Literature DB >> 29102827

Statistical considerations in the choice of endpoint for drug use disorder trials.

Garrett M Fitzmaurice1, Stuart R Lipsitz2, Roger D Weiss3.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: To date, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) requires drug use disorder trials developing new medications to use abstinence, a clinically meaningful endpoint, as the primary outcome. Although abstinence is the gold standard, only a relatively small percentage of participants in drug use disorder trials ever achieve this endpoint. This has prompted clinical trialists to consider quantitative measures of frequency of use, recognizing that some reductions in drug use that fall short of complete abstinence may potentially represent clinically important improvements. While much of the discussion concerning alternative outcomes to abstinence has focused on their clinical relevance, there are important statistical considerations that should also be taken into account.
PURPOSE: In this paper, we demonstrate and highlight the degree to which use of a quantitative measure of frequency of use, relative to a binary measure of abstinence, yields a very discernible increase in statistical power for assessing efficacy or effectiveness of treatments for drug use disorders.
CONCLUSION: While it is well established that dichotomizing a quantitative measure invariably results in loss of statistical power, what is less well recognized is the degree of loss in the context of drug use disorder trials. In some cases, the required sample size must be almost doubled to achieve the same level of power.
Copyright © 2017 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Abstinence; Drug use; Sample size; Statistical power

Mesh:

Year:  2017        PMID: 29102827      PMCID: PMC5687831          DOI: 10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2017.09.031

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Drug Alcohol Depend        ISSN: 0376-8716            Impact factor:   4.492


  14 in total

1.  On the practice of dichotomization of quantitative variables.

Authors:  Robert C MacCallum; Shaobo Zhang; Kristopher J Preacher; Derek D Rucker
Journal:  Psychol Methods       Date:  2002-03

2.  Breaking up is hard to do: the heartbreak of dichotomizing continuous data.

Authors:  David L Streiner
Journal:  Can J Psychiatry       Date:  2002-04       Impact factor: 4.356

Review 3.  The cost of dichotomising continuous variables.

Authors:  Douglas G Altman; Patrick Royston
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2006-05-06

4.  ECNP consensus meeting March 2003 guidelines for the investigation of efficacy in substance use disorders.

Authors:  W Van den Brink; S A Montgomery; J M Van Ree; B J van Zwieten-Boot
Journal:  Eur Neuropsychopharmacol       Date:  2006-01-25       Impact factor: 4.600

5.  Consequences of dichotomization.

Authors:  Valerii Fedorov; Frank Mannino; Rongmei Zhang
Journal:  Pharm Stat       Date:  2009 Jan-Mar       Impact factor: 1.894

6.  Beyond drug use: a systematic consideration of other outcomes in evaluations of treatments for substance use disorders.

Authors:  Stephen T Tiffany; Lawrence Friedman; Shelly F Greenfield; Deborah S Hasin; Ron Jackson
Journal:  Addiction       Date:  2011-10-07       Impact factor: 6.526

7.  Sample size calculations for ordered categorical data.

Authors:  J Whitehead
Journal:  Stat Med       Date:  1993-12-30       Impact factor: 2.373

8.  Primary outcome indices in illicit drug dependence treatment research: systematic approach to selection and measurement of drug use end-points in clinical trials.

Authors:  Dennis M Donovan; George E Bigelow; Gregory S Brigham; Kathleen M Carroll; Allan J Cohen; John G Gardin; John A Hamilton; Marilyn A Huestis; John R Hughes; Robert Lindblad; G Alan Marlatt; Kenzie L Preston; Jeffrey A Selzer; Eugene C Somoza; Paul G Wakim; Elizabeth A Wells
Journal:  Addiction       Date:  2011-07-22       Impact factor: 6.526

Review 9.  Measures of outcome for stimulant trials: ACTTION recommendations and research agenda.

Authors:  Brian D Kiluk; Kathleen M Carroll; Amy Duhig; Daniel E Falk; Kyle Kampman; Shengan Lai; Raye Z Litten; David J McCann; Ivan D Montoya; Kenzie L Preston; Phil Skolnick; Constance Weisner; George Woody; Redonna Chandler; Michael J Detke; Kelly Dunn; Robert H Dworkin; Joanne Fertig; Jennifer Gewandter; F Gerard Moeller; Tatiana Ramey; Megan Ryan; Kenneth Silverman; Eric C Strain
Journal:  Drug Alcohol Depend       Date:  2015-11-21       Impact factor: 4.492

10.  Measuring Outcome in the Treatment of Cocaine Dependence.

Authors:  Paul Crits-Christoph; Robert Gallop; Mary Beth Connolly Gibbons; Jaclyn S Sadicario; George Woody
Journal:  J Alcohol Drug Depend       Date:  2013-03
View more
  8 in total

Review 1.  Methods to reduce the incidence of false negative trial results in substance use treatment research.

Authors:  Rachel L Tomko; Erin A McClure; Lindsay M Squeglia; Hayley Treloar Padovano; Aimee L McRae-Clark; Nathaniel L Baker; Matthew J Carpenter; Kevin M Gray
Journal:  Curr Opin Psychol       Date:  2019-01-28

2.  Consumption outcomes in clinical trials of alcohol use disorder treatment: Consideration of standard drink misestimation.

Authors:  Megan Kirouac; Eric Kruger; Adam D Wilson; Kevin A Hallgren; Katie Witkiewitz
Journal:  Am J Drug Alcohol Abuse       Date:  2019-03-14       Impact factor: 3.829

3.  Distress tolerance trajectories following substance use treatment.

Authors:  Elizabeth D Reese; Christopher C Conway; Deepika Anand; Daniel J Bauer; Stacey B Daughters
Journal:  J Consult Clin Psychol       Date:  2019-04-22

4.  Characterizing cannabis use reduction and change in functioning during treatment: Initial steps on the path to new clinical endpoints.

Authors:  Jacob T Borodovsky; Michael J Sofis; Brian J Sherman; Kevin M Gray; Alan J Budney
Journal:  Psychol Addict Behav       Date:  2022-01-27

5.  What defines a clinically meaningful outcome in the treatment of substance use disorders: reductions in direct consequences of drug use or improvement in overall functioning?

Authors:  Brian D Kiluk; Garrett M Fitzmaurice; Eric C Strain; Roger D Weiss
Journal:  Addiction       Date:  2018-06-27       Impact factor: 6.526

6.  Within-treatment frequency of use versus abstinence as a predictor of longitudinal post-treatment follow-up assessments of drug use.

Authors:  Garrett M Fitzmaurice; Stuart R Lipsitz; Roger D Weiss
Journal:  Drug Alcohol Depend       Date:  2020-01-17       Impact factor: 4.492

7.  Measuring Within-Individual Cannabis Reduction in Clinical Trials: A Review of the Methodological Challenges.

Authors:  Rachel L Tomko; Kevin M Gray; Marilyn A Huestis; Lindsay M Squeglia; Nathaniel L Baker; Erin A McClure
Journal:  Curr Addict Rep       Date:  2019-11-19

8.  The relationship of frequency of cocaine use to substance and psychiatric disorders in the U.S. general population.

Authors:  Efrat Aharonovich; Jennifer Scodes; Melanie M Wall; Deborah S Hasin
Journal:  Drug Alcohol Depend       Date:  2021-07-27       Impact factor: 4.852

  8 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.