Subject eligibility criteria can substantially influence the results of alcohol-treatment outcome research

Eligibility for Substance Use Clinical Trials Among Emergency Psychiatry Patients: The Impact of Exclusion Criteria

Objective: The first objective was to identify common exclusion criteria used in clinical trials. The second objective was to quantify the degree to which these criteria exclude emergency psychiatry patients. Methods: Qualitative Content Analysis was used for the first objective, identifying common exclusion criteria used in recent high-impact substance use clinical trials. A retrospective record review was used for the second objective, which examined the frequency of these exclusion criteria in a 1-month sample of adults receiving psychiatric evaluation in an emergency department. Results: Most trials had exclusions for co-occurring psychiatric problems (76.6%), medical problems (74.0%), prior or current treatment (72.7%), motivation for change (61.1%), pregnancy or lactation (57.1%), or using other specified substances of abuse (54.6%). In the clinical sample, exclusions for co-occurring psychiatric problems would make 94.7% of patients ineligible. Other exclusions had a combined effect of making 76% of patients ineligible. Conclusions: Clinical trials using typical exclusion criteria exclude nearly all emergency psychiatry patients with substance use problems.

Identifying brief intervention factors to improve cannabis related outcomes in adolescents and young adults: A systematic review of sample characteristics and intervention components

INTRODUCTION

Prior systematic and meta-analytic reviews observed mixed evidence for the efficacy of cannabis brief interventions (BIs). Inconsistent support for cannabis BIs may be the result of intersecting methodological factors, including intervention structure and content, participant eligibility criteria, and outcome assessment measures. The current systematic review of cannabis BI studies narratively synthesizes these data to guide intervention development decision-making in future cannabis BI studies (PROSPERO CRD42022285990).

METHODS

We searched PubMed/MEDLINE, PsycINFO, and CINAHL databases in January 2022 and again in June 2023 to capture newly published studies. Studies were included if they were a randomized trial, enrolled adolescents (13-17) and/or young adults (18-30), specified cannabis use and/or problems inclusion criteria, and evaluated a cannabis BI (defined as ≤4 sessions). We extracted and synthesized data on intervention characteristics (e.g., components, length/duration, modality), cannabis inclusion criteria and recruitment setting, baseline cannabis use descriptives and treatment-seeking status, and outcome assessment measures to discern if/how they may intersect to determine intervention efficacy. The Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool 2 assessed study quality.

RESULTS

Our search resulted in a final sample of 25 study records including 4094 participants. Recruitment setting seemed to provide an influential backdrop for how well inclusion criteria determined baseline cannabis use level, as well as for the type/length of the BI evaluated. Motivational interviewing (MI) and personalized feedback (PF) were the most frequently used BI components overall; however, some differences were observed in the proportion of BIs with reported intervention effects using MI vs. PF. Frequency of use days was the most commonly used outcome measure, although this may not be the most sensitive measure for assessing cannabis BI efficacy.

CONCLUSIONS

Our systematic review indicates that cannabis BI studies require greater precision in their design, giving special attention to matching the content and structure of the BI to the needs of the target population and selecting outcomes commensurate to the goals of the BI and the target population to more accurately reflect the efficacy of the BI. However, consistent with prior reviews, all included studies demonstrated at least some concerns for risk of bias, and most were at high risk.

A Meta-Regression of Trial Features Predicting the Effects of Alcohol Use Disorder Pharmacotherapies on Drinking Outcomes in Randomized Clinical Trials: A Secondary Data Analysis

AIMS

To test whether two critical design features, inclusion criteria of required pre-trial abstinence and pre-trial alcohol use disorder (AUD) diagnosis, predict the likelihood of detecting treatment effects in AUD pharmacotherapy trials.

METHODS

This secondary data analysis used data collected from a literature review to identify randomized controlled pharmacotherapy trials for AUD. Treatment outcomes were selected into abstinence and no heavy drinking. Target effect sizes were calculated for each outcome and a meta-regression was conducted to test the effects of required pre-trial abstinence, required pre-trial AUD diagnosis, and their interaction on effect sizes. A sub-analysis was conducted on trials, which included FDA-approved medications for AUD.

RESULTS

In total, 118 studies testing 19 medications representing 21,032 treated participants were included in the meta-regression analysis. There was no significant effect of either predictor on abstinence or no heavy drinking outcomes in the full analysis or in the sub-study of FDA-approved medications.

CONCLUSION

By examining these design features in a quantitative, rather than qualitative, fashion the present study advances the literature and shows that requiring AUD diagnosis or requiring pre-trial abstinence do not impact the likelihood of a significant medication effect in the trial.

Generalizability of pharmacologic and psychotherapy trial results for late-life unipolar depression

OBJECTIVES

Despite evidence of low representativeness of clinical trial results for depression in adults, the generalizability of clinical trial results for late-life depression is unknown. This study sought to quantify the representativeness of pharmacologic and psychotherapy clinical trial results for late-life unipolar depression.

METHOD

Data were derived from the 2004-2005 National Epidemiologic Survey on Alcohol and Related Conditions (NESARC), a nationally representative sample of 34,653 adults from the United States population. To assess the generalizability of clinical trial results for late-life depression, we applied a standard set of eligibility criteria representative of pharmacologic and psychotherapy clinical trials to all individuals aged 65 years and older in NESARC with a DSM-IV diagnosis of MDE and no lifetime history of mania/hypomania (n = 273) and in a subsample of individuals seeking help for depression (n = 78).

RESULTS

More than four of ten respondents and about two of ten respondents would have been excluded by at least one exclusion criterion in a typical pharmacologic and psychotherapy efficacy trial, respectively. Similar results (i.e.41.1% and 25.9%, respectively) were found in the subsample of individuals seeking help for depression. Excess percentage of exclusion in typical pharmacologic studies was accounted for by the criterion "significant medical condition". We also found that populations typically included in pharmacologic and psychotherapy clinical trials for late-life unipolar depression may substantially differ.

CONCLUSION

Psychotherapy trial results may be representative of most patients with late-life unipolar depression in routine clinical practice. By contrast, pharmacologic clinical trials may not be readily generalizable to community samples.

Inclusion of Cannabis Users in Alcohol Research Samples: Screening In, Screening Out, and Implications

BACKGROUND

Alcohol and cannabis are frequently co-used, as 20-50% of those who drink alcohol report co-using cannabis. This study is based on the argument that alcohol researchers should enroll cannabis users in human laboratory studies of alcohol use disorder (AUD) to strengthen generalizability. This study examines how heavy drinking cannabis users differ from non-cannabis using heavy drinkers.

METHODS

In a community sample of non-treatment-seeking heavy drinkers (n = 551, 35% female), cannabis users were identified through: (a) self-reported cannabis use in the past 6 months and (b) positive urine toxicology test for tetrahydrocannabinol (THC). Cannabis users, identified as described previously, were compared with non-cannabis users on demographic and clinical characteristics.

RESULTS

Those who endorsed cannabis use in the past 6 months reported more binge drinking days. Participants who tested positive for THC had higher Alcohol Use Disorder Identification Test scores and more binge drinking days. Younger age and being a tobacco smoker were associated with an increased likelihood of cannabis use in the past 6 months, whereas male gender and being a tobacco use were associated with a greater likelihood of testing positive for THC. Individuals with cannabis use disorder (CUD) endorsed more depression and anxiety and had higher AUD symptom counts than cannabis users without CUD.

CONCLUSIONS

The inclusion of cannabis users in AUD samples allows for increased clinical severity. Excluding cannabis users from AUD studies may limit representativeness and expend unnecessary study resources. Lastly, tobacco use may explain a large portion of the effects of cannabis use on sample characteristics.

SHORT SUMMARY

Alcohol and cannabis are frequently co-used substances. In a sample of non-treatment-seeking heavy drinkers (n = 551, 35% female), cannabis users reported higher alcohol use and higher likelihood of tobacco use than non-cannabis users. Including cannabis users in alcohol research studies will improve representativeness and likely increase clinical severity.

Using filled prescription sequences to rank antidepressants according to their acceptability in the general population: The Constances cohort

Ranking antidepressants according to their acceptability (i.e. a combination of both efficacy and tolerability) in the general population may help choosing the best first-line medication. This study aimed to rank antidepressants according to the proportion of filled prescription sequences consistent with a continuation of the first treatment versus those consistent with a change. A first step was validating this measure as a proxy of acceptability by examining the association of these two kinds of sequences with levels of depressive symptoms. Among 64,467 individuals included in the French population-based Constances cohort, reimbursements of antidepressants from January 2009 to December 2015 were extracted from the French national health insurance system claims database. Depressive symptoms were measured at inclusion with the Center for Epidemiologic Studies-Depression scale (CES-D). Between January 2010 and December 2015, 6675 participants newly initiated an antidepressant (34.5% men, mean (SD) age: 48.3 (12.1) years). Among the subsample of participants included during the six-month period following treatment initiation, individuals with continuation sequences had lower levels of depressive symptoms than those with change sequences (mean (SE) CES-D score: 18.9 (0.8) versus 26.5 (2.1), p < 0.001). According to the continuation/change ratio observed over this six-month period in all participants, escitalopram ranked first, followed by sertraline, venlafaxine, citalopram, fluoxetine and paroxetine. In an independent replication sample representative of the French national population, the same six medications ranked first, with escitalopram remaining in first place. The proportion of filled prescription sequences consistent with a continuation versus a change of the first prescribed treatment may provide a widely available measure of antidepressant acceptability in community practice.

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

Treatment development and evaluation for substance use disorders are hindered when randomized controlled trials fail to show a treatment effect when one exists. This manuscript provides an overview of addressable methodological factors that may contribute to incorrect trial results. The collection of remote, naturalistic, real-time adherence and substance use data through ambulatory assessment methods in everyday life is presented as a partial solution. Other recommendations related to participant recruitment and selection, ensuring adequate consistency/fidelity and dose of treatment, and rigorously assessing clinical outcomes are discussed. With implementation of eligibility criteria verification, treatment adherence monitoring, and remote assessment of substance use and biomarkers, ambulatory assessment may help improve clinical trial success rates by improving precision, increasing reproducibility, and reducing the impact of methodological issues that may lead to inaccurate trial results.

Representativeness of patients enrolled in a primary care clinical trial for heavy/problem substance use

BACKGROUND

The extent to which participants in randomized clinical trials (RCTs) resemble their broader target groups is of particular concern when studying stigmatized conditions such as substance use disorders (SUDs). The present study compared patients who enrolled in a 4-arm clinical trial of SBIRT (screening, brief intervention, and referral to treatment) with eligible patients who declined study participation.

METHODS

Participants (N = 1338) were primary care patients who anonymously completed a computer-delivered health survey and screened positive for heavy/problem alcohol or drug use. Those who consented to the RCT (n = 713) were compared with those who declined (n = 625) on a variety of demographic, substance use, and psychosocial characteristics. Variables significant at P < .20 in univariate analyses were then examined using multivariate logistic regression to determine their combined effect.

RESULTS

The sample was 60% female and 76% African American, with a mean age of 45.2 years. Patients who consented to participate differed from those who declined on 34 (60%) of the 57 variables studied. The most parsimonious model by multivariate regression found that those who consented were older, more likely to be unemployed, and more likely to endorse prescription drug misuse, problems related to drug use, family history of alcohol problems, trouble falling asleep, and a health professional recommendation to lose weight.

CONCLUSION

Patients consenting to the RCT reported a greater number and more severe psychosocial and mental health problems than those who declined study participation. If the higher level of risk among study participants was found in other studies as well, it would raise questions regarding the generalizability of RCT results to broader clinic samples.

Defining and surveying key populations at risk of HIV infection: Towards a unified approach to eligibility criteria for respondent-driven sampling HIV biobehavioral surveys

Substantial resources are invested in human immunodeficiency virus biobehavioral surveys using respondent-driven sampling for measuring progress towards the UNAIDS 90-90-90 goals and to obtain other essential data on key populations. Survey data are used to meet country needs as well those of development partners, whose data needs may sometimes diverge. Surveys using differing eligibility criteria impede comparisons across surveys. With scant literature and guidelines on how to approach eligibility criteria, diverse criteria are used within and across countries. We conducted a review of peer-reviewed human immunodeficiency virus respondent-driven sampling biobehavioral survey literature published through December 2013. We describe eligibility criteria of 137 articles representing 214 surveys. Reporting on age, risk behavior, and reference period of risk behavior was nearly universal; however, reporting on gender, geography, and language was less common. Multiple definitions were used for each criterion, making comparisons challenging. We provide a framework for how to approach defining eligibility to improve consistency and comparability across surveys.

Generalizability of Clinical Trial Results for Adolescent Major Depressive Disorder

BACKGROUND

Although there have been a number of clinical trials evaluating treatments for adolescents with major depressive disorder (MDD), the generalizability of those trials to samples of depressed adolescents who present for routine clinical care is unknown. Examining the generalizability of clinical trials of pharmacological and psychotherapy interventions for adolescent depression can help administrators and frontline practitioners determine the relevance of these studies for their patients and may also guide eligibility criteria for future clinical trials in this clinical population.

METHODS

Data on nationally representative adolescents were derived from the National Comorbidity Survey: Adolescent Supplement. To assess the generalizability of adolescent clinical trials for MDD, we applied a standard set of eligibility criteria representative of clinical trials to all adolescents in the National Comorbidity Survey: Adolescent Supplement with a Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fourth Edition diagnosis of MDD (N = 592).

RESULTS

From the overall MDD sample, 61.9% would have been excluded from a typical pharmacological trial, whereas 42.2% would have been excluded from a psychotherapy trial. Among those who sought treatment (n = 412), the corresponding exclusion rates were 72.7% for a pharmacological trial and 52.2% for a psychotherapy trial. The criterion leading to the largest number of exclusions was "significant risk of suicide" in both pharmacological and psychotherapy trials.

CONCLUSIONS

Pharmacological and, to a lesser extent, psychotherapy clinical trials likely exclude most adolescents with MDD. Careful consideration should be given to balancing eligibility criteria and internal validity with applicability in routine clinical care while ensuring patient safety.

Generalizability of findings from randomized controlled trials: application to the National Institute of Drug Abuse Clinical Trials Network

AIMS

To compare randomized controlled trial (RCT) sample treatment effects with the population effects of substance use disorder (SUD) treatment.

DESIGN

Statistical weighting was used to re-compute the effects from 10 RCTs such that the participants in the trials had characteristics that resembled those of patients in the target populations.

SETTINGS

Multi-site RCTs and usual SUD treatment settings in the United States.

PARTICIPANTS

A total of 3592 patients in 10 RCTs and 1 602 226 patients from usual SUD treatment settings between 2001 and 2009.

MEASUREMENTS

Three outcomes of SUD treatment were examined: retention, urine toxicology and abstinence. We weighted the RCT sample treatment effects using propensity scores representing the conditional probability of participating in RCTs.

FINDINGS

Weighting the samples changed the significance of estimated sample treatment effects. Most commonly, positive effects of trials became statistically non-significant after weighting (three trials for retention and urine toxicology and one trial for abstinence); also, non-significant effects became significantly positive (one trial for abstinence) and significantly negative effects became non-significant (two trials for abstinence). There was suggestive evidence of treatment effect heterogeneity in subgroups that are under- or over-represented in the trials, some of which were consistent with the differences in average treatment effects between weighted and unweighted results.

CONCLUSIONS

The findings of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) for substance use disorder treatment do not appear to be directly generalizable to target populations when the RCT samples do not reflect adequately the target populations and there is treatment effect heterogeneity across patient subgroups.

A Review of the Impact of Exclusion Criteria on the Generalizability of Schizophrenia Treatment Research

Treatment research studies employ criteria that determine which patients are eligible to participate and which are not. When such exclusion criteria produce a treatment research sample that is a small and unrepresentative subset of all patients with a particular disease, clinicians may be hesitant to apply the research results in front-line clinical practice. Accordingly, the present paper reviews the English-language literature on exclusion criteria in schizophrenia treatment research and draws initial conclusions about their impact. Empirically derived estimates of the rate of exclusion vary widely (31.0-98.2%), but the best available evidence suggests that about 4 in 5 patients with schizophrenia would be ineligible to enroll in a typical treatment research study. Women are particularly likely to be excluded from schizophrenia treatment research, which is problematic from both a clinical and social justice viewpoint. Excluded patients also tend to be older than eligible patients, and, though it has been examined in only a few studies, they also tend to have more severe problems at baseline and different outcomes over time than patients who are allowed to participate in research. More limited use of exclusion criteria in schizophrenia treatment research would be beneficial in terms of increasing generalizability, but would also potentially involve costs, particularly a need for larger samples. More modest steps that would improve treatment outcome research reports include requiring a full description of the rationale for, and nature of, any exclusion criteria, and, having a designated place in the discussion section which draws attention to the proper scope of generalization.

Exclusion criteria in treatment research on alcohol, tobacco and illicit drug use disorders: A review and critical analysis

ISSUES

High rates of exclusion in substance use disorder treatment studies reduce the external validity and clinical utility of research findings to an unknown extent. Accordingly, the current review examined commonly used exclusion criteria and their effect on study samples and outcomes.

APPROACH

English-language literature was identified by PubMed searches and review of identified articles' reference lists. Studies were included if they analysed data on: (i) the prevalence and nature of exclusion criteria in the substance use disorder treatment field; and/or (ii) the impact of exclusion criteria on sample representativeness or study results.

KEY FINDINGS

The search yielded 22 studies examining different aspects of exclusion criteria, including 15 empirical examinations of the impact of study exclusion criteria across different substance use disorder treatments on enrolment and outcome results. Aggregating across these 15 studies, we estimated that between 64 and 96% of potential study participants are excluded from substance use disorder treatment studies.

IMPLICATIONS

The widespread exclusion of large proportions of people with substance use disorders limits the external validity of the substance use disorder treatment research literature.

CONCLUSION

Although some eligibility criteria are necessary to protect participant safety and ensure internal validity, researchers conducting studies on substance use disorder treatments should thoughtfully consider the justification for and specific operationalisation of the extensive exclusion criteria they often utilise. [Moberg C, Humphreys K. Exclusion criteria in treatment research on alcohol, tobacco and illicit drug use disorders: A review and critical analysis. Drug Alcohol Rev 2017;36:378-388].

Prediction of black box warning by mining patterns of Convergent Focus Shift in clinical trial study populations using linked public data

OBJECTIVE

To link public data resources for predicting post-marketing drug safety label changes by analyzing the Convergent Focus Shift patterns among drug testing trials.

METHODS

We identified 256 top-selling prescription drugs between 2003 and 2013 and divided them into 83 BBW drugs (drugs with at least one black box warning label) and 173 ROBUST drugs (drugs without any black box warning label) based on their FDA black box warning (BBW) records. We retrieved 7499 clinical trials that each had at least one of these drugs for intervention from the ClinicalTrials.gov. We stratified all the trials by pre-marketing or post-marketing status, study phase, and study start date. For each trial, we retrieved drug and disease concepts from clinical trial summaries to model its study population using medParser and SNOMED-CT. Convergent Focus Shift (CFS) pattern was calculated and used to assess the temporal changes in study populations from pre-marketing to post-marketing trials for each drug. Then we selected 68 candidate drugs, 18 with BBW warning and 50 without, that each had at least nine pre-marketing trials and nine post-marketing trials for predictive modeling. A random forest predictive model was developed to predict BBW acquisition incidents based on CFS patterns among these drugs. Pre- and post-marketing trials of BBW and ROBUST drugs were compared to look for their differences in CFS patterns.

RESULTS

Among the 18 BBW drugs, we consistently observed that the post-marketing trials focused more on recruiting patients with medical conditions previously unconsidered in the pre-marketing trials. In contrast, among the 50 ROBUST drugs, the post-marketing trials involved a variety of medications for testing their associations with target intervention(s). We found it feasible to predict BBW acquisitions using different CFS patterns between the two groups of drugs. Our random forest predictor achieved an AUC of 0.77. We also demonstrated the feasibility of the predictor for identifying long-term BBW acquisition events without compromising prediction accuracy.

CONCLUSIONS

This study contributes a method for post-marketing pharmacovigilance using Convergent Focus Shift (CFS) patterns in clinical trial study populations mined from linked public data resources. These signals are otherwise unavailable from individual data resources. We demonstrated the added value of linked public data and the feasibility of integrating ClinicalTrials.gov summaries and drug safety labels for post-marketing surveillance. Future research is needed to ensure better accessibility and linkage of heterogeneous drug safety data for efficient pharmacovigilance.

Generalizability of pharmacological and psychotherapy clinical trial results for borderline personality disorder to community samples

The present study sought to quantify the generalizability of clinical trial results in individuals with a Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, fourth edition (DSM-IV) diagnosis of borderline personality disorder (BPD) to a large representative community sample. Data were derived from the 2004-2005 National Epidemiologic Survey on Alcohol and Related Conditions (NESARC), a large nationally representative sample of 34,653 adults from the United States population. We applied a standard set of exclusion criteria representative of pharmacological and psychotherapy clinical trials to all adults with a DSM-IV diagnosis of BPD (n = 2,231). Our aim was to assess how many participants with BPD would not fulfill typical eligibility criteria. We found that more than 7 of 10 respondents in a typical pharmacological efficacy trial and more than 5 of 10 participants in a typical psychotherapy efficacy trial would have been excluded by at least 1 criterion. Having a current history of alcohol or drug use disorder and a lifetime history of bipolar disorder explained a large proportion of ineligibility in both pharmacological and psychotherapy efficacy trials. Clinical trials should carefully consider the impact of exclusion criteria on the generalizability of their results. As required by CONSORT guidelines, reporting exclusion rate estimate and reasons of eligibility should be mandatory in both clinical trials and meta-analyses. As treatment trials of borderline personality disorder move from efficacy to effectiveness to better inform clinical practice, the eligibility rate must be increased by imposing less stringent eligibility criteria to allow for more generalizable results.

The exclusion of people with psychiatric disorders from medical research

People with psychiatric disorders are excluded from medical research to an unknown degree with unknown effects. We examined the prevalence of reported psychiatric exclusion criteria using a sample of 400 highly-cited randomized trials (2002-2010) across 20 common chronic disorders (6 psychiatric and 14 other medical disorders). Two coders rated the presence of psychiatric exclusion criteria for each trial. Half of all trials (and 84% of psychiatric disorder treatment trials) reported possible or definite psychiatric exclusion criteria, with significant variation across disorders (p < .001). Non-psychiatric conditions with high rates of reported psychiatric exclusion criteria included low back pain (75%), osteoarthritis (57%), COPD (55%), and diabetes (55%). The most commonly reported type of psychiatric exclusion criteria were those related to substance use disorders (reported in 48% of trials reporting at least one psychiatric exclusion criteria). General psychiatric exclusions (e.g., "any serious psychiatric disorder") were also prevalent (38% of trials). Psychiatric disorder trials were more likely than other medical disorder trials to report each specific type of psychiatric exclusion (p's < .001). Because published clinical trial reports do not always fully describe exclusion criteria, this study's estimates of the prevalence of psychiatric exclusion criteria are conservative. Clinical trials greatly influence state-of-the-art medical care, yet individuals with psychiatric disorders are often actively excluded from these trials. This pattern of exclusion represents an under-recognized and worrisome cause of health inequity. Further attention should be paid to how individuals with psychiatric disorders can be safely included in medical research to address this important clinical and social justice issue.

Opioid substitution and antagonist therapy trials exclude the common addiction patient: a systematic review and analysis of eligibility criteria

BACKGROUND

Eligibility criteria that result in the exclusion of a substantial number of patients from randomized trials jeopardize the generalizability of treatment effect to much of the clinical population. This is important when evaluating opioid substitution and antagonist therapies (OSATs), especially given the challenges associated with treating the opioid-dependent population. We aimed to identify OSAT trials' eligibility criteria, quantify the percentage of the clinical population excluded by these criteria, and determine how OSAT guidelines incorporate evidence from these trials.

METHODS

We performed a systematic review to identify the eligibility criteria used across trials. We searched Medline, EMBASE, PsycINFO, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, Cochrane Clinical Trials Registry (CTR), World Health Organization International CTR Platform Search Portal, and the National Institutes of Health CTR databases from inception to January 1, 2014. To quantify the effect of trials' eligibility criteria on generalizability, we applied these criteria to data from an observational study of opioid-dependent patients (n = 394). We then accessed the Canadian, American, British, and World Health Organization (WHO) OSAT guidelines to evaluate how evidence is used in the recommendations.

RESULTS

Among the 60 trials identified the majority (≥50 % of trials) exclude patients with psychiatric (60 %) and physical comorbidity (51.7 %). Additionally, we found 19 trials exclude patients with current alcohol/substance-use problems (31.7 %), and 29 (48.3 %) exclude patients taking psychotropic medications. These criteria were restrictive and in some cases rendered 70 % of the observational sample ineligible. North American OSAT guidelines made strong recommendations supported by evidence with poor generalizability. National Institute of Health and Care Excellence (NICE) and WHO guidelines for opioid misuse provide a critical assessment of the literature used to inform their recommendations.

CONCLUSIONS

Trials assessing OSATs often exclude patients with concurrent disorders. If the excluded patients respond differently to treatment, results from these trials are likely to overestimate the true effectiveness of OSATs. North American guidelines should consider these limitations when drafting clinical recommendations.

Recommendations for the Design and Analysis of Treatment Trials for Alcohol Use Disorders

BACKGROUND

Over the past 60 years, the view that "alcoholism" is a disease for which the only acceptable goal of treatment is abstinence has given way to the recognition that alcohol use disorders (AUDs) occur on a continuum of severity, for which a variety of treatment options are appropriate. However, because the available treatments for AUDs are not effective for everyone, more research is needed to develop novel and more efficacious treatments to address the range of AUD severity in diverse populations. Here we offer recommendations for the design and analysis of alcohol treatment trials, with a specific focus on the careful conduct of randomized clinical trials of medications and nonpharmacological interventions for AUDs.

METHODS

This paper provides a narrative review of the quality of published clinical trials and recommendations for the optimal design and analysis of treatment trials for AUDs.

RESULTS

Despite considerable improvements in the design of alcohol clinical trials over the past 2 decades, many studies of AUD treatments have used faulty design features and statistical methods that are known to produce biased estimates of treatment efficacy.

CONCLUSIONS

The published statistical and methodological literatures provide clear guidance on methods to improve clinical trial design and analysis. Consistent use of state-of-the-art design features and analytic approaches will enhance the internal and external validity of treatment trials for AUDs across the spectrum of severity. The ultimate result of this attention to methodological rigor is that better treatment options will be identified for patients with an AUD.

Guidelines for the Reporting of Treatment Trials for Alcohol Use Disorders

BACKGROUND

The primary goals in conducting clinical trials of treatments for alcohol use disorders (AUDs) are to identify efficacious treatments and determine which treatments are most efficacious for which patients. Accurate reporting of study design features and results is imperative to enable readers of research reports to evaluate to what extent a study has achieved these goals. Guidance on quality of clinical trial reporting has evolved substantially over the past 2 decades, primarily through the publication and widespread adoption of the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials statement. However, there is room to improve the adoption of those standards in reporting the design and findings of treatment trials for AUD.

METHODS

This paper provides a narrative review of guidance on reporting quality in AUD treatment trials.

RESULTS

Despite improvements in the reporting of results of treatment trials for AUD over the past 2 decades, many published reports provide insufficient information on design or methods.

CONCLUSIONS

The reporting of alcohol treatment trial design, analysis, and results requires improvement in 4 primary areas: (i) trial registration, (ii) procedures for recruitment and retention, (iii) procedures for randomization and intervention design considerations, and (iv) statistical methods used to assess treatment efficacy. Improvements in these areas and the adoption of reporting standards by authors, reviewers, and editors are critical to an accurate assessment of the reliability and validity of treatment effects. Continued developments in this area are needed to move AUD treatment research forward via systematic reviews and meta-analyses that maximize the utility of completed studies.

Multi-source recruitment strategies for advancing addiction recovery research beyond treated samples

BACKGROUND

The lack of established sampling frames makes reaching individuals in recovery from substance problems difficult. Although general population studies are most generalizable, the low prevalence of individuals in recovery makes this strategy costly and inefficient. Though more efficient, treatment samples are biased.

AIMS

To describe multi-source recruitment for capturing participants from heterogeneous pathways to recovery; assess which sources produced the most respondents within subgroups; and compare treatment and non-treatment samples to address generalizability.

RESULTS

Family/friends, Craigslist, social media and non-12-step groups produced the most respondents from hard-to-reach groups, such as racial minorities and treatment-naïve individuals. Recovery organizations yielded twice as many African-Americans and more rural dwellers, while social media yielded twice as many young people than other sources. Treatment samples had proportionally fewer females and older individuals compared to non-treated samples.

CONCLUSIONS

Future research on recovery should utilize previously neglected recruiting strategies to maximize the representativeness of samples.

The cost savings of expanding Medicaid eligibility to include currently uninsured homeless adults with substance use disorders

Following the June 2012 Supreme Court ruling that states are no longer mandated to expand their Medicaid programs in 2014 as part of the Affordable Care Act, many states plan to opt out of the expansion, citing affordability as their primary concern. In response to this controversy, the present study evaluated the cost savings of expanding Medicaid coverage to include currently ineligible homeless adults with substance use disorders, a subset of the population that incurs some of the greatest societal costs and is disproportionately impacted by uninsurance. Using a time horizon of 7 years, separate analyses were conducted for state and federal governments, and then a final analysis evaluated the combined costs for the other two models. Results of the study demonstrate that, although the expansion will be associated with a net cost when combining state and federal expenses and savings, states will experience tremendous savings if they choose to participate.

Are participants in pharmacological and psychotherapy treatment trials for social anxiety disorder representative of patients in real-life settings?

BACKGROUND

The present study sought to quantify the generalizability of clinical trial results in individuals with a Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fourth Edition, diagnosis of social anxiety disorder (SAD) to a large representative community sample.

METHODS

Data were derived from the 2004-2005 National Epidemiologic Survey on Alcohol and Related Conditions, a large nationally representative sample of 34,653 adults from the US population. We applied a standard set of exclusion criteria representative of pharmacological and psychotherapy clinical trials to all adults with a Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fourth Edition, diagnosis of SAD (n = 965) in the past 12 months and then to a subsample of participants seeking treatment (n = 363). Our aim was to assess how many participants with SAD would fulfill typical eligibility criteria.

RESULTS

We found that more than 7 of 10 respondents from the overall SAD sample in a typical pharmacological efficacy trial and more than 6 of 10 participants in a typical psychotherapy efficacy trial would have been excluded by at least 1 criterion. In addition, more than 8 of 10 respondents seeking treatment for SAD would have been excluded from participation in a typical pharmacological or psychotherapy efficacy trial. Having a current major depression explained a large proportion of ineligibility.

CONCLUSIONS

Clinical trials should carefully consider the impact of exclusion criteria on the generalizability of their results and explain the rationale for their use. For SAD treatment trials to adequately inform clinical practice, the eligibility rate must be increased through a general relaxation of overly stringent eligibility criteria.

Representativeness of patients enrolled in influential clinical trials: a comparison of substance dependence with other medical disorders

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study was to determine whether randomized trials of treatments for substance dependence differ from those for other medical disorders on quality of enrollment information reporting and sample representativeness.

METHOD

Twenty highly cited clinical trials (publication date 2002-2010) of treatments for each of 14 prevalent disorders were identified by structured literature search. The disorders were alcohol dependence, drug dependence, nicotine dependence, Alzheimer's disease, breast cancer, colorectal cancer, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, depression, diabetes, HIV/AIDS, hypertension, ischemic heart disease, lung cancer, and schizophrenia. The 280 clinical trials were coded for number of individuals screened for eligibility, number of screened individuals meeting eligibility criteria, and number of eligible individuals refusing to participate.

RESULTS

Substance-dependence treatment trials were significantly more likely to track and report enrollment information (75% vs. 45% of clinical trials for other disorders, p < .001). Substance-dependence trials did not differ from trials focused on other disorders on mean rate of non-enrollment. Across disorders, the primary driver of non-enrollment appeared to be clinical trial exclusion criteria rather than eligible patients refusing to enroll.

CONCLUSIONS

Relative to other disorders, trials in the substance-dependence field do a better (although imperfect) job of tracking and reporting enrollment information. Low enrollment rates and unrepresentative samples are not challenges unique to treatment outcome studies in the substance-dependence field. Across a range of disorders, clinical trials that use eligibility criteria judiciously are more likely to produce findings that generalize to front-line clinical practice than are trials that restrict enrollment to a small and unrepresentative subset of patients.

Medicaid expansion initiative in Massachusetts: enrollment among substance-abusing homeless adults

OBJECTIVES

We assessed whether homeless adults entering substance abuse treatment in Massachusetts were less likely than others to enroll in Medicaid after implementation of the MassHealth Medicaid expansion program in 1997.

METHODS

We used interrupted time-series analysis in data on substance abuse treatment admissions from the Treatment 0Episode Data Set (1992-2009) to evaluate Medicaid coverage rates in Massachusetts and to identify whether trends differed between homeless and housed participants. We also compared Massachusetts data with data from 17 other states and the District of Columbia combined.

RESULTS

The percentage of both homeless and housed people entering treatment with Medicaid increased approximately 21% after expansion (P = .01), with an average increase of 5.4% per year over 12 years (P = .01). The increase in coverage was specific to Massachusetts, providing evidence that the MassHealth policy was the cause of this increase.

CONCLUSIONS

Findings provide evidence in favor of state participation in the Medicaid expansion in January 2014 under the Affordable Care Act and suggest that hard-to-reach vulnerable groups such as substance-abusing homeless adults are as likely as other population groups to benefit from this policy.

Are subjects in treatment trials of panic disorder representative of patients in routine clinical practice? Results from a national sample

BACKGROUND

Research on the generalizability of clinical trials in panic disorder is limited. The present study sought to quantify the generalizability of clinical trials' results of individuals with DSM-IV panic disorder (PD) to a large community sample.

METHODS

Data were derived from the National Epidemiological Survey on Alcohol and Related Conditions (NESARC), a large national representative sample of 43,093 adults of the United States population. We applied a standard set of eligibility criteria representative of PD clinical trials to all adults with past 12 months PD (n=907), and then to a subgroup of participants seeking treatment (n=105). Our aim was to determine the proportion of participants with PD who would have been excluded by typical eligibility criteria.

RESULTS

We found that more than 8 out of ten participants (80.52%; 95% CI=77.13-83.52%) with PD were excluded by at least one criterion. In the subgroup of participants who sought treatment, the exclusion rate by at least one criterion was higher (92.40%; 95% CI=84.60-96.42%). For the full sample and the treatment-seeking subsample, having currently a depression and a diagnosis of alcohol or drug abuse/dependence were the criteria excluding the highest percentage of participants. Having a lifetime history of bipolar disorder and a current significant medical condition also excluded a substantial proportion of individuals in both samples. Exclusion rates were similar when considering panic disorder with and without agoraphobia.

CONCLUSIONS

Clinical trials, that exclude a majority of adults with panic disorder, should carefully consider the impact of eligibility criteria on the generalizability of their results. As required by CONSORT guidelines, reporting exclusion rate estimate and reasons of eligibility should be mandatory in both clinical trials and meta-analyses.

A methodological systematic review on surgical site infections following spinal surgery: part 1: risk factors

STUDY DESIGN

A methodological systematic review.

OBJECTIVE

To critically appraise the validity of risk factors for surgical site infection (SSI) after spinal surgery.

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA

SSIs lead to higher morbidity, mortality, and increased health care costs. Understanding which factors lead to an increased risk of SSI is important for the development of prophylactic protocols to counter this risk. To date, however, no review appraising the methodological quality of studies evaluating risk factors for spinal SSIs has been published.

METHODS

Contemporary studies identifying risk factors for SSI after spinal surgery were searched through the Medline and EMBASE databases (January 2001 to December 2010). References were retrieved and bias-prone study features were abstracted individually and independently by 2 authors.

RESULTS

Twenty-four eligible studies were identified, including 9 (nested) case-control studies and 15 case series. Included studies covered wide variations of indications and surgical procedures. A total of 73 different types of factors were evaluated for the risk of an SSI of which 34 (47%) were reported to be significantly related to at least 1 study. Only the following risk factors-diabetes mellitus, obesity, and previous SSI-were confirmed more often (n = 11, 8, and 3, respectively) as a significant risk factor for an SSI than they were disproved (n = 7, 6, and 1, respectively). Various sources of heterogeneity were observed, including patient selection, selection and analysis of putative risk factors, and definitions of SSI outcomes.

CONCLUSION

There is an abundance of conflicting data on risk factors for SSI after spinal surgery. Given various sources of heterogeneity observed in observational literature, there is a paucity of solid evidence for the proof of robust risk factors. The authors recommend the introduction, validation, and use of a standardized set of strongly justified eligibility criteria and well-defined candidate risk factors and spinal SSI outcomes.

Initiation and engagement in chronic disease management care for substance dependence

BACKGROUND

Substance dependence treatment is often episodic and not well coordinated with healthcare for common comorbidities. Chronic disease/care management (CDM), longitudinal, patient-centered care delivered by multidisciplinary health professionals, may be well suited to treat substance dependence (SD).

OBJECTIVE

To examine initiation and engagement with CDM care for SD located in a primary medical setting.

METHODS

We prospectively studied substance dependent participants enrolled in a trial of CDM addiction care. Primary study outcomes, based upon Washington Circle performance measures, were 14-day initiation of CDM care and 30-day engagement with CDM care. Factors associated with these outcomes were determined using multivariable logistic regression models. We also estimated the proportion of participants who eventually attended at least two visits and four visits by the end of the study (Kaplan-Meier method).

RESULTS

Of 282 participants, approximately half of the cohort (45%, 95% Confidence Interval [CI] 39-51%) met criteria for 14-day initiation and 23% (95% CI 18-28%) for 30-day engagement with CDM care. Most participants attended two or more (81%, 95% CI 76-85%) and four or more CDM visits (62%, 95% CI 56-68%). Major depressive episode (AOR 2.60, 95% CI 1.39, 4.87) was associated with higher odds of 14-day initiation; younger age, female sex, and higher alcohol addiction severity were associated with lower odds of 30-day engagement with CDM care.

CONCLUSION

People with SD appear to be willing to initiate and engage with CDM care in a primary medical care setting. CDM care has the potential to improve the quality of care for people with addictions.

Generalizability of clinical trials for alcohol dependence to community samples

There is a growing concern that results of tightly controlled clinical trials of individuals with alcohol use disorders may not generalize to broader community samples. To assess the proportion of community-dwelling adults with alcohol dependence who would have been eligible for a typical alcohol dependence treatment study, we developed a new, simple method: we applied a standard set of eligibility criteria commonly used in alcohol outcome studies to a large (n=43,093) representative US adult sample interviewed face-to-face, the National Epidemiologic Survey on Alcohol and Related Conditions (NESARC). We found that approximately one-half (50.5%) of all individuals with a DSM-IV diagnosis of alcohol dependence (n=1484) and 79.4% of those who sought treatment (n=185) were excluded by one or more study criteria. Individual study criteria excluded from 0.9% to 48.2% of the overall sample and 0.8% to 43.7% of the treatment-seeking sample. For the overall sample, the lack of motivation/compliance and financial situation criteria excluded the largest percentage of individuals. In the treatment-seeking subsample, comorbid medical conditions and legal problems excluded the largest proportions of individuals. Our study provides a new method to assess the generalizability of clinical trials, and gives further evidence that typical clinical trials for alcohol dependence likely exclude most adults with the disorder in the community and under care, and support the notion that clinical trials recruit "pure" rather than "typical" patients. Clinical trials should carefully evaluate the effects of the selected eligibility criteria on the generalizability of their results.