What's in a name? A data-driven method to identify optimal psychotherapy classifications to advance treatment research on co-occurring PTSD and substance use disorders

Cannabis use and trauma-focused treatment for co-occurring posttraumatic stress disorder and substance use disorders: A meta-analysis of individual patient data

High rates of cannabis use among people with posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) have raised questions about the efficacy of evidence-based PTSD treatments for individuals reporting cannabis use, particularly those with co-occurring alcohol or other substance use disorders (SUDs). Using a subset of four randomized clinical trials (RCTs) included in Project Harmony, an individual patient meta-analysis of 36 RCTs (total N = 4046) of treatments for co-occurring PTSD+SUD, we examined differences in trauma-focused (TF) and non-trauma-focused (non-TF) treatment outcomes for individuals who did and did not endorse baseline cannabis use (N = 410; 70% male; 33.2% endorsed cannabis use). Propensity score-weighted mixed effects modeling evaluated main and interactive effects of treatment assignment (TF versus non-TF) and baseline cannabis use (yes/no) on attendance rates and within-treatment changes in PTSD, alcohol, and non-cannabis drug use severity. Results revealed significant improvements across outcomes among participants in all conditions, with larger PTSD symptom reductions but lower attendance among individuals receiving TF versus non-TF treatment in both cannabis groups. Participants achieved similar reductions in alcohol and drug use across all conditions. TF outperformed non-TF treatments regardless of recent cannabis use, underscoring the importance of reducing barriers to accessing TF treatments for individuals reporting cannabis use.

Mental Health Clinician Practices and Perspectives on Treating Adults with Co-Occurring Posttraumatic Stress and Substance Use Disorders

OBJECTIVE

Posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and substance use disorders (SUD) commonly co-occur and represent a complex, challenging clinical comorbidity. Meta-analytic studies and systematic reviews suggest that trauma-focused treatments are more efficacious than non-trauma focused interventions for co-occurring PTSD/SUD. However, relatively little is known about mental health clinicians' practices or preferences for treating co-occurring PTSD/SUD. The present study aimed to describe the current clinical practices of mental health clinicians who treat PTSD and/or SUD-related conditions and to assess interest in novel integrative treatments for PTSD/SUD.

METHODS

Licensed mental health clinicians (N = 76; Mage = 39.59, SD = 8.14) who treat PTSD and/or SUD completed an anonymous online survey from April 2021 to July 2021.

RESULTS

The majority (61.8%) of clinicians reported using integrative treatments for PTSD/SUD. The most commonly used trauma-focused treatments were 1) Cognitive Processing Therapy (CPT: 71.1%) and 2) Prolonged Exposure Therapy (PE: 68.4%) for PTSD. Approximately half (51.3%) of clinicians endorsed using Relapse Prevention (RP) for SUD. The vast majority (97.4%) of clinicians were somewhat or very interested in a new integrative CPT-RP intervention, and 94.7% of clinicians believed patients would be interested in a CPT-RP intervention. In the absence of an available evidence-based integrative treatment using CPT, 84.0% of clinicians reported modifying extant treatment protocols on their own to address PTSD and SUD concurrently.

CONCLUSIONS

The findings demonstrate mental health clinician support of integrative treatments for PTSD/SUD. The most commonly used trauma-focused intervention was CPT and clinicians expressed strong interest in an integrative intervention that combines CPT and RP. Implications for future treatment development are discussed.

Behavioral and neurocognitive factors distinguishing post-traumatic stress comorbidity in substance use disorders

Significant trauma histories and post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) are common in persons with substance use disorders (SUD) and often associate with increased SUD severity and poorer response to SUD treatment. As such, this sub-population has been associated with unique risk factors and treatment needs. Understanding the distinct etiological profile of persons with co-occurring SUD and PTSD is therefore crucial for advancing our knowledge of underlying mechanisms and the development of precision treatments. To this end, we employed supervised machine learning algorithms to interrogate the responses of 160 participants with SUD on the multidimensional NIDA Phenotyping Assessment Battery. Significant PTSD symptomatology was correctly predicted in 75% of participants (sensitivity: 80%; specificity: 72.22%) using a classification-based model based on anxiety and depressive symptoms, perseverative thinking styles, and interoceptive awareness. A regression-based machine learning model also utilized similar predictors, but failed to accurately predict severity of PTSD symptoms. These data indicate that even in a population already characterized by elevated negative affect (individuals with SUD), especially severe negative affect was predictive of PTSD symptomatology. In a follow-up analysis of a subset of 102 participants who also completed neurocognitive tasks, comorbidity status was correctly predicted in 86.67% of participants (sensitivity: 91.67%; specificity: 66.67%) based on depressive symptoms and fear-related attentional bias. However, a regression-based analysis did not identify fear-related attentional bias as a splitting factor, but instead split and categorized the sample based on indices of aggression, metacognition, distress tolerance, and interoceptive awareness. These data indicate that within a population of individuals with SUD, aberrations in tolerating and regulating aversive internal experiences may also characterize those with significant trauma histories, akin to findings in persons with anxiety without SUD. The results also highlight the need for further research on PTSD-SUD comorbidity that includes additional comparison groups (i.e., persons with only PTSD), captures additional comorbid diagnoses that may influence the PTSD-SUD relationship, examines additional types of SUDs (e.g., alcohol use disorder), and differentiates between subtypes of PTSD.

Differential symptom weighting in estimating empirical thresholds for underlying PTSD severity: Toward a "platinum" standard for diagnosis?

OBJECTIVE

Symptom counts as the basis for Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) diagnoses in the DSM presume each symptom is equally reflective of underlying disorder severity. However, the "equal weight" assumption fails to fit PTSD symptom data when tested. The present study developed an enhanced PTSD diagnosis based on (a) a conventional PTSD diagnosis from a clinical interview and (b) an empirical classification of full PTSD that reflected the relative clinical weights of each symptom.

METHOD

Baseline structured interview data from Project Harmony (N = 2658) was used. An enhanced diagnosis for full PTSD was estimated using an empirical threshold from moderated nonlinear factor analysis (MNLFA) latent PTSD scale scores, in combination with a full conventional PTSD diagnosis based on interview data.

RESULTS

One in 4 patients in the sample had a PTSD diagnosis that was inconsistent with their empirical PTSD grouping, such that the enhanced diagnostic standard reduced the diagnostic discrepancy rate by 20%. Veterans, and in particular female Veterans, were at greatest odds for discrepancy between their underlying PTSD severity and DSM diagnosis.

CONCLUSION

Psychometric methodologies that differentially weight symptoms can complement DSM criteria and may serve as a platform for symptom prioritization for diagnoses in future editions of DSM.

Transdiagnostic Processes Linking Posttraumatic Stress Disorder Symptoms to Alcohol Use Severity

Objective: The high comorbidity between posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and alcohol use disorder (AUD) is well-established and complex. However, there is a need to explore transdiagnostic constructs that may underlie this association to better understand what accounts for this comorbidity and to inform treatment development. Method: Thus, the present study utilized a large, cross-sectional dataset (N = 513; Mage = 38.25 years, SD = 10.07; 49.9% female), based on national recruitment, to (1) examine whether the associations between PTSD symptom severity (PCL-5) and alcohol use severity (AUDIT) were statistically mediated by (a) anxiety sensitivity (SSASI); and (b) difficulties with emotion regulation (DERS-16); and (2) examine whether coping motives for drinking moderate this indirect effect. Sex assigned at birth was included as a covariate. Results: When examining the hypothesized mediators (SSASI and DERS-16) in separate models, there was a statistically significant indirect effect of PCL-5 on AUDIT through both SSASI and DERS. However, when both SSASI and DERS were entered into a model simultaneously, only SSASI served as a statistically significant mediator. Coping motives for drinking did not moderate the observed indirect effect. Conclusions: The current findings highlight anxiety sensitivity and emotion regulation as transdiagnostic processes that may explain, at least partially, the relationship between PTSD symptom severity and alcohol use; however, stronger evidence was evident for anxiety sensitivity. These findings may help inform the development of refined, streamlined interventions for PTSD and alcohol use that directly target these processes.

Project Harmony: A Meta-Analysis With Individual Patient Data on Behavioral and Pharmacologic Trials for Comorbid Posttraumatic Stress and Alcohol or Other Drug Use Disorders

OBJECTIVE

Treatment efficacy for co-occurring posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and substance use disorders is well established, yet direct evidence for comparative effectiveness across treatments is lacking. The present study compared the effectiveness of several behavioral and pharmacological therapies for adults with co-occurring PTSD and alcohol or other drug use disorders.

METHODS

A systematic search of PsycINFO, MEDLINE, and ClinicalTrials.gov was conducted through December 2020 for trials targeting PTSD, alcohol or other drug use disorders, or both disorders (36 studies, N=4,046). Primary outcomes were severity scores for PTSD, alcohol use, and drug use, estimated via moderated nonlinear factor analysis. Propensity score weight-adjusted multilevel models were used. Model-predicted effect sizes were estimated for each treatment, and comparative effect sizes for each active arm against treatment as usual, at end of treatment and at 12-month follow-up.

RESULTS

Compared with treatment as usual, combining trauma-focused therapy and pharmacotherapy for substance use disorders showed the largest comparative effect sizes for PTSD severity (d=-0.92, 95% CI=-1.57, -0.30) and alcohol use severity (d=-1.10, 95% CI=-1.54, -0.68) at end of treatment. Other treatments with large comparative effect sizes included pharmacotherapies for alcohol or other drug use disorders, trauma-focused integrated therapies, and trauma-focused nonintegrated therapies. Reductions in outcomes for PTSD symptoms and alcohol use were observed for nearly all treatments.

CONCLUSIONS

The findings provide support for treating comorbid PTSD and substance use disorders using a variety of approaches, with alcohol-targeted pharmacotherapies and trauma-focused behavioral therapies as a combination of treatments that lead to early and sustained improvements in PTSD and alcohol use severity. Further treatment development is indicated for combining behavioral and pharmacological treatments for synergized impact and understanding the mechanisms of action and conditions under which each treatment type is optimized.

A systematic review and meta-analysis of psychological interventions for comorbid post-traumatic stress disorder and substance use disorder

BACKGROUND

The psychological treatment of comorbid post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and substance use disorder (SUD) is clinically challenging, and outcomes are often poor.

OBJECTIVE

This paper describes a systematic review and meta-analysis which sought to establish the current efficacy for a number of established psychological approaches for adults and adolescents, in comparison to interventions for SUD alone, or other active approaches, following a pre-registered protocol.

METHOD

This review followed PRISMA and Cochrane Collaboration guidelines. Data extraction and risk of bias judgements using Cochrane criteria were undertaken by all authors. Primary outcomes were PTSD severity and substance use post-treatment. The quality of findings was assessed using GRADE. Following a comprehensive search, conducted to 13 September 2021, 27 studies were included.

RESULTS

We found a relatively high level of dropout across studies. In our main comparisons, we found no benefits for present-focused treatment approaches aimed at improving coping skills beyond those for SUD-only interventions. We found modest benefits for trauma-focused intervention plus SUD intervention post-treatment for PTSD (standardized mean difference (SMD) = -0.36, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.64, -0.08), and at 6-13 months for PTSD (SMD = -0.48, 95% CI -0.81, -0.15) and alcohol use (SMD = -0.23, 95% CI -0.44, -0.02). There were no benefits for cognitive restructuring interventions as a group, but we found a modest effect for integrated cognitive behavioural therapy (ICBT) for PTSD post-treatment (SMD = -0.33, 95% CI -0.62, -0.04). There was evidence of some benefit for trauma-focused intervention over present-focused intervention for PTSD from a single study and for reduction in dropout for incentivized attendance for trauma-focused intervention from another single study. Most findings were of very low quality.

CONCLUSION

There is evidence that trauma-focused therapy and ICBT can improve PTSD for some individuals, but many patients do not fully engage with treatment and average treatment effects are modest.

HIGHLIGHTS

For PTSD, evidence was strongest for trauma-focused CBT-based approaches, but effects were modest.There was little evidence of any added benefit on substance use, beyond that of standard addiction treatments, for any included intervention.Dropout from treatment was high.