Search

Substance use disorders (SUDs) are thought to predict care discontinuity, though magnitude and substance-specific variance of effects are unclear. This report of analytic work undertaken with a multi-regional American cohort of 9153 care enrollees addresses these gaps. Care retention was computed from 24-month post-linkage clinic visit documentation, with SUD cases identified from patient-report screening instruments. Two generalized estimating equations tested binary and hierarchial SUD predictors of retention, and potential effect modification by patient age-group, sex, and care site. Findings demonstrate: (1) detrimental SUD effect, equivalent to a nine percentage-point decrease in retention, with independent effects of age-group and care site; (2) substance-specific effect of marijuana UD associated with lower retention; and (3) age-modification of each effect on care discontinuity, with SUDs serving as a risk factor among 18-29 year-olds and protective factor among 60+ year-olds. Collective findings document patient attributes as influences that place particular subgroups at-risk to discontinue care.

We sought to examine behavioral health indicators for an early adolescent population of American Indians/Alaska Natives (AI/AN) within an urban setting in Washington State. We conducted secondary data analyses from a randomized clinical trial implemented in local middle schools that compared AI/ANs (n = 43), non-Hispanic Whites (n = 620), and other racial/ethnic minority youth (n = 527) across a variety of behavioral health risks. AI/AN youth reported significantly more depressive symptoms than other racial/ethnic minorities as well as non-Hispanic Whites. They also reported more discrimination, more generalized anxiety, and were more likely to have initiated substance use, in comparison to non-Hispanic Whites. Psychosocial screening and early intervention are critically needed for AI/AN youth.

In 2005 the American College of Surgeons passed a mandate requiring that level I trauma centers have mechanisms to identify and intervene with problem drinkers. The aim of this investigation was to determine if a multi-level trauma center intervention targeting both providers and patients would lead to higher-quality alcohol screening and brief intervention (SBI) when compared with trauma center mandate compliance without implementation enhancements.Cluster randomized trial in which intervention site (site n = 10, patient n = 409) providers received 1-day workshop training on evidence-based motivational interviewing (MI) alcohol interventions and four 30-minute feedback and coaching sessions; control sites (site n = 10, patient n = 469) implemented the mandate without study team training enhancements.Trauma centers in the United States of America.A total of 878 blood alcohol-positive in-patients with and without traumatic brain injury (TBI).MI skills of providers were assessed with fidelity coded standardized patient interviews. All patients were interviewed at baseline and 6- and 12-months post-injury with the Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test (AUDIT).Intervention site providers consistently demonstrated enhanced MI skills compared with control providers. Intervention patients demonstrated an 8% reduction in AUDIT hazardous drinking relative to controls over the course of the year after injury (relative risk = 0.88, 95%, confidence interval = 0.79, 0.98). Intervention patients were more likely to demonstrate improvements in alcohol use problems in the absence of traumatic brain injury (TBI) (P = 0.002).Trauma center providers can be trained to deliver higher-quality alcohol screening and brief intervention (SBI) than untrained providers, which is associated with modest reductions in alcohol use problems, particularly among patients without TBI.

The study evaluated the effectiveness of an 8-week combined group plus individual 12-step facilitative intervention on stimulant drug use and 12-step meeting attendance and service.Multisite randomized controlled trial, with assessments at baseline, mid-treatment, end of treatment, and 3- and 6-month post-randomization follow-ups (FUs).Intensive outpatient substance treatment programs.Individuals with stimulant use disorders (n = 471) randomly assigned to treatment as usual (TAU) or TAU into which the Stimulant Abuser Groups to Engage in 12-Step (STAGE-12) intervention was integrated.Urinalysis and self-reports of substance use and 12-step attendance and activities.Group sessions focused on increasing acceptance of 12-step principles; individual sessions incorporated an intensive referral procedure connecting participants to 12-step volunteers.Compared with TAU, STAGE-12 participants had significantly greater odds of self-reported stimulant abstinence during the active 8-week treatment phase; however, among those who had not achieved abstinence during this period, STAGE-12 participants had more days of use. STAGE-12 participants had lower Addiction Severity Index Drug Composite scores at and a significant reduction from baseline to the 3-month FU, attended 12-step meetings on a greater number of days during the early phase of active treatment, engaged in more other types of 12-step activities throughout the active treatment phase and the entire FU period, and had more days of self-reported service at meetings from mid-treatment through the 6-month FU.The present findings are mixed with respect to the impact of integrating the STAGE-12 intervention into intensive outpatient drug treatment compared with TAU on stimulant drug use. However, the results more clearly indicate that individuals in STAGE-12 had higher rates of 12-step meeting attendance and were engaged in more related activities throughout both the active treatment phase and the entire 6-month FU period than did those in TAU.

There is need to improve treatment effectiveness for stimulant misusers, and one means of doing so is by tailoring services to account for common diagnostic comorbidities and psychosocial challenges they face.Using its publicly available datasets, this CTN-approved secondary analysis project examined prevalence of alcohol use disorders (AUDs) among primary stimulant misusing treatment-seekers as well as impact of AUD comorbidity on their pre-treatment psychosocial functioning.Upon identifying a primary stimulant misuser subsample (N = 1133) from among aggregated treatment-seekers across eight CTN trials, diagnostic data were used to document lifetime AUD rates. Paired comparisons, stratified by stimulant drug type (e.g., amphetamine, cocaine) then tested the influence of AUD comorbidity on psychosocial indices from the Addiction Severity Index - Lite.A high AUD rate (45%) was found in this client population. Among primary cocaine misusers, those with AUD were more likely to: (i) show elevated Addiction Severity Index composite scores, (ii) perceive greater importance of drug treatment, and (iii) endorse psychiatric symptoms and perceived need for their treatment. Among primary amphetamine misusers, those with AUD were more likely to endorse specific psychiatric symptoms.Study findings document AUD comorbidity as a fairly common diagnostic feature of primary stimulant misusers, and suggest it is a pervasive influence on the pre-treatment psychosocial functioning of cocaine misusers.This study demonstrates the utility of CTN common assessment battery for secondary analysis projects, though challenges noted during its conduct highlight the value of consistent data collection and documentation within and across CTN trials.

Clinical trials test the safety and efficacy of behavioral and pharmacological interventions in drug-dependent individuals. However, there is no consensus about the most appropriate outcome(s) to consider in determining treatment efficacy or on the most appropriate methods for assessing selected outcome(s). We summarize the discussion and recommendations of treatment and research experts, convened by the US National Institute on Drug Abuse, to select appropriate primary outcomes for drug dependence treatment clinical trials, and in particular the feasibility of selecting a common outcome to be included in all or most trials.A brief history of outcomes employed in prior drug dependence treatment research, incorporating perspectives from tobacco and alcohol research, is included. The relative merits and limitations of focusing on drug-taking behavior, as measured by self-report and qualitative or quantitative biological markers, are evaluated.Drug-taking behavior, measured ideally by a combination of self-report and biological indicators, is seen as the most appropriate proximal primary outcome in drug dependence treatment clinical trials.We conclude that the most appropriate outcome will vary as a function of salient variables inherent in the clinical trial, such as the type of intervention, its target, treatment goals (e.g. abstinence or reduction of use) and the perspective being taken (e.g. researcher, clinical program, patient, society). It is recommended that a decision process, based on such trial variables, be developed to guide the selection of primary and secondary outcomes as well as the methods to assess them.

The ultimate goal of alcohol treatment research is to develop interventions that help individuals reduce their alcohol use. To determine whether a treatment is effective, researchers must then evaluate whether a particular treatment affects changes in drinking behavior after treatment. Importantly, drinking following treatment tends to be highly variable between individuals and within individuals across time.Using data from the COMBINE study (COMBINE Study Group, 2003), the current study compared 3 commonly used and novel methods for analyzing changes in drinking over time: latent growth curve (LGC) analysis, growth mixture models, and latent Markov models. Specifically, using self-reported drinking data from all participants (n = 1,383, 69% male), we were interested in examining how well the 3 estimated models were able to explain observed changes in percent heavy drinking days during the 52 weeks following treatment.The results from all 3 models indicated that the majority of individuals were either abstinent or reported few heavy drinking days during the 52-week follow-up and only a minority of individuals (10% or fewer) reported consistently frequent heavy drinking following treatment. All 3 models provided a reasonably good fit to the observed data with the latent Markov models providing the closest fit. The observed drinking trajectories evinced discontinuity, whereby individuals seem to transition between drinking and nondrinking across adjacent follow-up assessment points. The LGC and growth mixture models both assumed continuous change and could not explain this discontinuity in the observed drinking trajectories, whereas the latent Markov approach explicitly modeled transitions between drinking states.The 3 models tested in the current study provided a unique look at the observed drinking among individuals who received treatment for alcohol dependence. Latent Markov modeling may be a highly desirable methodology for gaining a better sense of transitions between positive and negative drinking outcomes.

The National Drug Abuse Treatment Clinical Trials Network (CTN) began in 2000 with the goal of "improv[ing] the quality of drug abuse treatment throughout the country using science as the vehicle." Since then, 24 discrete clinical trials were launched, 20 are completed, and 15 have published main outcome papers. Of the latter, 4 tested pharmacological treatment, 8 psychosocial/behavioral treatment, 1 a combination of medication and counseling, and 2 targeted HIV/hepatitis C virus risk behavior. We review main study findings for these trials, including treatment retention, substance use or risk behavior outcomes, and secondary outcomes when analyzed. The purpose of this review is to identify the incremental progress toward improving drug treatment made by these trials and to propose next steps for the CTN and for the field arising from these studies. The CTN provides a unique opportunity to systematically design trials that incorporate treatment improvements from previous trials and to direct efforts toward innovations most likely to be incorporated into practice.