Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Outcome Assessment in Trials of Pharmacological Treatments for Alcohol Use Disorders: Fair and Strict Testing

  • Review Article
  • Published:
CNS Drugs Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Outcome assessment in the pharmacological treatment of alcohol use disorders (AUDs) faces specific challenges resulting from low adherence to treatment, high rates of dropout, and the susceptibility of patient self-reports to bias. This review discusses methodological issues in planning, conducting, and interpreting clinical trials on AUD treatment against the background of the principle of ‘strictness and fairness’ of testing. Threats to fairness include factors that limit the implementation of an intervention, such as low compliance and early treatment termination. In turn, fairness of testing is increased by factors that support the degree to which an intervention is implemented, such as the use of adequate pretreatments and the matching of psychosocial and pharmacological treatment strategies. Furthermore, selecting outcomes on the basis of an intervention’s mechanism of action and including continuous outcomes as sensitive measures of drinking change further increases fairness by increasing the likelihood that the data will adequately reflect the effects of the intervention. On the other hand, strictness of testing is increased by all measures that limit the influence of confounders that could potentially lead to an overestimation of effects. The use of a side effect-mimicking placebo to prevent an unmasking of blinding and the repeated assessment of alcohol biomarkers to validate drinking self-reports might be valid strategies to further increase the strictness of testing by limiting risks of bias in trials of AUD treatment.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Grant BF, Goldstein RB, Saha TD, Chou SP, Jung J, Zhang H, et al. Epidemiology of DSM-5 alcohol use disorder: results from the National epidemiologic survey on alcohol and related conditions III. JAMA Psychiatry. 2015;72(8):757–66.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Kranzler HR, Soyka M. Diagnosis and pharmacotherapy of alcohol use disorder: a review. JAMA. 2018;320(8):815–24.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Rehm J, Dawson D, Frick U, Gmel G, Roerecke M, Shield KD, et al. Burden of disease associated with alcohol use disorders in the United States. Alcohol Clin Exp Res. 2014;38(4):1068–77.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Donoghue K, Elzerbi C, Saunders R, Whittington C, Pilling S, Drummond C. The efficacy of acamprosate and naltrexone in the treatment of alcohol dependence, Europe versus the rest of the world: a meta-analysis. Addiction. 2015;110(6):920–30.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Maisel NC, Blodgett JC, Wilbourne PL, Humphreys K, Finney JW. Meta-analysis of naltrexone and acamprosate for treating alcohol use disorders: when are these medications most helpful? Addiction. 2013;108(2):275–93.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Brorson HH, Ajo Arnevik E, Rand-Hendriksen K, Duckert F. Drop-out from addiction treatment: a systematic review of risk factors. Clin Psychol Rev. 2013;33(8):1010–24.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Raes V, De Jong CA, De Bacquer D, Broekaert E, De Maeseneer J. The effect of using assessment instruments on substance-abuse outpatients’ adherence to treatment: a multi-centre randomised controlled trial. BMC Health Serv Res. 2011;11:123.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Matthews S, Dwyer R, Snoek A. Stigma and self-stigma in addiction. J Bioeth Inq. 2017;14(2):275–86.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Schomerus G, Matschinger H, Angermeyer MC. Attitudes towards alcohol dependence and affected individuals: persistence of negative stereotypes and illness beliefs between 1990 and 2011. Eur Addict Res. 2014;20(6):293–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Yoshino A, Kato M. Influence of social desirability response set on self-report for assessing the outcome of treated alcoholics. Alcohol Clin Exp Res. 1995;19(6):1517–9.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Rosner S, Hackl-Herrwerth A, Leucht S, Lehert P, Vecchi S, Soyka M. Acamprosate for alcohol dependence. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2010;9:CD004332.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Allen JP. Measuring outcome in interventions for alcohol dependence and problem drinking: executive summary of a conference sponsored by the National Institute on alcohol abuse and alcoholism. Alcohol Clin Exp Res. 2003;27(10):1657–60.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Westermann R, Hager W. Error probabilities in educational and psychological research. J Educ Stat. 1986;11:117–46.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Moos RH, Moos BS. Rates and predictors of relapse after natural and treated remission from alcohol use disorders. Addiction. 2006;101(2):212–22.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Witkiewitz K, Finney JW, Harris AH, Kivlahan DR, Kranzler HR. Guidelines for the reporting of treatment trials for alcohol use disorders. Alcohol Clin Exp Res. 2015;39(9):1571–81.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Jonas DE, Amick HR, Feltner C, Bobashev G, Thomas K, Wines R, et al. Pharmacotherapy for adults with alcohol use disorders in outpatient settings: a systematic review and meta-analysis. JAMA. 2014;311(18):1889–900.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Shen WW. Anticraving therapy for alcohol use disorder: a clinical review. Neuropsychopharmacol Rep. 2018;38(3):105–16.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Minozzi S, Saulle R, Rosner S. Baclofen for alcohol use disorder. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2018;11:CD012557.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Pierce M, Sutterland A, Beraha EM, Morley K, van den Brink W. Efficacy, tolerability, and safety of low-dose and high-dose baclofen in the treatment of alcohol dependence: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur Neuropsychopharmacol. 2018;28(7):795–806.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Mutschler J, Grosshans M, Soyka M, Rosner S. Current findings and mechanisms of action of disulfiram in the treatment of alcohol dependence. Pharmacopsychiatry. 2016;49(4):137–41.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Rosner S, Grosshans M, Mutschler JH. Disulfiram: Aktuelle Befunde und Wirkmechanismen. Suchtmedizin. 2014;16(2):47–52.

    Google Scholar 

  22. Skinner MD, Lahmek P, Pham H, Aubin HJ. Disulfiram efficacy in the treatment of alcohol dependence: a meta-analysis. PLoS One. 2014;9(2):e87366.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Bujarski S, O’Malley SS, Lunny K, Ray LA. The effects of drinking goal on treatment outcome for alcoholism. J Consult Clin Psychol. 2013;81(1):13–22.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Hasin DS, Wall M, Witkiewitz K, Kranzler HR, Falk D, Litten R, et al. Change in non-abstinent WHO drinking risk levels and alcohol dependence: a 3 year follow-up study in the US general population. Lancet Psychiatry. 2017;4(6):469–76.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. European Medicines Agency. Guideline on the development of medicinal products for the treatment of alcohol dependence. London: European Medicines Agency; 2010.

    Google Scholar 

  26. Palpacuer C, Duprez R, Huneau A, Locher C, Boussageon R, Laviolle B, et al. Pharmacologically controlled drinking in the treatment of alcohol dependence or alcohol use disorders: a systematic review with direct and network meta-analyses on nalmefene, naltrexone, acamprosate, baclofen and topiramate. Addiction. 2018;113(2):220–37.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Bakhshi E, McArdle B, Mohammad K, Seifi B, Biglarian A. Let continuous outcome variables remain continuous. Comput Math Methods Med. 2012;2012:639124.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. MacCallum RC, Zhang S, Preacher KJ, Rucker DD. On the practice of dichotomization of quantitative variables. Psychol Methods. 2002;7(1):19–40.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Yoo B. The impact of dichotomization in longitudinal data analysis: a simulation study. Pharm Stat. 2010;9(4):298–312.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Witkiewitz K, Hallgren KA, Kranzler HR, Mann KF, Hasin DS, Falk DE, et al. Clinical validation of reduced alcohol consumption after treatment for alcohol dependence using the World Health Organization risk drinking levels. Alcohol Clin Exp Res. 2017;41(1):179–86.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Tiffany ST, Friedman L, Greenfield SF, Hasin DS, Jackson R. Beyond drug use: a systematic consideration of other outcomes in evaluations of treatments for substance use disorders. Addiction. 2012;107(4):709–18.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Carr AJ, Gibson B, Robinson PG. Measuring quality of life: is quality of life determined by expectations or experience? BMJ. 2001;322(7296):1240–3.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  33. Donovan DM, Kivlahan DR, Doyle SR, Longabaugh R, Greenfield SF. Concurrent validity of the Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test (AUDIT) and AUDIT zones in defining levels of severity among out-patients with alcohol dependence in the COMBINE study. Addiction. 2006;101(12):1696–704.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Becker SJ, Curry JF, Yang C. Longitudinal association between frequency of substance use and quality of life among adolescents receiving a brief outpatient intervention. Psychol Addict Behav. 2009;23(3):482–90.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Sobell LC, Sobell MB. Timeline follow-back: a technique for assessing self-reported alcohol consumption. Totowa: Human Press; 1992.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  36. Miller WR. Form 90. A structured assessment interview for drinking and related behaviors: test manual. Bethesda: National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism; 1996.

  37. Shiffman S. Ecological momentary assessment (EMA) in studies of substance use. Psychol Assess. 2009;21(4):486–97.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Simons JS, Wills TA, Emery NN, Marks RM. Quantifying alcohol consumption: self-report, transdermal assessment, and prediction of dependence symptoms. Addict Behav. 2015;50:205–12.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Maisto SA, Conigliaro JC, Gordon AJ, McGinnis KA, Justice AC. An experimental study of the agreement of self-administration and telephone administration of the timeline followback interview. J Stud Alcohol Drugs. 2008;69(3):468–71.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Pedersen ER, Grow J, Duncan S, Neighbors C, Larimer ME. Concurrent validity of an online version of the timeline followback assessment. Psychol Addict Behav. 2012;26(3):672–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Del Boca FK, Darkes J. The validity of self-reports of alcohol consumption: state of the science and challenges for research. Addiction. 2003;98(Suppl 2):1–12.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Finney JW, Moyer A, Swearingen CE. Outcome variables and their assessment in alcohol treatment studies: 1968–1998. Alcohol Clin Exp Res. 2003;27(10):1671–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Andresen-Streichert H, Muller A, Glahn A, Skopp G, Sterneck M. Alcohol biomarkers in clinical and forensic contexts. Dtsch Arztebl Int. 2018;115(18):309–15.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  44. Ingall GB. Alcohol biomarkers. Clin Lab Med. 2012;32(3):391–406.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Tavakoli HR, Hull M, Michael Okasinski L. Review of current clinical biomarkers for the detection of alcohol dependence. Innov Clin Neurosci. 2011;8(3):26–33.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  46. Cabezas J, Lucey MR, Bataller R. Biomarkers for monitoring alcohol use. Clin Liver Dis. 2016;2:59–63.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. Karns-Wright TE, Roache JD, Hill-Kapturczak N, Liang Y, Mullen J, Dougherty DM. Time delays in transdermal alcohol concentrations relative to breath alcohol concentrations. Alcohol Alcohol. 2017;52(1):35–41.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  48. Swift R. Transdermal alcohol measurement for estimation of blood alcohol concentration. Alcohol Clin Exp Res. 2000;24(4):422–3.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  49. Voas RB, DuPont RL, Talpins SK, Shea CL. Towards a national model for managing impaired driving offenders. Addiction. 2011;106(7):1221–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  50. Dougherty DM, Hill-Kapturczak N, Liang Y, Karns TE, Cates SE, Lake SL, et al. Use of continuous transdermal alcohol monitoring during a contingency management procedure to reduce excessive alcohol use. Drug Alcohol Depend. 2014;142:301–6.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  51. Roache JD, Karns-Wright TE, Goros M, Hill-Kapturczak N, Mathias CW, Dougherty DM. Processing transdermal alcohol concentration (TAC) data to detect low-level drinking. Alcohol. 2018. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.alcohol.2018.08.014.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  52. Koffarnus MN, Bickel WK, Kablinger AS. Remote alcohol monitoring to facilitate incentive-based treatment for alcohol use disorder: a randomized trial. Alcohol Clin Exp Res. 2018;42(12):2423–31.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  53. Deci EL, Koestner R, Ryan RM. A meta-analytic review of experiments examining the effects of extrinsic rewards on intrinsic motivation. Psychol Bull. 1999;125(6):627–68 (discussion 92–700).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  54. Kwako LE, Momenan R, Litten RZ, Koob GF, Goldman D. Addictions neuroclinical assessment: a neuroscience-based framework for addictive disorders. Biol Psychiatry. 2016;80(3):179–89.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  55. Ray LA, Bujarski S, Roche DJO, Magill M. Overcoming the “valley of death” in medications development for alcohol use disorder. Alcohol Clin Exp Res. 2018;42(9):1612–22.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  56. Cook TD, Campbell DT. Quasi-experimentation: design and analysis issues for field settings. Chicago: Rand McNally; 1979.

    Google Scholar 

  57. Del Re AC, Maisel NC, Blodgett JC, Finney JW. Intention-to-treat analyses and missing data approaches in pharmacotherapy trials for alcohol use disorders. BMJ Open. 2013;3(11):e003464.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  58. Heinala P, Alho H, Kiianmaa K, Lonnqvist J, Kuoppasalmi K, Sinclair JD. Targeted use of naltrexone without prior detoxification in the treatment of alcohol dependence: a factorial double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. J Clin Psychopharmacol. 2001;21(3):287–92.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  59. O’Malley SS, Jaffe AJ, Chang G, Schottenfeld RS, Meyer RE, Rounsaville B. Naltrexone and coping skills therapy for alcohol dependence. A controlled study. Arch Gen Psychiatry. 1992;49(11):881–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  60. Witkiewitz K, Falk DE, Kranzler HR, Litten RZ, Hallgren KA, O’Malley SS, et al. Methods to analyze treatment effects in the presence of missing data for a continuous heavy drinking outcome measure when participants drop out from treatment in alcohol clinical trials. Alcohol Clin Exp Res. 2014;38(11):2826–34.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  61. Stout RL. Methodological and statistical considerations in measuring alcohol treatment effects. Alcohol Clin Exp Res. 2003;27(10):1686–91.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  62. Lehert P. Review and discussion of statistical analysis of controlled clinical trials in alcoholism. Alcohol Alcohol Suppl. 1993;2:157–63.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  63. Moncrieff J. A comparison of antidepressant trials using active and inert placebos. Int J Methods Psychiatr Res. 2003;12(3):117–27.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  64. Jensen JS, Bielefeldt AO, Hrobjartsson A. Active placebo control groups of pharmacological interventions were rarely used but merited serious consideration: a methodological overview. J Clin Epidemiol. 2017;87:35–46.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  65. Rosner S, Hackl-Herrwerth A, Leucht S, Vecchi S, Srisurapanont M, Soyka M. Opioid antagonists for alcohol dependence. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2010;12:CD001867.

    Google Scholar 

  66. Litten RZ, Castle IJ, Falk D, Ryan M, Fertig J, Chen CM, et al. The placebo effect in clinical trials for alcohol dependence: an exploratory analysis of 51 naltrexone and acamprosate studies. Alcohol Clin Exp Res. 2013;37(12):2128–37.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  67. Khan A, Detke M, Khan SR, Mallinckrodt C. Placebo response and antidepressant clinical trial outcome. J Nerv Ment Dis. 2003;191(4):211–8.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  68. Kirsch I, Deacon BJ, Huedo-Medina TB, Scoboria A, Moore TJ, Johnson BT. Initial severity and antidepressant benefits: a meta-analysis of data submitted to the food and drug administration. PLoS Med. 2008;5(2):e45.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  69. Anton RF, O’Malley SS, Ciraulo DA, Cisler RA, Couper D, Donovan DM, et al. Combined pharmacotherapies and behavioral interventions for alcohol dependence: the COMBINE study: a randomized controlled trial. JAMA. 2006;295(17):2003–17.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  70. Fertig JB, Ryan ML, Falk DE, Litten RZ, Mattson ME, Ransom J, et al. A double-blind, placebo-controlled trial assessing the efficacy of levetiracetam extended-release in very heavy drinking alcohol-dependent patients. Alcohol Clin Exp Res. 2012;36(8):1421–30.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  71. Chan AW, Tetzlaff JM, Altman DG, Dickersin K, Moher D. SPIRIT 2013: new guidance for content of clinical trial protocols. Lancet. 2013;381(9861):91–2.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  72. International Conference on Harmonisation of Technical Requirements for Registration of Pharmaceuticals for Human Use. ICH Harmonised Tripartite Guideline: Statistical Principles for Clinical Trials E9. London: European Medicines Agency; 1998.

  73. Heffner JL, Tran GQ, Johnson CS, Barrett SW, Blom TJ, Thompson RD, et al. Combining motivational interviewing with compliance enhancement therapy (MI-CET): development and preliminary evaluation of a new, manual-guided psychosocial adjunct to alcohol-dependence pharmacotherapy. J Stud Alcohol Drugs. 2010;71(1):61–70.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  74. Schulz KF, Grimes DA. Sample size slippages in randomised trials: exclusions and the lost and wayward. Lancet. 2002;359(9308):781–5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  75. Spieth PM, Kubasch AS, Penzlin AI, Illigens BM, Barlinn K, Siepmann T. Randomized controlled trials—a matter of design. Neuropsychiatr Dis Treat. 2016;12:1341–9.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  76. Hallgren KA, Witkiewitz K. Missing data in alcohol clinical trials: a comparison of methods. Alcohol Clin Exp Res. 2013;37(12):2152–60.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  77. Jackson D, White IR, Mason D, Sutton S. A general method for handling missing binary outcome data in randomized controlled trials. Addiction. 2014;109(12):1986–93.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  78. Klemperer EM, Hughes JR, Naud S. Study characteristics influence the efficacy of substance abuse treatments: a meta-analysis of medications for alcohol use disorder. Drug Alcohol Depend. 2018;190:229–34.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  79. Sobell MB, Sobell LC. Controlled drinking after 25 years: how important was the great debate? Addiction. 1995;90(9):1149–53 (discussion 57–77).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  80. Jones JD, Comer SD, Kranzler HR. The pharmacogenetics of alcohol use disorder. Alcohol Clin Exp Res. 2015;39(3):391–402.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors thank Jacquie Klesing, Board-certified Editor in the Life Sciences (ELS), for editing assistance with the manuscript.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Forel Clinic, Addiction Treatment Center, Islikonerstrasse 5, 8548, Ellikon an der Thur, Switzerland

    Susanne Rösner

  2. Psychiatric Hospital, University of Munich, Munich, Germany

    Michael Soyka

  3. Medical Park Chiemseeblick, Bernau, Germany

    Michael Soyka

Authors
  1. Susanne Rösner
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Michael Soyka
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Susanne Rösner.

Ethics declarations

Funding

No funding was received for the preparation of this review.

Conflict of interest

Susanne Rösner and Michael Soyka declare that they have no conflict of interest related to the content of this review.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Rösner, S., Soyka, M. Outcome Assessment in Trials of Pharmacological Treatments for Alcohol Use Disorders: Fair and Strict Testing. CNS Drugs 33, 649–657 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40263-019-00644-0

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40263-019-00644-0

Search

Navigation