Search

BackgroundThe use of amphetamine-type stimulants (ATS) places a large burden on health services. ObjectiveThe aim was to evaluate the effectiveness of a self-guided Web-based intervention (“breakingtheice”) for ATS users over 6 months via a free-to-access site. MethodsWe conducted a randomized trial comparing a waitlist control with a fully automated intervention containing 3 modules derived from cognitive behavioral therapy and motivation enhancement. The main outcome was self-reported ATS use in the past 3 months assessed at 3- and 6-month follow-ups using the Alcohol, Smoking, and Substance Involvement Screening Test (ASSIST). Secondary outcomes were help-seeking intentions (general help-seeking questionnaire), actual help seeking (actual help-seeking questionnaire), psychological distress (Kessler 10), polydrug use (ASSIST), quality of life (European Health Interview Survey), days out of role, and readiness to change. Follow-up data were evaluated using an intention-to-treat (ITT) analysis with a group by time interaction. ResultsWe randomized 160 people (intervention: n=81; control: n=79). At 6 months, 38 of 81 (47%) intervention and 41 of 79 (52%) control participants provided data. ATS scores significantly declined for both groups, but the interaction effect was not significant. There were significant ITT time by group interactions for actual help seeking (rate ratio [RR] 2.16; d=0.45) and help-seeking intentions (RR 1.17; d=0.32), with help seeking increasing for the intervention group and declining for the control group. There were also significant interactions for days completely (RR 0.50) and partially (RR 0.74) out of role favoring the intervention group. However, 37% (30/81) of the intervention group did not complete even 1 module. ConclusionsThis self-guided Web-based intervention encouraged help seeking associated with ATS use and reduced days out of role, but it did not reduce ATS use. Thus, this program provides a means of engaging with some sections of a difficult-to-reach group to encourage treatment, but a substantial minority remained disengaged. Trial RegistrationAustralian and New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry: ACTRN12611000947909; https://www.anzctr.org.au/Trial/Registration/TrialReview.aspx?id=343307 (Archived by WebCite at http://www.webcitation.org/6Y0PGGp8q).

BackgroundAmong illicit drugs, the prevalence of amphetamine-type stimulant (ATS) use is second only to cannabis. Currently, there are no approved pharmacotherapies for ATS problems, but some face-to-face psychotherapies are effective. Web-based interventions have proven to be effective for some substance use problems, but none has specifically targeted ATS users. ObjectiveThe objective of the study was to evaluate the effectiveness of a Web-based intervention for ATS problems on a free-to-access site compared with a waitlist control group. MethodsWe used a randomized controlled trial design. The primary outcome measure was self-reported ATS use in the past three months assessed using the Alcohol, Smoking, Substance Involvement Screening Test (ASSIST). Other measures included quality of life (EUROHIS score), psychological distress (K-10 score), days out of role, poly-drug use, general help-seeking intentions, actual help-seeking, and “readiness to change”. The intervention consisted of three fully automated, self-guided modules based on cognitive behavioral therapy and motivation enhancement. The analysis was an intention-to-treat analysis using generalized estimating equation models, with a group by time interaction as the critical assessment. ResultsWe randomized 160 people (intervention n=81, control n=79). At three months, 35/81 (43%) intervention and 45/79 (57%) control participants provided follow-up data. In the intervention group, 51/81 (63%) completed at least one module. The only significant group by time interaction was for days out of role. The pre/post change effect sizes showed small changes (range d=0.14 to 0.40) favoring the intervention group for poly-drug use, distress, actual help-seeking, and days out of role. In contrast, the control group was favored by reductions in ATS use, improvements in quality of life, and increases in help-seeking intentions (range d=0.09 to 0.16). ConclusionsThis Web-based intervention for ATS use produced few significant changes in outcome measures. There were moderate, but nonsignificant reductions in poly-drug use, distress, days partially out of role, and increases in help-seeking. However, high levels of participant attrition, plus low levels of engagement with the modules, preclude firm conclusions being drawn on the efficacy of the intervention and emphasize the problems of engaging this group of clients in a fully automated program. Trial RegistrationAustralian and New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry: ACTRN 12611000947909; https://www.anzctr.org.au/Trial/Registration/TrialReview.aspx?ACTRN=12611000947909 (Archived by WebCite at http://www.webcitation.org/6SHTxEnzP).

INTRODUCTION: Methamphetamine (MA) use disorder is an important public health concern. MA withdrawal is often the first step in ceasing or reducing use. There are no evidence-based withdrawal treatments, and no medication is approved for the treatment of MA withdrawal. Lisdexamfetamine (LDX) dimesilate, used in the treatment of attention deficit hyperactivity disorder and binge eating disorder has the potential as an agonist therapy to ameliorate withdrawal symptoms, and improve outcomes for patients. METHODS: A single arm, open-label pilot study to test the safety and feasibility of LDX for the treatment of MA withdrawal. Participants will be inpatients in a drug and alcohol withdrawal unit, and will receive a tapering dose of LDX over five days: 250mg LDX on Day 1, reducing by 50mg per day to 50mg on Day 5. Optional inpatient Days 6 and 7 will allow for participants to transition to ongoing treatment. Participants will be followed-up on Days 14, 21 and 28. All participants will also receive standard inpatient withdrawal care. The primary outcomes are safety (measured by adverse events, changes in vital signs, changes in suicidality and psychosis) and feasibility (the time taken to enrol the sample, proportion of screen / pre-screen failures). Secondary outcomes are acceptability (treatment satisfaction questionnaire, medication adherence, concomitant medications, qualitative interviews), retention to protocol (proportion retained to primary and secondary endpoints), changes in withdrawal symptoms (Amphetamine Withdrawal Questionnaire) and craving for MA (visual analogue scale), and sleep outcomes (continuous actigraphy and daily sleep diary). DISCUSSION: This is the first study to assess lisdexamfetamine for the treatment of acute MA withdrawal. If safe and feasible results will go to informing the development of multi-centre randomised controlled trials to determine the efficacy of the intervention.

We did a global review to synthesise data on the prevalence, harms, and interventions for stimulant use, focusing specifically on the use of cocaine and amphetamines. Modelling estimated the effect of cocaine and amphetamine use on mortality, suicidality, and blood borne virus incidence. The estimated global prevalence of cocaine use was 0·4% and amphetamine use was 0·7%, with dependence affecting 16% of people who used cocaine and 11% of those who used amphetamine. Stimulant use was associated with elevated mortality, increased incidence of HIV and hepatitis C infection, poor mental health (suicidality, psychosis, depression, and violence), and increased risk of cardiovascular events. No effective pharmacotherapies are available that reduce stimulant use, and the available psychosocial interventions (except for contingency management) had a weak overall effect. Generic approaches can address mental health and blood borne virus infection risk if better tailored to mitigate the harms associated with stimulant use. Substantial and sustained investment is needed to develop more effective interventions to reduce stimulant use.

Introduction: Contingency management (CM) is the most effective treatment for reducing methamphetamine use. We sought to understand why CM has not been taken up to manage methamphetamine use disorder in Australia. Methods: Six focus groups (4–8 participants per group) were conducted with health workers from agencies in Australia that provided drug‐related health care to people who use methamphetamine. These agencies had no previous experience delivering CM for substance use. The potential acceptability and feasibility of implementing CM in their services were discussed. Results: Participants felt that it would be beneficial to have an evidence‐based treatment for methamphetamine use disorder. This sentiment was offset by concerns that CM conflicted with a client‐centred harm‐reduction approach and that it dictated the goal of treatment as abstinence. It was also perceived as potentially coercive and seen to reify the power imbalance in the therapeutic relationship and therefore potentially reinforce stigma. There was also concern about the public's perception and the political acceptability of CM, who would fund CM, and the inequity of providing incentives only to clients with a methamphetamine use disorder. Some concerns could be ameliorated if the goals and structure of CM could be tailored to a client's needs. Discussion and Conclusions: Many healthcare workers were keen to offer CM as an effective treatment option for people with methamphetamine use disorder, but CM would need to be sufficiently flexible to allow it to be tailored to client needs and implemented in a way that did not adversely impact the therapeutic relationship. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Among men who have sex with men (MSM) and transgender women (TW), stimulant use is high and has been associated with an increased risk of HIV infection, suicide and cardiovascular disease (CVD) mortality. We used epidemic modelling to investigate these intersecting health harms among MSM/TW in Lima, Peru and assess whether they could be mitigated by prioritizing HIV pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) and harm reduction interventions among MSM/TW who use stimulants. Methods: We adapted a dynamic model of HIV transmission among MSM/TW in Lima to incorporate stimulant use and increased HIV risk, suicide and CVD mortality. Among 6% to 24% of MSM/TW using stimulants (mostly cocaine), we modelled an increased risk of unprotected anal sex (RR = 1.35 [95%CI: 1.17 to 1.57]) obtained from local data, and increased risk of suicide (SMR = 6.26 [95%CI: 2.84 to 13.80]) and CVD (SMR = 1.83 [95%CI: 0.39 to 8.57]) mortality associated with cocaine use based on a global systematic review. We estimated the proportion of health harms occurring among MSM/TW who use stimulants in the next year (01-2020/01-2021). We also investigated the 10-year impact (01-2020/01-2030) of: (1) PrEP prioritization for stimulant-using MSM/TW compared to random allocation, and (2) integrating PrEP with a theoretical intervention halving stimulant-associated risk. Results: MSM/TW in Lima will experience high HIV incidence, suicide mortality and CVD mortality (1.6/100 py and 0.018/100 py, 0.13/100 py respectively) in 2020. Despite stimulant using MSM/TW comprising an estimated 9.5% (95%CI: 7.8 to 11.5) of all MSM/TW, in the next year, 11% (95%CI (i.e. 2.5% to 97.5% percentile): 10% to 13%) of new HIV infections, 39% (95%CI: 18% to 60%) of suicides and 15% (95%CI: 3% to 44%) of CVD deaths could occur among this group. Scaling up PrEP among all stimulant using MSM/TW could prevent 19% (95%CI: 11% to 31%) more HIV infections over 10 years compared to random allocation. Integrating PrEP and an intervention to halve stimulant-associated risks could reduce new HIV infections by 20% (95%CI: 10% to 37%), suicide deaths by 14% (95%CI: 5% to 27%) and CVD deaths by 3% (95%CI: 0% to 16%) over a decade. Conclusions: MSM/TW who use stimulants experience a disproportionate burden of health harms. Prioritizing PrEP based on stimulant use, in addition to sexual behaviour/gender identity criteria, could increase its impact. Integrated substance use, harm reduction, mental health and HIV care among MSM/TW is needed. Keywords: men who have sex with men; transgender women; stimulants; HIV pre-exposure prophylaxis; suicide; modelling, 1 | INTRODUCTION Globally, HIV prevalence among men who have sex with men (MSM) and transgender women (TW) is 19 [1,2] and 49-fold [3] higher, respectively, than the general population. [...]

Background and Aims: Poor substance use‐related health outcomes after release from prison are common. Identifying people at greatest risk of substance use and related harms post‐release would help to target support at those most in need. The Alcohol Smoking and Substance Involvement Screening Test (ASSIST) is a validated substance use screener, but its utility in predicting substance‐related hospitalisation post‐release is unestablished. We measured whether screening for moderate/high‐risk substance use on the ASSIST was associated with increased risk of substance‐related hospitalisation. Design: A prospective cohort study. Setting: Prisons in Queensland and Western Australia. Participants: Participants were incarcerated and within 6 weeks of expected release when recruited. A total of 2585 participants were followed up for a median of 873 days. Measurements: Baseline survey data were combined with linked unit record administrative hospital data. We used the ASSIST to assess participants for moderate/high‐risk cannabis, methamphetamine and heroin use in the 3 months prior to incarceration. We used International Classification of Diseases (ICD) codes to identify substance‐related hospitalisations during follow‐up. We compared rates of substance‐related hospitalisation between those classified as low/no‐risk and moderate/high‐risk on the ASSIST for each substance. We estimated adjusted hazard ratios (aHR) by ASSIST risk group for each substance using Weibull regression survival analysis allowing for multiple failures. Findings During follow‐up, 158 (6%) participants had cannabis‐related, 178 (7%) had opioid‐related and 266 (10%) had methamphetamine‐related hospitalisation. The hazard rates of substance‐related hospitalisation after prison were significantly higher among those who screened moderate/high‐risk compared with those screening low risk on the ASSIST for cannabis (aHR 2.38, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.74, 3.24), methamphetamine (aHR 2.23, 95%CI 1.75, 2.84) and heroin (aHR 5.79, 95%CI 4.41, 7.60). Conclusions: Incarcerated people with an Alcohol Smoking and Substance Involvement Screening Test (ASSIST) screening of moderate/high‐risk substance use appear to have a significantly higher risk of post‐release substance‐related hospitalisation than those with low risk. Administering the ASSIST during incarceration may inform who has the greatest need for substance use treatment and harm reduction services in prison and after release from prison. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]