Superiority and cost-effectiveness of Individual Placement and Support versus standard employment support for people with alcohol and drug dependence: a pragmatic, parallel-group, open-label, multicentre, randomised, controlled, phase 3 trial.

Background: Individual Placement and Support (IPS) is a specialist intervention to help people attain employment in the open competitive labour market. IPS has been developed in severe mental illness and other disabilities, but it is of unknown effectiveness for people with alcohol and drug dependence. The Individual Placement and Support-Alcohol and Drug (IPS-AD) is the first superiority trial to evaluate effectiveness and cost-effectiveness. Methods: IPS-AD was a pragmatic, parallel-group, multi-centre, randomised, controlled, phase 3 trial of standard employment support (treatment-as-usual [TAU]) versus IPS. IPS was offered as a single episode for up to 13 months. The study was done at seven community treatment centres for alcohol and drug dependence in England. Study participants were adults (18-65 years), who had been enrolled for at least 14 days in treatment for alcohol use disorder (AUD), opioid use disorder (OUD), or another drug use disorder (DUD; mostly cannabis and stimulants); were unemployed or economically inactive for at least six months; and wished to attain employment in the open competitive labour market. After random allocation to study interventions, the primary outcome was employment during 18-months of follow-up, analysed by mixed-effects logistic regression, using multiple imputation for the management of missing outcome data. There were two cost-effectiveness outcomes: a health outcome expressed as a quality adjusted life year (QALY) using £30,000 and £70,000 willingness-to-pay [WTP] thresholds; and additional days of employment, with a WTP threshold of £200 per day worked. The study was registered with ISRCTN (ISRCTN24159790) and is completed. Findings: Between 8 May 2018 and 30 September 2019, 2781 potentially eligible patients were identified. 812 were excluded before screening, and 1720 participants were randomly allocated to TAU or IPS. In error, nine participants were randomised to study interventions on two occasions-so data for their first randomisation was analysed (modified intention-to-treat). A further 24 participants withdrew consent for all data to be used (full-analysis set therefore 1687 participants [70.1% male; mean age 40.8 years]; TAU, n = 844; IPS, n = 843 [AUD, n = 610; OUD, n = 837; DUD, n = 240]). Standard employment support was received by 559 [66.2%] of 844 participants in the TAU group. IPS was received by 804 [95.37%] of 843 participants in the IPS group. IPS was associated with an increase in attainment of employment compared with TAU (adjusted odds ratio [OR] 1.29; 95% CI 1.02-1.64; p-value 0.036). IPS was effective for the AUD and DUD groups (OR 1.48; 95% CI 1.14-1.92; p-value 0.004; OR 1.45, 95% CI 1.03-2.04, p-value 0.031, respectively), but not the OUD group. IPS returned an incremental QALY outcome gain of 0.01 (range 0.003-0.02) per participant with no evidence of cost-effectiveness at either WTP threshold-but QALY gains were cost-effective for the AUD and DUD groups at the £70,000 WTP threshold (probability 0.52 and 0.97, respectively). IPS was cost-effective for additional days of employment (probability 0.61), with effectiveness relating to the AUD group only (probability >0.99). Serious Adverse Events were reported by 39 participants (13 [1.5%] of 844 participants in the TAU group and 23 [2.7%] of 43 participants in the IPS group). There was a total of 25 deaths (1.5%; 9 in the TAU group and 16 in the IPS group)-none judged related to study interventions. Interpretation: In this first superiority randomised controlled trial of IPS in alcohol and drug dependence, IPS helped more people attain employment in the open competitive labour market than standard employment support. IPS was cost-effective for a QALY health outcome (£70,000 WTP threshold) for the AUD and DUD groups, and for additional days of employment for the AUD group (£200 per day worked WTP threshold). Funding: UK government Work and Health Unit.

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.

Adjunctive Medication Management and Contingency Management to enhance adherence to acamprosate for alcohol dependence: the ADAM trial RCT.

Background: Acamprosate is an effective and cost-effective medication for alcohol relapse prevention but poor adherence can limit its full benefit. Effective interventions to support adherence to acamprosate are therefore needed. Objectives: To determine the effectiveness of Medication Management, with and without Contingency Management, compared to Standard Support alone in enhancing adherence to acamprosate and the impact of adherence to acamprosate on abstinence and reduced alcohol consumption. Design: Multicentre, three-arm, parallel-group, randomised controlled clinical trial. Setting: Specialist alcohol treatment services in five regions of England (South East London, Central and North West London, Wessex, Yorkshire and Humber and West Midlands). Participants: Adults (aged 18 years or more), an International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems, Tenth Revision, diagnosis of alcohol dependence, abstinent from alcohol at baseline assessment, in receipt of a prescription for acamprosate. Interventions: (1) Standard Support, (2) Standard Support with adjunctive Medication Management provided by pharmacists via a clinical contact centre (12 sessions over 6 months), (3) Standard Support with adjunctive Medication Management plus Contingency Management that consisted of vouchers (up to £120) to reinforce participation in Medication Management. Consenting participants were randomised in a 2 : 1 : 1 ratio to one of the three groups using a stratified random permuted block method using a remote system. Participants and researchers were not blind to treatment allocation. Main outcome measures: Primary outcome: self-reported percentage of medication taken in the previous 28 days at 6 months post randomisation. Economic outcome: EuroQol-5 Dimensions, a five-level version, used to calculate quality-adjusted life-years, with costs estimated using the Adult Service Use Schedule. Results: Of the 1459 potential participants approached, 1019 (70%) were assessed and 739 (73 consented to participate in the study, 372 (50%) were allocated to Standard Support, 182 (25%) to Standard Support with Medication Management and 185 (25%) to Standard Support and Medication Management with Contingency Management. Data were available for 518 (70%) of participants at 6-month follow-up, 255 (68.5%) allocated to Standard Support, 122 (67.0%) to Standard Support and Medication Management and 141 (76.2%) to Standard Support and Medication Management with Contingency Management. The mean difference of per cent adherence to acamprosate was higher for those who received Standard Support and Medication Management with Contingency Management (10.6%, 95% confidence interval 19.6% to 1.6%) compared to Standard Support alone, at the primary end point (6-month follow-up). There was no significant difference in per cent days adherent when comparing Standard Support and Medication Management with Standard Support alone 3.1% (95% confidence interval 12.8% to -6.5%) or comparing Standard Support and Medication Management with Standard Support and Medication Management with Contingency Management 7.9% (95% confidence interval 18.7% to -2.8%). The primary economic analysis at 6 months found that Standard Support and Medication Management with Contingency Management was cost-effective compared to Standard Support alone, achieving small gains in quality-adjusted life-years at a lower cost per participant. Cost-effectiveness was not observed for adjunctive Medication Management compared to Standard Support alone. There were no serious adverse events related to the trial interventions reported. Limitations: The trial's primary outcome measure changed substantially due to data collection difficulties and therefore relied on a measure of self-reported adherence. A lower than anticipated follow-up rate at 12 months may have lowered the statistical power to detect differences in the secondary analyses, although the primary analysis was not impacted. Conclusions: Medication Management enhanced with Contingency Management is beneficial to patients for supporting them to take acamprosate. Future work: Given our findings in relation to Contingency Management enhancing Medication Management adherence, future trials should be developed to explore its effectiveness and cost-effectiveness with other alcohol interventions where there is evidence of poor adherence. Trial registration: This trial is registered as ISRCTN17083622 https://doi.org/10.1186/ISRCTN17083622. Funding: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 27, No. 22. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Many people who are trying to stop drinking alcohol can find it difficult to remain alcohol free. There is a medication called acamprosate (Campral) that can reduce cravings thereby increasing the likelihood of abstinence. However, some people have trouble taking the right amount of acamprosate tablets needed every day at the right time, preferably at mealtimes. This means the medication is not as effective. We have tested some new ways to help support people taking acamprosate. We tested three different strategies to find the best way to support people taking acamprosate. We recruited 739 people aged 18 and over who were receiving alcohol treatment to stop drinking and were taking acamprosate. We randomly allocated these people to three groups. The first was Standard Support, the usual support people receive when taking acamprosate. The second group received Standard Support plus Medication Management. This consisted of 12 telephone calls over 6 months with a trained pharmacist to discuss the importance of taking the right amount of the medication, how the medication works and strategies to help people take the medication correctly. The third group received Standard Support, Medication Management and Contingency Management. This involved giving people shopping vouchers for participating with Medication Management calls. The maximum value of vouchers per person was £120. People who were in the group receiving Medication Management and Contingency Management took a greater number of acamprosate tablets. We also found that Medication Management plus Contingency Management was more cost-effective; there were greater gains in health with a smaller cost per person compared to Standard Support alone. This shows that there is likely to be a benefit to patients of Medication Management plus Contingency Management for supporting people taking acamprosate.

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.

Exploratory Economic Evaluation of Buprenorphine Treatment in Opioid Use Disorder.

BACKGROUND: Burden of opioid use disorder (OUD) is expressed in economic values or health metrics like Disability Adjusted Life Years (DALYs). Disability Weight (DW), a component of DALYs is estimated using economic methods or psychometric tools. Estimating DW at patient level using psychometric tools is an alternative to non-population specific DW overestimated by economic methods. Providing Medication Assisted Treatment (MAT) using buprenorphine/naloxone film (BUP/NX-F) for OUD is limited by financial constraints. AIM: To estimate the burden of OUD at patient level and explore the cost-benefit of two buprenorphine treatment interventions. METHODS: The present study was conducted alongside a randomized controlled trial of 141 adults with OUD stabilized on BUP/NX-F and randomized to BUP/NX-F with Incentivized Abstinence and Adherence Monitoring (experimental, n=70) and BUP/NX-F in usual care (control, n=71). The cost of illness was estimated applying a societal perspective. The Impairment Weight (IW) was estimated over a '0' to '1' scale, where '0' represents no impairment and '1' full impairment using the Work and Social Adjustment Scale (WSAS). RESULTS: Median (interquartile range) annual cost of OUD per participant was AED 498,171.1 (413,499.0 -635,725.3) and AED 538,694.4 (4,211,398.0 - 659,949.0) in the experimental and control groups, respectively (p=0.33). Illicit drug purchase represented 60 % of the annual cost of illness. At baseline, the mean Impairment Weight (IW) was 0.55 (SD 0.26) and 0.62 (SD 0.24) in the experimental and control groups, respectively. At end of the study, the IW was 0.26 (SD 0.28) representing 51% reduction in the experimental group compared to 0.42 (SD 0.33) in the control group representing a 27% reduction. Excluding imprisonment, the cost-benefit of treatment was not realized. In contrast, accounting for imprisonment, cost benefit expressed as a return-on-investment was established at 1.55 and 1.29 in the experimental and control groups, respectively. IMPLICATIONS FOR MENTAL HEALTH POLICY: Cost benefit analysis can serve as a simple and practical tool to evaluate the cost benefit of treatment interventions. Demonstrating the cost benefit of buprenorphine treatment has the potential to facilitate public funding and accessibility to opioid assisted treatment.

Protocol for a multi-centre, definitive randomised controlled trial of the effectiveness of Individual Placement and Support for employment support among people with alcohol and drug dependence.

BACKGROUND: Unemployment is highly prevalent in populations with alcohol and drug dependence and the employment support offered in addiction-treatment programmes is ineffective. Individual Placement and Support (IPS) is an evidence-based intervention for competitive employment. IPS has been extensively studied in severe mental illness and physical disabilities, but there have been no formal randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in alcohol and drug dependence. The Individual Placement and Support for Alcohol and Drug Dependence (IPS-AD) study should determine whether IPS for patients with alcohol use disorder (AUD), opioid use disorder (OUD) and other drug use disorder is effective. DESIGN/METHODS: The IPS-AD study is a seven-site, pragmatic, two-arm, parallel-group, superiority RCT. IPS-AD includes a realist process evaluation. Eligible patients (adult, unemployed or economically inactive for at least 6 months and wishing to obtain open job market employment and enrolled in ongoing community treatment-as-usual (TAU; the control condition) in England for AUD, OUD and other drug use disorders) will be randomised (1:1) to receive TAU and any standard employment support, or TAU plus IPS (the experimental condition) for 9 months with up to 4 months of in-work support. The primary outcome measure will be competitive employment status (at least 1 day (7 h)) during an 18-month follow-up, determined by patient-level, trial-data-linkage with national tax and state benefit databases. From meta-analysis, an 18% target difference on this measure of vocational effectiveness (for the experimental intervention) and a two-sided 5% level of statistical significance, will require a minimum target sample of 832 participants to achieve 90% power for a pre-registered, mixed-effects, multi-variable logistic regression model. A maximum-likelihood multiple-imputation approach will manage missing outcome data. IPS-AD has six vocational secondary outcome measures during the 18-month follow-up: (1) total time in competitive employment (and corresponding National Insurance contributions and tax paid); (2) time from randomisation to first competitive employment; (3) number of competitive job appointments; (4) job tenure (length of longest held competitive employment); (5) sustained employment (tenure in a single appointment for at least 13 weeks); and (6) job search self-efficacy. A primary cost-benefit analysis and a secondary cost-effectiveness analysis will be done using the primary outcome and secondary vocational outcomes, respectively and will include addiction treatment and social and health outcomes and their associated reference costs. The process evaluation will address IPS implementation and delivery. DISCUSSION: The IPS-AD study is the first large-scale, multi-site, definitive, superiority RCT of IPS for people with alcohol and drug dependence. Findings from the study will have substantial implications for service delivery. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN Registry, ID: ISRCTN24159790. Registered on 1 February 2018.

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.

Extended-release naltrexone versus standard oral naltrexone versus placebo for opioid use disorder: the NEAT three-arm RCT.

BACKGROUND: People recovering from heroin addiction need better treatments than are currently offered. The chronic relapsing nature of drug dependence means that helping a patient to achieve abstinence is often difficult. Naltrexone blocks the effects of ingested heroin; however, evidence is conflicting regarding the best delivery method. OBJECTIVES: The primary purpose of the trial was to evaluate the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of extended-release naltrexone versus standard oral naltrexone versus relapse prevention therapy without medication for opioid use disorder (OUD). DESIGN: This was a 3-year, definitive, three-centre, three-arm, parallel group, placebo-controlled, double-blind, double-dummy, randomised controlled trial. SETTING: Two specialist NHS outpatient addiction clinics: one in London and one in Birmingham. PARTICIPANTS: Planned study sample - 300 adult patients with OUD who had completed detoxification. INTERVENTIONS: One iGen/Atral-Cipan Extended Release Naltrexone device (iGen/Atral-Cipan, Castanheira do Ribatejo, Portugal) (765 mg naltrexone or placebo) at day 0 of study week 1. Three weekly directly observed active or placebo oral naltrexone tablets (2 × 50 mg, Monday and Wednesday; 3 × 50 mg, Friday) at day 0 of study week 1 (for 4 weeks) and then an 8-week regimen of patient-administered dosing at the same dosing level. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: The primary outcome measure was the proportion of heroin-negative urine drug screen (UDS) results at the end of the 12-week post-randomisation time point. RESULTS: Six patients were recruited and randomised to receive study interventions. Two patients had no positive UDS samples for heroin during the 12-week treatment period, one patient had only one positive UDS sample and the remaining patients had two, six and eight positive UDS results for heroin. All patients had at least one missed clinic visit (range 1-14). CONCLUSIONS: Considerable problems were encountered with (1) the stipulated requirement of a validated 'detoxified' status prior to the initiation of the study naltrexone, (2) the requirement for a consent cooling-off period and (3) delays awaiting the surgical implant procedure. Major upheaval to the organisation and delivery of NHS community treatment services across England led to extremely poor levels of actual entry of patients into the trial. Research-vital clinical and procedural requirements were, therefore, more challenging to implement. The potential therapeutic value of the opioid antagonist naltrexone still needs clear investigation, including comparison of the established oral form with the new ultra-long-acting depot implant formulations (for which no licensed products exist in Europe). Despite the small number of study participants, some tentative conclusions can be reached, relevant to potential future work. The blinding of the active/placebo medications appeared to be good. Self-report was not sufficient to detect instances of heroin use. Self-report plus UDS information provided a fuller picture. Instances of lapsed heroin use were not necessarily followed by full relapse, and future work should consider the lapse-relapse relationship. The prison release setting also warrants special consideration. In future, investigators should consider seeking ethics approval for studies in which clinical procedures to accelerate the treatment process are permitted, even if outside orthodox clinical practice, if they address a clinical need at the time of challenge and clinical risk. In addition, it may be appropriate to seek exemption from the ordinary requirement of a cooling-off period after securing consent because it is often essential to initiate treatment promptly. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN95809946. FUNDING: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 23, No. 3. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Substance use, sleep and intervention design: insights from qualitative data.

Background: Alcohol and other drug use is associated with poor sleep quality and quantity, but there is limited qualitative research exploring substance users' experiences of sleep and few psychosocial sleep interventions for them. Aim: To inform the development of psychosocial interventions to improve sleep amongst people reporting drug/alcohol problems. Method: Qualitative data were collected during a sleep survey. Of the 549 drug/alcohol users completing the survey, 188 (34%) provided additional information about their sleep using a free text box. Responses were analysed via Iterative Categorisation. Findings were reviewed with reference to the Behaviour Change Wheel (BCW). Results: All data were categorised inductively under five headings: (i) sleep quality; (ii) nature of sleep problems; (iii) sleep and substances; (iv) factors improving sleep quality; (v) factors undermining sleep quality. Substance use undermined sleep, but poor sleep often persisted after substance use had ceased. Sleep problems were diverse; as were the causes of, and strategies for dealing with, those problems. Causes and strategies had biological, psychological, social and environmental roots. Conclusions: The BCW facilitated the identification of intervention components that might improve the sleep of people who use substances. These components relate to education, training, enablement, modelling, service provision, guidelines and environment.

Global statistics on alcohol, tobacco and illicit drug use: 2017 status report.

AIMS: This review provides an up-to-date curated source of information on alcohol, tobacco and illicit drug use and their associated mortality and burden of disease. Limitations in the data are also discussed, including how these can be addressed in the future. METHODS: Online data sources were identified through expert review. Data were obtained mainly from the World Health Organization, United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime and Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation. RESULTS: In 2015, the estimated prevalence among the adult population was 18.4% for heavy episodic alcohol use (in the past 30 days); 15.2% for daily tobacco smoking; and 3.8, 0.77, 0.37 and 0.35% for past-year cannabis, amphetamine, opioid and cocaine use, respectively. European regions had the highest prevalence of heavy episodic alcohol use and daily tobacco use. The age-standardized prevalence of alcohol dependence was 843.2 per 100 000 people; for cannabis, opioids, amphetamines and cocaine dependence it was 259.3, 220.4, 86.0 and 52.5 per 100 000 people, respectively. High-income North America region had among the highest rates of cannabis, opioid and cocaine dependence. Attributable disability-adjusted life-years (DALYs) were highest for tobacco smoking (170.9 million DALYs), followed by alcohol (85.0 million) and illicit drugs (27.8 million). Substance-attributable mortality rates were highest for tobacco smoking (110.7 deaths per 100 000 people), followed by alcohol and illicit drugs (33.0 and 6.9 deaths per 100 000 people, respectively). Attributable age-standardized mortality rates and DALYs for alcohol and illicit drugs were highest in eastern Europe; attributable age-standardized tobacco mortality rates and DALYs were highest in Oceania. CONCLUSIONS: In 2015 alcohol use and tobacco smoking use between them cost the human population more than a quarter of a billion disability-adjusted life years, with illicit drugs costing further tens of millions. Europeans suffered proportionately more, but in absolute terms the mortality rate was greatest in low- and middle-income countries with large populations and where the quality of data was more limited. Better standardized and rigorous methods for data collection, collation and reporting are needed to assess more accurately the geographical and temporal trends in substance use and its disease burden.

A rapid evidence review of the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of alcohol control policies: an English perspective.

This paper reviews the evidence for the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of policies to reduce alcohol-related harm. Policies focus on price, marketing, availability, information and education, the drinking environment, drink-driving, and brief interventions and treatment. Although there is variability in research design and measured outcomes, evidence supports the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of policies that address affordability and marketing. An adequate reduction in temporal availability, particularly late night on-sale availability, is effective and cost-effective. Individually-directed interventions delivered to at-risk drinkers and enforced legislative measures are also effective. Providing information and education increases awareness, but is not sufficient to produce long-lasting changes in behaviour. At best, interventions enacted in and around the drinking environment lead to small reductions in acute alcohol-related harm. Overall, there is a rich evidence base to support the decisions of policy makers in implementing the most effective and cost-effective policies to reduce alcohol-related harm.

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.

Risk adjustment of heroin treatment outcomes for comparative performance assessment in England.

AIMS: Variability in effectiveness of treatment for substance abuse disorder (SUD) is an important and understudied issue. This study aimed to quantify the extent of outcome variability in the English SUD treatment system after adjusting for potential confounding variables. DESIGN: Prospective cohort study using data from the English national drug treatment outcome monitoring database. SETTING: All 149 administrative areas delivering publicly funded SUD services in the National Health Service and non-governmental sector. PARTICIPANTS: New adult admissions between January 2008 and October 2010 with illicit heroin-related problems in all administrative areas, with an in-treatment review conducted between 5 and 26 weeks (mean = 129.5 days; SD = 40.0) up to 30 April 2011 (n = 65 223; 75.6% of eligible clients). Individuals were divided randomly to form model developmental and internal validation samples. These were contrasted with an independent (external) sample of the same population admitted to treatment between November 2010 and April 2011 and followed to 31 October 2011 (n = 13 797; 81.4% of those eligible). MEASUREMENTS AND ANALYSIS: The outcome measure was self-reported illicit heroin use, categorized as abstinent or deteriorated (the latter by Reliable Change Index), each risk-adjusted by person-level (demographics, clinical severity and treatment complexity) and area-level (SUD prevalence, social deprivation and severity averages) covariates by multivariable logistic regression using multiply imputed outcome and covariate data. Risk-adjusted models were assessed by information criteria and discrimination (c-index). Standardized outcome rates were compared by funnel plot with 95% and 99% control limits. FINDINGS: Models of heroin abstinence (48.4%) and deterioration (3.2%) were comparable across the developmental and validation samples (c-index = 0.70-0.71 and 0.82-0.87), with 79.2 and 94.0%, respectively, of the 149 treatment areas falling within 95% control limits. At the 99% limit, seven areas (4.7%) achieved abstinence rates above the national average, and eight had relatively poor abstinence rates (5.4%). At the 99% control limit, one area achieved very low deterioration outcomes and two (1.3%) were worse that the average. Risk adjustment served to increase abstinence rates in good performing areas by 0.63% and reduce abstinence rates by 0.37% in poor performing areas, and by 0.12% and 0.18%, respectively, for deterioration. CONCLUSION: There is some exceptional variability in the apparent effectiveness of the English treatment system for substance use disorders. It is important to determine the source of this variability in order to inform drug treatment delivery and its evaluation both in England and overseas.

How best to measure change in evaluations of treatment for substance use disorder.

AIMS: To compare the performance of the Jacobson & Truax (JT) reliable change index (RCI) with three alternative methods, using data from individuals receiving treatment for substance use disorders. DESIGN: English National Treatment Outcome Monitoring Database for publicly funded specialist community pharmacological and psychosocial interventions. PARTICIPANTS: New adult admissions to treatment across England (1 January-31 December 2008), with in-treatment clinic progress review conducted after an average of 122.8 days for 18,163 individuals. MEASUREMENTS: Self-reported days using heroin, crack, cocaine powder and alcohol during the 4 weeks before admission and clinical review, recorded using the Treatment Outcomes Profile and analysed using a multi-level, mixed-linear model, with both observed and true scores to estimate the effect of regression to the mean (RTM). Differences in performance among the JT RCI and the alternative methods were assessed by the proportion assigned to a reliably 'improved', 'unchanged' or 'reliably deteriorated' category; level of agreement; difference in effect size for observed and true scores; and receiver operating characteristic parameters. FINDINGS: When compared to the alternative methods, the JT RCI was more conservative in assigning individuals to the improved category, and it showed no evidence of inferiority on any measure. For each method, all individuals categorized as reliably deteriorated and the majority of those categorized reliably improved had outcome scores which fell beyond that expected by RTM. Substituting true scores for observed scores moderated the size of the change effect associated with reduced use of the four substances, but this remained statistically significant. CONCLUSIONS: The Jacobson & Truax Reliable Change Index appears to be the optimal measure of change for evaluations of treatment for substance use disorder, in that it is the most conservative for assessing improvement and at least as accurate on all other criteria. Any evaluation of change needs to take account of regression to the mean.

What difference does training make? A randomized trial with waiting-list control of general practitioners seeking advanced training in drug misuse.

AIM: To measure changes in knowledge, attitudes and clinical practice of general practitioners (GPs) enrolled to receive training in the management of drug misusers. DESIGN: Two-group randomized trial with training (T) and waiting-list (WL) control comparison conditions. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: A total of 112 GPs working in primary care practices in England. INTERVENTIONS: A 6-month, part-time, mixed-methods training course provided by the Royal College of General Practitioners. GPs randomized to the WL control received no special training or guidance during the study period. OUTCOME MEASURES AND ANALYSIS: Knowledge, therapeutic attitudes (commitment, role security, situational constraints and prescribing confidence) and clinical practice behaviour change (numbers of drug misusers seen, treated). Intention-to-treat/train (ITT) analysis, supplemented by treatment/training received (TR) analysis. FINDINGS: Training applicants had positive attitudes towards and were already involved in the care of drug misusers. Improvements in attitudes and behaviour were greatest among the T group, although only 'role security' and 'situational constraint' reached statistical significance (ITT). A subgroup in the WL group circumvented their allocation and received training, prompting supplementary analysis by TR. Overall, GPs who received training showed markedly greater improvements in knowledge, attitudinal and prescribing confidence measures and remained more actively involved in treating drug misusers than GPs who remained in the WL control group (TR analysis). CONCLUSIONS: GPs seeking special training for the care of drug misusers are both positively disposed to this patient population and clinically active. Benefits unambiguously attributable to the course were modest. While a TR effect was observed, strict adherence to ITT analysis failed to identify significant benefits observed with the training provided. Randomisation and waiting-list controls design are insufficient as a research method for training evaluation studies if ITT analysis is used exclusively.

Predictors of mental health service utilization in the 12 months before imprisonment: analysis of results from a national prisons survey.

OBJECTIVE: To describe the self-reported history of health service utilization and help-seeking to those who are drug-dependent in the period of time prior to imprisonment. METHOD: A cross-section survey of 3142 sentenced or remand prisoners in English prisons completed private, face-to-face interviews with trained Office for National Statistics staff covering a full structured psychiatric assessment interview. Specific questions about service utilization prior to imprisonment were included, as were questions on patterns of drug use and dependence prior to imprisonment. RESULTS: Receipt of any form of help was demographically most strongly associated with being older, white and female. Women were about twice as likely as men to report having received help for mental or emotional problems. Older age was also consistently associated with greater levels of reporting having received help, for both genders but only for use of general practitioners. Being black was strongly associated with reduced likelihood of receiving help and this was maintained after adjusting for other sociodemographic variables. Opioid dependence alone or opioid dependence with stimulant dependence, psychiatric disorder alone and probable psychosis were all most predictive of service use in the 12 months prior to imprisonment. CONCLUSIONS: In the year prior to imprisonment, the majority of mental health needs of these individual prisoners were not able to access help prior to imprisonment. Future strategies should aim for better health access before, during and after imprisonment.