Search the Library

Introduction: The initiation of buprenorphine for patients with opioid use disorder (OUD) in the emergency department (ED) has been associated with improved outcomes including reduced ED visits and increased treatment engagement. Though both standard-dose (8 mg buprenorphine equivalent) and high-dose (24 mg buprenorphine equivalent) strategies to initiate buprenorphine have been used in the ED, no prospective trials comparing outcomes among patients receiving these treatments have been reported.

Methods and analysis: This multisite randomised clinical trial (CTN-0145) is a multisite double-blind, double-dummy, randomised clinical trial enrolling 360 emergency department patients with moderate-to-severe OUD. Enrolled patients will be randomised to one of two study arms: standard-dose induction or high-dose induction, both provided in the ED. This study will engage, train and provide resources to five EDs throughout the US to recruit patients with untreated OUD into a randomised clinical trial. The primary aim is to evaluate the effects of the standard-dose induction and high-dose induction on rates of OUD treatment participation within 10 days post-randomisation. The secondary aims are to evaluate differences between standard-dose induction and high-dose induction on the outcomes of opioid craving, opioid withdrawal symptoms and illicit drug use assessed during 10 days post randomisation and evaluate the effects between treatment arms on rates of OUD treatment participation within 30 days post randomisation.

Ethics and dissemination: This study is funded by the National Institute on Drug Abuse and has been approved by the WCG Instutitional Review Board. It has been registered at clinicaltrials.gov. This study will inform the strategy for treatment initiation with buprenorphine among diverse ED settings and will provide ongoing evidence to support the safety and efficacy of initiating treatment for OUD in the ED.

Related protocols: CTN-0145

This commentary examines methodological and ethical problems encountered when a multi-arm clinical trial loses access to one or more of its arms, using the Retention Phase of the NIDA Clinical Trials Network CTN-0100 study, Optimizing Retention, Duration and Discontinuation Strategies for Opioid Use Disorder Pharmacotherapy (RDD) as an example.

RDD is a community-based, multi-site trial testing strategies to reduce dropout from medication treatment for opioid use disorder. Among patients with opioid use disorder initiating buprenorphine treatment, the original design was a 3 by 2 factorial comprising 3 pharmacological conditions (Standard-Dose sublingual buprenorphine–16 mg/day target [SL-BUP 16], High-Dose sublingual buprenorphine–32 mg/day target [SL-BUP 32], or extended-release injectable buprenorphine [XR-BUP]), crossed with 2 behavioral conditions: medical management with vs. without a technology-based digital therapeutic app providing cognitive behavioral therapy lessons and contingency management.

The trial experienced two major disruptions to study interventions: 1) The supply of XR-BUP became temporarily unavailable due to manufacturing problems; and 2) The company supplying the digital therapeutic app went bankrupt, rendering the original app permanently unavailable. Questions considered by the study lead team included: 1) Whether to pause recruitment into the trial altogether or continue recruitment into truncated designs omitting the unavailable interventions; 2) How to account for participants who did not experience full exposure to the halted interventions; 3) Whether to substitute a similar intervention; and 4) The problem of concurrent randomizations, namely that a truncated design does not contain all the concurrent randomizations of the full design, introducing risk of confounding or bias.

This experience from the RDD trial demonstrates how multi-arm clinical trials that lose access to an intervention arm can continue with a truncated design, allowing continued progress on study aims, while balancing methodological purity with the pragmatic imperative to keep the trial running and respect subjects’ participation.

Related protocols: CTN-0100

Opioid use disorder (OUD) and resulting opioid-related overdoses are significant contributors to maternal morbidity and mortality. Yet very few clinical trials focus on evaluating the efficacy of medications for OUD among pregnant populations. Understanding challenges to the recruitment and retention of pregnant participants with OUD in clinical trials and identifying effective strategies to overcome these barriers are urgently needed to help improve outcomes.

The SUCCESSful recruitment and retention in a randomized controlled trial of pregnant participants with opioid use disorder (SUCCESS, CTN-0080-A-1) study was conceptualized and designed by researchers from the Medication treatment for Opioid use disorder in expectant Mothers (MOMs) trial (NIH NIDA NCT03918850). The objective of the SUCCESS study is to identify strategies, facilitators, and barriers to recruiting and retaining pregnant and postpartum participants with OUD in the MOMs trial.

The SUCCESS study entails (1) semi-structured interviews with researchers from all 13 MOMs sites, (2) focus groups with MOMs trial participants, and (3) a modified Delphi process to develop data-driven guidance for future clinical trials.

This commentary describes the motivation to conduct this study, presents our conceptual framework and critical decision points in protocol development, and describes the proposed product of this study.

Related protocols: CTN-0080-A-1

Background: Cocaine remains the most abused stimulant, causing considerable morbidity and mortality. Despite decades of research, there is no FDA-approved medication to treat cocaine use disorder (CUD). In individuals with cocaine and opioid dependence/abuse, extended-release injectable naltrexone (XR-NTX) and sublingual buprenorphine (BUP; 16 mg with naloxone; Suboxone) reduced cocaine use compared to placebo and XR-NTX in the “Cocaine Use Reduction with Buprenorphine” (CURB; CTN-0048) study.

Objectives: The CURB-2 (CTN-0109) study aims to examine whether administering XR-NTX in combination with extended-release injectable buprenorphine (XR-BUP), thus creating a “kappa antagonist,” is an effective pharmacotherapy compared to placebo for the treatment of CUD.

Study design: CURB-2 is a fully powered, phase IIb, randomized, placebo-controlled trial. Approximately 426 participants will be randomized across 12 study sites in the United States. There will be a 1-week medication induction phase, an 8-week active medication phase, and a 4-week follow-up phase. XR-NTX (Day 1, Week 3, Week 6) will be administered before XR-BUP (Day 4, Week 4). With naltrexone blocking the mu-opioid receptors, the reinforcing effects of buprenorphine will be blocked while leaving the kappa antagonist effects.

Discussion: If this kappa antagonist approach demonstrates efficacy in reducing urine-verified cocaine use compared to placebo, XR-NTX and XR-BUP combination therapy would be an important tool in addressing cocaine use disorder.

Related protocols: CTN-0109

Background: Cocaine and methamphetamine use disorders (CcUD/MtUD) have serious public health, medical, and psychiatric consequences. Yet, there are no U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved treatments available. The STIMULUS study is a multi-site trial, sponsored by NIDA’s National Drug Abuse Treatment Clinical Trials Network (CTN), that aims to investigate the feasibility and preliminary efficacy of repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) as a potential treatment for moderate to severe CcUD/MtUD.

Methods: The study is a double-blind, sham-controlled trial seeking to recruit 160 participants with a current moderate to severe CcUD or MtUD diagnosis, randomized to receive active rTMS (10-Hz stimulation at 120% motor threshold over the left dorsolateral prefrontal cortex) or sham. Feasibility is assessed by a target of at least 20 treatment sessions administered within an 8-week period. Additionally, the study aims to evaluate the efficacy of rTMS in reducing stimulant use and craving, the impact of rTMS on mood, anxiety, sleep, and other measures, and the utility of electroencephalography as a treatment response biomarker.

Discussion: Studies exploring rTMS for stimulant use disorders remain limited by small sample sizes, as well as great heterogeneity in defined study population, treatment parameters, retention in treatment, and number of sessions. In this paper, we highlight key study design decisions, such as safety, sham procedure, and schedule flexibility.

Conclusions:
We hope that the data collected will lay the groundwork for a robust randomized controlled trial of rTMS as a therapeutic intervention for individuals with CcUD/MtUD.

Related protocols: CTN-0108

In addition to the studies underway, CTN participants are planning multi-site clinical trials with emerging results that address HIV/AIDS. The CTN has a HIV/AIDS Special Interest Group (SIG) that meets regularly to discuss study ideas and policy approaches. The SIG provides a supportive place to discuss HIV research related to the CTN, share information with each other about opportunities and developments, promote AIDS ideas and research in the CTN, and link CTN research with the AIDS Research Office of NIDA. The SIG periodically reviews and prioritizes study ideas before they work their way up the organizational hierarchy, and, in the latest CTN Call for Concepts, had developed approximately ten suggestions for HIV-related research studies.

Several studies using the CTN ?platform? have also been fielded with external resources. The term ?platform study? describes extramurally funded research that builds on the CTN infrastructure. Studies can add a dimension to a CTN trial, test an intervention by using the infrastructure of the CTN, focus on CTN programs to understand an issue, include CTN programs in data collection, or provide training or career development in the CTN. Extramurally funded platform studies are addressing such issues as models of care for HIV and hepatitis, integrating medical treatment with addiction treatment, and improving adherence to HIV medications.

As the opioid epidemic continues to have a major negative impact across the US, community pharmacies have come under scrutiny from legal systems attempting to hold them accountable for their role in over-dispensing and lack of patient intervention. While the most available tool for monitoring patients’ opioid use is Prescription Drug Monitoring Programs (PDMP), these do not provide pharmacists with actionable information and decision support. Our study addresses this gap through three objectives: [1] incorporate validated opioid risk metric thresholds into a PDMP platform to create the Opioid Risk Reduction Clinical Decision Support (ORRCDS) tool; [2] assess ORRCDS’ ability to reduce patient opioid risk; [3] assess ORRCDS’ sustainability and viability for broader dissemination in community pharmacy.

For objective 1, our team is partnering with leadership from the largest US PDMP organization and a top-five pharmacy chain to implement ORRCDS into the pharmacy chain’s workflow following the Guideline Implementation with Decision Support (GUIDES) framework. For objective 2, our team will conduct a type-1 implementation mixed methods study using a 2-arm parallel group clustered randomized design. We anticipate enrolling ~6,600 patients with moderate and high opioid use risk during the 6-month enrollment phase across 80 pharmacies. This sample size will provide 96.3% power to detect a 5% or greater difference in responder rate between the intervention and control arm. Responders are patients with moderate-risk at baseline who reduce to low-risk or those with high-risk at baseline who reduce to moderate or low-risk at 180 days post last intervention. To accomplish objective 3, we will use the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) to develop and execute cross-sectional qualitative interviews with pharmacists (n=15), pharmacy leaders (n=15), and PDMP leaders (n=15) regarding long term adoption and sustainability of the ORRCDS tool.

Conclusions: A PDMP tool that addresses moderate- and high-risk opioid use is not available in community pharmacy. This study will implement ORRCDS in a large retail pharmacy chain that will include additional screening and guidance to pharmacy staff to address risky opioid medication use. Our results will make critical advancements for protecting patient health and addressing the opioid epidemic.

Related protocols: CTN-0138

The increase in opioid-related overdoses has caused a decrease in average life expectancy, highlighting the need for effective interventions to reduce overdose risk and prevent subsequent overdoses. Peer support specialists (PSSs) offer an appealing strategy to engage overdose survivors and reduce overdose risk, but randomized controlled trials are needed to formalize peer-led interventions and evaluate their effectiveness.

Objective: This National Institute on Drug Abuse Clinical Trials Network (CTN) study is a multisite, prospective, pilot randomized (1:1) controlled trial (CTN protocol 0107) that aims to evaluate the effectiveness of an emergency department (ED)–initiated, peer-delivered intervention tailored for opioid overdose survivors (Peer Intervention to Link Overdose survivors to Treatment [PILOT]), compared with treatment as usual (TAU).

Methods: This study evaluates the effectiveness of the 6-month, PSS-led PILOT intervention compared with TAU on the primary outcome of reducing overdose risk behavior 6 months after enrollment. Adults (aged =18 years; N=150) with a recent opioid-related overdose were identified and approached in the ED. Participants were screened and enrolled, either in the ED or within 7 days of ED discharge at research offices or in the community and then asked to complete study visits at months 1, 3, 6 (end of intervention), and 7 (follow-up). Participants were enrolled at 3 study sites in the United States: Greenville, South Carolina; Youngstown, Ohio; and Everett, Washington. Participants randomized to the PILOT intervention received a 6-month, PSS-led intervention tailored to each participant’s goals to reduce their overdose risk behavior (eg, overdose harm reduction, housing, medical, and substance use treatment or recovery goals). Participants randomized to TAU received standard-of-care overdose materials, education, and services provided through the participating EDs. This paper describes the study protocol and procedures, explains the design and inclusion and exclusion decisions, and provides details of the peer-led PILOT intervention and supervision of PILOT PSSs.

Results: Study enrollment opened in December 2021 and was closed in July 2023. A total of 150 participants across 3 sites were enrolled in the study, meeting the proposed sample size for the trial. Primary and secondary analyses are underway and expected to be published in early 2025.

Conclusions: There is an urgent need to better understand the characteristics of overdose survivors presenting to the ED and for rigorous trials evaluating the effectiveness of PSS-led interventions on engaging overdose survivors and reducing overdose risk. Results from this pilot randomized controlled trial will provide a description of the characteristics of overdose survivors presenting to the ED; outline the implementation of PSS services research in ED settings, including PSS implementation of PSS supervision and activity tracking; and inform ED-initiated PSS-led overdose risk reduction interventions and future research to better understand the implementation and efficacy of these interventions.

Related protocols: CTN-0107

The US overdose epidemic is an escalating public health emergency, accounting for over 100,000 deaths annually. Despite the availability of medications for opioid use disorders, provider-level barriers, such as negative attitudes, exacerbate the treatment gap in clinical care settings. Assessing the prevalence and intensity of provider stigma, defined as the negative perceptions and behaviors that providers embody and enact toward patients with substance use disorders, across providers with different specialties, is critical to expanding the delivery of substance use treatment.

Objective: To thoroughly understand provider stigma toward patients with substance use disorders, we conducted a nationwide survey of emergency medicine and primary care physicians and dentists using a questionnaire designed to reveal how widely and intensely provider attitudes and stigma can impact these providers’ clinical practices in caring for their patients. The survey also queried providers’ stigma and clinical practices toward other chronic conditions, which can then be compared with their stigma and practices related to substance use disorders.

Methods: Our cross-sectional survey was mailed to a nationally representative sample of primary care physicians, emergency medicine physicians, and dentists (N=3011), obtained by American Medical Association and American Dental Association licensees based on specified selection criteria. We oversampled nonmetropolitan practice areas, given the potential differences in provider stigma and available resources in these regions compared with metropolitan areas. Data collection followed a recommended series of contacts with participants per the Dillman Total Design Method, with mixed-modality options offered (email, mail, fax, and phone). A gradually increasing compensation scale (maximum US$250) was implemented to recruit chronic nonresponders and assess the association between requiring higher incentives to participate and providers stigma. The primary outcome, provider stigma, was measured using the Medical Condition Regard Scale, which inquired about participants’ views on substance use and other chronic conditions. Additional survey measures included familiarity and social engagement with people with substance use disorders; clinical practices (screening, treating, and referring for a range of chronic conditions); subjective norms and social desirability; knowledge and prior education; and descriptions of their patient populations.

Results: Data collection was facilitated through collaboration with the National Opinion Research Center between October 2020 and October 2022. The overall Council of American Survey Research Organizations completion rate was 53.62% (1240/2312.7; physicians overall: 855/1681.9, 50.83% [primary care physicians: 506/1081.3, 46.79%; emergency medicine physicians: 349/599.8, 58.2%]; dentists: 385/627.1, 61.4%). The ineligibility rate among those screened is applied to those not screened, causing denominators to include fractional numbers.

Conclusions: Using systematically quantified data on the prevalence and intensity of provider stigma toward substance use disorders in health care, we can provide evidence-based improvement strategies and policies to inform the development and implementation of stigma-reduction interventions for providers to address their perceptions and treatment of substance use.

Related protocols: CTN-0104

Cocaine overdose death rates among Black people are higher than that of any other racial/ethnic group, attributable to synthetic opioids in the cocaine supply. Understanding the most effective psychostimulant use treatment interventions for Black people is a high priority. While some interventions have proven effective for the general population, their comparative effectiveness among Black people remains unknown. To address this gap, our NIDA-funded Clinical Trials Network (CTN) study 0125, will use Integrative Data Analysis (IDA) to examine treatment effectiveness across 9 CTN studies. This manuscript describes the study protocol for CTN-0125.

Of the 59 completed randomized clinical trials in the CTN with available datasets, nine met our inclusion criteria: 1) behavioral intervention, 2) targeted cocaine use or use disorder, 3) included sub-samples of participants who self-identified as Black and 4) included outcome measures of cocaine and psychostimulant use and consequences. We aim to 1) estimate scale scores of cocaine use severity while considering study-level measurement non-invariance, 2) compare the effectiveness of psychosocial treatments for psychostimulant use, and 3) explore individual (e.g., concomitant opioid use, age, sex, employment, pre-treatment psychiatric status) and study-level moderators (e.g., attendance/retention) to evaluate subgroup differences in treatment effectiveness.

Conclusions: The NIDA CTN provides a unique collection of studies that can offer insight into what interventions are most efficacious for Black people. Findings from our CTN-0125 have the potential to substantially inform treatment approaches specifically designed for Black people who use psychostimulants.

Related protocols: CTN-0125

Extended-release injectable naltrexone (XR-NTX) is an effective treatment for opioid use disorder (OUD), but initiation remains a barrier to implementation. Standard practice requires a 10- to 15-day inpatient admission prior to XR-NTX initiation and involves a methadone or buprenorphine taper followed by a 7- to 10-day washout, as recommended in the Prescribing Information for XR-NTX. A 5- to 7-day rapid induction approach was developed that utilizes low-dose oral naltrexone and non-opioid medications.

The NIDA CTN-0097 Surmounting Withdrawal to Initiate Fast Treatment with Naltrexone (SWIFT) study was a hybrid type I effectiveness-implementation trial that compared the effectiveness of the standard procedure (SP) to the rapid procedure (RP) for XR-NTX initiation across six community inpatient addiction treatment units, and evaluated the implementation process. Sites were randomized to RP every 14 weeks in an optimized stepped wedge design. Participants (target recruitment = 450) received the procedure (SP or RP) that the site was implementing at time of admission. The hypothesis was RP will be non-inferior to SP on proportion of inpatients who receive XR-NTX, with a shorter admission time for RP. Superiority testing of RP was planned if the null hypothesis of inferiority of RP to SP was rejected.

Discussion: This is one of the first community-based, hybrid effectiveness-implementation trials of an inpatient procedure to initiate injectable naltrexone for opioid use disorder relapse prevention treatment. If RP for XR-NTX initiation is shown to be effective, the shorter inpatient stay could make XR-NTX more feasible and have an important public health impact expanding access to OUD pharmacotherapy. Further, a better understanding of facilitators and barriers to RP implementation can help with future translatability and uptake to other community programs.

Related protocols: CTN-0097

Opioid-related deaths continue to rise in the U.S. A shared decision-making (SDM) system to help primary care clinicians (PCCs) identify and treat patients with opioid use disorder (OUD) could help address this crisis.

In this cluster-randomized trial (CTN-0095, COMPUTE 2.0), primary care clinics in three healthcare systems were randomized to receive or not receive access to an OUD-SDM system. The OUD-SDM system alerts PCCs and patients to elevated risk of OUD and supports OUD screening and treatment. It includes guidance on OUD screening and diagnosis, treatment selection, starting and maintaining patients on buprenorphine for waivered clinicians, and screening for common comorbid conditions. The primary study outcome is, of patients at high risk for OUD, the percentage receiving an OUD diagnosis within 30 days of index visit. Additional outcomes are, of patients at high risk for or with a diagnosis of OUD, (a) the percentage receiving a naloxone prescription, or (b) the percentage receiving a medication for OUD (MOUD) prescription or referral to specialty care within 30 days of an index visit, and (c) total days covered by a MOUD prescription within 90 days of an index visit.

The intervention started in April 2021 and continues through December 2023. PCCs and patients in 90 clinics are included; study results are expected in 2024.

Conclusion: This protocol paper describes the design of a multi-site trial to help PCCs recognize and treat OUD. If effective, this OUD-SDM intervention could improve screening of at-risk patients and rates of OUD treatment for people with OUD.

Related protocols: CTN-0095

A lack of consensus on the optimal outcome measures to assess the efficacy and effectiveness of interventions for the treatment of opioid use disorder (OUD) has hampered the pooling of research data for evidence synthesis and clinical guidelines. A core outcome set (COS) is a minimum set of outcome measures that are recommended for all studies of a particular condition. The National Drug Abuse Treatment Clinical Trials Network (CTN) Core Outcome Set for OUD (COS-OUD) is a development study to identify core constructs, meaningful outcomes, and their optimal measurement for all efficacy and effectiveness studies of OUD treatment and service delivery.

Overseen by an expert workgroup, a modified, stepwise, e-Delphi methodology will be used to gain consensus among a panel of clinical practitioners and researchers involved in the treatment of OUD, who are members of the CTN. Sequential rounds of anonymous, online questionnaires will be used to identify, rate the importance of, and refine a core outcome set. A consensus threshold will be achieved if at least 70% of the panel rate the measure as critical for inclusion in the COS-OUD. Where consensus is not reached or there are suggestions for new measures, these will be brought forward to a further round of review prior to a consensus meeting. Products from this study will be communicated via peer-reviewed scientific journals and conferences.

Discussion: This initiative will develop a COS for OUD intervention trials, treatment studies, and service delivery and will support the pooling of research and clinical practice data and efforts to develop measurement-based care within the OUD treatment cascade.

Institutional Review Boards (IRB) ensure that studies with human subjects are conducted ethically and meet federal standards. When trials include multiple study sites and multiple IRBs, variation in IRB processes and regulatory interpretation may delay implementation. NIH policy now requires that multi-site studies must use a single IRB in order to streamline the review process while maintaining standards for human subjects protection, but little has been documented about the actual use of single IRBs in multi-site trials.

This paper describes the single IRB process used by the Western States Node of the NIDA Clinical Trials Network (CTN) for protocol CTN-0067, a clinical trial testing the use of an opioid antagonist (extended-release naltrexone) versus opioid agonists (buprenorphine or methadone) for opioid use disorders among individuals living with HIV.

Using CTN-0067 as a case study, the authors discuss the processes and challenges associated with using a single IRB. These lessons are also informed by other single IRB experiences within the CTN. The intention of the NIH single IRB policy is to facilitate efficient IRB processes. Advanced planning and transparent communication, however, are critical to avoid stalling IRB approval and protocol implementation. Research teams need to account for local IRB willingness to cede to a single IRB and understand the variations in interpretations of abbreviated reviews.

In order to facilitate the effective use of single IRBs, recommendations include assigning staff at each study site for IRB submission coordination and interaction with the lead site IRB staff, training investigators and key regulatory staff on expectations for working with single IRBs, dedicating a regulatory specialist at the lead site to manage the process, developing a communication plan, and supporting the development of strong working relationships with local regulatory staff and the single IRB. The CTN experiences with single IRBs may provide insights for other investigators.

Related protocols: CTN-0067

This article discusses ethical challenges encountered in the design of an effectiveness trial (CTN-0051, X:BOT), comparing sublingual buprenorphine-naloxone (BUP-NX), an established treatment for opioid dependence, to the newer extended-release injectable naltrexone (XR-NTX). Ethical issues surrounded:

1) Known poor effectiveness of one possible, commonly used Treatment as Usual control condition — detoxification followed by counseling without medication;

2) The role of patients’ preferences for treatments, given that treatments were clinically approved and available to the population;

3) Differences between the optimal “usual treatment” clinical settings for different treatments making it challenging to design a fair comparison;

4) Vested interest groups favoring different treatments exerting potential influence on the design process;

5) Potentially vulnerable populations of substance users and prisoners;

6) Potential therapeutic misconception in the implementation of safety procedures; and

7) High cost of a large trial limited questions that could be addressed.

The authors examine how the design features underlying these ethical issues are characteristic of effectiveness trials, which are often large trials that compare treatments with varying degrees of existing effectiveness data and familiarity to patients and clinicians, in community-based treatment settings, with minimal exclusion criteria that could involve vulnerable populations. Hence, investigators designing effectiveness trials may wish to remain alert to the possibility of similar ethical issues.

Related protocols: CTN-0051