Dataset Information

Evaluating comparative effectiveness of psychosocial interventions adjunctive to opioid agonist therapy for opioid use disorder: A systematic review with network meta-analyses.

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.

SUBMITTER: Rice D

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7769275 | biostudies-literature | 2020

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Evaluating comparative effectiveness of psychosocial interventions adjunctive to opioid agonist therapy for opioid use disorder: A systematic review with network meta-analyses.

Rice Danielle D Corace Kimberly K Wolfe Dianna D Esmaeilisaraji Leila L Michaud Alan A Grima Alicia A Austin Bradley B Douma Reuben R Barbeau Pauline P Butler Claire C Willows Melanie M Poulin Patricia A PA Sproule Beth A BA Porath Amy A Garber Gary G Taha Sheena S Garner Gord G Skidmore Becky B Moher David D Thavorn Kednapa K Hutton Brian B

PloS one 20201228 12

<h4>Background</h4>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.<h4>Methods</h4>A review protocol was registered a priori (CRD ...[more]

PMID: 33370393

Similar Datasets

Project description:Introduction and objectiveReceipt of opioid agonist treatment during early and late pregnancy for opioid use disorder may relate to varying perinatal risks. We aimed to assess the effect of time-varying prenatal exposure to opioid agonist treatment using buprenorphine or methadone on adverse neonatal and pregnancy outcomes.MethodsWe conducted a retrospective cohort study of pregnant women with opioid use disorder using Rhode Island Medicaid claims data and vital statistics during 2008-16. Time-varying exposure was evaluated in early (0-20 weeks) and late (≥ 21 weeks) pregnancy. Marginal structural models with inverse probability of treatment weighting were applied.ResultsOf 400 eligible pregnancies, 85 and 137 individuals received buprenorphine and methadone, respectively, during early pregnancy. Compared with 152 untreated pregnancies with opioid use disorders, methadone exposure in both periods was associated with an increased risk of preterm birth (adjusted odds ratio [aOR]: 2.52; 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.07-5.95), low birth weight (aOR: 2.99; 95% CI 1.34-6.66), neonatal intensive care unit admission (aOR, 5.04; 95% CI 2.49-10.21), neonatal abstinence syndrome (aOR: 11.36; 95% CI 5.65-22.82), respiratory symptoms (aOR, 2.71; 95% CI 1.17-6.24), and maternal hospital stay > 7 days (aOR, 14.51; 95% CI 7.23-29.12). Similar patterns emerged for buprenorphine regarding neonatal abstinence syndrome (aOR: 10.27; 95% CI 4.91-21.47) and extended maternal hospital stay (aOR: 3.84; 95% CI 1.83-8.07). However, differences were found favoring the use of buprenorphine for preterm birth versus untreated pregnancies (aOR: 0.17; 95% CI 0.04-0.77), and for several outcomes versus methadone.ConclusionsMethadone and buprenorphine prescribed for the treatment of opioid use disorder during pregnancy are associated with varying perinatal risks. However, buprenorphine may be preferred in the setting of pregnancy opioid agonist treatment. Further research is necessary to confirm our findings and minimize residual confounding.

Project description:ImportancePeople with schizophrenia are commonly treated with psychotropic medications in addition to antipsychotics, but there is little evidence about the comparative effectiveness of these adjunctive treatment strategies.ObjectiveTo study the comparative real-world effectiveness of adjunctive psychotropic treatments for patients with schizophrenia.Design, setting, and participantsThis comparative effectiveness study used US national Medicaid data from January 1, 2001, to December 31, 2010, to examine the outcomes of initiating treatment with an antidepressant, a benzodiazepine, a mood stabilizer, or another antipsychotic among adult outpatients (aged 18-64 years) diagnosed with schizophrenia who were stably treated with a single antipsychotic. Data analysis was performed from January 1, 2017, to June 30, 2018. Multinomial logistic regression models were used to estimate propensity scores to balance covariates across the 4 medication groups. Weighted Cox proportional hazards regression models were used to compare treatment outcomes during 365 days on an intention-to-treat basis.Main outcomes and measuresRisk of hospitalization for a mental disorder (primary), emergency department (ED) visits for a mental disorder, and all-cause mortality.ResultsThe study cohort included 81 921 adult outpatients diagnosed with schizophrenia (mean [SD] age, 40.7 [12.4] years; 37 515 women [45.8%]) who were stably treated with a single antipsychotic and then initiated use of an antidepressant (n = 31 117), a benzodiazepine (n = 11 941), a mood stabilizer (n = 12 849), or another antipsychotic (n = 26 014) (reference treatment). Compared with initiating use of another antipsychotic, initiating use of an antidepressant was associated with a lower risk (hazard ratio [HR], 0.84; 95% CI, 0.80-0.88) of psychiatric hospitalization, whereas initiating use of a benzodiazepine was associated with a higher risk (HR, 1.08; 95% CI, 1.02-1.15); the risk associated with initiating use of a mood stabilizer (HR, 0.98; 95% CI, 0.94-1.03) was not significantly different from initiating use of another antipsychotic. A similar pattern of associations was observed in psychiatric ED visits for initiating use of an antidepressant (HR, 0.92; 95% CI, 0.88-0.96), a benzodiazepine (HR, 1.12; 95% CI, 1.07-1.19), and a mood stabilizer (HR, 0.99; 95% CI, 0.94-1.04). Initiating use of a mood stabilizer was associated with an increased risk of mortality (HR, 1.31; 95% CI, 1.04-1.66).Conclusions and relevanceIn the treatment of schizophrenia, initiating adjunctive treatment with an antidepressant was associated with reduced risk of psychiatric hospitalization and ED visits compared with initiating use of alternative psychotropic medications. Associations of benzodiazepines and mood stabilizers with poorer outcomes warrant clinical caution and further investigation.

Project description:BackgroundInformation on cost-effectiveness of interventions to treat schizophrenia can assist health policy decision making, particularly given the lack of health resources in developing countries like Thailand. This study aims to determine the optimal treatment package, including drug and non-drug interventions, for schizophrenia in Thailand.MethodsA Markov model was used to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of typical antipsychotics, generic risperidone, olanzapine, clozapine and family interventions. Health outcomes were measured in disability adjusted life years. We evaluated intervention benefit by estimating a change in disease severity, taking into account potential side effects. Intervention costs included outpatient treatment costs, hospitalization costs as well as time and travel costs of patients and families. Uncertainty was evaluated using Monte Carlo simulation. A sensitivity analysis of the expected range cost of generic risperidone was undertaken.ResultsGeneric risperidone is more cost-effective than typicals if it can be produced for less than 10 baht per 2 mg tablet. Risperidone was the cheapest treatment with higher drug costs offset by lower hospital costs in comparison to typicals. The most cost-effective combination of treatments was a combination of risperidone (dominant intervention). Adding family intervention has an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of 1,900 baht/DALY with a 100% probability of a result less than a threshold for very cost-effective interventions of one times GDP or 110,000 baht per DALY. Treating the most severe one third of patients with clozapine instead of risperidone had an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of 320,000 baht/DALY with just over 50% probability of a result below three times GDP per capita.ConclusionsThere are good economic arguments to recommend generic risperidone as first line treatment in combination with family intervention. As the uncertainty interval indicates the addition of clozapine may be dominated and there are serious side effects, treating severe patients with clozapine is advisable only for patients who do not respond to risperidone and only in the presence of a stricter side effect monitoring system than currently exists.

Project description:BackgroundIn March 2020, following a provincial COVID-19 emergency declaration, modifications to opioid agonist treatment (OAT) were introduced in Ontario, Canada to promote treatment access amid the pandemic and ongoing opioid overdose crisis. Modifications included federal exemptions to facilitate OAT prescription re-fills, extensions, and deliveries and interim treatment guidance emphasizing take-home (non-observed) doses and reduced urine drug screening for OAT patients.MethodsWe conducted an interrupted time series study using health administrative data from September 17th, 2019-September 21st, 2020, on 359 people who inject drugs with suspected opioid use disorder in Toronto, Ontario. We used segmented regression analyses to evaluate the joint effects of the provincial COVID-19 emergency declaration, federal OAT exemptions, and interim treatment guidance-all implemented between March 17th-23rd, 2020-on the weekly proportion of participants enrolled in OAT (i.e., ≥1 day(s) covered with methadone or buprenorphine/naloxone), with an opioid-related overdose (based on emergency department visits and hospitalizations), and who died (all-cause), and the weekly proportion of OAT-enrolled participants receiving take-home doses (i.e., ≥1 day(s) covered) and undergoing urine drug screening.ResultsPost-implementation, the interventions were associated with immediate absolute changes in OAT enrollment (+1.95%; 95% CI=0.04%-3.85%), receipt of take-home doses (+18.3%; 95% CI=13.2%-23.4%), and urine drug screening (-22.4%; 95% CI=[-26.9%]-[-17.9%]) and a gradual absolute increase of 0.56% in urine drug screening week-to-week (95% CI=0.27%-0.86%) beyond the pre-implementation trend. At 26 weeks post-implementation, OAT enrollment and urine drug screening approached pre-implementation levels whereas the increase in take-home doses was largely sustained (+15.0%; 95% CI=4.33%-25.6%). No post-implementation increases in opioid-related overdoses were observed. Death was not modelled (low event frequency).ConclusionChanges to OAT provision following provincial COVID-19 restrictions were associated with an immediate and sustained increase in take-home dose coverage among OAT-enrolled participants, without corresponding increases in opioid-related overdoses among all participants.

Dataset Information

Evaluating comparative effectiveness of psychosocial interventions adjunctive to opioid agonist therapy for opioid use disorder: A systematic review with network meta-analyses.

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Trial registration

Publications

Evaluating comparative effectiveness of psychosocial interventions adjunctive to opioid agonist therapy for opioid use disorder: A systematic review with network meta-analyses.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets