Advertisement

Current HIV/AIDS Reports

, Volume 16, Issue 1, pp 29–36 | Cite as

Interventions to Reduce Drug Use Among Methamphetamine Users at Risk for HIV

  • Karen F. CorsiEmail author
  • Steve Shoptaw
  • Musheng Alishahi
  • Robert E. Booth
Behavioral Bio-Medical Interface (JL Brown and RJ DiClemente, Section Editors)
  • 364 Downloads
Part of the following topical collections:
  1. Topical Collection on Behavioral-Bio-Medical Interface

Abstract

Purpose of Review

This paper reports on the results of a study comparing two behavioral treatments for methamphetamine users. The outcome was the effectiveness of the interventions in reducing meth use. The interventions were contingency management (CM) and contingency management plus strengths-based case management (CM/SBCM).

Recent Findings

CM/SBCM was found to be associated with attending more sessions for people who reported being in a couple. Also, participants who earned more money in the first part of the study were more likely to have more clean urinalysis in the second part of the study. Latent class analysis identified a class of participants who were in a couple, without sexual abuse history, and less meth use at baseline. This class tended to have more clean urinalysis in the CM/SBCM intervention.

Summary

These results indicate that incentive-based interventions with case management may be useful for helping meth users reduce their drug use.

Keywords

Methamphetamine Behavioral interventions Contingency management 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The authors gratefully acknowledge the staff at Project Safe and the study participants, without whom this research would not have been possible.

Funding information

This study received funding from the National Institute on Drug Abuse (DA026741).

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Human and Animal Rights and Informed Consent

This research is in compliance with the Declaration of Helsinki and all research procedures were approved by the Colorado Multiple Institutional Review Board (COMIRB).

References

Papers of particular interest, published recently, have been highlighted as: •• Of major importance

  1. 1.
    Substance Abuse and mental health Service Administration (SAMHSA). Results from the 2016 National Survey on Drug Use and Health: National findings. Rockville, MD: Office of Applied Studies, 2017. (HHS Publication No. SMA 17–5044, NSDUH Series H-52).Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA). Research Report Series: Methamphetamine. National Institutes of Health, September 2013.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA). Epidemiologic trends in drug abuse: proceedings of the Community Epidemiologic Work Group, Highlights and Executive Summary. Bethesda, Maryland: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services: National Institutes of Health: Division of Epidemiology, Services, and Prevention Research, 2014.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA). National drug threat assessment 2008: methamphetamine. U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration, 2008.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Hoxworth T. Patterns and trends in drug abuse in Denver and Colorado: January–December 2005. Community Epidemiology Work Group (CEWG), 2006.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Lorvick J, Bourgois P, Wenger LD, Arreola SG, Lutnick A, Wechsberg WM, et al. Sexual pleasure and sexual risk among women who use methamphetamine: a mixed methods study. Int J Drug Policy. 2012;23(5):385–92.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.drugpo.2012.07.005. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Cheng WS, Garfein RS, Semple SJ, Strathdee SA, Zians JK, Patterson TL. Binge use and sex and drug use behaviors among HIV(−), heterosexual methamphetamine users in San Diego. Subst Use Misuse. 2010a;45(1–2):116–33.  https://doi.org/10.3109/10826080902869620.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    •• Kral AH, Lorvick J, Martinez A, Lewis MA, Orr WA, Anderson R, et al. HIV prevalence and risk among heterosexual methamphetamine injectors in California. Subst Use Misuse. 2011;46(9):1081–9.  https://doi.org/10.3109/10826084.2011.557136. This study describes high risk behaviors among heterosexual methamphetamine users and thereby highlights the need for effective interventions to reduce meth use among this population. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Mansergh G, Purcell DW, Stall R, et al. CDC consultation on methamphetamine use and sexual risk behavior for HIV/STD infection: summary and suggestions. Public Health Rep. 2006;121:127–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Krawczyk CS, Molitor F, Ruiz J, et al. Methamphetamine use and HIV risk behaviors among heterosexual men - preliminary results from five Northern California counties, December 2001–November 2003. Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2006;55(10):273–7.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Methamphetamine use and HIV risk behaviors among heterosexual men--preliminary results from five northern California counties, December 2001–November 2003. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2006;55(10):273–7.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Koblin BA, Husnik MJ, Colfax G, Huang Y, Madison M, Mayer K, et al. Risk factors for HIV infection among men who have sex with men. AIDS. 2006;20:731–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Ostrow DG, Plankey MW, Cox C, Li X, Shoptaw S, Jacobson LP, et al. Specific sex drug combinations contribute to the majority of recent HIV seroconversions among MSM in the MACS. J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr. 2009;51(3):349–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Plankey MW, Ostrow DG, Stall R, Cox C, Li X, Peck JA, et al. The relationship between methamphetamine and popper use and risk of HIV seroconversion in the multicenter AIDS cohort study. J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr. 2007;45(1):85–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Shoptaw S, Reback CJ, Freese TE. Patient characteristics, HIV serostatus, and risk behaviors among gay and bisexual males seeking treatment for methamphetamine abuse and dependence in Los Angeles. J Addict Dis. 2002;21(1):91–105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Shoptaw S, Reback CJ, Peck JA, et al. Behavioral treatment approaches for methamphetamine dependence and HIV-related sexual risk behaviors among urban gay and bisexual men. Drug Alcohol Depend. 2005;78(2):125–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Colfax G, Coates TJ, Husnik MJ, et al. Longitudinal patterns of methamphetamine, popper (amyl nitrite), and cocaine use and high-risk sexual behavior among a cohort of San Francisco men who have sex with men. J Urban Health. 2005;82(1):I62–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Reback CJ. HIV risk behaviors of gay and bisexual male methamphetamine users contacted through street outreach. J Drug Issues. 1999;29:155–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Dew BJ, Elifson KW, Sterk CE. Differences in HIV sexual risk behaviors between heterosexual and non-heterosexual male users of methamphetamine. J Drug Issues. 2007;37:281–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Baskin-Sommers A, Sommers I. The co-occurrence of substance use and high-risk behaviors. J Adolesc Health. 2006a;38:609–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Lorvick J, Martinez A, Gee L, Kral AH. Sexual and injection risk among women who inject methamphetamine in San Francisco. J Urban Health. 2006;83(3):497–505.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Zule WA, Costenbader EC, Meyer WJ, Wechsberg WM. Methamphetamine use and risky sexual behaviors during heterosexual encounters. Sex Transm Dis. 2007;34(9):689–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Semple SJ, Patterson TL, Grant I. Female methamphetamine users: social characteristics and sexual risk behavior. Women Health. 2004a;40(3):35–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Farabee D, Prendergast M, Cartier MA. Methamphetamine use and HIV risk among substance-abusing offenders in California. J Psychoactive Drugs. 2002;34(3):295–300.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Wohl AR, et al. HIV risk behaviors among African American men in Los Angeles County who self-identify as heterosexual. J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr. 2002;31:354–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Gibson DR, Leamon MH, Flynn N. Epidemiology and public health consequences of methamphetamine use in California’s Central Valley. J Psychoactive Drugs. 2002;34(3):313–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Molitor F, Truax SR, Ruiz JD, Sun RK. Association of methamphetamine use during sex with risky sexual behaviors and HIV infection among non-injection drug users. West J Med. 1998;168(2):93–7.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Lorvick J, Martinez A, Wenger L, Gee L, Kral A. Methamphetamine use among female injectors in San Francisco. Presented at the First National Conference on Methamphetamine, HIV and Hepatitis, Salt Lake City, UT. 2005.Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Roll JM. Contingency management: an evidence-based component of methamphetamine use disorder treatments. Addiction. 2007;102(Suppl. 1):114–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Winslow BT, Voorhees KI, Pehl KA. Methamphetamine abuse. Am Fam Physician. 2007;76(8):1167–74.Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    California Department of Alcohol and Drug Programs, University of California LAISAP. Methamphetamine treatment: a practitioner’s reference 2007. Sacramento, CA: California Department of Alcohol and Drug Programs; 2007.Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Reback CJ, Larkins S, Shoptaw S. Changes in the meaning of sexual risk behaviors among gay and bisexual male methamphetamine abusers before and after drug treatment. AIDS Behav. 2004;8(1):87–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    •• Roll JM, Chudzynski J, Cameron JM, Howell DN, McPherson S. Duration effects in contingency management treatment of methamphetamine disorders. Addict Behav. 2013;38(9):2445–62. This study supports the Contingency Management intervention and its effects over time on abstinence and reduced drug use among meth users.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    •• Shoptaw S, Klausner JD, Reback CJ, et al. A public health response to the methamphetamine epidemic: the implementation of contingency management to treat methamphetamine dependence. BMC Public Health. 2006;6:214–8. This study supports the role of contingency management to treat meth dependence in myriad settings including non-traditional and traditional drug treatment programs.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Menza TW, Jameson DR, Hughes JP, Colfax GN, Shoptaw S, Golden MR. Contingency management to reduce methamphetamine use and sexual risk among men who have sex with men: a randomized controlled trial. BMC Public Health. 2010;10:774.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Brecht M-L, Greenwell L, Anglin MD. Methamphetamine treatment: trends and predictors of retention and completion in a large state treatment system (1992–2002). J Subst Abus Treat. 2005;29:295–306.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Skinner BF. The behavior of organisms: an experimental analysis. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall; 1938.Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Bigelow GE, Silverman K. Theoretical and empirical foundations of contingency management treatments for drug abuse. In: Higgins S, Silverman K, editors. Motivating behavior change among illicit-drug abusers: research on contingency management interventions. Washington, D.C.: American Psychological Association; 1999. p. 15–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Stitzer ML, Vandrey R. Contingency management: utility in the treatment of drug abuse disorders. Clin Pharmacol Ther. 2008;83(4):644–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Stitzer M. Contingency management and the addictions. Addiction. 2006;101(11):1536–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Stitzer M, Petry N. Contingency management for the treatment of substance abuse. Annu Rev Clin Psychol. 2006;2:411–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Carroll KM, Onken LS. Behavioral therapies for drug abuse. Am J Psychiatry. 2005;162:1452–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Higgins ST, Heil SH, Lussier JP. Clinical implications of reinforcement as a determinant of substance use disorders. Annu Rev Psychol. 2004;55:431–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Higgins ST, Petry NM. Contingency management. Incentives for sobriety. Alcohol Res Health. 1999;23:122–7.Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    Lussier JP, Heil SH, Mongeon JA, Badger GJ, Higgins ST. A meta-analysis of voucher-based reinforcement therapy for substance use disorders. Addiction. 2006;101(2):192–203.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Prendergast M, Podus D, Finney J, Greenwell L, Roll J. Contingency management for treatment of substance use: a meta-analysis. Addiction. 2006;101:1546–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Higgins ST, Budney AJ, Bickel WK, Hughes JR, Foerg F, Badger G. Achieving cocaine abstinence with a behavioral approach. Am J Psychiatry. 1993;150:763–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Higgins ST, Wong CJ, Badger GJ, Ogden DE, Dantona RL. Contingent reinforcement increases cocaine abstinence during outpatient treatment and 1 year of follow-up. J Consult Clin Psychol. 2000;68(1):64–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Stitzer ML, Walsh SL. Psychostimulant abuse: the case for combined behavioral and pharmacological treatments. Pharmacol Biochem Behav. 1997;57(3):457–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Petry NM. Contingency management in addiction treatment. Psychiatric Times. 2002;19(2).Google Scholar
  51. 51.
    Rawson RA, McCann MJ, Flammino F, et al. A comparison of contingency management and cognitive-behavioral approaches for stimulant-dependent individuals. Addiction. 2006;101:267–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Roll JM, Shoptaw S. Contingency management: schedule effects. Psychiatry Res. 2006;144:91–3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Higgins ST. Extending contingency management to the treatment of methamphetamine use disorders. Am J Psychiatry. 2006;163(11):1870–2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Petry NM, Peirce JM, Stitzer ML, et al. Effect of prize-based incentives on outcomes in stimulant abusers in outpatient psychosocial treatment programs: a national drug abuse treatment clinical trials network study. Arch Gen Psychiatry. 2005;62:1148–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Shoptaw S, Reback CJ. Methamphetamine use and infections disease-related behaviors in men who have sex with men: implications for interventions. Addiction. 2007;102(Suppl. 1):130–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    Menza TW, Colfax G, Shoptaw S, et al. Interest in a methamphetamine intervention among men who have sex with men. Sex Transm Dis. 2007;34(4):209–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    Rawson RA, Marinelli-Casey P, Anglin MD, et al. A multi-site comparison of psychosocial approaches for the treatment of methamphetamine dependence. Addiction. 2004;99:708–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. 58.
    Silverman K, Higgins S, Brooner R, et al. Sustained cocaine abstinence in methadone maintenance patients through voucher-based reinforcement therapy. Arch Gen Psychiatry. 1996;53:409–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. 59.
    Stitzer ML, Iguchi MY, Felch LJ. Contingent take-home incentive: effects on drug use of methadone maintenance patients. J Consult Clin Psychology. 1992;60:927–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. 60.
    Baker A, Lee NK. A review of psychosocial interventions for amphetamine use. Drug Alcohol Rev. 2003;22:323–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. 61.
    Petry NM, Alessi SM, Hanson T. Contingency management improves abstinence and quality of life in cocaine abusers. J Consult Clin Psychol. 2007;75(2):307–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. 62.
    Tracy K, Babuscio T, Nich C, Kiluk B, Carroll KM, Petry NM, et al. Contingency management to reduce substance use in individuals who are homeless with co-occurring psychiatric disorders. Am J Drug Alcohol Abuse. 2007;33:253–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. 63.
    Weil M, Karls JM. Historical origins and recent developments. In: Weil M, Karls JM, editors. Case management in human service practice. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, Inc.; 1989. p. 1–28.Google Scholar
  64. 64.
    Mejta CL, Bokos PJ, Mickenberg J, Maslar ME, Senay E. Improving substance abuse treatment access and retention using a case management approach. J Drug Issues. 1997;27(2):329–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. 65.
    Siegal HA, Rapp RC, Kelliher CW, Fisher JH, Wagner JH, Cole PA. The strengths perspective of case management: a promising inpatient substance abuse treatment enhancement. J Psychoactive Drugs. 1995;27(1):67–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. 66.
    Hasson AL, Grella CE, Rawson R, Anglin MD. Case management within a methadone maintenance program: a research demonstration project for HIV risk reduction. J Case Manag. 1994;3:167–73.Google Scholar
  67. 67.
    Shwartz M, Baker G, Mulvey KP, Plough A. Improving public policy funded substance abuse treatment: the value of case management. Am J Public Health. 1997;87(10):1659–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. 68.
    Bokos P, Mejta C, Mickenberg J, Monks R. Case management: an alternative approach to working with intravenous drug users. In: Asher RS, editor. Progress and issues in case management. Rockville, MD: National Institute on Drug Abuse Monograph Series; 1992. p. 92–111.Google Scholar
  69. 69.
    Siegal HA, Rapp RC, Li L, Saha P, Kirk KD. The role of case management in retaining clients in substance abuse treatment: an exploratory analysis. J Drug Issues. 1997;27:821–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. 70.
    Siegal HA, Fisher JH, Rapp RC, et al. Enhancing substance abuse treatment with case management: its impact on employment. J Subst Abus Treat. 1996;13:93–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. 71.
    Rapp RC, Otto AL, Lane DT, Redko C, McGatha C, Carlson RG. Improving linkage with substance abuse treatment using brief case management and motivational interviewing. Drug Alcohol Depend. 2008;94:172–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. 72.
    Falck R, Carlson RG, Price SK, Turner JA. Case management to enhance HIV risk reduction among users of injection drugs and crack cocaine. J Case Manag. 1994;3:162–7.Google Scholar
  73. 73.
    Mizuno Y, Purcell T, Borkowski K, Knight K. The life priorities of HIV-seropositive injection drug users: findings from a community-based sample. AIDS Behav. 2003;7:395–403.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. 74.
    Carlson RG, Siegal HA. The crack life: an ethnographic overview of crack use and sexual behaviors among African Americans in a Midwest metropolitan city. J Psychoactive Drugs. 1991;23:11–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. 75.
    Rapp RC, Siegal HA, Fisher JH. A strengths-based model of case management/advocacy: adapting a mental health model to practice work with persons who have substance abuse problems. NIDA Res Monogr. 1992;127:79–91.Google Scholar
  76. 76.
    Rapp RC, Chamberlain R. Case management services for the chronically mentally ill. Soc Work. 1985;30:417–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. 77.
    Gardner LI, Metsch LR, Anderson-Mahoney P, et al. Efficacy of a brief case management intervention to link recently diagnosed HIV-infected persons to care. AIDS. 2005;19(4):423–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. 78.
    •• Corsi KF, Booth RE. HIV sex risk behaviors among heterosexual methamphetamine users. Curr Drug Abuse Rev. 2008;1:292–6. This brief literature reviews shows the dearth of research on heterosexual meth users and HIV risk behaviors.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. 79.
    Sobell LC, Sobell MB. Timeline Followback user’s guide: a calendar method for assessing alcohol and drug use. Toronto: Addiction Research Foundation; 1996.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Karen F. Corsi
    • 1
    Email author
  • Steve Shoptaw
    • 2
  • Musheng Alishahi
    • 1
  • Robert E. Booth
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of PsychiatryUniversity of Colorado School of MedicineDenverUSA
  2. 2.Departments of Family Medicine and PsychiatryUniversity of California Los AngelesLos AngelesUSA

Personalised recommendations