Faculty Bibliography

A promising approach to addressing substance use disorders is to integrate pharmacotherapy with a behavioral treatment with which synergy is possible. In this review, we focus on recent research suggesting that this approach may be effective for cocaine and cannabis use disorders, both of which currently lack efficacious medications. We summarize potential targets of pharmacotherapy of particular relevance to combined medication-behavioral treatment and examine preliminary evidence of clinical efficacy. Common to these promising medications is a hypothesized mechanism of action predicated on reversing drug-related neural adaptations, such as high reactivity to stress or drug cues, that might undermine fruitful engagement with behavioral treatment. We also review emerging medications, such as certain glutamatergic and serotonergic agents, which may be feasibly integrated with existing treatments. We conclude with an outline of future directions for research.

We examine ethical challenges encountered in the design of an effectiveness trial (CTN-0051; X:BOT), comparing sublingual buprenorphine-naloxone (BUP-NX), an established treatment for opioid dependence, to the newer extended-release injectable naltrexone (XR-NTX). Ethical issues surrounded: 1) known poor effectiveness of one possible, commonly used treatment as usual control condition-detoxification followed by counseling without medication; 2) the role of patients' preferences for treatments, given that treatments were clinically approved and available to the population; 3) differences between the optimal "usual treatment" clinical settings for different treatments making it challenging to design a fair comparison; 4) vested interest groups favoring different treatments exerting potential influence on the design process; 5) potentially vulnerable populations of substance users and prisoners; 6) potential therapeutic misconception in the implementation of safety procedures; and 7) high cost of a large trial limiting questions that could be addressed. We examine how the design features underlying these ethical issues are characteristic of effectiveness trials, which are often large trials that compare treatments with varying degrees of existing effectiveness data and familiarity to patients and clinicians, in community-based treatment settings, with minimal exclusion criteria that could involve vulnerable populations. Hence, investigators designing effectiveness trials may wish to remain alert to the possibility of similar ethical issues.

The acceptability and clinical impact of a web-based intervention among patients entering addiction treatment who lack recent internet access are unclear. This secondary analysis of a national multisite treatment study (NIDA Clinical Trials Network-0044) assessed for acceptability and clinical impact of a web-based psychosocial intervention among participants enrolling in community-based, outpatient addiction treatment programs. Participants were randomly assigned to 12 weeks of a web-based therapeutic education system (TES) based on the community reinforcement approach plus contingency management versus treatment as usual (TAU). Demographic and clinical characteristics, and treatment outcomes were compared among participants with recent internet access in the 90 days preceding enrollment (N = 374) and without internet access (N = 133). Primary outcome variables included (1) acceptability of TES (i.e., module completion; acceptability of web-based intervention) and (2) clinical impact (i.e., self-reported abstinence confirmed by urine drug/breath alcohol tests; retention measured as time to dropout). Internet use was common (74 %) and was more likely among younger (18-49 years old) participants and those who completed high school (p < .001). Participants randomized to TES (n = 255) without baseline internet access rated the acceptability of TES modules significantly higher than those with internet access (t = 2.49, df = 218, p = .01). There was a near significant interaction between treatment, baseline abstinence, and internet access on time to dropout (chi 2(1) = 3.8089, p = .051). TES was associated with better retention among participants not abstinent at baseline who had internet access (X 2(1) = 6.69, p = .01). These findings demonstrate high acceptability of this web-based intervention among participants that lacked recent internet access.

INTRODUCTION: For opioid-dependent patients in the US and elsewhere, detoxification and counseling-only aftercare are treatment mainstays.Long-term abstinence is rarely achieved; many patients relapse and overdose after detoxification.Methadone, buprenorphine-naloxone (BUP-NX) and extended-release naltrexone (XR-NTX) can prevent opioid relapse but are underutilized.This study is intended to develop an evidence-base to help patients and providers make informed choices and to foster wider adoption of relapse-prevention pharmacotherapies. METHODS: The National Institute on Drug Abuse's Clinical Trials Network (CTN) study CTN-0051, X:BOT, is a comparative effectiveness study of treatment for 24weeks with XR-NTX, an opioid antagonist, versus BUP-NX, a high affinity partial opioid agonist, for opioid dependent patients initiating treatment at 8 short-term residential (detoxification) units and continuing care as outpatients.Up to 600 participants are randomized (1:1) to XR-NTX or BUP-NX. RESULTS: The primary outcome is time to opioid relapse (i.e., loss of persistent abstinence) across the 24-week treatment phase.Differences between arms in the distribution of time-to-relapse will be compared (construction of the asymptotic 95% CI for the hazard ratio of the difference between arms).Secondary outcomes include proportions retained in treatment, rates of opioid abstinence, adverse events, cigarette, alcohol, and other drug use, and HIV risk behaviors; opioid cravings, quality of life, cognitive function, genetic moderators, and cost effectiveness. CONCLUSIONS: XR-NTX and BUP-NX differ considerably in their characteristics and clinical management; no studies to date have compared XR-NTX with buprenorphine maintenance.Study design choices and compromises inherent to a comparative effectiveness trial of distinct treatment regimens are reviewed. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT02032433.

BACKGROUND: Extended-release naltrexone, a sustained-release monthly injectable formulation of the full mu-opioid receptor antagonist, is effective for the prevention of relapse to opioid dependence. Data supporting its effectiveness in U.S. criminal justice populations are limited. METHODS: In this five-site, open-label, randomized trial, we compared a 24-week course of extended-release naltrexone (Vivitrol) with usual treatment, consisting of brief counseling and referrals for community treatment programs, for the prevention of opioid relapse among adult criminal justice offenders (i.e., persons involved in the U.S. criminal justice system) who had a history of opioid dependence and a preference for opioid-free rather than opioid maintenance treatments and who were abstinent from opioids at the time of randomization. The primary outcome was the time to an opioid-relapse event, which was defined as 10 or more days of opioid use in a 28-day period as assessed by self-report or by testing of urine samples obtained every 2 weeks; a positive or missing sample was computed as 5 days of opioid use. Post-treatment follow-up occurred at weeks 27, 52, and 78. RESULTS: A total of 153 participants were assigned to extended-release naltrexone and 155 to usual treatment. During the 24-week treatment phase, participants assigned to extended-release naltrexone had a longer median time to relapse than did those assigned to usual treatment (10.5 vs. 5.0 weeks, P<0.001; hazard ratio, 0.49; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.36 to 0.68), a lower rate of relapse (43% vs. 64% of participants, P<0.001; odds ratio, 0.43; 95% CI, 0.28 to 0.65), and a higher rate of opioid-negative urine samples (74% vs. 56%, P<0.001; odds ratio, 2.30; 95% CI, 1.48 to 3.54). At week 78 (approximately 1 year after the end of the treatment phase), rates of opioid-negative urine samples were equal (46% in each group, P=0.91). The rates of other prespecified secondary outcome measures--self-reported cocaine, alcohol, and intravenous drug use, unsafe sex, and reincarceration--were not significantly lower with extended-release naltrexone than with usual treatment. Over the total 78 weeks observed, there were no overdose events in the extended-release naltrexone group and seven in the usual-treatment group (P=0.02). CONCLUSIONS: In this trial involving criminal justice offenders, extended-release naltrexone was associated with a rate of opioid relapse that was lower than that with usual treatment. Opioid-use prevention effects waned after treatment discontinuation. (Funded by the National Institute on Drug Abuse; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00781898.).

BACKGROUND: Cannabis use disorder is associated with substantial morbidity and, after alcohol, is the most common drug bringing adolescents and adults into treatment. At present, there are no FDA-approved medications for cannabis use disorder. Combined pharmacologic interventions might be particularly useful in mitigating withdrawal symptoms and promoting abstinence. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the safety and efficacy of dronabinol, a synthetic form of delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol, a naturally occurring pharmacologically active component of marijuana, and lofexidine, an alpha-2 agonist, in treating cannabis dependence. METHODS: One hundred fifty six cannabis-dependent adults were enrolled and following a 1-week placebo lead-in phase 122 were randomized in a double-blind, placebo-controlled, 11-week trial. Participants were randomized to receive dronabinol 20mg three times a day and lofexidine 0.6mg three times a day or placebo. Medications were maintained until the end of week eight, were then tapered over two weeks and patients were monitored off medications during the last study week. All participants received weekly motivational enhancement and relapse prevention therapy. Marijuana use was assessed using the timeline follow-back method. RESULTS: There was no significant difference between treatment groups in the proportion of participants who achieved 3 weeks of abstinence during the maintenance phase of the trial (27.9% for the medication group and 29.5% for the placebo group), although both groups showed a reduction over time. CONCLUSIONS: Based on this treatment study, the combined intervention did not show promise as a treatment for cannabis use disorder.

The deployment of health information technologies promises to optimize clinical outcomes for populations with substance use disorders. Electronic health records, web-based counseling interventions, and mobile phone applications enhance the delivery of evidence-based behavioral and pharmacological treatments, with minimal burden to clinical personnel, infrastructure, and work flows. This clinical case shares a recent experience utilizing mobile phone text messaging between an office-based buprenorphine provider in a safety net ambulatory clinic and a patient seeking buprenorphine treatment for opioid use disorder. The case highlights the use of text message-based physician-patient communication to facilitate unobserved "home" induction onto buprenorphine.

The objective of this study was to investigate the relation between self-report and objective assessment of motivational interviewing (MI) skills following training and supervision. After an MI workshop, 96 clinicians from 26 community programs (age 21-68, 65% female, 40.8% Black, 29.6% Caucasian, 24.5% Hispanic, 2.0% Asian, 3.1% other) were randomized to supervision (tele-conferencing or tape-based), or workshop only. At four time points, trainees completed a self-report of MI skill, using items from the MI understanding questionnaire (MIU), and were objectively assessed by raters using the Motivational Interviewing Treatment Integrity (MITI) system. Correlations were calculated between MIU and MITI scores. A generalized linear mixed model was tested on MIU scores, with MITI scores, supervision condition and time as independent variables. MIU scores increased from pre-workshop (mean = 4.74, SD = 1.79) to post-workshop (mean = 6.31, SD = 1.03) (t = 8.69, p < .0001). With supervision, scores continued to increase, from post-workshop to week 8 (mean = 7.07, SD = 0.91, t = 5.60, p < .0001) and from week 8 to week 20 (mean = 7.28, SD = 0.94, t = 2.43, p = .02). However, MIU scores did not significantly correlate with MITI scores, with or without supervision. Self-reported ability increased with supervision, but self-report was not an indicator of objectively measured skill. This suggests that training does not increase correspondence between self-report and objective assessment, so community treatment programs should not rely on clinician self-report to assess the need for ongoing training and supervision and it may be necessary to train clinicians to accurately assess their own skill.

IMPORTANCE/OBJECTIVE:Adult attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) is prevalent but often unrecognized, in part because it tends to co-occur with other disorders such as substance use disorders. Cocaine use disorder is one such disorder with high co-occurrence of ADHD. OBJECTIVE:To examine whether treatment of co-occurring ADHD and cocaine use disorder with extended-release mixed amphetamine salts is effective at both improving ADHD symptoms and reducing cocaine use. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS/METHODS:Thirteen-week, randomized, double-blind, 3-arm, placebo-controlled trial of participants meeting DSM-IV-TR criteria for both ADHD and cocaine use disorder conducted between December 1, 2007, and April 15, 2013, at 2 academic health center substance abuse treatment research sites. One hundred twenty-six adults diagnosed as having comorbid ADHD and cocaine use disorder were randomized to extended-release mixed amphetamine salts or placebo. Analysis was by intent-to-treat population. INTERVENTIONS/METHODS:Participants received extended-release mixed amphetamine salts (60 or 80 mg) or placebo daily for 13 weeks and participated in weekly individual cognitive behavioral therapy. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES/METHODS:For ADHD, percentage of participants achieving at least a 30% reduction in ADHD symptom severity, measured by the Adult ADHD Investigator Symptom Rating Scale; for cocaine use, cocaine-negative weeks (by self-report of no cocaine use and weekly benzoylecgonine urine screens) during maintenance medication (weeks 2-13) and percentage of participants achieving abstinence for the last 3 weeks. RESULTS:More patients achieved at least a 30% reduction in ADHD symptom severity in the medication groups (60 mg: 30 of 40 participants [75.0%]; odds ratio [OR] = 5.23; 95% CI, 1.98-13.85; P < .001; and 80 mg: 25 of 43 participants [58.1%]; OR = 2.27; 95% CI, 0.94-5.49; P = .07) compared with placebo (17 of 43 participants [39.5%]). The odds of a cocaine-negative week were higher in the 80-mg group (OR = 5.46; 95% CI, 2.25-13.27; P < .001) and 60-mg group (OR = 2.92; 95% CI, 1.15-7.42; P = .02) compared with placebo. Rates of continuous abstinence in the last 3 weeks were greater for the medication groups than the placebo group: 30.2% for the 80-mg group (OR = 11.87; 95% CI, 2.25-62.62; P = .004) and 17.5% for the 60-mg group (OR = 5.85; 95% CI, 1.04-33.04; P = .04) vs 7.0% for placebo. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE/CONCLUSIONS:Extended-release mixed amphetamine salts in robust doses along with cognitive behavioral therapy are effective for treatment of co-occurring ADHD and cocaine use disorder, both improving ADHD symptoms and reducing cocaine use. The data suggest the importance of screening and treatment of ADHD in adults presenting with cocaine use disorder. TRIAL REGISTRATION/BACKGROUND:clinicaltrials.gov Identifier:NCT00553319.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES/OBJECTIVE:Osmotic-release oral system methylphenidate (OROS-MPH) did not show overall benefit as an adjunct smoking cessation treatment for adult smokers with ADHD in a randomized, placebo-controlled, multicenter clinical trial. A secondary analysis revealed a significant interaction between ADHD symptom severity and treatment-response to OROS-MPH, but did not account for other baseline covariates or estimate the magnitude of improvement in outcome if treatment were optimized. This present study addressed the gaps in how this relationship should inform clinical practice. METHODS:Using data from the Adult Smokers with ADHD Trial (N = 255, six sites in five US States), we build predictive models to calculate the probability of achieving prolonged abstinence, verified by self-report, and expired carbon monoxide measurement. We evaluate the potential improvement in achieving prolonged abstinence with and without stratification on baseline ADHD severity. RESULTS:Predictive modeling demonstrates that the interaction between baseline ADHD severity and treatment group is not affected by adjusting for other baseline covariates. A clinical trial simulation shows that giving OROS-MPH to patients with baseline Adult ADHD Symptom Rating Scale (ADHD-RS) >35 and placebo to those with ADHD-RS ≤35 would significantly improve the prolonged abstinence rate (52 ± 8% vs. 42 ± 5%, p < .001). CONCLUSIONS AND SCIENTIFIC SIGNIFICANCE/CONCLUSIONS:In smokers with ADHD, utilization of a simple decision rule that stratifies patients based on baseline ADHD severity can enhance overall achievement of prolonged smoking abstinence. Similar analysis methods should be considered for future clinical trials for other substance use disorders.