Compensation effects on clinical trial data collection in opioid-dependent young adults

Predictors of urine toxicology and other biologic specimen missingness in randomized trials of substance use disorders

BACKGROUND

High levels of missing outcome data for biologically confirmed substance use (BCSU) threaten the validity of substance use disorder (SUD) clinical trials. Underlying attributes of clinical trials could explain BCSU missingness and identify targets for improved trial design.

METHODS

We reviewed 21 clinical trials funded by the NIDA National Drug Abuse Treatment Clinical Trials Network (CTN) and published from 2005 to 2018 that examined pharmacologic and psychosocial interventions for SUD. We used configurational analysis-a Boolean algebra approach that identifies an attribute or combination of attributes predictive of an outcome-to identify trial design features and participant characteristics associated with high levels of BCSU missingness. Associations were identified by configuration complexity, consistency, coverage, and robustness. We limited results using a consistency threshold of 0.75 and summarized model fit using the product of consistency and coverage.

RESULTS

For trial design features, the final solution consisted of two pathways: psychosocial treatment as a trial intervention OR larger trial arm size (complexity=2, consistency=0.79, coverage=0.93, robustness score=0.71). For participant characteristics, the final solution consisted of two pathways: interventions targeting individuals with poly- or nonspecific substance use OR younger age (complexity=2, consistency=0.75, coverage=0.86, robustness score=1.00).

CONCLUSIONS

Psychosocial treatments, larger trial arm size, interventions targeting individuals with poly- or nonspecific substance use, and younger age among trial participants were predictive of missing BCSU data in SUD clinical trials. Interventions to mitigate missing data that focus on these attributes may reduce threats to validity and improve utility of SUD clinical trials.

Extended-Release Injectable Naltrexone (XR-NTX) With Intensive Psychosocial Therapy for Amphetamine-Dependent Persons Seeking Treatment: A Placebo-Controlled Trial

OBJECTIVE

Explore the efficacy of extended-release injectable naltrexone (XR-NTX) for preventing relapse to amphetamine use.

METHOD

Clinical trial of 100 amphetamine-dependent, treatment-seeking patients who were randomized to 6 monthly 380 mg doses of XR-NTX or matching placebo before entering intensive outpatient after varying lengths of inpatient treatment in Reykjavik, Iceland. Weekly urine drug tests, retention, and standardized instruments assessed efficacy.

RESULTS

Of 169 approached, 100 were randomized. Although amphetamine dependence was the main reason for seeking treatment, three-quarters or more of participants had 1 or more other substance dependencies. Of 51 randomized to XR-NTX, 20 received 4 or more injections; of 49 assigned to placebo, 26 received 4 or more injections. Of the planned 2400 weekly urine drug tests, 1247 were collected (52%); 4% of these were positive for amphetamine, 8% for benzodiazepine, 7% for marijuana, 1% for cocaine, and 1% for opioid. XR-NTX had no effect on amphetamine-positive tests, retention, or other outcomes. Those providing half or more of their tests attended more weeks of treatment than those providing less than half of their tests (m = 10.76 vs 3.31; t (92) = 5.91, P < 0.0001), and 92 participants provided at least 1 test.

CONCLUSIONS

Adding XR-NTX to the usual combination of inpatient and intensive outpatient treatment did not reduce amphetamine use. The low prevalence of substance use among collected urine samples, and the association between collected samples and weeks in treatment, was consistent with other studies showing that staying in treatment is associated with better outcomes.

Buprenorphine for managing opioid withdrawal

BACKGROUND

Managed withdrawal is a necessary step prior to drug-free treatment or as the endpoint of substitution treatment.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of buprenorphine versus tapered doses of methadone, alpha2-adrenergic agonists, symptomatic medications or placebo, or different buprenorphine regimens for managing opioid withdrawal, in terms of the intensity of the withdrawal syndrome experienced, duration and completion of treatment, and adverse effects.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL, Issue 11, 2016), MEDLINE (1946 to December week 1, 2016), Embase (to 22 December 2016), PsycINFO (1806 to December week 3, 2016), and the Web of Science (to 22 December 2016) and handsearched the reference lists of articles.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials of interventions using buprenorphine to modify the signs and symptoms of withdrawal in participants who were primarily opioid dependent. Comparison interventions involved reducing doses of methadone, alpha2-adrenergic agonists (clonidine or lofexidine), symptomatic medications or placebo, and different buprenorphine-based regimens.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 27 studies involving 3048 participants. The main comparators were clonidine or lofexidine (14 studies). Six studies compared buprenorphine versus methadone, and seven compared different rates of buprenorphine dose reduction. We assessed 12 studies as being at high risk of bias in at least one of seven domains of methodological quality. Six of these studies compared buprenorphine with clonidine or lofexidine and two with methadone; the other four studies compared different rates of buprenorphine dose reduction.For the comparison of buprenorphine and methadone in tapered doses, meta-analysis was not possible for the outcomes of intensity of withdrawal or adverse effects. However, information reported by the individual studies was suggestive of buprenorphine and methadone having similar capacity to ameliorate opioid withdrawal, without clinically significant adverse effects. The meta-analyses that were possible support a conclusion of no difference between buprenorphine and methadone in terms of average treatment duration (mean difference (MD) 1.30 days, 95% confidence interval (CI) -8.11 to 10.72; N = 82; studies = 2; low quality) or treatment completion rates (risk ratio (RR) 1.04, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.20; N = 457; studies = 5; moderate quality).Relative to clonidine or lofexidine, buprenorphine was associated with a lower average withdrawal score (indicating less severe withdrawal) during the treatment episode, with an effect size that is considered to be small to moderate (standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.43, 95% CI -0.58 to -0.28; N = 902; studies = 7; moderate quality). Patients receiving buprenorphine stayed in treatment for longer, with an effect size that is considered to be large (SMD 0.92, 95% CI 0.57 to 1.27; N = 558; studies = 5; moderate quality) and were more likely to complete withdrawal treatment (RR 1.59, 95% CI 1.23 to 2.06; N = 1264; studies = 12; moderate quality). At the same time there was no significant difference in the incidence of adverse effects, but dropout due to adverse effects may be more likely with clonidine (RR 0.20, 95% CI 0.04 to 1.15; N = 134; studies = 3; low quality). The difference in treatment completion rates translates to a number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome of 4 (95% CI 3 to 6), indicating that for every four people treated with buprenorphine, we can expect that one additional person will complete treatment than with clonidine or lofexidine.For studies comparing different rates of reduction of the buprenorphine dose, meta-analysis was possible only for treatment completion, with separate analyses for inpatient and outpatient settings. The results were diverse, and we assessed the quality of evidence as being very low. It remains very uncertain what effect the rate of dose taper has on treatment outcome.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Buprenorphine is more effective than clonidine or lofexidine for managing opioid withdrawal in terms of severity of withdrawal, duration of withdrawal treatment, and the likelihood of treatment completion.Buprenorphine and methadone appear to be equally effective, but data are limited. It remains possible that the pattern of withdrawal experienced may differ and that withdrawal symptoms may resolve more quickly with buprenorphine.It is not possible to draw any conclusions from the available evidence on the relative effectiveness of different rates of tapering the buprenorphine dose. The divergent findings of studies included in this review suggest that there may be multiple factors affecting the response to the rate of dose taper. One such factor could be whether or not the initial treatment plan includes a transition to subsequent relapse prevention treatment with naltrexone. Indeed, the use of buprenorphine to support transition to naltrexone treatment is an aspect worthy of further research.Most participants in the studies included in this review were male. None of the studies reported outcomes on the basis of sex, preventing any exploration of differences related to this variable. Consideration of sex as a factor influencing response to withdrawal treatment would be relevant research for selecting the most appropriate type of intervention for each individual.

Active opioid use does not attenuate the humoral responses to inactivated influenza vaccine

BACKGROUND

Influenza vaccination is recommended for vulnerable individuals, including active drug users, to prevent influenza complications and decrease influenza spread. Recent studies suggest that opioids negatively regulate immune responses in experimental models, but the extent to which opioid use will affect the humoral responses to influenza vaccine in humans is unknown. This information is critical in maximizing vaccination efforts.

OBJECTIVE

To determine whether there is a difference in antibody response after influenza vaccination in heroin or methadone users compared to control subjects.

METHODS

We studied active heroin users, subjects on methadone maintenance treatment (MMT) and subjects that did not use any drugs before and 1 and 4 weeks after vaccination with trivalent influenza vaccine (TIV). We measured hemagglutination inhibition and microneutralization titers, and we compared geometric mean titers (GMT), and rates of seroprotection and seroconversion for each of the vaccine strains among the 3 groups of subjects.

RESULTS

Heroin users, subjects on MMT and non-user controls mount a similarly robust serologic response to TIV. GMT and rates of seroprotection and seroconversion were not significantly different among groups.

CONCLUSION

Our results suggest that opioid use do not significantly alter antibody responses to influenza vaccine supporting the vaccination effort in these populations.

Updated systematic review identifies substantial number of retention strategies: using more strategies retains more study participants

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

The retention of participants in studies is important for the validity of research. We updated our prior systematic review (2005) to assess retention strategies for in-person follow-up in health care studies.

METHODS

We searched PubMed, Cumulative Index of Nursing and Allied Health Literature, Cochrane Controlled Trials Register, Cochrane Methodology Register, and Embase (August 2013) for English-language reports of studies that described retention strategies for in-person follow-up in health care studies. We abstracted each retention strategy, and two authors independently classified each retention strategy with one of the themes developed in our prior review.

RESULTS

We identified 88 studies (67 newly identified studies), six of which were designed to compare retention strategies, whereas the remainder described retention strategies and retention rates. There were 985 strategies abstracted from the descriptive studies (617 from new studies), with a median (interquartile range) number of strategies per study of 10 (7 to 17) and a median (interquartile range) number of themes per study of 6 (4 to 7). Financial incentives were used in 47 (57%) of the descriptive studies. We classified 28% of the strategies under the theme of "contact and scheduling methods," with 83% of the identified studies using at least one strategy within this theme. The number of strategies used was positively correlated with retention rate (P = 0.027), but the number of themes was not associated with retention rate (P = 0.469).

CONCLUSION

The number of studies describing retention strategies has substantially increased since our prior review. However, the lack of comparative studies and the heterogeneity in the types of strategies, participant population and study designs, prohibits synthesis to determine the types of cohort retention strategies that were most effective. However, using a larger number of retention strategies, across five or six different themes, appears to retain more study participants.

Extended release naltrexone injection is performed in the majority of opioid dependent patients receiving outpatient induction: a very low dose naltrexone and buprenorphine open label trial

BACKGROUND

The approval of extended release injectable naltrexone (XR-NTX; Vivitrol(®)) has introduced a new option for treating opioid addiction, but studies are needed to identify its place within the spectrum of available therapies. The absence of physiological opioid dependence is a necessary and challenging first step for starting XR-NTX. Outpatient detoxification gives poor results and inpatient detoxification is either unavailable or too brief for the physiological effects of opioids to resolve. Here we present findings from an open label study that tested whether the transition from opioid addiction to XR-NTX can be safely and effectively performed in an outpatient setting using very low dose naltrexone and buprenorphine.

METHODS

Twenty treatment seeking opioid addicted individuals were given increasing doses of naltrexone starting at 0.25mg with decreasing doses of buprenorphine starting at 4 mg during a 7-day outpatient XR-NTX induction procedure. Withdrawal discomfort, craving, drug use, and adverse events were assessed daily until the XR-NTX injection, then weekly over the next month.

RESULTS

Fourteen of the 20 participants received XR-NTX and 13 completed weekly assessments. Withdrawal, craving, and opioid or other drug use were significantly lower during induction and after XR-NTX administration compared with baseline, and no serious adverse events were recorded.

CONCLUSIONS

Outpatient transition to XR-NTX combining upward titration of very low dose naltrexone with downward titration of low dose buprenorphine was safe, well tolerated, and completed by most participants. Further studies with larger numbers of subjects are needed to see if this approach is useful for naltrexone induction.

Endogenous opiates and behavior: 2012

This paper is the thirty-fifth consecutive installment of the annual review of research concerning the endogenous opioid system. It summarizes papers published during 2012 that studied the behavioral effects of molecular, pharmacological and genetic manipulation of opioid peptides, opioid receptors, opioid agonists and opioid antagonists. The particular topics that continue to be covered include the molecular-biochemical effects and neurochemical localization studies of endogenous opioids and their receptors related to behavior (Section 2), and the roles of these opioid peptides and receptors in pain and analgesia (Section 3); stress and social status (Section 4); tolerance and dependence (Section 5); learning and memory (Section 6); eating and drinking (Section 7); alcohol and drugs of abuse (Section 8); sexual activity and hormones, pregnancy, development and endocrinology (Section 9); mental illness and mood (Section 10); seizures and neurologic disorders (Section 11); electrical-related activity and neurophysiology (Section 12); general activity and locomotion (Section 13); gastrointestinal, renal and hepatic functions (Section 14); cardiovascular responses (Section 15); respiration and thermoregulation (Section 16); and immunological responses (Section 17).

Concordance between self-report and urine drug screen data in adolescent opioid dependent clinical trial participants

Objective measures of drug use are very important in treatment outcome studies of persons with substance use disorders, but obtaining and interpreting them can be challenging and not always practical. Thus, it is important to determine if, and when, drug-use self-reports are valid. To this end we explored the relationships between urine drug screen results and self-reported substance use among adolescents and young adults with opioid dependence participating in a clinical trial of buprenorphine-naloxone. In this study, 152 individuals seeking treatment for opioid dependence were randomized to a 2-week detoxification with buprenorphine-naloxone (DETOX) or 12weeks of buprenorphine-naloxone (BUP), each with weekly individual and group drug counseling. Urine drug screens and self-reported frequency of drug use were obtained weekly, and patients were paid $5 for completing weekly assessments. At weeks 4, 8, and 12, more extensive assessments were done, and participants were reimbursed $75. Self-report data were dichotomized (positive vs. negative), and for each major drug class we computed the kappa statistic and the sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value of self-report using urine drug screens as the "gold standard". Generalized linear mixed models were used to explore the effect of treatment group assignment, compensation amounts, and participant characteristics on self-report. In general, findings supported the validity of self-reported drug use. However, those in the BUP group were more likely to under-report cocaine and opioid use. Therefore, if used alone, self-report would have magnified the treatment effect of the BUP condition.