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 Over the past 60 years, the view that 'alcoholism' is a disease for which the only acceptable goal of treatment is abstinence has given way to the recognition that alcohol use disorders ( AUDs) occur on a continuum of severity, for which a variety of treatment options are appropriate. However, because the available treatments for AUDs are not effective for everyone, more research is needed to develop novel and more efficacious treatments to address the range of AUD severity in diverse populations. Here we offer recommendations for the design and analysis of alcohol treatment trials, with a specific focus on the careful conduct of randomized clinical trials of medications and nonpharmacological interventions for AUDs. Methods This paper provides a narrative review of the quality of published clinical trials and recommendations for the optimal design and analysis of treatment trials for AUDs. Results Despite considerable improvements in the design of alcohol clinical trials over the past 2 decades, many studies of AUD treatments have used faulty design features and statistical methods that are known to produce biased estimates of treatment efficacy. Conclusions The published statistical and methodological literatures provide clear guidance on methods to improve clinical trial design and analysis. Consistent use of state-of-the-art design features and analytic approaches will enhance the internal and external validity of treatment trials for AUDs across the spectrum of severity. The ultimate result of this attention to methodological rigor is that better treatment options will be identified for patients with an AUD. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Computer‐based delivery of cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) may be a less costly approach to increase dissemination and implementation of evidence‐based treatments for alcohol use disorder (AUD). However, comprehensive evaluations of costs, cost‐effectiveness, and cost–benefit of computer‐delivered interventions are rare. Methods: This study used data from a completed randomized clinical trial to evaluate the cost‐effectiveness and cost–benefit of a computer‐based version of CBT (CBT4CBT) for AUD. Sixty‐three participants were randomized to receive one of the following treatments at an outpatient treatment facility and attended at least one session: (1) treatment as usual (TAU), (2) CBT4CBT plus treatment as usual (CBT4CBT+TAU), or (3) CBT4CBT plus brief monitoring. Results: Median protocol treatment costs per participant differed significantly between conditions, Kruskal‐Wallis H(2) = 8.40, p = 0.02, such that CBT4CBT+TAU and CBT4CBT+monitoring each cost significantly more per participant than TAU. However, when nonprotocol treatment costs were included, total treatment costs per participant did not differ significantly between conditions. Median incremental cost‐effective ratios (ICERs) revealed that CBT4CBT+TAU was more costly and more effective than TAU. It cost $35.08 to add CBT4CBT to TAU to produce a reduction of one additional drinking day per month between baseline and the end of the 8‐week treatment protocol: CBT4CBT+monitoring cost $33.70 less to produce a reduction of one additional drinking day per month because CBT4CBT+monitoring was less costly than TAU and more effective at treatment termination, though not significantly so. Net benefit analyses suggested that costs of treatment, regardless of condition, did not offset monthly costs related to healthcare utilization, criminal justice involvement, and employment disruption between baseline and 6‐month follow‐up. Benefit–cost ratios were similar for each condition. Conclusions: Results of this pilot economic evaluation suggest that an 8‐week course of CBT4CBT may be a cost‐effective addition and potential alternative to standard outpatient treatment for AUD. Additional research is needed to generate conclusions about the cost–benefit of providing CBT4CBT to treatment‐seeking individuals participating in standard outpatient treatment. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background The construct of relapse is used widely in clinical research and practice of alcohol use disorder (AUD) treatment. The purpose of this study was to test the predictive validity of commonly appearing definitions of AUD relapse in the empirical literature. Methods Secondary analyses of data from Project MATCH and COMBINE were conducted using 7 definitions of 'relapse' based on drinking quantity within a single drinking episode: any drinking; at least 4/5 drinks for women/men; at least 4.3/7.1 drinks for women/men; at least 6/7 drinks for women/men; at least 6 drinks; at least 7/9 drinks for women/men; and at least 8/10 drinks for women/men. Relapse was used to predict alcohol consumption, related consequences, and nonconsumption outcomes (quality of life, psychosocial functioning) at the end of treatment and up to 1 year posttreatment. Results Regression analyses indicated within-treatment relapse definitions significantly predicted end-of-treatment alcohol consumption and alcohol-related consequences. Heavy drinking definitions were generally more predictive than the any drinking definition, but no single heavy drinking definition was consistently a better predictor of outcomes. Relapse definitions were less predictive of longer-term alcohol-related outcomes and both shorter- and longer-term nonconsumption outcomes, including health and psychosocial functioning. Conclusions One particular definition of relapse did not consistently stand out as the best predictor. Advances in AUD research may require reconceptualization of relapse as a multifaceted dynamic process and may consider a wider range of relevant behaviors (e.g., health and psychosocial functioning) when examining the change process in individuals with AUD. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]