Meta-review on the efficacy of psychological therapies for the treatment of substance use disorders

Regulation of histone acetylation by garcinol blocks the reconsolidation of heroin-associated memory

Drug-associated long-term memories underlie substance use disorders, including heroin use disorder (HUD), which are difficult to eliminate through existing therapies. Addictive memories may become unstable when reexposed to drug-related cues and need to be stabilized again through protein resynthesis. Studies have shown the involvement of histone acetylation in the formation and reconsolidation of long-term drug-associated memory. However, it remains unknown whether and how histone acetyltransferases (HAT), the essential regulators of histone acetylation, contribute to the reconsolidation of heroin-associated memories. Herein, we investigated the function of HAT in the reconsolidation concerning heroin-conditioned memory by using a rat self-administration model. Systemic administration of the HAT inhibitor garcinol inhibited cue and heroin-priming induced reinstatement of heroin seeking, indicating the treatment potential of garcinol for relapse prevention.

Psychosocial interventions for stimulant use disorder

BACKGROUND

Stimulant use disorder is a continuously growing medical and social burden without approved medications available for its treatment. Psychosocial interventions could be a valid approach to help people reduce or cease stimulant consumption. This is an update of a Cochrane review first published in 2016.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the efficacy and safety of psychosocial interventions for stimulant use disorder in adults.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Drugs and Alcohol Group Specialised Register, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, three other databases, and two trials registers in September 2023. All searches included non-English language literature. We handsearched the references of topic-related systematic reviews and the included studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing any psychosocial intervention with no intervention, treatment as usual (TAU), or a different intervention in adults with stimulant use disorder.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used the standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane.

MAIN RESULTS

We included a total of 64 RCTs (8241 participants). Seventy-three percent of studies included participants with cocaine or crack cocaine use disorder; 3.1% included participants with amphetamine use disorder; 10.9% included participants with methamphetamine use disorder; and 12.5% included participants with any stimulant use disorder. In 18 studies, all participants were in methadone maintenance treatment. In our primary comparison of any psychosocial treatment to no intervention, we included studies which compared a psychosocial intervention plus TAU to TAU alone. In this comparison, 12 studies evaluated cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT), 27 contingency management, three motivational interviewing, one study looked at psychodynamic therapy, and one study evaluated CBT plus contingency management. We also compared any psychosocial intervention to TAU. In this comparison, seven studies evaluated CBT, two contingency management, two motivational interviewing, and one evaluated a combination of CBT plus motivational interviewing. Seven studies compared contingency management reinforcement related to abstinence versus contingency management not related to abstinence. Finally, seven studies compared two different psychosocial approaches. We judged 65.6% of the studies to be at low risk of bias for random sequence generation and 19% at low risk for allocation concealment. Blinding of personnel and participants was not possible for the type of intervention, so we judged all the studies to be at high risk of performance bias for subjective outcomes but at low risk for objective outcomes. We judged 22% of the studies to be at low risk of detection bias for subjective outcomes. We judged most of the studies (69%) to be at low risk of attrition bias. When compared to no intervention, we found that psychosocial treatments: reduce the dropout rate (risk ratio (RR) 0.82, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.74 to 0.91; 30 studies, 4078 participants; high-certainty evidence); make little to no difference to point abstinence at the end of treatment (RR 1.15, 95% CI 0.94 to 1.41; 12 studies, 1293 participants; high-certainty evidence); make little to no difference to point abstinence at the longest follow-up (RR 1.22, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.62; 9 studies, 1187 participants; high-certainty evidence); probably increase continuous abstinence at the end of treatment (RR 1.89, 95% CI 1.20 to 2.97; 12 studies, 1770 participants; moderate-certainty evidence); may make little to no difference in continuous abstinence at the longest follow-up (RR 1.14, 95% CI 0.89 to 1.46; 4 studies, 295 participants; low-certainty evidence); reduce the frequency of drug intake at the end of treatment (standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.35, 95% CI -0.50 to -0.19; 10 studies, 1215 participants; high-certainty evidence); and increase the longest period of abstinence (SMD 0.54, 95% CI 0.41 to 0.68; 17 studies, 2118 participants; high-certainty evidence). When compared to TAU, we found that psychosocial treatments reduce the dropout rate (RR 0.79, 95% CI 0.65 to 0.97; 9 studies, 735 participants; high-certainty evidence) and may make little to no difference in point abstinence at the end of treatment (RR 1.67, 95% CI 0.64 to 4.31; 1 study, 128 participants; low-certainty evidence). We are uncertain whether they make any difference in point abstinence at the longest follow-up (RR 1.31, 95% CI 0.86 to 1.99; 2 studies, 124 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Compared to TAU, psychosocial treatments may make little to no difference in continuous abstinence at the end of treatment (RR 1.18, 95% CI 0.92 to 1.53; 1 study, 128 participants; low-certainty evidence); probably make little to no difference in the frequency of drug intake at the end of treatment (SMD -1.17, 95% CI -2.81 to 0.47, 4 studies, 479 participants, moderate-certainty evidence); and may make little to no difference in the longest period of abstinence (SMD -0.16, 95% CI -0.54 to 0.21; 1 study, 110 participants; low-certainty evidence). None of the studies for this comparison assessed continuous abstinence at the longest follow-up. Only five studies reported harms related to psychosocial interventions; four of them stated that no adverse events occurred.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

This review's findings indicate that psychosocial treatments can help people with stimulant use disorder by reducing dropout rates. This conclusion is based on high-certainty evidence from comparisons of psychosocial interventions with both no treatment and TAU. This is an important finding because many people with stimulant use disorders leave treatment prematurely. Stimulant use disorders are chronic, lifelong, relapsing mental disorders, which require substantial therapeutic efforts to achieve abstinence. For those who are not yet able to achieve complete abstinence, retention in treatment may help to reduce the risks associated with stimulant use. In addition, psychosocial interventions reduce stimulant use compared to no treatment, but they may make little to no difference to stimulant use when compared to TAU. The most studied and promising psychosocial approach is contingency management. Relatively few studies explored the other approaches, so we cannot rule out the possibility that the results were imprecise due to small sample sizes.

Navigating the Complex Intersection of Substance Use and Psychiatric Disorders: A Comprehensive Review

The co-occurrence of substance use disorders (SUDs) and psychiatric conditions, often referred to as comorbidity or concurrent disorders, presents intricate challenges in both diagnosis and treatment. This comprehensive narrative review aims to synthesize and critically evaluate the existing evidence surrounding the management of individuals with comorbid SUDs and psychiatric disorders. Comorbidity in these domains carries profound implications for clinical practice, research, and policymaking, emphasizing the need for a holistic understanding of the intricate dynamics that arise when these conditions coexist. This review explores recent research findings, evidence-based guidelines, and emerging trends within the field, offering valuable insights for clinicians, researchers, and policymakers seeking to navigate the complex terrain of comorbidity in substance use and psychiatric disorders.

Feasibility, Acceptability, and Potential Efficacy of a Self-Guided Internet-Delivered Dialectical Behavior Therapy Intervention for Substance Use Disorders: Randomized Controlled Trial

BACKGROUND

People with alcohol and substance use disorders (SUDs) often have underlying difficulties in regulating emotions. Although dialectical behavioral therapy is effective for SUDs, it is often difficult to access. Self-guided, internet-delivered dialectical behavioral therapy (iDBT) allows for expanded availability, but few studies have rigorously evaluated it in individuals with SUDs.

OBJECTIVE

This study examines the feasibility, acceptability, and potential efficacy of an iDBT intervention in treatment-seeking adults with SUDs. We hypothesized that iDBT would be feasible, credible, acceptable, and engaging to people with SUDs. We also hypothesized that the immediate versus delayed iDBT group would show comparatively greater improvements and that both groups would show significant improvements over time.

METHODS

A 12-week, single-blinded, parallel-arm, randomized controlled trial was implemented, with assessments at baseline and at 4 (acute), 8, and 12 weeks (follow-up). A total of 72 community adults aged 18 to 64 years were randomized. The immediate group (n=38) received access to iDBT at baseline, and the delayed group (n=34) received access after 4 weeks. The intervention (Pocket Skills 2.0) was a self-guided iDBT via a website, with immediate access to all content, additional text and email reminders, and additional support meetings as requested. Our primary outcome was substance dependence, with secondary outcomes pertaining to feasibility, clinical outcomes, functional disability, and emotion dysregulation, among other measures. All outcomes were assessed using self-report questionnaires.

RESULTS

iDBT was perceived as a credible and acceptable treatment. In terms of feasibility, 94% (68/72) of the participants started iDBT, 13% (9/68) were early dropouts, 35% (24/68) used it for the recommended 8 days in the first month, and 50% (34/68) were still active 4 weeks later. On average, the participants used iDBT for 2 hours and 24 minutes across 10 separate days. In the acute period, no greater benefit was found for the immediate group on substance dependence, although we did find lower depression (b=-2.46; P=.02) and anxiety (b=-2.22; P=.02). At follow-up, there were greater benefits in terms of reduced alcohol (b=-2.00; P=.02) and nonalcoholic substance (b=-3.74; P=.01) consumption in the immediate access group. Both groups demonstrated improvements in substance dependence in the acute (b=-1.73; P<.001) and follow-up period (b=-2.09; P<.001). At follow-up, both groups reported reduced depression, anxiety, suicidal behaviors, emotional dysregulation, and functional disability.

CONCLUSIONS

iDBT is a feasible and acceptable intervention for patients with SUDs, although methods for improving engagement are warranted. Although results did not support efficacy for the primary outcome at 4 weeks, findings support reductions in substance dependence and other mental health concerns at 12 weeks. Notwithstanding the limitations of this study, the results suggest the potential value of iDBT in the treatment of SUDs and other mental health conditions.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT05094440; https://clinicaltrials.gov/show/NCT05094440.