Search

Background The primary goals in conducting clinical trials of treatments for alcohol use disorders ( AUDs) are to identify efficacious treatments and determine which treatments are most efficacious for which patients. Accurate reporting of study design features and results is imperative to enable readers of research reports to evaluate to what extent a study has achieved these goals. Guidance on quality of clinical trial reporting has evolved substantially over the past 2 decades, primarily through the publication and widespread adoption of the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials statement. However, there is room to improve the adoption of those standards in reporting the design and findings of treatment trials for AUD. Methods This paper provides a narrative review of guidance on reporting quality in AUD treatment trials. Results Despite improvements in the reporting of results of treatment trials for AUD over the past 2 decades, many published reports provide insufficient information on design or methods. Conclusions The reporting of alcohol treatment trial design, analysis, and results requires improvement in 4 primary areas: (i) trial registration, (ii) procedures for recruitment and retention, (iii) procedures for randomization and intervention design considerations, and (iv) statistical methods used to assess treatment efficacy. Improvements in these areas and the adoption of reporting standards by authors, reviewers, and editors are critical to an accurate assessment of the reliability and validity of treatment effects. Continued developments in this area are needed to move AUD treatment research forward via systematic reviews and meta-analyses that maximize the utility of completed studies. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background Reducing the nicotine content in cigarettes could improve public health by reducing smoking and toxicant exposure, but may also have unintended consequences on alcohol use. The primary objective of this study was to examine the effect of reducing the nicotine content in cigarettes on alcohol outcomes. The secondary aim was to examine whether the effects of these cigarettes on alcohol outcomes were mediated by changes in nicotine exposure, smoking behavior, or withdrawal. Methods Between June 2013 and July 2014, we conducted a 7-arm, double-blind, randomized clinical trial at 10 U. S.-based sites. Daily smokers not currently interested in quitting ( n = 839) were assigned to equally sized groups to smoke for 6 weeks cigarettes containing either normal nicotine content ( NNC; 15.8 mg/g, 9 mg tar), moderate nicotine content (5.2 mg/g nicotine, 9 mg tar), or very low nicotine content ( VLNC; 0.4 to 2.4 mg/g, 9 to 13 mg tar). This investigation focused on a subsample of current drinkers ( n = 403). Each reduced nicotine content cigarette condition was compared to the NNC control condition with respect to trajectories over the 6-week period of average daily alcohol use and occurrence of binge drinking. Moderating variables were considered. Mediation analyses tested potential explanatory processes including changes in nicotine exposure, cigarettes per day, and withdrawal. Results Over time, reduced nicotine exposure and smoking rate mediated effects of VLNC cigarette use on reduced alcohol use. There was no evidence of compensatory drinking in response to nicotine reduction or nicotine withdrawal, even among subgroups expected to be at greater risk (e.g., relatively heavier drinkers, highly nicotine-dependent individuals). Conclusions The findings suggest that compensatory drinking is unlikely to occur in response to switching to VLNC cigarettes. In contrast, reducing the nicotine content of cigarettes may reduce alcohol use (clinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01681875). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Brief interventions have the potential to reduce heavy drinking in young adults who present to the emergency department (ED), but require time and resources rarely available. Text-messaging (TM) may provide an effective way to collect drinking data from young adults after ED discharge as well as to provide immediate feedback and ongoing support for behavior change. The feasibility of screening young adults in the ED, recruiting them for a TM-based interventional trial, collecting weekly drinking data through TM, and the variance in drinking outcomes remains unknown. Methods: Young adults in 3 urban EDs ( n = 45; aged 18 to 24 years, 54% women) identified as hazardous drinkers by the Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test-Consumption score were randomly assigned to weekly TM-based feedback with goal setting (Intervention), weekly TM-based drinking assessments without feedback (Assessment), or control. Participants in the Intervention group who reported ≥5 (for men) and ≥4 (for women) maximum drinks during any one 24-hour period were asked whether they would set a goal to reduce their drinking the following week. We describe the interaction with TM and goal setting. We also describe the heavy drinking days (HDDs), drinks per drinking day (DPDD) using timeline follow-back procedure at baseline and 3 months. Results: We screened 109 young adults over 157 hours across 24 unique days and 52 (48%; 95% CI 38 to 50) screened positive for hazardous drinking. Of these, 45 (87%; 95% CI 74 to 94) met inclusion criteria, were enrolled and randomized, and 6 (13%; 95% CI 5 to 27) did not complete 3-month web-based follow-up; 88% (95% CI 84 to 91) of weekly TM-based drinking assessments were answered, with 77% (95% CI 58 to 90) of participants responding to all 12 weeks. Agreeing to set a goal was associated with a repeat HDD 36% (95% CI 17 to 55) of the time compared with 63% (95% CI 44 to 81) when not willing to set a goal. At 3 months, participants that were exposed to the TM-based intervention had 3.4 (SD 5.4) fewer HDDs in the last month and 2.1 (SD 1.5) fewer DPDD when compared to baseline. Conclusions: TM can be used to assess drinking in young adults and can deliver brief interventions to young adults discharged from the ED. TM-based interventions have the potential to reduce heavy drinking among young adults but larger studies are needed to establish efficacy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]