Psychosocial interventions for alcohol use among problem drug users: protocol for a feasibility study in primary care

Integrating Hepatitis C Care for opioid substitution treatment patients attending general practice: Feasibility, Clinical and Cost Effectiveness (Preprint)

Background

Objective

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Alcohol Use Disorder Among Adults Recovered From Substance Use Disorders

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

Alcohol use is often overlooked and underestimated among patients recovered from substance dependence. The prevalence and correlates of alcohol use disorder (AUD) among adults recovered from substance use disorders (SUDs) are estimated in this study.

METHODS

A nationally representative cross-sectional analysis of the National Epidemiological Survey on Alcohol and Related Conditions Wave-III was used in this study. Survey respondents, aged 18 or older, who recovered from SUDs, based on Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 5th Edition (DSM-5) criteria (n = 2061 unweighted), were included. A total of three comparison groups were identified using DSM-5 criteria (1) current AUD, (2) former AUD, and (3) never had AUD. The prevalence of these groups was estimated; medical and psychiatric comorbidities and health-related quality of life were compared; and factors associated with having a current AUD when compared with those with former AUD and those who never had AUD were examined, controlling for other covariates.

RESULTS

About 5.7% of US adults, nationally representative of 14.2 million, have been reported to have recovered from past SUDs. Of these, 28.9% met criteria for current AUD and 48.4% had former AUD. When compared with those who never had AUD, factors associated with having a current AUD included the following: living in urban areas (P = .019), having a bipolar 1 disorder (P < .001), and a history of lifetime incarceration (P = .004).

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION

Nearly one-third of adults recovered from SUDs had current AUD, and several behavioral factors were associated with having a current AUD when compared with those who never had AUD.

SCIENTIFIC SIGNIFICANCE

Our study highlights the substantial risk of AUD in adults who have successfully recovered from SUDs. (Am J Addict 2020;00:00-00).

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.

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.

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.

Unhealthy alcohol use in primary care patients who screen positive for drug use

BACKGROUND

Unhealthy alcohol use (UAU) is common among people who use other drugs; however, little information is available about UAU among patients who screen positive for drugs in primary care, where the clinical priority might be assumed to be drug use. This study aimed at describing the occurrence of UAU and its association with substance use-related outcomes in such patients.

METHODS

This cohort study is a secondary analysis of data from a randomized trial of brief intervention for primary care patients screening positive for drug use. UAU was assessed at baseline; the main independent variable was any heavy drinking day in the past month. Outcomes including drug use characteristics and substance use-related consequences were assessed at baseline and 6 months later.

RESULTS

Of 589 primary care patients with drug use, 48% had at least 1 past-month heavy drinking day. The self-identified main drug was marijuana for 64%, cocaine for 18%, and an opioid for 16%. Any heavy drinking at baseline was negatively associated with number of days use of the main drug at 6 months (incidence rate ratio [IRR] = 0.75, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.62-0.91), but positively associated with the use of more than 1 drug (IRR = 1.73, 95% CI: 1.17-2.55) and unsafe sex (odds ratio [OR] = 1.90, 95% CI: 1.21-2.98).

CONCLUSION

Unhealthy alcohol use is common among patients identified by screening in primary care as using other drugs. Unexpectedly, UAU was negatively associated with days of main drug use. But, as expected, it was positively associated with other drug use characteristics and substance use-related consequences. These findings suggest that attention should be given to alcohol use among primary care patients who use other drugs.

Alcohol use disorders in opioid maintenance therapy: prevalence, clinical correlates and treatment

Maintenance therapy with methadone or buprenorphine is an established and first-line treatment for opioid dependence. Clinical studies indicate that about a third of patients in opioid maintenance therapy show increased alcohol consumption and alcohol use disorders. Comorbid alcohol use disorders have been identified as a risk factor for clinical outcome and can cause poor physical and mental health, including liver disorders, noncompliance, social deterioration and increased mortality risk. The effects of opioid maintenance therapy on alcohol consumption are controversial and no clear pattern has emerged. Most studies have not found a change in alcohol use after initiation of maintenance therapy. Methadone and buprenorphine appear to carry little risk of liver toxicity, but further research on this topic is required. Recent data indicate that brief intervention strategies may help reduce alcohol intake, but the existing evidence is still limited. This review discusses further clinical implications of alcohol use disorders in opioid dependence.

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

OBJECTIVE

Many individuals receiving methadone maintenance receive their treatment through their primary care provider. As many also drink alcohol excessively, there is a need to address alcohol use to improve health outcomes for these individuals. We examined problem alcohol use and its treatment among people attending primary care for methadone maintenance treatment, using baseline data from a feasibility study of an evidence-based complex intervention to improve care.

METHODS

Data on addiction care processes were collected by (1) reviewing clinical records (n = 129) of people who attended 16 general practices for methadone maintenance treatment and (2) administering structured questionnaires to both patients (n = 106) and general practitioners (GPs) (n = 15).

RESULTS

Clinical records indicated that 24 patients (19%) were screened for problem alcohol use in the 12 months prior to data collection, with problem alcohol use identified in 14 (58% of those screened, 11% of the full sample). Of those who had positive screening results for problem alcohol use, five received a brief intervention by a GP and none were referred to specialist treatment. Scores on the Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test (AUDIT) revealed the prevalence of hazardous, harmful, and dependent drinking to be 25% (n = 26), 6% (n = 6), and 16% (n = 17), respectively. The intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) for the proportion of patients with negative AUDITs was 0.038 (SE = 0.01). The ICCs for screening, brief intervention, and/or referral to treatment (SBIRT) were 0.16 (SE = 0.014), -0.06 (SE = 0.017), and 0.22 (SE = 0.026), respectively. Only 12 (11.3%) AUDIT questionnaires concurred with corresponding clinical records that a patient had any/no problem alcohol use. Regular use of primary care was evident, as 25% had visited their GP more than 12 times during the past 3 months.

CONCLUSIONS

Comparing clinical records with patients' experience of SBIRT can shed light on the process of care. Alcohol screening in people who attend primary care for substance use treatment is not routinely conducted. Interventions that enhance the care of problem alcohol use among this high-risk group are a priority.

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

BACKGROUND

Problem alcohol use is common among illicit drug users 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 opiate overdose in opioid users.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of psychosocial interventions for problem alcohol use in illicit drug users (principally problem drug users of opiates and stimulants).

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Drugs and Alcohol Group trials register (June 2014), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library, Issue 11, June 2014), MEDLINE (1966 to June 2014); EMBASE (1974 to June 2014); CINAHL (1982 to June 2014); PsycINFO (1872 to June 2014) 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; 2) online registers of clinical trials: Current Controlled Trials, Clinical Trials.org, Center Watch and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials comparing psychosocial interventions with another therapy (other psychosocial treatment, including non-pharmacological therapies, or placebo) in adult (over the age of 18 years) illicit drug users with concurrent problem alcohol use.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

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

MAIN RESULTS

Four studies, involving 594 participants, were included. Half of the trials were rated as having a high or unclear risk of bias. The studies considered six different psychosocial interventions grouped into four comparisons: (1) cognitive-behavioural coping skills training versus 12-step facilitation (one study; 41 participants), (2) brief intervention versus treatment as usual (one study; 110 participants), (3) group or individual motivational interviewing (MI) versus hepatitis health promotion (one study; 256 participants) and (4) brief motivational intervention (BMI) versus assessment-only (one study; 187 participants). Differences between studies precluded any data pooling. Findings are described for each trial individually.Comparison 1: low-quality evidence; no significant difference for any of the outcomes considered Alcohol abstinence as maximum number of weeks of consecutive alcohol abstinence during treatment: mean difference (MD) 0.40 (95% confidence interval (CI) -1.14 to 1.94); illicit drug abstinence as maximum number of weeks of consecutive abstinence from cocaine during treatment: MD 0.80 (95% CI -0.70 to 2.30); alcohol abstinence as number achieving three or more weeks of consecutive alcohol abstinence during treatment: risk ratio (RR) 1.96 (95% CI 0.43 to 8.94); illicit drug abstinence as number achieving three or more weeks of consecutive abstinence from cocaine during treatment: RR 1.10 (95% CI 0.42 to 2.88); alcohol abstinence during follow-up year: RR 2.38 (95% CI 0.10 to 55.06); illicit drug abstinence as abstinence from cocaine during follow-up year: RR 0.39 (95% CI 0.04 to 3.98), moderate-quality evidence.Comparison 2: low-quality evidence, no significant difference for all the outcomes considered Alcohol use as AUDIT scores at three months: MD 0.80 (95% -1.80 to 3.40); alcohol use as AUDIT scores at nine months: MD 2.30 (95% CI -0.58 to 5.18); alcohol use as number of drinks per week at three months: MD 0.70 (95% CI -3.85 to 5.25); alcohol use as number of drinks per week at nine months: MD -0.30 (95% CI -4.79 to 4.19); alcohol use as decreased alcohol use at three months: RR 1.13 (95% CI 0.67 to 1.93); alcohol use as decreased alcohol use at nine months: RR 1.34 (95% CI 0.69 to 2.58), moderate-quality evidence.Comparison 3 (group and individual MI), low-quality evidence: no significant difference for all outcomes Group MI: number of standard drinks consumed per day over the past month: MD -0.40 (95% CI -2.03 to 1.23); frequency of drug use: MD 0.00 (95% CI -0.03 to 0.03); composite drug score (frequency*severity for all drugs taken): MD 0.00 (95% CI -0.42 to 0.42); greater than 50% reduction in number of standard drinks consumed per day over the last 30 days: RR 1.10 (95% CI 0.82 to 1.48); abstinence from alcohol over the last 30 days: RR 0.88 (95% CI 0.49 to 1.58).Individual MI: number of standard drinks consumed per day over the past month: MD -0.10 (95% CI -1.89 to 1.69); frequency of drug use (as measured using the Addiction Severity Index (ASI drug): MD 0.00 (95% CI -0.03 to 0.03); composite drug score (frequency*severity for all drugs taken): MD -0.10 (95% CI -0.46 to 0.26); greater than 50% reduction in number of standard drinks consumed per day over the last 30 days: RR 0.92 (95% CI 0.68 to 1.26); abstinence from alcohol over the last 30 days: RR 0.97 (95% CI 0.56 to 1.67).Comparison 4: more people reduced alcohol use (by seven or more days in the past month at 6 months) in the BMI group than in the control group (RR 1.67; 95% CI 1.08 to 2.60), moderate-quality evidence. No significant difference was reported for all other outcomes: number of days in the past 30 days with alcohol use at one month: MD -0.30 (95% CI -3.38 to 2.78); number of days in the past month with alcohol use at six months: MD -1.50 (95% CI -4.56 to 1.56); 25% reduction of drinking days in the past month: RR 1.23 (95% CI 0.96 to 1.57); 50% reduction of drinking days in the past month: RR 1.27 (95% CI 0.96 to 1.68); 75% reduction of drinking days in the past month: RR 1.21 (95% CI 0.84 to 1.75); one or more drinking days' reduction in the past month: RR 1.12 (95% CI 0.91 to 1.38).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is low-quality evidence to suggest that there is no difference in effectiveness between different types of interventions to reduce alcohol consumption in concurrent problem alcohol and illicit drug users 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.