Search

Objective: Physicians may prescribe buprenorphine for opioid agonist maintenance treatment outside of narcotic treatment programs, but treatment guidelines for patients with co-occurring cocaine and opioid dependence are not available. This study compares effects of buprenorphine and methadone and evaluates the efficacy of combining contingency management with maintenance treatment for patients with co-occurring cocaine and opioid dependence.Method: Subjects with cocaine and opioid dependence (N=162) were provided manual-guided counseling and randomly assigned in a double-blind design to receive daily sublingual buprenorphine (12-16 mg) or methadone (65-85 mg p.o.) and to contingency management or performance feedback. Contingency management subjects received monetary vouchers for opioid- and cocaine-negative urine tests, which were conducted three times a week; voucher value escalated during the first 12 weeks for consecutive drug-free tests and was reduced to a nominal value in weeks 13-24. Performance feedback subjects received slips of paper indicating the urine test results. The primary outcome measures were the maximum number of consecutive weeks abstinent from illicit opioids and cocaine and the proportion of drug-free tests. Analytic models included two-by-two analysis of variance and mixed-model repeated-measures analysis of variance.Results: Methadone-treated subjects remained in treatment significantly longer and achieved significantly longer periods of sustained abstinence and a greater proportion drug-free tests, compared with subjects who received buprenorphine. Subjects receiving contingency management achieved significantly longer periods of abstinence and a greater proportion drug-free tests during the period of escalating voucher value, compared with those who received performance feedback, but there were no significant differences between groups in these variables during the entire 24-week study.Conclusions: Methadone may be superior to buprenorphine for maintenance treatment of patients with co-occurring cocaine and opioid dependence. Combining methadone or buprenorphine with contingency management may improve treatment outcome. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: Causes of placebo effects in antidepressant trials have been inferred from observational studies and meta-analyses, but their mechanisms have not been directly established. The goal of this study was to examine in a prospective, randomized controlled trial whether patient expectancy mediates placebo effects in antidepressant studies.Method: Adult outpatients with major depressive disorder were randomly assigned to open or placebo-controlled citalopram treatment. Following measurement of pre- and postrandomization expectancy, participants were treated with citalopram or placebo for 8 weeks. Independent samples t tests determined whether patient expectancy differed between the open and placebo-controlled groups, and mixed-effects models assessed group effects on Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HAM-D) scores over time while controlling for treatment assignment. Finally, mediation analyses tested whether between-group differences in patient expectancy mediated the group effect on HAM-D scores.Results: Postrandomization expectancy scores were significantly higher in the open group (mean=12.1 [SD=2.1]) compared with the placebo-controlled group (mean=11.0 [SD=2.0]). Mixed-effects modeling revealed a significant week-by-group interaction, indicating that HAM-D scores for citalopram-treated participants declined at a faster rate in the open group compared with the placebo-controlled group. Patient expectations postrandomization partially mediated group effects on week 8 HAM-D.Conclusions: Patient expectancy is a significant mediator of placebo effects in antidepressant trials. Expectancy-related interventions should be investigated as a means of controlling placebo responses in antidepressant clinical trials and improving patient outcome in clinical treatment. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: The recurrence of an affective disorder in people who initially recover from major depressive disorder was characterized by using the unique longitudinal prospective follow-up data from the National Institute of Mental Health Collaborative Program on the Psychobiology of Depression-Clinical Studies.Method: Up to 15 years of prospective follow-up data on the course of major depressive disorder were available for 380 subjects who recovered from an index episode of major depressive disorder and for 105 subjects who subsequently remained well for at least 5 years after recovery. Baseline demographic and clinical characteristics were examined as predictors of recurrence of an affective disorder. The authors also examined naturalistically applied antidepressant therapy.Results: A cumulative proportion of 85% (Kaplan-Meier estimate) of the 380 recovered subjects experienced a recurrence, as did 58% (Kaplan-Meier estimate) of those who remained well for at least 5 years. Female sex, a longer depressive episode before intake, more prior episodes, and never marrying were significant predictors of a recurrence. None of these or any other characteristic persisted as a predictor of recurrence in subjects who recovered and were subsequently well for at least 5 years. Subjects reported receiving low levels of antidepressant treatment during the index episode, which further decreased in amount and extent during the well interval.Conclusions: Few baseline demographic or clinical characteristics predict who will or will not experience a recurrence of an affective disorder after recovery from an index episode of major depressive disorder, even in persons with lengthy well intervals. Naturalistically applied levels of antidepressant treatment are well below those shown effective in maintenance pharmacotherapy studies. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]