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.

Analysis of the UK Government's 10-Year Drugs Strategy-a resource for practitioners and policymakers.

In 2021, during a drug-related death crisis in the UK, the Government published its ten-year drugs strategy. This article, written in collaboration with the Faculty of Public Health and the Association of Directors of Public Health, assesses whether this Strategy is evidence-based and consistent with international calls to promote public health approaches to drugs, which put 'people, health and human rights at the centre'. Elements of the Strategy are welcome, including the promise of significant funding for drug treatment services, the effects of which will depend on how it is utilized by services and local commissioners and whether it is sustained. However, unevidenced and harmful measures to deter drug use by means of punishment continue to be promoted, which will have deleterious impacts on people who use drugs. An effective public health approach to drugs should tackle population-level risk factors, which may predispose to harmful patterns of drug use, including adverse childhood experiences and socioeconomic deprivation, and institute evidence-based measures to mitigate drug-related harm. This would likely be more effective, and just, than the continuation of policies rooted in enforcement. A more dramatic re-orientation of UK drug policy than that offered by the Strategy is overdue.

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.

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.

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

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

Comparing Glycaemic Benefits of Active Versus Passive Lifestyle Intervention in Kidney Allograft Recipients: A Randomized Controlled Trial.

BACKGROUND: New-onset diabetes is common after kidney transplantation, but the benefit of lifestyle intervention to improve glucose metabolism posttransplantation is unproven. METHODS: We conducted a single-center, randomized controlled trial involving 130 nondiabetic kidney transplant recipients with stable function between 3 and 24 months post-transplantation. Participants were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive active intervention (lifestyle advice delivered by renal dietitians using behavior change techniques) versus passive intervention (leaflet advice alone). Primary outcome was 6-month change in insulin secretion, insulin sensitivity, and disposition index. Secondary outcomes included patient-reported outcomes, cardiometabolic parameters, clinical outcomes, and safety endpoints. RESULTS: Between August 17, 2015 and December 18, 2017, 130 individuals were recruited, of whom 103 completed the study (drop-out rate 20.8%). Active versus passive intervention was not associated with any change in glucose metabolism: insulin secretion (mean difference, -446; 95% confidence interval [CI], -3184 to 2292; P = 0.748), insulin sensitivity (mean difference, -0.45; 95% CI, -1.34 to 0.44; P = 0.319), or disposition index (mean difference, -940; 95% CI, -5655 to 3775; P = 0.693). Clinically, active versus passive lifestyle intervention resulted in reduced incidence of posttransplantation diabetes (7.6% versus 15.6%, respectively, P = 0.123), reduction in fat mass (mean difference, -1.537 kg; 95% CI, -2.947 to -0.127; P = 0.033), and improvement in weight (mean difference, -2.47 kg; 95% CI, -4.01 to -0.92; P = 0.002). No serious adverse events were noted. CONCLUSIONS: Active lifestyle intervention led by renal dietitians did not improve surrogate markers of glucose metabolism. Further investigation is warranted to determine if clinical outcomes can be improved using this methodology.

Frailty Intervention Trial iN End-Stage patientS on haemodialysis (FITNESS): study protocol for a randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Frailty is a state of low physiological reserve and multi-systemic dysregulation that leads to susceptibility to external stressors; it is associated with adverse outcomes. North American data suggest that haemodialysis recipients are more likely to be frail than the general population, although data on UK cohorts are lacking. Furthermore, with a multitude of assessment tools, it is difficult for the clinician to ascertain which is most suitable for this population. The FITNESS Study aims to measure the prevalence and outcomes associated with frailty in a large UK haemodialysis cohort to determine the optimum frailty tool as defined by predictive value for mortality/hospitalisation and to conduct a feasibility study exploring a multi-disciplinary clinical intervention to improve frailty among haemodialysis recipients. METHODS/DESIGN: The study will follow a cohort multiple randomised controlled trial design; the initial cohort study will identify participants to be invited into a subsequent open-label randomised controlled trial. Eligible patients will be identified and recruited from their usual haemodialysis session. They will be invited to complete tasks and questionnaires collecting data on sarcopenia, immunosenescence, mood, cognition, disability, and comorbidity. Fifty pre-frail participants with suitable English proficiency will be randomly selected from this cohort to participate in the randomised controlled trial phase of the study. Further stratified randomisation will occur to assign these 50 participants to active or passive groups. The active group will receive a psychologically supported, patient-centred, multi-disciplinary intervention into frailty, in what we believe to be a first within this patient group. The control group will receive usual haemodialysis standard of care. All participants will be followed up using electronic patient records for outcomes to include hospitalisation and mortality. Primary outcomes for this phase of the study will be feasibility and tolerability of the clinical intervention study. DISCUSSION: The study will collect data on multiple aspects of frailty allowing for a rich dataset for detailed analysis. We believe this will be the first study to explore a psychologically supported, patient-centred intervention in this patient group. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinicaltrials.gov, NCT03071107 . Registered on 6 March 2017.

Excess overdose mortality immediately following transfer of patients and their care as well as after cessation of opioid substitution therapy.

AIMS: To investigate clustering of all-cause and overdose deaths after a transfer of patients and their care to alternative treatment provider and after the end of opioid substitution therapy (OST) in opioid-dependent individuals in specialist addiction treatment. DESIGN, SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: Mortality data were identified within a sample of 5335 patients with opioid use disorder who had received OST treatment between 1 April 2008 and 31 December 2013 from a large mental health-care provider in the United Kingdom. We investigated the circumstances and distribution of the 332 deaths identified within the observation window with a specific focus on overdose deaths (n = 103) after a planned discharge, dropout and transfer between services. MEASUREMENTS: Crude mortality rates for overdose mortality 14 days, 28 days and more than 1 month after the end of treatment/transfer for overdose mortality. FINDINGS: Of 47 individuals who died from overdose after having been transferred between services, nine died during the first 2 weeks [crude mortality rate (CMR) = 136.4, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 64.3-243.1] and a further five died during the first month post-transfer (CMR= 79.5, 95% CI = 44.2-129.7). Of the 32 individuals who died from overdose after planned OST cessation, five died during the first 2 weeks (CMR = 151.5, 95% CI = 51.1-319.0) and a further four died during the first month post-discharge (CMR = 82.6, 95% CI = 38.4-151.0). CONCLUSIONS: In the United Kingdom, opioid-dependent people who are transferred to an alternative treatment provider for continuation of their opioid substitution therapy experience high overdose mortality rates, with substantially higher rates during the first month (especially during the first 14 days) following transfer.

Comparing glycaemic benefits of Active Versus passive lifestyle Intervention in kidney Allograft Recipients (CAVIAR): study protocol for a randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Lifestyle modification is widely recommended to kidney allograft recipients post transplantation due to the cardiometabolic risks associated with immunosuppression including new-onset diabetes, weight gain and cardiovascular events. However, we have no actual evidence that undertaking lifestyle modification protects from any adverse outcomes post transplantation. The aim of this study is to compare whether a more proactive versus passive interventional approach to modify lifestyle is associated with superior outcomes post kidney transplantation. METHODS/DESIGN: We designed this prospective, single-centre, open-label, randomised controlled study to compare the efficacy of active versus passive lifestyle intervention for kidney allograft recipients early post transplantation. A total of 130 eligible patients, who are stable, nondiabetic and between 3 and 24 months post kidney transplantation, will be recruited. Randomisation is being undertaken by random block permutations into passive (n = 65, leaflet guidance only) versus active lifestyle modification (n = 65, supervised intervention) over a 6-month period. Supervised intervention is being facilitated by two dietitians during the 6-month intervention period to provide continuous lifestyle intervention guidance, support and encouragement. Both dietitians are accredited with behavioural intervention skills and will utilise motivational aids to support study recruits randomised to active intervention. The primary outcome is change in abnormal glucose metabolism parameters after 6 months of comparing active versus passive lifestyle intervention. Secondary outcomes include changes in a wide array of cardiometabolic parameters, kidney allograft function and patient-reported outcome measures. Long-term tracking of patients via data linkage to electronic patient records and national registries will facilitate long-term comparison of outcomes after active versus passive lifestyle intervention beyond the 6-month intervention period. DISCUSSION: This is the first randomised controlled study to investigate the benefits of active versus passive lifestyle intervention in kidney allograft recipients for the prevention of abnormal cardiometabolic outcomes. In addition, this is the first example of utilising behaviour therapy intervention post kidney transplantation to achieve clinically beneficial outcomes, which has potential implications on many spheres of post-transplant care. TRIAL REGISTRATION: This study was registered with the Clinical Trials Registry on 27 August 2014 (ClinicalTrials.org Identifier: NCT02233491 ).

Mobile phone ownership, usage and readiness to use by patients in drug treatment.

BACKGROUND: Mobile phone based interventions using text-messages and smartphone apps demonstrate promise for enhancing the treatment of substance use disorders. However, there is limited evidence on the availability of mobile phones among people in substance use treatment, as well as usage patterns, contact preferences and willingness to use phone functions such as geo-location for treatment purposes. METHOD: A questionnaire was completed by 398 patients enrolled in four UK community drug treatment services. The majority (74%) reported being in treatment for heroin dependence, 9% for alcohol, 4% prescription drugs, 1% amphetamines, 1% club drugs and 1% cannabis. The remaining reported a combination of different drug categories. RESULTS: Eighty-three percent of patients reported owning a mobile phone; 57% of phones were smartphones and 72% of clients had a pay-as-you-go contract. Forty-six percent of phone owners changed their number in the previous year. Eighty-six percent were willing to be contacted by their treatment provider via mobile phone, although 46% thought the use of geo-location to be unacceptable. CONCLUSION: Mobile phones are widely available among individuals receiving community drug treatment and should be considered as a viable contact method by service providers, particularly text-messaging. However, patients may not have access to sophisticated features such as smartphone apps, and, up to date records of contact numbers must be frequently maintained. Developers need to be sensitive to issues of privacy and invasiveness around geo-location tracking and frequency of contact.

Pharmacological treatments for drug misuse and dependence.

INTRODUCTION: Substance misuse disorder (DSM-5) remains a major health challenge. Harm reduction is the initial treatment goal, by reducing or eliminating non-prescribed drug use. Eventual abstinence is the ultimate harm reduction goal. However the scope for evidence-based pharmacological interventions remains limited. AREAS COVERED: The paper takes a pragmatic clinical approach to existing and developing pharmacotherapies for substance misuse. Dependence may be characterised as a cycle with three stages: binge/intoxication, withdrawal/negative affect and preoccupation/anticipation (craving). Each of these stages may be the focus of pharmacotherapeutic intervention, and current literature is discussed which is of relevance to the practising clinician. Dependence on opiates, stimulants, cannabis and prescribed medications including benzodiazepines and the current treatments are addressed. EXPERT OPINION: Possible pharmacotherapies of the future include anti-craving medications, which are still incompletely understood. Other developments include ultra-long-acting formulations, some of which have already been produced and are being studied or are in early clinical practice. A completely new line of investigation has been drug 'vaccines', whereby the body is stimulated to produce antibodies to, for example, cocaine and nicotine. Despite a number of evidence-based strategies for the treatment of substance misuse disorder, the range of licensed pharmacological treatment choices nevertheless remains narrow.

Development of the Addiction Dimensions for Assessment and Personalised Treatment (ADAPT).

BACKGROUND: Convergent research reveals heterogeneity in substance use disorders (SUD). The Addiction Dimensions for Assessment and Personalised Treatment (ADAPT) is designed to help clinicians tailor therapies. METHODS: Multicentre study in 21 SUD clinics in London, Birmingham (England) and Adelaide (Australia). 132 clinicians rated their caseload on a beta version with 16 ordinal indicators of addiction severity, health and social problem complexity, and recovery strengths constructs. In Birmingham, two in-treatment outcomes were recorded after 15-months: 28-day drug use (Treatment Outcome Profile; n=703) and Global Assessment of Functioning (GAF; DSM-IV Axis V; n=695). Following item-level screening (inter-rater reliability [IRR]; n=388), exploratory structural equation models (ESEM), latent profile analysis (LPA), and mixed-effects regression evaluated construct, concurrent and predictive validity characteristics, respectively. RESULTS: 2467 patients rated (majority opioid or stimulant dependent, enrolled in opioid medication assisted or psychological treatment). IRR-screening removed two items and ESEM models identified and recalibrated remaining indicators (root mean square error of approximation 0.066 [90% confidence interval 0.055-0.064]). Following minor re-specification and satisfactory measurement invariance evaluation, ADAPT factor scores discriminated patients by sample, addiction therapy and drug use. LPA identified three patient sub-types: Class 1 (moderate severity, moderate complexity, high strengths profile; 46.9%); Class 2 (low severity, low complexity, high strengths; 25.4%) and Class 3 (high severity, high complexity, low strengths; 27.7%). Class 2 had higher GAF (z=4.30). Class 3 predicted follow-up drug use (z=2.02) and lower GAF (z=3.51). CONCLUSION: The ADAPT is a valid instrument for SUD treatment planning, clinical review and outcome evaluation. Scoring and application are discussed.

Alcohol and substance abuse in solid-organ transplant recipients.

This review focuses on alcohol and substance abuse in the context of solid-organ transplantation. Alcohol and substance abuse are common and may lead to a need for solid-organ transplantation and may also contribute to significant physical and psychologic problems that impact upon the recipient. Damaging levels of alcohol intake can occur in the absence of dependence. Alcohol or substance abuse after transplantation is associated with poor medication compliance and this may increase risk of graft loss. Intravenous drug use is associated with increased risk of infections (especially secondary to opportunistic organisms-bacterial, viral, protozoal, and others-and such infections may be more severe in the immunosuppressed), but there is only anecdotal evidence that such behavior has a worse outcome in transplant recipients. Whereas previous alcohol excess and drug use in kidney recipients are both associated with a small but statistically significantly increased risk of adverse outcomes (hazard ratio, 1.16-1.56), alcohol use within recommended guidelines after transplantation appears safe and possibly beneficial. Robust data are lacking for other organs, but those available suggest that heart transplantation is safe in individuals with a history of alcohol or substance abuse. Health specialists in drug or alcohol addiction should carefully screen all potential transplant candidates for these conditions, and where there is evidence of dependency or abuse, effective psychologic and physical treatment should be offered. Studies have shown that interventions such as psychologic intervention have improved alcohol behavior in the context of liver transplantation. Although there are no comparable studies with other solid-organ recipients, it is reasonable to expect transferable outcomes.

Pilot study of a social network intervention for heroin users in opiate substitution treatment: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Research indicates that 3% of people receiving opiate substitution treatment (OST) in the UK manage to achieve abstinence from all prescribed and illicit drugs within 3 years of commencing treatment, and there is concern that treatment services have become skilled at engaging people but not at helping them to enter a stage of recovery and drug abstinence. The National Treatment Agency for Substance Misuse recommends the involvement of families and wider social networks in supporting drug users' psychological treatment, and this pilot randomized controlled trial aims to evaluate the impact of a social network-focused intervention for patients receiving OST. METHODS AND DESIGN: In this two-site, early phase, randomized controlled trial, a total of 120 patients receiving OST will be recruited and randomized to receive one of three treatments: 1) Brief Social Behavior and Network Therapy (B-SBNT), 2) Personal Goal Setting (PGS) or 3) treatment as usual. Randomization will take place following baseline assessment. Participants allocated to receive B-SBNT or PGS will continue to receive the same treatment that is routinely provided by drug treatment services, plus four additional sessions of either intervention. Outcomes will be assessed at baseline, 3 and 12 months. The primary outcome will be assessment of illicit heroin use, measured by both urinary analysis and self-report. Secondary outcomes involve assessment of dependence, psychological symptoms, social satisfaction, motivation to change, quality of life and therapeutic engagement. Family members (n = 120) of patients involved in the trial will also be assessed to measure the level of symptoms, coping and the impact of the addiction problem on the family member at baseline, 3 and 12 months. DISCUSSION: This study will provide experimental data regarding the feasibility and efficacy of implementing a social network intervention within routine drug treatment services in the UK National Health Service. The study will explore the impact of the intervention on both patients receiving drug treatment and their family members. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN22608399. ISRCTN22608399 registration: 27/04/2012. Date of first randomisation: 14/08/2012.