No abstract

Objective To update clinicians on the latest in evidence-based treatments for substance use disorders (SUD) and non-substance use disorders among adults and suggest how these treatments can be combined into an evidence based process that enhances treatment effectiveness in comorbid patients. Method Articles were extracted from Pubmed using the search terms “dual diagnosis,” “comorbidity” and “co-occurring” and were reviewed for evidence of effectiveness for pharmacologic and psychotherapeutic treatments of comorbidity. Results Twenty-four research reviews and 43 research trials were reviewed. The preponderance of the evidence suggests that antidepressants prescribed to improve substance-related symptoms among patients with mood and anxiety disorders are either not highly effective or involve risk due to high side-effect profiles or toxicity. Second-generation antipsychotics are more effective for treatment of schizophrenia and comorbid substance abuse and current evidence suggests clozapine, olanzapine and risperidone are among the best. Clozapine appears to be the most effective of the antipsychotics for reducing alcohol, cocaine and cannabis abuse among patients with schizophrenia. Motivational interviewing has robust support as a highly effective psychotherapy for establishing a therapeutic alliance. This finding is critical since retention in treatment is essential for maintaining effectiveness. Highly structured therapy programs that integrate intensive outpatient treatments, case management services and behavioral therapies such as Contingency Management (CM) are most effective for treatment of severe comorbid conditions. Conclusions Creative combinations of psychotherapies, behavioral and pharmacological interventions offer the most effective treatment for comorbidity. Intensity of treatment must be increased for severe comorbid conditions such as the schizophrenia/cannabis dependence comorbidity due to the limitations of pharmacological treatments.

Objective To review the studies that test treatments targeting adolescent suicidal ideation, suicide attempts, or self-harm, and to make recommendations for future intervention development. Method The extant randomized clinical trials that aim to reduce the intensity of suicidal ideation or the recurrence of suicide attempts or self-harm were reviewed with respect to treatment components, comparison treatments, sample composition, and outcomes. Results The majority of studies that showed any effect on suicidal ideation, attempts, or self-harm had some focus on family interactions or non-familial sources of support. Two of the most efficacious interventions also provided the greatest number of sessions. Some other treatment elements associated with positive effects include addressing motivation for treatment and having explicit plans for integrating the experimental treatment with treatment as usual. In many studies, suicidal events tend to occur very early in the course of treatment prior to when an effective “dose” of treatment could be delivered. Important factors that might mitigate suicidal risk such as sobriety, healthy sleep, and promotion of positive affect were not addressed in most studies. Conclusion Interventions that can front-load treatment shortly after the suicidal crisis, e.g., while adolescent suicide attempters are hospitalized, may avert early suicidal events. Treatments that focus on the augmentation of protective factors, such as parent support and positive affect, as well as the promotion of sobriety and healthy sleep, may be beneficial with regard to the prevention of recurrent suicidal ideation, attempts, or self-harm in adolescents.

Objectives We examined the effectiveness of risk reduction counseling and the role of on-site HIV testing in drug treatment. Methods Between January and May 2009, we randomized 1281 HIV-negative (or status unknown) adults who reported no past-year HIV testing to (1) referral for off-site HIV testing, (2) HIV risk-reduction counseling with on-site rapid HIV testing, or (3) verbal information about testing only with on-site rapid HIV testing. Results We defined 2 primary self-reported outcomes a priori: receipt of HIV test results and unprotected anal or vaginal intercourse episodes at 6-month follow-up. The combined on-site rapid testing participants received more HIV test results than off-site testing referral participants (P < .001; Mantel-Haenszel risk ratio = 4.52; 97.5% confidence interval [CI] = 3.57, 5.72). At 6 months, there were no significant differences in unprotected intercourse episodes between the combined on-site testing arms and the referral arm (P = .39; incidence rate ratio [IRR] = 1.04; 97.5% CI = 0.95, 1.14) or the 2 on-site testing arms (P = .81; IRR = 1.03; 97.5% CI = 0.84, 1.26). Conclusions This study demonstrated on-site rapid HIV testing’s value in drug treatment centers and found no additional benefit from HIV sexual risk-reduction counseling.