Pharmacological interventions for drug-using offenders

Facilitating factors and barriers for use of medications to treat opioid use disorder (MOUD) among justice-involved individuals in rural Appalachia

The purpose of this qualitative study is to assess facilitating factors and barriers for medications to treat opioid use disorder (MOUD) initiation among justice-involved individuals in one rural Appalachian community, as well as how those factors may differ across the three types of Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved medications. Qualitative interviews were conducted with rural justice-involved individuals (N = 10) with a history of opioid use in the target community. Overall, participants demonstrated knowledge of the different types of MOUD and their pharmacological properties, but limited overall health literacy around opioid use disorder and MOUD treatment. Treatment access was hampered by transportation, time burdens, and costs. Findings call for research into improving health literacy education, training, and resources to decrease stigma and increase access to MOUD, particularly in light of the ongoing opioid crisis. State policies also need to increase access to all FDA medications among justice-involved individuals, as well as supporting a care continuum from facility entry, release, and community re-entry.

Disparities in Medication Use for Criminal Justice System-Referred Opioid Use Disorder Treatment

Importance

Individuals with opioid use disorder (OUD) and criminal justice system involvement experience high rates of overdose death. Historical data point to limited use of medications for opioid use disorder (MOUD) in criminal justice system-referred treatment for OUD as playing a role. However, how MOUD use among those referred to treatment by the criminal justice system has changed relative to other referral sources over time is still unclear, as well as how it varies across states.

Objective

To examine disparities in the use of MOUD between individuals referred to treatment by the criminal justice system compared to other referral sources over time.

Design, Setting, and Participants

This cross-sectional study included admissions to specialty substance use treatment facilities for OUD in the national Treatment Episodes Dataset-Admissions from 2014 to 2021. Logistic regression models were used to examine trends in the probability of MOUD use among individuals with and without criminal justice referrals for OUD treatment, as well as any differential trends by state. The data were analyzed from September 2023 to August 2024.

Main Outcome and Measure

The main outcome was the probability that treatment for individuals with OUD included MOUD.

Results

A total of 3 235 445 admissions were analyzed in the study data. Among individuals referred to OUD treatment by the criminal justice system, the probability that treatment included MOUD increased by 3.42 percentage points (pp) (95% CI, 3.37 pp to 3.47 pp) annually from 2014 to 2021. This was faster than the increase in the probability of MOUD use for noncriminal justice-referred admissions (2.49 pp [95% CI, 2.46 pp to 2.51 pp) and reduced, but did not eliminate, disparities in MOUD use between individuals with and without criminal justice system-referred treatment. In 2021, only 33.6% of individuals in criminal justice system-referred treatment received MOUD, 15.6 pp lower than for individuals referred to treatment by other sources. Trends in the probability of MOUD use varied substantially for individuals in criminal justice system-referred treatment across states, but very few experienced enough growth to eliminate this disparity.

Conclusions and Relevance

The results of this cross-sectional study suggest that targeted efforts to address persistent disparities in MOUD use among those with OUD and criminal justice system involvement are needed to address the poor health outcomes experienced by this population.

Cardiotocography combined with ST analysis versus cardiotocography combined with fetal blood sampling in deliveries with abnormal CTG: a randomized trial

PURPOSE

The aim was to investigate if intrapartum monitoring with cardiotocography (CTG) in combination with ST analysis (STAN) results in an improved perinatal outcome.

METHODS

We performed a two-center randomized trial. 1013 women with term fetuses in cephalic presentation entered the trial. If a CTG showed intermediate or pathological abnormalities, they were offered fetal blood sampling (FBS) and inclusion if the pH value was above 7.25. They were randomized to either CTG + FBS or CTG + STAN. The primary outcome was neonatal metabolic acidosis, defined as umbilical cord arterial blood pH below 7.05, and base excess equal to or below -10. The secondary outcomes included operative vaginal delivery for fetal distress.

RESULTS

The rate of metabolic acidosis was 0.8% in the CTG + FBS group and 1.5% in women in the CTG + STAN (P = 0.338). More women in the CTG + STAN group delivered by operative vaginal delivery (25.6% vs 33.5%, P = 0.006). Significantly fewer women in the CTG + STAN group had three to five (28.8% vs 11.0%, P =  < 0.001) and six to ten fetal blood samples taken (3.4% vs 0.4%, P =  < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

CTG + STAN did not reduce the incidence of neonatal metabolic acidosis compared to CTG + FBS. CTG + STAN was, however, associated with an increased risk of operative vaginal delivery and a reduced use of FBS. If STAN is used for fetal surveillance, we recommend that it is combined with other methods, such as FBS, for confirmation of the need for operative delivery.

CLINICALTRIALS

gov ID: NCT01699646. Date of registration: October 4, 2012 (retrospectively registered). https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT01699646?id=NCT01699646&draw=2&rank=1.

Adaptation of a standard extended-release naltrexone (XR-NTX) protocol for rural re-entering offenders with OUD

BACKGROUND

Despite a growing body of empirical support for the effectiveness of extended-release naltrexone (XR-NTX) to reduce opioid relapse among people with opioid use disorder (OUD) transitioning from a correctional facility to the community, continuity of care following release remains challenging. This paper describes a research-based adaptation of a state's standard of care XR-NTX protocol using the ADAPT-ITT framework for delivery in a non-traditional, non-treatment, community criminal justice setting (P&P office), as well as the expansion of services by a local Federally Qualified Health Center (FQHC) provider who would, for the first time, be going to the jail and P&P office to provide XR-NTX and related treatment.

METHOD

The present study focuses on the first seven phases (Assessment through Training) of the ADAPT-ITT framework in the adaptation of the Department of Corrections (DOC) protocol in preparation for a pilot trial for induction in a rural jail and during the transition to a rural community. Expert clinical review and focus groups with key stakeholders in criminal justice supervision and the local providers in the FQHC informed the needed adaptations to the existing XR-NTX protocol for initiation at the jail and ongoing administrations in the community.

RESULTS

Findings from stakeholder focus groups, study team review, topical expert review, and a theater test suggested that there were critical adaptations needed in both content and context at the patient and clinic level.

CONCLUSION

Health and justice officials should consider the need to tailor and adapt evidence-based approaches for real-world locations that high-risk, justice-involved individuals visit in order to reduce barriers and increase access to critically needed treatment for OUD.

Interventions for drug-using offenders with co-occurring mental health problems

BACKGROUND

This review represents one from a family of three reviews focusing on interventions for drug-using offenders. Many people under the care of the criminal justice system have co-occurring mental health problems and drug misuse problems; it is important to identify the most effective treatments for this vulnerable population.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effectiveness of interventions for drug-using offenders with co-occurring mental health problems in reducing criminal activity or drug use, or both.This review addresses the following questions.• Does any treatment for drug-using offenders with co-occurring mental health problems reduce drug use?• Does any treatment for drug-using offenders with co-occurring mental health problems reduce criminal activity?• Does the treatment setting (court, community, prison/secure establishment) affect intervention outcome(s)?• Does the type of treatment affect treatment outcome(s)?

SEARCH METHODS

We searched 12 databases up to February 2019 and checked the reference lists of included studies. We contacted experts in the field for further information.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials designed to prevent relapse of drug use and/or criminal activity among drug-using offenders with co-occurring mental health problems.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard methodological procedures as expected by Cochrane .

MAIN RESULTS

We included 13 studies with a total of 2606 participants. Interventions were delivered in prison (eight studies; 61%), in court (two studies; 15%), in the community (two studies; 15%), or at a medium secure hospital (one study; 8%). Main sources of bias were unclear risk of selection bias and high risk of detection bias.Four studies compared a therapeutic community intervention versus (1) treatment as usual (two studies; 266 participants), providing moderate-certainty evidence that participants who received the intervention were less likely to be involved in subsequent criminal activity (risk ratio (RR) 0.67, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.53 to 0.84) or returned to prison (RR 0.40, 95% CI 0.24 to 0.67); (2) a cognitive-behavioural therapy (one study; 314 participants), reporting no significant reduction in self-reported drug use (RR 0.78, 95% CI 0.46 to 1.32), re-arrest for any type of crime (RR 0.69, 95% CI 0.44 to 1.09), criminal activity (RR 0.74, 95% CI 0.52 to 1.05), or drug-related crime (RR 0.87, 95% CI 0.56 to 1.36), yielding low-certainty evidence; and (3) a waiting list control (one study; 478 participants), showing a significant reduction in return to prison for those people engaging in the therapeutic community (RR 0.60, 95% CI 0.46 to 0.79), providing moderate-certainty evidence.One study (235 participants) compared a mental health treatment court with an assertive case management model versus treatment as usual, showing no significant reduction at 12 months' follow-up on an Addictive Severity Index (ASI) self-report of drug use (mean difference (MD) 0.00, 95% CI -0.03 to 0.03), conviction for a new crime (RR 1.05, 95% CI 0.90 to 1.22), or re-incarceration to jail (RR 0.79, 95% CI 0.62 to 1.01), providing low-certainty evidence.Four studies compared motivational interviewing/mindfulness and cognitive skills with relaxation therapy (one study), a waiting list control (one study), or treatment as usual (two studies). In comparison to relaxation training, one study reported narrative information on marijuana use at three-month follow-up assessment. Researchers reported a main effect < .007 with participants in the motivational interviewing group, showing fewer problems than participants in the relaxation training group, with moderate-certainty evidence. In comparison to a waiting list control, one study reported no significant reduction in self-reported drug use based on the ASI (MD -0.04, 95% CI -0.37 to 0.29) and on abstinence from drug use (RR 2.89, 95% CI 0.73 to 11.43), presenting low-certainty evidence at six months (31 participants). In comparison to treatment as usual, two studies (with 40 participants) found no significant reduction in frequency of marijuana use at three months post release (MD -1.05, 95% CI -2.39 to 0.29) nor time to first arrest (MD 0.87, 95% CI -0.12 to 1.86), along with a small reduction in frequency of re-arrest (MD -0.66, 95% CI -1.31 to -0.01) up to 36 months, yielding low-certainty evidence; the other study with 80 participants found no significant reduction in positive drug screens at 12 months (MD -0.7, 95% CI -3.5 to 2.1), providing very low-certainty evidence.Two studies reported on the use of multi-systemic therapy involving juveniles and families versus treatment as usual and adolescent substance abuse therapy. In comparing treatment as usual, researchers found no significant reduction up to seven months in drug dependence on the Drug Use Disorders Identification Test (DUDIT) score (MD -0.22, 95% CI -2.51 to 2.07) nor in arrests (RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.70 to 1.36), providing low-certainty evidence (156 participants). In comparison to an adolescent substance abuse therapy, one study (112 participants) found significant reduction in re-arrests up to 24 months (MD 0.24, 95% CI 0.76 to 0.28), based on low-certainty evidence.One study (38 participants) reported on the use of interpersonal psychotherapy in comparison to a psychoeducational intervention. Investigators found no significant reduction in self-reported drug use at three months (RR 0.67, 95% CI 0.30 to 1.50), providing very low-certainty evidence. The final study (29 participants) compared legal defence service and wrap-around social work services versus legal defence service only and found no significant reductions in the number of new offences committed at 12 months (RR 0.64, 95% CI 0.07 to 6.01), yielding very low-certainty evidence.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Therapeutic community interventions and mental health treatment courts may help people to reduce subsequent drug use and/or criminal activity. For other interventions such as interpersonal psychotherapy, multi-systemic therapy, legal defence wrap-around services, and motivational interviewing, the evidence is more uncertain. Studies showed a high degree of variation, warranting a degree of caution in interpreting the magnitude of effect and the direction of benefit for treatment outcomes.

Criminal justice outcomes over 5 years after randomization to buprenorphine-naloxone or methadone treatment for opioid use disorder

AIMS

To compare long-term criminal justice outcomes among opioid-dependent individuals randomized to receive buprenorphine or methadone.

DESIGN, SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS

A 5-year follow-up was conducted in 2011-14 of 303 opioid-dependent participants entering three opioid treatment programs in California, USA in 2006-09 and randomized to receive either buprenorphine/naloxone or methadone.

INTERVENTION AND COMPARATOR

Participants received buprenorphine/naloxone (BUP; n = 179) or methadone (MET; n = 124) for 24 weeks and then were tapered off their treatment over ≤ 8 weeks or referred for ongoing clinical treatment. Midway through the study, the randomization scheme was switched from 1 : 1 BUP : MET to 2 : 1 because of higher dropout in the BUP arm.

MEASUREMENTS

Study outcomes included arrests and self-reported incarceration. Predictors included randomization condition (buprenorphine versus methadone), age, gender, race/ethnicity, use of cocaine, drug injection in the 30 days prior to baseline and study site. Treatment status (buprenorphine, methadone, none) during follow-up was included as a time-varying covariate.

FINDINGS

There was no significant difference by randomization condition in the proportion arrested (buprenorphine: 55.3%, methadone: 54.0%) or incarcerated (40.9%, 47.3%) during follow-up. Among methadone-randomized individuals, arrest was less likely with methadone treatment (0.50, 0.35-0.72) during follow-up (relative to no treatment) and switching to buprenorphine had a lower likelihood of arrest than those receiving no treatment (0.39, 0.18-0.87). Among buprenorphine-randomized individuals, arrest was less likely with receipt of buprenorphine (0.49, 0.33-0.75) during follow-up and switching to methadone had a similar likelihood of arrest as methadone-randomized individuals receiving no treatment. Likelihood of arrest was also negatively associated with older age (0.98, 0.96-1.00); it was positively associated with Hispanic ethnicity (1.63, 1.04-2.56), cocaine use (2.00, 1.33-3.03), injection drug use (2.19, 1.26-3.83), and study site.

CONCLUSIONS

In a US sample of people treated for opioid use disorder, continued treatment with either buprenorphine or methadone was associated with a reduction in arrests relative to no treatment. Cocaine use, injection drug use, Hispanic ethnicity and younger age were associated with higher likelihood of arrest.

What works in inclusion health: overview of effective interventions for marginalised and excluded populations

Inclusion health is a service, research, and policy agenda that aims to prevent and redress health and social inequities among the most vulnerable and excluded populations. We did an evidence synthesis of health and social interventions for inclusion health target populations, including people with experiences of homelessness, drug use, imprisonment, and sex work. These populations often have multiple overlapping risk factors and extreme levels of morbidity and mortality. We identified numerous interventions to improve physical and mental health, and substance use; however, evidence is scarce for structural interventions, including housing, employment, and legal support that can prevent exclusion and promote recovery. Dedicated resources and better collaboration with the affected populations are needed to realise the benefits of existing interventions. Research must inform the benefits of early intervention and implementation of policies to address the upstream causes of exclusion, such as adverse childhood experiences and poverty.

The Criminal Justice Experience of African American Cocaine Users in Arkansas

BACKGROUND

African Americans are incarcerated at rates much higher than other racial and ethnic groups in the United States.

OBJECTIVES

We sought to qualitatively explore the relationships between ongoing involvement in the criminal justice system and continued drug use in a population of urban and rural African American cocaine users in a southern state.

METHODS

Semi-structured qualitative interviews were conducted among African American cocaine users in Arkansas between 2010 and 2012. Participants resided in both rural (two counties located in the eastern Arkansas Mississippi delta region) and urban (the county including the capital city of Little Rock) areas.

RESULTS

Numerous important themes emerged from participants' narratives, including chronic involvement with the criminal justice system (being a "career criminal"), continued access to drugs while incarcerated, relapse, and reincarceration and lack of access to effective drug treatment. Conclusion/Importance: The themes which emerged from our data speak to the collective experience that many substance using populations in the United States face in dealing with the criminal justice system. Our findings highlight the need to better, more holistic ways of engaging African American substance users in community based substance use treatment and supportive services.

Mental health of prisoners: prevalence, adverse outcomes, and interventions

More than 10 million people are imprisoned worldwide, and the prevalence of all investigated mental disorders is higher in prisoners than in the general population. Although the extent to which prison increases the incidence of mental disorders is uncertain, considerable evidence suggests low rates of identification and treatment of psychiatric disorders. Prisoners are also at increased risk of all-cause mortality, suicide, self-harm, violence, and victimisation, and research has outlined some modifiable risk factors. Few high quality treatment trials have been done on psychiatric disorders in prisoners. Despite this lack of evidence, trial data have shown that opiate substitution treatments reduce substance misuse relapse and possibly reoffending. The mental health needs of women and older adults in prison are distinct, and national policies should be developed to meet these. In this Review, we present clinical, research, and policy recommendations to improve mental health care in prisons. National attempts to meet these recommendations should be annually surveyed.

Community-Based Methadone Maintenance in a Large Detention Center is Associated with Decreases in Inmate Recidivism

Because it is not common in the U.S. for jails to allow inmates to continue opioid medications that have been started in the community, we aimed to assess whether inmates maintained on methadone showed different rates of recidivism, lengths of incarceration, and types of offenses than other incarcerated groups. We also analyzed rates of return to home clinics after release. In order to answer these questions this study used extant data from 960 adult inmates in a large metropolitan detention center who were in 1 of 4 groups: general population with no known substance use disorders, alcohol detoxification, methadone maintenance (MMT), and opioid detoxification. Recidivism was assessed for 1 year after release. Data were collected from medical screening forms and jail databases and included demographic variables, dates of admission and release, number of doses and total dosage of methadone if applicable, reason for incarceration, and the date of rebooking and nature of offense, if it occurred. There was a significant difference in time to rebooking, F (3956)=13.32, p=.00, with the MMT group taking longer to be rebooked (275.6 days) than the opioid (236.3 days) and alcohol detoxification groups (229.3 days), but not the general population group (286.2 days). Survival analysis indicated significantly better survival without rebooking in the MMT and general population groups than the alcohol and opioid detoxification groups. There also were differences in length of incarceration, F (3, 954)=9.02, p=.00, with the MMT group being incarcerated longer than other substance using groups; and in misdemeanor vs. felony rebooking offenses, χ² [3]=31.29, p<.01, with the opioid detoxification group being more likely to have a felony rebooking than the general or alcohol groups. In a separate analysis, data from 137 MMT clients, who were not precisely the same clients who were involved in other analyses reported in this article, indicated that over 97% returned to their home methadone clinics after incarceration. In summary, inmates who had been allowed to be maintained on methadone started in the community displayed a significantly longer time to be rearrested than inmates undergoing opioid or alcohol detoxification, but not inmates without substance use disorders. When they were rebooked, they were as likely as the opioid detoxification group to be rearrested for felony offenses.

Managing Opioid Use Disorder During and After Acute Hospitalization: A Case-Based Review Clarifying Methadone Regulation for Acute Care Settings

OBJECTIVE

Treatment with an opioid agonist such as methadone or buprenorphine is the standard of care for opioid use disorder. Persons with opioid use disorder are frequently hospitalized, and may be undertreated due to provider misinformation regarding the legality of prescribing methadone for inpatients. Using a case-based review, this article aims to describe effective management of active opioid withdrawal and ongoing opioid use disorder using methadone or buprenorphine among acutely ill, hospitalized patients.

METHODS

We reviewed pertinent medical and legal literature and consulted with national legal experts regarding methadone for opioid withdrawal and opioid maintenance therapy in hospitalized, general medical and surgical patients, and describe a real-life example of successful implementation of inpatient methadone for these purposes.

RESULTS

Patients with opioid use disorders can be effectively and legally initiated on methadone maintenance therapy or buprenorphine during an inpatient hospitalization by clinical providers and successfully transitioned to an outpatient methadone maintenance or buprenorphine clinic after discharge for ongoing treatment.

CONCLUSIONS

Inpatient methadone or buprenorphine prescribing is safe and evidence-based, and can be used to effectively treat opioid withdrawal and also serves as a bridge to outpatient treatment of opioid use disorders.

Pharmacological interventions for drug-using offenders

BACKGROUND

The review represents one in a family of four reviews focusing on a range of different interventions for drug-using offenders. This specific review considers pharmacological interventions aimed at reducing drug use or criminal activity, or both, for illicit drug-using offenders.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effectiveness of pharmacological interventions for drug-using offenders in reducing criminal activity or drug use, or both.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched Fourteen electronic bibliographic databases up to May 2014 and five additional Web resources (between 2004 and November 2011). We contacted experts in the field for further information.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials assessing the efficacy of any pharmacological intervention a component of which is designed to reduce, eliminate or prevent relapse of drug use or criminal activity, or both, in drug-using offenders. We also report data on the cost and cost-effectiveness of interventions.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard methodological procedures as expected by Cochrane.

MAIN RESULTS

Fourteen trials with 2647 participants met the inclusion criteria. The interventions included in this review report on agonistic pharmacological interventions (buprenorphine, methadone and naltrexone) compared to no intervention, other non-pharmacological treatments (e.g. counselling) and other pharmacological drugs. The methodological trial quality was poorly described, and most studies were rated as 'unclear' by the reviewers. The biggest threats to risk of bias were generated through blinding (performance and detection bias) and incomplete outcome data (attrition bias). Studies could not be combined all together because the comparisons were too different. Only subgroup analysis for type of pharmacological treatment were done. When compared to non-pharmacological, we found low quality evidence that agonist treatments are not effective in reducing drug use or criminal activity, objective results (biological) (two studies, 237 participants (RR 0.72 (95% CI 0.51 to 1.00); subjective (self-report), (three studies, 317 participants (RR 0.61 95% CI 0.31 to 1.18); self-report drug use (three studies, 510 participants (SMD: -0.62 (95% CI -0.85 to -0.39). We found low quality of evidence that antagonist treatment was not effective in reducing drug use (one study, 63 participants (RR 0.69, 95% CI 0.28 to 1.70) but we found moderate quality of evidence that they significantly reduced criminal activity (two studies, 114 participants, (RR 0.40, 95% CI 0.21 to 0.74).Findings on the effects of individual pharmacological interventions on drug use and criminal activity showed mixed results. In the comparison of methadone to buprenorphine, diamorphine and naltrexone, no significant differences were displayed for either treatment for self report dichotomous drug use (two studies, 370 participants (RR 1.04, 95% CI 0.69 to 1.55), continuous measures of drug use (one study, 81 participants, (mean difference (MD) 0.70, 95% CI -5.33 to 6.73); or criminal activity (one study, 116 participants, (RR 1.25, 95% CI 0.83 to 1.88) between methadone and buprenorphine. Similar results were found for comparisons with diamorphine with no significant differences between the drugs for self report dichotomous drug use for arrest (one study, 825 participants, (RR 1.25, 95% CI 1.03 to 1.51) or naltrexone for dichotomous measures of reincarceration (one study, 44 participants, (RR 1.10, 95% CI 0.37 to 3.26), and continuous outcome measure of crime, (MD -0.50, 95% CI -8.04 to 7.04) or self report drug use (MD 4.60, 95% CI -3.54 to 12.74).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

When compared to non-pharmacological treatment, agonist treatments did not seem effective in reducing drug use or criminal activity. Antagonist treatments were not effective in reducing drug use but significantly reduced criminal activity. When comparing the drugs to one another we found no significant differences between the drug comparisons (methadone versus buprenorphine, diamorphine and naltrexone) on any of the outcome measures. Caution should be taken when interpreting these findings, as the conclusions are based on a small number of trials, and generalisation of these study findings should be limited mainly to male adult offenders. Additionally, many studies were rated at high risk of bias.

Interventions for drug-using offenders with co-occurring mental illness

BACKGROUND

This is an updated version of an original Cochrane review published in Issue 3 2006 (Perry 2006). The review represents one from a family of four reviews focusing on interventions for drug-using offenders. This specific review considers interventions aimed at reducing drug use or criminal activity, or both for drug-using offenders with co-occurring mental illness.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effectiveness of interventions for drug-using offenders with co-occurring mental illness in reducing criminal activity or drug use, or both.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched 14 electronic bibliographic databases up to May 2014 and 5 Internet resources (searched between 2004 and 11 November 2009). We contacted experts in the field for further information.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials designed to reduce, eliminate, or prevent relapse of drug use and criminal activity, or both in drug-using offenders with co-occurring mental illness. We also reported data on the cost and cost-effectiveness of interventions.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard methodological procedures expected by The Cochrane Collaboration.

MAIN RESULTS

Eight trials with 2058 participants met the inclusion criteria. The methodological quality of the trials was generally difficult to rate due to a lack of clear reporting. On most 'Risk of bias' items, we rated the majority of studies as unclear. Overall, we could not statistically combine the results due to the heterogenous nature of the different study interventions and comparison groups. A narrative summary of the findings identified that the interventions reported limited success with reducing self report drug use, but did have some impact on re-incarceration rates, but not re-arrest. In the single comparisons, we found moderate-quality evidence that therapeutic communities determine a reduction in re-incarceration but reported less success for outcomes of re-arrest, moderate quality of evidence and self report drug use. Three single studies evaluating case management via a mental health drug court (very low quality of evidence), motivational interviewing and cognitive skills (low and very low quality of evidence) and interpersonal psychotherapy (very low quality of evidence) did not report significant reductions in criminal activity and self report drug use respectively. Quality of evidence for these three types of interventions was low to very low. The trials reported some cost information, but it was not sufficient to be able to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of the interventions.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Two of the five trials showed some promising results for the use of therapeutic communities and aftercare, but only in relation to reducing subsequent re-incarceration. Overall, the studies showed a high degree of variation, warranting a degree of caution in the interpretation of the magnitude of effect and direction of benefit for treatment outcomes. More evaluations are required to assess the effectiveness of interventions for drug-using offenders with co-occurring mental health problems.

Interventions for female drug-using offenders

BACKGROUND

This is an updated version of a Cochrane review first published in Issue 3, 2006 (Perry 2006). The review represents one in a family of four reviews focusing on the effectiveness of interventions in reducing drug use and criminal activity for offenders. This specific review considers interventions for female drug-using offenders.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effectiveness of interventions for female drug-using offenders in reducing criminal activity, or drug use, or both.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched 14 electronic bibliographic databases up to May 2014 and five additional Website resources (between 2004 and November 2011). We contacted experts in the field for further information.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) designed to reduce, eliminate or prevent relapse of drug use or criminal activity in female drug-using offenders. We also reported data on the cost and cost-effectiveness of interventions.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard methodological procedures expected by The Cochrane Collaboration.

MAIN RESULTS

Nine trials with 1792 participants met the inclusion criteria. Trial quality and risks of bias varied across each study. We rated the majority of studies as being at 'unclear' risk of bias due to a lack of descriptive information. We divided the studies into different categories for the purpose of meta-analyses: for any psychosocial treatments in comparison to treatment as usual we found low quality evidence that there were no significant differences in arrest rates, (two studies; 489 participants; risk ratio (RR) 0.82, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.45 to 1.52) or drug use (one study; 77 participants; RR 0.65, 95% CI 0.20 to 2.12), but we found moderate quality evidence that there was a significant reduction in reincarceration, (three studies; 630 participants; RR 0.46, 95% CI 0.34 to 0.64). Pharmacological intervention using buprenorphine in comparison to a placebo did not significantly reduce self reported drug use (one study; 36 participants; RR 0.58, 95% CI 0.25 to 1.35). No cost or cost-effectiveness evidence was reported in the studies.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Three of the nine trials show a positive trend towards the use of any psychosocial treatment in comparison to treatment as usual showing an overall significant reduction in subsequent reincarceration, but not arrest rates or drug use. Pharmacological interventions in comparison to a placebo did not significantly reduce drug use and did not measure criminal activity. Four different treatment comparisons showed varying results and were not combined due to differences in the intervention and comparison groups. The studies overall showed a high degree of heterogeneity for types of comparisons and outcome measures assessed, which limited the possibility to pool the data. Descriptions of treatment modalities are required to identify the important elements for treatment success in drug-using female offenders. More trials are required to increase the precision of confidence with which we can draw conclusions about the effectiveness of treatments for female drug-using offenders.

Extended-release naltrexone to prevent relapse among opioid dependent, criminal justice system involved adults: rationale and design of a randomized controlled effectiveness trial

BACKGROUND

Extended-release naltrexone (XR-NTX, Vivitrol; Alkermes Inc.) is an injectable monthly sustained-release mu opioid receptor antagonist. XR-NTX is a potentially effective intervention for opioid use disorders and as relapse prevention among criminal justice system (CJS) populations.

METHODS

This 5-site open-label randomized controlled effectiveness trial examines whether XR-NTX reduces opioid relapse compared with treatment as usual (TAU) among community dwelling, non-incarcerated volunteers with current or recent CJS involvement. The XR-NTX arm receives 6 monthly XR-NTX injections at Medical Management visits; the TAU group receives referrals to available community treatment options. Assessments occur every 2 weeks during a 24-week treatment phase and at 12- and 18-month follow-ups. The primary outcome is a relapse event, defined as either self-report or urine toxicology evidence of ≥10 days of opioid use in a 28-day (4 week) period, with a positive or missing urine test counted as 5 days of opioid use.

RESULTS

We describe the rationale, specific aims, and design of the study. Alternative design considerations and extensive secondary aims and outcomes are discussed.

CONCLUSIONS

XR-NTX is a potentially important treatment and relapse prevention option among persons with opioid dependence and CJS involvement. ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT00781898.

Interventions for female drug-using offenders

BACKGROUND

This is an updated version of a Cochrane review first published in Issue 3, 2006 (Perry 2006). The review represents one in a family of four reviews focusing on the effectiveness of interventions in reducing drug use and criminal activity for offenders. This specific review considers interventions for female drug-using offenders.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effectiveness of interventions for female drug-using offenders in reducing criminal activity or drug use, or both.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched 14 electronic bibliographic databases (between 2004 and 21st March 2013) and five additional web resources (between 2004 and November 2011). We contacted experts in the field for further information.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We include randomised controlled trials designed to reduce, eliminate or prevent relapse in female drug-using offenders. We also report data on the cost and cost effectiveness of interventions.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard methodological procedures expected by the Cochrane Collaboration.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified 76 trials across the four reviews. Following a process of prescreening, we judged that 11 trials met the inclusion criteria of the specified review; four of the 11 trials are awaiting classification in the review. The remaining seven trials cover 1236 participants. The interventions included in this review report on therapeutic communities (TCs), gender-responsive treatment (GRT), use of case management and cognitive skills, and a pharmacological intervention using buprenorphine. Trial quality and risks of bias varied across each study. The majority of studies were rated as being at 'unclear' risk of bias due to a lack of descriptive information. Overall the interventions showed statistically significant reductions in self-reported drug use, (four studies, 734 participants, risk ratio (RR) 0.68; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.58 to 0.80) and re-incarceration, (four studies, 745 participants, RR 0.55; 95% CI 0.41 to 0.72). We found a statistically non-significant result for re-arrest (three studies, 803 participants, RR 0.80; 95% CI 0.53 to 1.19). Individual treatment results found that TCs and a GRT programme showed a statistically significant reduction in re-incarceration (one study, 509 participants, RR 0.42; 95% CI 0.29 to 0.60) but not for re-arrest, (one study, 314 participants, RR 0.73; 95% CI 0.52 to 1.03) and self-reported drug use (two studies, 825 participants, RR 0.47; 95% CI 0.14 to 1.53). Case management and cognitive skills programmes did not significantly reduce re-arrests, (one study, 183 participants RR 1.12; 95% CI 0.89 to 1.41) or self-reported drug use, (one study, 77 participants, RR 0.65; 95% CI 0.20 to 2.12), but did show a statistically significant reduction in re-incarceration, (three studies, 236 participants, RR 0.63; 95% CI 0.49 to 0.81). Buprenorphine did not significantly reduce self-reported drug use (RR 0.58; 95% CI 0.25 to 1.35), but this result came from a single study with only 36 participants. Due to the small number of studies we were unable to analyse the impact of treatment setting on outcome. No cost and cost effectiveness evidence was reported in the studies.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The seven trials show some positive results for the use of treatments to reduce self-reported drug use and subsequent re-incarceration. However, the studies overall showed a high degree of statistical variation, requiring a degree of caution in the interpretation of the magnitude of effect and direction of benefit for treatment outcomes. Descriptions of treatment modalities are required to identify the important elements for treatment success in drug-using female offenders. More trials are required to increase the confidence with which we can draw conclusions about the effectiveness of treatments for female drug-using offenders.

Interventions for drug-using offenders with co-occurring mental illness

BACKGROUND

This is an updated version of an original Cochrane review published in Issue 3 2006 (Perry 2006). The review represents one from a family of four reviews focusing on interventions for drug-using offenders. This specific review considers interventions aimed at reducing drug use or criminal activity, or both for drug-using offenders with co-occurring mental illness.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effectiveness of interventions for drug-using offenders with co-occurring mental illness in reducing criminal activity or drug use, or both.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched 14 electronic bibliographic databases (searched between 2004 and 21 March 2013) and five internet resources (searched between 2004 and 11 November 2009). We contacted experts in the field for further information.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials designed to reduce, eliminate or prevent relapse in drug-using offenders with co-occurring mental illness. We also reported data on the cost and cost effectiveness of interventions.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard methodological procedures expected by The Cochrane Collaboration.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified 76 trials across the four reviews. Following a process of pre-screening, we judged eight trials to meet the inclusion criteria for this specific review (three of the five trials are awaiting classification). The five included 1502 participants. The interventions reported on case management via a mental health drugs court, a therapeutic community, and an evaluation of a motivational interviewing technique and cognitive skills in comparison to relaxation training. The methodological quality of the trials was generally difficult to rate due to a lack of clear reporting. On most risk of bias items, we rated the majority of studies as unclear. Overall, the combined interventions did not show a statistically significant reduction in self reported drug use (2 studies, 715 participants; risk ratio (RR) 0.82, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.44 to 1.55). A statistically significantly reduction was shown for re-incarceration (4 studies, 627 participants; RR 0.40, 95% CI 0.24 to 0.67 and mean difference (MD) 28.72, 95% CI 5.89 to 51.54) but not re-arrest (2 studies, 518 participants; RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.90 to 1.12). A specific subgroup analysis combining studies using therapeutic community interventions showed a statistically significant reduction in re-incarceration (2 studies, 266 participants; RR 0.29, 95% CI 0.16 to 0.54) but not re-arrest (1 study, 428 participants; RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.61 to 1.33). Case management via a mental health court and motivational interviewing with cognitive skills did not show a statistically significant reduction in criminal activity (1 study, 235 participants; RR 1.05, 95% CI 0.90 to 1.22) or self reported drug misuse (1 study, 162 participants; MD -7.42, 95% CI -20.12 to 5.28). Due to the small number of studies, we were unable to analyse the impact of setting on outcome. Some cost information was provided in the trials but not sufficient to be able to evaluate the cost effectiveness of the interventions.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

This review highlights the paucity of evidence for drug misusing offenders with co-occurring mental health problems. Two of the five trials showed some promising results for the use of therapeutic communities and aftercare, but only in relation to reducing subsequent re-incarceration. The studies overall, showed a high degree of statistical variation demonstrating a degree of caution in the interpretation of the magnitude of effect and direction of benefit for treatment outcomes. More evaluations are required to assess the effectiveness of interventions for drug-using offenders with co-occurring mental health problems.

Pharmacological interventions for drug-using offenders

BACKGROUND

The review represents one in a family of four reviews focusing on a range of different interventions for drug-using offenders. This specific review considers pharmacological interventions aimed at reducing drug use and/or criminal activity for illicit drug-using offenders.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effectiveness of pharmacological interventions for drug-using offenders in reducing criminal activity and/or drug use.

SEARCH METHODS

Fourteen electronic bibliographic databases (searched between 2004 and 21 March 2013) and five additional Web resources (searched between 2004 and 11 November 2011) were searched. Experts in the field were contacted for further information.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials assessing the efficacy of any pharmacological interventions for reducing, eliminating or preventing relapse in drug-using offenders were included. Data on the cost and cost-effectiveness of interventions were reported.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard methodological procedures as expected by The Cochrane Collaboration.

MAIN RESULTS

A total of 76 trials across the four reviews were identified. After a process of prescreening had been completed, 17 trials were judged to meet the inclusion criteria for this specific review (six of the 17 trials are awaiting classification for the review). The remaining 11 trials contained a total of 2,678 participants. Nine of the eleven studies used samples with a majority of men. The interventions (buprenorphine, methadone and naltrexone) were compared to non pharmacological treatments (e.g., counselling) and other pharmacological drugs. The methodological trial quality was poorly described, and most studies were rated as 'unclear' by the reviewers. The biggest threats to risk of bias were generated through blinding (performance and detection bias) and incomplete outcome data (attrition bias). When combined, the results suggest that pharmacological interventions do significantly reduce subsequent drug use using biological measures, (three studies, 300 participants, RR 0.71 (95% CI 0.52 to 0.97)), self report dichotomous data (three studies, 317 participants, RR 0.42, (95% CI 0.22 to 0.81)) and continuous measures (one study, MD -59.66 (95% CI -120.60 to 1.28)) . In the subgroups analysis for community setting, (two studies, 99 participants: RR 0.62 (95% CI 0.35 to 1.09)) and for secure establishment setting, (one study, 201 participants: RR 0.76 (95% CI 0.52 to 1.10)), the results are no longer statistically significant. Criminal activity was significantly reduced favouring the dichotomous measures of re arrest, (one study, 62 participants, RR 0.60 (95% CI 0.32 to 1.14)), re-incarceration, (three studies, 142 participants, RR 0.33 (95% CI 0.19 to 0.56)) and continuous measures (one study, 51 participants, MD -74.21 (95% CI -133.53 to -14.89)). Findings on the effects of individual pharmacological interventions on drug use and criminal activity show mixed results. Buprenorphine in comparison to a non pharmacological treatment seemed to favour buprenorphine but not significantly with self report drug use, (one study, 36 participants, RR 0.58 (95% CI 0.25 to 1.35)). Methadone and cognitive behavioural skills in comparison to standard psychiatric services, did show a significant reduction for self report dichotomous drug use (one study, 253 participants, RR 0.43 (95% CI 0.33 to 0.56)) but not for self report continuous data (one study 51 participants) MD -0.52 (95% CI -1.09 to 0.05)), or re incarceration RR 1.23 (95% CI 0.53 to 2.87)). Naltrexone was favoured significantly over routine parole and probation for re incarceration (two studies 114 participants, RR 0.36 (95% CI 0.19 to 0.69)) but no data was available on drug use. Finally, we compared each pharmacological treatment to another. In each case we compared methadone to: buprenorphine, diamorphine and naltrexone. No significant differences were displayed for either treatment for self report dichotomous drug use (one study, 193 participants RR 1.23 (95% CI 0.86 to 1.76)), continuous measures of drug use MD 0.70 (95% CI -5.33 to 6.73) or criminal activity RR 1.25 (95% CI 0.83 to 1.88)) between methadone and buprenorphine. Similiar results were found for comparisons with Diamorphine with no significant differences between the drugs for self report dichotomous drug use for arrest (one study, 825 participants RR 1.25 (95% CI 1.03-1.51)) or Naltrexone for dichotomous measures of re incarceration (one study, 44 participants, RR 1.10 (95% CI 0.37 to 3.26)), and continuous outcome measure of crime MD -0.50 (95% CI -8.04 to 7.04)) or self report drug use MD 4.60 (95% CI -3.54 to 12.74)).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Pharmacological interventions for drug-using offenders do appear to reduce overall subsequent drug use and criminal activity (but to a lesser extent). No statistically significant differences were displayed by treatment setting. Individual differences are displayed between the three pharmacological interventions (buprenorphine, methadone and naltrexone) when compared to a non pharmacological intervention, but not when compared to each other. Caution should be taken when interpreting these findings, as the conclusions are based on a small number of trials, and generalisation of these study findings should be limited mainly to male adult offenders. Additionally, many studies were rated at high risk of bias because trial information was inadequately described.