Service Users' Views and Experiences of Alcohol Relapse Prevention Treatment and Adherence: New Role for Pharmacists?

AIMS: To understand service users' views and experiences of alcohol relapse prevention medication, views of a telephone behavioural modification intervention delivered by pharmacists and the use of Contingency Management (CM) to support acamprosate adherence following assisted alcohol withdrawal. METHODS: Four focus groups were conducted within four alcohol treatment and recovery groups across England (UK), with service users with lived experience of alcohol dependence (26 participants). Semi-structured topic guide was used to explore participants' views and experiences of alcohol relapse prevention medication, a telephone behavioural modification medication intervention delivered by pharmacists, and the use of CM to support acamprosate adherence. These were audio-recorded, transcribed verbatim and thematically analysed inductively and deductively. RESULTS: Four themes were identified: concerns about support and availability of alcohol relapse prevention medication; lack of knowledge and understanding about acamprosate treatment; positive perceptions of acamprosate adherence telephone support from pharmacists; and negative perceptions of CM to support acamprosate adherence. There were misunderstandings about acamprosate's mode of action and strong negative beliefs about CM. However, most were positive about pharmacists' new role to support acamprosate adherence. CONCLUSION: This study highlighted challenges service users face to commence alcohol relapse prevention medication. It appears service users could benefit from a pharmacist-led telephone intervention to improve understanding about acamprosate medication, particularly, if delivered in an engaging and motivating way.

Exploratory Economic Evaluation of Buprenorphine Treatment in Opioid Use Disorder.

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

Therapeutic Drug Monitoring in Buprenorphine/Naloxone Treatment for Opioid Use Disorder: Clinical Feasibility and Optimizing Assay Precision.

INTRODUCTION: Compliance with sublingual buprenorphine/naloxone (SL-BUP/NX) is associated with higher abstinence from illicit opioid use. Therapeutic drug monitoring (TDM) has been recommended for adherence monitoring of buprenorphine (BUP) maintenance treatment for opioid use disorder (OUD), but to date there have been no reported clinical applications. In this TDM feasibility study, we investigated BUP assay precision in 15 adults with OUD who had been stabilized on buprenorphine/naloxone. METHODS: Using solid phase extraction, BUP recovery was contrasted at 100 mMol and 1 Molar of acetic acid wash solution. Precision was determined by applying the condition generating highest recovery using 0.2 ng/mL and 10 ng/mL standards. Four blood samples were drawn to examine the BUP peak and trough plasma concentrations, and BUP elimination rate was estimated. BUP recovery was examined again in a random sample and contrasted with the concentration predicted applying first-order kinetics. RESULTS: Higher BUP recovery was achieved with 1 Molar wash (94.3%; p=0.05). Precision ranged from 15-20%. The estimated limit of detection (LoD) and limit of quantitation (LoQ) were 0.02 and 0.069 ng/mL, respectively. BUP peak and trough concentrations were successfully examined, and BUP trough concentrations were replicated confirming steady state. BUP concentrations were predicted at a variance of -7.20% to 1.54 %. CONCLUSIONS: TDM for BUP maintenance treatment of OUD is feasible, and simple adjustment of the assay conditions enhances BUP recovery.

Prescription of benzodiazepines, z-drugs, and gabapentinoids and mortality risk in people receiving opioid agonist treatment: Observational study based on the UK Clinical Practice Research Datalink and Office for National Statistics death records.

BACKGROUND: Patients with opioid dependency prescribed opioid agonist treatment (OAT) may also be prescribed sedative drugs. This may increase mortality risk but may also increase treatment duration, with overall benefit. We hypothesised that prescription of benzodiazepines in patients receiving OAT would increase risk of mortality overall, irrespective of any increased treatment duration. METHODS AND FINDINGS: Data on 12,118 patients aged 15-64 years prescribed OAT between 1998 and 2014 were extracted from the Clinical Practice Research Datalink. Data from the Office for National Statistics on whether patients had died and, if so, their cause of death were available for 7,016 of these patients. We identified episodes of prescription of benzodiazepines, z-drugs, and gabapentinoids and used linear regression and Cox proportional hazards models to assess the associations of co-prescription (prescribed during OAT and up to 12 months post-treatment) and concurrent prescription (prescribed during OAT) with treatment duration and mortality. We examined all-cause mortality (ACM), drug-related poisoning (DRP) mortality, and mortality not attributable to DRP (non-DRP). Models included potential confounding factors. In 36,126 person-years of follow-up there were 657 deaths and 29,540 OAT episodes, of which 42% involved benzodiazepine co-prescription and 29% concurrent prescription (for z-drugs these respective proportions were 20% and 11%, and for gabapentinoids 8% and 5%). Concurrent prescription of benzodiazepines was associated with increased duration of methadone treatment (adjusted mean duration of treatment episode 466 days [95% CI 450 to 483] compared to 286 days [95% CI 275 to 297]). Benzodiazepine co-prescription was associated with increased risk of DRP (adjusted HR 2.96 [95% CI 1.97 to 4.43], p < 0.001), with evidence of a dose-response effect, but showed little evidence of an association with non-DRP (adjusted HR 0.91 [95% CI 0.66 to 1.25], p = 0.549). Co-prescription of z-drugs showed evidence of an association with increased risk of DRP (adjusted HR 2.75 [95% CI 1.57 to 4.83], p < 0.001) but little evidence of an association with non-DRP (adjusted HR 0.79 [95% CI 0.49 to 1.28], p = 0.342). There was no evidence of an association of gabapentinoid co-prescription with DRP (HR 1.54 [95% CI 0.60 to 3.98], p = 0.373) but evidence of an association with increased non-DRP (HR 1.83 [95% CI 1.28 to 2.62], p = 0.001). Concurrent benzodiazepine prescription also increased mortality risk after consideration of duration of OAT (adjusted HR for DRP with benzodiazepine concurrent prescription 3.34 [95% CI 2.14 to 5.20], p < 0.001). The main limitation of this study is the possibility that unmeasured confounding factors led to an association between benzodiazepine prescription and DRP that is not causal. CONCLUSIONS: In this study, co-prescription of benzodiazepine was specifically associated with increased risk of DRP in opioid-dependent individuals. Co-prescription of z-drugs and gabapentinoids was also associated with increased mortality risk; however, for z-drugs there was no evidence for a dose-response effect on DRP, and for gabapentinoids the increased mortality risk was not specific to DRP. Concurrent prescription of benzodiazepine was associated with longer treatment but still increased risk of death overall. Clinicians should be cautious about prescribing benzodiazepines to opioid-dependent individuals.

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.

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

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

Crafting effective regulatory policies for psychedelics: What can be learned from the case of cannabis?

The turn of the century brought a resurgence of interest in psychedelics as a treatment for addiction and other psychiatric conditions, accompanied by extensive positive media attention and private equity investment. Government regulatory bodies in Australia, Israel, Canada and the United States now permit use of psychedelics for medical purposes. In the United States, citizen action and corporate financing have led to petitions and ballot initiatives to legalize psilocybin and other psychedelics for medical and recreational use. Given this momentum, policymakers must grapple with important questions that define whether and how psychedelics are made available to the public, as well as how companies produce and promote them. The current push to broaden the production, sale, and use of psychedelics bears many parallels to the movement to legalize cannabis in the United States and other nations-most notably, the use of poorly-evidenced therapeutic claims to create a de facto recreational market via the health care system. Experience with cannabis highlights the value of debating the question of legalization for nonmedical use as such rather than misrepresenting it as a medical issue. The lessons of cannabis policy also suggest a need to challenge hyping of psychedelic research findings; to promote rigorous clinical research on dosing and potency; to minimize the influence of for-profit industry in shaping policies to their economic advantage; and to coordinate federal, state, and local governments to regulate the manufacture, sale and distribution of psychedelic drugs (regardless of whether they are legalized for medical and/or recreational use).

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

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

Polysubstance Use in Adults With Opioid Use Disorder Receiving Buprenorphine Maintenance.

INTRODUCTION: Studying polysubstance use is a public health recommendation. In the United Arab Emirates, more than 80% of adults with opioid use disorder (OUD) use 2 or more nonopioid substances. This secondary analysis contrasts the characteristics of polysubstance users (OUD + ≥1 nonopioid) with OUD, explores the correlates and predictors of nonfatal overdose, and examines the impact of polysubstance use on OUD treatment outcomes using buprenorphine (BUP). METHODS: This analysis uses data from a 16-week outpatient randomized controlled trial of 141 adults with OUD allocated to BUP + incentivized adherence and abstinence monitoring (n = 70) and BUP in usual care (control, n = 71). Outcomes were nonfatal overdose events over the preceding 12 months, positive drug screens, and treatment retention. Participant characteristics were contrasted, and bivariate statistical tests were conducted for simple associations followed by logistic regression. RESULTS: Polysubstance use was reported by 117 participants (82.9%), the majority of whom used pregabalin 72.1% (n = 75). Compared with OUD, polysubstance users observed higher arrests (median, 1.0 [interquartile range, 0.0-3.0] vs 0.5 [interquartile range, 0.0-2.0]; P = 0.04]) and nonfatal overdose events (n = 33 [31.8%] vs 2 [10.8%], P = 0.003). Carisoprodol and injecting drug use independently predicted nonfatal overdose (adjusted odds ratio, 4.519 [95% confidence interval, 1.81-11.22] and 2.74 [95% confidence interval, 1.15-6.51], respectively). No significant difference was observed in opioid use and retention in treatment outcomes between groups. CONCLUSION: Carisoprodol and injecting drug use increase the likelihood of nonfatal overdose in adults with OUD. Polysubstance use does not impact response to BUP treatment compared with OUD.

Patients' perceptions of self-administered dosing to opioid agonist treatment and other changes during the COVID-19 pandemic: a qualitative study.

OBJECTIVES: During the COVID-19 pandemic, addiction treatment services received official guidance asking them to limit face-to-face contact with patients and to prescribe opioid agonist treatment (OAT) medication flexibly. With the aim for most patients to receive take-home supplies for self-administration rather than attendance for observed daily dosing. DESIGN: This was a theory-driven, clinically applied qualitative study, with data for thematic analysis collected by semi-structured, audio-recorded, telephone interviews. PARTICIPANTS: Twenty-seven adults (aged ≥18 years) enrolled in sublingual (tablet) buprenorphine and oral (liquid) methadone OAT. SETTING: Community addictions centre in the London Borough of Lambeth operated by South London and Maudsley NHS Trust. RESULTS: Three major themes were identified: (1) dissatisfaction and perceived stigma with OAT medication dispensing arrangements before the pandemic; (2) positive adaptations in response to COVID-19 by services; (3) participants recommended that, according to preference and evidence of adherence, OAT should be personalised to offer increasing medication supplies for self-administration from as early as 7 days after commencement of maintenance prescribing. CONCLUSIONS: In an applied qualitative study of patients enrolled in OAT during the COVID-19 pandemic, participants endorsed their opportunity to take medication themselves at home and with virtual addiction support. Most patients described a preference for self-administration with increased dispensing supplies, from as early as 7 days into maintenance treatment, if they could demonstrate adherence to their prescription.

Superiority and cost-effectiveness of monthly extended-release buprenorphine versus daily standard of care medication: a pragmatic, parallel-group, open-label, multicentre, randomised, controlled, phase 3 trial.

Background: Daily methadone maintenance or buprenorphine treatment is the standard-of-care (SoC) medication for opioid use disorder (OUD). Subcutaneously injected, extended-release buprenorphine (BUP-XR) may be more effective-but there has been no superiority evaluation. Methods: This pragmatic, parallel-group, open-label, multi-centre, effectiveness superiority randomised, controlled, phase 3 trial was conducted at five National Health Service community-based treatment clinics in England and Scotland. Participants (adults aged ≥ 18 years; all meeting DSM-5 diagnostic criteria for moderate or severe OUD at admission to their current maintenance treatment episode) were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive continued daily SoC (liquid methadone (usual dose range: 60-120 mg) or sublingual/transmucosal buprenorphine (usual dose range: 8-24 mg) for 24 weeks; or monthly BUP-XR (Sublocade;® two injections of 300 mg, then four maintenance injections of 100 mg or 300 mg, with maintenance dose selected by response and preference) for 24 weeks. In the intent-to-treat population (senior statistician blinded to blinded to treatment group allocation), and with a seven-day grace period after randomisation, the primary endpoint was the count of days abstinent from non-medical opioids between days 8-168 (i.e., weeks 2-24; range: 0-161 days). Safety was reported for the intention-to- treat population. Adopting a broad societal perspective inclusive of criminal justice, NHS and personal social service costs, a trial-based cost-utility analysis estimated the Incremental Cost-effectiveness Ratio (ICER) per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) of BUP-XR versus SoC at the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence threshold. The study was registered EudraCT (2018-004460-63) and ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT05164549), and is completed. Findings: Between Aug 9, 2019 and Nov 2, 2021, 314 participants were randomly allocated to receive SoC (n = 156) or BUP-XR (n = 158). Participants were abstinent from opioids for an adjusted mean of 104.37 days (standard error [SE] 9.89; range: 0-161 days) in the SoC group and an adjusted mean of 123.43 days (SE 4.76; range: 24-161 days) in the BUP-XR group (adjusted incident rate ratio [IRR] 1.18, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.05-1.33; p-value 0.004). The incidence of any adverse event was higher in the BUP-XR group than the SoC group (128 [81.0%] of 158 participants versus 67 [42.9%] of 156 participants, respectively-most commonly rapidly-resolving (mild-moderate range) pain from drug administration in the BUP-XR group (121 [26.9%] of 450 adverse events). There were 11 serious adverse events (7.0%) in the 158 participants in the BUP-XR group, and 18 serious adverse events (11.5%) in the 156 participants in the SoC group-none judged to be related to study treatment. The BUP-XR treatment group had a mean incremental cost of £1033 (95% central range [CR] -1189 to 3225) and was associated with a mean incremental QALY of 0.02 (95% CR 0.00-0.05), and an ICER of £47,540 (0.37 probability of being cost-effective at the £30,000/QALY gained willingness-to-pay threshold). However, BUP-XR dominated the SoC among participants who were rated more severe at study baseline, and among participants in maintenance treatment for more that 28 days at study enrolment. Interpretation: Evaluated against the daily oral SoC, monthly BUP-XR is clinically superior, delivering greater abstinence from opioids, and with a comparable safety profile. BUP-XR was not cost-effective in a base case cost-utility analysis using the societal perspective, but it was more effective and less costly (dominant) among participants with more severe OUD, or those whose current treatment episode was longer than 28 days. Further trials are needed to evaluate if BUP-XR is associated with better clinical and health economic outcomes over the longer term. Funding: Indivior.

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

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

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

Lower buprenorphine elimination rate constant is associated with lower opioid use.

BACKGROUND: Opioid craving is suggested to correlate with the rate of reduction in buprenorphine (BUP) plasma levels. No studies explored Buprenorphine elimination rate constant (BUP EL.R) as a predictor of opioid use or retention in BUP treatment. METHODS: Analysis was performed using data from a randomized controlled trial of 141 adults with opioid use disorder (OUD) randomized to Incentivized Adherence and Abstinence monitoring (I-AAM; experimental (n = 70) and treatment-as-usual; control (n = 71). In the I-AAM, structured access to unsupervised BUP doses was provided up to 28 days contingent of adherence measured by Therapeutic Drug Monitoring and abstinence by Urinary Drug Screens (UDS). In contrast, the treatment-as-usual (control) provided unstructured access to unsupervised doses was provided for up to 14 days considering UDS results. The primary outcome was percentage negative UDS. The secondary outcome, retention in treatment, was continuous enrollment in the study and analysis was via intention-to-treat. Significant bivariate correlations with the outcomes were adjusted for group allocation. RESULTS: A significant negative correlation between BUP EL.R and percentage negative opioid screens (Pearson correlation coefficient - 0.57, p < 0.01) was found. After adjusting for trial group, BUP EL.R was shown to be an independent predictor of percentage negative opioid screens (Standardized Beta Coefficient - 0.57, 95% CI - 221.57 to - 97.44, R2 0.322). CONCLUSION: BUP EL.R predicted 32.2% of the variation in percentage negative opioid UDS and may serve as a potential promising tool in precision medicine of BUP treatment. Higher buprenorphine elimination is associated with higher positive opioid urine screens during treatment. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN41645723 retrospectively registered on 15/11/2015.

Policies and interventions to reduce harmful gambling: an international Delphi consensus and implementation rating study.

There is increasing public health concern about harmful gambling, but no consensus on effective policies and interventions to reduce risk and prevent harm has been reached. Focusing on policies and interventions (ie, measures), the aim of this study was to determine if expert consensus could be reached on measures perceived to be effective that could be implemented successfully. Our work involved a pre-registered, three-round, independent Delphi panel consensus study and an implementation rating exercise. A starting set of 103 universal and targeted measures, which were sourced from several key resources and inputs from public health stakeholders, were grouped into seven domains: price and taxation; availability; accessibility; marketing, advertising, promotion, and sponsorship; environment and technology; information and education; and treatment and support. Across three rounds, an independent panel of 35 experts individually completed online questionnaires to rank each measure for known or potential effectiveness. A consensus was reached if at least 70% of the panel judged a measure to be either not effective, moderately effective, or highly effective. Then, each measure that reached a consensus for effectiveness was evaluated on four implementation dimensions: practicability, affordability, side-effects, and equity. A summative threshold criterion was used to select a final optimal set of measures for England. The panel reached consensus on 83 (81%) of 103 measures. Two measures were judged as ineffective by the panel. The remaining 81 effective measures were drawn from all domains (14 of 15 measures in the the marketing, advertising, promotion, and sponsorship domain were judged as effective, whereas five of ten measures in the information and education domain were judged as effective). During the evaluation exercise, the 81 measures were assessed for likelihood of implementation success. This assessment considered the practicality, affordability, ability to generate unanticipated side-effects, and ability to decrease differences between advantaged and disadvantaged groups in society of each measure. We identified 40 universal and targeted measures to tackle harmful gambling (three measures from the price and taxation domain; ten from the availability domain; five from the accessibility domain; six from the marketing, advertising, promotion, and sponsorship domain; eight from the environment and technology domain; three from the information and education domain; and five from the treatment and support domain). Implementation of these measures in England could substantially strengthen regulatory controls while providing new resources. The findings of our work offer a blueprint for a public health approach to preventing harms related to gambling.

Experience and response to a randomised controlled trial of extended-release injectable buprenorphine versus sublingual tablet buprenorphine and oral liquid methadone for opioid use disorder: protocol for a mixed-methods evaluation.

INTRODUCTION: Opioid use disorder (OUD) is a debilitating and persistent disorder. The standard-of-care treatment is daily maintenance dosing of sublingual buprenorphine (BUP-SL) or oral methadone (MET). Monthly, extended-release, subcutaneous injectable buprenorphine (BUP-XR) has been developed to enhance treatment effectiveness. This study aims to investigate the experiences of participants who have been offered BUP-XR (evaluation 1), health-related quality-of-life among participants who have opted to receive BUP-XR longer term (evaluation 2) and the experiences of participants allocated to receive BUP-XR or BUP-SL or MET with the offer of adjunctive personalised psychosocial intervention (evaluation 3). METHODS AND ANALYSIS: Three qualitative-quantitative (mixed-methods) evaluations embedded in a five-centre, head-to-head, randomised controlled trial of BUP-XR versus BUP-SL and MET in the UK. Evaluation 1 is a four-centre interview anchored on an OUD-related topic guide and conducted after the 24-week trial endpoint. Evaluation 2 is a two-centre interview anchored on medications for opioid use disorder-specific quality-of-life topic guide conducted among participants after 12-24 months. Evaluation 3: single-centre interview after the 24-week trial endpoint. All evaluations include selected trial clinical measures, with evaluation 2 incorporating additional questionnaires. Target participant recruitment for evaluations 1 and 2 is 15 participants per centre (n=60 and n=30, respectively). Recruitment for evaluation 3 is 15 participants per treatment arm (n=30). Each evaluation will be underpinned by theory, drawing on constructs from the behavioural model for health service use or the health-related quality-of-life model. Qualitative data analysis will be by iterative categorisation. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Study protocol, consent materials and questionnaires were approved by the London-Brighton and Sussex research ethics committee (reference: 19/LO/0483) and the Health Research Authority (IRAS project number 255522). Participants will be provided with information sheets and informed written consent will be obtained for each evaluation. Study findings will be disseminated through peer-reviewed scientific journals. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: 2018-004460-63.

The opioid use disorder core outcomes set (OUD-COS) for treatment research: findings from a Delphi consensus study.

BACKGROUND AND AIM: There is no gold-standard and considerable heterogeneity in outcome measures used to evaluate treatments for opioid use disorder (OUD) along the opioid treatment cascade. The aim of this study was to develop the US National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA) National Drug Abuse Treatment Clinical Trials Network (CTN) opioid use disorder core outcomes set (OUD-COS). DESIGN: Four-round, e-Delphi expert panel consensus study and plenary research group discussion and targeted consultation. SETTING: United States. PARTICIPANTS: A panel of 25 members including clinical practitioners, clinical researchers and administrative staff from the CTN, the network's affiliated clinical and community sites and the NIDA Centre for the CTN. MEASUREMENTS: From a pool of 24 candidate items in four domains (biomedical/disease status; behaviors, symptoms and functioning; opioid treatment cascade; and morbidity and mortality), the panel completed an on-line questionnaire to rank items with defined specification on a 9-point scale for importance, with a standard 70% consensus criterion. FINDINGS: After the fourth round of the questionnaire and subsequent discussion, consensus was reached for five outcomes: two patient-reported (global impression of improvement and incident non-fatal overdose); one clinician-reported (illicit/non-medical drug toxicology); and two from administrative records (duration of treatment and fatal opioid poisoning). CONCLUSIONS: An e-Delphi consensus study has produced the US National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA) National Drug Abuse Treatment Clinical Trials Network opioid use disorder core outcomes set (version 1) for opioid use disorder treatment efficacy and effectiveness research.

Extended-release pharmacotherapy for opioid use disorder (EXPO): protocol for an open-label randomised controlled trial of the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of injectable buprenorphine versus sublingual tablet buprenorphine and oral liquid methadone.

BACKGROUND: Sublingual tablet buprenorphine (BUP-SL) and oral liquid methadone (MET) are the daily, standard-of-care (SOC) opioid agonist treatment medications for opioid use disorder (OUD). A sizable proportion of the OUD treatment population is not exposed to sufficient treatment to attain the desired clinical benefit. Two promising therapeutic technologies address this deficit: long-acting injectable buprenorphine and personalised psychosocial interventions (PSI). This study will determine (A) the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness - monthly injectable, extended-release (BUP-XR) in a head-to-head comparison with BUP-SL and MET, and (B) the effectiveness of BUP-XR with adjunctive PSI versus BUP-SL and MET with PSI. Safety, retention, craving, substance use, quality-adjusted life years, social functioning, and subjective recovery from OUD will be also evaluated. METHODS: This is a pragmatic, multi-centre, open-label, parallel-group, superiority RCT, with a qualitative (mixed-methods) evaluation. The study population is adults. The setting is five National Health Service community treatment centres in England and Scotland. At each centre, participants will be randomly allocated (1:1) to BUP-XR or SOC. At the London study co-ordinating centre, there will also be allocation of participants to BUP-XR with PSI or SOC with PSI. With 24 weeks of study treatment, the primary outcome is days of abstinence from non-medical opioids during study weeks 2-24 combined with up to 12 urine drug screen tests for opioids. For 90% power (alpha, 5%; 15% inflation for attrition), 304 participants are needed for the BUP-XR versus SOC comparison. With the same planning parameters, 300 participants are needed for the BUP-XR and PSI versus SOC and PSI comparison. Statistical and health economic analysis plans will be published before data-lock on the Open Science Framework. Findings will be reported in accordance with the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials and Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards. DISCUSSION: This pragmatic randomised controlled trial is the first evaluation of injectable BUP-XR versus the SOC medications BUP-SL and MET, with personalised PSI. If there is evidence for the superiority of BUP-XR over SOC medication, study findings will have substantial implications for OUD clinical practice and treatment policy in the UK and elsewhere. TRIAL REGISTRATION: EU Clinical Trials register 2018-004460-63.

Acute impact of self-guided mental imagery on craving in cocaine use disorder: a mixed-methods analysis of a randomized controlled trial.

Mental imagery manipulations are used to treat several psychological disorders, but their utility in treating cocaine use disorder (CUD) is unknown. Using prompted re-experiences and simulations with contrasting valence, we assessed the acute impact of a deliberate mental imagery task on cocaine craving. DESIGN: A quantitative-qualitative 'mixed-methods' analysis of data collected for a randomized controlled trial that was stopped prematurely. SETTING: UK National Health Service addictions treatment clinic and outpatient clinical research facility (laboratory). PARTICIPANTS: Adults with CUD. The original target sample was 120. All participants enrolled at the point the original trial was stopped were included (38 enrolled, 31 completed study). INTERVENTIONS: Personalized (3-minute) cue-exposure (handling cocaine paraphernalia and watching video of drug preparation), immediately followed by a single 5-minute, audio-recorded, self-guided and verbally described imagery task with random assignment to one of four conditions: two mental imagery memory re-experiences (positive image before initiation to cocaine use or a negative image of a 'worst time' adverse cocaine use episode) or two future simulations (positive theme of recovery from CUD or negative theme of worsened CUD). MEASUREMENTS: Task transcripts were rated for imagery detail using five dimensions using a six-point scale of imagery detail (ID) (total score = 0-25) and thematically coded. The outcome measure was cocaine craving using the Craving Experiences Questionnaire-strengths version (CEQ-S11; score = 0-110) reported at baseline, arrival at the laboratory, and immediately after the cue-exposure and mental imagery tasks. FINDINGS: A mixed-effects, longitudinal, restricted linear regression, with the past-positive imagery condition as referent, showed main effects of reduced craving after the imagery task (b = -29.2, 95% confidence interval (CI) = -45.3 to -13.1, P-value < 0.001) and increased craving for the future-negative task (b = 14.2, 95% CI = 0.1-28.4, P-value 0.049). There was a future-negative task by post-imagery craving interaction (b = 28.1, 95% CI = 0.1-56.1, P-value 0.049). A theory-driven, deductive/inductive qualitative analysis of the transcripts revealed six major themes: sensory characteristics, CUD vicious cycle, self-care, emotions and appraisals, social role and CUD recovery. Positively themed simulations included interpersonal connections and rewarding activity; negative images included personal adversity, with appraisals of self-criticism and hopelessness. Transcripts with more imagery detail were not associated with significantly greater reductions in craving in the positive or negative imagery task (r = -0.32, 95% CI = -0.69 to 0.13 and r = 0.06, 95% CI = -0.58 to 0.53, respectively). CONCLUSION: In people with cocaine use disorder, after cue-exposure, a self-guided imagery task with positive themes reduced craving, whereas mental imagery simulating worsened cocaine use disorder did not appear to.

The hospital admission profile of people presenting to specialist addiction services with problematic use of alcohol or opioids: A national retrospective cohort study in England.

BACKGROUND: Over the past decade in England the rate of alcohol and opioid-related hospitalisation has increased alongside a simultaneous reduction in people accessing specialist addiction treatment. We aimed to determine the hospitalisation patterns of people presenting to addiction treatment with problematic use of alcohol or opioids, and estimate how individual sociodemographic characteristics and hospital admission diagnoses are associated with the rate of hospitalisation, death and successful completion of addiction treatment. METHODS: A national record linkage between Hospital Episode Statistics (HES) and the National Drug Treatment Monitoring System (NDTMS) captured lifetime hospital admission profiles of people presenting to addiction services in England in 2018/19. Latent class analysis assigned individuals to clusters based on the ICD-10 diagnosis coded as primary reason for admission. Negative binomial, and multilevel logistic regression models determined if outcomes differed due to sociodemographic characteristics or assigned diagnostic clusters. FINDINGS: Inpatient data were available for 64,840 alcohol patients, and 107,296 opioid patients. The most common reasons for admission were alcohol withdrawal (n = 20,024 (5.3% of alcohol-cohort admissions)), and unspecified illness (n = 11,387 (2.1% of opioid-cohort admissions)). Seven diagnostic clusters were identified for each substance cohort. People with admissions predominantly relating to mental and behavioural disorders, and injuries or poisonings had significantly higher hospitalisation rates (adjusted IRR 7.06 (95%CI 6.72-7.42);p < 0.001), higher odds of death during addiction treatment (adjusted OR 2.71 (95%CI 2.29-3.20);p < 0.001) and lower odds of successful treatment completion (adjusted OR 0.72 (95%CI 0.68-0.76);p < 0.001). INTERPRETATION: This is the first study to interrogate national hospitalisation patterns within people presenting to addiction services with problematic use of alcohol or opioids. Having identified high-risk, high-cost individuals with increased hospital usage, and increased odds of death, future work should focus on targeting appropriate interventions, to improve their health outcomes and prevent unnecessary hospital readmission. FUNDING: The work was funded by the Medical Research Council (MRC).