RESUMEN
Introduction: The first-line treatment for opioid dependence is opioid agonist treatment (OAT) with oral opioids. However, in some cases, treatment with intravenous diacetylmorphine (IV-DAM) is indicated. Research on neurocognitive impairments and treatment effects of OAT - particularly with IV-DAM - on neurocognitive functioning, is scarce. The current study is the first to investigate the neurocognitive performance of individuals on OAT with IV-DAM. Using a prospective study design with two timepoints of measurement, the first aim was to assess the nature and extent of neurocognitive functioning in individuals with opioid dependence by comparing participants' neurocognitive performance with normative data of the general population on admission to treatment (baseline) and after an initial three-month period of OAT (study end). The second aim was to examine whether and to what extent neurocognitive performance would improve after three months on OAT. The third aim was to investigate whether, and if so, to what extent the treatment method (IV-DAM vs. oral opioids) would lead to higher neurocognitive improvements at study end. Methods: Forty-seven opioid-dependent individuals (baseline; 33 individuals at study end) participated in this study (mean age: 34.3 years; 27.7% female). Participants underwent neuropsychological testing with a battery of 12 tests covering different neurocognitive domains, including attention, memory, and executive functions. Results: Compared to normative data, opioid-dependent individuals showed impairments in almost every test both at baseline and at study end. At baseline, neurocognitive performance did not differ between individuals receiving IV-DAM or oral opioids for OAT. Compared to baseline, the neurocognitive performance did neither improve nor deteriorate after three months of treatment with neither IV-DAM nor oral opioids. However, a trend towards improvement was found for the memory domain. Discussion: Given that neurocognitive impairments should be considered in treatment planning and therapeutic interventions. Since a reduced cognitive performance may affect both the treatment outcome and the therapeutic relationship unfavorably, specific neurocognitive training at the beginning of treatment should be considered.
RESUMEN
Attention-deficit and hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) is a widespread neurodevelopmental disorder in children and adolescents, persisting into adulthood in a majority of them. ADHD and substance use disorders (SUDs) commonly co-occur in the clinical adult population. The higher-than-normal prevalence rates of SUDs in people with ADHD indicate increased risk for developing SUD. This narrative review deals with the question of whether or not adults with both disorders should be treated with methylphenidate (MPH), addressing specific issues surrounding this form of treatment. MPH is considered as first-line pharmacotherapy for ADHD. However, because of its stimulant-like reinforcing properties, MPH has a significant addictive potential to which persons with SUDs are especially susceptible. Appropriate treatment is therefore complex. Because of concerns about misuse and diversion of MPH medication, clinicians may be reluctant to use MPH to manage ADHD symptoms in these patients. However, it is essential to diagnose and treat ADHD adequately as appropriate therapy reduces the impairments, as well as the risk of developing comorbid disorders and poor treatment response. MPH should not be deprived of these patients because of the risk for misuse, especially as several strategies can be applied to minimize this risk. To conclude, carefully applied guideline-based diagnostics to clarify the potential presence of ADHD as well as a responsible prescription practice in a well-defined therapeutic setting with reliable monitoring of medication intake and regular consultations are essential conditions for a safe and proficient MPH treatment of ADHD in patients with SUD.