Evidence-Based Treatments for Substance Use Disorders
Abstract
A wide variety of evidence-based psychotherapies and pharmacotherapies demonstrate efficacy and effectiveness in the treatment of substance use disorders. Among recent developments in behavioral therapies are expanded uses of contingency management and developments in pharmacotherapies including a new opioid agonist therapy. Studies show superiority in combinations of therapies, such as contingency management to enhance compliance with naltrexone for alcohol dependence. Choice of treatment should be based primarily on the needs of the individual client, within the constraints of a treatment program’s service array and capacity of clients to pay for services. For persons with severe addictions and complex medical and psychosocial problems, a comprehensive service package with continuing care and monitoring is essential.
This is an exciting time for the field of addiction. Many treatments for drug and alcohol addiction have demonstrated efficacy in controlled clinical trials and in effectiveness studies conducted in real-world community-based settings (1, 2). The strongest predictors of effectiveness include longer time in treatment (retention), severity of addiction and related problems, and the comprehensiveness of services received (3–5). Despite these advances, most individuals with severe addictions will experience a fluctuating course of abstinence and uncontrolled use (6). Investigations in the neurobiology of addictions indicate that there may be lasting neurobiological changes as a result of chronic drug use.
This clinical synthesis first defines addiction and outlines a general perspective on effective addiction treatment. Behavioral therapies, psychotherapies, and pharmacotherapies with demonstrated effectiveness are briefly described. Then the latest developments in combination therapies and the need for comprehensive clinical and psychosocial services are discussed. Finally, pressing questions, controversies, and recommendations for treatment practice and for further research are summarized.
Clinical context
Although substance use disorders are initiated by voluntary acts, the persistence of powerful involuntary responses to substance-related cues and the propensity to relapse after periods of abstinence are controlled by a complex mix of environmental precipitants, genetic liabilities, and permanent pathophysiological changes in brain circuitry (6–8). These features suggest that severe addiction is a chronic illness, like diabetes, accompanied by major disabilities and requiring continuing and possibly lifetime care, frequent monitoring, and a comprehensive set of services (9–11). Substance use disorders are among the most common of psychiatric disorders (12). Moreover, the comorbidity of substance use disorders with all types of other psychiatric disorders is so widespread that all psychiatrists need to be familiar with the recognition and treatment of substance use disorders in order to effectively address the needs of their patients.
Treatment strategies and effectiveness
Behavioral and psychotherapeutic interventions
Brief interventions
Brief motivational interventions, which were developed primarily for alcohol users and cigarette smokers, are used with persons who manifest risky behavior but not dependence. They are characterized by low-intensity, short-duration counseling (three to five sessions of 5–60 minutes). In these interventions, typically a primary care clinician or an employee assistance program provider educates patients about risks and instructs, advises, motivates, and helps patients build refusal skills (13).
One form of brief intervention is motivational interviewing. In this approach a directive, client-centered counseling style characterized by warmth and empathy is used in the application of a few techniques—reflective listening and asking key questions, for example—to facilitate change in addictive behaviors (14, 15). Counselors emphasize empathy, creating discrepancy, avoiding arguments, rolling with resistance, and enhancing self-efficacy. Motivational interviewing attempts to induce a “motivational discrepancy” in the client’s mind between present behavior and desired goals. Discrepancy, an uncomfortable state, overrides resistance and motivates behavior change. A meta-analysis of studies of motivational interviewing found that most evaluate motivational interviewing either as a stand-alone intervention or as preparation for more intensive treatment, and most report favorable outcomes (16).
Cognitive behavioral therapies
A wide diversity of treatment approaches fall under the umbrella of cognitive behavioral therapies; however, all variants of cognitive behavioral therapy are based on social learning theory (17). Deficits in ability to cope with stress and substance-related cues weaken capacity to stop substance abuse, maintain abstinence, and prevent relapse. Individual and group cognitive behavioral therapy strives for self-efficacy and adaptive mastery to stressful situations through functional analyses of the antecedents and consequences of substance use. Clients are trained to use multifaceted skills to deal effectively with stressful situations and environmental cues that trigger the desire to use substances. Marlatt and Gordon’s relapse prevention approach uses many of these techniques to focus on “abstinence maintenance” (18). For alcohol, a recent meta-analysis indicates that cognitive behavioral therapy is both efficacious and effective in achieving abstinence and preventing relapse (19). Two meta-analyses of relapse prevention had similar findings (20, 21). However, cognitive behavioral therapy and relapse prevention do not appear to be more effective than other bona fide psychosocial treatments, such as 12-step facilitation (20–23).
For cocaine dependence, efficacy (24–26) and effectiveness (27) studies show that cognitive behavioral therapy and relapse prevention markedly reduce cocaine use over the course of a year, and continuing relapse prevention treatment can preserve these gains beyond a year (28). As with alcohol dependence, cognitive behavioral therapy and relapse prevention did not outperform comparison treatments of individual or group counseling (25).
Contingency management
Skinnerian operant conditioning principles provide the theoretical underpinning for contingency management. In contingency management, the consequences of continued substance abuse are altered by introducing incentives (e.g., methadone dose increases, money, and vouchers for valued items) to reduce the attractiveness of drug use and to increase the attractiveness of abstinence and prosocial behaviors (29). A meta-analysis of contingency management studies conducted in methadone maintenance populations found contingency management to be more effective than usual care in reducing illicit opiate abuse (30). The greatest improvements occurred with use of the most powerful incentives (increases in methadone dose and methadone take-home privileges), an immediate reinforcement schedule targeting a single drug (e.g., illicit opiates, cocaine, and alcohol), and frequent urine drug screening to verify abstinence (30).
Contingency management strategies, alone or in combination with other therapy, have been demonstrated to be more effective than standard treatment for cocaine dependence (31–36). In two controlled efficacy trials, Carroll and colleagues demonstrated that contingency management increased compliance with naltrexone treatment and decreased opioid and cocaine use in a group of opioid-dependent individuals after detoxification (37, 38). Other recent studies have demonstrated that contingency management is effective in alcohol dependence (39), drug use in pregnant and early postpartum women (40, 41), and community settings (39, 42).
Community reinforcement approach
Drawing from operant (contingency management) and social learning approaches (cognitive behavioral therapy and relapse prevention), the community reinforcement approach’s core procedures include functional behavioral assessments of substance use situations; skills training in refusal of alcohol or drugs, in communication, and in problem solving; and identification and use of natural reinforcers in community settings to decrease substance use. Limited research on the community reinforcement approach has shown promising results for alcohol (43), cocaine (35), and opiates (44). The community reinforcement approach has been expanded into a strategy for training a significant other to motivate treatment-refusing patients to enter treatment. This community reinforcement approach and family training intervention brought two-thirds of treatment refusers into treatment and also served as an effective therapy for significant others (45–48).
Multidimensional family therapy
A recent meta-analysis of controlled efficacy trials concluded that family approaches to adolescent drug abuse were superior to individual or peer-group therapy or usual treatment (49). Of the family therapies, those emphasizing multilevel interventions with family systems and other key people were more effective than multifamily or adolescent group therapy in reducing substance abuse and improving family relations and prosocial behaviors (49). One such approach is multidimensional family therapy, a stand-alone, family-based, developmental-ecological, multiple-systems approach (50). In a comparison of multidimensional family therapy with multifamily psychoeducation groups and group cognitive behavioral therapy conducted by Liddle and colleagues, multidimensional family therapy achieved greater reductions in substance abuse and greater improvements in school performance and family functioning (51).
Brief strategic family therapy
Brief strategic family therapy, designed for Hispanic families, intervenes at the family and social level to achieve behavior change in adolescents (52). For severe adolescent substance abuse and disorganized family systems, therapists increase intervention intensity by conducting treatment in the homes of families and other community settings (53).
Behavioral couples therapy
Originally developed for heterosexual couples—men with alcohol dependence cohabiting with a women without substance use problems—behavioral couples therapy employs cognitive behavioral principles to reduce alcohol use and improve relationships. Behavioral couples therapy prescribes a three-phase, intensive, time-limited, 24-week therapy. After a 4-week individual phase emphasizing skills training, the therapist pursues a 12-week conjoint phase that requires negotiation of a “sobriety” contract, daily support of abstinence with positive reinforcement, increased quality and frequency of communication, and shared recreational activities. A meta-analysis indicated that behavioral couples therapy is more effective compared with individual and group therapies that involve only the person with addiction problems in decreasing use and improving relationship functioning (54). Recent studies have reported on the use of behavioral couples therapy in treatment of drug use disorders (55), in reducing partner violence (56), and in dyads in which the female partner is substance dependent (57).
Matching client characteristics to treatment
Treatment matching assumes that subpopulations of persons with addictions differ in ways that may predict differential response to treatment. Project MATCH, a large multisite efficacy trial, tested a wide variety of interactions, or “matches,” of client characteristics with cognitive behavioral therapy, motivational enhancement therapy, and 12-step facilitation therapies delivered in individual format (23, 58). Surprisingly, none of the matches proved to be significant. In another large multicenter effectiveness study, the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) examined 12-step, cognitive behavioral therapy, and combined treatments, each delivered in group format (59), and replicated Project MATCH’s findings of equal efficacy across psychotherapies (60).
Pharmacotherapies with demonstrated efficacy
With the recent explosion of information about the neurobiology of addictions, interest in pharmacotherapeutic interventions has dramatically increased. Although a number of studies have investigated treatments for cocaine, marijuana, opioid, and alcohol dependence, efficacy has been demonstrated only for pharmacotherapeutic treatments of opioid and alcohol dependence. However, there are promising pharmacological treatments on the horizon, including development of a cocaine vaccine (61, 62) and agonists and antagonists of the cannabinoid receptor system (63).
Opioid dependence
In recent years the number of persons addicted to illicit opioids has increased. At the same time, the complexity of their disorders has increased along with the purity of heroin and with medical problems associated with injection drug use, particularly HIV and hepatitis C infections (64–66). These trends make the need to optimize the treatment of opioid dependence more urgent.
Studies have repeatedly demonstrated the finding that 80–100 mg/day of methadone is more efficacious than the commonly prescribed lower doses (30–60 mg/day) in treating withdrawal symptoms (67, 68), increasing retention in treatment, reducing needle sharing, and reducing morbidity and mortality rates (69). In a 3-year study of 245 patients in methadone maintenance treatment, Maxwell and colleagues clearly demonstrated the safety of methadone dosing above 100 mg/day (70).
Levomethadyl acetate, or levo-alpha acetyl methadol (LAAM), is an opioid agonist with a longer elimination half-life than methadone, permitting a more convenient in-clinic dosing schedule of three times a week. In 2001, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved unsupervised, take-home use of LAAM, further increasing its convenience (71, 72). However, an association of LAAM use with prolongation of the QT interval and cardiac arrhythmias led the FDA to issue a “black box” warning and a recommendation to obtain pretreatment and follow-up ECGs to ensure safety (73).
Buprenorphine, a partial opioid mu-receptor agonist and weak kappa antagonist, offers greater safety than and equal efficacy to methadone and LAAM. Buprenorphine has a ceiling effect, whereby at high doses its clinical effect reaches a plateau and it begins to act more like an antagonist, which reduces the risk of overdose, respiratory depression, and diversion to other opioid users (74). Optimal dosing is 8–12 mg/day. The sublingual formulation achieves nearly equal distribution as the parenteral formulation, and the inclusion of naloxone in both formulations blocks euphoria if the medication is injected, thus increasing its safety (75).
Johnson and colleagues directly compared opioid agonist therapies and found the longest continuous abstinence with LAAM but superior retention in treatment with methadone (72). This may be a result of LAAM’s longer dose induction period (76) and the greater reinforcement with methadone, a full agonist, compared with buprenorphine (69). Studies using opioid agonist therapy as “medical maintenance” in primary care settings show equivalent outcomes compared with treatment delivered in specialty clinics (77–79). The FDA recently approved buprenorphine sublingual tablets (with a schedule III designation) for routine medical maintenance treatment of opioid-dependent patients in office-based practice.
Alcohol dependence
Naltrexone, an opioid antagonist, was approved by the FDA in 1996 for the treatment of alcohol dependence. It is hypothesized that naltrexone blocks the rewarding effects of alcohol through its effect on endogenous opioid systems. Reviews of naltrexone studies (80, 81) found a modest reduction in relapse rates and percent drinking days, a modest decline in relapse to alcohol dependence, and a decrease in alcohol craving. A recent VA multicenter trial of naltrexone for alcohol dependence produced null findings (82). Further investigation is needed to better define which patients are most likely to benefit from treatment with naltrexone. Naltrexone compliance may be enhanced by combined use of a sustained-release formulation (83) and behavioral incentives (38).
Acamprosate (calcium acetylhomotaurinate) is a novel compound believed to exert its therapeutic effects through excitatory amino acid systems involved in alcohol withdrawal. Thus it may decrease the craving related to conditioned alcohol withdrawal. In a meta-analysis of 11 studies comparing acamprosate to placebo, acamprosate was found to be superior across several measures of alcohol consumption. However, evidence for prevention of relapse to heavy drinking remains sparse. In comparing meta-analytic findings for naltrexone compared with acamprosate, Krantzler tentatively concluded that both agents demonstrate modest efficacy in maintenance of abstinence (81).
A number of other promising pharmacological treatments are available for alcohol use disorders. In a placebo-controlled study of the efficacy of ondansetron, a 5-HT3 antagonist, Johnson and colleagues demonstrated that it decreased alcohol consumption more in persons who developed alcohol dependence at an early age compared with persons who developed dependence later in life (84). In a placebo-controlled study of the efficacy of sertraline for treatment of alcohol dependence, Pettinati and colleagues found that it decreased alcohol consumption markedly more for persons without a history of depression compared with persons with lifetime depression (85). These studies suggest that the serotonergic system is involved in the pathophysiology of alcohol dependence, and they support the hypothesis that there is a spectrum of biologically based subtypes of alcohol dependence, each of which may respond uniquely to specific pharmacological treatments.
Questions and controversies
In spite of the wealth of new information about treatments for substance use disorders, obvious questions remain. The interventions described above target substance abuse, but they often do not address functioning in other key life domains. Most persons with severe addictions report chronic medical problems, other disabilities, unemployment, and poverty. Few addiction therapies or treatment programs address these problems directly with appropriate health and human services (86).
Matching severe problem needs with services
In a trial matching specific needs with type and intensity of targeted services, McLellan and colleagues found that patients receiving services for specific problems had greater rates of retention in treatment and of improvement in psychiatric, family, and employment performance and decreased relapse rates (87). A 5-year prospective naturalistic study replicated these findings for a nationwide sample of addiction treatment programs (88, 89).
Case management
Little research has been conducted on case management in addictions treatment. Most programs use a brokered model of case management, in which a provider coordinates services within and across agencies to meet needs comprehensively. One controlled study of a brokered model for alcoholic homeless persons found modest improvements in safe housing, income supports, and alcohol use (90). In another study, case-managed patients received more medical and psychosocial services, which resulted in markedly reduced alcohol and drug use, improved medical and mental health, and better family functioning compared with a control group (5, 91). Other studies demonstrate that case management strategies improve psychosocial functioning, increase retention in treatment, and decrease relapse (92, 93). In a naturalistic study of 300 African-American HIV-positive injection drug users, case management markedly improved access to and use of optimal outpatient medical care (94).
Linkage of addiction treatment with medical services
When addiction treatment programs co-locate addictions and medical services rather than referring patients out for medical services, access and utilization of both services dramatically increases (95), and substance use and general health problems show marked improvements. In a study of injection drug users with serious medical problems treated by an inner-city methadone maintenance program offering on-site medical services, illicit opiate use and health gains were markedly better than those of patients referred out for medical care (96). This finding has been replicated in studies of men with severe alcoholism and severe alcohol-related illnesses served in a VA primary care clinic (97) and for persons receiving integrated substance abuse and primary care in a California health maintenance organization (98). When referral out for services becomes necessary, if program providers personally transport clients to services, then utilization by clients is virtually guaranteed. However, if a program simply issues vouchers to clients for covering transportation costs, they rarely use the vouchers to access needed services (99).
Community support groups
In the United States, persons with addictions rely more on community support groups (e.g., Alcoholics Anonymous) than on the formal addictions treatment system (100, 101). Use of community support groups has increased markedly over the past two decades, while the availability and comprehensiveness of formal addictions treatment services have declined (86), possibly reflecting a service substitution effect. Three meta-analyses and one box-score review report that the overall quality of research evaluating effectiveness of community support groups is so poor that no firm conclusions can be drawn about the impact of community support groups on addiction outcomes (19, 102–104). Such studies fuel the heated, decades-long debate among formal treatment providers and community support group members about the groups’ effectiveness and about whether each should recommend use of the other for management of addiction.
However, recent well-designed controlled and observational studies of community support groups provide evidence that they do help mitigate severity of addictive illness. The most crucial aspect of community support groups in promoting abstinence from alcohol is long-term participation (i.e., years) beyond conclusion of formal treatment episodes (i.e., weeks to months) (105–107). This finding has been replicated in recent studies of cocaine and opiate dependence (108, 109). All studies report an association of a threshold effect of at least weekly participation in a community support group in order for this approach to be effective. Clients are more likely to participate in community support groups over the long term if their formal treatment program (e.g., 12-step programs and cognitive behavioral therapy) encourages such participation. The 12-step-oriented programs seem to motivate more participation (110–113). The mechanisms of behavior change promoted by participation in community support groups remain unknown, but recent penetrating evaluations of such groups suggest that, as with formal treatment approaches, community support group activities drive change with therapeutic processes common to both (107, 114). The long-term (even lifelong) orientation of community support groups fits well with views of addictions as chronic illnesses in need of continuing care (10).
Recommendations for treatment and further research
A wide variety of evidence-based treatments are currently available in the addictions field. Many of these treatments demonstrate effectiveness in typical practice settings. Research has demonstrated the superiority of combinations of therapies, such as using contingency management to enhance compliance with medication regimens. While treatment matching by client characteristics has not shown success in psychotherapy research, pharmacotherapy studies show promise in subtyping individuals on the basis of individual client characteristics (e.g., age at onset of substance dependence) to provide a rationale for choosing the most appropriate medication.
Given the neurobiological diversity of individuals with addictive disorders and the availability of a broad menu of potential treatments, further research in identifying optimal matches between specific pharmacotherapies and well-defined subpopulations of persons addicted to drugs and alcohol would help in maximizing the use of limited treatment resources. Further research on the most appropriate treatment for individuals with psychiatric comorbidity and substance use disorders is also needed, given lack of response to standard treatments, high rates of disability, and overuse of expensive emergency services and hospital inpatient services. Thus, at present, the choice of therapy (or therapies) should be based on the needs of the individual client, within the constraints of service availability and capacity to pay. For persons with chronic severe addictions and complex medical and psychosocial problems, a comprehensive approach with a continuing treatment format and participation in community support groups is essential. Research should be directed toward maximizing therapeutic impact by addressing patients’ multifaceted needs with specific combinations of therapies (behavioral, psychological, and pharmacological), psychosocial services, and community support activities.
Footnotes
Work on this paper was supported by NIMH grant MH-01903 and National Institute of Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism grant AA-12063 to Dr. Gold and National Institute on Drug Abuse grants DA-00435 and DA-13727 to Dr. Brady.
CME Disclosure Statement
Dr. Gold and Dr. Brady have no potential conflicts of interest to disclose.
Disclosure of Unapproved or Investigational Use of a Product
APA policy requires disclosure of unapproved or investigational uses of products discussed in CME programs. “Off-label” use of medications by individual physicians is permitted and common. Decisions about off-label use can be guided by the scientific literature and clinical experience. Current research on investigational agents is discussed in this article; however, the authors do not discuss or recommend use of investigational agents for treatment of any disorder.
References
1.
Miller WR, Walters ST, Bennett ME: How effective is alcoholism treatment in the United States? Journal of Studies on Alcohol 2001; 62:211–220
2.
Prendergrast ML, Podus D, Change E, Urada D: The effectiveness of drug abuse treatment: a meta-analysis of comparison group studies. Drug and Alcohol Dependence 2002; 67:53–72
3.
Hubbard RL, Craddock SG, Flynn PM, Anderson J, Etheridge RM: Overview of 1-year follow-up outcomes in the Drug Abuse Treatment Outcome Study (DATOS). Psychology of Addictive Behaviors 1997; 11:261–278
4.
McLellan AT, Woody GE, Metzger D, McKay J, Durrell J, Alterman AI, O’Brien CP: Evaluating the effectiveness of addiction treatments: reasonable expectations, appropriate comparisons. Milbank Quarterly 1996; 74:51–85
5.
McLellan AT, Hagan TA, Levine M, Gould F, Meyers K, Bencivengo M, Durell J: Supplemental social services improve outcomes in public addiction treatment. Addiction 1998; 93:1489–1499
6.
Everitt BJ, Dickenson A, Robbins TW: The neuropsychological basis of addictive behavior. Brain Research: Brain Research Reviews 2001; 36:129–138
7.
Kendler KS, Karkowski LM, Neale MC, Prescott CA: Illicit psychoactive substance use, heavy use, abuse, and dependence in a US population-based sample of male twins. Archives of General Psychiatry 2000; 57:261–269
8.
Hyman SE, Malenka RC: Addiction and the brain: the neurobiology of compulsion and its persistence. Nature Reviews: Neuroscience 2001; 2:695–703
9.
Hser Y-I, Hoffman V, Grella CE, Anglin MD: A 33-year follow-up of narcotic addicts. Archives of General Psychiatry 2001; 58:503–508
10.
McLellan AT, Lewis DC, O’Brien CP, Kleber HD: Drug dependence, a chronic medical illness: implications for treatment, insurance, and outcomes evaluation. JAMA 2000; 284:1689–1695
11.
Leshner AI: Science is revolutionizing our view of addiction—and what to do about it. American Journal of Psychiatry 1999; 156:1–3
12.
Kessler RC, McGonagle KA, Zhao S, Nelson CB, Hughes M, Eshleman S, Wittchen HU, Kendler KS: Lifetime and 12-month prevalence of DSM-III-R psychiatric disorders in the United States: results from the National Comorbidity Survey. Archives of General Psychiatry 1994; 51:8–19
13.
Wilk AI, Jenson NM, Havighurst TC: Meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials addressing brief interventions in heavy alcohol drinkers. Journal of General Internal Medicine 1997; 12:274–283
14.
Miller WR, Rollnick S: Motivational Interviewing: Preparing People to Change. New York, Guilford Press, 1991
15.
Miller WR: Motivational interviewing: research, practice, and puzzles. Addictive Behaviors 1996; 21:835–842
16.
Dunn C, Deroo L, Rivara FP: The use of brief interventions adapted from motivational interviewing across behavioral domains: a systematic review. Addiction 2001; 96:1725–1742
17.
Bandura A: Social Foundations of Thought and Action. Englewood Cliffs, NJ, Prentice-Hall, 1986
18.
Marlatt GA, Gordon JR, eds: Relapse Prevention: Maintenance Strategies in the Treatment of Addictive Behaviors. New York, Guilford Press, 1985
19.
Miller WR, Wilbourne PL: Mesa Grande: a methodological analysis of clinical trials of treatments for alcohol use disorder. Addiction 2002; 97:265–277
20.
Carroll KM: Relapse prevention as a psychosocial treatment: a review of controlled clinical trials. Experimental and Clinical Psychopharmacology 1996; 4:46–54
21.
Irvin JE, Bowers CA, Dunn ME, Wang MC: Efficacy of relapse prevention: a meta-analytic review. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology 1999; 67:563–571
22.
Morgenstern J, Longabaugh R: cognitive behavioral treatment for alcohol dependence: a review of evidence for its hypothesized mechanisms of action. Addiction 2000; 95:1475–1490
23.
Project MATCH Research Group: Matching alcoholism treatments to client heterogeneity: Project MATCH posttreatment drinking outcomes. Journal of Studies on Alcohol 1997; 58:7–29
24.
Carroll KM, Rounsaville BJ, Nich C, Gordon LT, Wirtz PW, Gawin FH: One year follow-up of psychotherapy and pharmacotherapy for cocaine dependence: delayed emergence of psychotherapy effects. Archives of General Psychiatry 1994; 51:989–997
25.
Crits-Christoph P, Siqueland L, Blaine J, Frank A, Luborsky L, Onken LS, Muenz LR, Thase ME, Weiss RD, Gastfriend DR, Woody GE, Barber JP, Butler SF, Daley D, Salloum I, Bishop S, Najavits LM, Lis J, Mercer D, Griffin ML, Moras K, Beck AT: Psychosocial treatments for cocaine dependence: National Institute on Drug Abuse Collaborative Cocaine Treatment Study. Archives of General Psychiatry 1999; 56:493–502
26.
Maude-Griffin PM, Hohenstein JM, Humfleet JL, Reilly PM, Tusel DJ, Hall SM: Superior efficacy of cognitive behavioral therapy for crack cocaine abusers: main and matching effects. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology 1998; 66:832–837
27.
Morgenstern J, Blanchard KA, Morgan TA, Labouvie E, Hayaki J: Testing the effectiveness of cognitive behavioral treatment for substance abuse in a community setting: within treatment and posttreatment findings. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology 2001; 69:1007–1017
28.
McKay JR, Alterman AI, Cacciola JS, O’Brien CP, Koppenhaver JM, Shepard DS: Continuing care for cocaine dependence: comprehensive 2-year outcomes. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology 1999; 67:420–427
29.
Stitzer ML, Bigelow GE, Gross J: Behavioral treatment of drug abuse, in Treatments of Psychiatric Disorders: A Task Force Report of the American Psychiatric Association. Edited by Karasu TB. Washington DC, American Psychiatric Association, 1989
30.
Griffith JD, Rowan-Szal GA, Roark RR, Simpson DD: Contingency management in outpatient methadone treatment: a meta-analysis. Drug and Alcohol Dependence 2000; 58:55–66
31.
Higgins ST, Budney SJ, Bickel WK, Hughes JR, Foerg FE, Badger GJ: Achieving cocaine abstinence with a behavioral approach. American Journal of Psychiatry 1993; 150:763–769
32.
Higgins ST, Budney SJ, Bickel WK, Foerg FE, Donham R, Badger GJ: Incentives improve outcome in outpatient behavioral treatment of cocaine dependence. Archives of General Psychiatry 1994; 51:568–576
33.
Silverman K, Higgins ST, Brooner RK, Montoya ID, Cone EJ, Schuster CR, Preston KL: Sustained cocaine abstinence in methadone maintenance patients through voucher-based reinforcement therapy. Archives of General Psychiatry 1996; 53:409–415
34.
Silverman K, Wong CJ, Umbricht-Schneiter A, Montoya ID, Schuster CR, Preston KL: Broad beneficial effects of cocaine abstinence reinforcement among methadone patients. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology 1998; 66:811–824
35.
Higgins ST, Wong CJ, Badger GJ, Ogden DE, Dantona RL: Contingent reinforcement increases cocaine abstinence during outpatient treatment and 1 year of follow-up. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology 2000; 68:64–72
36.
Rawson RA, Huber A, McCann M, Shoptaw S, Farabee D, Reiber C, Ling W: A comparison of contingency management and cognitive behavioral approaches during methadone maintenance treatment for cocaine dependence. Archives of General Psychiatry 2002; 59:817–824
37.
Carroll KM, Ball SA, Nich C, O’Connor PG, Eagan DA, Frankforter TL, Triffleman EG, Shi J, Rounsaville BJ: Targeting behavioral therapies to enhance naltrexone treatment of opioid dependence: efficacy of contingency management and significant other involvement. Archives of General Psychiatry 2001; 58:755–761
38.
Carroll KM, Sinha R, Nich C, Babuscio T, Rounsaville BJ: Contingency management to enhance naltrexone treatment of opioid dependence: a randomized clinical trial of reinforcement magnitude. Experimental and Clinical Psychopharmacology 2002; 10:54–63
39.
Petry NM, Martin B, Cooney JL, Kranzler HR: Give them prizes and they will come: contingency management for alcohol dependence. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology 2000; 68:250–257
40.
Silverman K, Svikis D, Robles E, Stitzer ML, Bigelow GE: A reinforcement-based therapeutic workplace for the treatment of drug abuse: six-month abstinence outcomes. Experimental and Clinical Psychopharmacology 2001; 9:14–23
41.
Silverman K, Svikis D, Wong CJ, Hampton J, Stitzer ML, Bigelow GE: A reinforcement-based therapeutic workplace for the treatment of drug abuse: three-year abstinence outcomes. Experimental and Clinical Psychopharmacology 2002; 10:228–240
42.
Petry NM, Martin B: Low-cost contingency management for treatment of cocaine- and opioid-abusing methadone patients. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology 2002; 70:398–405
43.
Smith JE, Meyers RJ, Delaney HD: The community reinforcement approach with homeless alcohol-dependent individuals. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology 1998; 66:541–548
44.
Abbott PJ, Weller SB, Delaney HD, Moore BA: Community reinforcement approach in the treatment of opiate addicts. American Journal of Drug and Alcohol Abuse 1998; 24:17–30
45.
Miller WR, Meyers RJ, Tonigan JS: Engaging the unmotivated in treatment for alcohol problems: a comparison of three strategies for intervention through family members. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology 1999; 67:688–697
46.
Meyers RJ, Miller WR, Hill DE, Tonigan JS: Community reinforcement and family training (CRAFT): engaging unmotivated drug users into treatment. Journal of Substance Abuse 1999; 10:291–308
47.
Meyers RJ, Miller WR, Smith JE, Tonigan JS: A randomized trial of two methods for engaging treatment-refusing drug users through concerned significant others. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology 2002; 70:1182–1185
48.
Kirby KC, Marlowe DB, Festinger DS, Garvey KA, LaMonaca V: Community reinforcement training for family and significant others of drug users: a unilateral intervention to increase treatment entry of drug users. Drug and Alcohol Dependence 1999; 56:85–96
49.
Stanton MD, Shadish WR: Outcome, attrition, and family-couples treatment for drug abuse: a meta-analysis and review of controlled, comparative studies. Psychological Bulletin 1997; 122:170–191
50.
Liddle HA: Multidimensional Family Therapy Treatment (MDFT) for the Adolescent Cannabis Users. Rockville, MD, Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, 2001
51.
Liddle HA, Dakof GA, Parker K, Diamond GS, Barrett K, Tejeda M: Multidimensional family therapy for adolescent therapy for adolescent drug abuse: results of a randomized clinical trial. American Journal of Drug and Alcohol Abuse 2001; 27:651–688
52.
Szapocznik J, Hervis O, Schwartz S: Brief Strategic Family Therapy Manual. Rockville, MD, National Institute on Drug Abuse, 2001
53.
Coatsworth JD, Santisteban DA, McBride CK, Szapocznik J: Brief Strategic Family Therapy versus community control: engagement, retention, and an exploration of the moderating role of adolescent symptom severity. Family Process 2001; 40:313–332
54.
Epstein EE, McCrady BS: Behavioral couples treatment of alcohol and drug use disorders: current status and innovations. Clinical Psychology Review 1998; 18:689–711
55.
Fals-Stewart W, O’Farrell TJ, Birchler GR: Behavioral couples therapy for male methadone maintenance patients: effects on drug-using behavior and relationship adjustment. Behavior Therapy 2001; 32:391–411
56.
Fals-Stewart W, Kashdan TB, O’Farrell TJ, Birchler GR: Behavioral couples therapy for drug-abusing patients: effects on partner violence. Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment 2002; 22:87–96
57.
Winters J, O’Farrell TJ, Fals-Stewart W, Birchler GR, Kelley ML: Behavioral couples therapy for female substance-abusing patients: effects on substance abuse and relationship adjustment. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology 2002; 70:344–355
58.
Project MATCH Research Group: Project MATCH secondary a priori hypotheses. Addiction 1997; 92:1671–1689
59.
Moos RH, Finney JW, Ouimette PC, Suchinsky RT: A comparative evaluation of substance abuse treatment: I. treatment orientation, amount of care, and 1-year outcomes. Alcoholism: Clinical and Experimental Research 1999; 23:529–536
60.
Ouimette PC, Finney JW, Gima K, Moos RH: A comparative evaluation of substance abuse treatment: III. examining mechanisms underlying patient-treatment matching hypotheses for 12-step and cognitive behavioral treatments for substance abuse. Alcoholism: Clinical and Experimental Research 1999; 23:545–551
61.
Schabacker DS, Kirschbaum KS, Segre M: Exploring the feasibility of an anti-idiotypic cocaine vaccine: analysis of the specificity of anti-cocaine antibodies (Ab1) capable of inducing Ab2beta anti-idiotypic antibodies. Immunology 2000; 100:48–56
62.
Fox BS: Development of a therapeutic vaccine for the treatment of cocaine addiction. Drug and Alcohol Dependence 1997; 48:153–158
63.
Huestis MA, Gorelick DA, Heishman SJ, Preston KL, Nelson RA, Moolchan ET, Frank RA: Blockade of effects of smoked marijuana by the CB1-selective cannabinoid receptor antagonist SR141716. Archives of General Psychiatry 2001; 58:322–328
64.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention: HIV/AIDS surveillance report. Atlanta, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 1998
65.
Hagan H, Des Jarlais DC: HIV and HCV infection among injection drug users. Mount Sinai Journal of Medicine 2000; 67:423–428
66.
Holmberg S: The estimated prevalence and incidence of HIV infection in 96 large US metropolitan areas. American Journal of Public Health 1996; 86:642–654
67.
Leavit SB, Shinderman M, Maxwell S, Eap CB, Paris P: When “enough” is not enough: new perspectives on optimal methadone maintenance dose. Mount Sinai Journal of Medicine 2000; 67:404–411
68.
Strain EC, Bigelow GE, Liebson EA, Stitzer ML: Moderate- vs high-dose methadone in the treatment of opioid dependence: a randomized trial. JAMA 1999; 281:1000–1005
69.
Kreek MJ, Vocci FJ: History and current status of opioid maintenance treatments: blending conference session. Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment 2002; 23:93–105
70.
Maxwell S, Shinderman M: Optimizing long-term response to methadone maintenance treatment: a 152-week follow-up using higher dose methadone. Journal of Addictive Disorders 2002; 21:1–12
71.
Eissenberg T, Bigelow GE, Strain EC, Walsh SL, Brooner RK, Stitzer ML, Johnson RE: Dose-related efficacy of levomethadyl acetate for treatment of opiate dependence: a randomized clinical trial. JAMA 1997; 227:1945–1951
72.
Johnson RE, Chatuape MA, Strain EC, Walsh SL, Stitzer ML, Bigelow GE: A comparison of levomethadyl acetate, buprenorphine, and methadone for opioid dependence. New England Journal of Medicine 2000; 343:1290–1297
73.
Food and Drug Administration: Index of safety-related drug labeling change summaries approved by FDA Center for Drug Evaluation and Research (CDER); 2001. Available at http://www.fda.gov/medwatch/SAFETY/2001/mar01.htm#orlaam
74.
Walsh SL, Preston KL, Stitzer ML, Cone EJ, Bigelow GE: Clinical pharmacology of buprenorphine: ceiling effects at high doses. Clinical Pharmacology and Therapeutics 1994; 55:569–580
75.
Mendelson J, Jones RT, Welm S, Baggott M, Fernandez I, Melby AK, Nath RP: Buprenorphine and naloxone combination: the effects of three dose ratios in morphine-stabilized, opiate-dependent volunteers. Psychopharmacology (Berlin) 1999; 141:37–46
76.
Clark N, Lintzeris N, Gijsbers A, Whelan G, Dunlop A, Ritter A, Ling W: LAAM maintenance vs methadone maintenance for heroin dependence. Cochrane Review, in Cochrane Library. Oxford, Update Software, 2002
77.
Fiellin DA, O’Connor PG, Chawarski M, Pakes JP, Pantalon MV, Schottenfeld RS: Methadone maintenance in primary care: a randomized trial. JAMA 2001; 286:1724–1731
78.
Ling W, Smith D: Buprenorphine: blending research and practice. Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment 2002; 23:87–92
79.
Salsitz EA, Joseph H, Frank B, Perez J, Richman BL, Salomon N, Kalin MF, Novick DM: Treating chronic opioid dependence in private medical practice: a summary report (1983–1998). Mount Sinai Journal of Medicine 2000; 67:388–397
80.
Srisurapanont M, Jarusuraisin N: Opioid antagonists for alcohol dependence. Cochrane Review, in the Cochrane Library. Oxford, Update Software, 2002
81.
Krantzler HR, Van Kirk J: Efficacy of naltrexone and acamprosate for alcoholism treatment: a meta-analysis. Alcoholism: Clinical and Experimental Research 2001; 25:1335–1341
82.
Krystal JH, Cramer JA, Krol WF, Kirk GF, Rosenheck RA: Naltrexone in the treatment of alcohol dependence. New England Journal of Medicine 2001; 345:1734–1739
83.
Krantzler HR, Modesto-Lowe V, Nuwayser ES: Sustained-release naltrexone for alcoholism treatment: a preliminary study. Alcoholism: Clinical and Experimental Research 1998; 22:1074–1079
84.
Johnson BA, Roache JD, Javors MA, DiClemente CC, Cloninger CR, Prihoda TJ, Bordnick PS, Ait-Daoud N, Hensler J: Ondansetron for reduction of drinking among biologically predisposed alcoholic patients: a randomized controlled trial. JAMA 2000; 284:963–971
85.
Pettinati HM, Volpicelli JR, Luck G, Krantzler HR, Rukstalis MR, Cnaan A: Double-blind clinical trial of sertraline treatment for alcohol dependence. Journal of Clinical Psychopharmacology 2001; 21:143–153
86.
Etheridge RM, Hubbard RL, Anderson J, Craddock SG, Flynn PM: Treatment structure and program services in the Drug Abuse Treatment Outcome Study (DATOS). Psychology of Addictive Behaviors 1997; 11:240–266
87.
McLellan AT, Grissom GR, Zanis D, Randall M, Brill P, O’Brien CP: Problem-service matching in addiction treatment: a prospective study in 4 programs. Archives of General Psychiatry 1997; 54:730–735
88.
Simpson DD, Joe GW, Fletcher BW, Hubbard RL, Anglin MD: A national evaluation of treatment outcomes for cocaine dependence. Archives of General Psychiatry 1999; 56:507–514
89.
Simpson DD, Joe GW, Broome KM: A national 5-year follow-up of treatment outcomes for cocaine dependence. Archives of General Psychiatry 2002; 59:538–544
90.
Cox GB, Walker RD, Freng SA, Short BA, Meijer L, Gilchrist L: Outcome of a controlled trial of the effectiveness of intensive case management for chronic public inebriates. Journal of Studies on Alcohol 1998; 59:523–532
91.
McLellan AT, Hagan TA, Levine M, Meyers K, Gould F, Bencivengo M, Durell J, Jaffe J: Does clinical case management improve outpatient addiction treatment? Drug and Alcohol Dependence 1999; 55:91–103
92.
Siegal HA, Fisher JH, Rapp RC, Kelliher CW, Wagner JH, O’Brien WF, Cole PA: Enhancing substance abuse treatment with case management. Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment 1996; 13:93–98
93.
Shwartz M, Baker G, Mulvey KP, Plough A: Improving publicly funded substance abuse treatment: the value of case management. American Journal of Public Health 1997; 87:1659–1664
94.
Knowlton AR, Hoover DR, Chung S-E, Celentano DD, Vlahov D, Latkin CA: Access to medical care and service utilization among injection drug users with HIV/AIDS. Drug and Alcohol Dependence 2001; 64:55–62
95.
Friedman PD, Lemon SC, Stein MD, Etheridge RM, D’Aunno T: Linkage to medical services in the Drug Abuse Treatment Outcome Study. Medical Care 2001; 39:284–295
96.
Umbricht-Schneiter A, Ginn DH, Pabst KM, Bigelow GE: Providing medical care to methadone clinic patients: referral vs on-site care. American Journal of Public Health 1994; 84:207–210
97.
Willenbring ML, Olson DH: A randomized trial of integrated outpatient treatment for medically ill alcoholic men. Archives of Internal Medicine 1999; 159:1946–1952
98.
Weisner C, Mertens J, Parthasarathy S, Moore C, Lu Y: Integrating primary medical care with addiction treatment: a randomized controlled trial. JAMA 2001; 286:1715–1723
99.
Friedman PD, Lemon SC, Stein MD: Transportation and retention in outpatient drug abuse treatment programs. Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment 2001; 21:97–103
100.
Kessler RC, Zhao S, Katz SJ, Kouzis AC, Frank RG, Edlund M, Leaf P: Past-year use of outpatient services for psychiatric problems in the National Comorbidity Study. American Journal of Psychiatry 1999; 156:115–123
101.
Weisner C, Greenfield T, Room R: Trends in the treatment of alcohol problems in the US general population, 1979 through 1990. American Journal of Public Health 1995; 85:55–60
102.
Floyd AS, Hoffman NG, Karno MP: Diagnosis, self-help, and maintenance care as key constructs in treatment research for “alcohol use disorders” (AUD). Substance Use and Misuse 2001; 36:399–419
103.
Kownacki RJ, Shadish WR: Does Alcoholic Anonymous work? The results from a meta-analysis of controlled experiments. Substance Use and Misuse 1999; 34:1897–1916
104.
Tonigan JS, Toscova R, Miller WR: Meta-analysis of the literature on Alcoholics Anonymous: sample and study characteristics moderate findings. Journal of Studies on Alcohol 1996; 57:65–72
105.
Timko C, Moos, RH, Finney JW, Lesar MD: Long-term outcomes of alcohol use disorders: comparing untreated individuals with those in Alcoholics Anonymous and formal treatment. Journal of Studies on Alcohol 2000; 61:529–540
106.
Ritsher JB, Moos RH, Finney JW: Relationship of treatment orientation and continuing care to remission among substance abuse patients. Psychiatric Services 2002; 53:595–601
107.
Fiorentine R: After drug treatment: are 12-step programs effective in maintaining abstinence? American Journal of Drug and Alcohol Abuse 1999; 25:93–116
108.
Siegal HA, Li L, Rapp RC: Abstinence trajectories among treated crack cocaine users. Addictive Behaviors 2002; 27:437–449
109.
Crape BL, Latkin CA, Laris AS, Knowlton AR: The effects of sponsorship in 12-step treatment of injection drug users. Drug and Alcohol Dependence 2002; 65:291–301
110.
Project MATCH Research Group: Matching alcoholism treatments to client heterogeneity: Project MATCH three-year drinking outcomes. Alcoholism: Clinical and Experimental Research 1998; 22:1300–1311
111.
Humphreys K, Moos R: Can encouraging substance abuse patients to participate in self-help groups reduce demand for health care? A quasi-experimental study. Alcoholism: Clinical and Experimental Research 2001; 25:711–716
112.
Humphreys K, Huebsch D, Finney JW, Moos RH: A comparative evaluation of substance abuse treatment: V. substance abuse treatment can enhance the effectiveness of self-help groups. Alcoholism: Clinical and Experimental Research 1999; 23:558–563
113.
Ouimette PC, Moos RH, Finney JW: Influence of outpatient treatment and 12-step group involvement on one-year substance abuse treatment outcome. Journal of Studies on Alcohol 1998; 59:513–522
114.
Morgenstern J, Labouvie E, McCrady BS, Kahler CW, Frey RM: Affiliation with Alcoholics Anonymous after treatment: a study of its therapeutic effects and mechanisms of action. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology 1997; 65:768–777
Information & Authors
Information
Published In
History
Published online: 1 April 2003
Published in print: April 2003
Authors
Metrics & Citations
Metrics
Citations
Export Citations
If you have the appropriate software installed, you can download article citation data to the citation manager of your choice. Simply select your manager software from the list below and click Download.
For more information or tips please see 'Downloading to a citation manager' in the Help menu.
View Options
View options
PDF/EPUB
View PDF/EPUBGet Access
Login options
Already a subscriber? Access your subscription through your login credentials or your institution for full access to this article.
Personal login Institutional Login Open Athens loginNot a subscriber?
PsychiatryOnline subscription options offer access to the DSM-5-TR® library, books, journals, CME, and patient resources. This all-in-one virtual library provides psychiatrists and mental health professionals with key resources for diagnosis, treatment, research, and professional development.
Need more help? PsychiatryOnline Customer Service may be reached by emailing [email protected] or by calling 800-368-5777 (in the U.S.) or 703-907-7322 (outside the U.S.).