Buprenorphine/naloxone versus methadone and lofexidine in community stabilisation and detoxification: A randomised controlled trial of low dose short-term opiate-dependent individuals.

Buprenorphine/naloxone, methadone and lofexidine are medications with utility in the treatment of opiate withdrawal. We report the first randomised controlled trial to compare the effects of these two medications on withdrawal symptoms and outcome during opiate induction/stabilisation and detoxification. A double-blind randomised controlled trial was conducted in an outpatient satellite clinic of a specialist drug service. Eighty opiate dependent individuals meeting DSM-IV criteria for opiate dependence, using ⩽ ½ g heroin smoked/chased or » g heroin injected or ⩽ 30mg methadone, with ⩽ 3 years of opioid dependency, underwent a short-term opiate treatment programme involving induction/stabilisation on methadone 30mg or buprenorphine/naloxone 4mg/1mg, followed by detoxification (where the methadone group was assisted by lofexidine). The main outcome measures were urine drug screens for opiates and withdrawal and craving questionnaires. There were no overall differences in positive urine drug screens and drop-outs during any phase of the study. During induction/stabilisation, withdrawal symptoms subsided more slowly for buprenorphine/naloxone than for methadone, and craving was significantly higher in the buprenorphine/naloxone group ( p<0.05, 95% confidence interval -3.5, -0.38). During detoxification, withdrawal symptoms were significantly greater and the peak of withdrawal was earlier for the methadone/lofexidine group than the buprenorphine/naloxone group ( p<0.01, 95% confidence interval 3.0, 8.3). Methadone/lofexidine and buprenorphine/naloxone had comparable outcomes during rapid outpatient stabilisation and detoxification in low dose opiate users.

Alcohol screening and brief interventions for offenders in the probation setting (SIPS Trial): a pragmatic multicentre cluster randomized controlled trial.

AIM: To evaluate the effectiveness of different brief intervention strategies at reducing hazardous or harmful drinking in the probation setting. Offender managers were randomized to three interventions, each of which built on the previous one: feedback on screening outcome and a client information leaflet control group, 5 min of structured brief advice and 20 min of brief lifestyle counselling. METHODS: A pragmatic multicentre factorial cluster randomized controlled trial. The primary outcome was self-reported hazardous or harmful drinking status measured by Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test (AUDIT) at 6 months (negative status was a score of <8). Secondary outcomes were AUDIT status at 12 months, experience of alcohol-related problems, health utility, service utilization, readiness to change and reduction in conviction rates. RESULTS: Follow-up rates were 68% at 6 months and 60% at 12 months. At both time points, there was no significant advantage of more intensive interventions compared with the control group in terms of AUDIT status. Those in the brief advice and brief lifestyle counselling intervention groups were statistically significantly less likely to reoffend (36 and 38%, respectively) than those in the client information leaflet group (50%) in the year following intervention. CONCLUSION: Brief advice or brief lifestyle counselling provided no additional benefit in reducing hazardous or harmful drinking compared with feedback on screening outcome and a client information leaflet. The impact of more intensive brief intervention on reoffending warrants further research.

The effectiveness of alcohol screening and brief intervention in emergency departments: a multicentre pragmatic cluster randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Alcohol misuse is common in people attending emergency departments (EDs) and there is some evidence of efficacy of alcohol screening and brief interventions (SBI). This study investigated the effectiveness of SBI approaches of different intensities delivered by ED staff in nine typical EDs in England: the SIPS ED trial. METHODS AND FINDINGS: Pragmatic multicentre cluster randomized controlled trial of SBI for hazardous and harmful drinkers presenting to ED. Nine EDs were randomized to three conditions: a patient information leaflet (PIL), 5 minutes of brief advice (BA), and referral to an alcohol health worker who provided 20 minutes of brief lifestyle counseling (BLC). The primary outcome measure was the Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test (AUDIT) status at 6 months. Of 5899 patients aged 18 or more presenting to EDs, 3737 (63·3%) were eligible to participate and 1497 (40·1%) screened positive for hazardous or harmful drinking, of whom 1204 (80·4%) gave consent to participate in the trial. Follow up rates were 72% (n = 863) at six, and 67% (n = 810) at 12 months. There was no evidence of any differences between intervention conditions for AUDIT status or any other outcome measures at months 6 or 12 in an intention to treat analysis. At month 6, compared to the PIL group, the odds ratio of being AUDIT negative for brief advice was 1·103 (95% CI 0·328 to 3·715). The odds ratio comparing BLC to PIL was 1·247 (95% CI 0·315 to 4·939). A per protocol analysis confirmed these findings. CONCLUSIONS: SBI is difficult to implement in typical EDs. The results do not support widespread implementation of alcohol SBI in ED beyond screening followed by simple clinical feedback and alcohol information, which is likely to be easier and less expensive to implement than more complex interventions. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN 93681536.

Effectiveness of screening and brief alcohol intervention in primary care (SIPS trial): pragmatic cluster randomised controlled trial.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effectiveness of different brief intervention strategies at reducing hazardous or harmful drinking in primary care. The hypothesis was that more intensive intervention would result in a greater reduction in hazardous or harmful drinking. DESIGN: Pragmatic cluster randomised controlled trial. SETTING: Primary care practices in the north east and south east of England and in London. PARTICIPANTS: 3562 patients aged 18 or more routinely presenting in primary care, of whom 2991 (84.0%) were eligible to enter the trial: 900 (30.1%) screened positive for hazardous or harmful drinking and 756 (84.0%) received a brief intervention. The sample was predominantly male (62%) and white (92%), and 34% were current smokers. INTERVENTIONS: Practices were randomised to three interventions, each of which built on the previous one: a patient information leaflet control group, five minutes of structured brief advice, and 20 minutes of brief lifestyle counselling. Delivery of the patient leaflet and brief advice occurred directly after screening and brief lifestyle counselling in a subsequent consultation. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome was patients' self reported hazardous or harmful drinking status as measured by the alcohol use disorders identification test (AUDIT) at six months. A negative AUDIT result (score <8) indicated non-hazardous or non-harmful drinking. Secondary outcomes were a negative AUDIT result at 12 months, experience of alcohol related problems (alcohol problems questionnaire), health utility (EQ-5D), service utilisation, and patients' motivation to change drinking behaviour (readiness to change) as measured by a modified readiness ruler. RESULTS: Patient follow-up rates were 83% at six months (n=644) and 79% at 12 months (n=617). At both time points an intention to treat analysis found no significant differences in AUDIT negative status between the three interventions. Compared with the patient information leaflet group, the odds ratio of having a negative AUDIT result for brief advice was 0.85 (95% confidence interval 0.52 to 1.39) and for brief lifestyle counselling was 0.78 (0.48 to 1.25). A per protocol analysis confirmed these findings. CONCLUSIONS: All patients received simple feedback on their screening outcome. Beyond this input, however, evidence that brief advice or brief lifestyle counselling provided important additional benefit in reducing hazardous or harmful drinking compared with the patient information leaflet was lacking. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN06145674.

Screening and brief interventions for hazardous and harmful alcohol use in probation services: a cluster randomised controlled trial protocol.

BACKGROUND: A large number of randomised controlled trials in health settings have consistently reported positive effects of brief intervention in terms of reductions in alcohol use. However, although alcohol misuse is common amongst offenders, there is limited evidence of alcohol brief interventions in the criminal justice field. This factorial pragmatic cluster randomised controlled trial with Offender Managers (OMs) as the unit of randomisation will evaluate the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of different models of screening to identify hazardous and harmful drinkers in probation and different intensities of brief intervention to reduce excessive drinking in probation clients. METHODS AND DESIGN: Ninety-six OMs from 9 probation areas across 3 English regions (the North East Region (n = 4) and London and the South East Regions (n = 5)) will be recruited. OMs will be randomly allocated to one of three intervention conditions: a client information leaflet control condition (n = 32 OMs); 5-minute simple structured advice (n = 32 OMs) and 20-minute brief lifestyle counselling delivered by an Alcohol Health Worker (n = 32 OMs). Randomisation will be stratified by probation area. To test the relative effectiveness of different screening methods all OMs will be randomised to either the Modified Single Item Screening Questionnaire (M-SASQ) or the Fast Alcohol Screening Test (FAST). There will be a minimum of 480 clients recruited into the trial. There will be an intention to treat analysis of study outcomes at 6 and 12 months post intervention. Analysis will include client measures (screening result, weekly alcohol consumption, alcohol-related problems, re-offending, public service use and quality of life) and implementation measures from OMs (the extent of screening and brief intervention beyond the minimum recruitment threshold will provide data on acceptability and feasibility of different models of brief intervention). We will also examine the practitioner and organisational factors associated with successful implementation. DISCUSSION: The trial will evaluate the impact of screening and brief alcohol intervention in routine probation work and therefore its findings will be highly relevant to probation teams and thus the criminal justice system in the UK.Ethical approval was given by Northern & Yorkshire REC. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN 19160244.

Screening and brief interventions for hazardous and harmful alcohol use in primary care: a cluster randomised controlled trial protocol.

BACKGROUND: There have been many randomized controlled trials of screening and brief alcohol intervention in primary care. Most trials have reported positive effects of brief intervention, in terms of reduced alcohol consumption in excessive drinkers. Despite this considerable evidence-base, key questions remain unanswered including: the applicability of the evidence to routine practice; the most efficient strategy for screening patients; and the required intensity of brief intervention in primary care. This pragmatic factorial trial, with cluster randomization of practices, will evaluate the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of different models of screening to identify hazardous and harmful drinkers in primary care and different intensities of brief intervention to reduce excessive drinking in primary care patients. METHODS AND DESIGN: GPs and nurses from 24 practices across the North East (n=12), London and South East (n=12) of England will be recruited. Practices will be randomly allocated to one of three intervention conditions: a leaflet-only control group (n=8); brief structured advice (n=8); and brief lifestyle counselling (n=8). To test the relative effectiveness of different screening methods all practices will also be randomised to either a universal or targeted screening approach and to use either a modified single item (M-SASQ) or FAST screening tool. Screening randomisation will incorporate stratification by geographical area and intervention condition. During the intervention stage of the trial, practices in each of the three arms will recruit at least 31 hazardous or harmful drinkers who will receive a short baseline assessment followed by brief intervention. Thus there will be a minimum of 744 patients recruited into the trial. DISCUSSION: The trial will evaluate the impact of screening and brief alcohol intervention in routine practice; thus its findings will be highly relevant to clinicians working in primary care in the UK. There will be an intention to treat analysis of study outcomes at 6 and 12 months after intervention. Analyses will include patient measures (screening result, weekly alcohol consumption, alcohol-related problems, public service use and quality of life) and implementation measures from practice staff (the acceptability and feasibility of different models of brief intervention.) We will also examine organisational factors associated with successful implementation. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN06145674.

Screening and brief interventions for hazardous alcohol use in accident and emergency departments: a randomised controlled trial protocol.

BACKGROUND: There is a wealth of evidence regarding the detrimental impact of excessive alcohol consumption on the physical, psychological and social health of the population. There also exists a substantial evidence base for the efficacy of brief interventions aimed at reducing alcohol consumption across a range of healthcare settings. Primary research conducted in emergency departments has reinforced the current evidence regarding the potential effectiveness and cost-effectiveness. Within this body of evidence there is marked variation in the intensity of brief intervention delivered, from very minimal interventions to more intensive behavioural or lifestyle counselling approaches. Further the majority of primary research has been conducted in single centre and there is little evidence of the wider issues of generalisability and implementation of brief interventions across emergency departments. METHODS/DESIGN: The study design is a prospective pragmatic factorial cluster randomised controlled trial. Individual Emergency Departments (ED) (n = 9) are randomised with equal probability to a combination of screening tool (M-SASQ vs FAST vs SIPS-PAT) and an intervention (Minimal intervention vs Brief advice vs Brief lifestyle counselling). The primary hypothesis is that brief lifestyle counselling delivered by an Alcohol Health Worker (AHW) is more effective than Brief Advice or a minimal intervention delivered by ED staff. Secondary hypotheses address whether short screening instruments are more acceptable and as efficient as longer screening instruments and the cost-effectiveness of screening and brief interventions in ED. Individual participants will be followed up at 6 and 12 months after consent. The primary outcome measure is performance using a gold-standard screening test (AUDIT). Secondary outcomes include; quantity and frequency of alcohol consumed, alcohol-related problems, motivation to change, health related quality of life and service utilisation. DISCUSSION: This paper presents a protocol for a large multi-centre pragmatic factorial cluster randomised trial to evaluate the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of screening and brief interventions for hazardous alcohol users attending emergency departments. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN 93681536.

Brain dopamine response in human opioid addiction.

BACKGROUND: Drugs of dependence cause dopamine release in the rat striatum. Human neuroimaging studies have shown an increase in dopamine in the equivalent region in response to stimulants and other drugs. AIMS: We tested whether opioids provoke dopamine release and its relationship to the subjective experience. METHOD: In two combined studies 14 heroin addicts on methadone maintenance treatment underwent two positron emission tomography brain scans of the dopamine system using [(11)C]-raclopride following an injection of placebo and either 50 mg intravenous diamorphine or 10 mg subcutaneous hydromorphone in a double-blind, random order design. RESULTS: Both opioids produced marked subjective and physiological effects, but no measurable change in [(11)C]-raclopride binding. CONCLUSIONS: The absence of a dopamine response to opioid agonists contrasts with that found with stimulant drugs and suggests dopamine may not play the same role in addiction to opioids. This questions the role of dopamine in the subjective experience of heroin in opioid addicts.

Artefact or reality? Increases in persons notified to the Regional Drug Misuse Database in the South West of England, 1996-2001.

The incidence of new persons and repeat attenders presenting for treatment for problem drug misuse in the South West of England more than doubled from 1996-1997 to 2000-2001. During this time there was an increase in the number and severity of chronic cases, both in terms of the prevalence of heroin and crack-cocaine use and in the frequency of injecting and sharing injecting equipment. Growth in the availability of treatment, changes in notification practice and sub-regional variation make it difficult to be confident about real rates of increase, or age, gender and substance misuse changes, but the size of these changes mean they are unlikely to be purely artefactal.

The clinical use of buprenorphine in opiate addiction: evidence and practice.

Buprenorphine is a partial µ-opioid receptor agonist that is being increasingly used in clinical practice in the treatment of opioid dependence in the UK, USA, and, elsewhere. Its unique pharmacological properties mean it is a relatively safe drug, it can be given by alternate day dispensing, and it is associated with relatively mild symptoms on withdrawal. The interpretation of the research literature on buprenorphine is however, complex, and often appears to be in conflict with how buprenorphine is used in clinical practice. This article describes these apparent contradictions, their likely explanations, and how these may further inform our clinical practice. The article also describes the clinically relevant pharmacological properties of buprenorphine, compares it to methadone, relates the evidence to clinical experience, and provides practical advice on how to manage the most common clinical techniques. The best quality evidence suggests that very rapid buprenorphine induction is not associated with a higher drop-out rate than methadone, that buprenorphine is probably as good as methadone for maintenance treatment, and is superior to methadone and α-2 adrenergic agonists for detoxification. However, buprenorphine cannot yet be considered the 'gold standard' treatment for opiate dependence because of the higher drop-out rates that may occur on induction using current techniques, its high-cost relative to methadone, and because the place of buprenorphine in treatment is still continuing to evolve.