Substance Abuse and Rehabilitation最新文献

[This corrects the article DOI: 10.2147/SAR.S155843.].

Purpose: Opioid maintenance treatment reduces a person's use of heroin. However, frequent substance use in treatment is a problem.

Aim: To examine the association between opioid maintenance treatment and opioid/polydrug use, and whether social factors, adverse experiences, social resources, and quality of life are associated with opioid/polydrug use during the first 12 months in treatment.

Patients and methods: Forty-seven participants from treatment units in Bergen, Norway participated in five waves of data collection. Every third month, a structured face-to-face interview collected self-reported data on sociodemographic characteristics, opioid/polydrug use, participants' social resources or adverse experiences, and quality of life. Data were collected as part of KVARUS, the National Quality Register for Substance Abuse Treatment. A multilevel binary logistic regression analysis was conducted to examine the association of opioid/polydrug use and time in current treatment. The analysis included regressions of opioid/polydrug use on time-invariant baseline adverse experiences and social resources, and time-varying reports of quality of life.

Results: There was a significant negative association between time in treatment and use of opioids, b =-0.89, SE = 0.19, p = <0.01. Furthermore, a negative association of age at substance use on polydrug use was found, b =-0.40, SE =0.19, p = 0.03. A higher overall quality of life was significantly associated with lower odds of opioid use during opioid maintenance treatment, b = -0.62, SE = 0.23, p = < 0.01. Social dimensions, participants' adverse experiences, and social resources were not associated with polydrug or opioid use.

Conclusion: Opioid maintenance treatment is associated with lowered opioid use, but to a lesser degree with polydrug use. Our findings add quality of life as an important factor that should be given particular attention because it can offer insight to aspects that can affect the patients' opioid use.

Background: Given that fewer than 50% of countries provide Opioid Agonist Maintenance Therapies (OAMT), it is important to assess whether other substances act as a substitute for heroin in recovering heroin users who receive detoxification models of treatment. There is a dearth of prospective studies from low-and-middle-income countries evaluating these patterns of substance use.

Methods: 300 heroin users from the Gauteng province of South Africa were assessed on entry into inpatient detoxification and then followed-up 3 and 9 months after leaving treatment. Treatment consisted of 1 week of detoxification followed by 6-8 weeks of psychosocial therapy. We measured the overall changes in the prevalence of heroin, alcohol and other drug use at baseline and postrehabilitation. Comparison of these outcomes at enrolment, 3 months and 9 months was performed by a Generalised Estimating Equation (GEE) with the outcome as the dependent variable, observation point as the independent variable, and participant as the repeated measure. Injecting status and treatment completion were included as covariates. We also measured the individual pathways between heroin and alcohol use in the 210 participants that were seen at all three timepoints.

Results: Of the original cohort, 252 (84.0%) were re-interviewed at 3 months and 225 (75.0%) at 9 months. From baseline to 3 months, the proportion of past month heroin users decreased significantly to 65.5%; however, during this time, the proportion of past month alcohol users increased from 16.3% to 55.2% (p<0.0001). When assessing the pathways between heroin and alcohol use at an individual level, 55.4% (n-97) of those who were past month alcohol abstinent prior to rehabilitation were using alcohol at 3 months. From 3 to 9 months the proportion of heroin users increased to 72.4% (p<0.0001), and during this time, the proportion of alcohol users decreased.

Conclusion: After detoxification, a significant reduction in heroin use was observed with a concomitant increase in alcohol consumption. Under these circumstances, alcohol may have acted as a substitute for heroin in the short term. The initial reduction in heroin use 3 months postrehabilitation was followed by increased consumption 6 months later. This observation supports the need for interventions to prevent, monitor and treat high levels of alcohol use in heroin users post detoxification. The provision of OAMT is a necessary consideration to address both the risk of increased alcohol intake as well as the decline in heroin abstinence rates.

Purpose: Opioid use disorder (OUD) is a medical condition that is effectively treated with medications. A major challenge in breaking the cycle of OUD and related illegal activity is seamlessly introducing medications for opioid use disorder (MOUD) as individuals leave jail or prison. We examined the feasibility of a pilot intervention to link participants to ongoing MOUD and psychosocial supports following release from custody.

Methods: The study enrolled adults with a history of OUD released from Washington State prisons to Department of Corrections (DOC) community supervision. Participants were randomized to the study intervention or comparison group. The intervention consisted of education on OUD and available treatments, support with individualized treatment decision making, and continued care navigation for 6 months to facilitate linkage to chosen treatments. Participants randomized to the control condition received referral to services in the community from their community corrections officers. A care navigation activity log documented intervention participants' intervention engagement, service utilization, and needs. Follow-up interviews were conducted at 1 and 6 months to assess satisfaction with the intervention.

Results: Fifteen participants were enrolled. All were male, most were white (86.6%) and the average age was 36.9 years. The majority (14 of 15 participants) were near-daily heroin users with severe OUD prior to incarceration. Of the seven intervention participants, two wished to start medications immediately. Three participants reported starting buprenorphine or methadone in the subsequent follow-up period, with or without social support and/or outpatient counseling, and three reported enrolling in social support and/or outpatient counseling without medications. Participants who received the intervention reported high satisfaction. We discuss barriers and facilitators to study implementation.

Conclusion: An intervention to link participants to ongoing MOUD and psychosocial supports following release from prison had broad acceptability among participants and was feasible to implement among those recruited; however, enrollment was much lower than anticipated and the study intervention did not demonstrate the intended effect to facilitate use of MOUD immediately post-release in this small sample of participants. Given recent research showing benefits of pre-release medication initiation, the potential added benefits of this two-part intervention should be studied in systems that initiate MOUD prior to release.

Purpose: The Treatment Effectiveness Assessment (TEA) is a patient-centered instrument for evaluating treatment progress and recovery from substance use disorders, including opioid use disorder (OUD). We assessed the TEA's reliability and validity and determined minimal clinically important differences (MIDs) in participants with moderate to severe OUD. Patients and methods: The TEA measures change in four single-item domains (substance use, health, lifestyle, community involvement) from treatment initiation across the duration of a treatment program. Self-reported responses range from 1 ("none or not much") to 10 ("much better") with items summed to a total score ranging from 4-40. We assessed floor and ceiling effects, internal consistency, test-retest reliability, known-groups validity (ANOVA stratified by current health status [36-Item Short Form Health Survey item 1]), convergent/divergent validity, and MIDs using data from a phase 3, open-label clinical trial of buprenorphine extended-release monthly injection for subcutaneous use (BUP-XR). Participants with OUD completed the TEA at screening and before monthly injections for up to 12 months. Results: Among 410 participants (mean age 38 years; 64% male), the mean baseline (pre-injection 1) TEA total score was 25.4 (SD 9.7), with <10% of participants at the measure floor and 10%-20% at the ceiling across domains. Internal consistency was high (Cronbach's α=0.90), with marginal test-retest reliability (intraclass correlation coefficient =0.69). Mean TEA total score consistently increased from baseline (n=410; mean 25.4 [SD 9.7]) to end of study (n=337; 35.0 [6.7]) and differentiated between current health status groups (P<0.001); it was weakly correlated with other measures of health-related quality of life/severity. MIDs ranged from 5-8 for the TEA total score across anchor- and distribution-based approaches. Conclusion: The TEA exhibited acceptable reliability and validity in a cohort of participants with moderate to severe OUD treated with BUP-XR. Given its brevity and psychometric properties, the TEA is a promising tool for use in clinical practice and research.

Substance use disorders (SUDs) take a heavy toll on those who have them and on society more broadly. These disorders are often difficult to treat, and relapse is common. Perhaps, because of these factors, these disorders are highly stigmatized worldwide. The purpose of this study is to examine empirical work intended to determine the impact of perceived social stigma and self-stigma on the process of recovering from SUDs with the assistance of formal treatment services. Qualitative studies confirmed that stigma experiences are common among those with these disorders and that these experiences can negatively impact feelings and beliefs about treatment. One quantitative study provided good statistical support for a direct effect of stigma on outcomes, but this was contradicted by other longitudinal data. In general, quantitative articles suggested an indirect effect of stigma on treatment outcomes, via negative emotions and cognitive mechanisms such as feelings of self-efficacy. However, it was notable that there was little consistency in the literature as to definitions and measurement of the constructs of recovery, perceived social stigma, and self-stigma. Future work should focus on bringing clarity, and validated measures, to this problem in order to better determine the nature of these relationships.