Search the Library

Abstract: Studies often report estimates of the average treatment effect (ATE). While the ATE summarizes the effect of a treatment on average, it does not provide any information about the effect of treatment within any individual. A treatment strategy that uses an individual’s information to tailor treatment to maximize benefit is known as an optimal dynamic treatment rule (ODTR). Treatment, however, is typically not limited to a single point in time; consequently, learning an optimal rule for a time-varying treatment may involve not just learning the extent to which the comparative treatments’ benefits vary across the characteristics of individuals, but also learning the extent to which the comparative treatments’ benefits vary as relevant circumstances evolve within an individual. The goal of this paper, part of CTN-0094 (Individual Level Predictive Modeling of Opioid Use Disorder Treatment Outcome), is to provide a tutorial for estimating ODTR from longitudinal observational and clinical trial data for applied researchers. The authors describe an approach that uses a doubly-robust unbiased transformation of the conditional average treatment effect. They then learn a time-varying ODTR for when to increase buprenorphine-naloxone (BUP-NX) dose to minimize return-to-regular-opioid-use among patients with opioid use disorder. Conclusions: This analysis highlights the utility of ODTRs in the context of sequential decision making: the learned ODTR outperforms a clinically defined strategy. Related protocols: CTN-0094

Abstract:

A lack of consensus on the optimal outcome measures to assess opioid use disorder (OUD) treatment efficacy and their precise definition and computation has hampered the pooling of research data for evidence synthesis and meta-analyses. This study aimed to empirically contrast multiple clinical trial definitions of treatment success by applying them to the same dataset.

Data analysis used a suite of functions, developed as a software package for the R language, to operationalize 61 treatment outcome definitions based on urine drug screening (UDS) results. Outcome definitions were derived from clinical trials that are among the most influential in the OUD treatment field. Outcome functions testing various medication for OUD (MOUD) options were applied to a dataset (n=2492) derived from the CTN-0094 project, which harmonized data from three large-scale National Drug Abuse Treatment Clinical Trials Network (CTN) studies (CTN-0027, CTN-0030, CTN-0051). Hierarchical clustering was employed to empirically contrast outcome definitions.

The optimal number of clusters identified was three. Cluster 1, comprising eight definitions focused on detecting opioid-positive UDS, did not include missing UDS in outcome calculations, potentially resulting in inflated rates of treatment success. Cluster 2, with the highest variability, included 10 definitions characterized by strict criteria for treatment success, relying heavily on UDS results from either a brief period or a single study visit. The 43 definitions in Cluster 3 represented a diverse range of outcomes, conceptualized as measuring abstinence, use reduction and relapse. These definitions potentially offer more balanced measures of treatment success or failure, as they avoid the extreme methodologies characteristic of Clusters 1 and 2.

Conclusions: Clinical trials using urine drug screening (UDS) for objective substance use assessment in outcome definitions should consider (1) incorporating missing UDS data in outcome computation and (2) avoiding over-reliance on UDS data confined to a short time frame or the occurrence of a single positive urine test following a period of abstinence.

Related protocols: CTN-0094

Abstract:

No existing model allows clinicians to predict whether patients might return to opioid use in the early stages of treatment for opioid use disorder. The goal of this study was to develop an individual-level prediction tool for risk of return to use in opioid use disorder.

This decision analytical model (CTN-0094) used predictive modeling with individual-level data harmonized in June 1, 2019, to October 1, 2022, from 3 multicenter, pragmatic, randomized clinical trials of at least 12 weeks’ duration within the National Institute on Drug Abuse Clinical Trials Network (CTN) performed between 2006 and 2016 (CTN-0027 [START], CTN-0030 [POATS], and CTN-0051 [X:BOT]). The clinical trials covered a variety of treatment settings, including federally licensed treatment sites, physician practices, and inpatient treatment facilities. All 3 trials enrolled adult participants older than 18 years, with broad pragmatic inclusion and few exclusion criteria except for major medical and unstable psychiatric comorbidities.

All participants received 1 of 3 medications for opioid use disorder: methadone, buprenorphine, or extended-release naltrexone. Predictive models were developed for return to use, which was defined as 4 consecutive weeks of urine drug screen (UDS) results either missing or positive for nonprescribed opioids by week 12 of treatment.

The overall sample included 2199 trial participants (mean [SD] age, 35.3 [10.7] years; 728 women [33.1%] and 1471 men [66.9%]). The final model based on 4 predictors at treatment entry (heroin use days, morphine- and cocaine-positive UDS results, and heroin injection in the past 30 days) yielded an area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC) of 0.67 (95% CI, 0.62-0.71). Adding UDS in the first 3 treatment weeks improved model performance (AUROC, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.78-0.85). A simplified score (CTN-0094 OUD Return-to-Use Risk Score) provided good clinical risk stratification wherein patients with weekly opioid-negative UDS results in the 3 weeks after treatment initiation had a 13% risk of return to use compared with 85% for those with 3 weeks of opioid-positive or missing UDS results (AUROC, 0.80; 95% CI, 0.76-0.84).

Conclusions: The prediction model described in this study may be a universal risk measure for return to opioid use by treatment week 3. Interventions to prevent return to regular use should focus on this critical early treatment period.

Related protocols: CTN-0027, CTN-0030, CTN-0051, CTN-0094

Abstract:

The efficacy of treatments for substance use disorders (SUD) is tested in clinical trials in which participants typically provide urine samples to detect whether the person has used certain substances via urine drug screenings (UDS). UDS data form the foundation of treatment outcome assessment in the vast majority of SUD clinical trials. However, existing methods to calculate treatment outcomes are not standardized, impeding comparability between studies and prohibiting reproducibility of results.

In this study, the researchers extended the concept of a binary UDS variable to multiple categories: “+” [positive for substance(s) of interest], “–” [negative for substance(s)], “o” [patient failed to provide sample], “*” [inconclusive or mixed results], and “_” [no specimens required per study design]. This construct can be used to create a standardized and sufficient representation of UDS datastreams and sufficiently collapses longitudinal records into a single, compact “word”, which preserves all information contained in the original data.

Researchers developed the R software package CTNote (available on CRAN) as a tool to enable computers to parse these “words”. The software package contains five groups of routines: detect a substance use pattern, account for a specific trial protocol, handle missing UDS data, measure the longest period of consecutive behavior, and count substance use events. Executing permutations of these routines result in algorithms which can define SUD clinical trial endpoints. As examples, the authors provide three algorithms to define primary endpoints from seminal SUD clinical trials

Conclusions: Representing substance use patterns as a “word” allows researchers and clinicians an “at a glance” assessment of participants’ responses to treatment over time. Further, machine readable use pattern summaries are a standardized method to calculate treatment outcomes and are therefore useful to all future SUD clinical trials. The paper includes discussion of some caveats when applying this data summarization technique in practice and areas of future study.

Related protocols: CTN-0094