Aims

This meta-analysis reviewed 15 clinical trials (18 study sites/arms), examining the efficacy of an integrated cognitive-behavioral intervention (CBI) delivered to individuals with an alcohol or other drug use disorder and a co-occurring mental health disorder (AOD/MHD). Outcomes were alcohol or other drug use and mental health symptoms at post-treatment through follow-up.

Methods

The inverse-variance weighted effect size was calculated for each study and pooled under random effects assumptions.

Results

Integrated CBI showed a small effect size for AOD (g = 0.188, P = 0.061; I2 = 86%, τ2 = 0.126, k = 18) and MHD (g = 0.169, P = 0.024; I2 = 58%, τ2 = 0.052, k = 18) outcomes, although only MHD outcomes were statistically significant. Analysis by subgroup suggested that effect magnitude varied by type of contrast condition (integrated CBI + usual care vs. usual care only; integrated CBI vs. a single-disorder intervention), follow-up time point (post-treatment vs. 3-6 months) and primary AOD/MHD diagnosis, although these sub-groups often contained significant residual heterogeneity. In a series of mixed effects, meta-regression models, demographic factors were non-significant predictors of between-study heterogeneity. For AOD outcomes, greater effects were observed in higher quality studies, but study quality was not related to effect size variability for MHD outcomes.

Conclusions

The current meta-analysis shows a small and variable effect for integrated CBI with the most promising effect sizes observed for integrated CBI compared with a single disorder intervention (typically an AOD-only intervention) for follow-up outcomes, and for interventions targeting alcohol use and/or post-traumatic stress disorder. Given the clinical and methodological variability within the sample, results should be considered a preliminary, but important step forward in our understanding of treatment for co-occurring AOD/MHD.

Aims

To compare long-term outcomes among participants randomized to buprenorphine or methadone.

Design, setting and participants

Follow-up was conducted in 2011-14 of 1080 opioid-dependent participants entering seven opioid treatment programs in the United States between 2006 and 2009 and randomized (within each program) to receive open-label buprenorphine/naloxone or methadone for up to 24 weeks; 795 participants completed in-person interviews (~74% follow-up interview rate) covering on average 4.5 years.

Measurements

Outcomes were indicated by mortality and opioid use. Covariates included demographics, site, cocaine use and treatment experiences.

Findings

Mortality was not different between the two randomized conditions, with 23 (3.6%) of 630 participants randomized to buprenorphine having died versus 26 (5.8%) of 450 participants randomized to methadone. Opioid use at follow-up was higher among participants randomized to buprenorphine relative to methadone [42.8 versus 31.7% positive opioid urine specimens, P < 0.01, effect size (h) = 0.23 (0.09, 0.38); 5.8 days versus 4.4 days of past 30-day heroin use, P < 0.05, effect size (d) = 0.14 (0.00, 0.28)]. Opioid use during the follow-up period by randomization condition was also significant (F(7,39,600) = 3.16; P < 0.001) due mainly to less treatment participation among participants randomized to buprenorphine than methadone. Less opioid use was associated with both buprenorphine and methadone treatment (relative to no treatment); no difference was found between the two treatments. Individuals who are white or used cocaine at baseline responded better to methadone than to buprenorphine.

Conclusions

There are few differences in long-term outcomes between buprenorphine and methadone treatment for opioid dependence, and treatment with each medication is associated with a strong reduction in opioid use.

Background

The development and approval of an efficacious pharmacotherapy for stimulant use disorders has been limited by the lack of a meaningful indicator of treatment success, other than sustained abstinence.

Methods

In March, 2015, a meeting sponsored by Analgesic, Anesthetic, and Addiction Clinical Trial Translations, Innovations, Opportunities, and Networks (ACTTION) was convened to discuss the current state of the evidence regarding meaningful outcome measures in clinical trials for stimulant use disorders. Attendees included members of academia, funding and regulatory agencies, pharmaceutical companies, and healthcare organizations. The goal was to establish a research agenda for the development of a meaningful outcome measure that may be used as an endpoint in clinical trials for stimulant use disorders.

Results and conclusions

Based on guidelines for the selection of clinical trial endpoints, the lessons learned from prior addiction clinical trials, and the process that led to identification of a meaningful indicator of treatment success for alcohol use disorders, several recommendations for future research were generated. These include a focus on the validation of patient reported outcome measures of functioning, the exploration of patterns of stimulant abstinence that may be associated with physical and/or psychosocial benefits, the role of urine testing for validating self-reported measures of stimulant abstinence, and the operational definitions for reduction-based measures in terms of frequency rather than quantity of stimulant use. These recommendations may be useful for secondary analyses of clinical trial data, and in the design of future clinical trials that may help establish a meaningful indicator of treatment success.

Background

Cannabis use disorder (CUD) is a prevalent and impairing condition, and established psychosocial treatments convey limited efficacy. In light of recent findings supporting the efficacy of N-acetylcysteine (NAC) for CUD in adolescents, the objective of this trial was to evaluate its efficacy in adults.

Methods

In a 12-week double-blind randomized placebo-controlled trial, treatment-seeking adults ages 18-50 with CUD (N=302), enrolled across six National Drug Abuse Treatment Clinical Trials Network-affiliated clinical sites, were randomized in a 1:1 ratio to a 12-week course of NAC 1200mg (n=153) or placebo (n=149) twice daily. All participants received contingency management (CM) and medical management. The primary efficacy measure was the odds of negative urine cannabinoid tests during treatment, compared between NAC and placebo participants.

Results

There was not statistically significant evidence that the NAC and placebo groups differed in cannabis abstinence (odds ratio=1.00, 95% confidence interval 0.63-1.59, p=0.984). Overall, 22.3% of urine cannabinoid tests in the NAC group were negative, compared with 22.4% in the placebo group. Many participants were medication non-adherent; exploratory analysis within medication-adherent subgroups revealed no significant differential abstinence outcomes by treatment group.

Conclusions

In contrast with prior findings in adolescents, there is no evidence that NAC 1200mg twice daily plus CM is differentially efficacious for CUD in adults when compared to placebo plus CM. This discrepant finding between adolescents and adults with CUD may have been influenced by differences in development, cannabis use profiles, responses to embedded behavioral treatment, medication adherence, and other factors.