Search

Summary of recommendations and levels of evidence Chapter 2: Screening and assessment for unhealthy alcohol use Screening Screening for unhealthy alcohol use and appropriate interventions should be implemented in general practice (Level A), hospitals (Level B), emergency departments and community health and welfare settings (Level C). Quantity–frequency measures can detect consumption that exceeds levels in the current Australian guidelines (Level B). The Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test (AUDIT) is the most effective screening tool and is recommended for use in primary care and hospital settings. For screening in the general community, the AUDIT-C is a suitable alternative (Level A). Indirect biological markers should be used as an adjunct to screening (Level A), and direct measures of alcohol in breath and/or blood can be useful markers of recent use (Level B). Assessment Assessment should include evaluation of alcohol use and its effects, physical examination, clinical investigations and collateral history taking (Level C). Assessment for alcohol-related physical problems, mental health problems and social support should be undertaken routinely (GPP). Where there are concerns regarding the safety of the patient or others, specialist consultation is recommended (Level C). Assessment should lead to a clear, mutually acceptable treatment plan which specifies interventions to meet the patient’s needs (Level D). Sustained abstinence is the optimal outcome for most patients with alcohol dependence (Level C). Chapter 3: Caring for and managing patients with alcohol problems: interventions, treatments, relapse prevention, aftercare, and long term follow-up Brief interventions Brief motivational interviewing interventions are more effective than no treatment for people who consume alcohol at risky levels (Level A). Their effectiveness compared with standard care or alternative psychosocial interventions varies by treatment setting. They are most effective in primary care settings (Level A). Psychosocial interventions Cognitive behaviour therapy should be a first-line psychosocial intervention for alcohol dependence. Its clinical benefit is enhanced when it is combined with pharmacotherapy for alcohol dependence or an additional psychosocial intervention (eg, motivational interviewing) (Level A). Motivational interviewing is effective in the short term and in patients with less severe alcohol dependence (Level A). Residential rehabilitation may be of benefit to patients who have moderate-to-severe alcohol dependence and require a structured residential treatment setting (Level D). Alcohol withdrawal management Most cases of withdrawal can be managed in an ambulatory setting with appropriate support (Level B). Tapering diazepam regimens (Level A) with daily staged supply from a pharmacy or clinic are recommended (GPP). Pharmacotherapies for alcohol dependence Acamprosate is recommended to help maintain abstinence from alcohol (Level A). Naltrexone is recommended for prevention of relapse to heavy drinking (Level A). Disulfiram is only recommended in close supervision settings where patients are motivated for abstinence (Level A). Some evidence for off-label therapies baclofen and topiramate exists, but their side effect profiles are complex and neither should be a first-line medication (Level B). Peer support programs Peer-led support programs such as Alcoholics Anonymous and SMART Recovery are effective at maintaining abstinence or reductions in drinking (Level A). Relapse prevention, aftercare and long-term follow-up Return to problematic drinking is common and aftercare should focus on addressing factors that contribute to relapse (GPP). A harm-minimisation approach should be considered for patients who are unable to reduce their drinking (GPP). Chapter 4: Providing appropriate treatment and care to people with alcohol problems: a summary for key specific populations Gender-specific issues Screen women and men for domestic abuse (Level C). Consider child protection assessments for caregivers with alcohol use disorder (GPP). Explore contraceptive options with women of reproductive age who regularly consume alcohol (Level B). Pregnant and breastfeeding women Advise pregnant and breastfeeding women that there is no safe level of alcohol consumption (Level B). Pregnant women who are alcohol dependent should be admitted to hospital for treatment in an appropriate maternity unit that has an addiction specialist (GPP). Young people Perform a comprehensive HEEADSSS assessment for young people with alcohol problems (Level B). Treatment should focus on tangible benefits of reducing drinking through psychotherapy and engagement of family and peer networks (Level B). Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples Collaborate with Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander health workers, organisations and communities, and seek guidance on patient engagement approaches (GPP). Use validated screening tools and consider integrated mainstream and Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander-specific approaches to care (Level B). Culturally and linguistically diverse groups Use an appropriate method, such as the “teach-back” technique, to assess the need for language and health literacy support (Level C). Engage with culture-specific agencies as this can improve treatment access and success (Level C). Sexually diverse and gender diverse populations Be mindful that sexually diverse and gender diverse populations experience lower levels of satisfaction, connection and treatment completion (Level C). Seek to incorporate LGBTQ-specific treatment and agencies (Level C). Older people All new patients aged over 50 years should be screened for harmful alcohol use (Level D). Consider alcohol as a possible cause for older patients presenting with unexplained physical or psychological symptoms (Level D). Consider shorter acting benzodiazepines for withdrawal management (Level D). Cognitive impairment Cognitive impairment may impair engagement with treatment (Level A). Perform cognitive screening for patients who have alcohol problems and refer them for neuropsychological assessment if significant impairment is suspected (Level A). Summary of key recommendations and levels of evidence Chapter 5: Understanding and managing comorbidities for people with alcohol problems: polydrug use and dependence, co-occurring mental disorders, and physical comorbidities Polydrug use and dependence Active alcohol use disorder, including dependence, significantly increases the risk of overdose associated with the administration of opioid drugs. Specialist advice is recommended before treatment of people dependent on both alcohol and opioid drugs (GPP). Older patients requiring management of alcohol withdrawal should have their use of pharmaceutical medications reviewed, given the prevalence of polypharmacy in this age group (GPP). Smoking cessation can be undertaken in patients with alcohol dependence and/or polydrug use problems; some evidence suggests varenicline may help support reduction of both tobacco and alcohol consumption (Level C). Co-occurring mental disorders More intensive interventions are needed for people with comorbid conditions, as this population tends to have more severe problems and carries a worse prognosis than those with single pathology (GPP). The Kessler Psychological Distress Scale (K10 or K6) is recommended for screening for comorbid mental disorders in people presenting for alcohol use disorders (Level A). People with alcohol use disorder and comorbid mental disorders should be offered treatment for both disorders; care should be taken to coordinate intervention (Level C). Physical comorbidities Patients should be advised that alcohol use has no beneficial health effects. There is no clear risk-free threshold for alcohol intake. The safe dose for alcohol intake is dependent on many factors such as underlying liver disease, comorbidities, age and sex (Level A). In patients with alcohol use disorder, early recognition of the risk for liver cirrhosis is critical. Patients with cirrhosis should abstain from alcohol and should be offered referral to a hepatologist for liver disease management and to an addiction physician for management of alcohol use disorder (Level A). Alcohol abstinence reduces the risk of cancer and improves outcomes after a diagnosis of cancer (Level A).

Approximately 29.5 million people, or 0.6% of the global adult population, have a drug use disorder (United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC), World Drug Report (ISBN: 978–92–1-148291-1, eISBN: 978–92–1-060623-3, United Nations publication, Sales No. E.17.XI.6), 2017). People who use illicit drugs often do not disclose their drug use due to the illegality and stigma associated with that use. The opportunistic nature of brief interventions for illicit drug use makes therapeutic engagement critical to effectiveness. In many settings time will be limited so that brief interventions also need to be efficient.

Background and Aims. Benzodiazepines have been widely used for long periods of time despite their adverse effects. The acute effects on cognition are well established. However, less is known about the long-term effects. This study critically reviewed existing evidence of the association between long-term exposure to benzodiazepines and risk of cognitive decline in adults. Methods. A systematic review with narrative synthesis was conducted. PubMed and PsycINFO databases were searched using combinations of keywords related to “benzodiazepines” and “cognitive function” from database inception to 12 February 2018 to identify prospective longitudinal studies. The records were evaluated for relevance according to the inclusion and exclusion criteria. Results. Fourteen studies involving 2145 long-term benzodiazepine users were included. Meta-analysis was not undertaken because the combined result would not be meaningful as the included studies differed in several key aspects such as frequency and duration of benzodiazepine use, follow-up periods, cognitive domains, cognitive tests, scoring systems, and statistical analysis. The definition of long-term benzodiazepine use was problematic in all the studies. The exposure was determined by measures which were assumed to represent the whole period in-between the follow-ups. Only 3 of the 14 studies provided support for an association between long-term benzodiazepine use and cognitive decline with a small to medium effect size. However, these three studies used different methods to assess the strength of this association. Global cognitive functioning, verbal memory, intelligence, psychomotor speed, and speed of processing were the cognitive domains affected which also varied across these three studies. Conclusions. Little evidence of an association between long-term benzodiazepine use and a higher risk of cognitive decline among the general adult population was found. However, discrepancies among the results and inconsistencies regarding the cognitive domains affected and methodological limitations prevent definite conclusions. Therefore, future research with prospective studies specially designed would be of great value.

This chapter reviews pharmacotherapies that have been trialled for cannabis dependence, identifying those that warrant further research and those of little or uncertain value. A diverse range of medicines have been tested, representing a broad range of pharmacological strategies. These include tetrahydrocannabinol preparations, various types of antidepressant, anxiolytics, a glutamatergic modulator and the neuropeptide oxytocin. Cannabinoid agonists warrant further research. For the FAAH inhibitor PF-04457845, oxytocin, varenicline and gabapentin, although there is a signal to indicate further research is warranted, these medications do not yet have sufficient evidence to support clinical use, and larger, longer-term trials are needed in representative treatment-seeking populations. Special populations that warrant consideration are those with cannabis dependence and concurrent mental health conditions and those that develop dependence through therapeutic use.

Background Cannabis is the most prevalent illicit drug in the world. Demand for treatment of cannabis use disorders is increasing. There are currently no pharmacotherapies approved for treatment of cannabis use disorders. Objectives To assess the effectiveness and safety of pharmacotherapies as compared with each other, placebo or supportive care for reducing symptoms of cannabis withdrawal and promoting cessation or reduction of cannabis use. Search methods We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (to 4 March 2014), MEDLINE (to week 3 February 2014), EMBASE (to 3 March 2014) and PsycINFO (to week 4 February 2014). We also searched reference lists of articles, electronic sources of ongoing trials and conference proceedings, and contacted selected researchers active in the area. Selection criteria Randomised and quasi-randomised controlled trials involving the use of medications to reduce the symptoms and signs of cannabis withdrawal or to promote cessation or reduction of cannabis use, or both, in comparison with other medications, placebo or no medication (supportive care) in participants diagnosed as cannabis dependent or who were likely to be dependent. Data collection and analysis We used standard methodological procedures expected by The Cochrane Collaboration. Two review authors assessed studies for inclusion and extracted data. All review authors confirmed the inclusion decisions and the overall process. Main results We included 14 randomised controlled trials involving 958 participants. For 10 studies the average age was 33 years; two studies targeted young people; and age data were not available for two studies. Approximately 80% of study participants were male. The studies were at low risk of selection, performance, detection and selective outcome reporting bias. Three studies were at risk of attrition bias. All studies involved comparison of active medication and placebo. The medications included preparations containing tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) (two studies), selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor (SSRI) antidepressants (two studies), mixed action antidepressants (three studies), anticonvulsants and mood stabilisers (three studies), an atypical antidepressant (two studies), an anxiolytic (one study), a norepinephrine reuptake inhibitor (one study) and a glutamatergic modulator (one study). One study examined more than one medication. Diversity in the medications and the outcomes reported limited the extent that analysis was possible. Insufficient data were available to assess the utility of most of the medications to promote cannabis abstinence at the end of treatment. There was moderate quality evidence that completion of treatment was more likely with preparations containing THC compared to placebo (RR 1.29, 95% CI 1.08 to 1.55; 2 studies, 207 participants, P = 0.006). There was some evidence that treatment with preparations containing THC was associated with reduced cannabis withdrawal symptoms and craving, but this latter outcome could not be quantified. For mixed action antidepressants compared with placebo (2 studies, 179 participants) there was very low quality evidence on the likelihood of abstinence from cannabis at the end of follow-up (RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.12 to 5.41), and moderate quality evidence on the likelihood of treatment completion (RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.71 to 1.21). For this same outcome there was very low quality evidence for the effects of SSRI antidepressants (RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.44 to 1.53; 2 studies, 122 participants), anticonvulsants and mood stabilisers (RR 0.78, 95% CI 0.42 to 1.46; 2 studies, 75 participants), and the atypical antidepressant, bupropion (RR 1.06, 95% CI 0.67 to 1.67; 2 studies, 92 participants). Available evidence on gabapentin (anticonvulsant) and N-acetylcysteine (glutamatergic modulator) was insufficient for quantitative estimates of their effectiveness, but these medications may be worth further investigation. Authors' conclusions There is incomplete evidence for all of the pharmacotherapies investigated, and for many of the outcomes the quality was downgraded due to small sample sizes, inconsistency and risk of attrition bias. The quantitative analyses that were possible, combined with general findings of the studies reviewed, indicate that SSRI antidepressants, mixed action antidepressants, atypical antidepressants (bupropion), anxiolytics (buspirone) and norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors (atomoxetine) are probably of little value in the treatment of cannabis dependence. Preparations containing THC are of potential value but, given the limited evidence, this application of THC preparations should be considered still experimental. Further studies should compare different preparations of THC, dose and duration of treatment, adjunct medications and therapies. The evidence base for the anticonvulsant gabapentin and the glutamatergic modulator N-acetylcysteine is weak, but these medications are also worth further investigation.

This chapter reviews pharmacotherapies that have been trialled for cannabis dependence, identifying those that warrant further research and those of little or uncertain value. A diverse range of medicines have been tested, representing a broad range of pharmacological strategies. These include tetrahydrocannabinol preparations, various types of antidepressant, anxiolytics, a glutamatergic modulator and the neuropeptide oxytocin. Cannabinoid agonists warrant further research. For the FAAH inhibitor PF-04457845, oxytocin, varenicline and gabapentin, although there is a signal to indicate further research is warranted, these medications do not yet have sufficient evidence to support clinical use, and larger, longer-term trials are needed in representative treatment-seeking populations. Special populations that warrant consideration are those with cannabis dependence and concurrent mental health conditions and those that develop dependence through therapeutic use.

This is a protocol for a Cochrane Review (Intervention). The objectives are as follows: The objective of the review is to assess the efficacy and acceptability of contingency management for substance use disorders in reducing substance use or maintaining abstinence, enhancing treatment retention and compliance, and improving social and health status during and after formal contingency management procedures.

Aims: This review provides an up-to-date curated source of information on alcohol, tobacco and illicit drug use and their associated mortality and burden of disease. Limitations in the data are also discussed, including how these can be addressed in the future. Methods: Online data sources were identified through expert review. Data were obtained mainly from the World Health Organization, United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime and Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation. Results: In 2015, the estimated prevalence among the adult population was 18.4% for heavy episodic alcohol use (in the past 30 days); 15.2% for daily tobacco smoking; and 3.8, 0.77, 0.37 and 0.35% for past-year cannabis, amphetamine, opioid and cocaine use, respectively. European regions had the highest prevalence of heavy episodic alcohol use and daily tobacco use. The age-standardized prevalence of alcohol dependence was 843.2 per 100 000 people; for cannabis, opioids, amphetamines and cocaine dependence it was 259.3, 220.4, 86.0 and 52.5 per 100 000 people, respectively. High-income North America region had among the highest rates of cannabis, opioid and cocaine dependence. Attributable disability-adjusted life-years (DALYs) were highest for tobacco smoking (170.9 million DALYs), followed by alcohol (85.0 million) and illicit drugs (27.8 million). Substance-attributable mortality rates were highest for tobacco smoking (110.7 deaths per 100 000 people), followed by alcohol and illicit drugs (33.0 and 6.9 deaths per 100 000 people, respectively). Attributable age-standardized mortality rates and DALYs for alcohol and illicit drugs were highest in eastern Europe; attributable age-standardized tobacco mortality rates and DALYs were highest in Oceania. Conclusions: In 2015 alcohol use and tobacco smoking use between them cost the human population more than a quarter of a billion disability-adjusted life years, with illicit drugs costing further tens of millions. Europeans suffered proportionately more, but in absolute terms the mortality rate was greatest in low- and middle-income countries with large populations and where the quality of data was more limited. Better standardized and rigorous methods for data collection, collation and reporting are needed to assess more accurately the geographical and temporal trends in substance use and its disease burden.

Background and aims Addictive behaviours are among the greatest scourges on humankind. It is important to estimate the extent of the problem globally and in different geographical regions. Such estimates are available, but there is a need to collate and evaluate these to arrive at the best available synthetic figures. Addiction has commissioned this paper as the first of a series attempting to do this. Methods Online sources of global, regional and national information on prevalence and major harms relating to alcohol use, tobacco use, unsanctioned psychoactive drug use and gambling were identified through expert review and assessed. The primary data sources located were the websites of the World Health Organization (WHO), the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC) and the Alberta Gambling Research Institute. Summary statistics were compared with recent publications on the global epidemiology of addictive behaviours. Results An estimated 4.9% of the world's adult population (240 million people) suffer from alcohol use disorder (7.8% of men and 1.5% of women), with alcohol causing an estimated 257 disability-adjusted life years lost per 100 000 population. An estimated 22.5% of adults in the world (1 billion people) smoke tobacco products (32.0% of men and 7.0% of women). It is estimated that 11% of deaths in males and 6% of deaths in females each year are due to tobacco. Of ‘unsanctioned psychoactive drugs’, cannabis is the most prevalent at 3.5% globally, with each of the others at

BACKGROUND: Opioid dependence (OD) is an increasing clinical and public health problem worldwide. International guidelines recommend opioid substitution treatment (OST), such as methadone and buprenorphine, as first‐line medication treatment for OD. A negative aspect of OST is that the medication used can be diverted both through sale on the black market, and the unsanctioned use of medications. Daily supervised administration of medications used in OST has the advantage of reducing the risk of diversion, and may promote therapeutic engagement, potentially enhancing the psychosocial aspect of OST, but costs more and is more restrictive on the client than dispensing for off‐site consumption. OBJECTIVES: The objective of this systematic review is to compare the effectiveness of OST with supervised dosing relative to dispensing of medication for off‐site consumption. SEARCH METHODS: We searched in Cochrane Drugs and Alcohol Group Specialised Register and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, Web of Science from inception up to April 2016. Ongoing and unpublished studies were searched via ClinicalTrials.gov (www.clinicaltrials.gov) and World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) (http://www.who.int/ictrp/en/). All searches included non‐English language literature. We handsearched references on topic‐related systematic reviews. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs), controlled clinical trials (CCTs), and prospective controlled cohort studies, involving people who are receiving OST (methadone, buprenorphine) and comparing supervised dosing with dispensing of medication to be consumed away from the dispensing point, usually without supervision. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used the standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. MAIN RESULTS: Six studies (four RCTs and two prospective observational cohort studies), involving 7999 participants comparing supervised OST treatment with unsupervised treatment, met the inclusion criteria. The risk of bias was generally moderate across trials, but the results reported on outcomes that we planned to consider were limited. Overall, we judged the quality of the evidence from very low to low for all the outcomes. We found no difference in retention at any duration with supervised compared to unsupervised dosing (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.88 to 1.12, 716 participants, four trials, low‐quality evidence) or in retention in the shortest follow‐up period, three months (RR 0.94; 95% CI 0.84 to 1.05; 472 participants, three trials, low‐quality evidence). Additional data at 12 months from one observational study found no difference in retention between groups (RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.77 to 1.14; n = 300).There was no difference in abstinence at the end of treatment (self‐reported drug use) (67% versus 60%, P = 0.33, 293 participants, one trial, very low‐quality evidence); and in diversion of medication (5% versus 2%, 293 participants, one trial, very low‐quality evidence). Regarding our secondary outcomes, we did not found a difference in the incidence of adverse effects in the supervised compared to unsupervised control group (RR 0.63; 96% CI 0.10 to 3.86; 363 participants, two trials, very low‐quality evidence). Data on severity of dependence were very limited (244 participants, one trial) and showed no difference between the two approaches. Data on deaths were reported in two studies. One trial reported two deaths in the supervised group (low‐quality evidence), while in the cohort study all‐cause mortality was found lower in regular supervision group (crude mortality rate 0.60 versus 0.81 per 100 person‐years), although after adjustment insufficient evidence existed to suggest that regular supervision was protective (mortality rate ratio = 1.23, 95% CI = 0.67 to 2.27). No studies reported pain symptoms, drug craving, aberrant opioid‐related behaviours, days of unsanctioned opioid use and overdose. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Take‐home medication strategies are attractive to treatment services due to lower costs, and place less restrictions on clients, but it is unknown whether they may be associated with increased risk of diversion and unsanctioned use of medication. There is uncertainty about the effects of supervised dosing compared with unsupervised medication due to the low and very low quality of the evidence for the primary outcomes of interest for this review. Data on defined secondary outcomes were similarly limited. More research comparing supervised and take‐home medication strategies is needed to support decisions on the relative effectiveness of these strategies. The trials should be designed and conducted with high quality and over a longer follow‐up period to support comparison of strategies at different stages of treatment. In particular, there is a need for studies assessing in more detail the risk of diversion and safety outcomes of using supervised OST to manage opioid dependence.

Introduction and AimsNaltrexone implants are used to treat opioid dependence, but their safety and efficacy remain poorly understood. We systematically reviewed the literature to assess the safety and efficacy of naltrexone implants for treating opioid dependence.

Background Managed withdrawal is a necessary step prior to drug-free treatment or as the endpoint of substitution treatment. Objectives To assess the effects of buprenorphine versus tapered doses of methadone, alpha2-adrenergic agonists, symptomatic medications or placebo, or different buprenorphine regimens for managing opioid withdrawal, in terms of the intensity of the withdrawal syndrome experienced, duration and completion of treatment, and adverse effects. Search methods We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL, Issue 11, 2016), MEDLINE (1946 to December week 1, 2016), Embase (to 22 December 2016), PsycINFO (1806 to December week 3, 2016), and the Web of Science (to 22 December 2016) and handsearched the reference lists of articles. Selection criteria Randomised controlled trials of interventions using buprenorphine to modify the signs and symptoms of withdrawal in participants who were primarily opioid dependent. Comparison interventions involved reducing doses of methadone, alpha2-adrenergic agonists (clonidine or lofexidine), symptomatic medications or placebo, and different buprenorphine-based regimens. Data collection and analysis We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. Main results We included 27 studies involving 3048 participants. The main comparators were clonidine or lofexidine (14 studies). Six studies compared buprenorphine versus methadone, and seven compared different rates of buprenorphine dose reduction. We assessed 12 studies as being at high risk of bias in at least one of seven domains of methodological quality. Six of these studies compared buprenorphine with clonidine or lofexidine and two with methadone; the other four studies compared different rates of buprenorphine dose reduction. For the comparison of buprenorphine and methadone in tapered doses, meta-analysis was not possible for the outcomes of intensity of withdrawal or adverse effects. However, information reported by the individual studies was suggestive of buprenorphine and methadone having similar capacity to ameliorate opioid withdrawal, without clinically significant adverse effects. The meta-analyses that were possible support a conclusion of no difference between buprenorphine and methadone in terms of average treatment duration (mean difference (MD) 1.30 days, 95% confidence interval (CI) −8.11 to 10.72; N = 82; studies = 2; low quality) or treatment completion rates (risk ratio (RR) 1.04, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.20; N = 457; studies = 5; moderate quality). Relative to clonidine or lofexidine, buprenorphine was associated with a lower average withdrawal score (indicating less severe withdrawal) during the treatment episode, with an effect size that is considered to be small to moderate (standardised mean difference (SMD) −0.43, 95% CI −0.58 to −0.28; N = 902; studies = 7; moderate quality). Patients receiving buprenorphine stayed in treatment for longer, with an effect size that is considered to be large (SMD 0.92, 95% CI 0.57 to 1.27; N = 558; studies = 5; moderate quality) and were more likely to complete withdrawal treatment (RR 1.59, 95% CI 1.23 to 2.06; N = 1264; studies = 12; moderate quality). At the same time there was no significant difference in the incidence of adverse effects, but dropout due to adverse effects may be more likely with clonidine (RR 0.20, 95% CI 0.04 to 1.15; N = 134; studies = 3; low quality). The difference in treatment completion rates translates to a number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome of 4 (95% CI 3 to 6), indicating that for every four people treated with buprenorphine, we can expect that one additional person will complete treatment than with clonidine or lofexidine. For studies comparing different rates of reduction of the buprenorphine dose, meta-analysis was possible only for treatment completion, with separate analyses for inpatient and outpatient settings. The results were diverse, and we assessed the quality of evidence as being very low. It remains very uncertain what effect the rate of dose taper has on treatment outcome. Authors' conclusions Buprenorphine is more effective than clonidine or lofexidine for managing opioid withdrawal in terms of severity of withdrawal, duration of withdrawal treatment, and the likelihood of treatment completion. Buprenorphine and methadone appear to be equally effective, but data are limited. It remains possible that the pattern of withdrawal experienced may differ and that withdrawal symptoms may resolve more quickly with buprenorphine. It is not possible to draw any conclusions from the available evidence on the relative effectiveness of different rates of tapering the buprenorphine dose. The divergent findings of studies included in this review suggest that there may be multiple factors affecting the response to the rate of dose taper. One such factor could be whether or not the initial treatment plan includes a transition to subsequent relapse prevention treatment with naltrexone. Indeed, the use of buprenorphine to support transition to naltrexone treatment is an aspect worthy of further research. Most participants in the studies included in this review were male. None of the studies reported outcomes on the basis of sex, preventing any exploration of differences related to this variable. Consideration of sex as a factor influencing response to withdrawal treatment would be relevant research for selecting the most appropriate type of intervention for each individual.

Background There are increasing concerns regarding pharmaceutical opioid harms including overdose and dependence, with an associated increase in treatment demand. People dependent on pharmaceutical opioids appear to differ in important ways from people who use heroin, yet most opioid agonist treatment research has been conducted in people who use heroin. Objectives To assess the effects of maintenance agonist pharmacotherapy for the treatment of pharmaceutical opioid dependence. Search methods The search included the Cochrane Drugs and Alcohol Group's Specialised Register of Trials; the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL, 2015, Issue 5); PubMed (January 1966 to May 2015); EMBASE (Ovid) (January 1974 to May 2015); CINAHL (EBSCOhost) (1982 to May 2015); ISI Web of Science (to May 2014); and PsycINFO (Ovid) (1806 to May 2014). Selection criteria We included randomised controlled trials examining maintenance opioid agonist treatments that made the following two comparisons: 1. full opioid agonists (methadone, morphine, oxycodone, levo-alpha-acetylmethadol (LAAM), or codeine) versus different full opioid agonists or partial opioid agonists (buprenorphine) for maintenance treatment and 2. full or partial opioid agonist maintenance versus placebo, detoxification only, or psychological treatment (without opioid agonist treatment). Data collection and analysis We used standard Cochrane methodological procedures. Main results We identified six randomised controlled trials that met inclusion criteria (607 participants). We found moderate quality evidence from two studies of no difference between methadone and buprenorphine in self reported opioid use (risk ratio (RR) 0.37, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.08 to 1.63) or opioid positive urine drug tests (RR 0.81, 95% CI 0.56 to 1.18). There was low quality evidence from three studies of no difference in retention between buprenorphine and methadone maintenance treatment (RR 0.69, 95% CI 0.39 to 1.22). There was moderate quality evidence from two studies of no difference between methadone and buprenorphine on adverse events (RR 1.10, 95% CI 0.64 to 1.91). We found low quality evidence from three studies favouring maintenance buprenorphine treatment over detoxification or psychological treatment in terms of fewer opioid positive urine drug tests (RR 0.63, 95% CI 0.43 to 0.91) and self reported opioid use in the past 30 days (RR 0.54, 95% CI 0.31 to 0.93). There was no difference on days of unsanctioned opioid use (standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.31, 95% CI -0.66 to 0.04). There was moderate quality evidence favouring buprenorphine maintenance over detoxification or psychological treatment on retention in treatment (RR 0.33, 95% CI 0.23 to 0.47). There was moderate quality evidence favouring buprenorphine maintenance over detoxification or psychological treatment on adverse events (RR 0.19, 95% CI 0.06 to 0.57). The main weaknesses in the quality of the data was the use of open-label study designs. Authors' conclusions There was low to moderate quality evidence supporting the use of maintenance agonist pharmacotherapy for pharmaceutical opioid dependence. Methadone or buprenorphine appeared equally effective. Maintenance treatment with buprenorphine appeared more effective than detoxification or psychological treatments. Due to the overall low to moderate quality of the evidence and small sample sizes, there is the possibility that the further research may change these findings.

Background Cannabis use disorder is the most commonly reported illegal substance use disorder in the general population; although demand for assistance from health services is increasing internationally, only a minority of those with the disorder seek professional assistance. Treatment studies have been published, but pressure to establish public policy requires an updated systematic review of cannabis-specific treatments for adults. Objectives To evaluate the efficacy of psychosocial interventions for cannabis use disorder (compared with inactive control and/or alternative treatment) delivered to adults in an out-patient or community setting. Search methods We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2015, Issue 6), MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, the Cumulaive Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL) and reference lists of articles. Searched literature included all articles published before July 2015. Selection criteria All randomised controlled studies examining a psychosocial intervention for cannabis use disorder (without pharmacological intervention) in comparison with a minimal or inactive treatment control or alternative combinations of psychosocial interventions. Data collection and analysis We used standard methodological procedures as expected by The Cochrane Collaboration. Main results We included 23 randomised controlled trials involving 4045 participants. A total of 15 studies took place in the United States, two in Australia, two in Germany and one each in Switzerland, Canada, Brazil and Ireland. Investigators delivered treatments over approximately seven sessions (range, one to 14) for approximately 12 weeks (range, one to 56). Overall, risk of bias across studies was moderate, that is, no trial was at high risk of selection bias, attrition bias or reporting bias. Further, trials included a large total number of participants, and each trial ensured the fidelity of treatments provided. In contrast, because of the nature of the interventions provided, participant blinding was not possible, and reports of researcher blinding often were unclear or were not provided. Half of the reviewed studies included collateral verification or urinalysis to confirm self report data, leading to concern about performance and detection bias. Finally, concerns of other bias were based on relatively consistent lack of assessment of non-cannabis substance use or use of additional treatments before or during the trial period. A subset of studies provided sufficient detail for comparison of effects of any intervention versus inactive control on primary outcomes of interest at early follow-up (median, four months). Results showed moderate-quality evidence that approximately seven out of 10 intervention participants completed treatment as intended (effect size (ES) 0.71, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.63 to 0.78, 11 studies, 1424 participants), and that those receiving psychosocial intervention used cannabis on fewer days compared with those given inactive control (mean difference (MD) 5.67, 95% CI 3.08 to 8.26, six studies, 1144 participants). In addition, low-quality evidence revealed that those receiving intervention were more likely to report point-prevalence abstinence (risk ratio (RR) 2.55, 95% CI 1.34 to 4.83, six studies, 1166 participants) and reported fewer symptoms of dependence (standardised mean difference (SMD) 4.15, 95% CI 1.67 to 6.63, four studies, 889 participants) and cannabis-related problems compared with those given inactive control (SMD 3.34, 95% CI 1.26 to 5.42, six studies, 2202 participants). Finally, very low-quality evidence indicated that those receiving intervention reported using fewer joints per day compared with those given inactive control (SMD 3.55, 95% CI 2.51 to 4.59, eight studies, 1600 participants). Notably, subgroup analyses found that interventions of more than four sessions delivered over longer than one month (high intensity) produced consistently improved outcomes (particularly in terms of cannabis use frequency and severity of dependence) in the short term as compared with low-intensity interventions. The most consistent evidence supports the use of cognitive-behavioural therapy (CBT), motivational enhancement therapy (MET) and particularly their combination for assisting with reduction of cannabis use frequency at early follow-up (MET: MD 4.45, 95% CI 1.90 to 7.00, four studies, 612 participants; CBT: MD 10.94, 95% CI 7.44 to 14.44, one study, 134 participants; MET + CBT: MD 7.38, 95% CI 3.18 to 11.57, three studies, 398 participants) and severity of dependence (MET: SMD 4.07, 95% CI 1.97 to 6.17, two studies, 316 participants; MET + CBT: SMD 7.89, 95% CI 0.93 to 14.85, three studies, 573 participants), although no particular intervention was consistently effective at nine-month follow-up or later. In addition, data from five out of six studies supported the utility of adding voucher-based incentives for cannabis-negative urines to enhance treatment effect on cannabis use frequency. A single study found contrasting results throughout a 12-month follow-up period, as post-treatment outcomes related to overall reduction in cannabis use frequency favoured CBT alone without the addition of abstinence-based or treatment adherence-based contingency management. In contrast, evidence of drug counselling, social support, relapse prevention and mindfulness meditation was weak because identified studies were few, information on treatment outcomes insufficient and rates of treatment adherence low. In line with treatments for other substance use, abstinence rates were relatively low overall, with approximately one-quarter of participants abstinent at final follow-up. Finally, three studies found that intervention was comparable with treatment as usual among participants in psychiatric clinics and reported no between-group differences in any of the included outcomes. Authors' conclusions Included studies were heterogeneous in many aspects, and important questions regarding the most effective duration, intensity and type of intervention were raised and partially resolved. Generalisability of findings was unclear, most notably because of the limited number of localities and homogeneous samples of treatment seekers. The rate of abstinence was low and unstable although comparable with treatments for other substance use. Psychosocial intervention was shown, in comparison with minimal treatment controls, to reduce frequency of use and severity of dependence in a fairly durable manner, at least in the short term. Among the included intervention types, an intensive intervention provided over more than four sessions based on the combination of MET and CBT with abstinence-based incentives was most consistently supported for treatment of cannabis use disorder.

Addictions are brain disorders that affect neural pathways that subsume reward, motivation, and memory. Only a small proportion of people who initiate substance use will go on to become addicted (dependent) and there is a continuum of use and associated risks between abstinence and dependence. Screening and brief intervention present the opportunity to identify and intervene in risky substance use. Early intervention, prior to the development of neurological changes, can prevent the development of dependence and encourage reductions in risky behaviors. People identified by screening as being at substantial risk of dependence can be encouraged to enter more structured treatment for their substance use. The ASSIST-Lite screening test offers an approach to screening and brief intervention that is quick and suitable for use in generalist health settings, where it is likely that drug use might be detected prior to the development of dependence.

This review considers the effectiveness of drug dependence treatment in preventing HIV transmission among injecting drug users (IDUs). Substitution programmes using agonist pharmacotherapy (e.g. methadone and buprenorphine maintenance treatment) are available only for drug users who are primarily opioid dependent. There are over half a million people in receipt of methadone maintenance treatment (MMT) and it is estimated that this number will double in the coming decade. There is evidence that MMT is associated with a significant decrease in injecting drug use and sharing of injecting equipment. Data on sex-related risk behaviour change are limited, but suggest that MMT is associated with a lower incidence of multiple sex partners or exchanges of sex for drugs or money, but no change, or only small decreases, in unprotected sex. Studies of seroconversion, which is the toughest and most robust standard for assessing the role of MMT in HIV prevention, suggest that the reductions in risk behaviours do translate into actual reductions in cases of HIV infection. While the data on HIV risk behaviour are limited, there is strong evidence that substitution treatment with either methadone or buprenorphine suppresses illicit opioid use. There is also evidence that substitution treatment for HIV-positive IDUs is associated with better compliance with anti-retroviral treatment and improved health outcomes. The only antagonist being used for opioid dependence relapse prevention treatment is naltrexone. There is currently insufficient evidence to draw firm conclusions as to its effectiveness. Behavioural interventions add to the effectiveness of substitution treatment, while the effectiveness of different types of psychological therapy alone has been found to be variable. There have been few comparative studies of abstinence-based treatment, however, available evidence indicates good outcomes for those who remain in treatment for three months or more. All countries with a population of IDUs should aim to develop a comprehensive range of treatments, including substitution treatment, as a critical component of HIV prevention. © 2005 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Aim: To provide an overview of 5 Cochrane reviews of different approaches for treating opioid withdrawal. Design: Narrative and quantitative summary of review findings. Participants: There were 46 studies included in the original reviews with a total of 3350 participants (range 18–300). Intervention: The 5 reviews considered 46 studies covering seven different comparisons, the major ones being methadone compared with α 2 -adrenergic agonists and other opioid agonists, different α 2 -adrenergic agonists compared with each other and to antagonist-induced withdrawal and buprenorphine. Measurements: The outcomes considered were signs and symptoms of withdrawal, retention in treatment, completion rate, relapse rate and side effects. Findings: Methadone detoxification results in higher retention in treatment, lower relapse rate and fewer side effects when compared with adrenergic agonists. No difference was observed when comparing different adrenergic agonists; buprenorphine appears to have an advantage over adrenergic agonists on withdrawal symptoms and side effects. Conclusions: Despite the considerable number of trials that have been carried out on this topic, they are very heterogeneous as far as the comparisons and outcomes considered. This prevented many of them from being incorporated into a quantitative meta-analysis. Consensus in measurements and results should be reached among researchers involved in the evaluation of the effectiveness of treatments for opiate addiction in order to produce consistent outcomes in the measuring and reporting of results from clinical trials.

To compare two methods of heroin withdrawal, 51 heroin users were randomised to undergo a 1 day precipitated withdrawal procedure using naloxone under anaesthetic. About 50 participants were randomised to receive the current standard inpatient withdrawal treatment using clonidine plus symptomatic medication. Following withdrawal, both groups were offered 9 months of naltrexone treatment and supportive counselling. Outcome measures were: commencement of naltrexone, retention in treatment and heroin use at 6 and 12 months. Significantly more of the precipitated withdrawal group completed withdrawal, commenced naltrexone and stayed in treatment for the first 3 months. Overall, there was a significant reduction in both self-reported heroin use and morphine concentration in hair over the 12 month study period, with participants in the precipitated withdrawal group showing significantly lower morphine concentration at 6 months. Being younger and having a lower level of dependence were predictors of abstinence at 6 and 12 months. The advantage of precipitated withdrawal under anesthesia did not persist beyond 3 months with respect to retention in naltrexone treatment or beyond 6 months with respect to heroin use. Long-term follow-up is crucial in assessing the effects of treatment interventions for heroin dependence.

Objectives This paper presents the main findings of a systematic (Cochrane) review of the effectiveness of alpha2-adrenergic agonists in managing opioid withdrawal. Design The original systematic review included controlled trials that compared alpha2-adrenergic agonists with another form of treatment (or placebo) in participants who were primarily opioid-dependent. Main findings Ten studies compared a treatment regime based on an alpha2-adrenergic agonist with one based on reducing doses of methadone. Withdrawal intensity is similar to, or marginally greater with alpha2-adrenergic agonists, but signs and symptoms of withdrawal occur and resolve earlier in treatment. Participants stay in treatment longer with methadone. The likelihood of completing withdrawal is similar, or slightly less, with clonidine or lofexidine. Clonidine is associated with more adverse effects than reducing doses of methadone. Three studies compared the alpha2-adrenergic agonists, clonidine and lofexidine. Lofexidine does not reduce blood pressure to the same extent as clonidine, but is otherwise similar to clonidine. Conclusions Participants stay in treatment longer with methadone regimes, which may provide greater opportunity for psychosocial intervention. Methadone regimes may be preferable for withdrawal in outpatient settings where the risk of relapse to heroin use is high. The use of methadone may also facilitate transfer to maintenance treatment should completion of withdrawal become unlikely. For those who are well prepared for withdrawal and seeking earlier resolution of withdrawal symptoms, alpha2-adrenergic agonist treatment may be preferred. Clonidine and lofexidine appear equally effective for inpatient settings, but the lower incidence of hypotension makes lofexidine more suited to use in outpatient settings.

To date there has been little consensus on best practice in the management of opioid withdrawal. Regimes involving reducing doses of methadone or the administration of &#102 -adrenergic agonists such as clonidine and lofexidine are most common, but the use of opioid antagonists to induce withdrawal, and the partialagonist, buprenorphine, are gaining in popularity. This paper reviews 213 published reports of interventions to manage opioid withdrawal. Rates of completion and severity of withdrawal are similar when managed with either &#102 -adrenergic agonists or reducing doses of methadone but &#102 -adrenergic agonists, particularly clonidine, are associated with a higher incidence 2 of hypotensive side effects. Variability in the opioid antagonist treatment regimes prevents the identification of standard approaches. The use of opioid antagonists may increase completion rates, but with the risk of more severe withdrawal. Buprenorphine has considerable promise for the management of opioid withdrawal, being...

Naltrexone implants are used to treat opioid dependence, but their safety and efficacy remain poorly understood. We systematically reviewed the literature to assess the safety and efficacy of naltrexone implants for treating opioid dependence.Studies were eligible if they compared naltrexone implants with another intervention or placebo. Examined outcomes were induction to treatment, retention in treatment, opioid and non-opioid use, adverse events, non-fatal overdose and mortality. Quality of the evidence was assessed using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation approach. Data from randomised studies were combined using meta-analysis. Data from non-randomised studies were presented narratively.Five randomised trials (n = 576) and four non-randomised studies (n = 8358) were eligible for review. The quality of the evidence ranged from moderate to very low. Naltrexone implants were superior to placebo implants [risk ratio (RR): 0.57; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.48, 0.68; k = 2] and oral naltrexone (RR: 0.57; 95% CI 0.47, 0.70; k = 2) in suppressing opioid use. No difference in opioid use was observed between naltrexone implants and methadone maintenance (standardised mean difference: -0.33; 95% CI -0.93, 0.26; k = 1); however, this finding was based on low-quality evidence from one study.The evidence on safety and efficacy of naltrexone implants is limited in quantity and quality, and the evidence has little clinical utility in settings where effective treatments for opioid dependence are used.Better designed research is needed to establish the safety and efficacy of naltrexone implants. Until such time, their use should be limited to clinical trials. [Larney S, Gowing L, Mattick RP, Farrell M, Hall W, Degenhardt L. A systematic review and meta-analysis of naltrexone implants for the treatment of opioid dependence.

Injecting drug use is a major risk factor for the acquisition and transmission of the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) and accounts for approximately 5 to 10% of all cases of HIV infection in the world. People who inject drugs are vulnerable to infection with HIV and other blood-borne viruses, predomi-nantly as a result of the collective use of injecting equipment and, to a lesser extent, of unprotected sexual behaviour.

A 39 year old woman started injecting heroin when she was 18 but soon found she could not control her drug intake or her life in general. At age 30, she sought help and did well with methadone treatment, taking no illicit drugs for three years. However, she then relapsed to heroin use and spent a year in prison, where she continued to inject heroin. After being released, she went to a residential rehabilitation centre. Subsequently in the community her general practitioner started her on buprenorphine. Her life became more stable. She did well with buprenorphine treatment for a few years but restarted injecting heroin after stopping buprenorphine. She restarted buprenorphine and now takes no non-prescribed medication. She works as a waitress and lives with her non-drug using partner. This article is intended for practitioners who occasionally manage patients with opioid dependence. Methadone, a mu opioid agonist, and buprenorphine, a partial agonist, are the main drug treatments for dependence on opioids (which include heroin, morphine, and oxycodone, as well as the other pharmaceutical opioids1 2) for detoxification, maintenance, and ultimately abstinence. Treatment with maintenance goals is referred to as opioid substitution treatment or opioid agonist pharmacotherapy.3 Such treatment is reserved for patients with clearly established opioid dependence and prolonged daily opioid use (by either smoking or injecting). In some countries the combination of buprenorphine and naloxone is preferred (and is now becoming available as a film taken sublingually). Prescription heroin, known in the United Kingdom as heroin assisted treatment or injectable opiate treatment, is used in some countries but is not discussed in this article.4 5 6 Naltrexone blocks the effects of heroin on the mu receptor,2 but oral naltrexone treatment has had low adherence and high discontinuity rates.7 8 Use of naltrexone in the …

Withdrawal is a necessary step prior to drug-free treatment or as the end point of long-term substitution treatment.To assess the effectiveness of interventions involving the use of alpha2-adrenergic agonists to manage opioid withdrawal.We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (The Cochrane Library Issue 3, 2008), MEDLINE (January 1966-July 2008), EMBASE (January 1985-2008 Week 31), PsycINFO (1967 to 7 August 2008) and reference lists of articles. We also contacted manufacturers in the field.Controlled trials comparing alpha2-adrenergic agonists with reducing doses of methadone, symptomatic medications or placebo, or comparing different alpha2-adrenergic agonists to modify the signs and symptoms of withdrawal in participants who were opioid dependent.One author assessed studies for inclusion and undertook data extraction. Inclusion decisions and the overall process were confirmed by consultation between all authors.Twenty-four studies, involving 1631 participants, were included. Twenty-one were randomised controlled trials.Thirteen studies compared a treatment regime based on an alpha2-adrenergic agonist with one based on reducing doses of methadone. Diversity in study design, assessment and reporting of outcomes limited the extent of quantitative analysis.Alpha2-adrenergic agonists are more effective than placebo in ameliorating withdrawal, and despite higher rates of adverse effects, are associated with significantly higher rates of completion of treatment.For the comparison of alpha2-adrenergic agonist regimes with reducing doses of methadone, there were insufficient data for statistical analysis, but withdrawal intensity appears similar to or marginally greater with alpha2-adrenergic agonists, while signs and symptoms of withdrawal occur and resolve earlier. Participants stay in treatment longer with methadone. No significant difference was detected in rates of completion of withdrawal with adrenergic agonists compared to reducing doses of methadone, or clonidine compared to lofexidine. Clonidine is associated with more adverse effects than reducing doses of methadone. Lofexidine does not reduce blood pressure to the same extent as clonidine, but is otherwise similar to clonidineClonidine and lofexidine are more effective than placebo for the management of withdrawal from heroin or methadone. No significant difference in efficacy was detected for treatment regimes based on clonidine or lofexidine, and those based on reducing doses of methadone over a period of around 10 days but methadone is associated with fewer adverse effects than clonidine, and lofexidine has a better safety profile than clonidine.

This review, funded by the U.K Department for International Development, provides an understanding of the gaps and opportunities for improving access to drug treatment, in particular opioid substitution treatment (OST), for drug users affected and infected by HIV. OST is effective in treating opioid dependency, reducing its individual and social costs. For HIV-infected, opioid-dependent injecting drug users, consistent participation in OST is associated with a higher probability of antiretroviral treatment and, amongst antiretroviral users, more consistent use of antiretrovirals. At the global policy level, there are few barriers to the introduction and expansion of OST with both methadone and buprenorphine now on the WHO Essential Drugs List, and all relevant international organisations approving and encouraging the use of OST for HIV prevention, treatment, care and support in countries where injecting drug use and HIV are found. Unfortunately, there are huge disparities in access to drug treatment, with participation in treatment in Asia and Africa being disturbingly low. Country reports from Vietnam, Kyrgyzstan and Kenya provide examples of the barriers and successes on the ground. Recommendations for donors, international organizations and public health champions include:1. Strengthen leadership at global level for access to drug treatment and, in particular, opioid substitution therapy as a key intervention in HIV prevention, treatment and care among injecting drug users. 2. Develop audit tools for donors to ensure that consideration of harm reduction interventions, prioritizing OST and needle-syringe programmes, becomes a standard part of all development work related to HIV/AIDS. 3. Support the implementation of drug treatment and, in particular, OST in country. 4. Integrate drug treatment and, in particular, OST with HIV treatment. 5. Establish comparable drug treatment programs within correctional institutions to those in the community.

Keywords: evidence-based practice; literature databases; publication standards; research literature; systematic reviews

This review summarizes current research on the management of opioid withdrawal and considers the selection of the approach in different situations.The recent publication of three controlled trials makes firm conclusions about the relative effectiveness of newer approaches (antagonist-induced withdrawal under anaesthesia or with minimal sedation; buprenorphine) to the management of opioid withdrawal possible.Antagonist-induced withdrawal under anaesthesia should not be pursued as it has an increased risk of life-threatening adverse events and has no additional benefits relative to antagonist-induced withdrawal under minimal sedation. Antagonist-induced withdrawal with minimal sedation is feasible and may be suitable for those who intend to enter antagonist-maintenance treatment with a clear commitment to abstinence and good support. Buprenorphine is suitable for quick withdrawal, supports transition to naltrexone maintenance treatment, is safe and effective in outpatient settings and can be extended into maintenance treatment if the detoxification attempt is unsuccessful. Adrenergic agonists (clonidine and lofexidine) remain an effective option for those who do not want to use an opioid and do not intend to transfer to naltrexone maintenance treatment, with lofexidine being preferable for outpatient settings. Through appropriate choice of approach, detoxification can be a gateway to multiple, long-term treatment options.

The debate regarding therapeutic use of cannabis is being confused by a lack of distinction between therapeutic and social use of cannabis. Separate consideration of therapeutic and social use would enable strategies to minimise any negative social impact of therapeutic use. For therapeutic use of cannabis to be considered on its own merits, greater emphasis needs to be placed on scientific evidence of therapeutic efficacy. At present the evidence is limited, it mostly relates to the use of synthetic cannabinoids, and much of it fails to compare cannabis with the best therapies available for the conditions of interest. Claims of therapeutic efficacy tend to be based on opinion and anecdote rather than the results of controlled studies. Further research is needed to clarify the potential therapeutic benefits, to enable claims of therapeutic use to be objectively assessed and to enable informed decisions to be made about the relative risks and benefits for any individual using cannabis for therapeutic purposes. Further research is required to clarify the efficacy of pure, synthetic cannabinoids compared to cannabis, the most effective route of administration, and the importance of delivering a known dose. The most likely value of cannabis is as an adjunct, rather than a replacement for, current medical approaches. The potential therapeutic benefits of cannabis will be greatest for those conditions where long-term cannabis use, with its attendant health risks, is not an issue and where the patient has the capacity to titrate dose against symptoms. There is sufficient evidence of potential therapeutic benefit to justify the facilitation of further research.

BACKGROUND Injecting drug users are vulnerable to infection with HIV and other blood borne viruses as a result of collective use of injecting equipment as well as sexual behaviour. OBJECTIVES To assess the effect of oral substitution treatment for opioid dependent injecting drug users on rates of HIV infections, and high risk behaviours. SEARCH STRATEGY Multiple electronic databases were searched. Reference lists of retrieved studies, reviews and conference abstracts were handsearched. SELECTION CRITERIA Studies were required to consider the incidence of risk behaviours, or the incidence of HIV infection related to substitution treatment of opioid dependence. All types of original studies were considered. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS Each potentially relevant study was independently assessed by two reviewers. For studies that met the inclusion criteria, key information was extracted by one reviewer and confirmed by consultation between all four reviewers. MAIN RESULTS Twenty-eight studies, involving 7900 participants, were included. The majority were not randomised controlled studies. Issues of confounding and bias are discussed. The studies varied in several aspects limiting the extent of quantitative analysis. REVIEWERS' CONCLUSIONS Oral substitution treatment for opioid-dependent injecting drug users is associated with statistically significant reductions in illicit opioid use, injecting use and sharing of injecting equipment. It is also associated with reductions in the proportion of injecting drug users reporting multiple sex partners or exchanges of sex for drugs or money, but has little effect on condom use. It appears that the reductions in risk behaviours related to drug use do translate into reductions in cases of HIV infection. The lack of data from randomised controlled studies limits the strength of the evidence presented in this review. However, these findings add to the stronger evidence of effectiveness of substitution treatment on drug use, and treatment retention outcomes shown by other systematic reviews. On this basis, the provision of substitution treatment for opioid dependence in countries with emerging HIV and injecting drug use problems as well as in countries with established populations of injecting drug users should be supported.

This review summarizes the current status of clinical research on pharmacotherapies for problematic psychostimulant use. The use of psychostimulants, including amphetamine, cocaine and ecstasy, is increasingly a feature of Australian life as is the presentation of patients with psychostimulant disorders. A lack of experience, resources and treatment options have constrained the response of treatment services to such problems. Despite extensive research, particularly in the area of cocaine, no pharmacotherapy has been proven effective in the management of psychostimulant disorders. The harms associated with problematic psychostimulant use warrant further controlled research in innovative approaches integrated with psychosocial interventions.

The aim of this paper is to identify certain important population trends among heroin users in Australia for the period 1971 - 97, such as: population growth, initiation, i.e. the number who were initiated to heroin in a given year, and quitting, i.e. the number that quit using heroin. For this purpose, we summarize and extract relevant characteristics from data from National Drug Strategy Household Survey (NDSHS 1998) conducted in Australia in 1998. We devise a systematic procedure to estimate historical trends from questions concerning past events. It is observed from our findings that the size of the heroin user population in Australia is in a sharp increase, especially from the early 1980s onwards. The general trend obtained for the period 1971 - 97 is strikingly similar to that obtained by Hall et al. (2000) for the dependent heroin user population in Australia, even though their study was based on different datasets and a different methodology. In our reconstruction of the time history we also detect a levelling-off prior to 1990. Initiation is also observed to be on a sharp increase. The latter trend is accompanied by a similar trend of quitting, perhaps indicating a relatively short heroin use career. A sharp decrease in both initiation and quitting is observed after 1990. In conclusion, in the case of the trend in the population of heroin users a high rate of growth has been identified that is consistent with the existing literature. In the process, we demonstrated that even a static survey such as NDSHS 1998 can, sometimes, be used to extract historical (dynamic) trends of certain important variables.

This study sought to characterize antagonist-precipitated heroin withdrawal during and immediately following anaesthesia and to identify the determinants of withdrawal severity and duration in 48 dependent heroin users. Objective withdrawal signs decreased significantly with each naloxone bolus administered under anaesthetic. The cost (amount) of the final heroin administration and the number of hours between last heroin use and commencement of anaesthesia were significant, independent predictors of the severity of withdrawal symptomatology. While 83% (40/48) of participants completed withdrawal according to objective criteria and commenced maintenance naltrexone treatment, almost half (22/48) were unable to commence naltrexone on the day of the procedure due to residual withdrawal signs. Fourteen of these 22 participants subsequently commenced naltrexone (median number of days between admission and commencement of naltrexone was 2, range 1 - 6) while eight left treatment prior to initiation of naltrexone. Significantly fewer of those with more severe withdrawal signs during anaesthesia commenced naltrexone (40% vs. 60%). While the severity and duration of withdrawal symptomatology may be moderated by encouraging participants to reduce (or cease) heroin use close to the time of withdrawal, for a substantial proportion of participants in this study, heroin withdrawal by this antagonist-precipitated procedure was neither rapid nor painless. [Ali R, Thomas P, White J, McGregor C, Danz,C, Gowing L, Stegink A, Athanasos P. Antagonist-precipitated heroin withdrawal under anaesthetic prior to maintenance naltrexone treatment: determinants of withdrawal severity.

Objective: To assess the diversity of research on the management of opioid withdrawal, identify sources of heterogeneity and provide a context for subsequent systematic reviews to establish evidence–based best practice. Methods: References were identified through searches of multiple electronic databases and handsearching the reference lists of retrieved articles. The principal criterion for inclusion in the literature mapping process was that it be a study of an intervention intended to manage the process of opioid withdrawal. Results: Of 218 references assessed, all participants were dependent on heroin in 41% and on methadone or l–alpha acetyl methadol (LAAM) in 24%. More than 17 different types of treatment approach were identified. Only 42% of references used a rating instrument to assess withdrawal severity and reported sufficient results to indicate the timing and magnitude of the peak and/or duration of withdrawal. The type of rating instrument used and the way in which results were reported varied enormously. A clear parameter for completion of detoxification was used for 37% of references. Conclusions: The capacity for rigorous systematic reviews of the management of opioid withdrawal is currently limited. There are multiple sources of heterogeneity that will need to be taken into account. Implications: The use of narrative reviews and observational studies are important complements to formal systematic reviews in the establishment of evidence–based practice in any area that combines aspects of psychology, behaviour, social context and medical treatment.

BACKGROUND: Managed withdrawal is a necessary step prior to drug‐free treatment or as the endpoint of substitution treatment. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of buprenorphine versus tapered doses of methadone, alpha(2)‐adrenergic agonists, symptomatic medications or placebo, or different buprenorphine regimens for managing opioid withdrawal, in terms of the intensity of the withdrawal syndrome experienced, duration and completion of treatment, and adverse effects. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL, Issue 11, 2016), MEDLINE (1946 to December week 1, 2016), Embase (to 22 December 2016), PsycINFO (1806 to December week 3, 2016), and the Web of Science (to 22 December 2016) and handsearched the reference lists of articles. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials of interventions using buprenorphine to modify the signs and symptoms of withdrawal in participants who were primarily opioid dependent. Comparison interventions involved reducing doses of methadone, alpha(2)‐adrenergic agonists (clonidine or lofexidine), symptomatic medications or placebo, and different buprenorphine‐based regimens. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. MAIN RESULTS: We included 27 studies involving 3048 participants. The main comparators were clonidine or lofexidine (14 studies). Six studies compared buprenorphine versus methadone, and seven compared different rates of buprenorphine dose reduction. We assessed 12 studies as being at high risk of bias in at least one of seven domains of methodological quality. Six of these studies compared buprenorphine with clonidine or lofexidine and two with methadone; the other four studies compared different rates of buprenorphine dose reduction. For the comparison of buprenorphine and methadone in tapered doses, meta‐analysis was not possible for the outcomes of intensity of withdrawal or adverse effects. However, information reported by the individual studies was suggestive of buprenorphine and methadone having similar capacity to ameliorate opioid withdrawal, without clinically significant adverse effects. The meta‐analyses that were possible support a conclusion of no difference between buprenorphine and methadone in terms of average treatment duration (mean difference (MD) 1.30 days, 95% confidence interval (CI) −8.11 to 10.72; N = 82; studies = 2; low quality) or treatment completion rates (risk ratio (RR) 1.04, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.20; N = 457; studies = 5; moderate quality). Relative to clonidine or lofexidine, buprenorphine was associated with a lower average withdrawal score (indicating less severe withdrawal) during the treatment episode, with an effect size that is considered to be small to moderate (standardised mean difference (SMD) −0.43, 95% CI −0.58 to −0.28; N = 902; studies = 7; moderate quality). Patients receiving buprenorphine stayed in treatment for longer, with an effect size that is considered to be large (SMD 0.92, 95% CI 0.57 to 1.27; N = 558; studies = 5; moderate quality) and were more likely to complete withdrawal treatment (RR 1.59, 95% CI 1.23 to 2.06; N = 1264; studies = 12; moderate quality). At the same time there was no significant difference in the incidence of adverse effects, but dropout due to adverse effects may be more likely with clonidine (RR 0.20, 95% CI 0.04 to 1.15; N = 134; studies = 3; low quality). The difference in treatment completion rates translates to a number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome of 4 (95% CI 3 to 6), indicating that for every four people treated with buprenorphine, we can expect that one additional person will complete treatment than with clonidine or lofexidine. For studies comparing different rates of reduction of the buprenorphine dose, meta‐analysis was possible only for treatment completion, with separate analyses for inpatient and outpatient settings. The results were diverse, and we assessed the quality of evidence as being very low. It remains very uncertain what effect the rate of dose taper has on treatment outcome. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Buprenorphine is more effective than clonidine or lofexidine for managing opioid withdrawal in terms of severity of withdrawal, duration of withdrawal treatment, and the likelihood of treatment completion. Buprenorphine and methadone appear to be equally effective, but data are limited. It remains possible that the pattern of withdrawal experienced may differ and that withdrawal symptoms may resolve more quickly with buprenorphine. It is not possible to draw any conclusions from the available evidence on the relative effectiveness of different rates of tapering the buprenorphine dose. The divergent findings of studies included in this review suggest that there may be multiple factors affecting the response to the rate of dose taper. One such factor could be whether or not the initial treatment plan includes a transition to subsequent relapse prevention treatment with naltrexone. Indeed, the use of buprenorphine to support transition to naltrexone treatment is an aspect worthy of further research. Most participants in the studies included in this review were male. None of the studies reported outcomes on the basis of sex, preventing any exploration of differences related to this variable. Consideration of sex as a factor influencing response to withdrawal treatment would be relevant research for selecting the most appropriate type of intervention for each individual.

Risks for drug users and the wider community are substantially reduced Prevention of HIV is one of the more persuasive public health arguments in favour of opioid substitution treatment. However, until now, there has been no quantitative estimate of the extent to which this treatment reduces the transmission of HIV. This knowledge gap has been filled by the findings of a linked systematic review by MacArthur and colleagues (doi:10.1136/bmj.e5945).1 This analysis of data from nine studies that included 819 incident HIV infections over 23 608 person years of follow-up found that treatment with methadone was associated with a 54% reduction in the risk of HIV infection among people who inject drugs. An earlier systematic review found that opioid substitution treatment with methadone or buprenorphine is associated with reductions in behaviours associated with a high risk of HIV transmission,2 but owing to methodological limitations, overall estimates of the extent of reduction of these risk behaviours were not calculated. Individual studies were consistent in their findings of reductions of illicit opioid use (ranging from 32% to 69%), injecting drug use (20-60%), and sharing of injecting equipment (25-86%). Treatment …

The organization of the microfilaments and the actin content of matched pairs of tumorigenic and non-tumorigenic HeLa/fibroblast hybrid cells was compared. Each pair consisted of a hybrid cell line with suppressed tumorigenicity and a segregant tumorigenic cell line derived from it. The tumorigenic HeLa parent cell line and a non-tumorigenic human fibroblast line were also included in the comparison. Microfilament organization of the cell lines was assessed by fluorescence microscopy using NBD-phallacidin, a probe that specifically binds to actin filaments. The re-expression of tumorigenicity is associated with a loss of microfilament organization. The actin content, as measured by the DNase I inhibition assay, was significantly lower in the tumorigenic hybrids and the HeLa parent than in the non-tumorigenic cells. The comparison was significant when the actin concentration was expressed either per cell or per protein. Despite this reduced level of total actin in tumorigenic cells, the ratio of monomeric to total actin remained constant in all cell lines tested.