Psychosocial interventions for stimulant use disorder.

BACKGROUND: Stimulant use disorder is a continuously growing medical and social burden without approved medications available for its treatment. Psychosocial interventions could be a valid approach to help people reduce or cease stimulant consumption. This is an update of a Cochrane review first published in 2016. OBJECTIVES: To assess the efficacy and safety of psychosocial interventions for stimulant use disorder in adults. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Drugs and Alcohol Group Specialised Register, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, three other databases, and two trials registers in September 2023. All searches included non-English language literature. We handsearched the references of topic-related systematic reviews and the included studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing any psychosocial intervention with no intervention, treatment as usual (TAU), or a different intervention in adults with stimulant use disorder. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used the standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. MAIN RESULTS: We included a total of 64 RCTs (8241 participants). Seventy-three percent of studies included participants with cocaine or crack cocaine use disorder; 3.1% included participants with amphetamine use disorder; 10.9% included participants with methamphetamine use disorder; and 12.5% included participants with any stimulant use disorder. In 18 studies, all participants were in methadone maintenance treatment. In our primary comparison of any psychosocial treatment to no intervention, we included studies which compared a psychosocial intervention plus TAU to TAU alone. In this comparison, 12 studies evaluated cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT), 27 contingency management, three motivational interviewing, one study looked at psychodynamic therapy, and one study evaluated CBT plus contingency management. We also compared any psychosocial intervention to TAU. In this comparison, seven studies evaluated CBT, two contingency management, two motivational interviewing, and one evaluated a combination of CBT plus motivational interviewing. Seven studies compared contingency management reinforcement related to abstinence versus contingency management not related to abstinence. Finally, seven studies compared two different psychosocial approaches. We judged 65.6% of the studies to be at low risk of bias for random sequence generation and 19% at low risk for allocation concealment. Blinding of personnel and participants was not possible for the type of intervention, so we judged all the studies to be at high risk of performance bias for subjective outcomes but at low risk for objective outcomes. We judged 22% of the studies to be at low risk of detection bias for subjective outcomes. We judged most of the studies (69%) to be at low risk of attrition bias. When compared to no intervention, we found that psychosocial treatments: reduce the dropout rate (risk ratio (RR) 0.82, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.74 to 0.91; 30 studies, 4078 participants; high-certainty evidence); make little to no difference to point abstinence at the end of treatment (RR 1.15, 95% CI 0.94 to 1.41; 12 studies, 1293 participants; high-certainty evidence); make little to no difference to point abstinence at the longest follow-up (RR 1.22, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.62; 9 studies, 1187 participants; high-certainty evidence); probably increase continuous abstinence at the end of treatment (RR 1.89, 95% CI 1.20 to 2.97; 12 studies, 1770 participants; moderate-certainty evidence); may make little to no difference in continuous abstinence at the longest follow-up (RR 1.14, 95% CI 0.89 to 1.46; 4 studies, 295 participants; low-certainty evidence); reduce the frequency of drug intake at the end of treatment (standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.35, 95% CI -0.50 to -0.19; 10 studies, 1215 participants; high-certainty evidence); and increase the longest period of abstinence (SMD 0.54, 95% CI 0.41 to 0.68; 17 studies, 2118 participants; high-certainty evidence). When compared to TAU, we found that psychosocial treatments reduce the dropout rate (RR 0.79, 95% CI 0.65 to 0.97; 9 studies, 735 participants; high-certainty evidence) and may make little to no difference in point abstinence at the end of treatment (RR 1.67, 95% CI 0.64 to 4.31; 1 study, 128 participants; low-certainty evidence). We are uncertain whether they make any difference in point abstinence at the longest follow-up (RR 1.31, 95% CI 0.86 to 1.99; 2 studies, 124 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Compared to TAU, psychosocial treatments may make little to no difference in continuous abstinence at the end of treatment (RR 1.18, 95% CI 0.92 to 1.53; 1 study, 128 participants; low-certainty evidence); probably make little to no difference in the frequency of drug intake at the end of treatment (SMD -1.17, 95% CI -2.81 to 0.47, 4 studies, 479 participants, moderate-certainty evidence); and may make little to no difference in the longest period of abstinence (SMD -0.16, 95% CI -0.54 to 0.21; 1 study, 110 participants; low-certainty evidence). None of the studies for this comparison assessed continuous abstinence at the longest follow-up. Only five studies reported harms related to psychosocial interventions; four of them stated that no adverse events occurred. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: This review's findings indicate that psychosocial treatments can help people with stimulant use disorder by reducing dropout rates. This conclusion is based on high-certainty evidence from comparisons of psychosocial interventions with both no treatment and TAU. This is an important finding because many people with stimulant use disorders leave treatment prematurely. Stimulant use disorders are chronic, lifelong, relapsing mental disorders, which require substantial therapeutic efforts to achieve abstinence. For those who are not yet able to achieve complete abstinence, retention in treatment may help to reduce the risks associated with stimulant use. In addition, psychosocial interventions reduce stimulant use compared to no treatment, but they may make little to no difference to stimulant use when compared to TAU. The most studied and promising psychosocial approach is contingency management. Relatively few studies explored the other approaches, so we cannot rule out the possibility that the results were imprecise due to small sample sizes.

Disulfiram for the treatment of cocaine dependence.

BACKGROUND: Cocaine is a psychostimulant used by approximately 0.4% of the general population worldwide. Cocaine dependence is a chronic mental disorder characterised by the inability to control cocaine use and a host of severe medical and psychosocial complications. There is current no approved pharmacological treatment for cocaine dependence. Some researchers have proposed disulfiram, a medication approved to treat alcohol use disorder. This is an update of a Cochrane review first published in 2010. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of disulfiram for the treatment of cocaine dependence. SEARCH METHODS: We updated our searches of the following databases to August 2022: the Cochrane Drugs and Alcohol Group Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, and PsycINFO. We also searched for ongoing and unpublished studies via two trials registries. We handsearched the references of topic-related systematic reviews and included studies. The searches had no language restrictions. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials that evaluated disulfiram alone or associated with psychosocial interventions versus placebo, no intervention, other pharmacological interventions, or any psychosocial intervention for the treatment of cocaine dependence. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. MAIN RESULTS: Thirteen studies (1191 participants) met our inclusion criteria. Disulfiram versus placebo or no treatment Disulfiram compared to placebo may increase the number of people who are abstinent at the end of treatment (point abstinence; risk ratio (RR) 1.58, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.05 to 2.36; 3 datasets, 142 participants; low-certainty evidence). However, compared to placebo or no pharmacological treatment, disulfiram may have little or no effect on frequency of cocaine use (standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.11 standard deviations (SDs), 95% CI -0.39 to 0.17; 13 datasets, 818 participants), amount of cocaine use (SMD -0.00 SDs, 95% CI -0.30 to 0.30; 7 datasets, 376 participants), continuous abstinence (RR 1.23, 95% CI 0.80 to 1.91; 6 datasets, 386 participants), and dropout for any reason (RR 1.20, 95% CI 0.92 to 1.55; 14 datasets, 841 participants). The certainty of the evidence was low for all these outcomes. We are unsure about the effects of disulfiram versus placebo on dropout due to adverse events (RR 12.97, 95% CI 0.77 to 218.37; 1 study, 67 participants) and on the occurrence of adverse events (RR 3.00, 95% CI 0.35 to 25.98), because the certainty of the evidence was very low for these outcomes. Disulfiram versus naltrexone Disulfiram compared with naltrexone may reduce the frequency of cocaine use (mean difference (MD) -1.90 days, 95% CI -3.37 to -0.43; 2 datasets, 123 participants; low-certainty evidence) and may have little or no effect on amount of cocaine use (SMD 0.12 SDs, 95% CI -0.27 to 0.51, 2 datasets, 123 participants; low-certainty evidence). We are unsure about the effect of disulfiram versus naltrexone on dropout for any reason (RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.56 to 1.32, 3 datasets, 131 participants) and dropout due to adverse events (RR 0.50, 95% CI 0.07 to 3.55; 1 dataset, 8 participants), because the certainty of the evidence was very low for these outcomes. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Our results show that disulfiram compared to placebo may increase point abstinence. However, disulfiram compared to placebo or no pharmacological treatment may have little or no effect on frequency of cocaine use, amount of cocaine use, continued abstinence, and dropout for any reason. We are unsure if disulfiram has any adverse effects in this population. Caution is required when transferring our results to clinical practice.

Psychosocial and medication interventions to stop or reduce alcohol consumption during pregnancy.

BACKGROUND: Despite the known harms, alcohol consumption is common in pregnancy. Rates vary between countries, and are estimated to be 10% globally, with up to 25% in Europe. OBJECTIVES: To assess the efficacy of psychosocial interventions and medications to reduce or stop alcohol consumption during pregnancy. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Drugs and Alcohol Group Specialised Register (via CRSLive), Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, Web of Science, and PsycINFO, from inception to 8 January 2024. We also searched for ongoing and unpublished studies via ClinicalTrials.gov and the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP). All searches included non-English language literature. We handsearched references of topic-related systematic reviews and included studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials that compared medications or psychosocial interventions, or both, to placebo, no intervention, usual care, or other medications or psychosocial interventions used to reduce or stop alcohol use during pregnancy. Our primary outcomes of interest were abstinence from alcohol, reduction in alcohol consumption, retention in treatment, and women with any adverse event. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard Cochrane methodological procedures. MAIN RESULTS: We included eight studies (1369 participants) in which pregnant women received an intervention to stop or reduce alcohol use during pregnancy. In one study, almost half of participants had a current diagnosis of alcohol use disorder (AUD); in another study, 40% of participants had a lifetime diagnosis of AUD. Six studies took place in the USA, one in Spain, and one in the Netherlands. All included studies evaluated the efficacy of psychosocial interventions; we did not find any study that evaluated the efficacy of medications for the treatment of AUD during pregnancy. Psychosocial interventions were mainly brief interventions ranging from a single session of 10 to 60 minutes to five sessions of 10 minutes each. Pregnant women received the psychosocial intervention approximately at the end of the first trimester of pregnancy, and the outcome of alcohol use was reassessed 8 to 24 weeks after the psychosocial intervention. Women in the control group received treatment as usual (TAU) or similar treatments such as comprehensive assessment of alcohol use and advice to stop drinking during pregnancy. Globally, we found that, compared to TAU, psychosocial interventions may increase the rate of continuously abstinent participants (risk ratio (RR) 1.34, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.14 to 1.57; I2 =0%; 3 studies; 378 women; low certainty evidence). Psychosocial interventions may have little to no effect on the number of drinks per day, but the evidence is very uncertain (mean difference -0.42, 95% CI -1.13 to 0.28; I2 = 86%; 2 studies; 157 women; very low certainty evidence). Psychosocial interventions probably have little to no effect on the number of women who completed treatment (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.94 to 1.02; I2 = 0%; 7 studies; 1283 women; moderate certainty evidence). None of the included studies assessed adverse events of treatments. We downgraded the certainty of the evidence due to risk of bias and imprecision of the estimates. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Brief psychosocial interventions may increase the rate of continuous abstinence among pregnant women who report alcohol use during pregnancy. Further studies should be conducted to investigate the efficacy and safety of psychosocial interventions and other treatments (e.g. medications) for women with AUD. These studies should provide detailed information on alcohol use before and during pregnancy using consistent measures such as the number of drinks per drinking day. When heterogeneous populations are recruited, more detailed information on alcohol use during pregnancy should be provided to allow future systematic reviews to be conducted. Other important information that would enhance the usefulness of these studies would be the presence of other comorbid conditions such as anxiety, mood disorders, and the use of other psychoactive substances.

Identifying the most important research, policy and practice questions for substance use, problematic alcohol use and behavioural addictions in autism (SABA-A): A priority setting partnership.

BACKGROUND: Autistic people are more likely to report problematic alcohol and other substance use when compared to the general population. Evidence suggests that up to one in three autistic adults may have an alcohol or other substance use disorder (AUD/SUD), although the evidence base for behavioural addictions is less clear. Autistic people may use substances or engage in potentially addictive behaviours as a means of coping with social anxiety, challenging life problems, or camouflaging in social contexts. Despite the prevalence and detrimental effects of AUD, SUD and behavioural addictions in community samples, literature focusing on the intersection between autism and these conditions is scarce, hindering health policy, research, and clinical practice. METHODS: We aimed to identify the top 10 priorities to build the evidence for research, policy, and clinical practice at this intersection. A priority-setting partnership was used to address this aim, comprising an international steering committee and stakeholders from various backgrounds, including people with declared lived experience of autism and/or addiction. First, an online survey was used to identify what people considered key questions about Substance use, alcohol use, or behavioural addictions in autistic people (SABA-A). These initial questions were reviewed and amended by stakeholders, and then classified and refined to form the final list of top priorities via an online consensus process. OUTCOMES: The top ten priorities were identified: three research, three policy, and four practice questions. Future research suggestions are discussed.

Baclofen for alcohol use disorder.

BACKGROUND: Alcohol use disorder (AUD) is one of the most widespread psychiatric disorders leading to detrimental consequences to people with this disorder and others. Worldwide, the prevalence of heavy episodic drinking (30-day prevalence of at least one occasion of 60 g of pure alcohol intake among current drinkers) is estimated at 20% and the prevalence of AUD at 5% of the adult general population, with highest prevalence in Europe and North America. Therapeutic approaches, including pharmacotherapy, play an important role in treating people with AUD. This is an update of a Cochrane Review first published in 2018. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the benefits and harms of baclofen on achieving and maintaining abstinence or reducing alcohol consumption in people with AUD compared to placebo, no treatment or any other pharmacological relapse prevention treatment. SEARCH METHODS: We used standard, extensive Cochrane search methods. The latest search was 22 November 2021. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of at least four weeks' treatment duration and 12 weeks' overall study duration comparing baclofen for AUD treatment with placebo, no treatment or other treatments. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard Cochrane methods. Our primary outcomes were 1. relapse, 2. frequency of use, 3. amount of use, 4. adverse events, 5. dropouts from treatment and 6. dropouts from treatment due to adverse events. Our secondary outcomes were 7. craving, 8. anxiety, 9. depression and 10. frequency of most relevant adverse events. MAIN RESULTS: We included 17 RCTs (1818 participants) with a diagnosis of alcohol dependence according to the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 4th edition or International Classification of Diseases 10th edition criteria. Mean age was 46.5 years and 70% were men. Ten studies compared baclofen to placebo or another medication; seven compared two baclofen doses to placebo or another medication. Globally, 15 studies compared baclofen to placebo, two baclofen to acamprosate and two baclofen to naltrexone. In 16 studies, participants received psychosocial treatments. We judged most studies at low risk of selection, performance, detection (subjective outcome), attrition and reporting bias. Ten studies detoxified participants before treatment; in seven studies, participants were still drinking at the beginning of treatment. Treatment duration was 12 weeks for 15 RCTs and longer in two studies. Baclofen daily dose was 30 mg to 300 mg: 10 RCTs used low doses (30 mg or less); eight RCTs medium doses (above 30 and 100 mg or less) and four RCTs high doses (above 100 mg). Compared to placebo, moderate-certainty evidence found that baclofen probably decreases the risk to relapse (risk ratio (RR) 0.87, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.77 to 0.99; 12 studies, 1057 participants). This result was confirmed among detoxified participants but not among other subgroups of participants. High-certainty evidence found that baclofen increases the percentage of days abstinent (mean difference (MD) 9.07, 95% CI 3.30 to 14.85; 16 studies, 1273 participants). This result was confirmed among all subgroups of participants except non-detoxified or those who received medium doses. There was no difference between baclofen and placebo in the other primary outcomes: heavy drinking days (standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.18, 95% CI -0.48 to 0.11; 13 studies, 840 participants; moderate-certainty evidence); number of drinks per drinking days (MD -0.45, 95% CI -1.20 to 0.30; 9 studies, 392 participants; moderate-certainty evidence); number of participants with at least one adverse event (RR 1.05, 95% CI 0.99 to 1.11; 10 studies, 738 participants; high-certainty evidence); dropouts (RR 0.88, 95% CI 0.74 to 1.03; 17 studies, 1563 participants; high-certainty evidence); dropouts due to adverse events (RR 1.39, 95% CI 0.89 to 2.18; 16 studies, 1499 participants; high-certainty evidence). These results were confirmed by subgroup analyses except than for the dropouts that resulted lower among participants who received high doses of baclofen and studies longer than 12 weeks. Compared to placebo, there was no difference in craving (SMD -0.16, 95% CI -0.37 to 0.04; 17 studies, 1275 participants), anxiety (MD -0.01, 95% CI -0.14 to 0.11; 15 studies, 1123 participants) and depression (SMD 0.07, 95% CI -0.12 to 0.27; 11 studies, 1029 participants). Concerning the specific adverse events, baclofen increases fatigue, dizziness, somnolence/sedation, dry mouth, paraesthesia and muscle spasms/rigidity. There was no difference in the other adverse events. Compared to acamprosate, one study (60 participants) found no differences in any outcomes but the evidence was very uncertain: relapse (RR 1.25, 95% CI 0.71 to 2.20; very low-certainty evidence); number of participants with at least one adverse event (RR 0.63, 95% CI 0.23 to 1.69; very low-certainty evidence); dropouts (RR 0.56, 95% CI 0.21 to 1.46; very low-certainty evidence); dropouts due to adverse events (RR 0.33, 95% CI 0.01 to 7.87; very low-certainty evidence) and craving (MD 5.80, 95% CI -11.84 to 23.44); and all the adverse events evaluated. Compared to naltrexone, baclofen may increase the risk of relapse (RR 2.50, 95% CI 1.12 to 5.56; 1 study, 60 participants; very low-certainty evidence) and decrease the number of participants with at least one adverse event (RR 0.35, 95% CI 0.15 to 0.80; 2 studies, 80 participants; very low-certainty evidence) but the evidence is very uncertain. One study (60 participants) found no difference between baclofen and naltrexone in the dropouts at the end of treatment (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.32 to 3.10; very low-certainty evidence), craving (MD 2.08, 95% CI -3.71 to 7.87), and all the adverse events evaluated. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Baclofen likely reduces the risk of relapse to any drinking and increases the percentage of abstinent days, mainly among detoxified participants. It does not increase the number of participants with at least one adverse event, those who dropout for any reason or due to adverse events. It probably does not reduce number of heavy drinking days and the number of drinks per drinking days. Current evidence suggests that baclofen may help people with AUD in maintaining abstinence. The results of comparisons of baclofen with acamprosate and naltrexone were mainly based on only one study.

Alcohol Consumption Is a Modifiable Risk Factor for Breast Cancer: Are Women Aware of This Relationship?

AIMS: Despite alcohol consumption being a dose-dependent risk factor for breast cancer, a recent study conducted in the UK found <20% of women attending breast screening programmes were aware of this relationship and proposed proper information campaigns need to be conducted. We aimed to investigate the awareness of this relationship among a related sample of Italian women to evaluate whether similar information campaigns should also be conducted in Italy. METHODS: The questionnaire used by the UK study was translated into Italian, slightly modified for the Italian context, validated and submitted to a sample of Italian women. RESULTS: Overall 507 women were interviewed. Among them, 160 were classified as breast cancer screening attenders (SG), 44 as symptomatic breast clinic attenders (CAG) and 303 as non-screening group (NSG). Alcohol was correctly identified as a risk factor for breast cancer by 16.9, 11.4 and 14.9% of participants of SG, CAG and NSG, respectively without differences between the three groups. Despite the methodological differences, the rates of participants who correctly identified alcohol as a risk factor among women attending breast screening programmes were surprisingly similar between the study conducted in UK (15.7%) and the present study (16.9%). CONCLUSION: The results of the present study confirm the limited awareness of the relationship between alcohol consumption and risk of developing breast cancer among women and suggest the urgent need to conduct proper awareness-raising campaigns to counter this in the Italian female population.

Sex differences in the response to opioids for pain relief: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

There are conflicting results about sex differences in the response to opioids for pain control and the role of potential influencing factors of these differences has not been investigated. We meta-analyzed differences and similarities between men and women in opioid response for pain control and investigated the potential influence of baseline pain intensity, age, body weight, and other factors in these findings. PubMed, Scopus, and Cochrane CENTRAL were searched through January 15, 2019, for clinical studies in which opioids were administered for pain control. We included clinical studies in which (a) opioids were used to treat acute or chronic pain, (b) the response to opioids was broken down for men and women, and (c) the response to opioids was reported as (i) difference between baseline and final Visual Analog Scale of Pain Intensity (VASPI) score 30 min after opioid administration (Delta-VASPI at 30'), or daily dose of opioids (ii) self-administered by patients (patient-controlled analgesia PCA), or (iii) administered by physicians. Risk of bias was evaluated using ROBINS-I and the overall quality of evidence for primary outcomes was evaluated using the GRADE system. Globally, we included 40 comparisons (6794 patients). Regarding acute pain, we found moderate quality of evidence that women and men do not differ in their response to opioids 30 min after their administration [Delta-VASPI at 30': mean difference, MD = 0.42 (-0.07; 0.91)]. We also found moderate quality of evidence that women self-administer lower daily amounts of opioids [daily PCA: standardized mean difference, SMD = -0.30 (-0.41; -0.18)]. Regarding chronic pain, we found low quality of evidence that women receive lower daily doses for non-cancer pain [MD = -36.42 (-57.86; -14.99)]. By contrast, we found very low quality of evidence that women and men do not differ in the daily dose of opioids for cancer pain [MD = -16.09 (-40.13; 7.94)]. Age, comorbid mental disorders, type of administration, type of opioids, type of patients, and body weight significantly modified these results. In conclusion, the results of the present meta-analysis suggest that men and women may differ in the response to opioids for pain relief, but these differences as well as similarities are significantly influenced by factors like age and comorbid mental disorders. However, the role of these factors is not usually evaluated in the prescription of opioids for pain control. There is an urgent need to conduct clinical trials on the use of opioid medications for pain, in which information about all possible influencing factors are provided and broken down for men and women.

Antidepressants for the treatment of people with co-occurring depression and alcohol dependence.

BACKGROUND: Alcohol dependence is a major public health problem characterized by recidivism, and medical and psychosocial complications. The co-occurrence of major depression in people entering treatment for alcohol dependence is common, and represents a risk factor for morbidity and mortality, which negatively influences treatment outcomes. OBJECTIVES: To assess the benefits and risks of antidepressants for the treatment of people with co-occurring depression and alcohol dependence. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Drugs and Alcohol Group Specialised Register (via CRSLive), Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, and Embase from inception to July 2017. We also searched for ongoing and unpublished studies via ClinicalTrials.gov (www.clinicaltrials.gov) and the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) (apps.who.int/trialsearch/).All searches included non-English language literature. We handsearched references of topic-related systematic reviews and the included studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomized controlled trials and controlled clinical trials comparing antidepressants alone or in association with other drugs or psychosocial interventions (or both) versus placebo, no treatment, and other pharmacological or psychosocial interventions. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard methodological procedures as expected by Cochrane. MAIN RESULTS: We included 33 studies in the review (2242 participants). Antidepressants were compared to placebo (22 studies), psychotherapy (two studies), other medications (four studies), or other antidepressants (five studies). The mean duration of the trials was 9.9 weeks (range 3 to 26 weeks). Eighteen studies took place in the USA, 12 in Europe, two in Turkey, and one in Australia. The antidepressant included in most of the trials was sertraline; other medications were amitriptyline, citalopram, desipramine, doxepin, escitalopram, fluoxetine, fluvoxamine, imipramine, mianserin, mirtazepine, nefazodone, paroxetine, tianeptine, venlafaxine, and viloxazine. Eighteen studies were conducted in an outpatient setting, nine in an inpatient setting, and six in both settings. Psychosocial treatment was provided in 18 studies. There was high heterogeneity in the selection of outcomes and the rating systems used for diagnosis and outcome assessment.Comparing antidepressants to placebo, low-quality evidence suggested that antidepressants reduced the severity of depression evaluated with interviewer-rated scales at the end of trial (14 studies, 1074 participants, standardized mean difference (SMD) -0.27, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.49 to -0.04). However, the difference became non-significant after the exclusion of studies with a high risk of bias (SMD -0.17, 95% CI -0.39 to 0.04). In addition, very low-quality evidence supported the efficacy of antidepressants in increasing the response to the treatment (10 studies, 805 participants, risk ratio (RR) 1.40, 95% Cl 1.08 to 1.82). This result became non-significant after the exclusion of studies at high risk of bias (RR 1.27, 95% CI 0.96 to 1.68). There was no difference for other relevant outcomes such as the difference between baseline and final score, evaluated using interviewer-rated scales (5 studies, 447 participants, SMD 0.15, 95% CI -0.12 to 0.42).Moderate-quality evidence found that antidepressants increased the number of participants abstinent from alcohol during the trial (7 studies, 424 participants, RR 1.71, 95% Cl 1.22 to 2.39) and reduced the number of drinks per drinking days (7 studies, 451 participants, mean difference (MD) -1.13 drinks per drinking days, 95% Cl -1.79 to -0.46). After the exclusion of studies with high risk of bias, the number of abstinent remained higher (RR 1.69, 95% CI 1.18 to 2.43) and the number of drinks per drinking days lower (MD -1.21 number of drinks per drinking days, 95% CI -1.91 to -0.51) among participants who received antidepressants compared to those who received placebo. However, other outcomes such as the rate of abstinent days did not differ between antidepressants and placebo (9 studies, 821 participants, MD 1.34, 95% Cl -1.66 to 4.34; low-quality evidence).Low-quality evidence suggested no differences between antidepressants and placebo in the number of dropouts (17 studies, 1159 participants, RR 0.98, 95% Cl 0.79 to 1.22) and adverse events as withdrawal for medical reasons (10 studies, 947 participants, RR 1.15, 95% Cl 0.65 to 2.04).There were few studies comparing one antidepressant versus another antidepressant or antidepressants versus other interventions, and these had a small sample size and were heterogeneous in terms of the types of interventions that were compared, yielding results that were not informative. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We found low-quality evidence supporting the clinical use of antidepressants in the treatment of people with co-occurring depression and alcohol dependence. Antidepressants had positive effects on certain relevant outcomes related to depression and alcohol use but not on other relevant outcomes. Moreover, most of these positive effects were no longer significant when studies with high risk of bias were excluded. Results were limited by the large number of studies showing high or unclear risk of bias and the low number of studies comparing one antidepressant to another or antidepressants to other medication. In people with co-occurring depression and alcohol dependence, the risk of developing adverse effects appeared to be minimal, especially for the newer classes of antidepressants (such as selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors). According to these results, in people with co-occurring depression and alcohol dependence, antidepressants may be useful for the treatment of depression, alcohol dependence, or both, although the clinical relevance may be modest.

Risk of thiamine deficiency and Wernicke's encephalopathy after gastrointestinal surgery for cancer.

BACKGROUND: Cancer patients submitted to gastrointestinal surgery are at risk of thiamine deficiency (TD) and Wernicke's encephalopathy (WE). Although permanent neurological damage and death could be prevented by a timely replacement therapy, they often remain undiagnosed and untreated. We hypothesized that WE remains unrecognized because most cases may manifest several months after hospital discharge. METHODS: WE frequency was investigated in a sample of cancer patients who underwent gastrointestinal surgery, by using the diagnostic criteria proposed to improve diagnosis among alcoholics. Patients were evaluated at discharge through the examination of medical records and 6 months after by telephonic interview. RESULTS: Forty-five patients were selected. Signs of WE resulted in 4.4% at discharge. At 6 months, 21 patients were interviewed. Among them, 90.4% had signs of WE. The number of affected patients was significantly higher 6 months after discharge than at discharge (90.4 vs 9.5%, p < 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: Further studies with larger samples are needed to establish the prevalence of TD and related WE in cancer patients after gastrointestinal surgery. This study suggests that the problem is understated. Even in absence of symptoms of TD, the use of prophylactic thiamine supplementation should be taken in consideration, as consequences of misdiagnosis can be severe.

Sex differences in substance use disorders: focus on side effects.

Although sex differences in several aspects of substance use disorders (SUDs) have been identified, less is known about the importance of possible sex differences in side effects induced by substances of abuse or by medications used to treat SUDs. In the SUD field, the perception of certain subjective effects are actively sought, while all other manifestations might operationally be considered side effects. This article was aimed at reviewing sex differences in side effects induced by alcohol, nicotine, heroin, marijuana and cocaine and by medications approved for alcohol, nicotine and heroin use disorders. A large body of evidence suggests that women are at higher risk of alcohol-induced injury, liver disease, cardiomyopathy, myopathy, brain damages and mortality. The risk of tobacco-induced coronary heart disease, lung disease and health problems is higher for women than for men. Women also experience greater exposure to side effects induced by heroin, marijuana and cocaine. In addition, women appear to be more vulnerable to the side effects induced by medications used to treat SUDs. Patients with SUDs should be advised that the risk of developing health problems may be higher for women than for men after consumption of the same amount of substances of abuse. Doses of medications for SUD women should be adjusted at least according to body weight. The sex differences observed also indicate an urgent need to recruit adequate numbers of female subjects in pre-clinical and clinical studies to improve our knowledge about SUDs in women.

Efficacy of Medications Approved for the Treatment of Alcohol Dependence and Alcohol Withdrawal Syndrome in Female Patients: A Descriptive Review.

The aim of this study was to evaluate whether the number of women recruited for studies to establish the efficacy of medications approved for treatment of alcohol dependence (AD) and of alcohol withdrawal syndrome (AWS) is sufficient to reveal possible gender differences in the response to these medications and in suggesting the use of different doses in female patients. Our results show that the rates of women recruited for studies evaluating the efficacy of disulfiram (1%), benzodiazepines (3%), and anticonvulsants (13%) were too low to establish possible gender differences. The rates of women recruited for studies evaluating the efficacy of acamprosate (22%), naltrexone (23%), and nalmefene (30%) were higher and allowed evaluation of data obtained for female patients. Women receive medications for treatment of AD and/or AWS for which efficacy has been demonstrated in studies in which men were more largely represented.

A Systematic Review of School-Based Alcohol and other Drug Prevention Programs.

BACKGROUND: Alcohol use in adolescents constitutes a major public health concern. Europe is the heaviest drinking region of the world. Several school-based alcohol prevention programs have been developed but it is not clear whether they are really effective. The present study was aimed at identifying the typology with the best evidence of effectiveness in European studies. METHODS: A systematic search of meta-analyses and/or randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on interventions school-based prevention programs aimed at preventing alcohol consumption or changing the attitudes to consume alcohol. RESULTS: A meta-analysis published in 2011 and 12 RCTs more recently published were identified. The meta-analysis evaluated 53 RCTs but only 11.3% of them were conducted in Europe. Globally, 23 RCTs (43.4%) showed some evidence of effectiveness, and 30 RCTs (56.6%) did not find significant difference between the groups. According to the conclusions of the meta-analysis, the Unplugged program should be considered as a practice option in Europe. Among the other 12 RCTs, 42% were conducted in Europe. Globally, 7 studies (58.3%) achieved positive results, and 5 studies (41.7%) did not find significant differences or produced a mixed pattern of results. Three of the 5 European trials (60%) used the Unplugged program with positive results. CONCLUSION: Even if further studies should be conducted to confirm these results, Unplugged appears to be the prevention project with the best evidence of effectiveness in European studies.

[GABAB receptor as therapeutic target for drug addiction: from baclofen to positive allosteric modulators]. / Receptor GABAB jako cel terapeutyczny w uzaleznieniu od substancji psychoaktywnych - od baklofenu do pozytywnych modulatorów allosterycznych.

The present paper summarizes experimental and clinical data indicating the therapeutic potential of the GABAB receptor agonist, baclofen, in the treatment of alcohol use disorder (AUD) and substance use disorder (SUD). Multiple preclinical studies have demonstrated the ability of baclofen to suppress alcohol drinking (including binge- and relapse-like drinking), oral alcohol self-administration, and intravenous self-administration of cocaine, nicotine, amphetamine, methamphetamine, morphine, and heroin in rodents. Some randomized, controlled trials (RCTs) and case reports support the efficacy of baclofen in suppressing alcohol consumption, craving for alcohol, and alcohol withdrawal symptomatology in alcohol-dependent patients. Data from RCTs and open studies investigating baclofen efficacy on SUD are currently less conclusive. Interest in testing high doses of baclofen in AUD and SUD treatment has recently emerged. Preclinical research has extended the anti-addictive properties of baclofen to positive allosteric modulators of the GABAB receptor (GABAB PAMs). In light of their more favourable side effect profile (compared to baclofen), GABAB PAMs may represent a major step forward in a GABAB receptor-based pharmacotherapy of AUD and SUD.

Efficacy and tolerability of baclofen in substance use disorders: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: It has been reported that baclofen, a drug used in the treatment of spasticity, reduces the severity of withdrawal symptoms and substance use disorders (SUDs) for some psychoactive drugs. AIMS AND METHODS: To evaluate the effectiveness and safety of baclofen in the treatment of withdrawal syndrome and/or SUDs, providing (1) an outline of its pharmacological features; (2) a summary of studies that have suggested its possible effectiveness in the treatment of SUDs, and (3) a review of randomized, controlled trials (RCTs) on baclofen and SUDs. RESULTS: Baclofen tolerability is generally considered to be good. Eleven RCTs investigated its effectiveness in the treatment of SUDs. Of these, 5 RCTs found that baclofen is effective, 5 RCTs found that it is ineffective and the results of 1 RCT were not appreciable because it did not achieve the preplanned level of participation. CONCLUSIONS: The number of RCTs on baclofen and SUDs is still low, and their results are divergent. Further RCTs should be undertaken, particularly with higher doses of baclofen. Its administration may be suggested in patients who fail to respond to other approved drugs or who are affected by liver disease that prevents their administration, or in patients affected by SUDs for which no approved drugs are available. Treatment should be conducted under strict medical supervision.

Alcohol-medication interactions: A systematic review and meta-analysis of placebo-controlled trials.

Alcohol and other xenobiotics may limit the therapeutic effects of medications. We aimed at investigating alcohol-medication interactions (AMI) after the exclusion of confounding effects related to other xenobiotics. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of controlled studies comparing the effects induced by alcohol versus placebo on pharmacodynamic and/or pharmacokinetic parameters of approved medications. Certainty in the evidence of AMI was assessed when at least 3 independent studies and at least 200 participants were available. We included 107 articles (3097 participants): for diazepam, cannabis, opioids, and methylphenidate, we found significant AMI and enough data to assign the certainty of evidence. Alcohol consumption significantly increases the peak plasma concentration of diazepam (low certainty; almost 290 participants), cannabis (high certainty; almost 650 participants), opioids (low certainty; 560 participants), and methylphenidate (moderate certainty; 290 participants). For most medications, we found some AMI but not enough data to assign them the certainty grades; for some medications, we found no differences between alcohol and placebo in any outcomes evaluated. Our results add further evidence for interactions between alcohol and certain medications after the exclusion of confounding effects related to other xenobiotics. Physicians should advise patients who use these specific medications to avoid alcohol consumption. Further studies with appropriate control groups, enough female participants to investigate sex differences, and elderly population are needed to expand our knowledge in this field. Short phrases suitable for indexing terms.

Exposure to an enriched environment reduces alcohol self-administration in Sardinian alcohol-preferring rats.

Living in an enriched environment (EE) produces a notable impact on several rodent behaviors, including those motivated by drugs of abuse. This picture is somewhat less clear when referring to alcohol-motivated behaviors. With the intent of contributing to this research field with data from one of the few rat lines selectively bred for excessive alcohol consumption, the present study investigated the effect of EE on operant oral alcohol self-administration in Sardinian alcohol-preferring (sP) rats. Starting from Postnatal Day (PND) 21, male sP rats were kept under 3 different housing conditions: impoverished environment (IE; single housing in shoebox-like cages with no environmental enrichment); standard environment (SE; small colony cages with 3 rats and no environmental enrichment); EE (large colony cages with 6 rats and multiple elements of environmental enrichment, including 2 floors, ladders, maze, running wheels, and shelter). From PND 60, rats were exposed to different phases of shaping and training of alcohol self-administration. IE, SE, and EE rats were then compared under (i) fixed ratio (FR) 4 (FR4) schedule of alcohol reinforcement for 20 daily sessions and (ii) progressive ratio (PR) schedule of alcohol reinforcement in a final single session. Acquisition of the lever-responding task (shaping) was slower in EE than IE and SE rats, as the likely consequence of a "devaluation" of the novel stimuli provided by the operant chamber in comparison to those to which EE rats were continuously exposed in their homecage or an alteration, induced by EE, of the rat "emotionality" state when facing the novel environment represented by the operant chamber. Training of alcohol self-administration was slower in EE than IE rats, with SE rats displaying intermediate values. A similar ranking order (IE>SE>EE) was also observed in number of lever-responses for alcohol, amount of self-administered alcohol, and breakpoint for alcohol under FR4 and PR schedules of reinforcement. These data suggest that living in a complex environment reduced the reinforcing and motivational properties of alcohol in sP rats. These results are interpreted in terms of the reinforcing and motivational properties of the main components of EE (i.e., social interactions, physical activities, exploration, novelty) substituting, at least partially, for those of alcohol.