Literature DB >> 20659066

Percentage of subjects with no heavy drinking days: evaluation as an efficacy endpoint for alcohol clinical trials.

Daniel Falk1, Xin Qun Wang, Lei Liu, Joanne Fertig, Margaret Mattson, Megan Ryan, Bankole Johnson, Robert Stout, Raye Z Litten.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Percent subjects with no heavy drinking days (PSNHDDs), an efficacy end point recommended by the Food and Drug Administration, considers abstinent individuals or those engaging in low-risk drinking behavior as successful responders to treatment. As PSNHDD has been used infrequently in previous alcohol clinical trials, we evaluated the utility and validity of the PSNHDD outcome measure in 2 large alcohol clinical trials.
METHODS: Data sets from 2 alcohol trials, COMBINE and a multisite topiramate trial, were used to analyze PSNHDDs and other traditional end points for the topiramate, naltrexone, acamprosate, and placebo groups. Effect sizes of PSNHDDs were determined for each month of active treatment and by varying grace periods-early periods in the trial where outcome is not considered in the analysis-and were compared with that of other traditional outcome measures. Long-term outcomes were compared for groups that had no heavy drinking days versus those that had heavy drinking days during active treatment.
RESULTS: PSNHDD effect sizes were significant for both topiramate (0.34 and 0.25 at months 2 and 3, respectively) and naltrexone (0.24 and 0.26 at months 3 and 4, respectively). Given a 2-month grace period for naltrexone, the effect size of PSNHDDs was comparable to the effect sizes using traditional outcome measures. With a 1-month grace period for topiramate, it was greater than the majority of traditional outcome measures. Little is gained by allowing up to 1, 2, or 3 heavy drinking days as an end point. Subjects with no HDDs during treatment fared better than those with some HDDs on drinking outcomes and alcohol-related consequences during a 1-year follow-up.
CONCLUSIONS: PSNHDD appears to be a clinically informative end point measure, especially when used with a grace period, and is as sensitive as most traditional outcome measures in detecting differences between the medication and placebo groups. Nonetheless, these findings should be replicated in other clinical data sets, particularly with medications that work via different mechanisms.
Copyright © 2010 by the Research Society on Alcoholism. No claim to original U.S. government works.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2010        PMID: 20659066     DOI: 10.1111/j.1530-0277.2010.01290.x

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Alcohol Clin Exp Res        ISSN: 0145-6008            Impact factor:   3.455


  99 in total

1.  Baseline trajectories of drinking moderate acamprosate and naltrexone effects in the COMBINE study.

Authors:  Ralitza Gueorguieva; Ran Wu; Dennis Donovan; Bruce J Rounsaville; David Couper; John H Krystal; Stephanie S O'Malley
Journal:  Alcohol Clin Exp Res       Date:  2010-12-08       Impact factor: 3.455

2.  Missing data in alcohol clinical trials: a comparison of methods.

Authors:  Kevin A Hallgren; Katie Witkiewitz
Journal:  Alcohol Clin Exp Res       Date:  2013-07-24       Impact factor: 3.455

3.  Predictors of Abstinence From Heavy Drinking During Follow-Up in COMBINE.

Authors:  Ralitza Gueorguieva; Ran Wu; Lisa M Fucito; Stephanie S O'Malley
Journal:  J Stud Alcohol Drugs       Date:  2015-11       Impact factor: 2.582

Review 4.  Medications development for the treatment of alcohol use disorder: insights into the predictive value of animal and human laboratory models.

Authors:  Megan M Yardley; Lara A Ray
Journal:  Addict Biol       Date:  2016-02-01       Impact factor: 4.280

5.  Relations Between Cognitive Functioning and Alcohol Use, Craving, and Post-Traumatic Stress: An Examination Among Trauma-Exposed Military Veterans With Alcohol Use Disorder.

Authors:  Adrienne J Heinz; David L Pennington; Nicole Cohen; Brandi Schmeling; Brooke A Lasher; Emily Schrodek; Steven L Batki
Journal:  Mil Med       Date:  2016-07       Impact factor: 1.437

6.  Trajectories of remission and mortality over 13 years after intake to substance use treatment.

Authors:  Andrea H Kline-Simon; Felicia W Chi; Jennifer R Mertens; Constance Weisner
Journal:  Am J Drug Alcohol Abuse       Date:  2017-02-16       Impact factor: 3.829

7.  Who achieves low risk drinking during alcohol treatment? An analysis of patients in three alcohol clinical trials.

Authors:  Katie Witkiewitz; Matthew R Pearson; Kevin A Hallgren; Stephen A Maisto; Corey R Roos; Megan Kirouac; Adam D Wilson; Kevin S Montes; Nick Heather
Journal:  Addiction       Date:  2017-06-26       Impact factor: 6.526

8.  Topiramate treatment for heavy drinkers: moderation by a GRIK1 polymorphism.

Authors:  Henry R Kranzler; Jonathan Covault; Richard Feinn; Stephen Armeli; Howard Tennen; Albert J Arias; Joel Gelernter; Timothy Pond; Cheryl Oncken; Kyle M Kampman
Journal:  Am J Psychiatry       Date:  2014-04       Impact factor: 18.112

Review 9.  Toward empirical identification of a clinically meaningful indicator of treatment outcome: features of candidate indicators and evaluation of sensitivity to treatment effects and relationship to one year follow up cocaine use outcomes.

Authors:  Kathleen M Carroll; Brian D Kiluk; Charla Nich; Elise E DeVito; Suzanne Decker; Donna LaPaglia; Dianne Duffey; Theresa A Babuscio; Samuel A Ball
Journal:  Drug Alcohol Depend       Date:  2014-01-31       Impact factor: 4.492

10.  Pain as a predictor of heavy drinking and any drinking lapses in the COMBINE study and the UK Alcohol Treatment Trial.

Authors:  Katie Witkiewitz; Kevin E Vowles; Elizabeth McCallion; Tessa Frohe; Megan Kirouac; Stephen A Maisto
Journal:  Addiction       Date:  2015-06-03       Impact factor: 6.526

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.