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.

The Gender-Diversity and Autism Questionnaire: A Community-Developed Clinical, Research, and Self-Advocacy Tool for Autistic Transgender and Gender-Diverse Young Adults.

Background: Autistic transgender people face unique risks in society, including inequities in accessing needed care and related mental health disparities. Given the need for specific and culturally responsive accommodations/supports, the characterization of key experiences, challenges, needs, and resilience factors within this population is imperative. This study developed a structured self-report tool for autistic transgender young adults to communicate their experiences and needs in a report format attuned to common autistic thinking and communication styles. Methods: This cross-nation project developed and refined the Gender-Diversity and Autism Questionnaire through an iterative community-based approach using Delphi panel methodology. This proof-of-principle project defined "expertise" broadly, employing a multi-input expert search approach to balance academic-, community-, and lived experience-based expertise. Results: The expert collaborators (N = 24 respondents) completed a two-round Delphi study, which developed 85 mostly closed-ended items based on 90% consensus. Final item content falls within six topic areas: the experience of identities; the impact of experienced or anticipated discrimination, bias, and violence toward autistic people and transgender people; tasks and experiences of everyday life; gender diversity- or autism-related care needs and history; the experience of others doubting an individual's gender identity and/or autism; and the experience of community and connectedness. The majority of retained items relate to tasks and experiences of everyday life or the impact of experienced or anticipated discrimination, bias, and violence. Conclusions: This study employed a multipronged multimodal search approach to maximize equity in representation of the expert measure development team. The resulting instrument, designed for clinical, research, and self-advocacy applications, has parallel Dutch and English versions and is available for immediate use. Future cross-cultural research with this instrument could help identify contextual risk and resilience factors to better understand and address inequities faced by this large intersectional population.

Why is this an important issue?: Transgender and gender-diverse are words used to describe people whose gender varies from their assigned sex at birth. Many autistic people identify as being transgender/gender-diverse. Autistic gender-diverse/transgender young adults often describe difficulties getting the care they need, which can increase their chances of experiencing stress and mental health challenges. This study created a self-report questionnaire for autistic transgender/gender-diverse young adults to share about their health care, support needs, and broader experiences. What were the results of the study?: A diverse group of experts in the autism and gender diversity co-occurrence, including autistic transgender people, worked together to develop the questionnaire. The researchers found experts by searching the internet and talking to people in the community and research field. The questionnaire is called the Gender-Diversity and Autism Questionnaire and has 85 questions that are grouped into 6 different areas: the experience of identities; the impact of experienced or anticipated discrimination, bias, and violence toward autistic people and transgender people; tasks and experiences of everyday life; gender diversity- or autism-related care needs and history; the experience of others doubting an individual's gender identity and/or autism; and the experience of community and connectedness. The questionnaire has English and Dutch versions so it can be used for research in different countries. What do the authors recommend for future research on this topic?: Researchers are currently using the new questionnaire to compare the experiences and needs of autistic transgender young adults in the Netherlands and the United States. The results may help explain why some outcomes are different between autistic transgender young people in the two countries and how culture and society play a role. How will these findings help autistic adults now or in the future?: We created the questionnaire to be used in different settings, including clinics and in research. The questionnaire gives autistic transgender young adults a structured way to communicate their experiences, needs, challenges, and areas of strength. The answers that an autistic transgender young adult gives on the questionnaire could help other people understand the clinical and community supports that the young adult wants and needs. Future studies may use the questionnaire to understand obstacles that autistic transgender young adults may face.

Centering the Inner Experience of Autism: Development of the Self-Assessment of Autistic Traits.

Current tools for identifying autism are critiqued for their lack of specificity and sensitivity, especially in autistic people who are older, have higher verbal ability or significant compensatory skills, and are not cisgender boys. This may reflect the following: the historical focus of autism research on White (cisgender) male, upper and middle class children; limited interest in the inner, lived experience of autism; and the predominance of a deficit-based model of autism. We report here on the first attempt of which we are aware to develop a clinical self-report measure of autistic traits as described by autistic people. We believe this is an advance in methodology because prior work in the development of autistic trait/diagnostic measures has prioritized the perspectives of nonautistic clinicians and scientists. The measure was developed under the leadership of two autistic researchers and constructed by leveraging descriptions of autism by autistic people to generate items designed to encompass the range of the autistic experience, using strength-based, accessible language. The team utilized iterative feedback from a panel of autistic experts to refine and enhance the measure, called the Self Assessment of Autistic Traits (SAAT). It is intended for people 16 years or older and uses a format that is designed to increase its accessibility and acceptability for autistic respondents. Future work will report on the preliminary psychometrics of the SAAT, with a long-term goal of advancing our understanding of the inner autistic experience and enhancing the clinical and scientific assessment of autism.

Why is this topic important?: Some people, especially older people, and those who can "mask" their autism, are missed by the current autism assessment tools. This can keep them from getting supports or getting connected to autistic communities. This can harm their well-being and independence. The tools we currently have to assess autism are important, but they were not developed with people who represent the full range of genders, ages, abilities, and cultural identities that characterize autism. Furthermore, current tools emphasize behaviors that other people observe, for example, making eye contact, and do not fully explore the lived or inner experience of autism. What is the purpose of this article?: This article describes the first attempt we know of to begin developing a self-report measure of autistic traits as described by autistic people. What did the authors do?: The authors started by reading what autistic people had to say about autism. They used those readings to come up with initial ideas about autistic experience. Then they used those ideas to write questions for a questionnaire about autistic traits. They asked autistic experts to review the questionnaire and made changes based on what they said. How did the authors work together?: This project was led by two autistic researchers who worked with a team of nonautistic researchers experienced in different research methods. A panel of autistic experts, including both autistic scientist and community leaders, also provided important input. Some of those methods were community-based research, Delphi panels, cognitive interviewing, and measure development. The research team made decisions together. The autistic researchers made the final decisions if there was disagreement. What did they produce?: They produced a preliminary version of the Self Assessment of Autistic Traits (SAAT). The SAAT is a questionnaire that asks if a person has common autistic experiences and traits. It has 58 items that are written with the aim of being respectful and using accessible language. The questionnaire is designed to work with common autistic thinking styles. How will this help autistic adults now or in the future?: The long-term goal is to create a reliable and valid self-report questionnaire that people 16 years old and older can complete to measure their autistic traits. We believe that this could be an important tool for advancing our understanding of the inner autistic experience of autism. This could improve how we assess autistic adults and how we research and think about autism.

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

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

A rapid assessment of take-home naloxone provision during COVID-19 in Europe.

BACKGROUND: In March 2020, the World Health Organization declared COVID-19 a global pandemic. In the following weeks, most European countries implemented national lockdowns to mitigate viral spread. Services for people who use drugs had to quickly revise their operating procedures to rearrange service provision while adhering to lockdown requirements. Given the scarcity of literature published on overdose prevention during COVID-19 in Europe, we aimed to examine how these changes to service provision affected take-home naloxone (THN) programmes and naloxone availability across Europe. METHODS: Between November 2020 and January 2021, we conducted a rapid assessment with country experts from European countries that provide THN. We sent country experts a template to report monthly THN distribution data (January 1, 2019-October 31, 2020) and a structured 6-item survey for completion. RESULTS: Responses were received from 14 of the 15 European countries with THN provision of which 11 participated in the rapid assessment: Austria, Denmark, England, Estonia, Lithuania, Northern Ireland, Norway, Scotland, Spain (Catalonia only), Sweden, and Wales. All reported reduced organisational capacity during COVID-19, and some put into place a range of novel approaches to manage the restrictions on face-to-face service provision. In six countries, the introduction of programme innovation occurred alongside the publication of government guidelines recommending increased THN provision during COVID-19. Eight of the eleven participating countries managed to maintain 2019-level monthly THN distribution rates or even increase provision during the pandemic. CONCLUSION: Through programme innovation supported by public guidelines, many European THN programmes managed to ensure stable or even increased THN provision during the pandemic, despite social distancing and stay-at-home orders affecting client mobility.

Effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of face-to-face and electronic brief interventions versus screening alone to reduce alcohol consumption among high-risk adolescents presenting to emergency departments: three-arm pragmatic randomized trial (SIPS Junior high risk trial).

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Alcohol use increases throughout adolescence. Emergency department (ED) attendance is an opportunity for alcohol screening and brief intervention (ASBI), which is effective for adults. This trial evaluated the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of ASBI compared with screening alone (SA) in high-risk adolescents. DESIGN, SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: Multi-centre, three-group, single-blind, individually randomized trial with follow-ups after 6 and 12 months in 10 ED settings in England. From October 2014 to May 2015 we screened 3327 adolescents aged 14 to 18 years, of whom 756 (22.7%) scored at least 3 on the Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test: consumption (AUDIT-C) and consented to participate in this trial. Mean age was 16.1 years; 50.2% were female and 84.9% were white. INTERVENTIONS: Interventions were personalized feedback and brief advice (PFBA), personalized feedback plus electronic brief intervention (eBI) and SA. MEASURES: The primary outcome was the weekly alcohol consumed in standard UK units (8 g ethanol) at 12 months post-randomization, derived from extended AUDIT-C. Economic outcomes included quality of life and service use, from perspectives of both the National Health Service and personal social services (NHS&PSS) and society. FINDINGS: At 12 months, mean weekly consumption was 2.99 [95% confidence interval (CI) = 2.38-3.70] standard units for the SA group, 3.56 (95% CI = 2.90, 4.32) for PFBA and 3.18 (95% CI = 2.50, 3.97) for eBI, showing no significant differences. The PFBA group consumed mean 0.57 (-0.36, 1.70) units more than SA; and eBIs consumed 0.19 (-0.71, 1.30) more. Bayes factors suggested lack of effectiveness explained non-significance. From the NHS&PSS perspective, economic analysis showed that PFBA and eBI were not cost-effective compared with SA: PFBA yielded incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of £6213 (-£736 843, £812 884), with the intervention having 54% probability of being cost-effective compared with SA at the £20 000 WTP threshold. CONCLUSIONS: In emergency departments in England, neither personalized feedback and brief advice nor personalized feedback plus electronic brief intervention showed evidence of being effective or cost-effective when compared with screening alone in reducing alcohol consumption among adolescents.

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

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

Brief interventions to prevent excessive alcohol use in adolescents at low-risk presenting to Emergency Departments: Three-arm, randomised trial of effectiveness and cost-effectiveness.

BACKGROUND: Alcohol consumption and related harm increase rapidly from the age of 12 years. We evaluated whether alcohol screening and brief intervention is effective and cost-effective in delaying hazardous or harmful drinking amongst low-risk or abstaining adolescents attending Emergency Departments (EDs). METHODS: This ten-centre, three-arm, parallel-group, single-blind, pragmatic, individually randomised trial screened ED attenders aged between 14 and 17 years for alcohol consumption. We sampled at random one third of those scoring at most 2 on AUDIT-C who had access to the internet and, if aged under 16, were Gillick competent or had informed consent from parent or guardian. We randomised them between: screening only (control intervention); one session of face-to-face Personalised Feedback and Brief Advice (PFBA); and PFBA plus an electronic brief intervention (eBI) on smartphone or web. We conducted follow-up after six and 12 months. The principal outcomes were alcohol consumed over the 3 months before 12-month follow up, measured by AUDIT-C; and quality-adjusted life-years. FINDINGS: Between October 2014 and May 2015, we approached 5,016 eligible patients of whom 3,326 consented to be screened and participate in the trial; 2,571 of these were low-risk drinkers or abstainers, consuming an average 0.14 units per week. We randomised: 304 to screening only; 285 to PFBA; and 294 to PFBA and eBI. We found no significant difference between groups, notably in weekly alcohol consumption: those receiving screening only drank 0.10 units (95% confidence interval 0.05 to 0.18); PFBA 0.12 (0.06 to 0.21); PFBA and eBI 0.10 (0.05 to 0.19). INTERPRETATION: While drinking levels remained low in this population, this trial found no evidence that PFBA with or without eBI was more effective than screening alone in reducing or delaying alcohol consumption.

Incidence and treatment costs of severe bacterial infections among people who inject heroin: A cohort study in South London, England.

BACKGROUND: People who inject drugs often get bacterial infections. Few longitudinal studies have reported the incidence and treatment costs of these infections. METHODS: For a cohort of 2335 people who inject heroin entering treatment for drug dependence between 2006 and 2017 in London, England, we reported the rates of hospitalisation or death with primary causes of cutaneous abscess, cellulitis, phlebitis, septicaemia, osteomyelitis, septic arthritis, endocarditis, or necrotising fasciitis. We compared these rates to the general population. We also used NHS reference costs to calculate the cost of admissions. RESULTS: During a median of 8.0 years of follow-up, 24 % of patients (570/2335) had a severe bacterial infection, most commonly presenting with cutaneous abscesses or cellulitis. Bacterial infections accounted for 13 % of all hospital admissions. The rate was 73 per 1000 person-years (95 % CI 69-77); 50 times the general population, and the rate remained high throughout follow-up. The rate of severe bacterial infections for women was 1.50 (95 % CI 1.32-1.69) times the rate for men. The mean cost per admission was £4980, and we estimate that the annual cost of hospital treatment for people who inject heroin in London is £4.5 million. CONCLUSIONS: People who inject heroin have extreme and long-term risk of severe bacterial infections.

Telephone delivered incentives for encouraging adherence to supervised methadone consumption (TIES): Study protocol for a feasibility study for an RCT of clinical and cost effectiveness.

The majority of people receiving treatment for their heroin addiction, are prescribed methadone; for which there is an extensive evidence base. When treatment starts, people take their daily dose of methadone under supervision at a community pharmacy. Supervision guarantees methadone is taken as directed by the individual for whom it has been prescribed, helps to ensure individuals take their correct dose every day, and safeguards against diversion and overdose. However, individuals often fail to attend the pharmacy to take their methadone. Each missed dose is of concern. If a patient misses their daily dose of methadone, they will start to experience opiate withdrawal and cravings and are more likely to use heroin. If they miss three days dose, there are concerns that they may lose tolerance to the drug and may be at risk of overdose when the next dose is taken. Hence there is an urgent need to develop effective interventions for medication adherence. Research suggests that incentive-based medication adherence interventions may be very effective, but there are few controlled trials and the provision of incentives requires time and organisational systems which can be challenging in pharmacies. The investigators have developed the technology to deliver incentives by mobile telephone. This cluster randomised trial will test the feasibility of conducting a future trial evaluating the clinical and cost effectiveness of using telephone delivered incentives (praise and modest financial rewards via text messaging) to encourage adherence with supervised consumption of methadone in community pharmacies. Three drug services (each with two or three community pharmacies supervising methadone consumption that will enrol 20 individuals, a total of 60 participants) will be recruited and randomly allocated to deliver either i) telephone delivered incentives, ii) telephone delivered reminders or iii) no telephone system. Acceptability, recruitment, follow-up, and suitable measures of clinical and cost effectiveness will be assessed. Findings from this feasibility study will be assessed against stated progression criteria and used to inform a future confirmatory trial of the clinical and cost effectiveness of telephone delivered incentives to encourage medication adherence. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN58958179 (retrospectively registered).

A contingency management intervention to reduce cannabis use and time to relapse in early psychosis: the CIRCLE RCT.

BACKGROUND: Cannabis is the most prevalent illicit substance among people with psychosis, and its use is associated with poorer clinical and social outcomes. However, so far, there has been limited evidence that any treatment is effective for reducing use. Contingency management (CM) is an incentive-based intervention for substance misuse that has a substantial evidence base across a range of substances and cohorts. However, to date there have been no randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of CM as a treatment for cannabis use specifically in psychosis. OBJECTIVE: To conduct a RCT investigating the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of CM in reducing cannabis use among Early Intervention in Psychosis (EIP) service users. DESIGN: The CIRCLE (Contingency Intervention for Reduction of Cannabis in Early Psychosis) trial was a rater-blinded, multicentre RCT with two arms. Participants were randomised 1 : 1 to either an CM arm, in which participants received CM for cannabis use alongside an optimised treatment-as-usual programme including structured psychoeducation, or a control arm in which participants received the treatment as usual only. SETTING: EIP services across the Midlands and the south-east of England. PARTICIPANTS: The main eligibility criteria were EIP service users with a history of psychosis, aged 18-36 years, and having used cannabis at least once per week during 12 of the previous 24 weeks. INTERVENTION: The CM intervention offered financial incentives (i.e. shopping vouchers) for cannabis abstinence over 12 once-weekly sessions, confirmed using urinalysis. The maximum value in vouchers that participants could receive was £240. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The main outcome was time to relapse, operationalised as admission to an acute mental health service or hospital. The primary outcome was assessed at 18 months post inclusion using electronic patient records. Secondary outcomes assessed the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of the intervention, for which data were collected at 3 and 18 months. RESULTS: A total of 278 participants were randomised to the CM arm and 273 were randomised to the control arm. In total, 530 (96%) participants were followed up for the primary outcome. There was no significant difference in time to admission between trial arms by 18 months following consent (hazard ratio 1.03, 95% confidence interval 0.76 to 1.40). There were no statistically significant differences in most secondary outcomes, including cannabis use, at either follow-up assessment. There were 58 serious adverse events, comprising 52 inpatient episodes, five deaths and one arrest. LIMITATIONS: Participant retention was low at 18 months, limiting the assessment of secondary outcomes. A different CM intervention design or reward level may have been effective. CONCLUSIONS: The CM intervention did not appear to be effective in reducing cannabis use and acute relapse among people with early psychosis and problematic cannabis use. FUTURE WORK: Cannabis use is still a significant clinical concern in this population. A pressing need remains to identify suitable treatments. A wider perspective on the social circumstances of young people with psychosis may be needed for a successful intervention to be found. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN33576045. 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. 45. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

A large proportion of people with psychosis use cannabis, despite the negative impact that it has on their recovery. So far, a clearly effective way of helping young people in the early stages of psychosis to cut down their cannabis use has not been found. The CIRCLE trial investigated if an approach known as contingency management (CM) would be beneficial for this group. This approach involves offering voucher rewards for not using cannabis. It has been effective in addressing drug use problems in general, but there is not much evidence about its effects on cannabis use in those with psychosis. A total of 551 service users with psychosis who used cannabis agreed to enter the trial. Half of the sample group was chosen by a chance method to receive CM. The other half formed a comparison group. The CM group received shopping vouchers if urine samples showed that they had not used cannabis for the previous week, measured over 12 weekly sessions. Participants could obtain £240-worth of vouchers if they did not use cannabis during the treatment period. The participants in both groups were also offered a six-session psychoeducation programme about the pros and cons of cannabis use and ways to reduce use of it. The main comparison in the trial was the average length of time in each group before a relapse of psychosis occurred, which was recorded for each participant over 18 months after they joined the trial. The results found no difference between the two trial groups in this measure. Furthermore, there were no differences found between the groups in terms of the levels of cannabis use, clinical symptoms, or engagement with work or education. However, a cost-effectiveness analysis found an 85% chance of CM being more effective than the treatment-as-usual psychoeducation package, which appears to be because of the lower use of inpatient services by those receiving CM. However, it is difficult to understand why this was, because there was no drop in cannabis use. The results suggest that CM is unlikely to be clinically effective and that alternative treatments are still needed.

Clinical and cost-effectiveness of contingency management for cannabis use in early psychosis: the CIRCLE randomised clinical trial.

BACKGROUND: Cannabis is the most commonly used illicit substance amongst people with psychosis. Continued cannabis use following the onset of psychosis is associated with poorer functional and clinical outcomes. However, finding effective ways of intervening has been very challenging. We examined the clinical and cost-effectiveness of adjunctive contingency management (CM), which involves incentives for abstinence from cannabis use, in people with a recent diagnosis of psychosis. METHODS: CIRCLE was a pragmatic multi-centre randomised controlled trial. Participants were recruited via Early Intervention in Psychosis (EIP) services across the Midlands and South East of England. They had had at least one episode of clinically diagnosed psychosis (affective or non-affective); were aged 18 to 36; reported cannabis use in at least 12 out of the previous 24 weeks; and were not currently receiving treatment for cannabis misuse, or subject to a legal requirement for cannabis testing. Participants were randomised via a secure web-based service 1:1 to either an experimental arm, involving 12 weeks of CM plus a six-session psychoeducation package, or a control arm receiving the psychoeducation package only. The total potential voucher reward in the CM intervention was £240. The primary outcome was time to acute psychiatric care, operationalised as admission to an acute mental health service (including community alternatives to admission). Primary outcome data were collected from patient records at 18 months post-consent by assessors masked to allocation. The trial was registered with the ISRCTN registry, number ISRCTN33576045. RESULTS: Five hundred fifty-one participants were recruited between June 2012 and April 2016. Primary outcome data were obtained for 272 (98%) in the CM (experimental) group and 259 (95%) in the control group. There was no statistically significant difference in time to acute psychiatric care (the primary outcome) (HR 1.03, 95% CI 0.76, 1.40) between groups. By 18 months, 90 (33%) of participants in the CM group, and 85 (30%) of the control groups had been admitted at least once to an acute psychiatric service. Amongst those who had experienced an acute psychiatric admission, the median time to admission was 196 days (IQR 82, 364) in the CM group and 245 days (IQR 99, 382) in the control group. Cost-effectiveness analyses suggest that there is an 81% likelihood that the intervention was cost-effective, mainly resulting from higher mean inpatient costs for the control group compared with the CM group; however, the cost difference between groups was not statistically significant. There were 58 adverse events, 27 in the CM group and 31 in the control group. CONCLUSIONS: Overall, these results suggest that CM is not an effective intervention for improving the time to acute psychiatric admission or reducing cannabis use in psychosis, at least at the level of voucher reward offered.

Depot buprenorphine injections for opioid use disorder: Patient information needs and preferences.

INTRODUCTION AND AIMS: There has been significant recent investment in new medications for opioid use disorder, including buprenorphine depot injections. Patients and professionals need good quality, independent information on medications to help them make informed treatment decisions. This paper aims to understand patients' information needs and preferences in relation to buprenorphine depot injections. DESIGN AND METHODS: Semi-structured qualitative interviews were conducted with 36 people using opioids (26 men, 10 women; 24-63 years). Twelve participants were currently prescribed daily oral methadone; 12 were currently prescribed daily oral buprenorphine; and 12 were using heroin and not in treatment. Interviews were transcribed, coded and analysed via Iterative Categorisation. RESULTS: Participants asked many questions about depot buprenorphine injections. These related to: (i) medication purpose and availability; (ii) pharmacology; (iii) evidence base and effectiveness; (iv) safety and side effects; (v) administration and dosing; and (vi) reducing and ending treatment. Additionally, participants expressed their information preferences in terms of (i) 'format' and (ii) 'source'. Specifically, they wanted printed, verbal and electronic materials provided by people in authority, particularly patients who had already had the medication. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS: All potential patients should be offered accessible information on depot buprenorphine to enable them to consider their options and participate meaningfully in treatment decision making. We recommend that further qualitative research is undertaken to produce informative video material that describes patient experiences of receiving depot buprenorphine. This should help to balance biomedical knowledge with lay knowledge, so facilitating more informed discussions when decisions about depot buprenorphine treatment are made.

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.

Preventing blood-borne virus infection in people who inject drugs in the UK: systematic review, stakeholder interviews, psychosocial intervention development and feasibility randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Opioid substitution therapy and needle exchanges have reduced blood-borne viruses (BBVs) among people who inject drugs (PWID). Some PWID continue to share injecting equipment. OBJECTIVES: To develop an evidence-based psychosocial intervention to reduce BBV risk behaviours and increase transmission knowledge among PWID, and conduct a feasibility trial among PWID comparing the intervention with a control. DESIGN: A pragmatic, two-armed randomised controlled, open feasibility trial. Service users were Steering Group members and co-developed the intervention. Peer educators co-delivered the intervention in London. SETTING: NHS or third-sector drug treatment or needle exchanges in Glasgow, London, Wrexham and York, recruiting January and February 2016. PARTICIPANTS: Current PWID, aged ≥ 18 years. INTERVENTIONS: A remote, web-based computer randomisation system allocated participants to a three-session, manualised, psychosocial, gender-specific group intervention delivered by trained facilitators and BBV transmission information booklet plus treatment as usual (TAU) (intervention), or information booklet plus TAU (control). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Recruitment, retention and follow-up rates measured feasibility. Feedback questionnaires, focus groups with participants who attended at least one intervention session and facilitators assessed the intervention's acceptability. RESULTS: A systematic review of what works to reduce BBV risk behaviours among PWID; in-depth interviews with PWID; and stakeholder and expert consultation informed the intervention. Sessions covered improving injecting technique and good vein care; planning for risky situations; and understanding BBV transmission. Fifty-six per cent (99/176) of eligible PWID were randomised: 52 to the intervention group and 47 to the control group. Only 24% (8/34) of male and 11% (2/18) of female participants attended all three intervention sessions. Overall, 50% (17/34) of men and 33% (6/18) of women randomised to the intervention group and 47% (14/30) of men and 53% (9/17) of women randomised to the control group were followed up 1 month post intervention. Variations were reported by location. The intervention was acceptable to both participants and facilitators. At 1 month post intervention, no increase in injecting in 'risky' sites (e.g. groin, neck) was reported by participants who attended at least one session. PWID who attended at least one session showed a trend towards greater reduction in injecting risk behaviours, a greater increase in withdrawal planning and were more confident about finding a vein. A mean cost of £58.17 per participant was calculated for those attending one session, £148.54 for those attending two sessions and £270.67 for those attending all three sessions, compared with £0.86 in the control group. Treatment costs across the centres vary as a result of the different levels of attendance, as total session costs are divided by attendees to obtain a cost per attendee. The economic analysis suggests that a cost-effectiveness study would be feasible given the response rates and completeness of data. However, we have identified aspects where the service use questionnaire could be abbreviated given the low numbers reported in several care domains. No adverse events were reported. CONCLUSIONS: As only 19% of participants attended all three intervention sessions and 47% were followed up 1 month post intervention, a future definitive randomised controlled trial of the intervention is not feasible. Exposure to information on improving injecting techniques did not encourage riskier injecting practices or injecting frequency, and benefits were reported among attendees. The intervention has the potential to positively influence BBV prevention. Harm reduction services should ensure that the intervention content is routinely delivered to PWID to improve vein care and prevent BBVs. FUTURE WORK: The intervention did not meet the complex needs of some PWID, more tailoring may be needed to reach PWID who are more frequent injectors, who are homeless and female. LIMITATIONS: Intervention delivery proved more feasible in London than other locations. Non-attendance at the York trial site substantially influenced the results. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN66453696 and PROSPERO 014:CRD42014012969. FUNDING: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 21, No. 72. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.