Objectives Preexposure prophylaxis (PREP) is an emerging HIV prevention strategy; however, many fear it may lead to neglect of traditional risk reduction practices through behavioral disinhibition or risk compensation. Methods Participants were 180 HIV-negative high-risk men who have sex with men recruited in New York City, who completed an Audio Computer Assisted Self Interview-administered survey between September 2007 and July 2009. Bivariate and multivariate logistic regression models were used to predict intention to use PREP and perceptions that PREP would decrease condom use. Results Almost 70% (n = 124) of participants reported that they would be likely to use PREP if it were at least 80% effective in preventing HIV. Of those who would use PREP, over 35% reported that they would be likely to decrease condom use while on PREP. In multivariate analyses, arousal/pleasure barriers to condom use significantly predicted likelihood of PREP use (odds ratio = 1.71, P < 0.05) and risk perception motivations for condom use significantly predicted decreased condom use on PREP (odds ratio = 2.48, P < 0.05). Discussion These data provide support for both behavioral disinhibition and risk compensation models and underscore the importance of developing behavioral interventions to accompany any wide-scale provision of PREP to high-risk populations.

No abstract

Abuse of prescription opioid medications has increased dramatically in the United States during the past decade, as indicated by a variety of epidemiological sources. However, few studies have systematically examined the relative reinforcing effects of commonly abused opioid medications. The current double-blind, placebo-controlled in-patient study was designed to compare the effects of intravenously delivered fentanyl (0, 0.0625, 0.125, 0.187, and 0.250 mg/70 kg), oxycodone (0, 6.25, 12.5, 25, and 50 mg/70 kg), morphine (0, 6.25, 12.5, 25, and 50 mg/70 kg), buprenorphine (0, 0.125, 0.5, 2, and 8 mg/70 kg), and heroin (0, 3.125, 6.25, 12.5, and 25 mg/70 kg) in morphinemaintained heroin abusers (N ¼ 8 completers maintained on 120 mg per day oral morphine in divided doses (30 mg q.i.d.)). All of the participants received all of the drugs tested; drugs and doses were administered in non-systematic order. All of the drugs produced statistically significant, dose-related increases in positive subjective ratings, such as 'I feel a good drug effect' and 'I like the drug.' In general, the order of potency in producing these effects, from most to least potent, was fentanyl4buprenorphineXheroin 4morphine ¼ oxycodone. In contrast, buprenorphine was the only drug that produced statistically significant increases in ratings of 'I feel a bad drug effect' and it was the only drug that was not self-administered above placebo levels at any dose tested. These data suggest that the abuse liability of buprenorphine in heroin-dependent individuals may be low, despite the fact that it produces increases in positive subjective ratings. The abuse liabilities of fentanyl, morphine, oxycodone, and heroin, however, appear to be similar under these experimental conditions.

Objective: The authors tested whether clonidine blocks stress-induced seeking of heroin and cocaine. The study was also intended to confirm translational findings from a rat model of drug relapse by using ecological momentary assessment of patients’ stress to test hypotheses about clonidine’s behavioral mechanism of action. Method: The authors conducted a randomized double-blind placebo-controlled clinical trial with 208 opioid-dependent patients at an outpatient buprenorphine clinic. The 118 participants (57%) who maintained abstinence during weeks 5–6 were continued on buprenorphine and randomly assigned to receive clonidine (N=61) or placebo (N=57) for 14 weeks. Urine was tested thrice weekly. Lapse was defined as any opioid-positive or missed urine test, and relapse as two or more consecutive lapsesTime to lapse and relapse were examined with Cox regressions; longest period of abstinence was examined with a t test, and ecological momentary assessment data was examined with generalized linear mixed models. Results: In an intent-to-treat analysis, clonidine produced the longest duration (in consecutive days) of abstinence from opioids during the intervention phase (34.8 days [SD=3.7] compared with 25.5 days [SD=2.7]; Cohen’s d=0.38). There was no group difference in time to relapse, but the clonidine group took longer to lapse (hazard ratio=0.67, 95% CI=0.45–1.00). Ecological momentary assessment showed that daily-life stress was partly decoupled from opioid craving in the clonidine group, supporting the authors’ hypothesized mechanism for clonidine’s benefits. Conclusions: Clonidine, a readily available medication, is useful in opioid dependence not just for alleviation of withdrawal signs, but also as an adjunctive maintenance treatment that increases duration of abstinence. Even in the absence of physical withdrawal, it decouples stress from craving in everyday life.

No abstract

No abstract

In addiction, risk factors for craving and use include stress and drug-related cues. Stress and cues have additive or more-than-additive effects on drug seeking in laboratory animals, but, surprisingly, seem to compete with one another (ie, exert less-than-additive effects) in human laboratory studies of craving. We sought heretofore elusive evidence that human drug users could show additive (or more-than-additive) effects of stress and cues on craving, using ecological momentary assessment (EMA). Outpatients (N=182) maintained on daily buprenorphine or methadone provided self-reports of stress, craving, mood, and behavior on electronic diaries for up to 16 weeks. In three randomly prompted entries (RPs) per day, participants reported the severity of stress and craving and whether they had seen or been offered opioids, cocaine, cannabis, methamphetamine, alcohol, or tobacco. In random-effects models controlling for between-person differences, we tested effects of momentary drug-cue exposure and stress (and their interaction) on momentary ratings of cocaine and heroin craving. For cocaine craving, the Stress × Cue interaction term had a positive mean effect across participants (M=0.019; CL95 0.001-0.036), denoting a more-than-additive effect. For heroin, the mean was not significantly greater than 0, but the confidence interval was predominantly positive (M=0.019; CL95 -0.007-0.044), suggesting at least an additive effect. Heterogeneity was substantial; qualitatively, the Stress × Cue effect appeared additive for most participants, more than additive for a sizeable minority, and competitive in very few. In the field, unlike in human laboratory studies to date, craving for cocaine and heroin is greater with the combination of drug cues and stress than with either alone. For a substantial minority of users, the combined effect may be more than additive.

Stress increased before stressful-event entries, but was less evident before drug use. Craving increased in the hours before drug use and stressful events-and remained elevated in the hours after either event. These results suggest a stronger link between drug use and craving than between drug use and stress. Lapses to drug use did not improve mood or reduce stress, at least not at our 1-h-bin time resolution, suggesting that if such benefits exist, they are brief.