Dataset Information

Treatment of stimulant use disorder: A systematic review of reviews.

ABSTRACT:

Aims

Stimulant use disorder contributes to a substantial worldwide burden of disease, although evidence-based treatment options are limited. This systematic review of reviews aims to: (i) synthesize the available evidence on both psychosocial and pharmacological interventions for the treatment of stimulant use disorder; (ii) identify the most effective therapies to guide clinical practice, and (iii) highlight gaps for future study.

Methods

A systematic database search was conducted to identify systematic reviews and meta-analyses. Eligible studies were those that followed standard systematic review methodology and assessed randomized controlled trials focused on the efficacy of interventions for stimulant use disorder. Articles were critically appraised using an assessment tool adapted from Palmeteer et al. and categorized for quality as 'core' or 'supplementary' reviews. Evidence from the included reviews were further synthesized according to pharmacological or non-pharmacological management themes.

Results

Of 476 identified records, 29 systematic reviews examining eleven intervention modalities were included. The interventions identified include: contingency management, cognitive behavioural therapy, acupuncture, antidepressants, dopamine agonists, antipsychotics, anticonvulsants, disulfiram, opioid agonists, N-Acetylcysteine, and psychostimulants. There was sufficient evidence to support the efficacy of contingency management programs for treatment of stimulant use disorder. Psychostimulants, n-acetylcysteine, opioid agonist therapy, disulfiram and antidepressant pharmacological interventions were found to have insufficient evidence to support or discount their use. Results of this review do not support the use of all other treatment options.

Conclusions

The results of this review supports the use of contingency management interventions for the treatment of stimulant use disorder. Although evidence to date is insufficient to support the clinical use of psychostimulants, our results demonstrate potential for future research in this area. Given the urgent need for effective pharmacological treatments for stimulant use disorder, high-quality primary research focused on the role of psychostimulant medications for the treatment of stimulant use disorder is needed.

SUBMITTER: Ronsley C

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7302911 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Introduction: Amphetamine-type stimulants (ATS) use is a global concern due to increased usage and the harm to physical, mental, and social well-being. The objective of this overview of systematic reviews is to summarise trial results of psychosocial interventions and describe their efficacy and safety. Methods: We searched seven bibliographic databases to November 2020 for systematic reviews examining ATS misuse treatment by psychosocial interventions. Given the apparent incompleteness of the included reviews, we undertook a supplemental meta-analysis of all eligible primary studies. Results: We included 11 systematic reviews of moderate to high quality and 39 primary studies which assessed the outcomes of psychosocial interventions on people who use ATS. The key findings include: (1) There were conflicting results about the effectiveness of psychosocial interventions among reviews, which may confuse decision-makers in selecting treatment. (2) In the supplemental meta-analysis, relative to usual care (only counselling or self-help materials), membership of a psychological intervention group was associated with an important reduction in drug usage [risk ratio (RR) 0.80, 95% CI: 0.75 to 0.85]. Patients in psychological interventions used injectables substantially less [odds ratio (OR) 0.35, 95% CI: 0.24 to 0.49]. The risk of unsafe sex in the psychosocial intervention group was lower than in the control group (RR 0.49, 95% CI: 0.34 to 0.71). The combination of therapies reduced 1.51 day using drugs in the preceding 30 days (95% CI: -2.36 to -0.67) compared to cognitive behavioural therapy intervention alone. (3) Compared to usual care, cognitive behavioural therapy was less likely to be retained at follow-up (RR 0.89, 95% CI: 0.82 to 0.97; high-quality evidence). However, the additional of contingency management strategy can make an important improvement upon retention (RR 1.42, 95%CI: 1.25 to 1.62). Authors' Conclusions: Integrated models are more effective than a single-treatment strategy. Comprehensive and sustained psychosocial interventions can help to reduce use of ATS and other drugs, risk behaviours and mental disorders, and significantly improve treatment adherence.

Project description:ObjectivesThis study aims to summarise the evidence on more than 140 pharmacological and non-pharmacological treatment options for major depressive disorder (MDD) and to evaluate the confidence that patients and clinicians can have in the underlying science about their effects.DesignThis is a review of systematic reviews.Data sourcesThis study used MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Library, PsycINFO and Epistemonikos from 2011 up to February 2017 for systematic reviews of randomised controlled trials in adult patients with acute-phase MDD.MethodsWe dually reviewed abstracts and full-text articles, rated the risk of bias of eligible systematic reviews and graded the strength of evidence.ResultsNineteen systematic reviews provided data on 28 comparisons of interest. For general efficacy, only second-generation antidepressants were supported with high strength evidence, presenting small beneficial treatment effects (standardised mean difference: -0.35; 95% CI -0.31 to -0.38), and a statistically significantly higher rate of discontinuation because of adverse events than patients on placebo (relative risk (RR) 1.88; 95%?CI 1.0 to 3.28).Only cognitive behavioural therapy is supported by reliable evidence (moderate strength of evidence) to produce responses to treatment similar to those of second-generation antidepressants (45.5% vs 44.2%; RR 1.10; 95%?CI 0.93 to 1.30). All remaining comparisons of non-pharmacological treatments with second-generation antidepressants either led to inconclusive results or had substantial methodological shortcomings (low or insufficient strength of evidence).ConclusionsIn contrast to pharmacological treatments, the majority of non-pharmacological interventions for treating patients with MDD are not evidence based. For patients with strong preferences against pharmacological treatments, clinicians should focus on therapies that have been compared directly with antidepressants.Trial registration numberInternational Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO) registration number: 42016035580.