Breanne E Biondi1, Xiaoying Zheng2, Cynthia A Frank1, Ismene Petrakis3,4, Sandra A Springer1,4,5. 1. Department of Internal Medicine, Section of Infectious Diseases, AIDS Program, New Haven, Connecticut. 2. Yale University, New Haven, Connecticut. 3. Department of Psychiatry, Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, Connecticut. 4. Veterans Administration Connecticut Healthcare Services, West Haven, Connecticut. 5. Center for Interdisciplinary Research on AIDS, Yale University School of Public Health, New Haven, Connecticut.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Medications for opioid use disorder (MOUD) reduce opioid use and overdose; however, MOUD clinical trials have used varying primary outcomes to document treatment success. We conducted a literature review to assess and critically examine the methodologies used in MOUD treatment studies. METHODS: Published studies in English that examined MOUD (buprenorphine, methadone, or extended-release naltrexone) were included (N = 20). The methods and frequencies of measuring primary opioid outcomes, including urine drug tests (UDTs) and self-report of opioid use were compared among studies. RESULTS: A total of 20 studies fit the inclusion criteria. Each study assessed opioid use; only 12 had opioid use as a primary outcome. Other primary outcomes included retention in treatment (N = 6), and two had other primary outcomes (death and opioid withdrawal symptoms). Opioid use was assessed through both self-report and UDTs in 15 studies. Two studies did not use UDTs. Differences were found in the methods used for how opioid use, retention in treatment, self-report of opioid use, and UDTs were measured. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS: The different primary outcomes used and operational definitions in each study make comparisons between studies difficult. The use of both self-report and UDTs for opioid use has several advantages, and if possible, researchers should use both measures. SCIENTIFIC SIGNIFICANCE: This is the first review critically examining outcome measures from MOUD treatment studies. Creating a standard for opioid treatment outcomes in MOUD studies will allow for generalizable results that can inform both researchers and clinicians to better care for those with OUD. (Am J Addict 2020;00:00-00).
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Medications for opioid use disorder (MOUD) reduce opioid use and overdose; however, MOUD clinical trials have used varying primary outcomes to document treatment success. We conducted a literature review to assess and critically examine the methodologies used in MOUD treatment studies. METHODS: Published studies in English that examined MOUD (buprenorphine, methadone, or extended-release naltrexone) were included (N = 20). The methods and frequencies of measuring primary opioid outcomes, including urine drug tests (UDTs) and self-report of opioid use were compared among studies. RESULTS: A total of 20 studies fit the inclusion criteria. Each study assessed opioid use; only 12 had opioid use as a primary outcome. Other primary outcomes included retention in treatment (N = 6), and two had other primary outcomes (death and opioid withdrawal symptoms). Opioid use was assessed through both self-report and UDTs in 15 studies. Two studies did not use UDTs. Differences were found in the methods used for how opioid use, retention in treatment, self-report of opioid use, and UDTs were measured. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS: The different primary outcomes used and operational definitions in each study make comparisons between studies difficult. The use of both self-report and UDTs for opioid use has several advantages, and if possible, researchers should use both measures. SCIENTIFIC SIGNIFICANCE: This is the first review critically examining outcome measures from MOUD treatment studies. Creating a standard for opioid treatment outcomes in MOUD studies will allow for generalizable results that can inform both researchers and clinicians to better care for those with OUD. (Am J Addict 2020;00:00-00).
Authors: Sandra A Springer; Angela Di Paola; Russell Barbour; Marwan M Azar; Frederick L Altice Journal: J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr Date: 2018-09-01 Impact factor: 3.731
Authors: Nora D Volkow; Janet Woodcock; Wilson M Compton; Douglas C Throckmorton; Phil Skolnick; Sharon Hertz; Eric M Wargo Journal: Sci Transl Med Date: 2018-03-28 Impact factor: 17.956
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: Walter Ling; Paul Casadonte; George Bigelow; Kyle M Kampman; Ashwin Patkar; Genie L Bailey; Richard N Rosenthal; Katherine L Beebe Journal: JAMA Date: 2010-10-13 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Joshua D Lee; Edward V Nunes; Patricia Novo Mpa; Genie L Bailey; Gregory S Brigham; Allan J Cohen; Marc Fishman; Walter Ling; Robert Lindblad; Dikla Shmueli-Blumberg; Don Stablein; Jeanine May; Dagmar Salazar; David Liu; John Rotrosen Journal: Contemp Clin Trials Date: 2016-08-10 Impact factor: 2.226
Authors: Yih-Ing Hser; Andrew J Saxon; David Huang; Al Hasson; Christie Thomas; Maureen Hillhouse; Petra Jacobs; Cheryl Teruya; Paul McLaughlin; Katharina Wiest; Allan Cohen; Walter Ling Journal: Addiction Date: 2013-10-09 Impact factor: 6.526
Authors: Anthony Todd Fojo; Melissa Schnure; Parastu Kasaie; David W Dowdy; Maunank Shah Journal: Ann Intern Med Date: 2021-09-21 Impact factor: 25.391
Authors: Elizabeth Needham Waddell; Sandra A Springer; Lisa A Marsch; David Farabee; Robert P Schwartz; Amesika Nyaku; Rusty Reeves; Keith Goldfeld; Ryan D McDonald; Mia Malone; Anna Cheng; Elizabeth C Saunders; Laura Monico; Jan Gryczynski; Kathleen Bell; Kasey Harding; Sandra Violette; Thomas Groblewski; Wendy Martin; Kasey Talon; Nicole Beckwith; Andrew Suchocki; Randy Torralva; Jennifer P Wisdom; Joshua D Lee Journal: J Subst Abuse Treat Date: 2021-04-08
Authors: Ann Tarja Karlsson; John-Kåre Vederhus; Thomas Clausen; Bente Weimand; Kristin Klemmetsby Solli; Lars Tanum Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2022-09-11 Impact factor: 4.614
Authors: Ismene Petrakis; Sandra A Springer; Cynthia Davis; Elizabeth Ralevski; Lucy Gu; Robert Lew; John Hermos; Melynn Nuite; Adam J Gordon; Thomas R Kosten; Edward V Nunes; Robert Rosenheck; Andrew J Saxon; Robert Swift; Alexa Goldberg; Robert Ringer; Ryan Ferguson Journal: Addict Sci Clin Pract Date: 2022-01-31