-
Addiction Science & Clinical Practice Oct 2021Methamphetamine/amphetamine use has sharply increased among people with opioid use disorder (OUD). It is therefore important to understand whether and how use of these... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Methamphetamine/amphetamine use has sharply increased among people with opioid use disorder (OUD). It is therefore important to understand whether and how use of these substances may impact receipt of, and outcomes associated with, medications for OUD (MOUD). This systematic review identified studies that examined associations between methamphetamine/amphetamine use or use disorder and 3 classes of outcomes: (1) receipt of MOUD, (2) retention in MOUD, and (3) opioid abstinence during MOUD.
METHODS
We searched 3 databases (PubMed/MEDLINE, PsycINFO, CINAHL Complete) from 1/1/2000 to 7/28/2020 using key words and subject headings, and hand-searched reference lists of included articles. English-language studies of people with documented OUD/opioid use that reported a quantitative association between methamphetamine/amphetamine use or use disorder and an outcome of interest were included. Study data were extracted using a standardized template, and risk of bias was assessed for each study. Screening, inclusion, data extraction and bias assessment were conducted independently by 2 authors. Study characteristics and findings were summarized for each class of outcomes.
RESULTS
Thirty-nine studies met inclusion criteria. Studies generally found that methamphetamine/amphetamine use or use disorder was negatively associated with receiving methadone and buprenorphine; 2 studies suggested positive associations with receiving naltrexone. Studies generally found negative associations with retention; most studies finding no association had small samples, and these studies tended to examine shorter retention timeframes and describe provision of adjunctive services to address substance use. Studies generally found negative associations with opioid abstinence during treatment among patients receiving methadone or sustained-release naltrexone implants, though observed associations may have been confounded by other polysubstance use. Most studies examining opioid abstinence during other types of MOUD treatment had small samples.
CONCLUSIONS
Overall, existing research suggests people who use methamphetamine/amphetamines may have lower receipt of MOUD, retention in MOUD, and opioid abstinence during MOUD. Future research should examine how specific policies and treatment models impact MOUD outcomes for these patients, and seek to understand the perspectives of MOUD providers and people who use both opioids and methamphetamine/amphetamines. Efforts to improve MOUD care and overdose prevention strategies are needed for this population.
Topics: Buprenorphine; Humans; Methadone; Methamphetamine; Opiate Substitution Treatment; Opioid-Related Disorders
PubMed: 34635170
DOI: 10.1186/s13722-021-00266-2 -
PloS One 2020Substance use is disproportionately high among people who are homeless or vulnerably housed. We performed a systematic overview of reviews examining the effects of...
The effectiveness of substance use interventions for homeless and vulnerably housed persons: A systematic review of systematic reviews on supervised consumption facilities, managed alcohol programs, and pharmacological agents for opioid use disorder.
BACKGROUND
Substance use is disproportionately high among people who are homeless or vulnerably housed. We performed a systematic overview of reviews examining the effects of selected harm reduction and pharmacological interventions on the health and social well-being of people who use substances, with a focus on homeless populations.
METHODS AND FINDINGS
We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, Joanna Briggs Institute EBP, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews and DARE for systematic reviews from inception to August 2019. We conducted a grey literature search and hand searched reference lists. We selected reviews that synthesized evidence on supervised consumption facilities, managed alcohol programs and pharmacological interventions for opioid use disorders. We abstracted data specific to homeless or vulnerably housed populations. We assessed certainty of the evidence using the GRADE approach. Our search identified 483 citations and 30 systematic reviews met all inclusion criteria, capturing the results from 442 primary studies. This included three reviews on supervised consumption facilities, 24 on pharmacological interventions, and three on managed alcohol programs. Supervised consumption facilities decreased lethal overdoses and other high risk behaviours without any significant harm, and improved access to care. Pharmaceutical interventions reduced mortality, morbidity, and substance use, but the impact on retention in treatment, mental illness and access to care was variable. Managed alcohol programs reduced or stabilized alcohol consumption. Few studies on managed alcohol programs reported deaths.
CONCLUSIONS
Substance use is a common chronic condition impacting homeless populations. Supervised consumption facilities reduce overdose and improve access to care, while pharmacological interventions may play a role in reducing harms and addressing other morbidity. High quality evidence on managed alcohol programs is limited.
Topics: Alcohol-Related Disorders; Drug Overdose; Harm Reduction; Health Services Accessibility; Ill-Housed Persons; Housing; Humans; Narcotic Antagonists; Observational Studies as Topic; Opiate Substitution Treatment; Opioid-Related Disorders; Prevalence; Program Evaluation; Systematic Reviews as Topic; Treatment Outcome; Vulnerable Populations
PubMed: 31945092
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0227298 -
Addiction (Abingdon, England) Jan 2021Naloxone access laws (NALs) have been suggested to be an important strategy to reduce opioid-related harm. We describe the evolution of NALs across states and over time...
BACKGROUND AND AIMS
Naloxone access laws (NALs) have been suggested to be an important strategy to reduce opioid-related harm. We describe the evolution of NALs across states and over time and review existing evidence of their overall association with naloxone distribution and opioid overdose as well as the potential effects of specific NAL components.
METHODS
Descriptive analysis of temporal variation in US regional adoption of NAL components, accompanied by a systematic search of 13 databases for studies (published between 2005 and 20 December 2019) assessing the effects of NALs on naloxone distribution or opioid-related health outcomes. Eleven studies, all published since 2018, met inclusion criteria. Study time-frames spanned 1999-2017. Opioid-related overdose mortality, emergency department episodes and naloxone distribution were correlated with the presence of a NAL and, where data were available, NAL components.
RESULTS
Existing evidence suggests mixed, but generally beneficial, effects for NALs. Nearly all studies show that NALs, particularly those that permit naloxone distribution without patient-specific prescriptions, are associated with increased naloxone access [incidence rate ratios (IRR) range from 1.40, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 1.15-1.66 to 7.75, 95% CI = 1.22-49.35] and increased opioid-related emergency department visits (IRR range from 1.14, 95% CI = 1.07-1.20 to 1.15, 95% CI = 1.02-1.29). Most studies show NALs are associated with reduced overdose mortality, although findings vary depending on the specific NAL components and time-period analyzed (IRR range from 0.66, 95% CI = 0.42-0.90 to 1.27, 95% CI = 1.27-1.27). Few studies account for the variation in opioid environments (i.e. illicit versus prescription) or other policy dimensions that may be correlated with outcomes.
CONCLUSIONS
The existing literature on naloxone access laws in the United States supports beneficial effects for increased naloxone distribution, but provides inconclusive evidence for reduced fatal opioid overdose. Mixed findings may reflect variation in the laws' design and implementation, confounding effects of concurrent policy adoption, or differential effectiveness in light of changing opioid environments.
Topics: Drug and Narcotic Control; Harm Reduction; Health Services Accessibility; Humans; Naloxone; Narcotic Antagonists; Opiate Overdose; United States
PubMed: 32533570
DOI: 10.1111/add.15163 -
European Addiction Research 2016Opioid substitution treatment (OST) improves outcomes in opioid dependence. However, controlled drugs used in treatment may be misused or diverted, resulting in negative... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND/AIMS
Opioid substitution treatment (OST) improves outcomes in opioid dependence. However, controlled drugs used in treatment may be misused or diverted, resulting in negative treatment outcomes. This review defines a framework to assess the impact of misuse and diversion.
METHODS
A systematic review of published studies of misuse and diversion of OST medicines was completed; this evidence was paired with expert real-world experience to better understand the impact of misuse and diversion on the individual and on society.
RESULTS
Direct impact to the individual includes failure to progress in recovery and negative effects on health (overdose, health risks associated with injecting behaviour). Diversion of OST has impacts on a community that is beyond the intended OST recipient. The direct impact includes risk to others (unsupervised use; unintended exposure of children to diverted medication) and drug-related criminal behavior. The indirect impact includes the economic costs of untreated opioid dependence, crime and loss of productivity.
CONCLUSION
While treatment for opioid dependence is essential and must be supported, it is vital to reduce misuse and diversion while ensuring the best possible care. Understanding the impact of OST misuse and diversion is key to defining strategies to address these issues.
Topics: Consensus; Humans; Opiate Substitution Treatment; Opioid-Related Disorders; Prescription Drug Diversion; Prescription Drug Misuse
PubMed: 26426530
DOI: 10.1159/000438988 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Feb 2020Medical treatment and detoxification from opiate disorders includes oral administration of opioid agonists. Dihydrocodeine (DHC) substitution treatment is typically low... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Medical treatment and detoxification from opiate disorders includes oral administration of opioid agonists. Dihydrocodeine (DHC) substitution treatment is typically low threshold and therefore has the capacity to reach wider groups of opiate users. Decisions to prescribe DHC to patients with less severe opiate disorders centre on its perceived safety, reduced toxicity, shorter half-life and more rapid onset of action, and potential retention of patients. This review set out to investigate the effects of DHC in comparison to other pharmaceutical opioids and placebos in the detoxification and substitution of individuals with opiate use disorders.
OBJECTIVES
To investigate the effectiveness of DHC in reducing illicit opiate use and other health-related outcomes among adults compared to other drugs or placebos used for detoxification or substitution therapy.
SEARCH METHODS
In February 2019 we searched Cochrane Drugs and Alcohol's Specialised Register, CENTRAL, PubMed, Embase and Web of Science. We also searched for ongoing and unpublished studies via ClinicalTrials.gov, the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) and Trialsjournal.com. All searches included non-English language literature. We handsearched references of topic-related systematic reviews and the included studies.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomised controlled trials that evaluated the effect of DHC for detoxification and maintenance substitution therapy for adolescent (aged 15 years and older) and adult illicit opiate users. The primary outcomes were abstinence from illicit opiate use following detoxification or maintenance therapy measured by self-report or urinalysis. The secondary outcomes were treatment retention and other health and behaviour outcomes.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We followed the standard methodological procedures that are outlined by Cochrane. This includes the GRADE approach to appraise the quality of evidence.
MAIN RESULTS
We included three trials (in five articles) with 385 opiate-using participants that measured outcomes at different follow-up periods in this review. Two studies with 150 individuals compared DHC with buprenorphine for detoxification, and one study with 235 participants compared DHC to methadone for maintenance substitution therapy. We downgraded the quality of evidence mainly due to risk of bias and imprecision. For the two studies that compared DHC to buprenorphine, we found low-quality evidence of no significant difference between DHC and buprenorphine for detoxification at six-month follow-up (risk ratio (RR) 0.59, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.25 to 1.39; P = 0.23) in the meta-analysis for the primary outcome of abstinence from illicit opiates. Similarly, low-quality evidence indicated no difference for treatment retention (RR 1.29, 95% CI 0.99 to 1.68; P = 0.06). In the single trial that compared DHC to methadone for maintenance substitution therapy, the evidence was also of low quality, and there may be no difference in effects between DHC and methadone for reported abstinence from illicit opiates (mean difference (MD) -0.01, 95% CI -0.31 to 0.29). For treatment retention at six months' follow-up in this single trial, the RR calculated with an intention-to-treat analysis also indicated that there may be no difference between DHC and methadone (RR 1.04, 95% CI 0.94 to 1.16). The studies that compared DHC to buprenorphine reported no serious adverse events, while the DHC versus methadone study reported one death due to methadone overdose.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
We found low-quality evidence that DHC may be no more effective than other commonly used pharmacological interventions in reducing illicit opiate use. It is therefore premature to make any conclusive statements about the effectiveness of DHC, and it is suggested that further high-quality studies are conducted, especially in low- to middle-income countries.
Topics: Analgesics, Opioid; Codeine; Humans; Maintenance Chemotherapy; Opiate Substitution Treatment; Opioid-Related Disorders; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 32068247
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD012254.pub2 -
International Review of Psychiatry... Oct 2018Pharmacotherapy for opioid addiction with methadone, buprenorphine, and naltrexone has proven efficacy in reducing illicit opioid use. These treatments are...
Pharmacotherapy for opioid addiction with methadone, buprenorphine, and naltrexone has proven efficacy in reducing illicit opioid use. These treatments are under-utilized among opioid-addicted individuals on parole, probation, or in drug courts. This paper examines the peer-reviewed literature on the effectiveness of pharmacotherapy for opioid addiction of adults under community-based criminal justice supervision in the US. Compared to general populations, there are relatively few papers addressing the separate impact of pharmacotherapy on individuals under community supervision. Tentative conclusions can be drawn from the extant literature. Reasonable evidence exists that illicit opioid use and self-reported criminal behaviour decline after treatment entry, and that these outcomes are as favourable among individuals under criminal justice supervision as the general treatment population. Surprisingly, there is no conclusive evidence regarding the extent to which pharmacotherapy impacts the likelihood of arrest and incarceration among individuals under supervision. However, given the proven efficacy of these three medications in reducing illicit opioid use and the evidence that, in the general population, methadone and buprenorphine treatment are associated with reduction in overdose mortality, the use of all three pharmacotherapies among patients under criminal justice supervision should be expanded while more data are collected on their impact on arrest and incarceration.
Topics: Buprenorphine; Criminal Law; Humans; Methadone; Naltrexone; Opiate Substitution Treatment; Opioid-Related Disorders; Prisons
PubMed: 30522370
DOI: 10.1080/09540261.2018.1524373 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Apr 2017Opioid dependence (OD) is an increasing clinical and public health problem worldwide. International guidelines recommend opioid substitution treatment (OST), such as... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Opioid dependence (OD) is an increasing clinical and public health problem worldwide. International guidelines recommend opioid substitution treatment (OST), such as methadone and buprenorphine, as first-line medication treatment for OD. A negative aspect of OST is that the medication used can be diverted both through sale on the black market, and the unsanctioned use of medications. Daily supervised administration of medications used in OST has the advantage of reducing the risk of diversion, and may promote therapeutic engagement, potentially enhancing the psychosocial aspect of OST, but costs more and is more restrictive on the client than dispensing for off-site consumption.
OBJECTIVES
The objective of this systematic review is to compare the effectiveness of OST with supervised dosing relative to dispensing of medication for off-site consumption.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched in Cochrane Drugs and Alcohol Group Specialised Register and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, Web of Science from inception up to April 2016. Ongoing and unpublished studies were searched via ClinicalTrials.gov (www.clinicaltrials.gov) and World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) (http://www.who.int/ictrp/en/).All searches included non-English language literature. We handsearched references on topic-related systematic reviews.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised controlled trials (RCTs), controlled clinical trials (CCTs), and prospective controlled cohort studies, involving people who are receiving OST (methadone, buprenorphine) and comparing supervised dosing with dispensing of medication to be consumed away from the dispensing point, usually without supervision.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We used the standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane.
MAIN RESULTS
Six studies (four RCTs and two prospective observational cohort studies), involving 7999 participants comparing supervised OST treatment with unsupervised treatment, met the inclusion criteria. The risk of bias was generally moderate across trials, but the results reported on outcomes that we planned to consider were limited. Overall, we judged the quality of the evidence from very low to low for all the outcomes.We found no difference in retention at any duration with supervised compared to unsupervised dosing (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.88 to 1.12, 716 participants, four trials, low-quality evidence) or in retention in the shortest follow-up period, three months (RR 0.94; 95% CI 0.84 to 1.05; 472 participants, three trials, low-quality evidence). Additional data at 12 months from one observational study found no difference in retention between groups (RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.77 to 1.14; n = 300).There was no difference in abstinence at the end of treatment (self-reported drug use) (67% versus 60%, P = 0.33, 293 participants, one trial, very low-quality evidence); and in diversion of medication (5% versus 2%, 293 participants, one trial, very low-quality evidence).Regarding our secondary outcomes, we did not found a difference in the incidence of adverse effects in the supervised compared to unsupervised control group (RR 0.63; 96% CI 0.10 to 3.86; 363 participants, two trials, very low-quality evidence). Data on severity of dependence were very limited (244 participants, one trial) and showed no difference between the two approaches. Data on deaths were reported in two studies. One trial reported two deaths in the supervised group (low-quality evidence), while in the cohort study all-cause mortality was found lower in regular supervision group (crude mortality rate 0.60 versus 0.81 per 100 person-years), although after adjustment insufficient evidence existed to suggest that regular supervision was protective (mortality rate ratio = 1.23, 95% CI = 0.67 to 2.27).No studies reported pain symptoms, drug craving, aberrant opioid-related behaviours, days of unsanctioned opioid use and overdose.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Take-home medication strategies are attractive to treatment services due to lower costs, and place less restrictions on clients, but it is unknown whether they may be associated with increased risk of diversion and unsanctioned use of medication. There is uncertainty about the effects of supervised dosing compared with unsupervised medication due to the low and very low quality of the evidence for the primary outcomes of interest for this review. Data on defined secondary outcomes were similarly limited. More research comparing supervised and take-home medication strategies is needed to support decisions on the relative effectiveness of these strategies. The trials should be designed and conducted with high quality and over a longer follow-up period to support comparison of strategies at different stages of treatment. In particular, there is a need for studies assessing in more detail the risk of diversion and safety outcomes of using supervised OST to manage opioid dependence.
Topics: Analgesics, Opioid; Buprenorphine, Naloxone Drug Combination; Directly Observed Therapy; Humans; Methadone; Observational Studies as Topic; Opiate Substitution Treatment; Opioid-Related Disorders; Prescription Drug Diversion; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 28447766
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD011983.pub2 -
Systematic Reviews Jan 2013Problem alcohol use is common among illicit drug users and is associated with adverse health outcomes. It is also an important factor in poor prognosis among drug users... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Problem alcohol use is common among illicit drug users and is associated with adverse health outcomes. It is also an important factor in poor prognosis among drug users with hepatitis C virus (HCV) as it impacts progression to hepatic cirrhosis or opiate overdose in opioid users. The aim of this systematic review was to assess the effects of psychosocial interventions for problem alcohol use in adult illicit drug users with concurrent problem alcohol use (principally, problem drug users of opiates and stimulants).
METHODS
We searched the following databases (November 2011): Cochrane Library, PUBMED, EMBASE, CINAHL, PsycINFO and reference list of articles. We also searched conference proceedings and online registers of clinical trials. Two reviewers independently assessed risk of bias and extracted data from included randomized controlled trials.
RESULTS
Four studies (594 participants) were included in this review. Half of the trials were rated as having a high or unclear risk of bias. The four studies considered six different psychosocial interventions grouped into four comparisons: 1) cognitive-behavioral coping skills training versus 12-step facilitation (N = 41), 2) brief intervention versus treatment as usual (N = 110), 3) hepatitis health promotion versus motivational interviewing (N = 256), and 4) brief motivational intervention versus assessment-only group (N = 187). Differences between studies precluded any pooling of data. Findings are described for each trial individually. Most findings were not statistically significant except for comparison 2: decreased alcohol use at three months (risk ratio (RR) 0.32; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.19 to 0.54) and nine months (RR 0.16; 95% CI 0.08 to 0.33) in the treatment-as-usual group and comparison 4: reduced alcohol use in the brief motivational intervention (RR 1.67; 95% CI 1.08 to 2.60).
CONCLUSIONS
No conclusion can be made because of the paucity of the data and the low quality of the retrieved studies.
Topics: Adult; Alcohol Drinking; Alcoholism; Humans; Psychotherapy; Substance-Related Disorders
PubMed: 23311684
DOI: 10.1186/2046-4053-2-3 -
PloS One 2020Retention in opioid substitution (OST) treatment is associated with substantial reductions in all cause and overdose mortality. This systematic review aims to identify...
BACKGROUND
Retention in opioid substitution (OST) treatment is associated with substantial reductions in all cause and overdose mortality. This systematic review aims to identify both protective factors supporting retention in OST, and risk factors for treatment dropout.
METHODS
A systematic search was performed using MEDLINE, Embase, PsycInfo, CINAHL and Web of Science (January 2001 to October 2019). Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and observational cohort studies reporting on retention rates and factors associated with retention in OST were included. Factors associated with treatment retention and dropout were explored according to the Maudsley Addiction Profile. A narrative synthesis is provided.
RESULTS
67 studies were included in this review (4 RCTs and 63 observational cohort studies; N = 294,592), all assessing factors associated with retention in OST or treatment dropout. The median retention rate across observational studies was approximately 57% at 12 months, which fell to 38.4% at three years. Studies included were heterogeneous in nature with respect to treatment setting, type of OST, risk factor assessment, ascertainment of outcome and duration of follow-up. While the presence of such methodological heterogeneity makes it difficult to synthesise results, there is limited evidence to support the influence of a number of factors on retention, including age, substance use, OST drug dose, legal issues, and attitudes to OST.
CONCLUSIONS
Younger age, substance use particularly cocaine and heroin use, lower doses of methadone, criminal activity/incarceration, and negative attitudes to MMT appear to be associated with reduced retention in OST. A consensus definition of retention is required to allow for comparability across future studies.
Topics: Databases, Factual; Humans; Opiate Substitution Treatment; Opioid-Related Disorders; Patient Dropouts; Retention in Care; Risk Factors
PubMed: 32407321
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0232086 -
European Addiction Research 2021Between 2009 and 2018, the number of opioid-related deaths (ORDs) in Scotland showed a dramatic increase, whereas in England and Wales, a much lower increase in ORD was...
BACKGROUNDS
Between 2009 and 2018, the number of opioid-related deaths (ORDs) in Scotland showed a dramatic increase, whereas in England and Wales, a much lower increase in ORD was seen. This regional difference is remarkable, and the situation in Scotland is worrisome. Therefore, it is important to identify the drivers of ORD in Scotland.
METHODS
A systematic literature review according to PRISMA guidelines was conducted to identify peer-reviewed studies about key drivers for the observed differences in ORDs between Scotland and England/Wales. In addition, non-peer-reviewed reports on nationwide statistical data were retrieved via Google and Google Scholar and analysed to quantify differences in ORD drivers between Scotland and England/Wales.
RESULTS
The systematic review identified some important drivers of ORD, but none of these studies provided direct or indirect comparisons of ORD drivers in Scotland and England/Wales. However, the reports with nationwide statistical data showed important differences in ORD drivers between Scotland and England/Wales, including a higher prevalence of people using opioids in a problematic way (PUOP), more polydrug use in people using drugs in a problematic way (PUDP), a higher age of PUDP, and lower treatment coverage and efficacy of PUDP in Scotland compared to England/Wales, but no regional differences in injecting drug use, incarceration/prison release without treatment, and social deprivation in PUDP.
CONCLUSION
It is concluded that the opioid crisis in Scotland is best explained by a combination of drivers, consisting of a higher population involvement in (problematic) opioid use (notably methadone), relatively more polydrug use (notably benzodiazepines and gabapentinoids), a steeper ageing of the PUOP population in the past 2 decades, and lower treatment coverage and efficacy in Scotland compared to England/Wales. The findings have important consequences for strategies to handle the opioid crisis in Scotland.
Topics: Analgesics, Opioid; England; Humans; Opiate Overdose; Policy; Scotland; Wales
PubMed: 33965949
DOI: 10.1159/000516165