Superiority and cost-effectiveness of monthly extended-release buprenorphine versus daily standard of care medication: a pragmatic, parallel-group, open-label, multicentre, randomised, controlled, phase 3 trial.

Background: Daily methadone maintenance or buprenorphine treatment is the standard-of-care (SoC) medication for opioid use disorder (OUD). Subcutaneously injected, extended-release buprenorphine (BUP-XR) may be more effective-but there has been no superiority evaluation. Methods: This pragmatic, parallel-group, open-label, multi-centre, effectiveness superiority randomised, controlled, phase 3 trial was conducted at five National Health Service community-based treatment clinics in England and Scotland. Participants (adults aged ≥ 18 years; all meeting DSM-5 diagnostic criteria for moderate or severe OUD at admission to their current maintenance treatment episode) were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive continued daily SoC (liquid methadone (usual dose range: 60-120 mg) or sublingual/transmucosal buprenorphine (usual dose range: 8-24 mg) for 24 weeks; or monthly BUP-XR (Sublocade;® two injections of 300 mg, then four maintenance injections of 100 mg or 300 mg, with maintenance dose selected by response and preference) for 24 weeks. In the intent-to-treat population (senior statistician blinded to blinded to treatment group allocation), and with a seven-day grace period after randomisation, the primary endpoint was the count of days abstinent from non-medical opioids between days 8-168 (i.e., weeks 2-24; range: 0-161 days). Safety was reported for the intention-to- treat population. Adopting a broad societal perspective inclusive of criminal justice, NHS and personal social service costs, a trial-based cost-utility analysis estimated the Incremental Cost-effectiveness Ratio (ICER) per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) of BUP-XR versus SoC at the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence threshold. The study was registered EudraCT (2018-004460-63) and ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT05164549), and is completed. Findings: Between Aug 9, 2019 and Nov 2, 2021, 314 participants were randomly allocated to receive SoC (n = 156) or BUP-XR (n = 158). Participants were abstinent from opioids for an adjusted mean of 104.37 days (standard error [SE] 9.89; range: 0-161 days) in the SoC group and an adjusted mean of 123.43 days (SE 4.76; range: 24-161 days) in the BUP-XR group (adjusted incident rate ratio [IRR] 1.18, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.05-1.33; p-value 0.004). The incidence of any adverse event was higher in the BUP-XR group than the SoC group (128 [81.0%] of 158 participants versus 67 [42.9%] of 156 participants, respectively-most commonly rapidly-resolving (mild-moderate range) pain from drug administration in the BUP-XR group (121 [26.9%] of 450 adverse events). There were 11 serious adverse events (7.0%) in the 158 participants in the BUP-XR group, and 18 serious adverse events (11.5%) in the 156 participants in the SoC group-none judged to be related to study treatment. The BUP-XR treatment group had a mean incremental cost of £1033 (95% central range [CR] -1189 to 3225) and was associated with a mean incremental QALY of 0.02 (95% CR 0.00-0.05), and an ICER of £47,540 (0.37 probability of being cost-effective at the £30,000/QALY gained willingness-to-pay threshold). However, BUP-XR dominated the SoC among participants who were rated more severe at study baseline, and among participants in maintenance treatment for more that 28 days at study enrolment. Interpretation: Evaluated against the daily oral SoC, monthly BUP-XR is clinically superior, delivering greater abstinence from opioids, and with a comparable safety profile. BUP-XR was not cost-effective in a base case cost-utility analysis using the societal perspective, but it was more effective and less costly (dominant) among participants with more severe OUD, or those whose current treatment episode was longer than 28 days. Further trials are needed to evaluate if BUP-XR is associated with better clinical and health economic outcomes over the longer term. Funding: Indivior.

Achieving integrated treatment: a realist synthesis of service models and systems for co-existing serious mental health and substance use conditions.

Approximately 30-50% of people with serious mental illness have co-existing drug or alcohol problems (COSMHAD), associated with adverse health and social care outcomes. UK guidelines advocate both co-occurring needs being met within mental health services, but uncertainty remains about how to operationalise this to improve outcomes. Various unevaluated service configurations exist in the UK. A realist synthesis was done to identify, test, and refine programme theories of how context shapes the mechanisms through which UK service models for COSMHAD work, for whom, and in what circumstances. Structured and iterative realist searches of seven databases identified 5099 records. A two-stage screening process identified 132 papers. Three broad contextual factors shaped COSMHAD services across 11 programme theories: committed leadership, clear expectations regarding COSMHAD from mental health and substance use workforces, and clear care-coordination processes. These contextual factors led to increased staff empathy, confidence, legitimisation, and multidisciplinary ethos, which improved care coordination and increased the motivation of people with COSMHAD to work towards their goals. Our synthesis highlights that integrating COSMHAD care is complex, and both individual and cultural behavioural shifts in leadership, workforce, and service delivery are essential to ensure people with COSMHAD receive compassionate, trauma-informed care that meets their needs.

Patients' perceptions of self-administered dosing to opioid agonist treatment and other changes during the COVID-19 pandemic: a qualitative study.

OBJECTIVES: During the COVID-19 pandemic, addiction treatment services received official guidance asking them to limit face-to-face contact with patients and to prescribe opioid agonist treatment (OAT) medication flexibly. With the aim for most patients to receive take-home supplies for self-administration rather than attendance for observed daily dosing. DESIGN: This was a theory-driven, clinically applied qualitative study, with data for thematic analysis collected by semi-structured, audio-recorded, telephone interviews. PARTICIPANTS: Twenty-seven adults (aged ≥18 years) enrolled in sublingual (tablet) buprenorphine and oral (liquid) methadone OAT. SETTING: Community addictions centre in the London Borough of Lambeth operated by South London and Maudsley NHS Trust. RESULTS: Three major themes were identified: (1) dissatisfaction and perceived stigma with OAT medication dispensing arrangements before the pandemic; (2) positive adaptations in response to COVID-19 by services; (3) participants recommended that, according to preference and evidence of adherence, OAT should be personalised to offer increasing medication supplies for self-administration from as early as 7 days after commencement of maintenance prescribing. CONCLUSIONS: In an applied qualitative study of patients enrolled in OAT during the COVID-19 pandemic, participants endorsed their opportunity to take medication themselves at home and with virtual addiction support. Most patients described a preference for self-administration with increased dispensing supplies, from as early as 7 days into maintenance treatment, if they could demonstrate adherence to their prescription.

The Cost-Effectiveness of Financial Incentives to Achieve Heroin Abstinence in Individuals With Heroin Use Disorder Starting New Treatment Episodes: A Cluster Randomized Trial-Based Economic Evaluation.

OBJECTIVES: Cost-effectiveness analysis of two 12-week contingency management (CM) schedules targeting heroin abstinence or attendance at weekly keyworker appointments for opioid agonist treatment compared with treatment as usual (TAU). METHODS: A cost-effectiveness analysis was conducted alongside a cluster randomized trial of 552 patients from 34 clusters (drug treatment clinics) randomly allocated 1:1:1 to opioid agonist treatment plus weekly keyworker appointments with (1) CM targeted at heroin abstinence (CM abstinence), (2) CM targeted at on-time attendance at weekly appointments (CM attendance), or (3) no CM (TAU). The primary cost-effectiveness analysis at 24 weeks after randomization took a societal cost perspective with effects measured in heroin-negative urine samples. RESULTS: At 24 weeks, mean differences in weekly heroin-negative urine results compared with TAU were 0.252 (95% confidence interval [CI] -0.397 to 0.901) for CM abstinence and 0.089 (95% CI -0.223 to 0.402) for CM attendance. Mean differences in costs were £2562 (95% CI £32-£5092) for CM abstinence and £317 (95% CI -£882 to £1518) for CM attendance. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios were £10 167 per additional heroin-free urine for CM abstinence and £3562 for CM attendance with low probabilities of cost-effectiveness of 3.5% and 36%, respectively. Results were sensitive to timing of follow-up for CM attendance, which dominated TAU (better outcomes, lower costs) at 12 weeks, with an 88.4% probability of being cost-effective. Probability of cost-effectiveness remained low for CM abstinence (8.6%). CONCLUSIONS: Financial incentives targeted toward heroin abstinence and treatment attendance were not cost-effective over the 24-week follow-up. Nevertheless, CM attendance was cost-effective over the treatment period (12 weeks), when participants were receiving keyworker appointments and incentives.

Experience and response to a randomised controlled trial of extended-release injectable buprenorphine versus sublingual tablet buprenorphine and oral liquid methadone for opioid use disorder: protocol for a mixed-methods evaluation.

INTRODUCTION: Opioid use disorder (OUD) is a debilitating and persistent disorder. The standard-of-care treatment is daily maintenance dosing of sublingual buprenorphine (BUP-SL) or oral methadone (MET). Monthly, extended-release, subcutaneous injectable buprenorphine (BUP-XR) has been developed to enhance treatment effectiveness. This study aims to investigate the experiences of participants who have been offered BUP-XR (evaluation 1), health-related quality-of-life among participants who have opted to receive BUP-XR longer term (evaluation 2) and the experiences of participants allocated to receive BUP-XR or BUP-SL or MET with the offer of adjunctive personalised psychosocial intervention (evaluation 3). METHODS AND ANALYSIS: Three qualitative-quantitative (mixed-methods) evaluations embedded in a five-centre, head-to-head, randomised controlled trial of BUP-XR versus BUP-SL and MET in the UK. Evaluation 1 is a four-centre interview anchored on an OUD-related topic guide and conducted after the 24-week trial endpoint. Evaluation 2 is a two-centre interview anchored on medications for opioid use disorder-specific quality-of-life topic guide conducted among participants after 12-24 months. Evaluation 3: single-centre interview after the 24-week trial endpoint. All evaluations include selected trial clinical measures, with evaluation 2 incorporating additional questionnaires. Target participant recruitment for evaluations 1 and 2 is 15 participants per centre (n=60 and n=30, respectively). Recruitment for evaluation 3 is 15 participants per treatment arm (n=30). Each evaluation will be underpinned by theory, drawing on constructs from the behavioural model for health service use or the health-related quality-of-life model. Qualitative data analysis will be by iterative categorisation. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Study protocol, consent materials and questionnaires were approved by the London-Brighton and Sussex research ethics committee (reference: 19/LO/0483) and the Health Research Authority (IRAS project number 255522). Participants will be provided with information sheets and informed written consent will be obtained for each evaluation. Study findings will be disseminated through peer-reviewed scientific journals. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: 2018-004460-63.

Extended-release pharmacotherapy for opioid use disorder (EXPO): protocol for an open-label randomised controlled trial of the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of injectable buprenorphine versus sublingual tablet buprenorphine and oral liquid methadone.

BACKGROUND: Sublingual tablet buprenorphine (BUP-SL) and oral liquid methadone (MET) are the daily, standard-of-care (SOC) opioid agonist treatment medications for opioid use disorder (OUD). A sizable proportion of the OUD treatment population is not exposed to sufficient treatment to attain the desired clinical benefit. Two promising therapeutic technologies address this deficit: long-acting injectable buprenorphine and personalised psychosocial interventions (PSI). This study will determine (A) the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness - monthly injectable, extended-release (BUP-XR) in a head-to-head comparison with BUP-SL and MET, and (B) the effectiveness of BUP-XR with adjunctive PSI versus BUP-SL and MET with PSI. Safety, retention, craving, substance use, quality-adjusted life years, social functioning, and subjective recovery from OUD will be also evaluated. METHODS: This is a pragmatic, multi-centre, open-label, parallel-group, superiority RCT, with a qualitative (mixed-methods) evaluation. The study population is adults. The setting is five National Health Service community treatment centres in England and Scotland. At each centre, participants will be randomly allocated (1:1) to BUP-XR or SOC. At the London study co-ordinating centre, there will also be allocation of participants to BUP-XR with PSI or SOC with PSI. With 24 weeks of study treatment, the primary outcome is days of abstinence from non-medical opioids during study weeks 2-24 combined with up to 12 urine drug screen tests for opioids. For 90% power (alpha, 5%; 15% inflation for attrition), 304 participants are needed for the BUP-XR versus SOC comparison. With the same planning parameters, 300 participants are needed for the BUP-XR and PSI versus SOC and PSI comparison. Statistical and health economic analysis plans will be published before data-lock on the Open Science Framework. Findings will be reported in accordance with the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials and Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards. DISCUSSION: This pragmatic randomised controlled trial is the first evaluation of injectable BUP-XR versus the SOC medications BUP-SL and MET, with personalised PSI. If there is evidence for the superiority of BUP-XR over SOC medication, study findings will have substantial implications for OUD clinical practice and treatment policy in the UK and elsewhere. TRIAL REGISTRATION: EU Clinical Trials register 2018-004460-63.

Using a pragmatically adapted, low-cost contingency management intervention to promote heroin abstinence in individuals undergoing treatment for heroin use disorder in UK drug services (PRAISE): a cluster randomised trial.

INTRODUCTION: Most individuals treated for heroin use disorder receive opioid agonist treatment (OAT)(methadone or buprenorphine). However, OAT is associated with high attrition and persistent, occasional heroin use. There is some evidence for the effectiveness of contingency management (CM), a behavioural intervention involving modest financial incentives, in encouraging drug abstinence when applied adjunctively with OAT. UK drug services have a minimal track record of applying CM and limited resources to implement it. We assessed a CM intervention pragmatically adapted for ease of implementation in UK drug services to promote heroin abstinence among individuals receiving OAT. DESIGN: Cluster randomised controlled trial. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: 552 adults with heroin use disorder (target 660) enrolled from 34 clusters (drug treatment clinics) in England between November 2012 and October 2015. INTERVENTIONS: Clusters were randomly allocated 1:1:1 to OAT plus 12× weekly appointments with: (1) CM targeted at opiate abstinence at appointments (CM Abstinence); (2) CM targeted at on-time attendance at appointments (CM Attendance); or (3) no CM (treatment as usual; TAU). Modifications included monitoring behaviour weekly and fixed incentives schedule. MEASUREMENTS: Primary outcome: heroin abstinence measured by heroin-free urines (weeks 9-12). SECONDARY OUTCOMES: heroin abstinence 12 weeks after discontinuation of CM (weeks 21-24); attendance; self-reported drug use, physical and mental health. RESULTS: CM Attendance was superior to TAU in encouraging heroin abstinence. Odds of a heroin-negative urine in weeks 9-12 was statistically significantly greater in CM Attendance compared with TAU (OR=2.1; 95% CI 1.1 to 3.9; p=0.030). CM Abstinence was not superior to TAU (OR=1.6; 95% CI 0.9 to 3.0; p=0.146) or CM Attendance (OR=1.3; 95% CI 0.7 to 2.4; p=0.438) (not statistically significant differences). Reductions in heroin use were not sustained at 21-24 weeks. No differences between groups in self-reported heroin use. CONCLUSIONS: A pragmatically adapted CM intervention for routine use in UK drug services was moderately effective in encouraging heroin abstinence compared with no CM only when targeted at attendance. CM targeted at abstinence was not effective. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN 01591254.

Efficacy and cost-effectiveness of an adjunctive personalised psychosocial intervention in treatment-resistant maintenance opioid agonist therapy: a pragmatic, open-label, randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Opioid use disorder is a chronic, debilitating, and costly disorder that has increased in prevalence in many countries, with an associated sharp rise in mortality. Maintenance opioid agonist therapy is the first-line treatment, but many patients do not stop using illicit or non-prescribed drugs concomitantly. We aimed to test the efficacy and cost-effectiveness of a personalised psychosocial intervention implemented with a toolkit of behaviour-change techniques as an adjunct to opioid agonist therapy. METHODS: We did a pragmatic, open-label, randomised controlled trial at a specialist UK National Health Service community addictions clinic in London, UK. Eligible patients were aged 18 years or older, met criteria for opioid or cocaine dependence, or both, in the past 12 months, and voluntarily sought continued oral maintenance opioid agonist therapy, which they had been prescribed for at least 6 weeks. All participants were treatment resistant (ie, had used illicit or non-prescribed opioids or cocaine on one or more days in the past 28 days at study screening, which was verified by positive urine drug screen). Participants were allocated (1:1) by a web-accessed randomisation sequence (stratified by opioid agonist medication, current cocaine use, and current rug use) to receive a personalised psychosocial intervention (comprising a flexible toolkit of psychological-change methods, including contingency management to reinforce abstinence, recovery activities, and clinic attendance) in addition to treatment as usual, or treatment as usual only (control group). The primary outcome was treatment response at 18 weeks, which was defined as abstinence from illicit and non-prescribed opioids and cocaine in the past 28 days, as measured with treatment outcomes profiles and urine drug screening. Taking a societal cost perspective, we did an evaluation of cost-effectiveness with a wide range of willingness-to-pay values for a unit improvement in the probability of treatment response. We also calculated quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs). Efficacy was analysed in a modified-intention-to-treat population, including all participants who were randomly allocated but excluding those who had previously completed the intervention. This trial is registered with ISRCTN, number ISRCTN69313751. The trial is completed. FINDINGS: Between June 7, 2013, and Dec 21, 2015, we randomly allocated 136 participants to the psychosocial intervention group and 137 to the control group. The trial database was locked on April 19, 2017. Three patients (one in the psychosocial intervention group and two in the control group) who were re-randomised in error were excluded from the analysis. 22 (16%) of 135 patients in the psychosocial intervention group had a treatment response, compared with nine (7%) of 135 in the control group (adjusted log odds 1·20 [95% CI 0·01-2·37]; p=0·048). The psychosocial intervention had a higher probability of being cost-effective than treatment as usual. There was a probability range of 47-87% for willingness-to-pay thresholds of £0-1000 for a unit improvement in the probability of treatment response. QALYs were higher in the psychosocial intervention group than in the control group (mean difference 0·048 [95% CI 0·016-0·080]; p=0·004) in adjusted analyses, with 60% and 67% probabilities of cost-effectiveness at the UK National Institute for Health and Care Excellence's willingness-to-pay thresholds of £20 000 and £30 000 per QALY, respectively. The number of adverse events was similar between groups, and no severe adverse events in either group were judged to be treatment related. One participant in the control group was hospitalised with drug-injection-related sepsis and died. INTERPRETATION: In maintenance opioid agonist therapy, an adjunctive personalised psychosocial intervention in addition to standard therapy was efficacious and cost-effective compared with standard therapy alone at helping treatment-resistant patients abstain from using illicit and non-prescribed opioids and cocaine. FUNDING: Indivior.

Memory-Focused Cognitive Therapy for Cocaine Use Disorder: Theory, Procedures and Preliminary Evidence From an External Pilot Randomised Controlled Trial.

BACKGROUND: Cocaine use disorder (CUD) is a debilitating condition with no NICE-recommended medication or specific psychosocial interventions. In the United Kingdom (UK), general counselling (treatment-as-usual; TAU) is widely delivered, but has limited effectiveness. We tested the feasibility, safety and preliminary efficacy of a novel, adjunctive psychosocial intervention for CUD, called 'memory-focused cognitive therapy' (MFCT). METHODS: We did a two-arm, external pilot randomised controlled trial at a specialist community National Health Service addictions clinic in London, UK. 30 adults (≥18years), voluntarily seeking treatment for CUD (enrolled ≥14days; all with moderate-to-severe DSM5 CUD), were individually randomised (1:1) to a control group (ongoing TAU; 3×90min CUD cognitive conceptualisation assessments; 2×30min cocaine-related cue-induction procedures; and 3×30min research follow-ups); or to an intervention group (ongoing TAU; 3×90min cognitive conceptualisation assessments; 2×30min cocaine-related cue-induction procedures; 5×120min, one-to-one, MFCT sessions [in 1week]; and 3×60min research follow-ups and MFCT-relapse prevention). The primary outcome was the total percentage score on the frequency version of the Craving Experiences Questionnaire (CEQ-F) at 1-month follow-up after the intensive intervention week (clinical endpoint; recall period past 2weeks; higher score indicating greater craving). Secondary outcomes at the 1-month follow-up were percentage days abstinent (PDA) from cocaine, and longest period (days) of continuous abstinence (LPA) in the prior 28days. Outcomes were analysed as an unadjusted group mean difference (with Hedge's g effect size [ES]) and a 95% Confidence Interval [CI] for the primary outcome and a 90% CI for the secondary outcomes. Exploratory, multivariable linear (primary outcome) and Poisson regression models (secondary outcomes), with sex, age, months of regular cocaine use, baseline outcome score, and group estimated the effectiveness of the intervention. The trial is registered with the ISCRTN (ISRCTN16462783). FINDINGS: Between July 15, 2015, and November 27, 2016, 58 patients were assessed for eligibility and 30 participants were randomised (14 to the control group and 16 to the intervention). With outcome data collected for all participants at the endpoint, the intervention group mean CEQ-F score (14·77; SD 21·47) was lower than the control group mean (51·75; SD 22·72); ES -1·62; 95% CI -2·45 to -0·80. MFCT was associated with more cocaine abstinence in the intervention group (PDA 85·94; SD 18·96) than the control group (PDA 54·59; SD 30·29); ES 1·19; 90% CI 0·54 to 1·84. There was also greater maximum abstinence in the intervention group (LPA 15·69; SD 10·10) than the control group (6·00; SD 7·36); ES 1·06; 90% CI 0·41 to 1·70. Exploratory, confounder-adjusted regression models for this preliminary effect supported the treatment association for reduced craving experiences (CEQ-F Coef. -28·25; 95% CI -45·15 to -11·35); more abstinence (PDA Incidence Rate Ratio [IRR] 1·56; 95% CI 1·31 to 1·88); and greater maximum abstinence (LPA IRR 2·56; 95% CI 1·96 to 3·35), although relative weak unmeasured confounding could overturn these model-adjusted exposure-outcome associations. There were four serious adverse events (among three participants). None were judged related to study procedures or interventions. INTERPRETATION: In this first external pilot randomised controlled trial of MFCT for CUD, we have shown that the intervention and control procedures and acceptable feasible and safe, and report preliminary evidence that MFCT is associated with reduced craving and increased abstinence. These findings support progression to a substantive trial. FUNDING SOURCE: UK National Institute for Health Research, Biomedical Research Centre.

Monitoring quality and coverage of harm reduction services for people who use drugs: a consensus study.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Despite advances in our knowledge of effective services for people who use drugs over the last decades globally, coverage remains poor in most countries, while quality is often unknown. This paper aims to discuss the historical development of successful epidemiological indicators and to present a framework for extending them with additional indicators of coverage and quality of harm reduction services, for monitoring and evaluation at international, national or subnational levels. The ultimate aim is to improve these services in order to reduce health and social problems among people who use drugs, such as human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) and hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection, crime and legal problems, overdose (death) and other morbidity and mortality. METHODS AND RESULTS: The framework was developed collaboratively using consensus methods involving nominal group meetings, review of existing quality standards, repeated email commenting rounds and qualitative analysis of opinions/experiences from a broad range of professionals/experts, including members of civil society and organisations representing people who use drugs. Twelve priority candidate indicators are proposed for opioid agonist therapy (OAT), needle and syringe programmes (NSP) and generic cross-cutting aspects of harm reduction (and potentially other drug) services. Under the specific OAT indicators, priority indicators included 'coverage', 'waiting list time', 'dosage' and 'availability in prisons'. For the specific NSP indicators, the priority indicators included 'coverage', 'number of needles/syringes distributed/collected', 'provision of other drug use paraphernalia' and 'availability in prisons'. Among the generic or cross-cutting indicators the priority indicators were 'infectious diseases counselling and care', 'take away naloxone', 'information on safe use/sex' and 'condoms'. We discuss conditions for the successful development of the suggested indicators and constraints (e.g. funding, ideology). We propose conducting a pilot study to test the feasibility and applicability of the proposed indicators before their scaling up and routine implementation, to evaluate their effectiveness in comparing service coverage and quality across countries. CONCLUSIONS: The establishment of an improved set of validated and internationally agreed upon best practice indicators for monitoring harm reduction service will provide a structural basis for public health and epidemiological studies and support evidence and human rights-based health policies, services and interventions.

Psychosocial interventions in opiate substitution treatment services: does the evidence provide a case for optimism or nihilism?

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Clinical guidelines from around the world recommend the delivery of psychosocial interventions as part of routine care in opiate substitution treatment (OST) programmes. However, although individual studies demonstrate benefit for structured psychosocial interventions, meta-analytical reviews find no benefit for manual-based treatments beyond 'routine counselling'. ANALYSIS: We consider the question of whether OST medication alone is sufficient to produce the required outcomes, or whether greater efforts should be made to provide high-quality psychosocial treatment alongside medication. In so doing, we consider the nuances and limitations of the evidence and the organizational barriers to transferring it into routine practice. CONCLUSION: The evidence base for psychosocial interventions in opiate substitution treatment (OST) services can be interpreted both positively and negatively. Steering a path between overly optimistic or nihilistic interpretations of the value of psychosocial treatment in OST programmes is the most pragmatic approach. Greater attention should be paid to elements common to all psychological treatments (such as therapeutic alliance), but also to the sequencing and packaging of psychosocial elements and their linkage to peer-led interventions.

Memory-focused cognitive therapy for cocaine use disorder: Rationale, design and protocol for an external pilot randomised controlled trial.

INTRODUCTION: Cocaine use disorder (CUD) is a debilitating condition characterised by maladaptive cocaine-related memories and impaired cognitive and behavioural control. There are no evidence-supported pharmacotherapies and only weakly effective psychological interventions specific for CUD. Our novel Memory-focused Cognitive Therapy (MFCT) aims to modify cocaine-related memories to reduce craving and drug use. METHODS: This is a single-centre (outpatient), 15-week, two-arm, pilot randomised controlled trial (RCT) to address feasibility, safety, quality and preliminary efficacy. Thirty participants (adults ≥18 years; current CUD) will receive ongoing standard care (treatment-as-usual [TAU]) during the study and will be randomised (1:1) to a control or intervention group. The control group will receive 3 × 90min CUD cognitive case conceptualisation assessments and 2 × 30min cocaine-related cue-induction procedures (in vivo presentation of images and objects). Experimental group participants will receive 3 × 90min CUD cognitive case conceptualisation assessments; 2 × 30min cue-induction procedures; and individual MFCT (5 × 120min; daily for 1 week; with 3 relapse prevention follow-ups over 3-months). All study participants will complete research follow-ups at 1-week, 1-month and 3-months. The experimental and control groups will be compared on the mean score on the frequency version of the Craving Experience Questionnaire at 1-month (primary outcome measure). Secondary outcomes include: percentage of days abstinent and longest period of continuous abstinence from cocaine (past 28-days at 1-month follow-up); urine drug screen and CUD diagnosis (DSM-5). CONCLUSIONS: We will conduct a full external pilot RCT of a novel, MFCT for CUD. The findings will inform the case, and necessary modifications, for a substantive study.

Effectiveness of adjunctive, personalised psychosocial intervention for non-response to opioid agonist treatment: Study protocol for a pragmatic randomised controlled trial.

INTRODUCTION: Opioid use disorder (OUD) is a debilitating and relapsing psychiatric disorder; opioid agonist therapy (OAT) is the front-line, evidence-supported treatment. A substantial number of patients relapse or continue to use heroin or other illicit drugs during OAT. There is considerable heterogeneity in the OAT-resistant sub-population, with many behavioural moderators of treatment response. We have developed a personalised psychosocial intervention (PSI) targeting these individuals. A formulation-guided assessment is linked to a toolkit of motivational, cognitive/behavioural and social support techniques. Change methods have been adapted from evidence-supported psychological therapies and are idiosyncratically tailored to the need and response. METHODS: In this single-centre, 18-week, parallel group, pragmatic randomised clinical trial, we will determine the clinical and cost-effectiveness of the PSI as an adjunctive intervention during OAT, in comparison to opioid agonist treatment-as-usual. We plan to recruit 368 adults. The primary outcome measure is the proportion of participants categorised as 'responders' at the end of the intervention (defined as self-reported abstinence from heroin and cocaine with no positive biological drug tests during the 28days prior to the endpoint). Secondary outcomes include: percentage of days abstinent from heroin and cocaine in the 28days before follow-up; treatment retention; therapy compliance; health and social functioning; exploratory genetic biomarkers; and analyses of treatment moderation and mediation. CONCLUSIONS: This pragmatic controlled trial determines the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of a personalised PSI for non-responding patients during OAT. Our intervention applies motivational, cognitive/behavioural and social support techniques adapted from evidence-based therapies. Findings will inform stratified delivery of OAT.

DEVELOPMENT AND VALIDATION OF 'SURE': A PATIENT REPORTED OUTCOME MEASURE (PROM) FOR RECOVERY FROM DRUG AND ALCOHOL DEPENDENCE.

BACKGROUND: Patient Reported Outcome Measures (PROMs) assess health status and health-related quality of life from the patient/service user perspective. Our study aimed to: i. develop a PROM for recovery from drug and alcohol dependence that has good face and content validity, acceptability and usability for people in recovery; ii. evaluate the psychometric properties and factorial structure of the new PROM ('SURE'). METHODS: Item development included Delphi groups, focus groups, and service user feedback on draft versions of the new measure. A 30-item beta version was completed by 575 service users (461 in person [IP] and 114 online [OL]). Analyses comprised rating scale evaluation, assessment of psychometric properties, factorial structure, and differential item functioning. RESULTS: The beta measure had good face and content validity. Nine items were removed due to low stability, low factor loading, low construct validity or high complexity. The remaining 21 items were re-scaled (Rasch model analyses). Exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses revealed 5 factors: substance use, material resources, outlook on life, self-care, and relationships. The MIMIC model indicated 95% metric invariance across the IP and OL samples, and 100% metric invariance for gender. Internal consistency and test-retest reliability were granted. The 5 factors correlated positively with the corresponding WHOQOL-BREF and ARC subscales and score differences between participant sub-groups confirmed discriminative validity. CONCLUSION: 'SURE' is a psychometrically valid, quick and easy-to-complete outcome measure, developed with unprecedented input from people in recovery. It can be used alongside, or instead of, existing outcome tools.

Development of the Addiction Dimensions for Assessment and Personalised Treatment (ADAPT).

BACKGROUND: Convergent research reveals heterogeneity in substance use disorders (SUD). The Addiction Dimensions for Assessment and Personalised Treatment (ADAPT) is designed to help clinicians tailor therapies. METHODS: Multicentre study in 21 SUD clinics in London, Birmingham (England) and Adelaide (Australia). 132 clinicians rated their caseload on a beta version with 16 ordinal indicators of addiction severity, health and social problem complexity, and recovery strengths constructs. In Birmingham, two in-treatment outcomes were recorded after 15-months: 28-day drug use (Treatment Outcome Profile; n=703) and Global Assessment of Functioning (GAF; DSM-IV Axis V; n=695). Following item-level screening (inter-rater reliability [IRR]; n=388), exploratory structural equation models (ESEM), latent profile analysis (LPA), and mixed-effects regression evaluated construct, concurrent and predictive validity characteristics, respectively. RESULTS: 2467 patients rated (majority opioid or stimulant dependent, enrolled in opioid medication assisted or psychological treatment). IRR-screening removed two items and ESEM models identified and recalibrated remaining indicators (root mean square error of approximation 0.066 [90% confidence interval 0.055-0.064]). Following minor re-specification and satisfactory measurement invariance evaluation, ADAPT factor scores discriminated patients by sample, addiction therapy and drug use. LPA identified three patient sub-types: Class 1 (moderate severity, moderate complexity, high strengths profile; 46.9%); Class 2 (low severity, low complexity, high strengths; 25.4%) and Class 3 (high severity, high complexity, low strengths; 27.7%). Class 2 had higher GAF (z=4.30). Class 3 predicted follow-up drug use (z=2.02) and lower GAF (z=3.51). CONCLUSION: The ADAPT is a valid instrument for SUD treatment planning, clinical review and outcome evaluation. Scoring and application are discussed.

Use of contingency management incentives to improve completion of hepatitis B vaccination in people undergoing treatment for heroin dependence: a cluster randomised trial.

BACKGROUND: Poor adherence to treatment diminishes its individual and public health benefit. Financial incentives, provided on the condition of treatment attendance, could address this problem. Injecting drug users are a high-risk group for hepatitis B virus (HBV) infection and transmission, but adherence to vaccination programmes is poor. We aimed to assess whether contingency management delivered in routine clinical practice increased the completion of HBV vaccination in individuals receiving opioid substitution therapy. METHODS: In our cluster randomised controlled trial, we enrolled participants at 12 National Health Service drug treatment services in the UK that provided opioid substitution therapy and nurse-led HBV vaccination with a super-accelerated schedule (vaccination days 0, 7, and 21). Clusters were randomly allocated 1:1:1 to provide vaccination without incentive (treatment as usual), with fixed value contingency management (three £10 vouchers), or escalating value contingency management (£5, £10, and £15 vouchers). Both contingency management schedules rewarded on-time attendance at appointments. The primary outcome was completion of clinically appropriate HBV vaccination within 28 days. We also did sensitivity analyses that examined vaccination completion with full adherence to appointment times and within a 3 month window. The trial is registered with Current Controlled Trials, number ISRCTN72794493. FINDINGS: Between March 16, 2011, and April 26, 2012, we enrolled 210 eligible participants. Compared with six (9%) of 67 participants treated as usual, 35 (45%) of 78 participants in the fixed value contingency management group met the primary outcome measure (odds ratio 12·1, 95% CI 3·7-39·9; p<0·0001), as did 32 (49%) of 65 participants in the escalating value contingency management group (14·0, 4·2-46·2; p<0·0001). These differences remained significant with sensitivity analyses. INTERPRETATION: Modest financial incentives delivered in routine clinical practice significantly improve adherence to, and completion of, HBV vaccination programmes in patients receiving opioid substitution therapy. Achievement of this improvement in routine clinical practice should now prompt actual implementation. Drug treatment providers should employ contingency management to promote adherence to vaccination programmes. The effectiveness of routine use of contingency management to achieve long-term behaviour change remains unknown. FUNDING: National Institute for Health Research (RP-PG-0707-10149).

The prevalence and natural history of urinary symptoms among recreational ketamine users.

UNLABELLED: Study Type--Symptom prevalence (prospective cohort) Level of Evidence 1b. What's known on the subject? and What does the study add? Case series have described lower urinary tract symptoms associated with ketamine use including severe pain, frequency, haematuria and dysuria. Little is known regarding the frequency of symptoms, relationship of symptoms with dose and frequency of use and natural history of symptoms once the ketamine user has stopped. This study describes the prevalence of ketamine use in a population of recreational drug users in a dance music setting. It shows a dose-frequency relationship with ketamine use. It shows that urinary symptoms associated with recreational ketamine use may lead to a considerable demand on health resources in the primary-, secondary- and emergency-care settings. It shows that symptoms may improve once ketamine use is decreased. OBJECTIVE: • To investigate the prevalence and natural history of urinary symptoms in a cohort of recreational ketamine users. PATIENTS AND METHODS: • A purposeful sampling technique was used. • Between November 2009 and January 2010 participants were invited to undertake an on-line questionnaire promoted by a national dance music magazine and website. • Data regarding demographics and illicit drug-use were collected. • Among respondents reporting recent ketamine use, additional information detailing their ketamine use, experience of urinary symptoms and use of related healthcare services was obtained. RESULTS: • In all, 3806 surveys were completed, of which 1285 (33.8%) participants reported ketamine use within the last year. • Of the ketamine users, 17% were found to be dependent on the drug; 26.6% (340) of recent ketamine users reported experiencing urinary symptoms. • Urinary symptoms were significantly related to both dose of ketamine used and frequency of ketamine use. • Of 251 users reporting their experience of symptoms over time in relationship to their use of ketamine, 51% reported improvement in urinary symptoms upon cessation of use with only eight (3.8%) reporting deterioration after stopping use. CONCLUSIONS: • Urinary tract symptoms are reported in over a quarter of regular ketamine users. • A dose and frequency response relationship has been shown between ketamine use and urinary symptoms. • Both users and primary-care providers need to be educated about urinary symptoms that may arise in ketamine users. A multi-disciplinary approach promoting harm reduction, cessation and early referral is needed to manage individuals with ketamine-associated urinary tract symptoms to avoid progression to severe and irreversible urological pathologies.

Mephedrone: use, subjective effects and health risks.

AIMS: To assess the patterns of use, subjective effect profile and dependence liability of mephedrone, supported by corroborative urine toxicology. DESIGN: Cross-sectional structured telephone interview. SETTING: UK-based drug users associated with the dance music scene. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 100 mephedrone users, recruited through their involvement with the dance music scene. MEASUREMENTS: Assessment of pattern of use, acute and after effects, DSM dependence criteria and gas chromatography-mass spectrometry urinalysis. FINDINGS: Mephedrone consumption results in typical stimulant-related subjective effects: euphoria, increased concentration, talkativeness, urge to move, empathy, jaw clenching, reduced appetite and insomnia. Thirty per cent of the sample potentially met criteria for DSM-IV dependence and there was evidence of a strong compulsion to use the drug (47% had used the drug for 2 or more consecutive days). Self-reported recent consumption of mephedrone was confirmed by toxicological analysis in all of the 14 participants who submitted a urine sample. CONCLUSION: Mephedrone has a high abuse and health risk liability, with increased tolerance, impaired control and a compulsion to use, the predominant reported dependence symptoms.