IMPORTANCE Primary care offers an important and underutilized setting to deliver treatment for opioid and/or alcohol use disorders (OAUD). Collaborative care (CC) is effective but has not been tested for OAUD.OBJECTIVE To determine whether CC for OAUD improves delivery of evidence-based treatments for OAUD and increases self-reported abstinence compared with usual primary care. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTSA randomized clinical trial of 377 primary care patients with OAUD was conducted in 2 clinics in a federally qualified health center. Participants were recruited from June 3, 2014, to January 15, 2016, and followed for 6 months.INTERVENTIONS Of the 377 participants, 187 were randomized to CC and 190 were randomized to usual care; 77 (20.4%) of the participants were female, of whom 39 (20.9%) were randomized to CC and 38 (20.0%) were randomized to UC. The mean (SD) age of all respondents at baseline was 42 (12.0) years, 41 (11.7) years for the CC group, and 43 (12.2) years for the UC group. Collaborative care was a system-level intervention, designed to increase the delivery of either a 6-session brief psychotherapy treatment and/or medication-assisted treatment with either sublingual buprenorphine/naloxone for opioid use disorders or long-acting injectable naltrexone for alcohol use disorders. Usual care participants were told that the clinic provided OAUD treatment and given a number for appointment scheduling and list of community referrals. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURESThe primary outcomes were use of any evidence-based treatment for OAUD and self-reported abstinence from opioids or alcohol at 6 months. The secondary outcomes included the Healthcare Effectiveness Data and Information Set (HEDIS) initiation and engagement measures, abstinence from other substances, heavy drinking, health-related quality of life, and consequences from OAUD.RESULTS At 6 months, the proportion of participants who received any OAUD treatment was higher in the CC group compared with usual care (73 [39.0%] vs 32 [16.8%]; logistic model adjusted OR, 3.97; 95% CI, 2.32-6.79; P < .001). A higher proportion of CC participants reported abstinence from opioids or alcohol at 6 months (32.8% vs 22.3%); after linear probability model adjustment for covariates (β = 0.12; 95% CI, 0.01-0.23; P = .03). In secondary analyses, the proportion meeting the HEDIS initiation and engagement measures was also higher among CC participants (initiation, 31.6% vs 13.

Objective-To compare bupropion to placebo for reducing methamphetamine (MA) use, increasing retention, and reducing the severity of depressive symptoms and MA cravings. A secondary objective compared bupropion to placebo for reducing cigarette smoking among MA dependent participants.Methods-Following a 2-week, non-medication baseline screening period, 73 treatment-seeking MA dependent participants were randomly assigned to bupropion sustained release (150 mg twice daily; N=36) or placebo (twice daily; N=37) for 12-weeks under double blind conditions. Participants attended clinic thrice weekly to provide urine samples analyzed for MA-metabolite, to complete research measures and assessments, and to receive contingency management and weekly cognitive behavioral therapy sessions.Results-There were no statistically significant effects for bupropion relative to placebo on MA use verified by urine drug screens, for reducing the severity of depressive symptoms or MA cravings, or on study retention. In a post hoc analysis, there was a statistically significant effect of bupropion treatment on MA use among participants with lighter (0-2 MA-positive urines), but not heavier (3-6 MA-positive urines) MA use during baseline (OR=2.81, 95% CI=1.61-4.93, p<0.001 for MA-free week with bupropion among light users). Bupropion treatment was also associated with significantly reduced cigarette smoking, by almost 5 cigarettes per day (p=0.0002).Conclusion-Bupropion was no more effective than placebo in reducing MA use in planned analyses, though bupropion did reduce cigarette smoking. Post hoc findings of an effect for bupropion among baseline light, but not heavy, MA users suggests further evaluation of bupropion for light MA users is warranted.

Objective-To compare modafinil to placebo for reducing methamphetamine (MA) use, improving retention, and reducing depressive symptoms and MA cravings. Rates of adverse events and cigarette smoking with modafinil versus placebo were also compared.Methods-Following a 2-week, non-medication lead-in period, 71 treatment-seeking MA dependent participants were randomly assigned to modafinil (400 mg once daily; N= 34) or placebo (once daily; N= 37) for 12-weeks under double-blind conditions. Participants attended clinic thrice weekly to provide urine samples analyzed for MA-metabolite, to complete research assessments, and to receive contingency management and weekly cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) sessions.Results-There were no statistically significant effects for modafinil on MA use, retention, depressive symptoms, or MA cravings in pre-planned analyses. Outcomes for retention and MA use favored modafinil in a post hoc analysis among participants with low CBT attendance and among participants with baseline high frequency of MA use (MA use on >18 of past 30 days), but did not reach statistical significance in these small subgroups. Modafinil was safe and well tolerated and did not increase cigarette smoking.Conclusions-Modafinil was no more effective than placebo at 400 mg daily in a general sample of MA users. A post hoc analysis showing a trend favoring modafinil among subgroups with baseline high frequency MA use and low CBT attendance suggests that further evaluation of modafinil in MA users is warranted.

Editorial group: Cochrane Drugs and Alcohol Group. Publication status and date: New search for studies and content updated (conclusions changed), published in Issue 1, 2010.

Current directions in medication development for alcohol use disorder (AUD) emphasize the need to identify novel molecular targets and efficiently screen new compounds aimed at those targets. Ibudilast (IBUD) is a neuroimmune modulator that inhibits phosphodiesterase-4 and -10 and macrophage migration inhibitory factor and was recently found to reduce alcohol intake in rats by ∼50%. To advance medication development for AUD, the present study consists of a randomized, crossover, double-blind, placebo-controlled laboratory study of IBUD in nontreatment-seeking individuals with current (ie, past month) mild-to-severe AUD. This study tested the safety, tolerability, and initial human laboratory efficacy of IBUD (50 mg b.i.d.) on primary measures of subjective response to alcohol as well as secondary measures of cue- and stress-induced changes in craving and mood. Participants (N=24) completed two separate 7-day intensive outpatient protocols that included daily visits for medication administration and testing. Upon reaching a stable target dose of IBUD (or matched placebo), participants completed a stress-exposure session (day 5; PM), an alcohol cue-exposure session (day 6; AM), and an i.v. alcohol administration session (day 6; PM). Participants stayed overnight after the alcohol administration, and discharge occurred on day 7 of the protocol. Medication conditions were separated by a washout period that was ⩾7 days. IBUD was well tolerated; however, there were no medication effects on primary measures of subjective response to alcohol. IBUD was associated with mood improvements on the secondary measures of stress exposure and alcohol cue exposure, as well as reductions in tonic levels of craving. Exploratory analyses revealed that among individuals with higher depressive symptomatology, IBUD attenuated the stimulant and mood-altering effects of alcohol as compared with placebo. Together, these findings extend preclinical demonstrations of the potential utility of IBUD for the treatment of AUD and suggest that depressive symptomatology should be considered as a potential moderator of efficacy for pharmacotherapies with neuroimmune effects, such as IBUD.

Issues Methamphetamine or amphetamine-type stimulants are the second most frequently used illicit drug worldwide, second only to cannabis. Behavioural treatments are efficacious, but their impact is limited underscoring the need for other treatment options, notably, pharmacotherapy. Approach A review of randomised controlled trials of pharmacotherapies for methamphetamine or amphetamine-type stimulants was performed using PubMed and Google Scholar databases. Evidence for efficacy of medications is reported. Key findings Clinical trials have yielded no broadly effective pharmacotherapy. Promising signals have been observed for methylphenidate, naltrexone, bupropion and mirtazapine in subgroups of patients in reducing stimulant use (e.g. patients with less severe dependence at baseline, men who have sex with men), though none has produced an unambiguous, replicable signal of efficacy. Implications Problems in Phase II trials, including high drop-out rates, missing data and a lack of agreement on outcomes, complicate efforts to find a broadly effective pharmacotherapy for amphetamine-type stimulant disorders. Efforts to address these problems include calls for better validation of pharmacological target exposure, receptor binding and functional modulation. As well, there is a need for agreement in using findings from pre-clinical and early phases of the medication development process for selecting better pharmacotherapy candidates. Conclusion After over 20 years of efforts worldwide to develop a broadly effective medication for dependence on methamphetamine or amphetamine-type stimulants, no candidate has emerged. This highlights the need for new compounds, consistent and stringent research methods, better integration between preclinical and clinical stages of medication development, and improved collaboration between government, industry and researchers.

No abstract

The combination of prescription opioid dependence and chronic pain is increasingly prevalent and hazardous to public health. Variability in pain may explain poor prescription opioid addiction treatment outcomes in persons with chronic pain. This study examined pain trajectories and pain volatility in patients with chronic pain receiving treatment for prescription opioid addiction. We conducted secondary analyses of adults with chronic pain (N = 149) who received buprenorphine-naloxone (BUP-NLX) and counseling for 12 weeks in an outpatient, multi-site clinical trial. Good treatment outcome was defined as urine-verified abstinence from opioids at treatment endpoint (Week 12) and during at least two of the previous three weeks. Pain severity significantly declined over time during treatment (b = − 0.36, p < .001). Patients with greater pain volatility were less likely to have a good treatment outcome (OR = 0.55, p < .05), controlling for baseline pain severity and rate of change in pain over time. A one standard deviation increase in pain volatility was associated with a 44% reduction in the probability of endpoint abstinence. The significant reduction in subjective pain during treatment provides observational support for the analgesic effects of BUP-NLX in patients with chronic pain and opioid dependence. Patients with greater volatility in subjective pain during treatment have increased risk for returning to opioid use by the conclusion of an intensive treatment with BUP-NLX and counseling. Future research should examine underlying mechanisms of pain volatility and identify related therapeutic targets to optimize interventions for prescription opioid addiction and co-occurring chronic pain.