Adaptive Treatment Strategies in the Addictions: Current Examples and Future Directions James R. McKay, Ph.D. Professor of Psychology in Psychiatry University.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Telephone Continuing Care James R. McKay, Ph.D. Center on the Continuum of Care in the Addictions Department of Psychiatry University of Pennsylvania Philadelphia.
Advertisements

Piloting and Sizing Sequential Multiple Assignment Randomized Trials in Dynamic Treatment Regime Development 2012 Atlantic Causal Inference Conference.
Background: The low retention rates among African Americans in substance abuse treatment (Milligan et al., 2004) combined with the limited number of treatments.
Treatment Effect Heterogeneity & Dynamic Treatment Regime Development S.A. Murphy.
1 The Child and Family Traumatic Stress Intervention A family based model for early intervention and secondary prevention Steven Berkowitz, M.D. Steven.
1 Towards Successful Treatment Completion A good practice guide Dr John Dunn Consultant Psychiatrist and NTA Clinical Team Leader Effective treatment,
Module 3 Brief Intervention. 3-2 Hhhh ADVISE APPROPRIATE ACTION FOLLOW UP - Supportive Care ASSESS Academic Social Behavioral Medical ASK Quantity/Frequency.
Online Career Assessment: Matching Profiles and Training Programs Bryan Dik, Ph.D. Kurt Kraiger, Ph.D.
Dennis M. Donovan, Ph.D., Michael P. Bogenschutz, M.D., Harold Perl, Ph.D., Alyssa Forcehimes, Ph.D., Bryon Adinoff, M.D., Raul Mandler, M.D., Neal Oden,
Experimenting to Improve Clinical Practice S.A. Murphy AAAS, 02/15/13 TexPoint fonts used in EMF. Read the TexPoint manual before you delete this box.:
Addiction UNIT 4: PSYA4 Content The Psychology of Addictive Behaviour Models of Addictive Behaviour  Biological, cognitive and.
Evidence-Based Treatment Community Reinforcement Approach (CRA) Robert J. Meyers, Ph.D. Jane Ellen Smith, Ph.D. University of New Mexico.
Methodology for Adaptive Treatment Strategies for Chronic Disorders: Focus on Pain S.A. Murphy NIH Pain Consortium 5 th Annual Symposium on Advances in.
Journal Club Alcohol and Health: Current Evidence May–June 2005.
SMART Designs for Constructing Adaptive Treatment Strategies S.A. Murphy 15th Annual Duke Nicotine Research Conference September, 2009.
SMART Designs for Developing Adaptive Treatment Strategies S.A. Murphy K. Lynch, J. McKay, D. Oslin & T.Ten Have CPDD June, 2005.
Sizing a Trial for the Development of Adaptive Treatment Strategies Alena I. Oetting The Society for Clinical Trials, 29th Annual Meeting St. Louis, MO.
SMART Experimental Designs for Developing Adaptive Treatment Strategies S.A. Murphy NIDA DESPR February, 2007.
SMART Experimental Designs for Developing Adaptive Treatment Strategies S.A. Murphy RWJ Clinical Scholars Program, UMich April, 2007.
1 SMART Designs for Developing Adaptive Treatment Strategies S.A. Murphy K. Lynch, J. McKay, D. Oslin & T.Ten Have UMichSpline February, 2006.
Methodology for Adaptive Treatment Strategies R21 DA S.A. Murphy For MCATS Oct. 8, 2009.
An Experimental Paradigm for Developing Adaptive Treatment Strategies S.A. Murphy Univ. of Michigan ACSIR, July, 2003.
Journal Club Alcohol, Other Drugs, and Health: Current Evidence January–February 2011.
An Experimental Paradigm for Developing Adaptive Treatment Strategies S.A. Murphy Univ. of Michigan February, 2004.
SMART Experimental Designs for Developing Adaptive Treatment Strategies S.A. Murphy ISCTM, 2007.
1 Section IV Study Designs for Investigating Adaptive Treatment Strategies Murphy.
Experiments and Adaptive Treatment Strategies S.A. Murphy Univ. of Michigan Chicago: May, 2005.
Susan Murphy, PI University of Michigan Acknowledgements: MCAT network and NIH The Goal To facilitate methodological collaborations necessary for producing.
SMART Designs for Developing Dynamic Treatment Regimes S.A. Murphy Symposium on Causal Inference Johns Hopkins, January, 2006.
Adaptive Treatment Strategies S.A. Murphy CCNIA Proposal Meeting 2008.
Adaptive Treatment Strategies S.A. Murphy Workshop on Adaptive Treatment Strategies Convergence, 2008.
Practical Application of Adaptive Treatment Strategies in Trial Design and Analysis S.A. Murphy Center for Clinical Trials Network Classroom Series April.
Adaptive Treatment Design and Analysis S.A. Murphy TRC, UPenn April, 2007.
Rehabilitation Programs and Office Follow-up Steven R. Ey, M.D. Medical Director Genesis Chemical Dependency Unit South Coast Medical Center Laguna Beach,
Have We Evaluated Addiction Treatment Correctly? Implications From a Chronic Care Perspective I.
Intervention Studies Principles of Epidemiology Lecture 10 Dona Schneider, PhD, MPH, FACE.
Implementing NICE guidance
Continuing Care Recovery Oriented Systems of Care.
Evidence-Based Practice: Psychosocial Interventions Maxine Stitzer, Ph.D. Johns Hopkins Univ SOM NIDA Blending Conference June 3, 2008 Cincinnati, Ohio.
Treatment 101 Substance Abuse Basics West Coast Consulting Wanda King
Dr. Saman Yousuf 17 June  Risk assessment and crisis management (if there is suicide risk) are covered in the same interview  Crisis management:
Re-Considering Addiction Treatment How Can Treatment be More Accountable and Effective? Lessons from Mainstream Healthcare.
Intensive Residential Treatment (Level III.7, III.5) Long Term Residential Treatment (Level III.3, III.1) Intensive Outpatient Treatment (Level II.1)
SMART Case Studies Module 3—Day 1 Getting SMART About Developing Individualized Adaptive Health Interventions Methods Work, Chicago, Illinois, June
Sequential, Multiple Assignment, Randomized Trials and Treatment Policies S.A. Murphy MUCMD, 08/10/12 TexPoint fonts used in EMF. Read the TexPoint manual.
Telephone Continuing Care James R. McKay, Ph.D. Center on the Continuum of Care in the Addictions Department of Psychiatry University of Pennsylvania Philadelphia.
Sequential, Multiple Assignment, Randomized Trials Module 2—Day 1 Getting SMART About Developing Individualized Adaptive Health Interventions Methods Work,
Raymond F. Anton, MD for The COMBINE Study Research Group
SCREENING BRIEF INTERVENTION AND REFERRAL TO TREATMENT (SBIRT) 1.
Abstinence Incentives for Methadone Maintained Stimulant Users: Outcomes for Those Testing Stimulant Positive vs Negative at Study Intake Maxine L. Stitzer.
Adaptive Treatment Strategies Module 1—Day 1 Getting SMART About Developing Individualized Adaptive Health Interventions Methods Work, Chicago, Illinois,
The COMBINE Study: Design and Methodology Stephanie S. O’Malley, Ph.D. for The COMBINE Study Research Group JAMA Vol. 295, , 2006 (May 3 rd.
1 Improving SUD Continuity of Care: Bringing Science to Practice Steven J. Lash, Ph.D. Associate Professor of Psychiatry and Neurobehavioral Science, Salem.
Abstinence Incentive Effects in Psychosocial Counseling Patients Testing Stimulant Positive vs Negative at Treatment Entry Maxine L. Stitzer Johns Hopkins.
Alcohol Screening and Brief Interventions for Patients with Non-communicable Diseases Thomas F. Babor Department of Community Medicine University of Connecticut.
1 SMART Designs for Developing Adaptive Treatment Strategies S.A. Murphy K. Lynch, J. McKay, D. Oslin & T.Ten Have NDRI April, 2006.
Motivation Using SMART research designs to improve individualized treatments Alena Scott 1, Janet Levy 3, and Susan Murphy 1,2 Institute for Social Research.
TB physicians’ perspectives on barriers to deliver brief counseling interventions (BCI) within routine tuberculosis services: A qualitative study on a.
An Experimental Paradigm for Developing Adaptive Treatment Strategies S.A. Murphy NIDA Meeting on Treatment and Recovery Processes January, 2004.
Ten Years of Pharmacotherapy Trials in the CTN: An Overview.
Background and Rationale for COMBINE A Multisite Clinical Trial Sponsored by National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism NIH, DHHS Margaret E. Mattson,
BEHAVIORAL FAMILY COUNSELING AND NALTREXONE FOR MALE OPIOID-DEPENDENT PATIENTS William Fals-Stewart, Ph.D. Research Institute on Addictions.
Designing An Adaptive Treatment Susan A. Murphy Univ. of Michigan Joint with Linda Collins & Karen Bierman Pennsylvania State Univ.
SMART Trials for Developing Adaptive Treatment Strategies S.A. Murphy Workshop on Adaptive Treatment Designs NCDEU, 2006.
Randomized Controlled CTN Trial of OROS-MPH + CBT in Adolescents with ADHD and Substance Use Disorders Paula Riggs, M.D., Theresa Winhusen, PhD., Jeff.
Brief Intervention. Brief Intervention has a number of different definitions but usually encompasses: –assessment –provision of education, support and.
One-Year Post-Treatment COMBINE Study Drinking Outcomes Dennis M. Donovan, Ph.D. for the COMBINE Study Research Group Research Society on Alcoholism Baltimore,
Do Alcoholics Respond to Placebo? Results from COMBINE
James R. McKay, Ph.D. University of Pennsylvania Philadelphia VAMC
Reducing Heavy Drinking to Optimize HIV/AIDS Treatment and Prevention
Presentation transcript:

Adaptive Treatment Strategies in the Addictions: Current Examples and Future Directions James R. McKay, Ph.D. Professor of Psychology in Psychiatry University of Pennsylvania CTN Meeting

Overview of Presentation Major problems in providing addiction treatment and how we’ve tried to address them Adaptive treatment models and how they are developed Examples of adaptive treatment in specialty care Examples of adaptive treatment in other treatment settings Challenges in designing and implementing adaptive treatment protocols

Problems in Addiction Treatment High rates of dropout and continued alcohol and drug use –In community-based programs –In research protocols Even with evidence-based treatments, considerable response heterogeneity

Attempts to Address Nonresponse? Improve existing treatments Develop new treatments Tailoring, or “matching” treatments to subgroups of patients Results???

Still left with variable response….. Even when treatment delivery is standardized and high adherence to manual is achieved, some patients do well and others do not. Very hard to predict who will do well in a particular treatment Some patients do well at first, but then deteriorate Nonresponse often blamed on the patient, but that is likely not the whole story.

Another Possible Approach? Adaptive Treatment

In Adaptive Treatment Protocols… Treatment is tailored or modified on the basis of measures of response (e.g., symptoms, status, or functioning) obtained at regular intervals during treatment Goal is to deliver the treatment that is most effective for a particular patient at a particular time. Rules for changing treatment are clearly operationalized and described….. “ If……..Then” Temporal issues important– when has sufficient time elapsed to indicate “non-response”?

How Do You Put Together an Adaptive Protocol?

Experimental Design for Developing Adaptive Protocols Use randomization to develop optimal adaptive treatment strategies –Example: What to do with early non-responders? Switch treatment? Augment treatment? Determine the set of decision rules and interventions that produce the highest percentage of responders THEN……. Compare the optimal adaptive protocol to TAU or other treatments in standard RCT

The alternative approach…. Devise adaptive protocol on the basis of: –Expert clinical judgment –Feedback from patients –Prior research findings –Face validity Compare that adaptive protocol to TAU or other treatment in standard RCT Pros and Cons: Faster than experimental approach, but protocol may be flawed

Examples of Adaptive Protocols from Addiction Specialty Care

Recovery Management Checkups Protocol developed by Dennis, Scott et al. –Interview patients every quarter for 2 years –If patient reports any of the following…… Use of alcohol or drugs on > 2 weeks Being drunk or high all day on any days Alcohol/drug use led to not meeting responsibilities Alcohol/drug use caused other problems Withdrawal symptoms ….. ….Patient transferred to linkage manager

RMC Linkage Manager provides the following: –Personalized feedback –Explore possibility of returning to treatment –Address barriers to returning to treatment –Schedule an intake assessment –Reminder cards, transportation, and escort to intake appointment

Results: RMC vs. TAU Time to return to treatment 376 vs. 600 days (p<.05) Total days of treatment 62 vs. 40 days (p<.05) In need of treatment at 24 months 43% vs. 56% (p<.01) In need of treatment in at least 5 quarters 23% vs. 32% (p<.05) Dennis et al. (2003) Evaluation and Program Planning, 26,

Adaptive Methadone Treatment Brooner & Kidorf (2002) protocol –Methadone patients start in low intensity psychosocial condition –Missed session or dirty/missing urine leads to increases in psychosocial counseling –Providing additional contingencies for participation further improves outcomes More/less convenient dosing times Methdone taper and possible discharge

Penn Telephone Continuing Care Study Patients: –359 graduates of 4-week IOP programs –Cocaine (75%) and/or alcohol (75%) dependent Continuing care treatment conditions (12 weeks): –Standard group counseling (STND) –Individualized relapse prevention (RP) –brief telephone-based counseling (TEL) McKay et al., 2004, Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology

Continuing Care Conditions Telephone Monitoring and Counseling –Weeks 1-4, patients make a 15 minute call and attend a “transition” group –Weeks 5-12, patients have telephone contact only (1x/week) –During calls, patients report results of self-monitoring and progress toward 1-2 goals, and plan goals for next week –Patients use a workbook that structures intervention for each week. –Total minutes of contact with therapist 50% of minutes in other conditions

Total Abstinence Rates Tx Main Effect TEL > STND p<.05 McKay et al., 2005, Archives of General Psychiatry

Adaptive Treatment Strategy: Using Progress in Initial Phase of Treatment to Select Optimal Continuing Care Models

7-Item Composite Risk Indicator Failure to achieve key goals while in IOP: –Any alcohol use in prior 30 days –Any cocaine use in prior 30 days –Attendance at < 12 self-help meetings in prior 30 days –Social support < median for the sample –Does not have goal of absolute abstinence –Self-efficacy < 80% Current dependence on both alcohol and cocaine (each item: yes=1, no=0) McKay et al., 2005, Addiction, Archives of General Psychiatry

Distribution of Scores on the Composite Risk Indicator Mean score= 2.50

TEL vs. STND contrast X Risk Index Score: p <.05

Extended Telephone-Based Adaptive Protocol for the Management of Cocaine Dependence

Design Patients: Cocaine dependent IOP participants recruited after achieving early engagement Treatment conditions: –Treatment as usual (TAU) –TAU plus adaptive protocol (24 mo.) –TAU plus adaptive protocol (24 mo.), plus incentives for participation and cocaine-free urines (12 mo) Outcomes assessed over 24 months

The Telephone Calls Frequency: weekly at first, titrated to bimonthly Each call starts with a brief “risk assessment” that assesses negative and positive factors and yields overall risk score (low, moderate, high) Similar protocol to prior study for telephone counseling: 1.Provide feedback on risk level 2.Review progress/goals from last call 3. Identify upcoming high-risk situations 4. Select target for remainder of call 5. Brief problem-solving regarding target concern(s) 6. Set goal(s) for interval before next call 7. Suggest change in level of care if warranted

Adaptive Protocol Increases in services triggered when risk reaches moderate level –First: increase frequency of phone calls –Second: bring patient in for 1-2 face-to-face evaluation and motivational interviewing (MI) sessions –Third: provide 8 CBT relapse prevention sessions –Fourth: refer back to IOP

Examples of Adaptive Protocols from Non-Specialty Addiction Care

Adaptive Primary Care Protocols for Heavy Drinkers Kristenson et al. (1983, 2003) –Patients randomized to visits with a nurse (every month) and physician (every 3 months), vs. TAU –Both provided for up to 4 years –GGT levels monitored, and treatment/drinking goals modified on basis of scores –Results: fewer sick days, fewer hospital days, lower mortality over 6 and 16 years than TAU

Adaptive Continuing Care Naltrexone Protocol O’Malley et al. (2003) study of NTX treatment comparing primary care (PC) and specialty care (CBT) approaches First, pts given NTX and randomized to PC or CBT for 10 weeks Responders (57%) further randomized: –PC plus extended NTX vs. placebo (24 wks) –CBT plus extended NTX vs. placebo (24 wks)

Alcohol Use Results and Interpretations Findings: –Initiation phase: PC=CBT –Extended PC phase: NTX > placebo –Extended CBT phase: NTX= placebo Resulting treatment algorithm –If patient responds to PC and NTX in first 10 weeks, continue both for at least 24 more weeks –If patient responds to CBT and NTX in first 10 weeks, continue CBT but stop NTX Note: no guidance regarding nonresponders

Adaptive Naltrexone Study (David Oslin, PI) Experimental design to determine optimal algorithms for naltrexone responders and nonresponders All patients begin with 8 week trial of open label naltrexone, plus weekly medication management session During the 8 week trial, patients self-select into Responder and Non-responder groups First randomization: Different definitions of “non- response” –More than 1 heavy drinking day –More than 4 heavy drinking days

Adaptive Naltrexone, cont. Second Randomization Nonresponders: –Add CBI and drop NAL (i.e., “switch”) –Add CBI and continue NAL (i.e., augment”) Responders: –NAL script plus no further care –NAL script plus telephone disease management

Adaptive Intervention Strategies Embedded in Oslin Trial Adaptive intervention Definition of nonresponder Decision rules for responders Decision rules for nonresponders 1 > 1 heavy drinking day Stay with NTX aloneNTX with CBI 2 > 1 heavy drinking day Stay with NTX aloneChange to CBI alone 3 > 1 heavy drinking day NTX with TDMNTX with CBI 4 > 1 heavy drinking day NTX with TDMChange to CBI alone 5 > 4 heavy drinking day Stay with NTX aloneNTX with CBI 6 > 4 heavy drinking day Stay with NTX aloneChange to CBI alone 7 > 4 heavy drinking day NTX with TDMNTX with CBI 8 > 4 heavy drinking day NTX with TDMChange to CBI alone

Comparing Definitions of Response Adaptive intervention Definition of nonresponder Decision rules for responders Decision rules for nonresponders 1 > 1 heavy drinking day Stay with NTX aloneNTX with CBI 2 > 1 heavy drinking day Stay with NTX aloneChange to CBI alone 3 > 1 heavy drinking day NTX with TDMNTX with CBI 4 > 1 heavy drinking day NTX with TDMChange to CBI alone 5 > 4 heavy drinking day Stay with NTX aloneNTX with CBI 6 > 4 heavy drinking day Stay with NTX aloneChange to CBI alone 7 > 4 heavy drinking day NTX with TDMNTX with CBI 8 > 4 heavy drinking day NTX with TDMChange to CBI alone

Comparing Augment vs. Switch for NonResponders Adaptive intervention Definition of nonresponder Decision rules for responders Decision rules for nonresponders 1 > 1 heavy drinking day Stay with NTX aloneNTX with CBI 2 > 1 heavy drinking day Stay with NTX aloneChange to CBI alone 3 > 1 heavy drinking day NTX with TDMNTX with CBI 4 > 1 heavy drinking day NTX with TDMChange to CBI alone 5 > 4 heavy drinking day Stay with NTX aloneNTX with CBI 6 > 4 heavy drinking day Stay with NTX aloneChange to CBI alone 7 > 4 heavy drinking day NTX with TDMNTX with CBI 8 > 4 heavy drinking day NTX with TDMChange to CBI alone

Summary of Possible Adaptations Non-responders –Step up (e.g., OP to IOP or residential) –Lateral move (e.g., CBT to TSF) –Modality change (e.g., CBT to medication) –Step down (e.g., IOP to telephone monitoring) Responders –Reduce frequency of intervention (e.g., IOP to OP) –Change to lower burden intervention (e.g., OP to periodic check-ups, or e-treatment)

Adaptive Treatment and the CTN: Difficult Problems………….. But Big Opportunities and Potential Benefits

Challenges in Adaptive Treatment Clinical Keeping patients engaged, especially when deterioration occurs Increasing compliance with adaptive changes, especially “step ups” Identifying alternative treatments for non- responders –Lack of a variety of effective medications –Are different types of “talk” therapy really different enough? –How important is patient preference/choice?

Challenges, cont. Research Incorporating choice in algorithms –Comparing heterogeneous condition to other interventions Sequential randomization designs –Randomizing patients 2+ times –Analytic issues (first decision) Power –Primary vs. secondary comparisons –New methods under development

Focus of Efforts in Treatment Development Emphasis in field has been on improving efficacy and adherence to manuals, and coming up with more cost-effective approaches. Shift emphasis to making participation more attractive to the patients to improve retention: –Greater weight to patient choice– at intake, and for non- responders –Use of more convenient forms of care whenever possible –Incentives for participation?

Possible Research Designs Adaptive strategies to address early dropout –Test providing a menu of treatment options vs. efforts to re-engage in standard care “So you don’t like IOP. How about…….?” Adaptive medication algorithms –Start with promising med– augment with or switch to additional medication for nonresponders

Research Designs, cont. Adaptive studies that combine behavioral and pharmacological interventions: –Start with medication and low intensity behavioral treatment, step up to more intensive treatment if no response –Offer non-responders sequential package that first involves switching meds, but then includes augmentation with stepped up behavioral treatment if response still not achieved.

Acknowledgments Colleagues: –NIDA CTN algorithms group –Dave Oslin, Kevin Lynch, Tom TenHave –Susan Murphy, Linda Collins Grant support: –NIDA: K02-DA00361, R01-DA14059, R01- DA20623 –NIAAA: R01AA14850