Nitika Sanger

Association between cannabis use and methadone maintenance treatment outcomes: an investigation into sex differences

BackgroundCannabis will soon become legalized in Canada, and it is currently unclear how this will impact public health. Methadone maintenance treatment (MMT) is the most common pharmacological treatment for opioid use disorder (OUD), and despite its documented effectiveness, a large number of patients respond poorly and experience relapse to illicit opioids. Some studies implicate cannabis use as a risk factor for poor MMT response. Although it is well established that substance-use behaviors differ by sex, few of these studies have considered sex as a potential moderator. The current study aims to investigate sex differences in the association between cannabis use and illicit opioid use in a cohort of MMT patients.MethodsThis multicentre study recruited participants on MMT for OUD from Canadian Addiction Treatment Centre sites in Ontario, Canada. Sex differences in the association between any cannabis use and illicit opioid use were investigated using multivariable logistic regression. A secondary analysis was conducted to investigate the association with heaviness of cannabis use.ResultsThe study included 414 men and 363 women with OUD receiving MMT. Cannabis use was significantly associated with illicit opioid use in women only (OR = 1.82, 95% CI 1.18, 2.82, p = 0.007). Heaviness of cannabis use was not associated with illicit opioid use in men or women.ConclusionsThis is the largest study to date examining the association between cannabis use and illicit opioid use. Cannabis use may be a sex-specific predictor of poor response to MMT, such that women are more likely to use illicit opioids if they also use cannabis during treatment. Women may show improved treatment outcomes if cannabis use is addressed during MMT.

Substance Use Disorders in Late Life

In older populations, substance use disorders are highly prevalent, often underdiagnosed and undertreated, and are associated with significant systemic medical and psychiatric comorbidity. Diagnostic criteria for substance use disorders have changed with the publication of the fifth edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, and these updated criteria are reviewed here. Furthermore, the epidemiology and proposed etiology of substance use disorders in late life are discussed. A particular focus is placed on reviewing the role of the psychiatrist in the evaluation and management of older adults with substance use disorders, especially when chronic pain is part of the clinical picture. Recommendations for evaluation and management of older adults with (or suspected to have) substance use disorders are outlined, and two case examples are provided to further solidify these concepts.

Evaluating Completeness of Reporting in Behavioral Interventions Pilot Trials: A Systematic Survey

Purpose: This systematic survey evaluates the completeness of reporting in pilot and feasibility randomized controlled trials investigating behavioral interventions based on the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) extension for pilot trials. Methods: The authors searched Medline/Pubmed and randomly selected 100 articles from 2012 through 2016 to determine the proportion of reported CONSORT extension items. They examined study factors related to reporting, including year and country of publication, psychotherapy intervention, multiple centers, industry funding, and journal endorsement of CONSORT. Results: The authors found that the mean reporting score on the CONSORT extension was 51.6% (SD = 15.1). Studies of psychotherapy interventions had significantly higher reporting scores than other interventions (incidence rate ratio = 1.10, 95% confidence interval: 1.01–1.20). Conclusions: Our findings indicate that current reporting quality is suboptimal. Many included trials failed to provide rationale for piloting, assess feasibility objectives, or indicate clear progression to a future large trial. Reporting quality should be reevaluated following uptake of the 2016 CONSORT extension for pilot trials.

A Systematic Survey of Control Groups in Behavioral and Social Science Trials

Behavioral and social sciences randomized controlled trials (BSSTs) have a significant role in life sciences. Choosing an appropriate control or comparator group for BSSTs is critical, to provide true intervention effects. The objective of this study was to determine the types of control groups used in BSSTs, and the rationale provided to justify these choices. We conducted a systematic survey of BSST protocols published between January 2012 and October 2016 in the Cochrane Library and Medline databases. We randomly selected 200 protocols. The study selection and data extraction were performed independently in duplicate. The most frequent control groups were active concurrent (97/200, 48.5%), and no treatment concurrent controls (88/200, 44.0%). The majority of studies (71.5%) did not provide justification for comparators choice. We concluded that BSSTs trials compare interventions to active and no treatment controls however the majority of trials lacked rationale for the selection of the study comparator.

A systematic review of comparisons between protocols or registrations and full reports in primary biomedical research.

BackgroundProspective study protocols and registrations can play a significant role in reducing incomplete or selective reporting of primary biomedical research, because they are pre-specified blueprints which are available for the evaluation of, and comparison with, full reports. However, inconsistencies between protocols or registrations and full reports have been frequently documented. In this systematic review, which forms part of our series on the state of reporting of primary biomedical, we aimed to survey the existing evidence of inconsistencies between protocols or registrations (i.e., what was planned to be done and/or what was actually done) and full reports (i.e., what was reported in the literature); this was based on findings from systematic reviews and surveys in the literature.MethodsElectronic databases, including CINAHL, MEDLINE, Web of Science, and EMBASE, were searched to identify eligible surveys and systematic reviews. Our primary outcome was the level of inconsistency (expressed as a percentage, with higher percentages indicating greater inconsistency) between protocols or registration and full reports. We summarized the findings from the included systematic reviews and surveys qualitatively.ResultsThere were 37 studies (33 surveys and 4 systematic reviews) included in our analyses. Most studies (n = 36) compared protocols or registrations with full reports in clinical trials, while a single survey focused on primary studies of clinical trials and observational research. High inconsistency levels were found in outcome reporting (ranging from 14% to 100%), subgroup reporting (from 12% to 100%), statistical analyses (from 9% to 47%), and other measure comparisons. Some factors, such as outcomes with significant results, sponsorship, type of outcome and disease speciality were reported to be significantly related to inconsistent reporting.ConclusionsWe found that inconsistent reporting between protocols or registrations and full reports of primary biomedical research is frequent, prevalent and suboptimal. We also identified methodological issues such as the need for consensus on measuring inconsistency across sources for trial reports, and more studies evaluating transparency and reproducibility in reporting all aspects of study design and analysis. A joint effort involving authors, journals, sponsors, regulators and research ethics committees is required to solve this problem.

A scoping review of comparisons between abstracts and full reports in primary biomedical research

BackgroundEvidence shows that research abstracts are commonly inconsistent with their corresponding full reports, and may mislead readers. In this scoping review, which is part of our series on the state of reporting of primary biomedical research, we summarized the evidence from systematic reviews and surveys, to investigate the current state of inconsistent abstract reporting, and to evaluate factors associated with improved reporting by comparing abstracts and their full reports.MethodsWe searched EMBASE, Web of Science, MEDLINE, and CINAHL from January 1st 1996 to September 30th 2016 to retrieve eligible systematic reviews and surveys. Our primary outcome was the level of inconsistency between abstracts and corresponding full reports, which was expressed as a percentage (with a lower percentage indicating better reporting) or categorized rating (such as major/minor difference, high/medium/low inconsistency), as reported by the authors. We used medians and interquartile ranges to describe the level of inconsistency across studies. No quantitative syntheses were conducted. Data from the included systematic reviews or surveys was summarized qualitatively.ResultsSeventeen studies that addressed this topic were included. The level of inconsistency was reported to have a median of 39% (interquartile range: 14% - 54%), and to range from 4% to 78%. In some studies that separated major from minor inconsistency, the level of major inconsistency ranged from 5% to 45% (median: 19%, interquartile range: 7% - 31%), which included discrepancies in specifying the study design or sample size, designating a primary outcome measure, presenting main results, and drawing a conclusion. A longer time interval between conference abstracts and the publication of full reports was found to be the only factor which was marginally or significantly associated with increased likelihood of reporting inconsistencies.ConclusionsThis scoping review revealed that abstracts are frequently inconsistent with full reports, and efforts are needed to improve the consistency of abstract reporting in the primary biomedical community.

Treatment outcomes in patients with opioid use disorder initiated by prescription: a systematic review protocol

BackgroundIn North America, opioid use has become a public health crisis with policy makers declaring it a state of emergency. Opioid substitution therapy (OST) is a harm-reduction method used in treating opioid use disorder. While OST has shown to be successful in improving treatment outcomes, there is still a great degree of variability among patients. This cohort of patients has shifted from young males using heroin to a greater number of older people and women using prescription opioids. The primary objective of this review is to examine the literature on the association between the first exposure to opioids through prescription versus illicit use and OST treatment outcomes.MethodAn electronic search will be conducted on the EMBASE, MEDLINE, PsycINFO, and Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL) databases. Two independent reviewers will conduct the initial title and abstract screenings using predetermined criteria for inclusion and exclusion. Reviewers will then conduct full-text data extraction using a pilot-tested data extraction form in duplicate. A third author will resolve disagreements if consensus cannot be reached. Quality and risk of bias assessment will be conducted along with a sensitivity analysis for all included studies. Qualitative summary of the evidence will be provided, and when possible, a meta-analysis will be conducted, along with heterogeneity calculation. The reporting of this protocol follows the PRISMA-P.DiscussionWe expect that this review will help determine whether patients that were initially exposed to opioids through a prescription differ in OST treatment outcomes in comparison to people who used opioids through illicit means. We hope that this review will provide evidence related to prescription opioids exposure and future treatment outcomes, which will aid clinicians in their decisions to prescribe opioids or not for specific populations at risk.Systematic review registrationPROSPERO CRD42017058143

Adverse outcomes associated with opioid prescription for acute low back pain: a systematic review protocol

BackgroundAcute low back pain (ALBP) is the top cause of global disability, demonstrating a significant impact on individuals and society and demanding the need for appropriate management. There is a trend towards an increasing number of opioid prescriptions for ALBP despite the lack of investigation for its various short- and long-term outcomes. The objective of this review is to examine adverse outcomes associated with opioid use for ALBP.Methods/designUsing a search strategy, the search will be conducted using the following electronic databases: PubMed/MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), Web of Science, Cochrane Library, the National Institutes for Health Clinical Trials Registry and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (WHO ICTRP). We will include randomized clinical trials and observational studies investigating the impact of opioid use in ALBP in the adult population. All phases of screening, data extraction and assessment of methodological quality will be performed by two independent reviewers. We will perform quality and risk of bias assessment for the included articles and compare high and low risk of bias with a sensitivity analysis. We will conduct random- and fixed-effects meta-analyses with heterogeneity calculated using the I2 statistic and evaluate publication bias.DiscussionThere are current guidelines published to alert clinicians in prescribing opioids for ALBP due to its likelihood of misuse, yet there is little change in prescribing patterns. To date, there is an absence of systematic information about the outcomes of prescription opioid in patients with ALBP. We will address this gap by providing evidence that will be useful for clinical practice.Systematic review registrationPROSPERO CRD42016033090