opioid

Interventions for Substance Use Disorders in Adolescents: A Systematic Review

Author/s: 
Steele, D.W., Becker, S.J., Danko, K.J., Balk, E.M., Saldanha, I.J., Adam, G.P., Bagley, S.M., Friedman, C., Spirito, A., Scott, K., Ntzani, E.E., Saeed, I., Smith, B., Popp J., Trikalinos, T.A.

Structured Abstract

Objectives. This systematic review (SR) synthesizes the literature on behavioral, pharmacologic, and combined interventions for adolescents ages 12 to 20 years with problematic substance use or substance use disorder. We included interventions designed to achieve abstinence, reduce use quantity and frequency, improve functional outcomes, and reduce substance-related harms.

Data sources. We conducted literature searches in MEDLINE, the Cochrane CENTRAL Trials Registry, Embase, CINAHL, and PsycINFO to identify primary studies meeting eligibility criteria through November 1, 2019.

Review methods. Studies were extracted into the Systematic Review Data Repository. We categorized interventions into seven primary intervention components: motivational interviewing (MI), family focused therapy (Fam), cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT), psychoeducation, contingency management (CM), peer group therapy, and intensive case management. We conducted meta-analyses of comparative studies and evaluated the strength of evidence (SoE). The PROSPERO protocol registration number is CRD42018115388.

Results. The literature search yielded 33,272 citations, of which 118 studies were included. Motivational interviewing reduced heavy alcohol use days by 0.7 days/month, alcohol use days by 1.2 days/month, and overall substance use problems by a standardized mean difference of 0.5, compared with treatment as usual. Brief MI did not reduce cannabis use days (net mean difference of 0). Across multiple intensive interventions, Fam was most effective, reducing alcohol use days by 3.5 days/month compared with treatment as usual. No intensive interventions reduced cannabis use days. Pharmacologic treatment of opioid use disorder led to a more than 4 times greater likelihood of abstinence with extended courses (2 to 3 months) of buprenorphine compared to short courses (14 to 28 days).

Conclusions. Brief interventions: MI reduces heavy alcohol use (low SoE), alcohol use days (moderate SoE), and substance use–related problems (low SoE) but does not reduce cannabis use days (moderate SoE). Nonbrief interventions: Fam may be most effective in reducing alcohol use (low SoE). More research is needed to identify other effective intensive behavioral interventions for alcohol use disorder. Intensive interventions did not appear to decrease cannabis use (low SoE). Some interventions (CBT, CBT+MI, and CBT+MI+CM) were associated with increased cannabis use (low SoE). Both MI and CBT reduce combined alcohol and other drug use (low SoE). Combined CBT+MI reduces illicit drug use (low SoE). Subgroup analyses of interest (male vs. female, racial and ethnic minorities, socioeconomic status, and family characteristics) were sparse, precluding conclusions regarding differential effects. Pharmacological interventions: longer courses of buprenorphine (2–3 months) are more effective than shorter courses (14–28 days) to reduce opioid use and achieve abstinence (low SoE). SRs in the college settings support use of brief interventions for students with any use, heavy or problematic use. More research is needed to identify the most effective combinations of behavioral and pharmacologic treatments for opioid, alcohol, and cannabis use disorders.

Citation

Suggested citation: Steele DW, Becker SJ, Danko KJ, Balk EM, Saldanha IJ, Adam GP, Bagley SM, Friedman C, Spirito A, Scott K, Ntzani EE, Saeed I, Smith B, Popp J, Trikalinos TA. Interventions for Substance Use Disorders in Adolescents: A Systematic Review. Comparative Effectiveness Review No. 225. (Prepared by the Brown Evidence-based Practice Center under Contract No. 290-2015-00002-I.) AHRQ Publication No. 20-EHC014. Rockville, MD: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. May 2020. Posted final reports are located on the Effective Health Care Program search page. DOI: https://doi.org/10.23970/AHRQEPCCER225.

Keywords 

Adolescent Opioid Misuse Attributable to Adverse Childhood Experiences

Author/s: 
Swedo, E.A., Sumner, S.A., Fijter, S., Werhan, L., Norris, K., Beauregard, J.L., Montgomery, M.P., Rose, E.B., Hillis, S. D., Massetti, G.M.

Objectives

To estimate the proportion of opioid misuse attributable to adverse childhood experiences (ACEs) among adolescents.

Study design

A cross-sectional survey was administered to 10,546 7th‒12th grade students in northeastern Ohio in Spring 2018. Study measures included self-reported lifetime exposure to 10 ACEs and past 30 day use of nonmedical prescription opioid or heroin. Using generalized estimating equations, we evaluated associations between recent opioid misuse, individual ACEs, and cumulative number of ACEs. We calculated population attributable fractions (PAF) to determine the proportion of adolescents’ recent opioid misuse attributable to ACEs.

Results

Nearly one in 50 adolescents reported opioid misuse within 30 days (1.9%); ∼60% of youth experienced ≥1 ACE; 10.2% experienced ≥5 ACEs. Cumulative ACE exposure demonstrated a significant graded relationship with opioid misuse. Compared with youth with zero ACEs, youth with 1 ACE (adjusted odds ratio [AOR]: 1.9, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.9‒3.9), 2 ACEs (AOR: 3.8, CI: 1.9‒7.9), 3 ACEs (AOR: 3.7, CI: 2.2‒6.5), 4 ACEs (AOR: 5.8, CI: 3.1‒11.2), and ≥5 ACEs (AOR: 15.3, CI: 8.8‒26.6) had higher odds of recent opioid misuse. The population attributable fraction of recent opioid misuse associated with experiencing ≥1 ACE was 71.6% (CI: 59.8–83.5).

Conclusions

There was a significant graded relationship between number of ACEs and recent opioid misuse among adolescents. Over 70% of recent adolescent opioid misuse in our study population was attributable to ACEs. Efforts to decrease opioid misuse could include programmatic, policy, and clinical practice interventions to prevent and mitigate the negative effects of ACEs.

Building a Group-Based Opioid Treatment (GBOT) blueprint: a qualitative study delineating GBOT implementation

Author/s: 
Sokol, R, Albanese, M, Chew, A, Early, J, Grossman, E, Roll, D, Sawin, G, Wu, DJ, Schuman-Olivier, Z

BACKGROUND:

Group-Based Opioid Treatment (GBOT) has recently emerged as a mechanism for treating patients with opioid use disorder (OUD) in the outpatient setting. However, the more practical "how to" components of successfully delivering GBOT has received little attention in the medical literature, potentially limiting its widespread implementation and utilization. Building on a previous case series, this paper delineates the key components to implementing GBOT by asking: (a) What are the core components to GBOT implementation, and how are they defined? (b) What are the malleable components to GBOT implementation, and what conceptual framework should providers use in determining how to apply these components for effective delivery in their unique clinical environment?

METHODS:

To create a blueprint delineating GBOT implementation, we integrated findings from a previously conducted and separately published systematic review of existing GBOT studies, conducted additional literature review, reviewed best practice recommendations and policies related to GBOT and organizational frameworks for implementing health systems change. We triangulated this data with a qualitative thematic analysis from 5 individual interviews and 2 focus groups representing leaders from 5 different GBOT programs across our institution to identify the key components to GBOT implementation, distinguish "core" and "malleable" components, and provide a conceptual framework for considering various options for implementing the malleable components.

RESULTS:

We identified 6 core components to GBOT implementation that optimize clinical outcomes, comply with mandatory policies and regulations, ensure patient and staff safety, and promote sustainability in delivery. These included consistent group expectations, team-based approach to care, safe and confidential space, billing compliance, regular monitoring, and regular patient participation. We identified 14 malleable components and developed a novel conceptual framework that providers can apply when deciding how to employ each malleable component that considers empirical, theoretical and practical dimensions.

CONCLUSION:

While further research on the effectiveness of GBOT and its individual implementation components is needed, the blueprint outlined here provides an initial framework to help office-based opioid treatment sites implement a successful GBOT approach and hence potentially serve as future study sites to establish efficacy of the model. This blueprint can also be used to continuously monitor how components of GBOT influence treatment outcomes, providing an empirical framework for the ongoing process of refining implementation strategies.

Subscribe to opioid