Psychosocial interventions for benzodiazepine harmful use, abuse or dependence.

BACKGROUND: Benzodiazepines (BZDs) have a sedative and hypnotic effect upon people. Short term use can be beneficial but long term BZD use is common, with several risks in addition to the potential for dependence in both opiate and non-opiate dependent patients. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effectiveness of psychosocial interventions for treating BZD harmful use, abuse or dependence compared to pharmacological interventions, no intervention, placebo or a different psychosocial intervention on reducing the use of BZDs in opiate dependent and non-opiate dependent groups. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL- the Cochrane Library issue 12, 2014) which includes the Cochrane Drugs and Alcohol Group Specialized Register; PubMed (from 1966 to December 2014); EMBASE (from 1988 to December 2014); CINAHL Cumulative Index to Nursing and AlliedHealth Literature (1982 to September 2013); PsychINFO (1872 to December 2014); ERIC (Education Resources Information Centre, (January 1966 to September 2013); All EBM Reviews (1991 to September 2013, Ovid Interface); AMED (Allied & Alternative Medicine) 1985 to September 2013); ASSIA (Applied Social Sciences Index & Abstracts (1960 to September 2013); LILACS (January 1982 to September 2013);Web of Science (1900 to December 2014);Electronic Grey Literature Databases: Dissertation Abstract; Index to Theses. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials examining the use of a psychosocial intervention to treat BZDs versus pharmacological interventions,no intervention, placebo or a different psychosocial intervention on reducing the use of BZDs in opiate dependent and non-opiate dependent groups. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used the standard methodological procedures outlined in Cochrane Guidelines. MAIN RESULTS: Twenty-five studies including 1666 people met the inclusion criteria. The studies tested many different psychosocial interventions including cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT) (some studies with taper, other studies with no taper), motivational interviewing (MI),letters to patients advising them to reduce or quit BZD use, relaxation studies, counselling delivered electronically and advice provided by a general practitioner (GP). Based on the data obtained, we performed two meta-analyses in this Cochrane review: one assessing the effectiveness of CBT plus taper versus taper only (575 participants), and one assessing MI versus treatment as usual (TAU) (80 participants).There was moderate quality of evidence that CBT plus taper was more likely to result in successful discontinuation of BZDs within four weeks post treatment compared to taper only (Risk ratio (RR) 1.40, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.05 to 1.86; nine trials, 423 participants) and moderate quality of evidence at three month follow-up (RR 1.51, 95% CI 1.15 to 1.98) in favour of CBT (taper)for 575 participants. The effects were less certain at 6, 11, 12, 15 and 24 months follow-up. The effect of CBT on reducing BZDs by> 50% was uncertain for all time points examined due to the low quality evidence. There was very low quality evidence for the effect on drop-outs at any of the time intervals; post-treatment (RR 1.05, 95% CI 0.66 to 1.66), three month follow-up (RR 1.71, 95% CI0.16 to 17.98) and six month follow-up (RR 0.70, 95% CI 0.17 to 2.88).Based on the very low quality of evidence available, the effect of MI versus TAU for all the time intervals is unclear; post treatment(RR 4.43, 95% CI 0.16 to 125.35; two trials, 34 participants), at three month follow-up (RR 3.46, 95% CI 0.53 to 22.45; four trials,80 participants), six month follow-up (RR 0.14, 95% CI 0.01 to 1.89) and 12 month follow-up (RR 1.25, 95% CI 0.63 to 2.47).There was very low quality of evidence to determine the effect of MI on reducing BZDs by > 50% at three month follow-up (RR 1.52,95% CI 0.60 to 3.83) and 12 month follow-up (RR 0.87, 95% CI 0.52 to 1.47). The effects on drop-outs from treatment at any of e time intervals between the two groups were uncertain due to the wide CIs; post-treatment (RR 0.50, 95% CI 0.04 to 7.10), three month follow-up (RR 0.46, 95% CI 0.06 to 3.28), six month follow-up (RR 8.75, 95% CI 0.61 to 124.53) and 12 month follow-up(RR 0.42, 95% CI 0.02 to 7.71).The following interventions reduced BZD use - tailored GP letter versus generic GP letter at 12 month follow-up (RR 1.70, 95%CI 1.07 to 2.70; one trial, 322 participants), standardised interview versus TAU at six month follow-up (RR 13.11, 95% CI 3.25 to 52.83; one trial, 139 participants) and 12 month follow-up (RR 4.97, 95% CI 2.23 to 11.11), and relaxation versus TAU at three month follow-up (RR 2.20, 95% CI 1.23 to 3.94).There was insufficient supporting evidence for the remaining interventions.We performed a 'Risk of bias' assessment on all included studies. We assessed the quality of the evidence as high quality for random sequence generation, attrition bias and reporting bias; moderate quality for allocation concealment, performance bias for objective outcomes, and detection bias for objective outcomes; and low quality for performance bias for subjective outcomes and detection bias for subjective outcomes. Few studies had manualised sessions or independent tests of treatment fidelity; most follow-up periods were less than 12 months.Based on decisions made during the implementation of protocol methods to present a manageable summary of the evidence we did not collect data on quality of life, self-harm or adverse events. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: CBT plus taper is effective in the short term (three month time period) in reducing BZD use. However, this is not sustained at six months and subsequently. Currently there is insufficient evidence to support the use of MI to reduce BZD use. There is emerging evidence to suggest that a tailored GP letter versus a generic GP letter, a standardised interview versus TAU, and relaxation versus TAU could be effective for BZD reduction. There is currently insufficient evidence for other approaches to reduce BZD use.

Anticonvulsants for cocaine dependence.

BACKGROUND: Cocaine dependence is a major public health problem that is characterised by recidivism and a host of medical and psychosocial complications. Although effective pharmacotherapy is available for alcohol and heroin dependence, none is currently available for cocaine dependence, despite two decades of clinical trials primarily involving antidepressant, anticonvulsivant and dopaminergic medications. Extensive consideration has been given to optimal pharmacological approaches to the treatment of individuals with cocaine dependence, and both dopamine antagonists and agonists have been considered. Anticonvulsants have been candidates for use in the treatment of addiction based on the hypothesis that seizure kindling-like mechanisms contribute to addiction. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of anticonvulsants for individuals with cocaine dependence. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Drugs and Alcohol Group Trials Register (June 2014), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (2014, Issue 6), MEDLINE (1966 to June 2014), EMBASE (1988 to June 2014), the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL) (1982 to June 2014), Web of Science (1991 to June 2014) and the reference lists of eligible articles. SELECTION CRITERIA: All randomised controlled trials and controlled clinical trials that focus on the use of anticonvulsant medications to treat individuals with cocaine dependence. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used the standard methodological procedures expected by The Cochrane Collaboration. MAIN RESULTS: We included a total of 20 studies with 2068 participants. We studied the anticonvulsant drugs carbamazepine, gabapentin, lamotrigine, phenytoin, tiagabine, topiramate and vigabatrin. All studies compared anticonvulsants versus placebo. Only one study had one arm by which the anticonvulsant was compared with the antidepressant desipramine. Upon comparison of anticonvulsant versus placebo, we found no significant differences for any of the efficacy and safety measures. Dropouts: risk ratio (RR) 0.95, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.86 to 1.05, 17 studies, 20 arms, 1695 participants, moderate quality of evidence. Use of cocaine: RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.84 to 1.02, nine studies, 11 arms, 867 participants, moderate quality of evidence; side effects: RR 1.39, 95% CI 1.01 to 1.90, eight studies, 775 participants; craving: standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.25, 95% CI -0.59 to 0.09, seven studies, eight arms, 428 participants, low quality of evidence. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Although caution is needed when results from a limited number of small clinical trials are assessed, no current evidence supports the clinical use of anticonvulsant medications in the treatment of patients with cocaine dependence. Although the findings of new trials will improve the quality of study results, especially in relation to specific medications, anticonvulsants as a category cannot be considered first-, second- or third-line treatment for cocaine dependence.

Alpha2-adrenergic agonists for the management of opioid withdrawal.

BACKGROUND: Withdrawal is a necessary step prior to drug-free treatment or as the endpoint of long-term substitution treatment. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effectiveness of interventions involving the use of alpha2-adrenergic agonists compared with placebo, reducing doses of methadone, symptomatic medications or with comparison of different alpha2-adrenergic agonists, for the management of the acute phase of opioid withdrawal. Outcomes included the intensity of signs and symptoms and overall withdrawal syndrome experienced, duration of treatment, occurrence of adverse effects and completion of treatment. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (Issue 7, 2013), MEDLINE (1946 to July week 4, 2013), EMBASE (January 1985 to August week 1, 2013), PsycINFO (1806 to July week 5, 2013) and reference lists of articles. We also contacted manufacturers in the field. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials comparing alpha2-adrenergic agonists (clonidine, lofexidine, guanfacine, tizanidine) with reducing doses of methadone, symptomatic medications or placebo, or comparing different alpha2-adrenergic agonists to modify the signs and symptoms of withdrawal in participants who were opioid dependent. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: One review author assessed studies for inclusion and undertook data extraction. All review authors decided on inclusion and confirmed the overall process. MAIN RESULTS: We included 25 randomised controlled trials, involving 1668 participants. Five studies compared a treatment regimen based on an alpha2-adrenergic agonist with placebo, 12 with a regimen based on reducing doses of methadone, four with symptomatic medications and five compared different alpha2-adrenergic agonists.Alpha2-adrenergic agonists were more effective than placebo in ameliorating withdrawal in terms of the likelihood of severe withdrawal (risk ratio (RR) 0.32, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.18 to 0.57, 3 studies, 148 participants). Completion of treatment was significantly more likely with alpha2-adrenergic agonists compared with placebo (RR 1.95, 95% CI 1.34 to 2.84, 3 studies, 148 participants).Alpha2-adrenergic agonists were somewhat less effective than reducing doses of methadone in ameliorating withdrawal symptoms, as measured by the likelihood of severe withdrawal (RR 1.18, 95% CI 0.81 to 1.73, 5 studies, 340 participants), peak withdrawal score (standardised mean difference (SMD) 0.22, 95% CI -0.02 to 0.46, 2 studies, 263 participants) and overall withdrawal severity (SMD 0.13, 95% CI -0.24 to 0.49, 3 studies, 119 participants). These differences were not statistically significant. The signs and symptoms of withdrawal occurred and resolved earlier with alpha2-adrenergic agonists. The duration of treatment was significantly longer with reducing doses of methadone (SMD -1.07, 95% CI -1.31 to -0.83, 3 studies, 310 participants). Hypotensive or other adverse effects were significantly more likely with alpha2-adrenergic agonists (RR 1.92, 95% CI 1.19 to 3.10, 6 studies, 464 participants) but there was no significant difference in rates of completion of withdrawal treatment (RR 0.85, 95% CI 0.69 to 1.05, 9 studies, 659 participants).There were insufficient data for quantitative comparison of different alpha2-adrenergic agonists. Available data suggest that lofexidine does not reduce blood pressure to the same extent as clonidine, but is otherwise similar to clonidine. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Clonidine and lofexidine are more effective than placebo for the management of withdrawal from heroin or methadone. No significant difference in efficacy was detected for treatment regimens based on clonidine or lofexidine, and those based on reducing doses of methadone over a period of around 10 days but methadone is associated with fewer adverse effects than clonidine, and lofexidine has a better safety profile than clonidine.

Oral substitution treatment of injecting opioid users for prevention of HIV infection.

BACKGROUND: Injecting drug users are vulnerable to infection with Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV) and other blood borne viruses as a result of collective use of injecting equipment as well as sexual behaviour OBJECTIVES: To assess the effect of oral substitution treatment for opioid dependent injecting drug users on risk behaviours and rates of HIV infections SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE, EMBASE and PsycINFO to May 2011. We also searched reference lists of articles, reviews and conference abstracts SELECTION CRITERIA: Studies were required to consider the incidence of risk behaviours, or the incidence of HIV infection related to substitution treatment of opioid dependence. All types of original studies were considered. Two authors independently assessed each study for inclusion DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two authors independently extracted key information from each of the included studies. Any differences were resolved by discussion or by referral to a third author. MAIN RESULTS: Thirty-eight studies, involving some 12,400 participants, were included. The majority were descriptive studies, or randomisation processes did not relate to the data extracted, and most studies were judged to be at high risk of bias. Studies consistently show that oral substitution treatment for opioid-dependent injecting drug users with methadone or buprenorphine is associated with statistically significant reductions in illicit opioid use, injecting use and sharing of injecting equipment. It is also associated with reductions in the proportion of injecting drug users reporting multiple sex partners or exchanges of sex for drugs or money, but has little effect on condom use. It appears that the reductions in risk behaviours related to drug use do translate into reductions in cases of HIV infection. However, because of the high risk of bias and variability in several aspects of the studies, combined totals were not calculated. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Oral substitution treatment for injecting opioid users reduces drug-related behaviours with a high risk of HIV transmission, but has less effect on sex-related risk behaviours. The lack of data from randomised controlled studies limits the strength of the evidence presented in this review.