Category: College

Changing the ways of CPDD – College on Problems of Drug Dependence – June 12-16, #CPDD2016

Change is the ultimate law of life. Those that do not change and adapt, do not survive. In the life of scientific meetings, this means constantly improving the organisation of the events and tailoring them to the changing needs of the conference delegates. This year, the annual meeting of the College on Problems of Drug Dependence (CPDD) introduced several improvements and more are on the way in next years.

cpdd logo

photocredit: cpdd.org

 

Bye Bye Tote Bags

Many of us were used to the traditional design of the CPDD tote bags. Each year had a different colour. For years when conference visited a warm region, such as Phoenix, AR, the tote bag included a special layer for keeping the contents cool. The non-bag policy brought the desired recognition of sustainability and (un-)expected diversity among the conference bags – everyone was different.

Bye Bye Printed Programs

For years, the conference book was a comprehensive bible for the conference week. Everybody read it and most followed it. Although the College printed a limited number of copies, this year, the e-programs drained participants smartphones’ batteries. What more, they offered note-taking and photograph uploading that many appreciated. Welcome to the digital age.

Hello Mentors

Since the early days, the senior delegates offered mentorship to junior delegates. Mostly informal. Following the new trends adopted at other conferences, such as AHSR or NAPCRG, the CPDD sent out emails to all Members in Training (MIT), offering to match them with a potential mentor (mentor bios included). If both parties agreed, the match-maker introduced them via email. I have learned a lot from my mentor. Especially that the decision makers may not read addiction journals, also that the team identity strengthens sense of ownership among team members and that the road to the research success can be long and winding. Let’s hope that the beneficial mentoring program continues in future.

Hello Shorter Conference

With the increasing demands on scientists’ workloads, there is a chance that the upcoming conferences will be shorter.

See also my previous blog posts about CPDD from the previous years:

2015Getting the most out of the Conference of the College on Problems of Drugs Dependence #CPDD2015

2014: 76th Annual Conference of College on Problems of Drug Dependence: Decide to be fearless& fabulous 

2013: My itinerary for the Conference – College on Problems of Drug Dependence, San Diego, June 15-20 

Reduce alcohol consumption in illicit drug users: In the news

glass, dollar bill and cocaine

In 2012, we reviewed the evidence for talking therapies to reduce drinking among people who also use other drugs.  This review was published by the Cochrane collaboration and updated in November 2014. Seven months ago, Olivia Maynard, a research associate from the University of Bristol, gives a wonderful summary of the updated review.

Whilst we all know that excessive alcohol consumption is bad for our health, illicit drug users are one group for whom problem alcohol use can be especially harmful, causing serious health consequences.

The prevalence of the hepatitis C virus is high among illicit drug users and problem alcohol use contributes to a poorer prognosis of this disease by increasing its progression to other diseases. In addition, rates of anxiety, mood and personality disorders are higher among illicit drug users, each of which is exacerbated by problem alcohol use.
Despite these health consequences, the prevalence of problem alcohol use is high among illicit drug users, with around 38% of opiate- and 45% of stimulant-using treatment-seeking individuals having co-occurring alcohol use disorders (Hartzler 2010; Hartzler 2011).
Previous Cochrane reviews have investigated the effectiveness of psychosocial interventions (or ‘talking therapies’) for either problem alcohol use, or illicit drug use alone. However, none have investigated the effectiveness of these therapies for individuals with concurrent problem alcohol and illicit drug use. Given the significant health risk and the high prevalence of concurrent problem alcohol and illicit drug use, a Cochrane review of this kind is long over-due.
Luckily, Kilmas and colleagues have done the hard work for us and their comprehensive Cochrane review of the literature evaluates the evidence for talking therapies for alcohol reduction among illicit drug users (Klimas et al, 2014).
This updated Cochrane review looks at psychotherapy for concurrent problem alcohol and illicit drug use.
This updated Cochrane review looks at psychotherapy for concurrent problem alcohol and illicit drug use.
The talking therapies we’re concerned with here are psychologically based interventions, which aim to reduce alcohol consumption without using any pharmacological (i.e. drug-based) treatments. Although there’s a wide range of different talking therapies currently used in practice, the ones which are discussed in this Cochrane review are:
  • Motivational interviewing (MI): this uses a client-centered approach, where the client’s readiness to change and their motivation, is a key component of the therapy.
  • Cognitive-behavioural therapy (CBT): this focuses on changing the way a client thinks and behaves. To address problem alcohol use, CBT approaches identify the triggers associated with drug use and use behavioural techniques to prevent relapse.
  • Brief interventions (BI): often BIs are based on the principles of MI and include giving advice and information. However, as implied by the name, BIs tend to be shorter and so are more suitable for non-specialist facilities.
  • The 12-step model: this is the approach used by Alcoholics Anonymous and operates by emphasising the powerlessness of the individual over their addiction. It then uses well-established therapeutic approaches, such as group cohesiveness and peer pressure to overcome this addiction.

Methods

  • The Cochrane review included all randomised controlled trials which compared psychosocial interventions with another therapy (whether that be other psychosocial therapies (to allow for comparison between therapies), pharmacological therapies, or placebo). Participants were adult illicit drug users with concurrent problem alcohol use
  • Four studies were included, involving 594 participants in total
  • The effectiveness of these interventions were assessed and the authors were most interested in the impact of these therapies on alcohol use, but were also interested in their impact on illicit drug use, participants’ engagement in further treatment and differences in alcohol related harms
  • The quality of the studies was also assessed
The quality of trials included in this review could certainly have been a lot better.
The quality of trials included in this review could certainly have been a lot better.

Results

The four studies were very different, each comparing different therapies:
  • Study 1: cognitive-behavioural therapy versus the 12-step model (Carroll et al, 1998)
  • Study 2: brief intervention versus treatment as usual (Feldman et al 2013)
  • Study 3: group or individual motivational interviewing versus hepatitis health promotion (Nyamathi et al, 2010)
  • Study 4: brief motivational intervention versus assessment only (Stein et al, 2002)
Due to this heterogeneity, the results could not be combined and so each study was considered separately. Of the four studies, only Study 4 found any meaningful differences between the therapies compared. Here, participants in the brief motivational intervention condition had reduced alcohol use (by seven or more days in the past month at 6-month follow up) as compared with the control group (Risk Ratio 1.67; 95% Confidence Interval 1.08 to 2.60; P value = 0.02). However, no other differences were observed for other outcome measures.
Overall, the review found little evidence that there are differences in the effectiveness of talking therapies in reducing alcohol consumption among concurrent alcohol and illicit drug users.
The authors of this review also bemoan the quality of the evidence provided by the four studies and judged them to be of either low or moderate quality, failing to account for all potential sources of bias.
The review found no evidence that any of the four therapies was a winner when it came to reducing alcohol consumption in illicit drug users.
The review found no evidence that any of the four therapies was a winner when it came to reducing alcohol consumption in illicit drug users.

Conclusions

So, what does this all mean for practice?
In a rather non-committal statement, which reflects the paucity of evidence available, the authors report that:
based on the low-quality evidence identified in this review, we cannot recommend using or ceasing psychosocial interventions for problem alcohol use in illicit drug users.
However, the authors suggest that similar to other conditions, early intervention for alcohol problems in primary care should be a priority. They also argue that given the high rates of co-occurrence of alcohol and drug problems, the integration of therapy for these two should be common practice, although as shown here, the evidence base to support this is currently lacking.
And what about the comparison between the different talking therapies?
Again, rather disappointingly, the authors report that:
no reliable conclusions can be drawn from these data regarding the effectiveness of different types of psychosocial interventions for the target condition.
How about the implications for research? What do we still need to find out?
This review really highlights the scarcity of well-reported, methodologically sound research investigating the effectiveness of psychosocial interventions for alcohol and illicit drug use and the authors call for trials using robust methodologies to further investigate this.
Choosing a therapy for this group of patients is difficult with insufficient evidence to support our decision.
Choosing a therapy for this group of patients is difficult with insufficient evidence to support our decision.

Links

Klimas J, Tobin H, Field CA, O’Gorman CSM, Glynn LG, Keenan E, Saunders J, Bury G, Dunne C, Cullen W. Psychosocial interventions to reduce alcohol consumption in concurrent problem alcohol and illicit drug users. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2014, Issue 12. Art. No.: CD009269. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD009269.pub3.
Hartzler B, Donovan DM, Huang Z. Comparison of opiate-primary treatment seekers with and without alcohol use disorderJournal of Substance Abuse Treatment 2010;39 (2):114–23.
Carroll, K.M., Nich, C. Ball, S.A, McCance, E., Rounsavile, B.J. Treatment of cocaine and alcohol dependence with psychotherapy and dislfram. Addiction 1998; 93(5):713-27. [PubMed abstract]
Feldman N, Chatton A, Khan R, Khazaal Y, Zullino D. Alcohol-related brief intervention in patients treated for opiate or cocaine dependence: a randomized controlled studySubstance Abuse Treatment, Prevention, and Policy 2011;6(22):1–8.
Nyamathi A, Shoptaw S,Cohen A,Greengold B,Nyamathi K, Marfisee M, et al. Effect of motivational interviewing on reduction of alcohol useDrug Alcohol Dependence 2010;107(1):23–30. [1879–0046: (Electronic)]
Stein MD, Charuvastra A, Makstad J, Anderson BJ. A randomized trial of a brief alcohol intervention for needle exchanges (BRAINE). Addiction 2002;97(6):691. [:09652140] [PubMed abstract]

 

Share this post: Share on Facebook Tweet this on Twitter Share on LinkedIn Share on Google+ Share via email

Olivia Maynard

Olivia Maynard
Olivia is a Research Associate in the Tobacco and Alcohol Research Group at the University of Bristol, United Kingdom. Her research interests are primarily in the area of investigating the causes and consequences of unhealthy behaviours, and developing interventions to encourage healthy behaviour change, with a particular focus on tobacco and alcohol use. Her PhD, focussed on assessing the effects of plain packaging of tobacco products on behaviour. You can follow her on Twitter @OliviaMaynard17 and the research group she is part of @BristolTARG.

– See more at: http://www.thementalelf.net/mental-health-conditions/substance-misuse/reducing-alcohol-consumption-in-illicit-drug-users-new-cochrane-review-on-psychotherapies/#sthash.nhqsnqPW.dpuf

Reducing alcohol consumption in illicit drug users

Getting the most out of the Conference of the College on Problems of Drugs Dependence #CPDD2015

June 15, 2015 – The conference of the College of Problems on Drugs Dependence took place in Phoenix, Arizona. When I learned that my paper was accepted, I decided to make the most out of the conference. I wanted to network. I found a blog by NICOLA KOPER especially helpful. She described how networking at conferences has resulted in more than one seminal and persistent research collaboration, and in joint publications. Koper also offered four tips on how you can make the most of conferences and use them to elevate the quality of your research programme. Here’s how I used them to make the most out of my conference.

Photocredit: cpdd.org

Make the rounds at meals

Talk to the person before and after you in the coffee line. Talk to people you don’t know, make photos with them. But remember that some conferences have a policy of no photography of presentations or data allowed.
Lunch early and create more time for standing by your poster. But stay out late, people will remember you.

Go on the field trips

Field trips are gold mines for networking, if you can do them. Re-discover your interest. Engage playfulness. Enjoy the process. Connect with your curiosity.

Spend time with your students

They’ll appreciate it. This tip is more applicable for senior investigators. Other senior tasks are to attend steering committee meetings and to prepare talks or presentations.

Go to lots of talks

Talk to the speakers after their talks. Before the conference, prepare a list of people + match ideas or questions that you can ask.

Remember to balance the talks with quality networking time.  How to (create the opportunities for) meeting people? Dance, don’t fight it.
Hang around; position yourself strategically so that you get a maximum exposure to random bystanders. Leave your bag in your room. Retreat and be quiet. Tiredness as well as weather affects us all. Take time to rest. If the climate differs from your home-country greatly, come early, adapt, adjust and fly.
Aim for at least one quality conversation per day. You can’t talk to 1000 attendees every day, but you can probably manage to talk to one of them every day. Pre-conference meetings are good for this too. Smaller audiences create more opportunities for mingling.
Go mall. You will meet more people than if you rush through the hotel. Opportunistic networking is equally helpful as targeted networking for creating new relationships.
Use discussions with your friends as spring boards for approaching new people and groups.
Three things are certain in life: Death, Taxes and Late-comers.
Stand by your poster for as long as possible. The late-comers have typically more time to talk to you.
If giving a talk yourself, remember how you present yourself. What words do you use to describe your samples? Scientists are people too; they used stigmatizing language, such as, alcoholics, in their award speeches.
Also, check out Jennifer Polk’s recent blog on UniversityAffairs: Conferences are for networking (@fromphdtolife).

New paper out now: Psychosocial Interventions for Alcohol use among problem drug users

May 18thMany people in methadone treatment receive it through their primary care provider. As many also drink alcohol excessively, there is a need to address alcohol use to improve health outcomes for these individuals. We examined problem alcohol use and its treatment among people attending primary care for methadone maintenance treatment, using baseline data from a feasibility study of an evidence-based complex intervention to improve care.
 


What have we found: Clinical records indicated that 24 patients (19%) were screened for problem alcohol use in the 12 months prior to data collection, with problem alcohol use identified in 14 (58% of those screened, 11% of the full sample). Of those who screened positive for problem alcohol use, five received a brief intervention by a GP, and none were referred to specialist treatment.
Scores on the Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test (AUDIT) revealed the prevalence of hazardous, harmful and dependent drinking to be 25% (n=26), 6% (n=6), and 16% (n=17) respectively.
Only 12 (11.3%) AUDIT questionnaires concurred with corresponding clinical records that a patient had any/ no problem alcohol use. Regular use of primary care was evident, as 25% had attended their GP more than 12 times during the past three months.

What does this mean: Comparing clinical records with patients’ experience of SBIRT can shed light on the process of care.  Alcohol screening of people who attend primary care for substance use treatment is not routinely conducted.   Interventions that enhance the care of problem alcohol use among this high-risk group are a priority.
To read the full article, go to the website of the Journal of Dual Diagnosis:  http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/15504263.2015.1027630#.VVtIBpO6eJY
Cite as: Klimas, J., Henihan, AM., McCombe, G., Swan, D., Anderson, R., Bury, G., Dunne, C., Keenan, E., Saunders, J., Shorter, GW., Smyth, B.,  Cullen, W. (2015) Psychosocial INTerventions for Alcohol use among problem drug users (PINTA): Baseline feasibility data. Journal of Dual Diagnosis 11(2):96-106