Danielle Rice1,2, Kimberly Corace1,3,4,5, Dianna Wolfe1, Leila Esmaeilisaraji1, Alan Michaud1, Alicia Grima1, Bradley Austin1, Reuben Douma1, Pauline Barbeau1, Claire Butler1, Melanie Willows3,4,5,6, Patricia A Poulin1,7,8, Beth A Sproule9,10, Amy Porath11, Gary Garber1,12,13, Sheena Taha11, Gord Garner14, Becky Skidmore1, David Moher1,12, Kednapa Thavorn1,12, Brian Hutton1,12. 1. Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada. 2. Department of Psychology, McGill University, Montreal, Quebec, Canada. 3. Substance Use and Concurrent Disorders Program, The Royal Ottawa Mental Health Centre, Ottawa, Ontario Canada. 4. Department of Psychiatry, Faculty of Medicine, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada. 5. Institute of Mental Health Research, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada. 6. Faculty of Medicine, Department of Family Medicine, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada. 7. Department of Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Canada. 8. Pain Clinic, Ottawa Hospital, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada. 9. Department of Pharmacy, Centre for Addiction and Mental Health, Toronto, Ontario, Canada. 10. Leslie Dan Faculty of Pharmacy and Department of Psychiatry, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada. 11. Canadian Center on Substance Use and Addiction, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada. 12. School of Epidemiology and Public Health, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada. 13. Public Health Ontario, Toronto, Ontario, Canada. 14. The Community Addictions Peer Support Association (CAPSA), Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Guidelines recommend that individuals with opioid use disorder (OUD) receive pharmacological and psychosocial interventions; however, the most appropriate psychosocial intervention is not known. In collaboration with people with lived experience, clinicians, and policy makers, we sought to assess the relative benefits of psychosocial interventions as an adjunct to opioid agonist therapy (OAT) among persons with OUD. METHODS: A review protocol was registered a priori (CRD42018090761), and a comprehensive search for randomized controlled trials (RCT) was conducted from database inception to June 2020 in MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials. Established methods for study selection and data extraction were used. Primary outcomes were treatment retention and opioid use (measured by urinalysis for opioid use and opioid abstinence outcomes). Odds ratios were estimated using network meta-analyses (NMA) as appropriate based on available evidence, and in remaining cases alternative approaches to synthesis were used. RESULTS: Seventy-two RCTs met the inclusion criteria. Risk of bias evaluations commonly identified study limitations and poor reporting with regard to methods used for allocation concealment and selective outcome reporting. Due to inconsistency in reporting of outcome measures, only 48 RCTs (20 unique interventions, 5,404 participants) were included for NMA of treatment retention, where statistically significant differences were found when psychosocial interventions were used as an adjunct to OAT as compared to OAT-only. The addition of rewards-based interventions such as contingency management (alone or with community reinforcement approach) to OAT was superior to OAT-only. Few statistically significant differences between psychosocial interventions were identified among any other pairwise comparisons. Heterogeneity in reporting formats precluded an NMA for opioid use. A structured synthesis was undertaken for the remaining outcomes which included opioid use (n = 18 studies) and opioid abstinence (n = 35 studies), where the majority of studies found no significant difference between OAT plus psychosocial interventions as compared to OAT-only. CONCLUSIONS: This systematic review offers a comprehensive synthesis of the available evidence and the limitations of current trials of psychosocial interventions applied as an adjunct to OAT for OUD. Clinicians and health services may wish to consider integrating contingency management in addition to OAT for OUD in their settings to improve treatment retention. Aside from treatment retention, few differences were consistently found between psychosocial interventions adjunctive to OAT and OAT-only. There is a need for high-quality RCTs to establish more definitive conclusions. TRIAL REGISTRATION: PROSPERO registration CRD42018090761.
BACKGROUND: Guidelines recommend that individuals with opioid use disorder (OUD) receive pharmacological and psychosocial interventions; however, the most appropriate psychosocial intervention is not known. In collaboration with people with lived experience, clinicians, and policy makers, we sought to assess the relative benefits of psychosocial interventions as an adjunct to opioid agonist therapy (OAT) among persons with OUD. METHODS: A review protocol was registered a priori (CRD42018090761), and a comprehensive search for randomized controlled trials (RCT) was conducted from database inception to June 2020 in MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials. Established methods for study selection and data extraction were used. Primary outcomes were treatment retention and opioid use (measured by urinalysis for opioid use and opioid abstinence outcomes). Odds ratios were estimated using network meta-analyses (NMA) as appropriate based on available evidence, and in remaining cases alternative approaches to synthesis were used. RESULTS: Seventy-two RCTs met the inclusion criteria. Risk of bias evaluations commonly identified study limitations and poor reporting with regard to methods used for allocation concealment and selective outcome reporting. Due to inconsistency in reporting of outcome measures, only 48 RCTs (20 unique interventions, 5,404 participants) were included for NMA of treatment retention, where statistically significant differences were found when psychosocial interventions were used as an adjunct to OAT as compared to OAT-only. The addition of rewards-based interventions such as contingency management (alone or with community reinforcement approach) to OAT was superior to OAT-only. Few statistically significant differences between psychosocial interventions were identified among any other pairwise comparisons. Heterogeneity in reporting formats precluded an NMA for opioid use. A structured synthesis was undertaken for the remaining outcomes which included opioid use (n = 18 studies) and opioid abstinence (n = 35 studies), where the majority of studies found no significant difference between OAT plus psychosocial interventions as compared to OAT-only. CONCLUSIONS: This systematic review offers a comprehensive synthesis of the available evidence and the limitations of current trials of psychosocial interventions applied as an adjunct to OAT for OUD. Clinicians and health services may wish to consider integrating contingency management in addition to OAT for OUD in their settings to improve treatment retention. Aside from treatment retention, few differences were consistently found between psychosocial interventions adjunctive to OAT and OAT-only. There is a need for high-quality RCTs to establish more definitive conclusions. TRIAL REGISTRATION: PROSPERO registration CRD42018090761.
Authors: Lucinda A Grande; Ellen Campbell Thompson; Margaret A Au; Devin Sawyer; Laura-Mae Baldwin; Roger Rosenblatt Journal: J Am Board Fam Med Date: 2016-11-12 Impact factor: 2.657
Authors: Christina Korownyk; Danielle Perry; Joey Ton; Michael R Kolber; Scott Garrison; Betsy Thomas; G Michael Allan; Nicolas Dugré; Caitlin R Finley; Rhonda Ting; Peter Ran Yang; Ben Vandermeer; Adrienne J Lindblad Journal: Can Fam Physician Date: 2019-05 Impact factor: 3.275
Authors: P G O'Connor; A H Oliveto; J M Shi; E G Triffleman; K M Carroll; T R Kosten; B J Rounsaville; J A Pakes; R S Schottenfeld Journal: Am J Med Date: 1998-08 Impact factor: 4.965
Authors: Darren R Christensen; Reid D Landes; Lisa Jackson; Lisa A Marsch; Michael J Mancino; Mohit P Chopra; Warren K Bickel Journal: J Consult Clin Psychol Date: 2014-08-04
Authors: Julian P T Higgins; Douglas G Altman; Peter C Gøtzsche; Peter Jüni; David Moher; Andrew D Oxman; Jelena Savovic; Kenneth F Schulz; Laura Weeks; Jonathan A C Sterne Journal: BMJ Date: 2011-10-18
Authors: Kim Corace; Kelly Suschinsky; Jennifer Wyman; Pamela Leece; Sue Cragg; Sarah Konefal; Priscille Pana; Susan Barrass; Amy Porath; Brian Hutton Journal: Int J Drug Policy Date: 2021-12-23