Search

Aims: To test the effectiveness of a digital intervention to reduce cannabis use (ICan) with adherence‐focused guidance compared with educational cannabis information. Design: This was a single‐blind randomized controlled trial. Follow‐up clinical outcome measurements took place 3 and 6 months after randomization. Setting: The trial was conducted in the Netherlands. The intervention and guidance took place on‐line, with recruitment via Facebook/Instagram advertisement campaigns. Participants: Inclusion criteria were ≥ 18 years, cannabis use on ≥ 3 days/week, the desire to reduce/quit cannabis and using a smartphone. Participants were allocated to either ICan (n = 188) or control (n = 190) (69% male, mean age = 27.5 years). Intervention and comparator: ICan is a mobile (web‐)application based on motivational interviewing and cognitive behavioural therapy and includes three main components: screening, brief intervention (six modules) and referral to treatment. The control condition consisted of non‐interactive educational cannabis information. Measurements Primary outcome was the number of cannabis use days in the 7 days prior to the 6‐month follow‐up measurement. Secondary outcome measures at 3‐ and 6‐month follow‐up were the number of grams of cannabis used and attitudes towards seeking professional help for cannabis use related problems. Findings Intention‐to‐treat analysis showed that 6 months after randomization the mean number of cannabis use days in the past 7 days was reduced in both conditions (time P < 0.001), with no significant group × time interaction effect [ICan = 4.17 days, control = 4.31 days, Cohen's dbetween = 0.06, 95% confidence interval (CI) = −0.15, 0.26, P = 0.93]. Three months after randomization the mean number of grams used in the past 7 days was reduced in both conditions, with a significantly larger reduction in the ICan condition (P = 0.009, Cohen's dbetween = 0.15). At 6‐month follow‐up the significant group × time interaction effect was no longer present (P = 0.30). In both conditions, attitudes towards seeking professional help remained virtually unchanged over time. Conclusions: A digital intervention to reduce cannabis use (ICan) was more effective than non‐interactive educational cannabis information in reducing grams of cannabis used over 3 months, but not more effective at reducing cannabis use days at 6‐month follow‐up. Cannabis use reductions were maintained in both conditions between 3 and 6 months' follow‐up. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background and Aims: Treatment of depression‐related psychological factors related to smoking behavior may improve rates of cessation among adults with major depressive disorder (MDD). This study measured the efficacy and safety of 12 weeks of behavioral activation for smoking cessation (BASC), varenicline and their combination. Design, Setting, Participants: This study used a randomized, placebo‐controlled, 2 × 2 factorial design comparing BASC versus standard behavioral treatment (ST) and varenicline versus placebo, taking place in research clinics at two urban universities in the United States. Participants comprised 300 hundred adult smokers with current or past MDD. Interventions: BASC integrated behavioral activation therapy and ST to increase engagement in rewarding activities by reducing avoidance, withdrawal and inactivity associated with depression. ST was based on the 2008 PHS Clinical Practice Guideline. Both treatments consisted of eight 45‐min sessions delivered between weeks 1 and 12. Varenicline and placebo were administered for 12 weeks between weeks 2 and 14. Measurements: Primary outcomes were bioverified intent‐to‐treat (ITT) 7‐day point‐prevalence abstinence at 27 weeks and adverse events (AEs). Findings No significant interaction was detected between behavioral treatment and pharmacotherapy at 27 weeks (χ2(1) = 0.19, P = 0.67). BASC and ST did not differ (χ2(1) = 0.43, P = 0.51). Significant differences in ITT abstinence rates (χ2(1) = 4.84, P = 0.03) emerged among pharmacotherapy arms (16.2% for varenicline, 7.5% for placebo), with results favoring varenicline over placebo (rate ratio = 2.16, 95% confidence interval = 1.08, 4.30). All significant differences in AE rates after start of medication were higher for placebo than varenicline. Conclusion: A randomized trial in smokers with major depressive disorder found that varenicline improved smoking abstinence versus placebo at 27 weeks without elevating rates of adverse events. Behavioral activation for smoking cessation did not outperform standard behavioral treatment, with or without adjunctive varenicline therapy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background and Aims: Recovery management checkups (RMC) have established efficacy for linking patients to substance use disorder (SUD) treatment. This study tested whether using RMC in combination with screening, brief intervention, and referral to treatment (SBIRT), versus SBIRT alone, can improve linkage of primary care patients referred to SUD treatment. Design: A randomized controlled trial of SBIRT as usual (n = 132) versus SBIRT plus recovery management checkups for primary care (RMC‐PC) (n = 134) with follow‐up assessments at 3 months post‐baseline. Setting: Four federally qualified health centers in the United States serving low‐income populations. Participants: Primary care patients (n = 266, 64% male, 80% Black, mean age, 48.3 [range, 19–53]) who were referred to SUD treatment after SBIRT. Interventions: SBIRT alone (control condition) compared with SBIRT + RMC‐PC (experimental condition). Measurement The primary outcome was any days of SUD treatment in the past 3 months. Key secondary outcomes were days of SUD treatment overall and by level of care, days of alcohol and other drug (AOD) abstinence, and days of using specific substances, all based on self‐report. Findings At 3‐month follow‐up, those assigned to SBIRT + RMC‐PC (n = 134) had higher odds of receiving any SUD treatment (46% vs 20%; adjusted odds ratio = 4.50 [2.49, 8.48]) compared with SBIRT only, including higher rates of entering residential and intensive outpatient treatment. They also reported more days of treatment (14.45, vs 7.13; d = +0.26), more days abstinent (41.3 vs 31.9; d = +0.22), and fewer days of using alcohol (27.14, vs 36.31; d = −0.25) and cannabis (19.49, vs 28.6; d = −0.20). Conclusions: Recovery management checkups in combination with screening, brief intervention, and referral to treatment are an effective strategy for improving linkage of primary care patients in need to substance use disorder treatment over 3 months. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]