analysis for community setting, (two studies, 99 participants: RR 0.62 (95% CI 0.35 to 1.09)) and for secure establishment setting, (one study, 201 participants: RR 0.76 (95% CI 0.52 to 1.10)), the results are no longer statistically significant. Criminal activity was significantly reduced favouring the dichotomous measures of re arrest, (one study, 62 participants, RR 0.60 (95% CI 0.32 to 1.14)), re-incarceration, (three studies, 142 participants, RR 0.33 (95% CI 0.19 to 0.56)) and continuous measures (one study, 51 participants, MD -74.21 (95% CI -133.53 to -14.89)). Findings on the effects of individual pharmacological interventions on drug use and criminal activity show mixed results. Buprenorphine in comparison to a non pharmacological treatment seemed to favour buprenorphine but not significantly with self report drug use, (one study, 36 participants, RR 0.58 (95% CI 0.25 to 1.35)). Methadone and cognitive behavioural skills in comparison to standard psychiatric services, did show a significant reduction for self report dichotomous drug use (one study, 253 participants, RR 0.43 (95% CI 0.33 to 0.56)) but not for self report continuous data (one study 51 participants) MD -0.52 (95% CI -1.09 to 0.05)), or re incarceration RR 1.23 (95% CI 0.53 to 2.87)). Naltrexone was favoured significantly over routine parole and probation for re incarceration (two studies 114 participants, RR 0.36 (95% CI 0.19 to 0.69)) but no data was available on drug use. Finally, we compared each pharmacological treatment to another. In each case we compared methadone to: buprenorphine, diamorphine and naltrexone. No significant differences were displayed for either treatment for self report dichotomous drug use (one study, 193 participants RR 1.23 (95% CI 0.86 to 1.76)), continuous measures of drug use MD 0.70 (95% CI -5.33 to 6.73) or criminal activity RR 1.25 (95% CI 0.83 to 1.88)) between methadone and buprenorphine. Similiar results were found for comparisons with Diamorphine with no significant differences between the drugs for self report dichotomous drug use for arrest (one study, 825 participants RR 1.25 (95% CI 1.03-1.51)) or Naltrexone for dichotomous measures of re incarceration (one study, 44 participants, RR 1.10 (95% CI 0.37 to 3.26)), and continuous outcome measure of crime MD -0.50 (95% CI -8.04 to 7.04)) or self report drug use MD 4.60 (95% CI -3.54 to 12.74)).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Pharmacological interventions for drug-using offenders do appear to reduce overall subsequent drug use and criminal activity (but to a lesser extent). No statistically significant differences were displayed by treatment setting. Individual differences are displayed between the three pharmacological interventions (buprenorphine, methadone and naltrexone) when compared to a non pharmacological intervention, but not when compared to each other. Caution should be taken when interpreting these findings, as the conclusions are based on a small number of trials, and generalisation of these study findings should be limited mainly to male adult offenders. Additionally, many studies were rated at high risk of bias because trial information was inadequately described.

Methadone at tapered doses for the management of opioid withdrawal

BACKGROUND

The evidence of tapered methadone's efficacy in managing opioid withdrawal has been systematically evaluated in the previous version of this review that needs to be updated

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the effectiveness of tapered methadone compared with other detoxification treatments and placebo in managing opioid withdrawal on completion of detoxification and relapse rate.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched: Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (The Cochrane Library 2012, Issue 4), PubMed (January 1966 to May 2012), EMBASE (January 1988 to May 2012), CINAHL (2003- December 2007), PsycINFO (January 1985 to December 2004), reference lists of articles.

SELECTION CRITERIA

All randomised controlled trials that focused on the use of tapered methadone versus all other pharmacological detoxification treatments or placebo for the treatment of opiate withdrawal.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors assessed the included studies. Any doubts about how to rate the studies were resolved by discussion with a third review author. Study quality was assessed according to the criteria indicated in the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions.

MAIN RESULTS

Twenty-three trials involving 2467 people were included. Comparing methadone versus any other pharmacological treatment, we observed no clinical difference between the two treatments in terms of completion of treatment, 16 studies 1381 participants, risk ratio (RR) 1.08 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.97 to 1.21); number of participants abstinent at follow-up, three studies, 386 participants RR 0.98 (95% CI 0.70 to 1.37); degree of discomfort for withdrawal symptoms and adverse events, although it was impossible to pool data for the last two outcomes. These results were confirmed also when we considered the single comparisons: methadone with: adrenergic agonists (11 studies), other opioid agonists (eight studies), anxiolytic (two studies), paiduyangsheng (one study). Comparing methadone with placebo (two studies) more severe withdrawal and more drop-outs were found in the placebo group. The results indicate that the medications used in the included studies are similar in terms of overall effectiveness, although symptoms experienced by participants differed according to the medication used and the program adopted.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Data from literature are hardly comparable; programs vary widely with regard to the assessment of outcome measures, impairing the application of meta-analysis. The studies included in this review confirm that slow tapering with temporary substitution of long- acting opioids, can reduce withdrawal severity. Nevertheless, the majority of patients relapsed to heroin use.