Inhalant-Induced Psychotic Disorder: A Case Report

Substance use disorders (SUDs) represent a pressing public health concern. Combined behavioral and pharmacological interventions are considered best practices for addiction. Cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) is a first-line intervention, yet the superiority of CBT compared with other behavioral treatments when combined with pharmacotherapy remains unclear. An understanding of the effects of combined CBT and pharmacotherapy will inform best-practice guidelines for treatment of SUD. To conduct a meta-analysis of the published literature on combined CBT and pharmacotherapy for adult alcohol use disorder (AUD) or other SUDs. PubMed, Cochrane Register, MEDLINE, PsychINFO, and Embase databases from January 1, 1990, through July 31, 2019, were searched. Keywords were specified in 3 categories: treatment type, outcome type, and study design. Collected data were analyzed through September 30, 2019. Two independent raters reviewed abstracts and full-text articles. English language articles describing randomized clinical trials examining CBT in combination with pharmacotherapy for AUD and SUD were included. Inverse-variance weighted, random-effects estimates of effect size were pooled into 3 clinically informative subgroups: (1) CBT plus pharmacotherapy compared with usual care plus pharmacotherapy, (2) CBT plus pharmacotherapy compared with another specific therapy plus pharmacotherapy, and (3) CBT added to usual care and pharmacotherapy compared with usual care and pharmacotherapy alone. Sensitivity analyses included assessment of study quality, pooled effect size heterogeneity, publication bias, and primary substance moderator effects. Substance use frequency and quantity outcomes after treatment and during follow-up were examined. The sample included 62 effect sizes from 30 unique randomized clinical trials that examined CBT in combination with some form of pharmacotherapy for AUD and SUD. The primary substances targeted in the clinical trial sample were alcohol (15 [50%]), followed by cocaine (7 [23%]) and opioids (6 [20%]). The mean (SD) age of the patient sample was 39 (6) years, with a mean (SD) of 28% (12%) female participants per study. The following pharmacotherapies were used: naltrexone hydrochloride and/or acamprosate calcium (26 of 62 effect sizes [42%]), methadone hydrochloride or combined buprenorphine hydrochloride and naltrexone (11 of 62 [18%]), disulfiram (5 of 62 [8%]), and another pharmacotherapy or mixture of pharmacotherapies (20 of 62 [32%]). Random-effects pooled estimates showed a benefit associated with combined CBT and pharmacotherapy over usual care (g range, 0.18-0.28; k = 9). However, CBT did not perform better than another specific therapy, and evidence for the addition of CBT as an add-on to combined usual care and pharmacotherapy was mixed. Moderator analysis showed variability in effect direction and magnitude by primary drug target. The present study supports the efficacy of combined CBT and pharmacotherapy compared with usual care and pharmacotherapy. Cognitive behavioral therapy did not perform better than another evidence-based modality (eg, motivational enhancement therapy, contingency management) in this context or as an add-on to combined usual care and pharmacotherapy. These findings suggest that best practices in addiction treatment should include pharmacotherapy plus CBT or another evidence-based therapy, rather than usual clinical management or nonspecific counseling services.

To assess the cost-effectiveness of motivational enhancement therapy and cognitive behaviour therapy for poorly controlled Type 1 diabetes. Within-trial prospective economic evaluation from (i) health and social care and (ii) societal perspectives. Three hundred and forty-four adults with Type 1 diabetes for at least 2 years and persistent, suboptimal glycaemic control were recruited to a three-arm multi-centre randomized controlled trial in London and Manchester, UK. They were randomized to (i) usual care plus four sessions of motivational enhancement therapy (ii) usual care plus four sessions of motivational enhancement therapy and eight sessions of cognitive behaviour therapy or (iii) usual care alone. Outcomes were (i) costs, (ii) Quality-Adjusted Life Year gains measured by the EuroQol 5-dimensional health state index and the 36-item Short Form and (iii) diabetes control measured by change in HbA(1c) level at 1 year. Both intervention groups had significantly higher mean health and social care costs (+ £535 for motivational enhancement therapy and + £790 for combined motivational enhancement and cognitive behavioural therapy), but not societal costs compared with the usual-care group. There were no differences in Quality Adjusted Life Years. There was a significantly greater HbA(1c) improvement in the combined motivational enhancement and cognitive behavioural therapy group (+ 0.45%; incremental cost-effectiveness ratio = £1756), but the not in the motivational enhancement therapy group. Cost-effectiveness acceptability curves suggested that both interventions had low probabilities of cost-effectiveness based on Quality Adjusted Life Years (but high based on HbA(1c) improvements). Imputing missing costs and outcomes confirmed these findings. Neither therapy was undisputedly cost-effective compared with usual care alone, but conclusions vary depending on the relative importance of clinical and quality-of-life outcomes.

To determine whether (i) motivational enhancement therapy (MET) + cognitive behaviour therapy (CBT) compared with usual care, (ii) MET compared with usual care, (iii) or MET + CBT compared with MET was more effective in improving glycaemic control when delivered by general nurses with additional training in these techniques. A three-arm parallel randomised controlled trial as the gold standard design to test the effectiveness of psychological treatments. The recruiting centres were diabetes clinics in seven acute trusts in south-east London and Greater Manchester. Adults (18-65 years) with a confirmed diagnosis of type 1 diabetes for a minimum duration of 2 years and a current glycated (or glycosylated) haemoglobin (HbA1c) value between 8.2% and 15.0%. The control arm consisted of usual diabetes care which varied between the hospitals, but constituted at least three monthly appointments to diabetes clinic. The two treatments arms consisted of usual care with MET and usual care with MET + CBT. The primary outcome was HbA1c at 12 months from randomisation. Secondary outcome measures were 1-year costs measured by the Client Service Receipt Inventory at baseline, 6 months and 12 months; quality of life-years [quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs)] measured by the SF-36 (Short Form-36 Health Survey Questionnaire) and EQ-5D (European Quality of Life-5 Dimensions) at baseline and 12 months. One thousand six hundred and fifty-nine people with type 1 diabetes were screened and 344 were randomised to MET + CBT (n = 106), MET (n = 117) and to usual care (n = 121). The 12-month follow-up rate for HbA1c was 88% (n = 305). The adjusted mean 12-month HbA1c was 0.45% lower in those treated with MET + CBT [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.16% to 0.79%, p = 0.008] than for usual care; 0.16% lower in those treated with MET (95% CI 0.20% to 0.51%, p = 0.38) than for usual care; and 0.30% lower with MET + CBT than with MET (95% CI -0.07% to 0.66%, p = 0.11). The higher the HbA1c, and the younger the participant at baseline, the greater was the reduction in HbA1c. The interventions had no effect on secondary outcomes such as depression and quality of life. The economic evaluation was inconclusive. Both interventions were associated with increased health care costs than for usual care alone. There was no significant difference in social costs. Cost effectiveness ratios, up to one year, varied considerably according to whether QALY estimates were based on EQ-5D or SF-36 and whether imputed or complete data were used in the analyses. A combination of MET and CBT may be useful for patients with persistent sub-optimal diabetic control. MET alone appears less effective than usual care. Economic evaluation was inconclusive. Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN77044517.

Although psychological issues can interfere with diabetes care, the effectiveness of psychological treatments in improving diabetes outcomes is uncertain. To determine whether motivational enhancement therapy with or without cognitive behavior therapy improves glycemic control in type 1 diabetes compared with usual care. Randomized, controlled trial. 8 diabetes centers in London and Manchester, United Kingdom. 344 adults with type 1 diabetes for longer than 2 years, with hemoglobin A(1c) levels of 8.2% to 15%, and without complications or severe comorbid disease. Nurse-delivered motivational enhancement therapy (4 sessions over 2 months), motivational enhancement therapy plus cognitive behavior therapy (12 sessions over 6 months), or usual care. 12-month change in hemoglobin A(1c) levels (primary outcome), hypoglycemic events, depression, quality of life, fear of hypoglycemia, diabetes self-care activities, and body mass index (secondary outcomes). In an analysis including all randomly assigned patients, the 12-month change in hemoglobin A(1c) levels compared with usual care was -0.46% (95% CI, -0.81% to -0.11%) in the motivational enhancement therapy plus cognitive behavior therapy group and -0.19% (CI, -0.53% to 0.16%) in the motivational enhancement therapy group alone. There was no evidence of treatment effects on secondary outcomes. Of 1659 screened patients, only 507 were eligible and 344 participated. Data on the primary outcome were unavailable for 11.3% of the participants. Study design did not permit distinction of the additive effect of cognitive behavior therapy plus motivational enhancement therapy from the effect of greater intensity and duration of the combined intervention compared with the motivational enhancement therapy alone. Nurse-delivered motivational enhancement therapy and cognitive behavior therapy is feasible for adults with poorly controlled type 1 diabetes. Combined therapy results in modest 12-month improvement in hemoglobin A(1c) levels compared with usual care, but motivational enhancement therapy alone does not.

A systematic review of technology-based psychotherapeutic interventions for decreasing cannabis use in patients with psychosis

Alcoholics Anonymous and other 12-step programs for alcohol use disorder.

To explore the effectiveness of motivational interviewing, motivational enhancement therapy, and cognitive behaviour therapy for patients with substance use disorders, and to estimate the effect of such comparison in patient care setting. The systematic review was conducted from September 2021 to February 2022, and comprised search on MEDLINE, EMBASE, Web of Science, PsycINFO, Google Scholar, Science Direct, PubMed, Clinical Trials.gov and OvidSP databases for experimental studies and randomised controlled trials related to substance use disorders published in peer-reviewed English-language journals between 2001 and 2021. Quality of the studies was assessed using the Modified Cochrane Collaboration risk of the bias assessment criteria. Of the 314 studies initially identified, 41(13%) were subjected to full-text assessment, and, of them, 16(39%) were reviewed and analysed. There were 8(50%) studies done is the United States, 4(25%) in the United Kingdom, and 1(6.25%) each in Germany, Australia, South Korea and South Africa. All the 16(100%) studies were intervention-based, with 6(37.5%) being randomised controlled trials. There were 8(50%) studies using motivational interviewing and cognitive behaviour therapy, 5(31.25%) had significant results with a combination of motivational enhancement therapy and cognitive behaviour therapy, 3(18.75%) supported motivational enhancement therapy and cognitive behaviour therapy in combination, and 2(12.5%) studies combined motivational interviewing, motivational enhancement therapy and cognitive behaviour therapy, reporting significant results while simultaneously addressing multiple patient variables. All studies were heterogeneous. Motivational interviewing produced short-term treatment outcomes and played a supportive role in sustaining motivation. Motivational enhancement therapy was an effective therapeutic intervention that significantly addressed inadequate causes, and enhanced motivation for treatment. Cognitive behaviour therapy had a short-term impact and remained influential in the long term as well in handling cognitive and behavioural setbacks.

Psychosocial interventions for cannabis use disorder.

Volatile organic compounds can be maintained easily and can cause dependency. Volatile substance abuse may cause damage by affecting several systems. The aim of our study was to evaluate renal functional damage in volatile substance abusers by diuretic renogram. Twenty nine volatile substance abusers and 30 young healthy voluntary young men were included in our study. Technetium-99m mertiatide diuretic renogram was used to evaluate renal functions and collective system urodynamics to investigate the progress of renal functional damage. Images were evaluated visually and quantitatively. Split renal function of each kidney, time to peak activity (Tmax), and half-time for radiopharmaceutical clearance from pelvicalyceal system (T1/2), ratio of cortical and whole-kidney counts at 20-3 min, and maximum counts (T20/3 and T20/max) were compared in the two groups. In the study group, time to reach peak activity was statistically prolonged compared with the healthy volunteers. In the volatile substance abuser group, the average Tmax values, average T1/2 values, cortical and whole-kidney T20/3, and T20/max values were found to be prolonged compared with the control group in the diuretic renogram. There was no significant difference in the split renal function ratios between the two groups. In this study, possible renal functional damage was evaluated in volatile substance abusers by diuretic renogram. In conclusion, diuretic renogram can be useful in the evaluation of renal functional damage before blood renal function tests are affected and it could be used in the follow-up of the disease in volatile substance abusers. The results of this pilot study from our country, of course, should be supported by further clinical studies.

This study reports 3-year outcomes for clients who had been treated in the five outpatient sites of Project MATCH, a multisite clinical trial designed to test a priori client treatment matching hypotheses. The main purpose of this study was to characterize the status of the matching hypotheses at the 3-year follow-up. This entailed investigating which matching findings were sustained or even strengthened across the 3-year study period, and whether any hypotheses that were not supported earlier eventually emerged at 3 years, or conversely, whether matching findings discerned earlier dissipated at this later time. This research also examines the prognostic effects of the client matching attributes, characterizes the overall outcomes at 37 to 39 months, and explores differential effects of the three treatments at extended follow-up. With regard to the matching effects, client anger demonstrated the most consistent interaction in the trial, with significant matching effects evident at both the 1-year and 3-year follow-ups. As predicted, clients high in anger fared better in Motivational Enhancement Therapy (MET) than in the other two MATCH treatments: Cognitive-Behavioral Therapy (CBT) and Twelve-Step Facilitation (TSF). Among subjects in the highest third of the anger variable, clients treated in MET had on average 76.4% abstinent days, whereas their counterparts in the other two treatments (CBT and TSF) had on average 66% abstinent days. Conversely, clients low in anger performed better after treatment in CBT and TSF than in MET. Significant matching effects for the support for drinking variable emerged in the 3-year outcome analysis, such that clients whose social networks were more supportive of drinking derived greater benefit from TSF treatment than from MET. Among subjects in the highest third of the support for drinking variable, TSF participants were abstinent 16.1% more days than MET participants. At the lower end of this variable, difference in percent days abstinent between MET and TSF was 3%, with MET clients having more abstinent days. A significant matching effect for psychiatric severity that appeared in the first year posttreatment was not observed after 3 years. Of the 21 client attributes used in testing the matching hypotheses, 11 had prognostic value at 3 years. Among these, readiness-to-change and self-efficacy emerged as the strongest predictors of long-term drinking outcome. With regard to the overall outcomes, the reductions in drinking that were observed in the first year after treatment were sustained over the 3-year follow-up period: almost 30% of the subjects were totally abstinent in months 37 to 39, whereas those who did report drinking nevertheless remained abstinent an average of two-thirds of the time. As in the 1-year follow-up, there were few differences among the three treatments, although TSF continued to show a possible slight advantage.

Research indicates that Hispanic clients are less likely than non-Hispanic white (NHW) clients to attend Alcoholics Anonymous (AA) after treatment. This study examined how, if at all, the nature of commitment to prescribed AA-related behaviors after treatment differed between Hispanic and non-Hispanic whites, and how such behaviors were associated with drinking reductions. This retrospective study was conducted using Project MATCH data collected at the Albuquerque clinical research unit. Study aims were investigated using the Form 90, the Alcoholics Anonymous Inventory and the Religious Background and Behavior measures. A total of 100 Hispanic and 105 non-Hispanic clients were randomized to receive either Cognitive Behavioral Therapy (CBT), Motivational Enhancement Therapy (MET) or Twelve-Step Facilitation (TSF) therapy, and findings were divided according to whether clients were encouraged to attend AA (TSF) or not (CBT and MET). Six months after treatment, Hispanic clients assigned to TSF reported significantly less AA attendance relative to NHW clients in TS, and no differences in AA attendance rates were found between Hispanics encouraged and not encouraged to attend AA (TSF vs CBT and MET). Among TSF clients, however, no ethnic differences were found in rates of specific AA-related behaviors. Controlling for intake beliefs, "God Consciousness" after treatment was significantly higher for Hispanic relative to NHW clients, and a main effect of treatment was also obtained (TSF vs CBT and MET). Specific AA-related practices were not associated with increased abstinence, in general. Despite less frequent AA attendance, Hispanic clients showed increase in AA commitment comparable to that of NHW clients. It thus appears that differential commitment to AA does not explain why Hispanic clients report less frequent AA attendance but equal benefit, relative to NHW clients.

The purpose of this study was to systematically assess agreement among staff and patients regarding three addiction treatment models commonly used in the USA for treatment transport to a Regional Narcological Dispensary in Vinnitsya, Ukraine (VRND). A structured Addiction Treatment Agreement Scale (ATAS) was developed by drug addiction experts and initially tested for this purpose. The ATAS consists of six dimensions and 30 dimension definitions. Patient and staff agreement with experts' rankings of dimension definition importance for 12‐Step Facilitation (TSF), Cognitive Behavior Therapy (CBT), and Motivational Enhancement Therapy (MET) were calculated. Results revealed the ATAS is capable of measuring differential dimensional and treatment modality agreement. Patients and staff agreed with CBT and MET, more than TSF. Agreement of CBT and MET was negatively correlated with TSF. Future psychometric research with more representative expert, patient, and provider populations was recommended. The ATAS successfully informed the treatment transport of CBT and MET interventions to the VRND and represents an empirical approach for addiction treatment matching.

In a randomized controlled trial, adults with Type 1 diabetes and suboptimal glycemic control who received motivational enhancement therapy (MET) plus cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) had a greater reduction in their 12-month hemoglobin A(1c) (Hb(A1c)) than those who received usual care (UC). We tested whether improvements in glycemic control persisted up to 4 years after randomization. In the original trial, participants were randomized to UC (n = 121), 4 sessions of MET (n = 117), or 4 sessions of MET plus 8 sessions of CBT (n = 106). Of the 344 patients who participated in the original trial, 260 (75.6%) consented to take part in this posttrial study. A linear mixed model was fitted to available measurements to assess whether intervention effects on Hb(A1c) at 12 months were sustained at 2, 3, and 4 years. Estimated mean Hb(A1c) level was lower for participants in the two intervention arms when compared with UC at 2, 3, and 4 years, but none of the differences were statistically significant. At 4 years, estimated mean Hb(A1c) level for MET plus CBT was 0.28% (95% confidence interval = -0.22% to 0.77%) lower than that for UC, and estimated mean Hb(A1c) level for MET was 0.17% (95% confidence interval = -0.33% to 0.66%) lower than that for UC. There was no evidence of benefit for patients randomized to MET plus CBT at 2, 3, or 4 years. Larger studies are needed to estimate long-term treatment effects with greater precision. Current models of psychological treatments in diabetes may need to be intensified or include maintenance sessions to maintain improvements in glycemic control.

Numerous behavioral treatments for alcohol use disorder (AUD) are effective, but there are substantial individual differences in treatment response. This study examines the potential use of new methods for personalized medicine to test for individual differences in the effects of cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) versus motivational enhancement therapy (MET) and to provide predictions of which will work best for individuals with AUD. We highlight both the potential contribution and the limitations of these methods. We performed secondary analyses of abstinence among 1,144 participants with AUD participating in either outpatient or aftercare treatment who were randomized to receive either CBT or MET in Project MATCH. We first obtained predicted individual treatment effects (PITEs), as a function of 19 baseline client characteristics identified a priori by MATCH investigators. Then, we tested for the significance of individual differences and examined the predicted individual differences in abstinence 1 year following treatment. Predictive intervals were estimated for each individual to determine if they were 80% more likely to achieve abstinence in one treatment versus the other. Results indicated that individual differences in the likelihood of abstinence at 1 year following treatment were significant for those in the outpatient sample, but not for those in the aftercare sample. Individual predictive intervals showed that 37% had a better chance of abstinence with CBT than MET, and 16% had a better chance of abstinence with MET. Obtaining predictions for a new individual is demonstrated. Personalized medicine methods, and PITE in particular, have the potential to identify individuals most likely to benefit from one versus another intervention. New personalized medicine methods play an important role in putting together differential effects due to previously identified variables into one prediction designed to be useful to clinicians and clients choosing between treatment options. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2021 APA, all rights reserved).

This data synthesis examined the effectiveness of behavioural and pharmacological approaches for cannabis treatment. We integrated findings from high level evidence studies and prioritised data from Europe when available. The synthesis found that only a relatively small number of published behavioural and pharmacological studies on cannabis interventions have been conducted in Europe. Applying both European and non-European data, it was found that Cognitive Behavioural Therapy (CBT) and/or Motivational Enhancement Therapy (MET) improved short-term outcomes in the frequency of cannabis use and dependency severity, although abstinence outcomes were less consistent. These improvements were typically not maintained nine months after treatment. CBT and MET (or combined CBT + MET) treatments that extend beyond four sessions were more effective than fewer sessions over a shorter duration. Combining CBT or MET (or combined CBT + MET) with adjunctive Contingency Management (CM) improved therapeutic outcomes. No pharmacotherapies have been approved for the management of cannabis use, cannabis use disorders or cannabis withdrawal. Despite only weak evidence to support the use of pharmacological agents, some are used ‘off-label’ to manage withdrawal symptoms outside clinical trials.