Psychosocial interventions to reduce alcohol consumption in concurrent problem alcohol and illicit drug users

Background Problem alcohol use is common among people who use illicit drugs (PWID) and is associated with adverse health outcomes. It is also an important factor contributing to a poor prognosis among drug users with hepatitis C virus (HCV) as it impacts on progression to hepatic cirrhosis or opioid overdose in PWID. Objectives To assess the effectiveness of psychosocial interventions to reduce alcohol consumption in PWID (users of opioids and stimulants). Search methods We searched the Cochrane Drugs and Alcohol Group trials register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, and PsycINFO, from inception up to August 2017, and the reference lists of eligible articles. We also searched: 1) conference proceedings (online archives only) of the Society for the Study of Addiction, International Harm Reduction Association, International Conference on Alcohol Harm Reduction and American Association for the Treatment of Opioid Dependence; and 2) online registers of clinical trials: Current Controlled Trials, ClinicalTrials.gov, Center Watch and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform. Selection criteria We included randomised controlled trials comparing psychosocial interventions with other psychosocial treatment, or treatment as usual, in adult PWIDs (aged at least 18 years) with concurrent problem alcohol use. Data collection and analysis We used the standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. Main results We included seven trials (825 participants). We judged the majority of the trials to have a high or unclear risk of bias. The psychosocial interventions considered in the studies were: cognitive‐behavioural coping skills training (one study), twelve‐step programme (one study), brief intervention (three studies), motivational interviewing (two studies), and brief motivational interviewing (one study). Two studies were considered in two comparisons. There were no data for the secondary outcome, alcohol‐related harm. The results were as follows. Comparison 1: cognitive‐behavioural coping skills training versus twelve‐step programme (one study, 41 participants) There was no significant difference between groups for either of the primary outcomes (alcohol abstinence assessed with Substance Abuse Calendar and breathalyser at one year: risk ratio (RR) 2.38 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.10 to 55.06); and retention in treatment, measured at end of treatment: RR 0.89 (95%