Search

Sleep problems are commonly reported during opioid agonist treatment (OAT) for opioid use disorders. Inpatient studies have found both sleep disturbances and improved sleep during OAT. Illicit opioids can also disrupt sleep, but it is unclear how they affect sleep in outpatients receiving OAT. Therefore, we used electronic diary entries and actigraphy to measure sleep duration and timing in opioid-dependent participants (n = 37) treated with methadone (n = 15) or buprenorphine (n = 22). For 16 weeks, participants were assigned to attend our clinic under different operating hours in a crossover design: Early hours (07:00–09:00) vs. Late hours (12:00–13:00) for 4 weeks each in randomized order, followed for all participants by our Standard clinic hours (07:00–11:30) for 8 weeks. Throughout, participants made daily electronic diary self-reports of their sleep upon waking; they also wore a wrist actigraph for 6 nights in each of the three clinic-hour conditions. Drug use was assessed by thrice-weekly urinalysis. In linear mixed models controlling for other sleep-relevant factors, sleep duration and timing differed by drug use and by clinic hours. Compared to when non-using, participants slept less, went to bed later, and woke later when using illicit opioids and/or both illicit opioids and cocaine. Participants slept less and woke earlier when assigned to the Early hours. These findings highlight the role OAT clinic schedules can play in structuring the sleep/wake cycles of OAT patients and clarify some of the circumstances under which OAT patients experience sleep disruption in daily life.

BACKGROUND: Preliminary evidence suggested that the PPARγ agonist pioglitazone reduces opioid-withdrawal symptoms, possibly by inhibiting increases in proinflammatory cytokines. METHODS: A randomized, placebo-controlled clinical trial was conducted utilizing two different study designs (entirely outpatient, and a combination of inpatient and outpatient) to evaluate the safety and efficacy of pioglitazone as an adjunct medication for people with opioid physical dependence undergoing a buprenorphine taper. Participants were stabilized on buprenorphine/naloxone (sublingual, up to 16/4 mg/day), then randomized to receive oral pioglitazone (up to 45 mg/day) or placebo before, during, and after buprenorphine taper. Outcome measures included the Subjective Opiate Withdrawal Scale (SOWS) and Clinical Opiate Withdrawal Scale, use of rescue medications to alleviate opioid withdrawal symptoms, and opioid-positive urine specimens. Cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) and plasma were collected during the taper in a subset of participants for measurement of proinflammatory cytokines. RESULTS: The clinical trial was prematurely terminated due to slow enrollment; 40 participants per group were required for adequate statistical power to test study hypotheses. Twenty-four participants enrolled; 17 received at least one dose of study medication (6 pioglitazone, 11 placebo). SOWS scores were higher in the pioglitazone arm than in the placebo arm after adjusting for use of rescue medications; participants in the pioglitazone arm needed more rescue medications than the placebo arm during the post-taper phase. SOWS scores were positively correlated with monocyte chemoattractant protein-1 (MCP-1) in CSF (r = 0.70, p = 0.038) and plasma (r = 0.77, p = 0.015). Participants having higher levels of plasma MCP-1 reported higher SOWS, most notably after the buprenorphine taper ended. CONCLUSIONS: Results from this study provide no evidence that pioglitazone reduces opioid withdrawal symptoms during buprenorphine taper. High correlations between MCP-1 and opioid withdrawal symptoms support a role of proinflammatory processes in opioid withdrawal. TRIAL REGISTRATION: clinicaltrials.gov identifier: NCT01517165

In addiction, risk factors for craving and use include stress and drug-related cues. Stress and cues have additive or more-than-additive effects on drug seeking in laboratory animals, but, surprisingly, seem to compete with one another (ie, exert less-than-additive effects) in human laboratory studies of craving. We sought heretofore elusive evidence that human drug users could show additive (or more-than-additive) effects of stress and cues on craving, using ecological momentary assessment (EMA). Outpatients (N=182) maintained on daily buprenorphine or methadone provided self-reports of stress, craving, mood, and behavior on electronic diaries for up to 16 weeks. In three randomly prompted entries (RPs) per day, participants reported the severity of stress and craving and whether they had seen or been offered opioids, cocaine, cannabis, methamphetamine, alcohol, or tobacco. In random-effects models controlling for between-person differences, we tested effects of momentary drug-cue exposure and stress (and their interaction) on momentary ratings of cocaine and heroin craving. For cocaine craving, the Stress × Cue interaction term had a positive mean effect across participants (M=0.019; CL95 0.001-0.036), denoting a more-than-additive effect. For heroin, the mean was not significantly greater than 0, but the confidence interval was predominantly positive (M=0.019; CL95 -0.007-0.044), suggesting at least an additive effect. Heterogeneity was substantial; qualitatively, the Stress × Cue effect appeared additive for most participants, more than additive for a sizeable minority, and competitive in very few. In the field, unlike in human laboratory studies to date, craving for cocaine and heroin is greater with the combination of drug cues and stress than with either alone. For a substantial minority of users, the combined effect may be more than additive.

Knowing how stress manifests in the lives of people with substance-use disorders could help inform mobile “just in time” treatment. The purpose of this paper is to examine discrete episodes of stress, as distinct from the fluctuations in background stress assessed in most EMA studies. For up to 16 weeks, outpatients on opioid-agonist treatment carried smartphones on which they initiated an entry whenever they experienced a stressful event (SE) and when randomly prompted (RP) three times daily. Participants reported the severity of stress and craving and the context of the report (location, activities, companions). Decomposition of covariance was used to separate within-person from between-person effects; r effect sizes below are within-person. Participants (158 of 182; 87%) made 1787 stress-event entries. Craving for opioids increased with stress severity (r effect = 0.50). Stress events tended to occur in social company (with acquaintances, 0.63, friends, 0.17, or on the phone, 0.41) rather than with family (spouse, −0.14; child, −0.18), and in places with more overall activity (bars, 0.32; outside, 0.28; walking, 0.28) and more likelihood of unexpected experiences (with strangers, 0.17). Being on the internet was slightly protective (−0.22). Our prior finding that being at the workplace protects against background stress in our participants was partly supported in these stressful-event data. The contexts of specific stressful events differ from those we have seen in prior studies of ongoing background stress. However, both are associated with drug craving.

Background and aims Stress can be validly assessed “live” or by a summary evaluation of the very recent past. Using smartphone-based ecological momentary assessment (EMA) combined with end-of-day (EOD) entries, we assessed the association between daily hassles, stressful events and use of opioids and cocaine, in opioid- and cocaine-using men and women. Methods For up to 16 weeks, 161 outpatients in opioid-agonist treatment who reported cigarette smoking carried smartphones on which they reported stressful events (SEs) and drug use (DU) and completed an EOD questionnaire to report hassles encountered throughout the day, current perceived stress, cigarettes/day, and current mood. We compared EOD responses on days with and without SE and DU reports and on days when thrice-weekly urine drug screens indicated opioid or cocaine use or abstinence. Results Participants (N = 161) made 11,544 EOD entries; EMA SEs were reported on 861 (7.5%) days, and DUs on 1685 (14.6%) days. The most frequently reported hassles in EOD entries were “not enough money” (31.4% of daily reports) and maintaining abstinence (18.7%). Total EOD hassles showed small but statistically significant associations [odds ratios (95% CIs)] with EMA SEs [1.09 (1.06–1.13)], DUs [1.08 (1.06–1.10)], and urine-positive opioid [1.06 (1.04–1.09)] and cocaine [1.03 (1.00–1.06)] results. Men and women had similar rates (mean/day (SD)) of hassles: men 2.25 (3.55); women 2.55 (3.76) (F1,159 = 0.53, p = 0.47). Conclusions Daily hassles, reported at the end of the day, are associated with both same-day stressful events and drug use. Monitoring hassles and devising specific coping strategies might be useful therapeutic targets.

RATIONALE: Ecological momentary assessment (EMA) of specific events usually focuses more on antecedents and concomitants than on aftermaths. OBJECTIVES: To examine mental state both before and after discrete episodes of stress and drug use. METHODS: For up to 16 weeks, outpatients on opioid-agonist treatment carried smartphones on which they initiated entries for stressful events (SEs) or lapses to drug use (DUs), and thrice daily when randomly prompted (RPs). Participants rated their stress, opioid craving, cocaine craving, and moods. RP entries within 5 hours of an event were analyzed and compared to other RPs. RESULTS: Stress, negative mood, and craving were generally higher before and after DUs and SEs compared to background levels in participants with at least one DU (n=149) or SE (n=158). Before DUs, there were increases in negative mood, opioid craving, and cocaine craving, but not background stress. Before SEs, there were increases in background stress, opioid craving, and cocaine craving, but not negative mood. These changes were more variable after events than before. Neither DUs nor SEs were significantly related to positive mood. CONCLUSIONS: Stress increased before stressful-event entries, but was less evident before drug use. Craving increased in the hours before drug use and stressful events—and remained elevated in the hours after either event. These results suggest a stronger link between drug use and craving than between drug use and stress. Lapses to drug use did not improve mood or reduce stress, at least not at our one-hour-bin time resolution, suggesting that if such benefits exist, they are brief.

We investigated relationships between drinking, other drug use, and drug craving, using ecological momentary assessment (EMA), in a sample of polydrug users who were not heavy drinkers. In a prospective longitudinal cohort study, 114 heroin and cocaine users on methadone-maintenance treatment carried handheld electronic diaries during waking hours and were screened for drug and alcohol use for up to 25 weeks. Individuals who fulfilled the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders criteria for alcohol abuse or dependence were excluded. Participants responded to 2-5 random prompts per day to report on their moods, cravings, and activities and initiated entries when they used or acutely craved heroin or cocaine. Drinking alcohol was assessed in both types of entries. Breath alcohol was measured three times weekly. Participants reported drinking alcohol in 1.6% of random-prompt entries, 3.7% of event-contingent entries when craving cocaine and/or heroin, and 11.6% of event-contingent entries when using cocaine and/or heroin. Alcohol drinking was also associated with higher craving ratings and prestudy alcohol use. More drinking was detected by ambulatory self-report than by in-clinic breath testing. Even though we had screened out heavy drinkers from our sample of polydrug users, drinking was associated with heroin and cocaine craving and actual use. Language: en

The authors tested whether clonidine blocks stress-induced seeking of heroin and cocaine. The study was also intended to confirm translational findings from a rat model of drug relapse by using ecological momentary assessment of patients' stress to test hypotheses about clonidine's behavioral mechanism of action.The authors conducted a randomized double-blind placebo-controlled clinical trial with 208 opioid-dependent patients at an outpatient buprenorphine clinic. The 118 participants (57%) who maintained abstinence during weeks 5-6 were continued on buprenorphine and randomly assigned to receive clonidine (N=61) or placebo (N=57) for 14 weeks. Urine was tested thrice weekly. Lapse was defined as any opioid-positive or missed urine test, and relapse as two or more consecutive lapses. Time to lapse and relapse were examined with Cox regressions; longest period of abstinence was examined with a t test, and ecological momentary assessment data were examined with generalized linear mixed models.In an intent-to-treat analysis, clonidine produced the longest duration (in consecutive days) of abstinence from opioids during the intervention phase (34.8 days [SD=3.7] compared with 25.5 days [SD=2.7]; Cohen's d=0.38). There was no group difference in time to relapse, but the clonidine group took longer to lapse (hazard ratio=0.67, 95% CI=0.45-1.00). Ecological momentary assessment showed that daily-life stress was partly decoupled from opioid craving in the clonidine group, supporting the authors' hypothesized mechanism for clonidine's benefits.Clonidine, a readily available medication, is useful in opioid dependence not just for reduction of withdrawal signs, but also as an adjunctive maintenance treatment that increases duration of abstinence. Even in the absence of physical withdrawal, it decouples stress from craving in everyday life.

Stress’s role in drug use is supported by retrospective interview and laboratory studies, but prospective data confirming the association in daily life are sparse. This study aims to assess the relationship between drug use and stress in real time with ambulatory monitoring. For up to 16 weeks, 133 outpatients on opiate agonist treatment used smartphones to report each time they used drugs or felt more stressed than usual. They rated stress-event severity on a 10-point scale and as a hassle, day spoiler, or more than a day spoiler. For analysis, stress reports made within 72 h before a reported use of cocaine or opioid were binned into 24-h periods. Of 52 participants who reported stress events in the 72-h timeframe, 41 reported stress before cocaine use and 26 before opioid use. For cocaine use, the severity of stressors, rated numerically (r effect = 0.42, CL95 0.17–0.62, p = 0.00061) and percent rated as “more than a day spoiler” (r effect = 0.34, CL95 0.07–0.56, p = 0.0292)], increased linearly across the three days preceding use. The number of stressors did not predict cocaine use, and no measure of stress predicted opioid use. In ecological momentary assessment (EMA) from the whole sample of 133, stress and drug use occurred independently and there was no overall relationship. EMA did not support the idea that stress is a necessary or sufficient trigger for cocaine or heroin use after accounting for the base rates of stress and use. But EMA did show that stressful events can increase in severity in the days preceding cocaine use.

Ambulatory physiological monitoring could clarify antecedents and consequences of drug use and could contribute to a sensor-triggered mobile intervention that automatically detects behaviorally risky situations. Our goal was to show that such monitoring is feasible and can produce meaningful data.We assessed heart rate (HR) with AutoSense, a suite of biosensors that wirelessly transmits data to a smartphone, for up to 4 weeks in 40 polydrug users in opioid-agonist maintenance as they went about their daily lives. Participants also self-reported drug use, mood, and activities on electronic diaries. We compared HR with self-report using multilevel modeling (SAS Proc Mixed).Compliance with AutoSense was good; the data yield from the wireless electrocardiographs was 85.7%. HR was higher when participants reported cocaine use than when they reported heroin use (F(2,9)=250.3, p.0001) and was also higher as a function of the dose of cocaine reported (F(1,8)=207.7, p.0001). HR was higher when participants reported craving heroin (F(1,16)=230.9, p.0001) or cocaine (F(1,14)=157.2, p.0001) than when they reported of not craving. HR was lower (p.05) in randomly prompted entries in which participants reported feeling relaxed, feeling happy, or watching TV, and was higher when they reported feeling stressed, being hassled, or walking.High-yield, high-quality heart-rate data can be obtained from drug users in their natural environment as they go about their daily lives, and the resultant data robustly reflect episodes of cocaine and heroin use and other mental and behavioral events of interest.