For the considered outcomes, it seems that adding any psychosocial support to standard maintenance treatments do not add additional benefits. Data do not show differences also for contingency approaches, contrary to all expectations. Duration of the studies was too short to analyse relevant outcomes such as mortality. It should be noted that the control intervention used in the studies included in the review on maintenance treatments, is a program that routinely offers counselling sessions in addition to methadone; thus the review, actually, did not evaluate the question of whether any ancillary psychosocial intervention is needed when methadone maintenance is provided, but the narrower question of whether a specific more structured intervention provides any additional benefit to a standard psychosocial support. These interventions probably can be measured and evaluated by employing diverse criteria for evaluating treatment outcomes, aimed to rigorously assess changes in emotional, interpersonal, vocational and physical health areas of life functioning.
Methadone dose increase and abstinence reinforcement for treatment of continued heroin use during methadone maintenance.
Although methadone maintenance is an effective therapy for heroin dependence, some patients continue to use heroin and may benefit from therapeutic modifications. This study evaluated a behavioral intervention, a pharmacological intervention, and a combination of both interventions.
                Throughout the study all patients received daily methadone hydrochloride maintenance (initially 50 mg/d orally) and weekly counseling. Following baseline treatment patients who continued to use heroin were randomly assigned to 1 of 4 interventions: (1) contingent vouchers for opiate-negative urine specimens (n = 29 patients); (2) methadone hydrochloride dose increase to 70 mg/d (n = 31 patients); (3) combined contingent vouchers and methadone dose increase (n = 32 patients); and (4) neither intervention (comparison standard; n = 28 patients). Methadone dose increases were double blind. Vouchers had monetary value and were exchangeable for goods and services. Groups not receiving contingent vouchers received matching vouchers independent of urine test results. Primary outcome measure was opiate-negative urine specimens (thrice weekly urinalysis).
                Contingent vouchers and a methadone dose increase each significantly increased the percentage of opiate-negative urine specimens during intervention. Contingent vouchers, with or without a methadone dose increase, increased the duration of sustained abstinence as assessed by urine screenings. Methadone dose increase, with or without contingent vouchers, reduced self-reported frequency of use and self-reported craving.
                In patients enrolled in a methadone-maintainence program who continued to use heroin, abstinence reinforcement and a methadone dose increase were each effective in reducing use. When combined, they did not dramatically enhance each other's effects on any 1 outcome measure, but they did seem to have complementary benefits.