An International, Multidisciplinary Consensus Set of Patient-Centered Outcome Measures for Substance-Related and Addictive Disorders.

Background: In 1990, the United States' Institute of Medicine promoted the principles of outcomes monitoring in the alcohol and other drugs treatment field to improve the evidence synthesis and quality of research. While various national outcome measures have been developed and employed, no global consensus on standard measurement has been agreed for addiction. It is thus timely to build an international consensus. Convened by the International Consortium for Health Outcomes Measurement (ICHOM), an international, multi-disciplinary working group reviewed the existing literature and reached consensus for a globally applicable minimum set of outcome measures for people who seek treatment for addiction. Methods: To this end, 26 addiction experts from 11 countries and 5 continents, including people with lived experience (n = 5; 19%), convened over 16 months (December 2018-March 2020) to develop recommendations for a minimum set of outcome measures. A structured, consensus-building, modified Delphi process was employed. Evidence-based proposals for the minimum set of measures were generated and discussed across eight videoconferences and in a subsequent structured online consultation. The resulting set was reviewed by 123 professionals and 34 people with lived experience internationally. Results: The final consensus-based recommendation includes alcohol, substance, and tobacco use disorders, as well as gambling and gaming disorders in people aged 12 years and older. Recommended outcome domains are frequency and quantity of addictive disorders, symptom burden, health-related quality of life, global functioning, psychosocial functioning, and overall physical and mental health and wellbeing. Standard case-mix (moderator) variables and measurement time points are also recommended. Conclusions: Use of consistent and meaningful outcome measurement facilitates carer-patient relations, shared decision-making, service improvement, benchmarking, and evidence synthesis for the evaluation of addiction treatment services and the dissemination of best practices. The consensus set of recommended outcomes is freely available for adoption in healthcare settings globally.

World addiction medicine reports: formation of the International Society of Addiction Medicine Global Expert Network (ISAM-GEN) and its global surveys.

Addiction medicine is a dynamic field that encompasses clinical practice and research in the context of societal, economic, and cultural factors at the local, national, regional, and global levels. This field has evolved profoundly during the past decades in terms of scopes and activities with the contribution of addiction medicine scientists and professionals globally. The dynamic nature of drug addiction at the global level has resulted in a crucial need for developing an international collaborative network of addiction societies, treatment programs and experts to monitor emerging national, regional, and global concerns. This protocol paper presents methodological details of running longitudinal surveys at national, regional, and global levels through the Global Expert Network of the International Society of Addiction Medicine (ISAM-GEN). The initial formation of the network with a recruitment phase and a round of snowball sampling provided 354 experts from 78 countries across the globe. In addition, 43 national/regional addiction societies/associations are also included in the database. The surveys will be developed by global experts in addiction medicine on treatment services, service coverage, co-occurring disorders, treatment standards and barriers, emerging addictions and/or dynamic changes in treatment needs worldwide. Survey participants in categories of (1) addiction societies/associations, (2) addiction treatment programs, (3) addiction experts/clinicians and (4) related stakeholders will respond to these global longitudinal surveys. The results will be analyzed and cross-examined with available data and peer-reviewed for publication.

Predictors of effective therapy among individuals with Cannabis Use Disorder: a review of the literature.

Treatment demand for Cannabis Use Disorder (CUD) has increased in the past decade in almost all European countries, and CUD is currently the most common reason for first-time drug-related treatment admission in the European Union. Even though several therapeutic approaches have been shown to benefit individuals with CUD, there is a lack of knowledge regarding factors associated with effective therapy and the underlying mechanisms of change among individuals with CUD presenting for treatment. The aim of the present paper was to review current knowledge on factors that have been shown to contribute to positive outcomes in CUD treatment. A scoping methodology was used, focusing on empirically evaluated studies that used defined, cannabis-related outcome measures. In eligible studies, factors of investigation were categorized as either 'mediators', i.e., treatment-related factors associated with the processes or mechanisms through which patients benefit from therapy, or 'moderators' which are patient-related characteristics that predict his/her odds to benefit from treatment or patient-related (i.e., moderators). Factors categorized as mediators were then classified 'specific factors' if they were related to a certain technique or treatment modality or 'common factors' if they were assessed beyond treatment modalities. Findings suggest that in CUD treatment, specific mediators include treatment duration, addressing motivation to change, acquiring coping skills, enhancing self-efficacy, and integrating several therapeutic components. Common mediators include therapeutic alliance, empathy, expectations and cultural adaptation. Moderators in CUD treatment include sex, ethnicity, age-related factors and comorbid disorders.

Key implementation factors in telemedicine-delivered medications for opioid use disorder: a scoping review informed by normalisation process theory.

Telemedicine could improve access to medications for opioid use disorder (MOUD). Telemedicine-delivered MOUD (TMOUD) has expanded substantially in response to the restrictions imposed by the COVID-19 pandemic on in-person clinical contact, yet this expansion has not happened consistently across all health systems and countries. This Review aims to understand key factors in TMOUD implementation that might explain variations in uptake. We did a scoping review using three English language databases for articles reporting on the implementation of TMOUD services. 57 peer-reviewed articles were identified, subjected to open coding and thematic analysis, and further interpreted through normalisation process theory (NPT). NPT was originally used to evaluate telehealth innovations and has been applied extensively to describe, assess, and develop the implementation potential of a broad range of complex health-care interventions. By categorising our findings according to the four core NPT constructs of coherence, cognitive participation, collective action, and reflexive monitoring, we aim to rationalise the current evidence base to show the workability of TMOUD in practice. We find that variations in TMOUD models in practice depend on organisations' attitudes towards risk, clinicians' tensions around giving up control over standard practices, organisation-level support in overcoming operational and technological challenges, and evaluation methods that might neglect a potential widening of the digital divide.

Univariable associations between a history of incarceration and HIV and HCV prevalence among people who inject drugs across 17 countries in Europe 2006 to 2020 - is the precautionary principle applicable?

BackgroundPeople who inject drugs (PWID) are frequently incarcerated, which is associated with multiple negative health outcomes.AimWe aimed to estimate the associations between a history of incarceration and prevalence of HIV and HCV infection among PWID in Europe.MethodsAggregate data from PWID recruited in drug services (excluding prison services) or elsewhere in the community were reported by 17 of 30 countries (16 per virus) collaborating in a European drug monitoring system (2006-2020; n = 52,368 HIV+/-; n = 47,268 HCV+/-). Country-specific odds ratios (OR) and prevalence ratios (PR) were calculated from country totals of HIV and HCV antibody status and self-reported life-time incarceration history, and pooled using meta-analyses. Country-specific and overall population attributable risk (PAR) were estimated using pooled PR.ResultsUnivariable HIV OR ranged between 0.73 and 6.37 (median: 2.1; pooled OR: 1.92; 95% CI: 1.52-2.42). Pooled PR was 1.66 (95% CI 1.38-1.98), giving a PAR of 25.8% (95% CI 16.7-34.0). Univariable anti-HCV OR ranged between 1.06 and 5.04 (median: 2.70; pooled OR: 2.51; 95% CI: 2.17-2.91). Pooled PR was 1.42 (95% CI: 1.28-1.58) and PAR 16.7% (95% CI: 11.8-21.7). Subgroup analyses showed differences in the OR for HCV by geographical region, with lower estimates in southern Europe.ConclusionIn univariable analysis, a history of incarceration was associated with positive HIV and HCV serostatus among PWID in Europe. Applying the precautionary principle would suggest finding alternatives to incarceration of PWID and strengthening health and social services in prison and after release ('throughcare').

Maintenance agonist treatments for opiate-dependent pregnant women.

BACKGROUND: The prevalence of opiate use among pregnant women can range from 1% to 2% to as high as 21%. Just in the United States alone, among pregnant women with hospital delivery, a fourfold increase in opioid use is reported from 1999 to 2014 (Haight 2018). Heroin crosses the placenta, and pregnant, opiate-dependent women experience a six-fold increase in maternal obstetric complications such as low birth weight, toxaemia, third trimester bleeding, malpresentation, puerperal morbidity, fetal distress and meconium aspiration. Neonatal complications include narcotic withdrawal, postnatal growth deficiency, microcephaly, neuro-behavioural problems, increased neonatal mortality and a 74-fold increase in sudden infant death syndrome. This is an updated version of the original Cochrane Review first published in 2008 and last updated in 2013. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effectiveness of any maintenance treatment alone or in combination with a psychosocial intervention compared to no intervention, other pharmacological intervention or psychosocial interventions alone for child health status, neonatal mortality, retaining pregnant women in treatment, and reducing the use of substances. SEARCH METHODS: We updated our searches of the following databases to February 2020: the Cochrane Drugs and Alcohol Group Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, CINAHL, and Web of Science. We also searched two trials registers and checked the reference lists of included studies for further references to relevant randomised controlled trials (RCTs). SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials which assessed the efficacy of any pharmacological maintenance treatment for opiate-dependent pregnant women. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used the standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. MAIN RESULTS: We found four trials with 271 pregnant women. Three compared methadone with buprenorphine and one methadone with oral slow-release morphine. Three out of four studies had adequate allocation concealment and were double-blind. The major flaw in the included studies was attrition bias: three out of four had a high dropout rate (30% to 40%), and this was unbalanced between groups. Methadone versus buprenorphine: There was probably no evidence of a difference in the dropout rate from treatment (risk ratio (RR) 0.66, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.37 to 1.20, three studies, 223 participants, moderate-quality evidence). There may be no evidence of a difference in the use of primary substances between methadone and buprenorphine (RR 1.81, 95% CI 0.70 to 4.68, two studies, 151 participants, low-quality evidence). Birth weight may be higher in the buprenorphine group in the two trials that reported data MD;-530.00 g, 95%CI -662.78 to -397.22 (one study, 19 particpants) and MD: -215.00 g, 95%CI -238.93 to -191.07 (one study, 131 participants) although the results could not be pooled due to very high heterogeneity (very low-quality of evidence). The third study reported that there was no evidence of a difference. We found there may be no evidence of a difference in the APGAR score (MD: 0.00, 95% CI -0.03 to 0.03, two studies,163 participants, low-quality evidence). Many measures were used in the studies to assess neonatal abstinence syndrome. The number of newborns treated for neonatal abstinence syndrome, which is the most critical outcome, may not differ between groups (RR 1.19, 95% CI 0.87 to1.63, three studies, 166 participants, low-quality evidence). Only one study which compared methadone with buprenorphine reported side effects. We found there may be no evidence of a difference in the number of mothers with serious adverse events (AEs) (RR 1.69, 95% CI 0.75 to 3.83, 175 participants, low-quality evidence) and we found there may be no difference in the numbers of newborns with serious AEs (RR 4.77, 95% CI 0.59, 38.49,131 participants, low-quality evidence). Methadone versus slow-release morphine: There were no dropouts in either treatment group. Oral slow-release morphine may be superior to methadone for abstinence from heroin use during pregnancy (RR 2.40, 95% CI 1.00 to 5.77, one study, 48 participants, low-quality evidence). In the comparison between methadone and slow-release morphine, no side effects were reported for the mother. In contrast, one child in the methadone group had central apnoea, and one child in the morphine group had obstructive apnoea (low-quality evidence). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Methadone and buprenorphine may be similar in efficacy and safety for the treatment of opioid-dependent pregnant women and their babies. There is not enough evidence to make conclusions for the comparison between methadone and slow-release morphine. Overall, the body of evidence is too small to make firm conclusions about the equivalence of the treatments compared. There is still a need for randomised controlled trials of adequate sample size comparing different maintenance treatments.

Alcoholics Anonymous and 12-Step Facilitation Treatments for Alcohol Use Disorder: A Distillation of a 2020 Cochrane Review for Clinicians and Policy Makers.

AIMS: A recently completed Cochrane review assessed the effectiveness and cost-benefits of Alcoholics Anonymous (AA) and clinically delivered 12-Step Facilitation (TSF) interventions for alcohol use disorder (AUD). This paper summarizes key findings and discusses implications for practice and policy. METHODS: Cochrane review methods were followed. Searches were conducted across all major databases (e.g. Cochrane Drugs and Alcohol Group Specialized Register, PubMed, Embase, PsycINFO and ClinicalTrials.gov) from inception to 2 August 2019 and included non-English language studies. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-experiments that compared AA/TSF with other interventions, such as motivational enhancement therapy (MET) or cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT), TSF treatment variants or no treatment, were included. Healthcare cost offset studies were also included. Studies were categorized by design (RCT/quasi-experimental; nonrandomized; economic), degree of manualization (all interventions manualized versus some/none) and comparison intervention type (i.e. whether AA/TSF was compared to an intervention with a different theoretical orientation or an AA/TSF intervention that varied in style or intensity). Random-effects meta-analyses were used to pool effects where possible using standard mean differences (SMD) for continuous outcomes (e.g. percent days abstinent (PDA)) and the relative risk ratios (RRs) for dichotomous. RESULTS: A total of 27 studies (21 RCTs/quasi-experiments, 5 nonrandomized and 1 purely economic study) containing 10,565 participants were included. AA/TSF interventions performed at least as well as established active comparison treatments (e.g. CBT) on all outcomes except for abstinence where it often outperformed other treatments. AA/TSF also demonstrated higher health care cost savings than other AUD treatments. CONCLUSIONS: AA/TSF interventions produce similar benefits to other treatments on all drinking-related outcomes except for continuous abstinence and remission, where AA/TSF is superior. AA/TSF also reduces healthcare costs. Clinically implementing one of these proven manualized AA/TSF interventions is likely to enhance outcomes for individuals with AUD while producing health economic benefits.

Alcoholics Anonymous and other 12-step programs for alcohol use disorder.

BACKGROUND: Alcohol use disorder (AUD) confers a prodigious burden of disease, disability, premature mortality, and high economic costs from lost productivity, accidents, violence, incarceration, and increased healthcare utilization. For over 80 years, Alcoholics Anonymous (AA) has been a widespread AUD recovery organization, with millions of members and treatment free at the point of access, but it is only recently that rigorous research on its effectiveness has been conducted. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate whether peer-led AA and professionally-delivered treatments that facilitate AA involvement (Twelve-Step Facilitation (TSF) interventions) achieve important outcomes, specifically: abstinence, reduced drinking intensity, reduced alcohol-related consequences, alcohol addiction severity, and healthcare cost offsets. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Drugs and Alcohol Group Specialized Register, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), PubMed, Embase, CINAHL and PsycINFO from inception to 2 August 2019. We searched for ongoing and unpublished studies via ClinicalTrials.gov and the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) on 15 November 2018. All searches included non-English language literature. We handsearched references of topic-related systematic reviews and bibliographies of included studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs), quasi-RCTs and non-randomized studies that compared AA or TSF (AA/TSF) with other interventions, such as motivational enhancement therapy (MET) or cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT), TSF treatment variants, or no treatment. We also included healthcare cost offset studies. Participants were non-coerced adults with AUD. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We categorized studies by: study design (RCT/quasi-RCT; non-randomized; economic); degree of standardized manualization (all interventions manualized versus some/none); and comparison intervention type (i.e. whether AA/TSF was compared to an intervention with a different theoretical orientation or an AA/TSF intervention that varied in style or intensity). For analyses, we followed Cochrane methodology calculating the standard mean difference (SMD) for continuous variables (e.g. percent days abstinent (PDA)) or the relative risk (risk ratios (RRs)) for dichotomous variables. We conducted random-effects meta-analyses to pool effects wherever possible. MAIN RESULTS: We included 27 studies containing 10,565 participants (21 RCTs/quasi-RCTs, 5 non-randomized, and 1 purely economic study). The average age of participants within studies ranged from 34.2 to 51.0 years. AA/TSF was compared with psychological clinical interventions, such as MET and CBT, and other 12-step program variants. We rated selection bias as being at high risk in 11 of the 27 included studies, unclear in three, and as low risk in 13. We rated risk of attrition bias as high risk in nine studies, unclear in 14, and low in four, due to moderate (> 20%) attrition rates in the study overall (8 studies), or in study treatment group (1 study). Risk of bias due to inadequate researcher blinding was high in one study, unclear in 22, and low in four. Risks of bias arising from the remaining domains were predominantly low or unclear. AA/TSF (manualized) compared to treatments with a different theoretical orientation (e.g. CBT) (randomized/quasi-randomized evidence) RCTs comparing manualized AA/TSF to other clinical interventions (e.g. CBT), showed AA/TSF improves rates of continuous abstinence at 12 months (risk ratio (RR) 1.21, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.03 to 1.42; 2 studies, 1936 participants; high-certainty evidence). This effect remained consistent at both 24 and 36 months. For percentage days abstinent (PDA), AA/TSF appears to perform as well as other clinical interventions at 12 months (mean difference (MD) 3.03, 95% CI -4.36 to 10.43; 4 studies, 1999 participants; very low-certainty evidence), and better at 24 months (MD 12.91, 95% CI 7.55 to 18.29; 2 studies, 302 participants; low-certainty evidence) and 36 months (MD 6.64, 95% CI 1.54 to 11.75; 1 study, 806 participants; low-certainty evidence). For longest period of abstinence (LPA), AA/TSF may perform as well as comparison interventions at six months (MD 0.60, 95% CI -0.30 to 1.50; 2 studies, 136 participants; low-certainty evidence). For drinking intensity, AA/TSF may perform as well as other clinical interventions at 12 months, as measured by drinks per drinking day (DDD) (MD -0.17, 95% CI -1.11 to 0.77; 1 study, 1516 participants; moderate-certainty evidence) and percentage days heavy drinking (PDHD) (MD -5.51, 95% CI -14.15 to 3.13; 1 study, 91 participants; low-certainty evidence). For alcohol-related consequences, AA/TSF probably performs as well as other clinical interventions at 12 months (MD -2.88, 95% CI -6.81 to 1.04; 3 studies, 1762 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). For alcohol addiction severity, one study found evidence of a difference in favor of AA/TSF at 12 months (P < 0.05; low-certainty evidence). AA/TSF (non-manualized) compared to treatments with a different theoretical orientation (e.g. CBT) (randomized/quasi-randomized evidence) For the proportion of participants completely abstinent, non-manualized AA/TSF may perform as well as other clinical interventions at three to nine months follow-up (RR 1.71, 95% CI 0.70 to 4.18; 1 study, 93 participants; low-certainty evidence). Non-manualized AA/TSF may also perform slightly better than other clinical interventions for PDA (MD 3.00, 95% CI 0.31 to 5.69; 1 study, 93 participants; low-certainty evidence). For drinking intensity, AA/TSF may perform as well as other clinical interventions at nine months, as measured by DDD (MD -1.76, 95% CI -2.23 to -1.29; 1 study, 93 participants; very low-certainty evidence) and PDHD (MD 2.09, 95% CI -1.24 to 5.42; 1 study, 286 participants; low-certainty evidence). None of the RCTs comparing non-manualized AA/TSF to other clinical interventions assessed LPA, alcohol-related consequences, or alcohol addiction severity. Cost-effectiveness studies In three studies, AA/TSF had higher healthcare cost savings than outpatient treatment, CBT, and no AA/TSF treatment. The fourth study found that total medical care costs decreased for participants attending CBT, MET, and AA/TSF treatment, but that among participants with worse prognostic characteristics AA/TSF had higher potential cost savings than MET (moderate-certainty evidence). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is high quality evidence that manualized AA/TSF interventions are more effective than other established treatments, such as CBT, for increasing abstinence. Non-manualized AA/TSF may perform as well as these other established treatments. AA/TSF interventions, both manualized and non-manualized, may be at least as effective as other treatments for other alcohol-related outcomes. AA/TSF probably produces substantial healthcare cost savings among people with alcohol use disorder.

Large variation in measures used to assess outcomes of opioid dependence treatment: A systematic review of longitudinal observational studies.

ISSUES: Treatment outcomes for drug users are critical for informing policy and therapeutic practice. The coherence of outcomes, changes and drug use measures from observational studies on opioid use treatment were reviewed. APPROACH: Systematic review of the literature for longitudinal observational studies, from 1980 through November 2015, in all languages, with data on treated opioid users, using Pubmed, the Cochrane Library and additional strategies (e.g. Pubmed function 'related citations' and checking reference lists of eligible studies). KEY FINDINGS: Twenty-seven studies were included (11 countries, 85 publications, recruitment 1962-2009). Baseline n was >65 686 and median follow-up 34.5 months (21 studies) or 51.4 person-months (10 studies). Eight outcome domains were identified: 'drug use' (21/27 studies), 'crime' (13), 'health' (13), 'treatment-related' outcomes (16), 'social functioning' (13), 'harms' (8), 'mortality' (13) and 'economic estimates' (2 studies). All studies using drug use outcomes included a binary (abstinence) category in at least one measure. Studies typically reported outcomes on less than half (on average 3.7 or 46%) of the eight outcome domains, while the average was 5.1 (64%) in seven studies initiated since 2000. IMPLICATIONS AND CONCLUSION: Wide variation exists in outcome measures found in longitudinal observational studies of treatment of opioid users. This reduces replicability of studies and suggests a lack of common expectations on treatment success. Future studies should consider using all or most of eight outcome domains identified (excluding economic analyses if unfeasible), non-binary measures and amount/value of drugs used and consensus meetings with joint ownership of scientific, treatment and patient communities.

Substance use prevention: evidence-based intervention.

The global substance use problem is a serious public health concern that affects not only health, safety and well-being of communities, but also social and economic development. It particularly affects children, young people and their families. All Member States should set substance use prevention measures and programmes as a priority in order to promote health and reduce social harm. During the past few decades there has been a significant advance in prevention science that has led to the development of international prevention standards and globally accepted evidence-based interventions. This review looks into the key requirements, components and strategic interventions needed for a public health approach to prevention of substance use and disorders, and its health and social consequences. It aims at supporting Member States and civil society to identify the key elements that support countries and local communities to increase the number of substance use protective approaches in relation to risk factors across all relevant domains.

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.

Mortality risk during and after opioid substitution treatment: systematic review and meta-analysis of cohort studies.

Objective To compare the risk for all cause and overdose mortality in people with opioid dependence during and after substitution treatment with methadone or buprenorphine and to characterise trends in risk of mortality after initiation and cessation of treatment.Design Systematic review and meta-analysis.Data sources Medline, Embase, PsycINFO, and LILACS to September 2016.Study selection Prospective or retrospective cohort studies in people with opioid dependence that reported deaths from all causes or overdose during follow-up periods in and out of opioid substitution treatment with methadone or buprenorphine.Data extraction and synthesis Two independent reviewers performed data extraction and assessed study quality. Mortality rates in and out of treatment were jointly combined across methadone or buprenorphine cohorts by using multivariate random effects meta-analysis.Results There were 19 eligible cohorts, following 122 885 people treated with methadone over 1.3-13.9 years and 15 831 people treated with buprenorphine over 1.1-4.5 years. Pooled all cause mortality rates were 11.3 and 36.1 per 1000 person years in and out of methadone treatment (unadjusted out-to-in rate ratio 3.20, 95% confidence interval 2.65 to 3.86) and reduced to 4.3 and 9.5 in and out of buprenorphine treatment (2.20, 1.34 to 3.61). In pooled trend analysis, all cause mortality dropped sharply over the first four weeks of methadone treatment and decreased gradually two weeks after leaving treatment. All cause mortality remained stable during induction and remaining time on buprenorphine treatment. Overdose mortality evolved similarly, with pooled overdose mortality rates of 2.6 and 12.7 per 1000 person years in and out of methadone treatment (unadjusted out-to-in rate ratio 4.80, 2.90 to 7.96) and 1.4 and 4.6 in and out of buprenorphine treatment.Conclusions Retention in methadone and buprenorphine treatment is associated with substantial reductions in the risk for all cause and overdose mortality in people dependent on opioids. The induction phase onto methadone treatment and the time immediately after leaving treatment with both drugs are periods of particularly increased mortality risk, which should be dealt with by both public health and clinical strategies to mitigate such risk. These findings are potentially important, but further research must be conducted to properly account for potential confounding and selection bias in comparisons of mortality risk between opioid substitution treatments, as well as throughout periods in and out of each treatment.

New psychoactive substances: Current health-related practices and challenges in responding to use and harms in Europe.

BACKGROUND: The availability of new psychoactive substances (NPS) in Europe has rapidly increased over the last decade. Although prevalence levels of NPS use remain low in the general European population, there are serious concerns associated with more problematic forms of use and harms in particular populations and settings. It has thus become a priority to formulate and implement effective public health responses. However, considerable knowledge gaps remain on current practices as well as on the challenges and needs of European health professionals who are responding to use and harms caused by these substances. The aim of this study was to explore current health responses to NPS, and highlight key issues in order to inform planning and implementation of adequate responses. METHODS: This scoping study was based on a targeted multi-source data collection exercise focusing on the provision of health and drug interventions associated with NPS use and harms, in selected intervention settings across Europe. RESULTS: Findings revealed that in the absence of specific evidence, health professionals across most intervention settings rely primarily on acquired expertise with traditional drugs when addressing NPS-related harms. This study also identified a gap in the availability and access to timely and reliable information on NPS to users and health professionals. Health professionals in sexual health settings and custodial settings in contact with certain risk groups reported particular challenges in responding to NPS-related harms. CONCLUSION: Immediate investments are required in expanding substance identification capabilities, competence building among professionals and dissemination of risk information among relevant stakeholders. The risks of neglecting under-served risk populations and failure to address the information needs of health professionals and users on NPS harms in a context of rapid changing drug markets in Europe may have unforeseeable consequences at societal level.

Digital Interventions for Problematic Cannabis Users in Non-Clinical Settings: Findings from a Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Existing cannabis treatment programs reach only a very limited proportion of people with cannabis-related problems. The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to assess the effectiveness of digital interventions applied outside the health care system in reducing problematic cannabis use. METHODS: We systematically searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (2015), PubMed (2009-2015), Medline (2009-2015), Google Scholar (2015) and article reference lists for potentially eligible studies. Randomized controlled trials examining the effects of internet- or computer-based interventions were assessed. Study effects were estimated by calculating effect sizes (ESs) using Cohen's d and Hedges' g bias-corrected ES. The primary outcome assessed was self-reported cannabis use, measured by a questionnaire. RESULTS: Fifty-two studies were identified. Four studies (including 1,928 participants) met inclusion criteria. They combined brief motivational interventions and cognitive behavioral therapy delivered online. All studies were of good quality. The pooled mean difference (x0394; = 4.07) and overall ES (0.11) give evidence of small effects at 3-month follow-up in favor of digital interventions. CONCLUSIONS: Digital interventions can help to successfully reduce problematic cannabis use outside clinical settings. They have some potential to overcome treatment barriers and increase accessibility for at-risk cannabis users.

Are mass-media campaigns effective in preventing drug use? A Cochrane systematic review and meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVE: To determine whether there is evidence that mass-media campaigns can be effective in reducing illicit drug consumption and the intent to consume. DESIGN: Systematic review of randomised and non-randomised studies. METHODS: We searched four electronic databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, ProQuest Dissertations & Theses A&I and CENTRAL) and further explored seven additional resources to obtain both published and unpublished materials. We appraised the quality of included studies using standardised tools. We carried out meta-analyses of randomised controlled trials and a pooled analysis of interrupted time-series and controlled before-and-after studies. RESULTS: We identified 19 studies comprising 184,811 participants. Pooled analyses and narrative synthesis provided mixed evidence of effectiveness. Eight interventions evaluated with randomised controlled trials leaned towards no evidence of an effect, both on drug use (standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.02; 95% CI -0.15 to 0.12) and the intention to use drugs (SMD -0.07; 95% CI -0.19 to 0.04). Four campaigns provided some evidence of beneficial effects in preventing drug use and two interventions provided evidence of iatrogenic effects. CONCLUSIONS: Studies were considerably heterogeneous in type of mass-media intervention, outcome measures, underlying theory, comparison groups and design. Such factors can contribute to explaining the observed variability in results. Owing to the risk of adverse effects, caution is needed in disseminating mass-media campaigns tackling drug use. Large studies conducted with appropriate methodology are warranted to consolidate the evidence base.

Hepatitis C virus infection epidemiology among people who inject drugs in Europe: a systematic review of data for scaling up treatment and prevention.

BACKGROUND: People who inject drugs (PWID) are a key population affected by hepatitis C virus (HCV). Treatment options are improving and may enhance prevention; however access for PWID may be poor. The availability in the literature of information on seven main topic areas (incidence, chronicity, genotypes, HIV co-infection, diagnosis and treatment uptake, and burden of disease) to guide HCV treatment and prevention scale-up for PWID in the 27 countries of the European Union is systematically reviewed. METHODS AND FINDINGS: We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE and Cochrane Library for publications between 1 January 2000 and 31 December 2012, with a search strategy of general keywords regarding viral hepatitis, substance abuse and geographic scope, as well as topic-specific keywords. Additional articles were found through structured email consultations with a large European expert network. Data availability was highly variable and important limitations existed in comparability and representativeness. Nine of 27 countries had data on HCV incidence among PWID, which was often high (2.7-66/100 person-years, median 13, Interquartile range (IQR) 8.7-28). Most common HCV genotypes were G1 and G3; however, G4 may be increasing, while the proportion of traditionally 'difficult to treat' genotypes (G1+G4) showed large variation (median 53, IQR 43-62). Twelve countries reported on HCV chronicity (median 72, IQR 64-81) and 22 on HIV prevalence in HCV-infected PWID (median 3.9%, IQR 0.2-28). Undiagnosed infection, assessed in five countries, was high (median 49%, IQR 38-64), while of those diagnosed, the proportion entering treatment was low (median 9.5%, IQR 3.5-15). Burden of disease, where assessed, was high and will rise in the next decade. CONCLUSION: Key data on HCV epidemiology, care and disease burden among PWID in Europe are sparse but suggest many undiagnosed infections and poor treatment uptake. Stronger efforts are needed to improve data availability to guide an increase in HCV treatment among PWID.