Literature Collection

Opioid use disorder (OUD) is a common, treatable chronic disease that can be effectively managed in primary care settings. Untreated OUD is associated with considerable morbidity and mortality-notably, overdose, infectious complications of injecting drug use, and profoundly diminished quality of life. Withdrawal management and medication tapers are ineffective and are associated with increased rates of relapse and death. Pharmacotherapy is the evidence based mainstay of OUD treatment, and many studies support its integration into primary care settings. Evidence is strongest for the opioid agonists buprenorphine and methadone, which randomized controlled trials have shown to decrease illicit opioid use and mortality. Discontinuation of opioid agonist therapy is associated with increased rates of relapse and mortality. Less evidence is available for the opioid antagonist extended release naltrexone, with a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials showing decreased illicit opioid use but no effect on mortality. Treating OUD in primary care settings is cost effective, improves outcomes for both OUD and other medical comorbidities, and is highly acceptable to patients. Evidence on whether behavioral interventions improve outcomes for patients receiving pharmacotherapy is mixed, with guidelines promoting voluntary engagement in psychosocial supports, including counseling. Further work is needed to promote the integration of OUD treatment into primary care and to overcome regulatory barriers to integrating methadone into primary care treatment in the US.

BACKGROUND: Ibogaine is a monoterpene indole alkaloid used in medical and nonmedical settings for the treatment of opioid use disorder. Its mechanism of action is apparently novel. There are no published prospective studies of drug use outcomes with ibogaine. OBJECTIVES: To study outcomes following opioid detoxification with ibogaine. METHODS: In this observational study, 30 subjects with DSM-IV Opioid Dependence (25 males, 5 females) received a mean total dose of 1,540 +/- 920 mg ibogaine HCl. Subjects used oxycodone (n = 21; 70%) and/or heroin (n = 18; 60%) in respective amounts of 250 +/- 180 mg/day and 1.3 +/- 0.94 g/day, and averaged 3.1 +/- 2.6 previous episodes of treatment for opioid dependence. Detoxification and follow-up outcomes at 1, 3, 6, 9, and 12 months were evaluated utilizing the Subjective Opioid Withdrawal Scale (SOWS) and Addiction Severity Index Composite (ASIC) scores, respectively. RESULTS: SOWS scores decreased from 31.0 +/- 11.6 pretreatment to 14.0 +/- 9.8 at 76.5 +/- 30 hours posttreatment (t = 7.07, df = 26, p < 0.001). At 1-month posttreatment follow-up, 15 subjects (50%) reported no opioid use during the previous 30 days. ASIC Drug Use and Legal and Family/Social Status scores were improved relative to pretreatment baseline at all posttreatment time points (p < .001). Improvement in Drug Use scores was maximal at 1 month, and subsequently sustained from 3 to 12 months at levels that did not reach equivalence to the effect at 1 month. CONCLUSION: Ibogaine was associated with substantive effects on opioid withdrawal symptoms and drug use in subjects for whom other treatments had been unsuccessful, and may provide a useful prototype for discovery and development of innovative pharmacotherapy of addiction.

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.