Cannabis use during methadone maintenance treatment for opioid use disorder: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Rates of cannabis use among patients receiving methadone maintenance therapy are high, and cannabis use may be associated with outcomes of methadone maintenance therapy. We examined the effect of cannabis use on opioid use in patients receiving methadone maintenance therapy to test the hypothesis that cannabis use is associated with a reduction in opioid use. METHODS: In this systematic review, we searched MEDLINE/PubMed, Embase, PsycINFO, CINAHL and ProQuest Dissertations and Theses Global from inception to July 12, 2018. We summarized the effects of cannabis use on opioid use during methadone maintenance therapy and treatment retention. We conducted meta-analyses using a random effects model. RESULTS: We included 23 studies in our review. We performed a meta-analysis of 6 studies, with a total number of participants of 3676, examining use of cannabis and opioids during methadone maintenance therapy. Owing to high heterogeneity, we described the studies qualitatively but provide the forest plots as supplemental material. The overall quality of evidence was very low, with a high risk of bias, owing to the nature of observational studies. INTERPRETATION: We found no consensus among studies that cannabis use is associated with reduced opioid use or longer treatment retention when used during methadone maintenance therapy in patients with opioid use disorder. PROSPERO Registration: CRD42015029372.

Sociodemographic characteristics of patients with children in a methadone maintenance program: a cross-sectional study.

BACKGROUND: Ever-increasing numbers of opioid use disorder (OUD) in Canada has created the recent opioid crisis. One common treatment for OUD is methadone maintenance treatment (MMT). Various factors, including being a parent which entails specific stressors, may increase susceptibility to negative treatment outcomes. This study aims to investigate differences between OUD patients with and without children in socio-demographic and clinical outcomes. METHODS: Data for this study are part of a larger program. All participants are 18+ years old with OUD, provided consent, and receiving MMT. We performed a multivariable logistic regression to examine the differences between participants' parental status, sociodemographic variables, and clinical parameters including MMT outcomes. We performed subgroup analyses on individuals with children younger than 18. RESULTS: A total of 1099 participants were included, with 64% having children. Participants with children were older (OR 1.06, 95% CI 1.04, 1.08), more likely to be female (OR 2.39, 95% CI 1.75, 3.27), living with a partner (OR 1.75, 95% CI 1.27, 2.41), first exposed to opioids through a prescription (OR 1.517, 95% CI 1.13, 2.04) and had lower levels of education (OR 1.86, 95% CI 1.20, 2.87). There was no significant difference in illicit opioid use patterns between groups. Same results held true in the subgroup analyses based on the age of the children except for participant age. CONCLUSION: Our results demonstrate social and demographic differences between parents and non-parents receiving MMT. These differences highlight the need to understand necessary additional support for parents such as child support and other necessary therapies.

Does the medical literature remain inadequately described despite having reporting guidelines for 21 years? - A systematic review of reviews: an update.

PURPOSE: Reporting guidelines (eg, Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials [CONSORT] statement) are intended to improve reporting standards and enhance the transparency and reproducibility of research findings. Despite accessibility of such guidelines, researchers are not required to adhere to them. Our goal was to determine the current status of reporting quality in the medical literature and examine whether adherence of reporting guidelines has improved since the inception of reporting guidelines. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Eight reporting guidelines, such as CONSORT, Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA), STrengthening the Reporting of OBservational studies in Epidemiology (STROBE), Quality of Reporting of Meta-analysis (QUOROM), STAndards for Reporting of Diagnostic accuracy (STARD), Animal Research: Reporting In Vivo Experiments (ARRIVE), Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS), and Meta-analysis of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (MOOSE) were examined. Our inclusion criteria included reviews published between January 1996 to September 2016 which investigated the adherence to reporting guidelines in the literature that addressed clinical trials, systematic reviews, observational studies, meta-analysis, diagnostic accuracy, economic evaluations, and preclinical animal studies that were in English. All reviews were found on Web of Science, Excerpta Medical Database (EMBASE), MEDLINE, and Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL). RESULTS: Among the general searching of 26,819 studies by using the designed searching method, 124 studies were included post screening. We found that 87.9% of the included studies reported suboptimal adherence to reporting guidelines. Factors associated with poor adherence included non-pharmacological interventions, year of publication, and trials concluding with significant results. Improved adherence was associated with better study designs such as allocation concealment, random sequence, large sample sizes, adequately powered studies, multiple authorships, and being published in journals endorsing guidelines. CONCLUSION: We conclude that the level of adherence to reporting guidelines remains suboptimal. Endorsement of reporting guidelines by journals is important and recommended.

Profile of suicide attempts and risk factors among psychiatric patients: A case-control study.

BACKGROUND: Suicidal behaviour remains challenging for clinicians to predict, with few established risk factors and warning signs among psychiatric patients. AIM: We aimed to describe characteristics and identify risk factors for suicide attempts among patients with psychiatric disorders. METHODS: Multivariable logistic regression analysis, adjusted for clinically important confounders, was employed to determine risk factors for suicide attempts within a psychiatric patient population. RESULTS: The case (n = 146) and control groups (n = 104) did not differ significantly with regards to sociodemographic characteristics. The majority of the participants who had attempted suicide did so with high intent to die, and expected to die without medical intervention. The primary method of attempt was pharmaceutical overdose among the case participants (73.3%). Results showed impulsivity (odds ratio [OR] = 1.15, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.03-1.30) and borderline personality symptoms (OR = 1.07, 95% CI = 1.01-1.13) were significantly associated with attempted suicide. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings indicate that known sociodemographic risk factors for suicide may not apply within psychiatric populations. Prevention strategies for suicidal behaviour in psychiatric patients may be effective, including limited access to means for suicide attempts (i.e. excess pharmaceutical drugs) and target screening for high-risk personality and impulsivity traits.

A systematic review of comparisons between protocols or registrations and full reports in primary biomedical research.

BACKGROUND: Prospective study protocols and registrations can play a significant role in reducing incomplete or selective reporting of primary biomedical research, because they are pre-specified blueprints which are available for the evaluation of, and comparison with, full reports. However, inconsistencies between protocols or registrations and full reports have been frequently documented. In this systematic review, which forms part of our series on the state of reporting of primary biomedical, we aimed to survey the existing evidence of inconsistencies between protocols or registrations (i.e., what was planned to be done and/or what was actually done) and full reports (i.e., what was reported in the literature); this was based on findings from systematic reviews and surveys in the literature. METHODS: Electronic databases, including CINAHL, MEDLINE, Web of Science, and EMBASE, were searched to identify eligible surveys and systematic reviews. Our primary outcome was the level of inconsistency (expressed as a percentage, with higher percentages indicating greater inconsistency) between protocols or registration and full reports. We summarized the findings from the included systematic reviews and surveys qualitatively. RESULTS: There were 37 studies (33 surveys and 4 systematic reviews) included in our analyses. Most studies (n = 36) compared protocols or registrations with full reports in clinical trials, while a single survey focused on primary studies of clinical trials and observational research. High inconsistency levels were found in outcome reporting (ranging from 14% to 100%), subgroup reporting (from 12% to 100%), statistical analyses (from 9% to 47%), and other measure comparisons. Some factors, such as outcomes with significant results, sponsorship, type of outcome and disease speciality were reported to be significantly related to inconsistent reporting. CONCLUSIONS: We found that inconsistent reporting between protocols or registrations and full reports of primary biomedical research is frequent, prevalent and suboptimal. We also identified methodological issues such as the need for consensus on measuring inconsistency across sources for trial reports, and more studies evaluating transparency and reproducibility in reporting all aspects of study design and analysis. A joint effort involving authors, journals, sponsors, regulators and research ethics committees is required to solve this problem.

Treatment outcomes in patients with opioid use disorder initiated by prescription: a systematic review protocol.

BACKGROUND: In North America, opioid use has become a public health crisis with policy makers declaring it a state of emergency. Opioid substitution therapy (OST) is a harm-reduction method used in treating opioid use disorder. While OST has shown to be successful in improving treatment outcomes, there is still a great degree of variability among patients. This cohort of patients has shifted from young males using heroin to a greater number of older people and women using prescription opioids. The primary objective of this review is to examine the literature on the association between the first exposure to opioids through prescription versus illicit use and OST treatment outcomes. METHOD: An electronic search will be conducted on the EMBASE, MEDLINE, PsycINFO, and Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL) databases. Two independent reviewers will conduct the initial title and abstract screenings using predetermined criteria for inclusion and exclusion. Reviewers will then conduct full-text data extraction using a pilot-tested data extraction form in duplicate. A third author will resolve disagreements if consensus cannot be reached. Quality and risk of bias assessment will be conducted along with a sensitivity analysis for all included studies. Qualitative summary of the evidence will be provided, and when possible, a meta-analysis will be conducted, along with heterogeneity calculation. The reporting of this protocol follows the PRISMA-P. DISCUSSION: We expect that this review will help determine whether patients that were initially exposed to opioids through a prescription differ in OST treatment outcomes in comparison to people who used opioids through illicit means. We hope that this review will provide evidence related to prescription opioids exposure and future treatment outcomes, which will aid clinicians in their decisions to prescribe opioids or not for specific populations at risk. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42017058143.

A scoping review of comparisons between abstracts and full reports in primary biomedical research.

BACKGROUND: Evidence shows that research abstracts are commonly inconsistent with their corresponding full reports, and may mislead readers. In this scoping review, which is part of our series on the state of reporting of primary biomedical research, we summarized the evidence from systematic reviews and surveys, to investigate the current state of inconsistent abstract reporting, and to evaluate factors associated with improved reporting by comparing abstracts and their full reports. METHODS: We searched EMBASE, Web of Science, MEDLINE, and CINAHL from January 1st 1996 to September 30th 2016 to retrieve eligible systematic reviews and surveys. Our primary outcome was the level of inconsistency between abstracts and corresponding full reports, which was expressed as a percentage (with a lower percentage indicating better reporting) or categorized rating (such as major/minor difference, high/medium/low inconsistency), as reported by the authors. We used medians and interquartile ranges to describe the level of inconsistency across studies. No quantitative syntheses were conducted. Data from the included systematic reviews or surveys was summarized qualitatively. RESULTS: Seventeen studies that addressed this topic were included. The level of inconsistency was reported to have a median of 39% (interquartile range: 14% - 54%), and to range from 4% to 78%. In some studies that separated major from minor inconsistency, the level of major inconsistency ranged from 5% to 45% (median: 19%, interquartile range: 7% - 31%), which included discrepancies in specifying the study design or sample size, designating a primary outcome measure, presenting main results, and drawing a conclusion. A longer time interval between conference abstracts and the publication of full reports was found to be the only factor which was marginally or significantly associated with increased likelihood of reporting inconsistencies. CONCLUSIONS: This scoping review revealed that abstracts are frequently inconsistent with full reports, and efforts are needed to improve the consistency of abstract reporting in the primary biomedical community.

Acceptability of the Fitbit in behavioural activation therapy for depression: a qualitative study.

INTRODUCTION: Major depressive disorder is characterised by low mood and poor motivation. Literature suggests that increased physical activity has positive effects on alleviating depression. Fitness-tracking devices may complement behavioural activation (BA) therapy to improve physical activity and mental health in patients with depression. OBJECTIVES: To understand patients' perceived benefit from the Fitbit and explore themes associated with patient experiences. To compare perceived benefit, patient factors, Fitbit usage and Beck's Depression Inventory (BDI) scores. METHODS: Semistructured interviews were conducted with patients (n=36) who completed a 28-week BA group programme in a mood disorders outpatient clinic. All patients were asked to carry a Fitbit One device. We conducted thematic analyses on the interviews and exploratory quantitative analyses on patient characteristics, Fitbit usage, steps recorded, perceived benefit and BDI scores. FINDINGS: Twenty-three patients found the Fitbit helpful for their physical activity. Themes of positive experiences included self-awareness, peer motivation and goal-setting opportunities. Negative themes included inconvenience, inaccuracies and disinterest. Age, baseline and change in BDI scores, prior physical activity goals and familiarity with technology were not associated with perceived benefit from the Fitbit or usage. Perceived benefit was significantly (p<0.01) associated with usage. CONCLUSIONS: Overall, the Fitbit is an acceptable tool to complement BA therapy for patients with depression. Many positive themes were concordant with current literature; however, patients also reported negative aspects that may affect use. CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS: Clinicians and researchers should consider both strengths and limitations of activity trackers when implementing them to motivate patients with depression. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT02045771; Pre-results.

Adverse outcomes associated with opioid prescription for acute low back pain: a systematic review protocol.

BACKGROUND: Acute low back pain (ALBP) is the top cause of global disability, demonstrating a significant impact on individuals and society and demanding the need for appropriate management. There is a trend towards an increasing number of opioid prescriptions for ALBP despite the lack of investigation for its various short- and long-term outcomes. The objective of this review is to examine adverse outcomes associated with opioid use for ALBP. METHODS/DESIGN: Using a search strategy, the search will be conducted using the following electronic databases: PubMed/MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), Web of Science, Cochrane Library, the National Institutes for Health Clinical Trials Registry and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (WHO ICTRP). We will include randomized clinical trials and observational studies investigating the impact of opioid use in ALBP in the adult population. All phases of screening, data extraction and assessment of methodological quality will be performed by two independent reviewers. We will perform quality and risk of bias assessment for the included articles and compare high and low risk of bias with a sensitivity analysis. We will conduct random- and fixed-effects meta-analyses with heterogeneity calculated using the I 2 statistic and evaluate publication bias. DISCUSSION: There are current guidelines published to alert clinicians in prescribing opioids for ALBP due to its likelihood of misuse, yet there is little change in prescribing patterns. To date, there is an absence of systematic information about the outcomes of prescription opioid in patients with ALBP. We will address this gap by providing evidence that will be useful for clinical practice. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42016033090.

"Don't Judge a Book Its Cover": A Qualitative Study of Methadone Patients' Experiences of Stigma.

INTRODUCTION: Despite its efficacy and widespread use, methadone maintenance treatment (MMT) continues to be widely stigmatized. Reducing the stigma surrounding MMT will help improve the accessibility, retention, and treatment outcomes in MMT. METHODS: Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 18 adults undergoing MMT. Thematic content analysis was used to identify overarching themes. RESULTS: In total, 78% of participants reported having experienced stigma surrounding MMT. Common stereotypes associated with MMT patients included the following: methadone as a way to get high, incompetence, untrustworthiness, lack of willpower, and heroin junkies. Participants reported that stigma resulted in lower self-esteem; relationship conflicts; reluctance to initiate, access, or continue MMT; and distrust toward the health care system. Public awareness campaigns, education of health care workers, family therapy, and community meetings were cited as potential stigma-reduction strategies. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION: Stigma is a widespread and serious issue that adversely affects MMT patients' quality of life and treatment. More efforts are needed to combat MMT-related stigma.

Association between cannabis use and methadone maintenance treatment outcomes: an investigation into sex differences.

BACKGROUND: Cannabis will soon become legalized in Canada, and it is currently unclear how this will impact public health. Methadone maintenance treatment (MMT) is the most common pharmacological treatment for opioid use disorder (OUD), and despite its documented effectiveness, a large number of patients respond poorly and experience relapse to illicit opioids. Some studies implicate cannabis use as a risk factor for poor MMT response. Although it is well established that substance-use behaviors differ by sex, few of these studies have considered sex as a potential moderator. The current study aims to investigate sex differences in the association between cannabis use and illicit opioid use in a cohort of MMT patients. METHODS: This multicentre study recruited participants on MMT for OUD from Canadian Addiction Treatment Centre sites in Ontario, Canada. Sex differences in the association between any cannabis use and illicit opioid use were investigated using multivariable logistic regression. A secondary analysis was conducted to investigate the association with heaviness of cannabis use. RESULTS: The study included 414 men and 363 women with OUD receiving MMT. Cannabis use was significantly associated with illicit opioid use in women only (OR = 1.82, 95% CI 1.18, 2.82, p = 0.007). Heaviness of cannabis use was not associated with illicit opioid use in men or women. CONCLUSIONS: This is the largest study to date examining the association between cannabis use and illicit opioid use. Cannabis use may be a sex-specific predictor of poor response to MMT, such that women are more likely to use illicit opioids if they also use cannabis during treatment. Women may show improved treatment outcomes if cannabis use is addressed during MMT.

Behavioral activation group therapy for reducing depressive symptoms and improving quality of life: a feasibility study.

BACKGROUND: Depression is associated with a loss of productivity and noticeable personal, social, and economic decline; it affects more than 350 million people worldwide. Behavioral activation (BA), derived from cognitive behavioral therapy, has drawn increasingly more interest as a means of treatment for major depressive disorder due to its relative cost-effectiveness and efficacy. In this study, we disseminate findings from a feasibility study evaluating barriers to implementing a group BA program for major depressive disorder. The purpose of this feasibility study is to assess both patient and clinician perceptions on components of a group-based behavioral activation (BA) program. In particular, this feasibility study provides in-depth evaluation of the acceptability of BA prior to the design and implementation of a randomized trial to investigate BA effectiveness. Findings from this study directly informed decisions regarding the design and implementation of BA during the pilot trial. Specific components of BA were assessed and modified based on the results of this study. METHODS: This qualitative study was completed through the Mood Disorders Program at St. Joseph's Healthcare Hamilton. The authors of this study used data from two focus group sessions, one consisting of an interdisciplinary group of clinicians working in the Mood Disorders Program, and the other of registered outpatients of the Mood Disorders Program with a confirmed clinical diagnosis of depression. The benefits of offering this program in a group format, mainly social skill development opportunities and the use of technology such as activity tracking device, smart phones, and tablets during the therapy sessions, are a major focus of both the clinician and patient groups. Both groups emphasized the importance of offering sustainable activation. RESULTS: Differences in opinions existed between staff and patient groups regarding the use of technology in the program, though ultimately it was agreed upon that technology could be useful as a therapeutic aid. All participants agreed that behavioral activation was essential to the development of positive habits and routines necessary for recovery from depression. Patients agreed the program looked sustainable and stressed the potential benefit for improving depressive symptoms. CONCLUSIONS: Discussions from clinician and patient-centered focus groups directly informed decisions regarding the design and implementation of BA during the pilot trial. Specific components of BA were assessed and modified based on the results of this study. These findings provide insight for clinicians providing behavioral activation programming, and will serve as a framework for the development of the Out of the Blues program, a group-based BA program to be piloted in the Mood Disorders Program at St. Joseph's Healthcare Hamilton. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinical Trials registration number NCT02045771.

Efficacy and safety of psychostimulants for amphetamine and methamphetamine use disorders: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Amphetamine and methamphetamine use disorders are associated with severe health and social consequences. No pharmacological therapy has been approved for the treatment of these disorders. Psychostimulants can act as maintenance-like therapies for managing substance use among these patients. The aim of this study is to evaluate the literature examining the efficacy and safety of psychostimulant agents for increasing abstinence and treatment retention among patients with amphetamine and methamphetamine use disorders. METHODS: We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycInfo, Cochrane Central, and CINAHL from inception to August 2016. Selection of studies, data extraction, and risk of bias assessment were conducted independently by two reviewers. We conducted meta-analyses to provide a pooled summary estimate for included trials and report the review according to PRISMA guidelines. RESULTS: We identified and selected 17 studies with 1387 participants. Outcome reporting across trials was inconsistent, and the overall quality of evidence was very low due to high risk of bias and indirectness. A meta-analysis of five trials (642 participants) found no effect of psychostimulants for end-of-study abstinence (odds ratio = 0.97, 95% confidence interval 0.65 to 1.45). Additionally, the pooled estimate from 14 studies (1184 participants) showed no effect of psychostimulants for treatment retention (odds ratio = 1.20, 95% confidence interval = 0.91 to 1.58). The incidence of serious adverse events did not differ between intervention and placebo groups based on qualitative reports from trials. CONCLUSIONS: Quantitative analyses showed no effect of psychostimulants for sustained abstinence or treatment retention. We also identified the need for more rigorous studies in this research area with clinician and patient important outcomes.

Association between cannabis use and treatment outcomes in patients receiving methadone maintenance treatment: a systematic review protocol.

BACKGROUND: With the non-medical use of prescription opioids increasingly becoming a method of abuse in Canada, the number of patients requiring methadone maintenance treatment (MMT) for opioid use disorder has increased dramatically. The rate of cannabis use in this population is disproportionately high (~50 %). Because its use is generally perceived as harmless, cannabis use is often not monitored during MMT. Current literature regarding the effects of cannabis use on MMT is conflicting, and the presence and nature of an association has not been clearly established. The primary objective of this review will be to conduct a systematic review of the literature and, if appropriate, a meta-analysis to determine whether there is an association between cannabis use and MMT outcomes. A secondary objective will be to perform subgroup analyses (by age, sex, method of cannabis measurement, and country) to determine whether cannabis use differentially influences MMT outcomes within these subgroups. METHODS/DESIGN: The search will be conducted on the following electronic databases using a predefined search strategy: MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, and Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL). Two authors (LZ and MB) will independently screen articles using predetermined inclusion/exclusion criteria and will extract data from included articles using a pilot-tested data extraction form. Disagreements at all stages of the screening process will be settled through discussion, and when consensus cannot be reached, a third author (ZS) will be consulted. An assessment of quality and risk of bias will be conducted on all included articles, and a sensitivity analysis will be used to compare results of studies with high and low risk of bias. We will perform random- and fixed-effects meta-analyses, if appropriate, with heterogeneity calculated using the I (2) statistic and formal evaluation of publication bias. DISCUSSION: Results of this systematic review will elucidate the association between cannabis use and methadone maintenance treatment outcomes. We will provide evidence that will be useful to clinicians regarding whether monitoring cannabis use during MMT is advantageous for optimizing MMT outcomes. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42015029372.