Garrett M Fitzmaurice1, Stuart R Lipsitz2, Roger D Weiss3. 1. McLean Hospital, 115 Mill Street, Belmont, MA 02478, United States; Harvard Medical School, 25 Shattuck Street, Boston, MA 02115, United States. Electronic address: fitzmaur@hsph.harvard.edu. 2. Brigham and Women's Hospital, 1620 Tremont Street, Boston, MA 02120, United States; Harvard Medical School, 25 Shattuck Street, Boston, MA 02115, United States. 3. McLean Hospital, 115 Mill Street, Belmont, MA 02478, United States; Harvard Medical School, 25 Shattuck Street, Boston, MA 02115, United States.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Abstinence is a widely-used endpoint in clinical trials of stimulant use disorders. A quantitative measure of frequency of use may be a more sensitive endpoint; however, it is important to establish that it is associated with post-treatment drug use. We examine and compare how within-treatment abstinence and frequency of use are related to two post-treatment longitudinal measures of drug use. METHODS: For each of three existing stimulant use disorder clinical trial datasets, we examined the association between within-treatment frequency of use (based on urine screens), within-treatment abstinence, and post-treatment follow-up assessments of drug use (urine screens and reported days of use). In joint analyses that simultaneously model the effects of within-treatment abstinence and frequency of use, it is possible to discern their relative importance as predictors of post-treatment drug use during the 12 months following the end of treatment. RESULTS: Results indicate a quantitative measure of within-treatment frequency of use was associated with longitudinal post-treatment follow-up assessments of drug use. Results from joint analyses of post-treatment follow-up drug use assessed by urine screens suggest that within-treatment frequency of use, rather than abstinence per se, is predictive of post-treatment drug use. However, results from joint analyses of self-report of days of use are equivocal. CONCLUSION: Results lend support to the use of a quantitative measure of within-treatment drug use as an alternative to complete abstinence. They suggest that some within-treatment use that fall short of complete abstinence may potentially represent clinically important improvements given their association with post-treatment drug use.
BACKGROUND: Abstinence is a widely-used endpoint in clinical trials of stimulant use disorders. A quantitative measure of frequency of use may be a more sensitive endpoint; however, it is important to establish that it is associated with post-treatment drug use. We examine and compare how within-treatment abstinence and frequency of use are related to two post-treatment longitudinal measures of drug use. METHODS: For each of three existing stimulant use disorder clinical trial datasets, we examined the association between within-treatment frequency of use (based on urine screens), within-treatment abstinence, and post-treatment follow-up assessments of drug use (urine screens and reported days of use). In joint analyses that simultaneously model the effects of within-treatment abstinence and frequency of use, it is possible to discern their relative importance as predictors of post-treatment drug use during the 12 months following the end of treatment. RESULTS: Results indicate a quantitative measure of within-treatment frequency of use was associated with longitudinal post-treatment follow-up assessments of drug use. Results from joint analyses of post-treatment follow-up drug use assessed by urine screens suggest that within-treatment frequency of use, rather than abstinence per se, is predictive of post-treatment drug use. However, results from joint analyses of self-report of days of use are equivocal. CONCLUSION: Results lend support to the use of a quantitative measure of within-treatment drug use as an alternative to complete abstinence. They suggest that some within-treatment use that fall short of complete abstinence may potentially represent clinically important improvements given their association with post-treatment drug use.
Authors: P Crits-Christoph; L Siqueland; J Blaine; A Frank; L Luborsky; L S Onken; L R Muenz; M E Thase; R D Weiss; D R Gastfriend; G E Woody; J P Barber; S F Butler; D Daley; I Salloum; S Bishop; L M Najavits; J Lis; D Mercer; M L Griffin; K Moras; A T Beck Journal: Arch Gen Psychiatry Date: 1999-06
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
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
Authors: Paul Crits-Christoph; Robert Gallop; Mary Beth Connolly Gibbons; Jaclyn S Sadicario; George Woody Journal: J Alcohol Drug Depend Date: 2013-03
Authors: Brian J Sherman; Michael J Sofis; Jacob T Borodovsky; Kevin M Gray; Aimee L McRae-Clark; Alan J Budney Journal: Psychol Addict Behav Date: 2021-07-01