Faculty Bibliography

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.

BACKGROUND: Secondary analysis using data from the National Drug Abuse Treatment Clinical Trials Network randomized trial (NCT # 01207791), in which 1285 adult ED patients endorsing moderate to severe problems related to drug use were recruited from 6 US academic hospitals. OBJECTIVE: To investigate the utility of hair analysis in drug use disorder trials with infrequent visits, and its concordance with Timeline Follow Back (TLFB). METHODS: This study compared the self-reported drug use on the TLFB instrument with the biological measure of drug use from hair analysis for four major drug classes (Cannabis, Cocaine, Prescribed Opioids and Street Opioids). Both hair analysis and TLFB were conducted at 3, 6 and 12 month follow-up visit and each covered a 90-day recall period prior to the visit. RESULTS: The concordance between the hair sample results and the TLFB was high for cannabis and street opioids, but was low to moderate for cocaine and prescribed opioids. Under-reporting of drug use given the positive hair sample was always significantly lower for the drug the study participant noted as their primary drug of choice compared with other drugs the participant reported taking, irrespective of whether the drug of choice was cannabis, cocaine, street opioids and prescribed opioids. Over-reporting of drug use given the negative hair sample was always significantly higher for the drug of choice, except for cocaine. CONCLUSIONS: This study extends the literature on hair analysis supporting its use as a secondary outcome measure in clinical trials.

Opioid overdose prevention is a pressing public health concern and intranasal naloxone rescue kits are a useful tool in preventing fatal overdose. We evaluated the attitudes, knowledge, and experiences of patients and providers related to overdose and naloxone rescue. Over a six month period, patients and providers within a large community hospital in Staten Island were recruited to complete tailored questionnaires for their respective groupings. 100 patients and 101 providers completed questionnaires between August, 2014 and January, 2015. Patient participants were primarily Caucasian males with a mean age of 37.7 years, of which 65% accurately identified naloxone for opioid overdose, but only 21% knew more specific clinical features. 68% of patients had previously witnessed a drug overdose. Notably, 58% of patients anticipated their behavior would change if provided access to an intranasal naloxone rescue kit, of which 83% predicted an increase in opioid use. Prior overdose was significantly correlated with anticipating no change in subsequent opioid use pattern (p=0.02). 99% of patients reported that their rapport with their health-care provider would be enhanced if offered an intranasal naloxone rescue kit. As for providers, 24% had completed naloxone rescue kit training, and 96% were able to properly identify its clinical application. 50% of providers felt naloxone access would decrease the likelihood of an overdose occurring, and 58% felt it would not contribute to high-risk behavior. Among providers, completion of naloxone training was correlated with increased awareness of where to access kits for patients (p<0.001). This study suggests that patients and providers have distinct beliefs and attitudes toward overdose prevention. Patient-Provider discussion of overdose prevention enhances patients' rapport with providers. However, access to an intranasal naloxone rescue kit may make some patients more vulnerable to high-risk behavior. Future research efforts examining provider and patient beliefs and practices are needed to help develop and implement effective hospital-based opioid overdose prevention strategies.

INTRODUCTION: Electronic cigarette (EC) use is growing dramatically with use highest among young adults and current smokers. One of the most common reasons for using ECs is interest in quitting or reducing cigarettes per day (CPD); however there are few randomized controlled trials (RCT) on the effect of ECs on smoking abstinence and reduction. METHODS: We conducted a two-arm; double-blind RCT. Subjects were randomized to receive 3-weeks of either disposable 4.5% nicotine EC (intervention) or placebo EC. The primary outcome was self-reported reduction of >/=50% in the number of CPDs smoked at week 3 (end of treatment) compared to baseline. Study subjects (n=99) were young adult (21-35), current smokers (smoked >/=10 CPDs) living in NYC. RESULTS: Compared with baseline, a significant reduction in CPDs was observed at both study time periods (1 and 3 weeks) for intervention (p<.001) and placebo (p<.001) groups. Between-group analyses showed significantly fewer CPDs in the intervention group compared to the placebo group at week 3 (p=.03), but not at any other follow-up periods. The logistic regression analysis showed that using a greater number of ECs, treatment condition and higher baseline readiness to quit were significantly associated with achieving >/=50% reduction in CPDs at the end of treatment. CONCLUSION: A diverse young adult sample of current everyday smokers, who were not ready to quit, was able to reduce smoking with the help of ECs. Further study is needed to establish the role of both placebo and nicotine containing ECs in increasing both reduction and subsequent cessation.

BACKGROUND: Anxiety is common among persons with alcohol use disorder during early abstinence from alcohol. Although benzodiazepines are effective for short-term treatment of anxiety, they are rarely used beyond acute detoxification due to concerns about misuse or interactions with alcohol. OBJECTIVES: We conducted an open-label trial to explore the effects of coadministering lorazepam and disulfiram to alcohol-dependent patients with anxiety disorder symptoms. The rationale for this model is to minimize the risks of the benzodiazepine, while also potentially enhancing adherence to disulfiram. METHODS: Forty-one participants with DSM-IV alcohol dependence who also met syndromal criteria for anxiety disorder with or without co-occurring major depressive syndrome initiated treatment with lorazepam (starting dose 0.5 mg three times daily) and disulfiram (starting dose 500 mg three times weekly). Participants received 16 weeks of monitored pharmacotherapy with manualized medical management. RESULTS: Adherence to treatment decreased steadily with time (85.4% at 4 weeks, 36.6% at 16 weeks). Participants showed significant increases in percent abstinent days during treatment and at 24 weeks follow-up. Large reductions in anxiety, depression, and craving were observed during treatment, and improvement remained significant at 24 weeks. Duration of adherence with disulfiram strongly predicted abstinence at 16 weeks. There was no evidence of misuse of lorazepam or dose escalation during the study. CONCLUSION: Lorazepam can be safely used for short-term treatment of anxiety in combination with disulfiram treatment of alcohol use disorder. However, it is not clear that making lorazepam dispensing contingent on adherence to disulfiram enhances retention in disulfiram treatment.

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.

RATIONALE: When ad libitum-fed rats undergo cocaine place preference conditioning (CPP) but are switched to food restriction for testing, CPP becomes resistant to extinction and correlates with phosphorylation of alpha-amino-3-hydroxy-5-methyl-4-isoxazolepropionic acid (AMPA) receptor GluA1 at Ser845 in nucleus accumbens (NAc) core. OBJECTIVES: This study tested whether food restriction increases persistence of morphine CPP and conditioned place aversions (CPA) induced by LiCl and naloxone-precipitated morphine withdrawal. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Ad libitum-fed rats were conditioned with morphine (6.0 mg/kg, i.p.), LiCl (50.0/75.0 mg/kg, i.p.), or naloxone (1.0 mg/kg, s.c.) 22 h post-morphine (20.0 mg/kg, s.c.). Half of the subjects were then switched to food restriction. Daily testing resumed 3 weeks later, and brains were harvested when one diet group met extinction criterion. Western analyses probed for pSer845-GluA1, pERK1, and pERK2 in NAc. RESULTS: Food restriction increased persistence of morphine CPP and preference scores correlated with pSer845-GluA1 in NAc core and shell. LiCl CPA was curtailed by food restriction, yet pSer845-GluA1 and pERK2 were elevated in NAc core of food-restricted rats. Food restriction increased persistence of naloxone CPA and elevated pSer845-GluA1 in NAc core and shell, and aversion scores were negatively correlated with pERK1 and pERK2 in NAc core. CONCLUSIONS: These results suggest that food restriction prolongs responsiveness to environmental contexts paired with subjective effects of both morphine and morphine withdrawal. A mechanistic scheme, attributing these effects to upregulation of pSer845-GluA1, but subject to override by CPA-specific, pERK2-mediated extinction learning, is explored to accommodate opposite effects of food restriction on LiCl and naloxone CPA.

BACKGROUND: An Audio Computer-assisted Self Interview (ACASI) version of the Alcohol, Smoking, and Substance Involvement Screening Test (ASSIST) could reduce barriers to substance use screening and assessment in primary care settings. This study evaluated the diagnostic accuracy of an ACASI ASSIST for identification of unhealthy substance use and substance use disorders (SUD). METHODS: 399 adult patients were consecutively recruited from an urban safety-net primary care clinic. ACASI ASSIST scores for tobacco, alcohol, marijuana, and cocaine were compared against reference standard measures to assess the instrument's diagnostic accuracy for identifying unhealthy use and SUD, first using empirically-derived optimal cutoffs, and second using the currently recommended ASSIST cutoffs. RESULTS: For identifying any unhealthy use, at the empirically-derived cutoffs the ACASI ASSIST had 93.6% sensitivity and 85.8% specificity (AUC=0.90) for tobacco, 85.9% sensitivity and 60.3% specificity (AUC=0.73), for alcohol in men, 100% sensitivity and 62.4% specificity (AUC=0.81) for alcohol in women, 94.6% sensitivity and 81.6% specificity (AUC=0.88) for marijuana, and 86.1% sensitivity, 84.0% specificity (AUC=0.85) for cocaine. For SUD, sensitivity ranged from 79% (for alcohol in males), to 100% (for tobacco), and specificity was 83% or higher (AUCs ranged 0.83-0.91). For substances other than tobacco, empirically-derived cutoff scores were lower than the standard cutoffs, and resulted in higher sensitivity and lower specificity for identifying unhealthy substance use. CONCLUSIONS: The ACASI ASSIST is a valid measure of unhealthy use and SUD for substances that are commonly used by primary care patients, and could facilitate effective and efficient screening for substance use in medical settings.

AIMS: To examine the safety and effectiveness of buprenorphine + naloxone sublingual tablets (BUP, as Suboxone(R)) provided after administration of extended-release injectable naltrexone (XR-NTX, as Vivitrol(R)) to reduce cocaine use in participants who met DSM-IV criteria for cocaine dependence and past or current opioid dependence or abuse. METHODS: This multi-centered, double-blind, placebo-controlled study, conducted under the auspices of the National Drug Abuse Treatment Clinical Trials Network, randomly assigned 302 participants at sites in California, Oregon, Washington, Colorado, Texas, Georgia, Ohio, New York, and Washington D.C., USA to 1 of 3 conditions provided with XR-NTX: 4 mg/day BUP (BUP4, n = 100), 16 mg/day BUP (BUP16, n = 100), or no buprenorphine (placebo; PLB, n = 102). Participants received pharmacotherapy for 8 weeks, with 3 clinic visits per week. Cognitive Behavioral Therapy was provided weekly. Follow-up assessments occurred at 1 and 3 months post-intervention. The planned primary outcome was urine drug screen (UDS)-corrected, self-reported cocaine use during the last 4 weeks of treatment. Planned secondary analyses assessed cocaine use by UDS, medication adherence, retention, and adverse events. RESULTS: No group differences were found between groups for the primary outcome (BUP4 vs. PLB, p = 0.262; BUP16 vs PLB, p = 0.185). Longitudinal analysis of UDS data during the evaluation period using generalized linear mixed equations found a statistically significant difference between BUP16 and PLB (p = 0.022, OR = 1.71) but not for BUP4 (p = 0.105, OR = 1.05). No secondary outcome differences across groups were found for adherence, retention, or adverse events. CONCLUSIONS: Buprenorphine + naloxone, used in combination with naltrexone, may be associated with reductions in cocaine use among people who meet DSM-IV criteria for cocaine dependence and past or current opioid dependence or abuse

Growing nonmedical prescription opioid analgesic use among suburban and rural Whites has changed the public's perception of the nature of opioid addiction, and of appropriate interventions. Opioid addiction has been recast as a biological disorder in which patients are victims of their neurotransmitters and opioid prescribers are irresponsible purveyors of dangerous substances requiring controls. This framing has led to a different set of policy responses than the "War on Drugs" that has focused on heroin trade in poor urban communities; in response to prescription opioid addiction, prescription drug monitoring programs and tamper-resistant opioid formulations have arisen as primary interventions in place of law enforcement. Through the analysis of preliminary findings from interviews with physicians who are certified to manage opioid addiction with the opioid pharmaceutical buprenorphine, we argue that an increase in prescriber monitoring has shifted the focus from addicted people to prescribers as a threat, paradoxically driving users to illicit markets and constricting their access to pharmaceutical treatment for opioid addiction. Prescriber monitoring is also altering clinical cultures of care, as general physicians respond to heightened surveillance and the psychosocial complexities of treating addiction with either rejection of opioid dependent patients, or with resourceful attempts to create support systems for their treatment where none exists.