-
BMC Public Health Nov 2021Drug abuse is detrimental, and excessive drug usage is a worldwide problem. Drug usage typically begins during adolescence. Factors for drug abuse include a variety of...
BACKGROUND
Drug abuse is detrimental, and excessive drug usage is a worldwide problem. Drug usage typically begins during adolescence. Factors for drug abuse include a variety of protective and risk factors. Hence, this systematic review aimed to determine the risk and protective factors of drug abuse among adolescents worldwide.
METHODS
Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) was adopted for the review which utilized three main journal databases, namely PubMed, EBSCOhost, and Web of Science. Tobacco addiction and alcohol abuse were excluded in this review. Retrieved citations were screened, and the data were extracted based on strict inclusion and exclusion criteria. Inclusion criteria include the article being full text, published from the year 2016 until 2020 and provided via open access resource or subscribed to by the institution. Quality assessment was done using Mixed Methods Appraisal Tools (MMAT) version 2018 to assess the methodological quality of the included studies. Given the heterogeneity of the included studies, a descriptive synthesis of the included studies was undertaken.
RESULTS
Out of 425 articles identified, 22 quantitative articles and one qualitative article were included in the final review. Both the risk and protective factors obtained were categorized into three main domains: individual, family, and community factors. The individual risk factors identified were traits of high impulsivity; rebelliousness; emotional regulation impairment, low religious, pain catastrophic, homework completeness, total screen time and alexithymia; the experience of maltreatment or a negative upbringing; having psychiatric disorders such as conduct problems and major depressive disorder; previous e-cigarette exposure; behavioral addiction; low-perceived risk; high-perceived drug accessibility; and high-attitude to use synthetic drugs. The familial risk factors were prenatal maternal smoking; poor maternal psychological control; low parental education; negligence; poor supervision; uncontrolled pocket money; and the presence of substance-using family members. One community risk factor reported was having peers who abuse drugs. The protective factors determined were individual traits of optimism; a high level of mindfulness; having social phobia; having strong beliefs against substance abuse; the desire to maintain one's health; high paternal awareness of drug abuse; school connectedness; structured activity and having strong religious beliefs.
CONCLUSION
The outcomes of this review suggest a complex interaction between a multitude of factors influencing adolescent drug abuse. Therefore, successful adolescent drug abuse prevention programs will require extensive work at all levels of domains.
Topics: Adolescent; Depressive Disorder, Major; Electronic Nicotine Delivery Systems; Female; Humans; Pregnancy; Protective Factors; Risk Factors; Schools; Substance-Related Disorders
PubMed: 34774013
DOI: 10.1186/s12889-021-11906-2 -
The International Journal on Drug Policy Nov 2021This study aimed to determine the efficacy and acceptability of pharmacotherapies for cannabis use disorder (CUD). (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
OBJECTIVE
This study aimed to determine the efficacy and acceptability of pharmacotherapies for cannabis use disorder (CUD).
METHODS
We conducted a systematic review and frequentist network meta-analysis, searching five electronic databases for randomized placebo-controlled trials of individuals diagnosed with CUD receiving pharmacotherapy with or without concomitant psychotherapy. Primary outcomes were the reduction in cannabis use and retention in treatment. Secondary outcomes were adverse events, discontinuation due to adverse events, total abstinence, withdrawal symptoms, cravings, and CUD severity. We applied a frequentist, random-effects Network Meta-Analysis model to pool effect sizes across trials using standardized mean differences (SMD, g) and rate ratios (RR) with their 95% confidence intervals.
RESULTS
We identified a total of 24 trials (n=1912, 74.9% male, mean age 30.2 years). Nabilone (d=-4.47 [-8.15; -0.79]), topiramate (d=-3.80 [-7.06; -0.54]), and fatty-acid amyl hydroxylase inhibitors (d=-2.30 [-4.75; 0.15]) reduced cannabis use relative to placebo. Dronabinol improved retention in treatment (RR=1.27 [1.02; 1.57]), while topiramate worsened treatment retention (RR=0.62 [0.42; 0.91]). Gabapentin reduced cannabis cravings (d=-2.42 [-3.53; -1.32], while vilazodone worsened craving severity (d=1.69 [0.71; 2.66]. Buspirone (RR=1.14 [1.00; 1.29]), venlafaxine (RR=1.78 [1.40; 2.26]), and topiramate (RR=9.10 [1.27; 65.11]) caused more adverse events, while topiramate caused more dropouts due to adverse events.
CONCLUSIONS
Based on this review, some medications appeared to show promise for treating individual aspects of CUD. However, there is a lack of robust evidence to support any particular pharmacological treatment. There is a need for additional studies to expand the evidence base for CUD pharmacotherapy. While medication strategies may become an integral component for CUD treatment one day, psychosocial interventions should remain the first line given the limitations in the available evidence.
Topics: Adult; Female; Humans; Male; Marijuana Abuse; Network Meta-Analysis
PubMed: 34062288
DOI: 10.1016/j.drugpo.2021.103295 -
American Journal of Preventive Medicine Nov 2021Supervised injection facilities are harm reduction interventions that allow people who inject drugs to use previously obtained substances under the supervision of health... (Review)
Review
CONTEXT
Supervised injection facilities are harm reduction interventions that allow people who inject drugs to use previously obtained substances under the supervision of health professionals. Although currently considered illegal under U.S. federal law, several U.S. cities are considering implementing supervised injection facilities anyway as a response to the escalating overdose crisis. The objective of this review is to determine the effectiveness of supervised injection facilities, compared with that of control conditions, for harm reduction and community outcomes.
EVIDENCE ACQUISITION
Studies were identified from 2 sources: a high-quality, broader review examining supervised injection facility-induced benefits and harms (from database inception to January 2014) and an updated search using the same search strategy (January 2014‒September 2019). Systematic review methods developed by the Guide to Community Preventive Services were used (screening and analysis, September 2019‒December 2020).
EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS
A total of 22 studies were included in this review: 16 focused on 1 supervised injection facility in Vancouver, Canada. Quantitative synthesis was not conducted given inconsistent outcome measurement across the studies. Supervised injection facilities in the included studies (n=number of studies per outcome category) were mostly associated with significant reductions in opioid overdose morbidity and mortality (n=5), significant improvements in injection behaviors and harm reduction (n=7), significant improvements in access to addiction treatment programs (n=7), and no increase or reductions in crime and public nuisance (n=7).
CONCLUSIONS
For people who inject drugs, supervised injection facilities may reduce the risk of overdose morbidity and mortality and improve access to care while not increasing crime or public nuisance to the surrounding community.
Topics: Canada; Drug Overdose; Harm Reduction; Humans; Needle-Exchange Programs; Substance Abuse, Intravenous
PubMed: 34218964
DOI: 10.1016/j.amepre.2021.04.017 -
Drug and Alcohol Dependence Jul 2019Benzodiazepine misuse is a growing public health problem, with increases in benzodiazepine-related overdose deaths and emergency room visits in recent years. However,...
BACKGROUND
Benzodiazepine misuse is a growing public health problem, with increases in benzodiazepine-related overdose deaths and emergency room visits in recent years. However, relatively little attention has been paid to this emergent problem. We systematically reviewed epidemiological studies on benzodiazepine misuse to identify key findings, limitations, and future directions for research.
METHODS
PubMed and PsychINFO databases were searched through February 2019 for peer-reviewed publications on benzodiazepine misuse (e.g., use without a prescription; at a higher frequency or dose than prescribed). Eligibility criteria included human studies that focused on the prevalence, trends, correlates, motives, patterns, sources, and consequences of benzodiazepine misuse.
RESULTS
The search identified 1970 publications, and 351 articles were eligible for data extraction and inclusion. In 2017, benzodiazepines and other tranquilizers were the third most commonly misused illicit or prescription drug in the U.S. (approximately 2.2% of the population). Worldwide rates of misuse appear to be similar to those reported in the U.S. Factors associated with misuse include other substance use, receipt of a benzodiazepine prescription, and psychiatric symptoms and disorders. Benzodiazepine misuse encompasses heterogeneous presentations of motives, patterns, and sources. Moreover, misuse is associated with myriad poor outcomes, including mortality, HIV/HCV risk behaviors, poor self-reported quality of life, criminality, and continued substance use during treatment.
CONCLUSIONS
Benzodiazepine misuse is a worldwide public health concern that is associated with a number of concerning consequences. Findings from the present review have implications for identifying subgroups who could benefit from prevention and treatment efforts, critical points for intervention, and treatment targets.
Topics: Benzodiazepines; Drug Overdose; Humans; Prescription Drug Misuse; Prescription Drugs; Prevalence; Public Health; Quality of Life; Substance-Related Disorders
PubMed: 31121495
DOI: 10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2019.02.033 -
International Journal of Environmental... Dec 2022Eating disorders (EDs) are common among children and adolescents and are characterized by excessive concerns for physical appearance, distorted body image, and fear of... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
Eating disorders (EDs) are common among children and adolescents and are characterized by excessive concerns for physical appearance, distorted body image, and fear of gaining weight. The purpose of this review is to evaluate the follow-up of EDs from adolescence to adulthood, analyzing persistence, relapses, and associated comorbidities. We searched scientific articles in PubMed, PsycInfo, Scopus, and Embase through two research strings, one for quantitative outcomes (recovery/persistence, relapse, and remission) and one for the other outcomes (psychiatric and medical comorbidities, substance use, and social-relational complications). From a total of 8043 retrieved articles, we selected 503 papers after exclusion of duplicates and title/abstract screening. After a full-text evaluation, we included 16 studies eligible for this review. We performed a meta-analysis describing the quantitative results, and we created a narrative synthesis for the qualitative outcomes. Results: Our results confirm that EDs can persist in early adulthood in 40.7% of cases with a relapse percentage of 24.5%. Individuals with an ED more frequently present with an empathy deficit and comorbid anxiety and depressive disorders. EDs are chronic and complex disorders, more frequent in females. In most cases, EDs reduce the autonomy of individuals who present many difficulties in affirming their independence from parental family.
Topics: Adolescent; Female; Child; Humans; Adult; Feeding and Eating Disorders; Comorbidity; Anxiety Disorders; Substance-Related Disorders
PubMed: 36498309
DOI: 10.3390/ijerph192316237 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Oct 2021Substance use disorders (SUDs) are highly prevalent and associated with a substantial public health burden. Although evidence-based interventions exist for treating... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Substance use disorders (SUDs) are highly prevalent and associated with a substantial public health burden. Although evidence-based interventions exist for treating SUDs, many individuals remain symptomatic despite treatment, and relapse is common.Mindfulness-based interventions (MBIs) have been examined for the treatment of SUDs, but available evidence is mixed.
OBJECTIVES
To determine the effects of MBIs for SUDs in terms of substance use outcomes, craving and adverse events compared to standard care, further psychotherapeutic, psychosocial or pharmacological interventions, or instructions, waiting list and no treatment.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the following databases up to April 2021: Cochrane Drugs and Alcohol Specialised Register, CENTRAL, PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, CINAHL and PsycINFO. We searched two trial registries and checked the reference lists of included studies for relevant randomized controlled trials (RCTs).
SELECTION CRITERIA
RCTs testing a MBI versus no treatment or another treatment in individuals with SUDs. SUDs included alcohol and/or drug use disorders but excluded tobacco use disorders. MBIs were defined as interventions including training in mindfulness meditation with repeated meditation practice. Studies in which SUDs were formally diagnosed as well as those merely demonstrating elevated SUD risk were eligible.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane.
MAIN RESULTS
Forty RCTs met our inclusion criteria, with 35 RCTs involving 2825 participants eligible for meta-analysis. All studies were at high risk of performance bias and most were at high risk of detection bias. Mindfulness-based interventions (MBIs) versus no treatment Twenty-four RCTs included a comparison between MBI and no treatment. The evidence was uncertain about the effects of MBIs relative to no treatment on all primary outcomes: continuous abstinence rate (post: risk ratio (RR) = 0.96, 95% CI 0.44 to 2.14, 1 RCT, 112 participants; follow-up: RR = 1.04, 95% CI 0.54 to 2.01, 1 RCT, 112 participants); percentage of days with substance use (post-treatment: standardized mean difference (SMD) = 0.05, 95% CI -0.37 to 0.47, 4 RCTs, 248 participants; follow-up: SMD = 0.21, 95% CI -0.12 to 0.54, 3 RCTs, 167 participants); and consumed amount (post-treatment: SMD = 0.10, 95% CI -0.31 to 0.52, 3 RCTs, 221 participants; follow-up: SMD = 0.33, 95% CI 0.00 to 0.66, 2 RCTs, 142 participants). Evidence was uncertain for craving intensity and serious adverse events. Analysis of treatment acceptability indicated MBIs result in little to no increase in study attrition relative to no treatment (RR = 1.04, 95% CI 0.77 to 1.40, 21 RCTs, 1087 participants). Certainty of evidence for all other outcomes was very low due to imprecision, risk of bias, and/or inconsistency. Data were unavailable to evaluate adverse events. Mindfulness-based interventions (MBIs) versus other treatments (standard of care, cognitive behavioral therapy, psychoeducation, support group, physical exercise, medication) Nineteen RCTs included a comparison between MBI and another treatment. The evidence was very uncertain about the effects of MBIs relative to other treatments on continuous abstinence rate at post-treatment (RR = 0.80, 95% CI 0.45 to 1.44, 1 RCT, 286 participants) and follow-up (RR = 0.57, 95% CI 0.28 to 1.16, 1 RCT, 286 participants), and on consumed amount at post-treatment (SMD = -0.42, 95% CI -1.23 to 0.39, 1 RCT, 25 participants) due to imprecision and risk of bias. The evidence suggests that MBIs reduce percentage of days with substance use slightly relative to other treatments at post-treatment (SMD = -0.21, 95% CI -0.45 to 0.03, 5 RCTs, 523 participants) and follow-up (SMD = -0.39, 95% CI -0.96 to 0.17, 3 RCTs, 409 participants). The evidence was very uncertain about the effects of MBIs relative to other treatments on craving intensity due to imprecision and inconsistency. Analysis of treatment acceptability indicated MBIs result in little to no increase in attrition relative to other treatments (RR = 1.06, 95% CI 0.89 to 1.26, 14 RCTs, 1531 participants). Data were unavailable to evaluate adverse events.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
In comparison with no treatment, the evidence is uncertain regarding the impact of MBIs on SUD-related outcomes. MBIs result in little to no higher attrition than no treatment. In comparison with other treatments, MBIs may slightly reduce days with substance use at post-treatment and follow-up (4 to 10 months). The evidence is uncertain regarding the impact of MBIs relative to other treatments on abstinence, consumed substance amount, or craving. MBIs result in little to no higher attrition than other treatments. Few studies reported adverse events.
Topics: Cognitive Behavioral Therapy; Craving; Humans; Mindfulness; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Recurrence; Substance-Related Disorders
PubMed: 34668188
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD011723.pub2 -
JAMA Network Open Jun 2020Substance use disorders (SUDs) represent a pressing public health concern. Combined behavioral and pharmacological interventions are considered best practices for... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
IMPORTANCE
Substance use disorders (SUDs) represent a pressing public health concern. Combined behavioral and pharmacological interventions are considered best practices for addiction. Cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) is a first-line intervention, yet the superiority of CBT compared with other behavioral treatments when combined with pharmacotherapy remains unclear. An understanding of the effects of combined CBT and pharmacotherapy will inform best-practice guidelines for treatment of SUD.
OBJECTIVE
To conduct a meta-analysis of the published literature on combined CBT and pharmacotherapy for adult alcohol use disorder (AUD) or other SUDs.
DATA SOURCES
PubMed, Cochrane Register, MEDLINE, PsychINFO, and Embase databases from January 1, 1990, through July 31, 2019, were searched. Keywords were specified in 3 categories: treatment type, outcome type, and study design. Collected data were analyzed through September 30, 2019.
STUDY SELECTION
Two independent raters reviewed abstracts and full-text articles. English language articles describing randomized clinical trials examining CBT in combination with pharmacotherapy for AUD and SUD were included.
DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS
Inverse-variance weighted, random-effects estimates of effect size were pooled into 3 clinically informative subgroups: (1) CBT plus pharmacotherapy compared with usual care plus pharmacotherapy, (2) CBT plus pharmacotherapy compared with another specific therapy plus pharmacotherapy, and (3) CBT added to usual care and pharmacotherapy compared with usual care and pharmacotherapy alone. Sensitivity analyses included assessment of study quality, pooled effect size heterogeneity, publication bias, and primary substance moderator effects.
MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES
Substance use frequency and quantity outcomes after treatment and during follow-up were examined.
RESULTS
The sample included 62 effect sizes from 30 unique randomized clinical trials that examined CBT in combination with some form of pharmacotherapy for AUD and SUD. The primary substances targeted in the clinical trial sample were alcohol (15 [50%]), followed by cocaine (7 [23%]) and opioids (6 [20%]). The mean (SD) age of the patient sample was 39 (6) years, with a mean (SD) of 28% (12%) female participants per study. The following pharmacotherapies were used: naltrexone hydrochloride and/or acamprosate calcium (26 of 62 effect sizes [42%]), methadone hydrochloride or combined buprenorphine hydrochloride and naltrexone (11 of 62 [18%]), disulfiram (5 of 62 [8%]), and another pharmacotherapy or mixture of pharmacotherapies (20 of 62 [32%]). Random-effects pooled estimates showed a benefit associated with combined CBT and pharmacotherapy over usual care (g range, 0.18-0.28; k = 9). However, CBT did not perform better than another specific therapy, and evidence for the addition of CBT as an add-on to combined usual care and pharmacotherapy was mixed. Moderator analysis showed variability in effect direction and magnitude by primary drug target.
CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE
The present study supports the efficacy of combined CBT and pharmacotherapy compared with usual care and pharmacotherapy. Cognitive behavioral therapy did not perform better than another evidence-based modality (eg, motivational enhancement therapy, contingency management) in this context or as an add-on to combined usual care and pharmacotherapy. These findings suggest that best practices in addiction treatment should include pharmacotherapy plus CBT or another evidence-based therapy, rather than usual clinical management or nonspecific counseling services.
Topics: Adult; Cognitive Behavioral Therapy; Drug Therapy, Combination; Female; Humans; Male; Middle Aged; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Substance-Related Disorders; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 32558914
DOI: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2020.8279 -
Addiction (Abingdon, England) Jan 2023The ability to regulate emotions effectively has been associated with resilience to psychopathology. Individuals with substance use disorders (SUDs) have been shown to... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND AND AIMS
The ability to regulate emotions effectively has been associated with resilience to psychopathology. Individuals with substance use disorders (SUDs) have been shown to have higher levels of negative emotionality, with some evidence suggesting impairment in emotion regulation compared with individuals without SUDs. However, no previous attempt has been made to systematically review the literature to assess the magnitude of this difference. We aimed to assess the association between SUD diagnosis and emotion regulation as measured by the Difficulties in Emotion Regulation Scale (DERS) and Emotion Regulation Questionnaire (ERQ) through a systematic review and meta-analysis of existing findings.
METHODS
The systematic review was conducted using PubMed, PsycINFO and Embase. We examined cross-sectional studies that compared a SUD group with a control group and measured emotion regulation using the DERS or the ERQ. The primary analysis focused on papers using the DERS, as this was the predominant instrument in the literature.
RESULTS
Twenty-two studies met our primary analysis criteria, representing 1936 individuals with a SUD and 1567 controls. Individuals with SUDs relative to controls had significantly greater DERS scores, with a mean difference of 21.44 [95% confidence interval (CI) = 16.49-26.40, P < 0.001] and Hedges' g = 1.05 (95% CI = 0.86-1.24, P < 0.001). The difference was robust, remaining significant after removing outliers and studies with high risk of bias. Individuals with SUDs demonstrated poorer emotion regulation on each subscale of the DERS, with the largest deficits in the Strategies and Impulse subscales. The ERQ analysis revealed greater use of expressive suppression in those with SUDs relative to controls (Hedges' g = 0.76, 95% CI = 0.25-1.28, P = 0.004).
CONCLUSIONS
People with substance use disorders appear to have greater difficulties in emotion regulation than people without substance use disorders.
Topics: Humans; Emotional Regulation; Cross-Sectional Studies; Substance-Related Disorders; Emotions; Surveys and Questionnaires
PubMed: 35851975
DOI: 10.1111/add.16001 -
Journal of Neurology Dec 2019The primary aim of this systematic review was to establish the prevalence, character, and risk factors of peripheral neuropathy amongst chronic alcohol abusers and to... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
The primary aim of this systematic review was to establish the prevalence, character, and risk factors of peripheral neuropathy amongst chronic alcohol abusers and to identify the most appropriate management strategies. In this review, possible pathogenetic mechanisms are also discussed. A systematic, computer-based search was conducted using the PubMed database. Data regarding the above parameters were extracted. 87 articles were included in this review, 29 case-control studies, 52 prospective/retrospective cohort studies and 2 randomised control trials, 1 cross sectional study, and 3 population-based studies. The prevalence of peripheral neuropathy amongst chronic alcohol abusers is 46.3% (CI 35.7- 57.3%) when confirmed via nerve conduction studies. Alcohol-related peripheral neuropathy generally presents as a progressive, predominantly sensory axonal length-dependent neuropathy. The most important risk factor for alcohol-related peripheral neuropathy is the total lifetime dose of ethanol, although other risk factors have been identified including genetic, male gender, and type of alcohol consumed. At present, it is unclear what the pathogenetic mechanisms for the development of neuropathy amongst those who chronically abuse alcohol are, and therefore, it is unknown whether it is attributed to the direct toxic effects of ethanol or another currently unidentified factor. There is presently sparse data to support a particular management strategy in alcohol-related peripheral neuropathy, but the limited data available appears to support the use of vitamin supplementation, particularly of B-vitamin regimens inclusive of thiamine.
Topics: Alcoholic Neuropathy; Humans; Peripheral Nervous System Diseases
PubMed: 30467601
DOI: 10.1007/s00415-018-9123-1 -
Journal of General Internal Medicine Dec 2019Currently, there are no accepted FDA-approved pharmacotherapies for cocaine use disorder, though numerous medications have been tested in clinical trials. We conducted a... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Currently, there are no accepted FDA-approved pharmacotherapies for cocaine use disorder, though numerous medications have been tested in clinical trials. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to better understand the effectiveness of pharmacotherapy for cocaine use disorder.
METHODS
We searched multiple data sources (MEDLINE, PsycINFO, and Cochrane Library) through November 2017 for systematic reviews and randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of pharmacological interventions in adults with cocaine use disorder. When possible, we combined the findings of trials with comparable interventions and outcome measures in random-effects meta-analyses. We assessed the risk of bias of individual trials and the strength of evidence for each outcome using standardized criteria. Outcomes included continuous abstinence (3+ consecutive weeks); cocaine use; harms; and study retention. For relapse prevention studies (participants abstinent at baseline), we examined lapse (first cocaine positive or missing UDS) and relapse (two consecutive cocaine positive or missed UDS').
RESULTS
Sixty-six different drugs or drug combinations were studied in seven systematic reviews and 48 RCTs that met inclusion criteria. Antidepressants were the most widely studied drug class (38 RCTs) but appear to have no effect on cocaine use or treatment retention. Increased abstinence was found with bupropion (2 RCTs: RR 1.63, 95% CI 1.02 to 2.59), topiramate (2 RCTs: RR 2.56, 95% CI 1.39 to 4.73), and psychostimulants (14 RCTs: RR 1.36, 95% CI 1.05 to 1.77), though the strength of evidence for these findings was low. We found moderate strength of evidence that antipsychotics improved treatment retention (8 RCTs: RR 1.33, 95% CI 1.03 to 1.75).
DISCUSSION
Most of the pharmacotherapies studied were not effective for treating cocaine use disorder. Bupropion, psychostimulants, and topiramate may improve abstinence, and antipsychotics may improve retention. Contingency management and behavioral interventions along with pharmacotherapy should continue to be explored.
SR REGISTRATION
Prospero CRD42018085667.
Topics: Antidepressive Agents; Antipsychotic Agents; Central Nervous System Agents; Cocaine; Cocaine-Related Disorders; Drug Therapy; Humans
PubMed: 31183685
DOI: 10.1007/s11606-019-05074-8