Parental supply of alcohol and alcohol consumption in adolescence: prospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Parents are a major supplier of alcohol to adolescents, yet there is limited research examining the impact of this on adolescent alcohol use. This study investigates associations between parental supply of alcohol, supply from other sources, and adolescent drinking, adjusting for child, parent, family and peer variables. METHOD: A cohort of 1927 adolescents was surveyed annually from 2010 to 2014. Measures include: consumption of whole drinks; binge drinking (>4 standard drinks on any occasion); parental supply of alcohol; supply from other sources; child, parent, family and peer covariates. RESULTS: After adjustment, adolescents supplied alcohol by parents had higher odds of drinking whole beverages [odds ratio (OR) 1.80, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.33-2.45] than those not supplied by parents. However, parental supply was not associated with bingeing, and those supplied alcohol by parents typically consumed fewer drinks per occasion (incidence rate ratio 0.86, 95% CI 0.77-0.96) than adolescents supplied only from other sources. Adolescents obtaining alcohol from non-parental sources had increased odds of drinking whole beverages (OR 2.53, 95% CI 1.86-3.45) and bingeing (OR 3.51, 95% CI 2.53-4.87). CONCLUSIONS: Parental supply of alcohol to adolescents was associated with increased risk of drinking, but not bingeing. These parentally-supplied children also consumed fewer drinks on a typical drinking occasion. Adolescents supplied alcohol from non-parental sources had greater odds of drinking and bingeing. Further follow-up is necessary to determine whether these patterns continue, and to examine alcohol-related harm trajectories. Parents should be advised that supply of alcohol may increase children's drinking.

Buprenorphine maintenance versus placebo or methadone maintenance for opioid dependence.

BACKGROUND: Buprenorphine has been reported as an alternative to methadone for maintenance treatment of opioid dependence, but differing results are reported concerning its relative effectiveness indicating the need for an integrative review. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effects of buprenorphine maintenance against placebo and methadone maintenance in retaining patients in treatment and in suppressing illicit drug use. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched the following databases up to October 2006: Cochrane Drugs and Alcohol Review Group Register, the Cochrane Controlled Trials Register, MEDLINE, EMBASE, Current Contents, Psychlit, CORK , Alcohol and Drug Council of Australia, Australian Drug Foundation, Centre for Education and Information on Drugs and Alcohol, Library of Congress databases, reference lists of identified studies and reviews, authors were asked about any other published or unpublished relevant RCT. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised clinical trials of buprenorphine maintenance versus placebo or methadone maintenance. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Authors separately and independently evaluated the papers and extracted data for meta-analysis. MAIN RESULTS: Twenty four studies met the inclusion criteria (4497 participants), all were randomised clinical trials, all but six were double-blind. The method of allocation concealment was not clearly described in the majority (20) of the studies, but where it was reported the methodological quality was good. Buprenorphine was statistically significantly superior to placebo medication in retention of patients in treatment at low doses (RR=1.50; 95% CI: 1.19 - 1.88), medium (RR=1.74; 95% CI: 1.06 - 2.87), and high doses (RR=1.74; 95% CI: 1.02 - 2.96). The high statistical heterogeneity prevented the calculation of a cumulative estimate. However, only medium and high dose buprenorphine suppressed heroin use significantly above placebo. Buprenorphine given in flexible doses was statistically significantly less effective than methadone in retaining patients in treatment (RR= 0.80; 95% CI: 0.68 - 0.95), but no different in suppression of opioid use for those who remained in treatment. Low dose methadone is more likely to retain patients than low dose buprenorphine (RR= 0.67; 95% CI: 0.52 - 0.87). Medium dose buprenorphine does not retain more patients than low dose methadone, but may suppress heroin use better. There was no advantage for medium dose buprenorphine over medium dose methadone in retention (RR=0.79; 95% CI:0.64 - 0.99) and medium dose buprenorphine was inferior in suppression of heroin use. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Buprenorphine is an effective intervention for use in the maintenance treatment of heroin dependence, but it is less effective than methadone delivered at adequate dosages.

A cost-effectiveness analysis of heroin detoxification methods in the Australian National Evaluation of Pharmacotherapies for Opioid Dependence (NEPOD).

This economic evaluation was part of the Australian National Evaluation of Pharmacotherapies for Opioid Dependence (NEPOD) project. Data from four trials of heroin detoxification methods, involving 365 participants, were pooled to enable a comprehensive comparison of the cost-effectiveness of five inpatient and outpatient detoxification methods. This study took the perspective of the treatment provider in assessing resource use and costs. Two short-term outcome measures were used-achievement of an initial 7-day period of abstinence, and entry into ongoing post-detoxification treatment. The mean costs of the various detoxification methods ranged widely, from AUD 491 dollars(buprenorphine-based outpatient); to AUD 605 dollars for conventional outpatient; AUD 1404 dollars for conventional inpatient; AUD 1990 dollars for rapid detoxification under sedation; and to AUD 2689 dollars for anaesthesia per episode. An incremental cost-effectiveness analysis was carried out using conventional outpatient detoxification as the base comparator. The buprenorphine-based outpatient detoxification method was found to be the most cost-effective method overall, and rapid opioid detoxification under sedation was the most cost-effective inpatient method.

Changes in auditory selective attention and event-related potentials following oral administration of D-amphetamine in humans.

The effect of d-amphetamine on selective attention in humans was investigated by measuring event-related potentials (ERPs) during a complex auditory selective attention task (CSAT). The CSAT required subjects to make a button press response to infrequent target tones presented amongst tones that varied in pitch (high vs. low), location (left vs. right ear) and duration (51 ms vs. 102 ms). Healthy subjects completed the CSAT under three conditions: placebo, 10 mg and 20 mg d-amphetamine, at least one week apart. D-amphetamine produced a significant dose response increase in hit-rate and decrease in reaction time without changing false alarm rate. D-amphetamine reduced late PN to location irrelevant stimuli and pitch irrelevant stimuli in both the attended and unattended location. The effect of d-amphetamine was interpreted as a decrease in the maintenance of the attentional trace to irrelevant stimuli. However, these changes were accompanied by some evidence of processing of stimulus features in the unattended location. These results suggest that d-amphetamine improves selective attention, and decreases the maintenance of attention to irrelevant stimuli.

Choosing a cut-off on the Severity of Dependence Scale (SDS) for amphetamine users.

In order to ascertain a cut-off score on the Severity of Dependence Scale (SDS) which is indicative of clinically significant amphetamine dependence, 327 regular amphetamine users were administered the SDS, along with the "Disorders resulting from the use of psychoactive substances" section of the Composite International Diagnostic Interview (CIDI) for DSM-III-R. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis was used in order to determine which cut-off score on the SDS allowed the best trade-off between sensitivity and specificity, when calibrated against the presence or absence of a DSM-III-R diagnosis of severe amphetamine dependence. Results suggest that the SDS has high diagnostic utility, and that a score of greater than four on the scale is indicative of problematic amphetamine use.

Validation of the amphetamine dependence syndrome and the SAmDQ.

The severity of Amphetamine Dependence Questionnaire (SAmDQ) was administered to 132 subjects who were amphetamine dependent by DSM-III-R criteria. The structural characteristics of the questionnaire were examined and findings compared with those reported previously for both the SAmDQ and its forebear, the SODQ. There was a high degree of consistency in the present psychometric analyses and those reported earlier; and comparisons between samples of differing dependence severities indicated that the SAmDQ is capable of discriminating between these groups. The findings support the existence of an amphetamine dependence syndrome, and help to explicate the dimensions underlying such a syndrome and the characteristics of the population in which it may be manifest.

Differential uptake of a smoking cessation programme disseminated to doctors and midwives in antenatal clinics.

AIMS: Two methods of dissemination (simple and intensive) were used to disseminate a smoking cessation programme to doctors and midwives working in antenatal clinics. This paper describes the differential uptake of the smoking cessation programme by doctors and midwives. It investigates whether the number of smoking cessation interventions used differ due to the type of dissemination. It also examines the frequency with which doctors and midwives provide smoking cessation interventions after dissemination. DESIGN: Clinics were randomized to the method of dissemination (simple or intensive). Pre-post test design was used to examine the relationship between dissemination method and professional status at baseline and follow-up. A baseline survey collected data on the use of smoking cessation intervention in the clinics prior to dissemination. A follow-up survey was conducted 18 months after the dissemination. SETTING: Twenty-three public hospital antenatal clinics in NSW. PARTICIPANTS: All clinical staff (midwives and doctors) working in the clinic during the 1-2-week survey period prior to dissemination and 18 months after the dissemination were asked to participate. The response rate was 63% (223) at baseline and 64% (182) at follow-up. Only 48% of midwives and doctors at follow-up were working in the original clinic. MEASURES: The proportion of clinicians who initially adopted the programme; the proportion of clinicians who had used one or more programme components in the last week); the number of types of smoking cessation intervention provided (maximum = 13), and the estimated proportion of clients offered smoking cessation intervention. FINDINGS: More midwives than doctors "ever used" the programme (76% vs. 25%) and continued to implement (58% vs. 22%) the programme 18 months after dissemination. Both midwives and doctors increased the number of types of smoking cessation intervention offered at follow-up compared to baseline (mean difference 2.8). Midwives provided more smoking cessation interventions than doctors at baseline (mean difference 0.9) and at follow-up (1.6), regardless of method used to disseminate the programme. Midwives' mean estimates of the proportion of clients offered interventions were greater than doctors' (midwives' 59% vs. doctors' 35%) at follow-up. CONCLUSION: The dissemination of a smoking cessation programme increased the level of smoking cessation interventions used by doctors and midwives. Doctors and midwives differ in their uptake of smoking cessation programmes. This information can be used to plan programme dissemination strategies in the future.

Predictors of brief smoking intervention in a midwifery setting.

The aims of this study were: to assess current practice in smoking cessation interventions by midwives and to examine the relationship between the use of smoking intervention, practitioner characteristics and organizational factors. A mail-out survey was sent to a random sample of 500 midwives. The response rate was 85% (n = 425). The results indicated that most midwives used minimal interventions (advice and education) for at least some of their clients. However, the more skilled and more time-intensive forms of intervention such as counselling about methods to quit, negotiating a quit date and follow-up were infrequently utilized. Moreover, participants estimated that half their smoking clients were not offered any advice about smoking. Organizational factors such as: hospital policy for smoking intervention, type of hospital, size of hospital, cohesion of staff and work pressure predicted the use of smoking interventions. Self-reported ability to intervene for smoking and the level of assessment undertaken were practitioner characteristics which predicted the use of smoking interventions. The barriers that inhibit the use of smoking intervention by midwives are discussed and methods for change canvassed.

Serious adverse events in the Australian National Evaluation of Pharmacotherapies for Opioid Dependence (NEPOD).

AIMS: The study estimated serious adverse event (SAE) rates among entrants to pharmacotherapies for opioid dependence, during treatment and after leaving treatment. DESIGN: A longitudinal study based on data from 12 trials included in the Australian National Evaluation of Pharmacotherapies for Opioid Dependence (NEPOD). PARTICIPANTS AND SETTINGS: A total of 1244 heroin users and methadone patients treated in hospital, community and GP settings. Intervention Six trials included detoxification; all included treatment with methadone, buprenorphine, levo-alpha-acetyl-methadol (LAAM) or naltrexone. FINDINGS: During 394 person-years of observation, 79 SAEs of 28 types were recorded. Naltrexone participants experienced 39 overdoses per 100 person-years after leaving treatment (44% occurred within 2 weeks after stopping naltrexone). This was eight times the rate recorded among participants who left agonist treatment. Rates of all other SAEs were similar during treatment versus out of treatment, for both naltrexone-treated and agonist-treated participants. Five deaths occurred, all among participants who had left treatment, at a rate of six per 100 person-years. Total SAE rates during naltrexone and agonist treatments were similar (20, 14 per 100 person-years, respectively). Total SAE and death rates observed among participants who had left treatment were three and 19 times the corresponding rates during treatment. CONCLUSIONS: Individuals who leave pharmacotherapies for opioid dependence experience higher overdose and death rates compared with those in treatment. This may be due partly to a participant self-selection effect rather than entirely to pharmacotherapy being protective. Clinicians should alert naltrexone treatment patients in particular about heroin overdose risks. Duty of care may extend beyond cessation of dosing.

Pilot randomized controlled study of dexamphetamine substitution for amphetamine dependence.

AIMS: To test the feasibility of conducting a definitive randomized controlled trial of dexamphetamine substitution for amphetamine dependent people and provide preliminary data. DESIGN: An open, two-group pre-post randomized controlled trial. PARTICIPANTS: Forty-one long-term, dependent amphetamine users seeking treatment. INTERVENTION: Twenty subjects were offered weekly counselling. Twenty-one subjects were, in addition, prescribed up to 60 mg dexamphetamine daily. MEASUREMENTS: Immunoassay and mass spectrometric urinalysis techniques were used to identify the presence of amphetamine and methylamphetamine in urine. The Opiate Treatment Index and Severity of Dependence Scale were used to collect pre- and post-self-report data. Subjects were screened using the Composite International Diagnostic Interview. FINDINGS: Reduced street amphetamine use and amphetamine dependence was observed both in subjects prescribed dexamphetamine and subjects receiving counselling only. Treatment subjects appeared more likely to attend counselling. CONCLUSIONS: A definitive randomized controlled trial of dexamphetamine substitution using the techniques and instruments piloted in this study is feasible. Users appeared to be attracted and retained in substitution treatment. The intervention also appeared to be acceptable to clinicians.

Attention and memory in illicit amphetamine users.

The purpose of this study was to assess cognitive functioning in a group of illicit amphetamine users. A neuropsychological test battery (Wechsler Memory Scale-Revised (WMS-R) and the digit symbol, block design and vocabulary subtests of the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale-Revised (WAIS-R) and the National Adult Reading Test (NART)) was administered to 78 amphetamine users (mean age = 22.5 years; 46 males, 33 females). Severity of amphetamine dependence was found to be associated with poorer performance on both memory and attention/concentration indices of the WMS-R. The relative contribution of amphetamine dependence, concurrent drug use and other drug related factors to neuropsychological functioning are discussed.

Attention and memory in illicit amphetamine users: comparison with non-drug-using controls.

The purpose of this study was to clarify the extent of neuropsychological impairment previously found among amphetamine users (McKetin and Mattick, 1997) by comparing them with a non-drug-using control group. Amphetamine users who were classified as low dependence (n = 15) or high dependence (n = 11) according to the severity of dependence scale (SDS) were compared to non-drug-using control subjects (n = 9) on indices of the Wechsler Memory Scale-Revised (WMS-R). Dependent amphetamine users (high dependence group) performed approximately one half of a standard deviation worse than controls on the verbal memory, attention/concentration and delayed recall indices of the WMS-R but amphetamine users who were less dependent (low dependence group) showed no impairment.

Development and validation of measures of social phobia scrutiny fear and social interaction anxiety.

The development and validation of the Social Phobia Scale (SPS) and the Social Interaction Anxiety Scale (SIAS) two companion measures for assessing social phobia fears is described. The SPS assesses fear of being scrutinised during routine activities (eating, drinking, writing, etc.), while the SIAS assesses fear of more general social interaction, the scales corresponding to the DSM-III-R descriptions of Social Phobia--Circumscribed and Generalised types, respectively. Both scales were shown to possess high levels of internal consistency and test-retest reliability. They discriminated between social phobia, agoraphobia and simple phobia samples, and between social phobia and normal samples. The scales correlated well with established measures of social anxiety, but were found to have low or non-significant (partial) correlations with established measures of depression, state and trait anxiety, locus of control, and social desirability. The scales were found to change with treatment and to remain stable in the face of no-treatment. It appears that these scales are valid, useful, and easily scored measures for clinical and research applications, and that they represent an improvement over existing measures of social phobia.

Buprenorphine maintenance versus placebo or methadone maintenance for opioid dependence.

BACKGROUND: Buprenorphine has recently been reported to be an alternative to methadone and LAAM for maintenance treatment of opioid dependent individuals, differing results are reported concerning its relative effectiveness indicating the need for an integrative review. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effects of buprenorphine maintenance against placebo and methadone maintenance in retaining patients in treatment and in suppressing illicit drug use. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched the following databases up to 2001, inclusive: Cochrane Drugs and Alcohol Review Group Register, the Cochrane Controlled Trials Register, MEDLINE, EMBASE, Current Contents, Psychlit, CORK [www. state.vt.su/adap/cork], Alcohol and Drug Council of Australia (ADCA) [www.adca.org.au], Australian Drug Foundation (ADF -VIC) [www.adf.org.au], Centre for Education and Information on Drugs and Alcohol (CEIDA) [www.ceida.net.au], Australian Bibliographic Network (ABN), and Library of Congress databases, available NIDA monographs and the College on Problems of Drug Dependence Inc. proceedings, the reference lists of all identified studies and published reviews and authors of identified RCT's were asked about any other published or unpublished relevant RCT. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised clinical trials of buprenorphine maintenance compared with either placebo or methadone maintenance for opioid dependence. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Reviewers evaluated the papers separately and independently, rating methodological quality of concealment of allocation; data were extracted independently for meta-analysis and double-entered. MAIN RESULTS: Thirteen studies met the inclusion criteria, all were randomised clinical trials, all but one were double-blind. The method of concealment of allocation was not clearly described in 11 of the studies, otherwise methodological quality was good. Buprenorphine given in flexible doses appeared statistically significantly less effective than methadone in retaining patient in treatment (RR= 0.82; 95% CI: 0.69-0.96). Low dose buprenorphine is not superior to low dose methadone. High dose buprenorphine does not retain more patients than low dose methadone, but may suppress heroin use better. There was no advantage for high dose buprenorphine over high dose methadone in retention (RR=0.79; 95% CI:0.62-1.01), and high dose buprenorphine was inferior in suppression of heroin use. Buprenorphine was statistically significantly superior to placebo medication in retention of patients in treatment at low doses (RR=1.24; 95% CI: 1.06-1.45), high doses (RR=1.21; 95% CI: 1.02-1.44), and very high doses (RR=1.52; 95% CI: 1.23-1.88). However, only high and very high dose buprenorphine suppressed heroin use significantly above placebo. REVIEWER'S CONCLUSIONS: Buprenorphine is an effective intervention for use in the maintenance treatment of heroin dependence, but it is not more effective than methadone at adequate dosages.

Methadone maintenance therapy versus no opioid replacement therapy for opioid dependence.

BACKGROUND: Methadone maintenance was the first widely used form of opioid replacement therapy developed to treat heroin dependence, and it remains the best-researched treatment for this problem. Despite the widespread use of methadone in maintenance treatment for opioid dependence in many countries, it is a controversial treatment whose effectiveness has been disputed. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effects of methadone maintenance treatment (MMT) compared with treatments that did not involve opioid replacement therapy (i.e., detoxification, offer of drug-free rehabilitation, placebo medication, wait-list controls) for opioid dependence. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched all the following databases up to 2001: Cochrane Drugs and Alcohol Review Group Register, the Cochrane Controlled Trials Register, MEDLINE, EMBASE, Current Contents, Psychlit, CORK [www. state.vt.su/adap/cork], Alcohol and Drug Council of Australia (ADCA) [www.adca.org.au], Australian Drug Foundation (ADF-VIC) [www.adf.org.au], Centre for Education and Information on Drugs and Alcohol (CEIDA) [www.ceida.net.au], Australian Bibliographic Network (ABN), and Library of Congress databases, available NIDA monographs and the College on Problems of Drug Dependence Inc. proceedings, the reference lists of all identified studies and published reviews; authors of identified RCTs were asked about other published or unpublished relevant RCTs. SELECTION CRITERIA: All randomised controlled clinical trials of methadone maintenance therapy compared with either placebo maintenance or other non-pharmacological therapy for the treatment of opioid dependence. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Reviewers evaluated the papers separately and independently, rating methodological quality of concealment of allocation, data were extracted independently for meta-analysis and double-entered. MAIN RESULTS: Six studies met the criteria for inclusion in this review, all were randomised clinical trials, two were double-blind. There were a total number of 954 participants. The method of concealment of allocation was inadequate in one study, not clearly described in four studies, but adequate in a sixth study. Based on the meta-analysis, methadone appeared statistically significantly more effective than non-pharmacological approaches in retaining patient in treatment (3 RCTs, RR=3.05; 95%CI: 1.75-5.35) and in the suppression of heroin use (3 RCTs, RR=0.32; 95%CI: 0.23-0.44), but not statistically in criminal activity (3 RCTs, RR=0.39; 95%CI: 0.12-1.25). REVIEWER'S CONCLUSIONS: Methadone is an effective maintenance therapy intervention for the treatment of heroin dependence as it retains patients in treatment and decreases heroin use better than treatments that do not utilise opioid replacement therapy. It does not show a statistically significant superior effect on criminal activity.

Buprenorphine maintenance versus placebo or methadone maintenance for opioid dependence.

BACKGROUND: Buprenorphine has recently been reported to be an alternative to methadone and LAAM for maintenance treatment of opioid dependent individuals, differing results are reported concerning its relative effectiveness indicating the need for an integrative review. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effects of buprenorphine maintenance against placebo and methadone maintenance in retaining patients in treatment and in suppressing illicit drug use. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched the following databases up to 2001, inclusive: Cochrane Drugs and Alcohol Review Group Register, the Cochrane Controlled Trials Register, MEDLINE, EMBASE, Current Contents, Psychlit, CORK [www. state.vt.su/adap/cork], Alcohol and Drug Council of Australia (ADCA) [www.adca.org.au], Australian Drug Foundation (ADF -VIC) [www.adf.org.au], Centre for Education and Information on Drugs and Alcohol (CEIDA) [www.ceida.net.au], Australian Bibliographic Network (ABN), and Library of Congress databases, available NIDA monographs and the College on Problems of Drug Dependence Inc. proceedings, the reference lists of all identified studies and published reviews and authors of identified RCT's were asked about any other published or unpublished relevant RCT. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised clinical trials of buprenorphine maintenance compared with either placebo or methadone maintenance for opioid dependence. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Reviewers evaluated the papers separately and independently, rating methodological quality of concealment of allocation; data were extracted independently for meta-analysis and double-entered. MAIN RESULTS: Thirteen studies met the inclusion criteria, all were randomised clinical trials, all but one were double-blind. The method of concealment of allocation was not clearly described in 11 of the studies, otherwise methodological quality was good. Buprenorphine given in flexible doses appeared statistically significantly less effective than methadone in retaining patient in treatment (RR= 0.82; 95% CI: 0.69-0.96). Low dose buprenorphine is not superior to low dose methadone. High dose buprenorphine does not retain more patients than low dose methadone, but may suppress heroin use better. There was no advantage for high dose buprenorphine over high dose methadone in retention (RR=0.79; 95% CI:0.62-1.01), and high dose buprenorphine was inferior in suppression of heroin use. Buprenorphine was statistically significantly superior to placebo medication in retention of patients in treatment at low doses (RR=1.24; 95% CI: 1.06-1.45), high doses (RR=1.21; 95% CI: 1.02-1.44), and very high doses (RR=1.52; 95% CI: 1.23-1.88). However, only high and very high dose buprenorphine suppressed heroin use significantly above placebo. REVIEWER'S CONCLUSIONS: Buprenorphine is an effective intervention for use in the maintenance treatment of heroin dependence, but it is not more effective than methadone at adequate dosages.

Methadone maintenance therapy versus no opioid replacement therapy for opioid dependence.

BACKGROUND: Methadone maintenance was the first widely used form of opioid replacement therapy developed to treat heroin dependence, and it remains the best-researched treatment for this problem. Despite the widespread use of methadone in maintenance treatment for opioid dependence in many countries, it is a controversial treatment whose effectiveness has been disputed. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effects of methadone maintenance treatment (MMT) compared with treatments that did not involve opioid replacement therapy (i.e., detoxification, offer of drug-free rehabilitation, placebo medication, wait-list controls) for opioid dependence. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched all the following databases up to 2001: Cochrane Drugs and Alcohol Review Group Register, the Cochrane Controlled Trials Register, MEDLINE, EMBASE, Current Contents, Psychlit, CORK [www. state.vt.su/adap/cork], Alcohol and Drug Council of Australia (ADCA) [www.adca.org.au], Australian Drug Foundation (ADF-VIC) [www.adf.org.au], Centre for Education and Information on Drugs and Alcohol (CEIDA) [www.ceida.net.au], Australian Bibliographic Network (ABN), and Library of Congress databases, available NIDA monographs and the College on Problems of Drug Dependence Inc. proceedings, the reference lists of all identified studies and published reviews; authors of identified RCTs were asked about other published or unpublished relevant RCTs. SELECTION CRITERIA: All randomised controlled clinical trials of methadone maintenance therapy compared with either placebo maintenance or other non-pharmacological therapy for the treatment of opioid dependence. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Reviewers evaluated the papers separately and independently, rating methodological quality of concealment of allocation, data were extracted independently for meta-analysis and double-entered. MAIN RESULTS: Six studies met the criteria for inclusion in this review, all were randomised clinical trials, two were double-blind. There were a total number of 954 participants. The method of concealment of allocation was inadequate in one study, not clearly described in four studies, but adequate in a sixth study. Based on the meta-analysis, methadone appeared statistically significantly more effective than non-pharmacological approaches in retaining patient in treatment (3 RCTs, RR=3.05; 95%CI: 1.75-5.35) and in the suppression of heroin use (3 RCTs, RR=0.32; 95%CI: 0.23-0.44), but not statistically in criminal activity (3 RCTs, RR=0.39; 95%CI: 0.12-1.25). REVIEWER'S CONCLUSIONS: Methadone is an effective maintenance therapy intervention for the treatment of heroin dependence as it retains patients in treatment and decreases heroin use better than treatments that do not utilise opioid replacement therapy. It does not show a statistically significant superior effect on criminal activity.

Buprenorphine maintenance versus placebo or methadone maintenance for opioid dependence.

BACKGROUND: Buprenorphine has recently been reported to be an alternative to methadone and LAAM for maintenance treatment of opioid dependent individuals, differing results are reported concerning its relative effectiveness indicating the need for an integrative review. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effects of buprenorphine maintenance against placebo and methadone maintenance in retaining patients in treatment and in suppressing illicit drug use. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched the following databases up to 2001, inclusive: Cochrane Drugs and Alcohol Review Group Register, the Cochrane Controlled Trials Register, MEDLINE, EMBASE, Current Contents, Psychlit, CORK [www. state.vt.su/adap/cork], Alcohol and Drug Council of Australia (ADCA) [www.adca.org.au], Australian Drug Foundation (ADF -VIC) [www.adf.org.au], Centre for Education and Information on Drugs and Alcohol (CEIDA) [www.ceida.net.au], Australian Bibliographic Network (ABN), and Library of Congress databases, available NIDA monographs and the College on Problems of Drug Dependence Inc. proceedings, the reference lists of all identified studies and published reviews and authors of identified RCT's were asked about any other published or unpublished relevant RCT. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised clinical trials of buprenorphine maintenance compared with either placebo or methadone maintenance for opioid dependence. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Reviewers evaluated the papers separately and independently, rating methodological quality of concealment of allocation; data were extracted independently for meta-analysis and double-entered. MAIN RESULTS: Thirteen studies met the inclusion criteria, all were randomised clinical trials, all but one were double-blind. The method of concealment of allocation was not clearly described in 11 of the studies, otherwise methodological quality was good. Buprenorphine given in flexible doses appeared statistically significantly less effective than methadone in retaining patient in treatment (RR= 0.82; 95% CI: 0.69-0.96). Low dose buprenorphine is not superior to low dose methadone. High dose buprenorphine does not retain more patients than low dose methadone, but may suppress heroin use better. There was no advantage for high dose buprenorphine over high dose methadone in retention (RR=0.79; 95% CI:0.62-1.01), and high dose buprenorphine was inferior in suppression of heroin use. Buprenorphine was statistically significantly superior to placebo medication in retention of patients in treatment at low doses (RR=1.24; 95% CI: 1.06-1.45), high doses (RR=1.21; 95% CI: 1.02-1.44), and very high doses (RR=1.52; 95% CI: 1.23-1.88). However, only high and very high dose buprenorphine suppressed heroin use significantly above placebo. REVIEWERS' CONCLUSIONS: Buprenorphine is an effective intervention for use in the maintenance treatment of heroin dependence, but it is not more effective than methadone at adequate dosages.

Outcomes of a comprehensive treatment program for adolescents with a substance-use disorder.

Outcomes of a multimodal residential treatment program for adolescents were compared with usual care. The quasiexperimental design included pretest, 3-month posttest, and 6-month follow-up of program referrals (mean age 16; 53% male). The intervention group (IG) comprised referrals who entered the program (n=61) and the comparison group (CG) comprised referrals who did not enter the program (n=60). The six outcomes (substance use, criminal behavior, social functioning, psychological distress, physical health, and HIV risk-taking behavior) were assessed using the Opiate Treatment Index and the Symptom Checklist-90-Revised. The study groups demonstrated equivalent improvement on all six outcomes. Multiple factors are likely to have influenced these results, including inadequate program implementation and differential drop-out. There was, however, a higher prevalence of multiple improvements among the IG than the CG. It is concluded that adolescents with a PSUD can improve, however, a superior means of achieving this improvement has yet to be demonstrated.

A study of the patterns and correlates of substance use among adolescents applying for drug treatment.

OBJECTIVE: To inform planners by providing a psychosocial and drug-use profile of adolescents who have applied for a drug-treatment program. METHOD: The setting was a residential drug-treatment program in Sydney for adolescents from NSW and the ACT. The design was a descriptive study of consecutive program applicants over 18 months. Study participants were 14-18 years, 53% were male. Most assessments were telephone interviews. The instrument incorporated the Opiate Treatment Index, Adolescent Drug Abuse Diagnosis, Severity of Dependence Scale and Symptom Checklist 90-Revised (SCL-90-R). RESULTS: Study participants tended to be poly-substance users, mostly using cannabis, heroin and/or alcohol. Heavy use in terms of frequency and amounts of use were reported, e.g. 50% of the sample used heroin daily and the mean number of standard drinks consumed on the last day of drinking was 18. High levels of problems in the areas of social functioning, criminal activity, psychological distress, physical health, HIV risk and substance dependence were reported. For example, most participants were unemployed and 88% had committed a crime in the previous month. Higher rates of some problems were identified among females, heroin users and benzodiazepine users. CONCLUSIONS: The sample reported a high level of involvement in substance use and associated problems. The profile suggested that improvements might be difficult to achieve and to maintain. IMPLICATIONS: A comprehensive, intensive, longer-term drug-treatment program to address the number and extent of substance-related problems for such adolescents is recommended.