Substance use disorder treatment programs in Switzerland and the USA: Program characteristics and 1-year outcomes

AIM: This study compared matched samples of substance use disorder (SUD) patients in Swiss and United States (US) residential treatment programs and examined the relationship of program characteristics to patients' substance use and psychosocial functioning at a 1-year follow-up. DESIGN AND SETTING: The study used a prospective, naturalistic design and a sample of 10 public programs in the German-speaking part of Switzerland and 15 US public treatment programs. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 358 male patients in Swiss programs were matched on age, marital status and education with 358 male patients in US programs. A total of 160 Swiss and 329 US patient care staff members also participated. MEASUREMENT: Patients completed comparable inventories at admission, discharge and 1-year follow-up to assess their substance use and psychological functioning and receipt of continuing care. Staff members reported on program characteristics and their beliefs about substance use. FINDINGS: Compared to Swiss patients, US patients had more severe substance use and psychological problems at intake and although they did not differ on abstinence and remission at follow-up, had somewhat poorer outcomes in other areas of functioning. Swiss programs were longer and included more individual treatment sessions; US programs included more group sessions and were more oriented toward a disease model of treatment. Overall, length of program, treatment intensity and 12-step orientation were associated with better 1-year outcomes for patients in both Swiss and US programs. CONCLUSIONS: The sample of Swiss and US programs studied here differed in patient and treatment characteristics; however, in general, there were comparable associations between program characteristics and patients' 1-year outcomes. These findings suggest that associations between treatment processes and patients' outcomes may generalize from one cultural context to another.

Variability in the prevalence of adult ADHD in treatment seeking substance use disorder patients: results from an international multi-center study exploring DSM-IV and DSM-5 criteria

Background: Available studies vary in their estimated prevalence of attention deficit/hyperactivity disor-der (ADHD) in substance use disorder (SUD) patients, ranging from 2 to 83%. A better understanding ofthe possible reasons for this variability and the effect of the change from DSM-IV to DSM-5 is needed.Methods: A two stage international multi-center, cross-sectional study in 10 countries, among patientsform inpatient and outpatient addiction treatment centers for alcohol and/or drug use disorder patients. Atotal of 3558 treatment seeking SUD patients were screened for adult ADHD. A subsample of 1276 subjects,both screen positive and screen negative patients, participated in a structured diagnostic interview. 5AdultsResults: Prevalence of DSM-IV and DSM-5 adult ADHD varied for DSM-IV from 5.4% (CI 95%: 2.4–8.3) forHungary to 31.3% (CI 95%:25.2–37.5) for Norway and for DSM-5 from 7.6% (CI 95%: 4.1–11.1) for Hungary to32.6% (CI 95%: 26.4–38.8) for Norway. Using the same assessment procedures in all countries and centersresulted in substantial reduction of the variability in the prevalence of adult ADHD reported in previousstudies among SUD patients (2–83% → 5.4–31.3%). The remaining variability was partly explained byprimary substance of abuse and by country (Nordic versus non-Nordic countries). Prevalence estimatesfor DSM-5 were slightly higher than for DSM-IV.Conclusions: Given the generally high prevalence of adult ADHD, all treatment seeking SUD patientsshould be screened and, after a confirmed diagnosis, treated for ADHD since the literature indicates poorprognoses of SUD in treatment seeking SUD patients with ADHD.

Validity of the Adult ADHD Self-Report Scale (ASRS) as a screener for adult ADHD in treatment seeking substance use disorder patients

Background: To detect attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) in treatment seeking substance use disorders (SUD) patients, a valid screening instrument is needed. Objectives: To test the performance of the Adult ADHD Self-Report Scale V 1.1(ASRS) for adult ADHD in an international sample of treatment seeking SUD patients for DSM-IV-TR; for the proposed DSM-5 criteria; in different subpopulations, at intake and 1–2 weeks after intake; using different scoring algorithms; and different externalizing disorders as external criterion (including adult ADHD, bipolar disorder, antisocial and borderline personality disorder). Methods: In 1138 treatment seeking SUD subjects, ASRS performance was determined using diagnoses based on Conner's Adult ADHD Diagnostic Interview for DSM-IV (CAADID) as gold standard. Results: The prevalence of adult ADHD was 13.0% (95% CI: 11.0–15.0%). The overall positive predictive value (PPV) of the ASRS was 0.26 (95% CI: 0.22–0.30), the negative predictive value (NPV) was 0.97 (95% CI: 0.96–0.98). The sensitivity (0.84, 95% CI: 0.76–0.88) and specificity (0.66, 95% CI: 0.63–0.69) measured at admission were similar to the sensitivity (0.88, 95% CI: 0.83–0.93) and specificity (0.67, 95% CI: 0.64–0.70) measured 2 weeks after admission. Sensitivity was similar, but specificity was significantly better in patients with alcohol compared to (illicit) drugs as the primary substance of abuse (0.76 vs. 0.56). ASRS was not a good screener for externalizing disorders other than ADHD. Conclusions: The ASRS is a sensitive screener for identifying possible ADHD cases with very few missed cases among those screening negative in this population.

Motivation as a predictor of drinking outcomes after residential treatment programs for alcohol dependence

OBJECTIVES: Patients' motivation to change their substance use is usually viewed as a crucial component of successful treatment. The objective of this study was to examine whether motivation contributes to drinking outcomes after residential treatment for alcohol dependence. METHODS: Our sample included 415 Swiss patients from 12 residential alcohol treatment programs. We statistically controlled for important predictors, such as sex, employment, alcohol consumption before admission, severity of alcohol dependence, severity of psychiatric symptoms at admission, and alcohol-related self-efficacy at discharge. Abstinence, alcohol consumption, and time to first drink were used as primary outcome measures and were assessed 1 year after discharge from treatment. RESULTS: Action-oriented motivation to change substance use had a modest impact on drinking outcomes. At the 1-year follow-up, only the Taking Steps subscale of the Stages of Change Readiness and Treatment Eagerness Scale and alcohol-related self-efficacy were found to be significant predictors of abstinence and the number of standard drinks. CONCLUSIONS: The impact of action-oriented motivation at admission to residential treatment is modest but still relevant, compared with other outcome predictors. It may be useful to focus treatment on improving action-oriented motivation to reduce substance use

Safety and tolerability of slow-release oral morphine versus methadone in the treatment of opioid dependence

Opioid substitution treatment (OST) for opioid dependence may be limited by adverse events (AEs). Increasing the range of therapeutic options optimizes outcomes and facilitates patient management. An international, multi-center, two-phase study investigated the efficacy and safety of slow-release oral morphine (SROM) versus methadone in patients receiving methadone therapy for opioid dependence. In phase 1 (two way cross-over, 11 weeks each period) patients were randomized to SROM or methadone oral solution. In phase 2 (25 weeks), patients continued treatment with SROM (group A) or switched from methadone to SROM (group B). In total, 211 out of 276 completed phase 1 and 198 entered phase 2 (n = 95 group A, n = 103 group B). Treatment with both SROM and methadone was well tolerated. However, the mean QTc-interval associated with methadone was significantly longer than that under SROM. Higher treatment satisfaction, fewer cravings for heroin, and lower mental stress were reported with SROM. This study adds a significant further weight of evidence that SROM is an effective and well tolerated long-term maintenance treatment for opioid dependence with a beneficial risk profile compared to methadone regarding cardiac effects and supports its clinical utility.

High-Dose Benzodiazepine Dependence: A Qualitative Study of Patients' Perceptions on Initiation, Reasons for Use, and Obtainment

BACKGROUND High-dose benzodiazepine (BZD) dependence is associated with a wide variety of negative health consequences. Affected individuals are reported to suffer from severe mental disorders and are often unable to achieve long-term abstinence via recommended discontinuation strategies. Although it is increasingly understood that treatment interventions should take subjective experiences and beliefs into account, the perceptions of this group of individuals remain under-investigated. METHODS We conducted an exploratory qualitative study with 41 adult subjects meeting criteria for (high-dose) BZD-dependence, as defined by ICD-10. One-on-one in-depth interviews allowed for an exploration of this group's views on the reasons behind their initial and then continued use of BZDs, as well as their procurement strategies. Mayring's qualitative content analysis was used to evaluate our data. RESULTS In this sample, all participants had developed explanatory models for why they began using BZDs. We identified a multitude of reasons that we grouped into four broad categories, as explaining continued BZD use: (1) to cope with symptoms of psychological distress or mental disorder other than substance use, (2) to manage symptoms of physical or psychological discomfort associated with somatic disorder, (3) to alleviate symptoms of substance-related disorders, and (4) for recreational purposes, that is, sensation-seeking and other social reasons. Subjects often considered BZDs less dangerous than other substances and associated their use more often with harm reduction than as recreational. Specific obtainment strategies varied widely: the majority of participants oscillated between legal and illegal methods, often relying on the black market when faced with treatment termination. CONCLUSIONS Irrespective of comorbidity, participants expressed a clear preference for medically related explanatory models for their BZD use. We therefore suggest that clinicians consider patients' motives for long-term, high-dose BZD use when formulating treatment plans for this patient group, especially since it is known that individuals are more compliant with approaches they perceive to be manageable, tolerable, and effective.