Psychosocial Interventions for Problem Alcohol Use in Primary Care Settings (PINTA): Baseline Feasibility Data

Efficacy of Brief Interventions for Comorbid Substance Misuse in Patients on Opioid Agonist Treatment: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Multiple substance use is a common but underrecognized problem in patients on opioid agonist treatment (OAT). Co-occurring substance misuse is associated with poor clinical and psychosocial outcomes. We aimed ( a ) to determine the effect of screening and brief intervention (SBI) for substance misuse in people on OAT and (b) to qualitatively summarize the implementation of SBI.

METHODS

We performed a systematic review of clinical trials on the efficacy of SBI for alcohol and drug misuse in participants on OAT. We searched 5 electronic databases and included published studies and unpublished trials. We measured the standardized mean difference in substance risk scores before and after intervention. We also estimated the standardized mean difference in alcohol consumption per day before and after intervention.

RESULTS

We included a total of 8 studies; 5 of these were included in the meta-analysis, and all were reviewed for narrative synthesis. We observed a significant change in the pre-post brief intervention substance risk scores with a medium effect size (Hedges g = 0.752, 95% confidence interval, 0.405-1.099). Sensitivity analyses with different pretest-posttest correlations did not change our result. Modest effects of SBI were found in reducing both alcohol and illicit drug risk scores, and among the population on methadone and buprenorphine treatment. We also observed a significant decrease in alcohol consumption per day 3 months after SBI. Studies showed a limited and incomplete screening for substance misuse and delivery of brief intervention in OAT settings.

CONCLUSIONS

Screening and brief intervention may be a potential treatment for co-occurring substance misuse among patients on OAT.

Feasibility of a Brief Intervention to Decrease Harmful Alcohol Use Among Methadone Maintenance Treatment Clients in Shanghai: A Randomized Controlled Trial

OBJECTIVES

In this study, we aimed to examine the prevalence of alcohol consumption among methadone maintenance treatment (MMT) clients in Shanghai and to determine whether a brief intervention (BI) affects drinking among them.

METHODS

A total of 837 clients from 14 local MMT clinics were invited to complete the Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test (AUDIT). One hundred one were included in the study and randomly assigned to the BI group or the control group. Clients in the BI group received a BI and general health education, whereas clients in the control group received the general health education only. Baseline and postintervention assessments were conducted by using the AUDIT, the Drinking Attitude Questionnaire, the Depression Module of the Patient Health Questionnaire, the Generalized Anxiety Disorder Scale, and the General Well-Being Schedule.

RESULTS

Two hundred fifty-nine (30.9%) reported drinking during the last year, and 103 (12.3%) met the criteria for harmful use. At the 3-month follow-up, the AUDIT scores of the 2 groups were significantly decreased, and the time effect was statistically significant ( F = 6.224, P = 0.018), but there was no group difference in AUDIT scores ( F = 1.953, P = 0.172). Both groups had a main time effect of time on the improvement of depression ( F = 8.044, P = 0.008), anxiety ( F = 9.650, P = 0.004), and general well-being ( F = 5.056, P = 0.033). However, there was no statistical difference between the 2 groups ( P > 0.05), and no statistical difference in the time ( F = 1.738, P = 0.198) and group ( F = 0.658, P = 0.424) effect of drinking attitude.

CONCLUSIONS

Alcohol consumption is common among MMT clients in China. Brief intervention, in its current form, could not effectively help them reduce their alcohol consumption.

Hepatitis C Prevalence and Management Among Patients Receiving Opioid Substitution Treatment in General Practice in Ireland: Baseline Data from a Feasibility Study

Background

Hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection is a major cause of chronic liver disease and death. Injection drug use is now one of the main routes of transmission of HCV in Ireland and globally with an estimated 80% new infections occurring among people who inject drugs (PWID).

Objective

We aimed to examine whether patients receiving opioid substitution therapy in primary care practices in Ireland were receiving guideline-adherent care regarding HCV screening. Ireland has developed a model of care for delivering opioid substitution treatment in the primary care setting. We conducted this study given the shift of providing care for PWID from secondary to primary care settings, in light of current guidelines aimed at scaling up interventions to reduce chronic HCV infection and associated mortality.

Methods

We included baseline data from the Dublin site of the Heplink study, a feasibility study focusing on developing complex interventions to enhance community-based HCV treatment and improve the HCV care pathway between primary and secondary care. We recruited 14 opioid substitution treatment-prescribing general practices that employed the administration of opioid substitution therapy from the professional networks and databases of members of the research consortium. A standardized nonprobability sampling framework was used to identify 10 patients from each practice to participate in the study. Patients were eligible if aged ≥18 years, on opioid substitution treatment, and attending the practice for any reason during the recruitment period. The baseline data were collected from the clinical records of participating patients. We collected and analyzed data on demographic characteristics, care processes and outcomes regarding HCV and other blood-borne viruses, urinalysis test results, alcohol use disorders, chronic illness, and health service utilization. We examined whether patients received care concordant with guidelines related to HCV screening and care.

Results

The baseline data were collected from clinical records of 134 patients; 72.2% (96/134) were males; (mean age 43, SD 7.6; range 27-71 years); 94.8% (127/134) of patients had been tested for anti-HCV antibody in their lifetime; of those, 77.9% (99/127) tested positive. Then, 83.6% (112/134) of patients had received an HIV antibody test in their lifetime; of those, 6.3% (7/112) tested HIV positive. Moreover, 66.4% (89/134) of patients had been tested for hepatitis B virus in their lifetime and 8% (7/89) of those were positive. In the 12 months before the study, 30.6% (41/134) of patients were asked about their alcohol use by their general practitioner, 6.0% (8/134) received a brief intervention, and 2.2% (3/134) were referred to a specialist addiction or alcohol treatment service.

Conclusions

With general practice and primary care playing an increased role in HCV care, this study highlights the importance of prioritizing the development and evaluation of real-world clinical solutions that support patients from diagnosis to treatment completion.

Psychosocial interventions to reduce alcohol consumption in concurrent problem alcohol and illicit drug users

BACKGROUND

Problem alcohol use is common among people who use illicit drugs (PWID) and is associated with adverse health outcomes. It is also an important factor contributing to a poor prognosis among drug users with hepatitis C virus (HCV) as it impacts on progression to hepatic cirrhosis or opioid overdose in PWID.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effectiveness of psychosocial interventions to reduce alcohol consumption in PWID (users of opioids and stimulants).

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Drugs and Alcohol Group trials register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, and PsycINFO, from inception up to August 2017, and the reference lists of eligible articles. We also searched: 1) conference proceedings (online archives only) of the Society for the Study of Addiction, International Harm Reduction Association, International Conference on Alcohol Harm Reduction and American Association for the Treatment of Opioid Dependence; and 2) online registers of clinical trials: Current Controlled Trials, ClinicalTrials.gov, Center Watch and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials comparing psychosocial interventions with other psychosocial treatment, or treatment as usual, in adult PWIDs (aged at least 18 years) with concurrent problem alcohol use.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used the standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane.

MAIN RESULTS

We included seven trials (825 participants). We judged the majority of the trials to have a high or unclear risk of bias.The psychosocial interventions considered in the studies were: cognitive-behavioural coping skills training (one study), twelve-step programme (one study), brief intervention (three studies), motivational interviewing (two studies), and brief motivational interviewing (one study). Two studies were considered in two comparisons. There were no data for the secondary outcome, alcohol-related harm. The results were as follows.Comparison 1: cognitive-behavioural coping skills training versus twelve-step programme (one study, 41 participants)There was no significant difference between groups for either of the primary outcomes (alcohol abstinence assessed with Substance Abuse Calendar and breathalyser at one year: risk ratio (RR) 2.38 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.10 to 55.06); and retention in treatment, measured at end of treatment: RR 0.89 (95% CI 0.62 to 1.29), or for any of the secondary outcomes reported. The quality of evidence for the primary outcomes was very low.Comparison 2: brief intervention versus treatment as usual (three studies, 197 participants)There was no significant difference between groups for either of the primary outcomes (alcohol use, measured as scores on the Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test (AUDIT) or Alcohol, Smoking and Substance Involvement Screening Test (ASSIST) at three months: standardised mean difference (SMD) 0.07 (95% CI -0.24 to 0.37); and retention in treatment, measured at three months: RR 0.94 (95% CI 0.78 to 1.13), or for any of the secondary outcomes reported. The quality of evidence for the primary outcomes was low.Comparison 3: motivational interviewing versus treatment as usual or educational intervention only (three studies, 462 participants)There was no significant difference between groups for either of the primary outcomes (alcohol use, measured as scores on the AUDIT or ASSIST at three months: SMD 0.04 (95% CI -0.29 to 0.37); and retention in treatment, measured at three months: RR 0.93 (95% CI 0.60 to 1.43), or for any of the secondary outcomes reported. The quality of evidence for the primary outcomes was low.Comparison 4: brief motivational intervention (BMI) versus assessment only (one study, 187 participants)More people reduced alcohol use (by seven or more days in the past month, measured at six months) in the BMI group than in the control group (RR 1.67; 95% CI 1.08 to 2.60). There was no difference between groups for the other primary outcome, retention in treatment, measured at end of treatment: RR 0.98 (95% CI 0.94 to 1.02), or for any of the secondary outcomes reported. The quality of evidence for the primary outcomes was moderate.Comparison 5: motivational interviewing (intensive) versus motivational interviewing (one study, 163 participants)There was no significant difference between groups for either of the primary outcomes (alcohol use, measured using the Addiction Severity Index-alcohol score (ASI) at two months: MD 0.03 (95% CI 0.02 to 0.08); and retention in treatment, measured at end of treatment: RR 17.63 (95% CI 1.03 to 300.48), or for any of the secondary outcomes reported. The quality of evidence for the primary outcomes was low.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We found low to very low-quality evidence to suggest that there is no difference in effectiveness between different types of psychosocial interventions to reduce alcohol consumption among people who use illicit drugs, and that brief interventions are not superior to assessment-only or to treatment as usual. No firm conclusions can be made because of the paucity of the data and the low quality of the retrieved studies.

Integrated Hepatitis C Care for People Who Inject Drugs (Heplink): Protocol for a Feasibility Study in Primary Care

BACKGROUND

Hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection is a major cause of chronic liver disease and death. Drug use remains the significant cause of new infections in the European Union, with estimates of HCV antibody prevalence among people who inject drugs ranging from 5% to 90% in 29 European countries. In Ireland and the European Union, primary care is a key area to focus efforts to enhance HCV diagnosis and treatment among people who inject drugs.

OBJECTIVE

The Heplink study aims to improve HCV care outcomes among opiate substitution therapy (OST) patients in general practice by developing an integrated model of HCV care and evaluating its feasibility, acceptability, and likely efficacy.

METHODS

The integrated model of care comprises education of community practitioners, outreach of an HCV-trained nurse into general practitioner (GP) practices, and enhanced access of patients to community-based evaluation of their HCV disease (including a novel approach to diagnosis, that is, Echosens FibroScan Mini 430). A total of 24 OST-prescribing GP practices were recruited from the professional networks and databases of members of the research consortium. Patients were eligible if they are aged ≥18 years, on OST, and attend the practice for any reason during the recruitment period. Baseline data on HCV care processes and outcomes were extracted from the clinical records of participating patients.

RESULTS

This study is ongoing and has the potential to make an important impact on patient care and provide high-quality evidence to help GPs make important decisions on HCV testing and onward referral.

CONCLUSIONS

A substantial proportion of HCV-positive patients on OST in general practice are not engaged with specialist hospital services but qualify for direct-acting antiviral drugs treatment. The Heplink model has the potential to reduce HCV-related morbidity and mortality.

REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER

RR1-10.2196/9043.

Alcohol use in opioid agonist treatment

Alcohol misuse among individuals receiving agonist treatment for an opioid use disorder is common and is associated with significant morbidity and mortality. At present, though substantial research highlights effective strategies for the screening, diagnosis and management of an alcohol or opioid use disorder individually, less is known about how best to care for those with a dual diagnosis especially since common treatments for opioid addiction may be contraindicated in a setting of alcohol use. This review summarizes existing research and characterizes the prevalence, clinical implications and management of alcohol misuse among individuals with opioid addiction. Furthermore, it highlights clinically relevant management strategies in need of future research to advance care for this unique, but important, patient population.

Enhancing alcohol screening and brief intervention among people receiving opioid agonist treatment: qualitative study in primary care

Purpose

Problem alcohol use (PAU) is common and associated with considerable adverse outcomes among patients receiving opioid agonist treatment (OAT). The purpose of this paper is to describe a qualitative feasibility assessment of a primary care-based complex intervention to promote screening and brief intervention for PAU, which also aims to examine acceptability and potential effectiveness.

Design/methodology/approach

Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 14 patients and eight general practitioners (GPs) who had been purposively sampled from practices that had participated in the feasibility study. The interviews were transcribed verbatim and analysed thematically.

Findings

Six key themes were identified. While all GPs found the intervention informative and feasible, most considered it challenging to incorporate into practice. Barriers included time constraints, and overlooking and underestimating PAU among this cohort of patients. However, the intervention was considered potentially deliverable and acceptable in practice. Patients reported that (in the absence of the intervention) their use of alcohol was rarely discussed with their GP, and were reticent to initiate conversations on their alcohol use for fear of having their methadone dose reduced.

Research limitations/impelications

Although a complex intervention to enhance alcohol screening and brief intervention among primary care patients attending for OAT is likely to be feasible and acceptable, time constraints and patients’ reticence to discuss alcohol as well as GPs underestimating patients’ alcohol problems is a barrier to consistent, regular and accurate screening by GPs. Future research by way of a definitive efficacy trial informed by the findings of this study and the Psychosocial INTerventions for Alcohol quantitative data is a priority.

Originality/value

To the best of the knowledge, this is the first qualitative study to examine the capability of primary care to address PAU among patients receiving OAT.

Feasibility of alcohol screening among patients receiving opioid treatment in primary care

Background

Identifying and treating problem alcohol use among people who also use illicit drugs is a challenge. Primary care is well placed to address this challenge but there are several barriers which may prevent this occurring. The objective of this study was to determine if a complex intervention designed to support screening and brief intervention for problem alcohol use among people receiving opioid agonist treatment is feasible and acceptable to healthcare providers and their patients in a primary care setting.

Methods

A randomised, controlled, pre-and-post design measured feasibility and acceptability of alcohol screening based on recruitment and retention rates among patients and practices. Efficacy was measured by screening and brief intervention rates and the proportion of patients with problem alcohol use.

Results

Of 149 practices that were invited, 19 (12.8 %) agreed to participate. At follow up, 13 (81.3 %) practices with 81 (62.8 %) patients were retained. Alcohol screening rates in the intervention group were higher at follow up than in the control group (53 % versus 26 %) as were brief intervention rates (47 % versus 19 %). Four (18 %) people reduced their problem drinking (measured by AUDIT-C), compared to two (7 %) in the control group.

Conclusions

Alcohol screening among people receiving opioid agonist treatment in primary care seems feasible. A definitive trial is needed. Such a trial would require over sampling and greater support for participating practices to allow for challenges in recruitment of patients and practices.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12875-016-0548-2) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.