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 Despite harmful drinking causing a significant burden on global health, there is a large treatment gap, especially in low- and middle-income countries. A major barrier to care is the lack of adequately skilled human resources to deliver contextually appropriate treatments. This paper describes the systematic process used to develop Counselling for Alcohol Problems ( CAP), a brief psychological treatment (PT) for delivery by lay counselors in routine primary care settings to men with harmful drinking in India. Methods CAP was developed using a methodology involving 3 sequential steps: (i) identifying potential treatment strategies; (ii) developing a theoretical framework for the treatment; and (iii) evaluating the acceptability and feasibility of the treatment. Results CAP is a 3-phase treatment delivered over 1 to 4 sessions based on a motivational interviewing ( MI) stance and involves the following strategies: assessment and personalized feedback, family engagement, drink refusal skills, skills to address drinking urges, problem-solving skills and handling difficult emotions, and relapse prevention and management. Data from a case series were used to inform several adaptations to enhance the acceptability of CAP to the recipients and feasibility of delivery by lay counselors of the treatment, for example expansion of the target group to include alcohol-dependent patients and the extension of the delivery settings to include home-based delivery. There was preliminary evidence of the effectiveness of CAP. Conclusions CAP is an acceptable brief PT for harmful drinking delivered by lay counselors in primary care whose effectiveness is currently being tested in a randomized controlled trial based in primary care in Goa, India. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]