Adaptation to right-deviating prisms is a promising intervention for the rehabilitation of patients with left spatial neglect. In order to test the lateral specificity of prism adaptation on left neglect, the present study evaluated the effect of left-deviating prism on straight-ahead pointing movements and on several classical neuropsychological tests in a group of five right brain-damaged patients with left spatial neglect. A group of healthy subjects was also included for comparison purposes. After a single session of exposing simple manual pointing to left-deviating prisms, contrary to healthy controls, none of the patients showed a reliable change of the straight-ahead pointing movement in the dark. No significant modification of attentional paper-and-pencil tasks was either observed immediately or 2 hours after prism adaptation. These results suggest that the therapeutic effect of prism adaptation on left spatial neglect relies on a specific lateralized mechanism. Evidence for a directional effect for prism adaptation both in terms of the side of the visuomanual adaptation and therefore possibly in terms of the side of brain affected by the stimulation is discussed.

Transcranial direct current stimulation, a form of non-invasive brain stimulation, is showing increasing promise as an adjunct therapy in rehabilitation following stroke. However, although significant behavioural improvements have been reported in proof-of-principle studies, the underlying mechanisms are poorly understood. The rationale for transcranial direct current stimulation as therapy for stroke is that therapeutic stimulation paradigms increase activity in ipsilesional motor cortical areas, but this has not previously been directly tested for conventional electrode placements. This study was performed to test directly whether increases in ipsilesional cortical activation with transcranial direct current stimulation are associated with behavioural improvements in chronic stroke patients. Patients at least 6 months post-first stroke participated in a behavioural experiment (n = 13) or a functional magnetic resonance imaging experiment (n = 11), each investigating the effects of three stimulation conditions in separate sessions: anodal stimulation to the ipsilesional hemisphere; cathodal stimulation to the contralesional hemisphere; and sham stimulation. Anodal (facilitatory) stimulation to the ipsilesional hemisphere led to significant improvements (5–10%) in response times with the affected hand in both experiments. This improvement was associated with an increase in movement-related cortical activity in the stimulated primary motor cortex and functionally interconnected regions. Cathodal (inhibitory) stimulation to the contralesional hemisphere led to a functional improvement only when compared with sham stimulation. We show for the first time that the significant behavioural improvements produced by anodal stimulation to the ipsilesional hemisphere are associated with a functionally relevant increase in activity within the ipsilesional primary motor cortex in patients with a wide range of disabilities following stroke.

Introduction

Dependence on opioids is a multifactorial condition involving genetic and psychosocial factors. There are three approaches to treating opioid dependence. Stabilisation is usually by opioid substitution treatments, and aims to ensure that the drug use becomes independent of mental state (such as craving and mood) and independent of circumstances (such as finance and physical location). The next stage is to withdraw (detox) from opioids. The final aim is relapse prevention.

Methods and outcomes

We conducted a systematic review and aimed to answer the following clinical questions: What are the effects of drug treatments for stabilisation (maintenance) in people with opioid dependence? What are the effects of drug treatments for withdrawal in people with opioid dependence? What are the effects of drug treatments for relapse prevention in people with opioid dependence? We searched: Medline, Embase, The Cochrane Library, and other important databases up to May 2008 (Clinical Evidence reviews are updated periodically; please check our website for the most up-to-date version of this review). We included harms alerts from relevant organisations such as the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the UK Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA).

Results

We found 23 systematic reviews, RCTs, or observational studies that met our inclusion criteria. We performed a GRADE evaluation of the quality of evidence for interventions.

Conclusions

In this systematic review, we present information relating to the effectiveness and safety of the following interventions: buprenorphine; clonidine; lofexidine; methadone; naltrexone; and ultra-rapid withdrawal regimes.

Key Points

Dependence on opioids is a multifactorial condition involving genetic and psychosocial factors.

There are three approaches to treating opioid dependence. Stabilisation is usually by opioid substitution treatments, and aims to ensure that the drug use becomes independent of mental state (such as craving and mood) and independent of circumstances (such as finance and physical location).The next stage is to withdraw (detox) from opioids.The final aim is relapse prevention.

Methadone and buprenorphine help to stabilise opioid use, as they decrease heroin use and help retain people in treatment programmes. Methadone and buprenorphine seem equally effective at stabilising opioid use.

Methadone, buprenorphine, and alpha2-adrenoceptor agonists (lofexidine, clonidine) can all help people withdraw from dependence on illicit opioids. Lofexidine and clonidine may be less effective than methadone and buprenorphine in withdrawal, although evidence is weak. Ultra-rapid withdrawal can help in detoxification, although there are important safety risks in keeping people heavily sedated or under general anaesthesia for a day, and outcomes are no better.

Naltrexone can help prevent relapse of heroin use if combined with psychosocial treatment.