Cited by 43Substance Abuse Treatment and OutcomesOpioid Use Disorder TreatmentHIV, Drug Use, Sexual Risk

Reduced drug use as an alternative valid outcome in individuals with stimulant use disorders: Findings from 13 multisite randomized clinical trials

Open access
Amin‐Esmaeili, Masoumeh, Farokhnia, Mehdi, Susukida, Ryoko, Leggio, Lorenzo, Johnson, Renee M., Crum, Rosa M., Mojtabai, Ramin·2024·Addiction

Abstract

Background and aims: Total abstinence has historically been the goal of treatment for substance use disorders; however, there is a growing recognition of the health benefits associated with reduced use as a harm reduction measure in stimulant use disorders treatment. We aimed to assess the validity of reduced stimulant use as an outcome measure in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of pharmacological interventions for stimulant use disorder. Design: We conducted a secondary analysis of a pooled dataset of 13 RCTs. Setting and participants: Participants were individuals seeking treatment for cocaine or methamphetamine use disorders ( N = 2062) in a wide range of treatment facilities in the United States. Measurements: We validated reduced stimulant use against a set of clinical indicators drawn from harmonized measurements, including severity of problems caused by drug use, comorbid depression, global severity of substance use and improvement, severity of drug‐seeking behavior, craving and high‐risk behaviors, all assessed at the end of the trial, as well as follow‐up urine toxicology. A series of mixed effect regression models was conducted to validate reduction in frequency of use against no reduction in use and abstinence. Findings: More participants reduced frequency of primary drug use than achieved abstinence (18.0% vs. 14.2%, respectively). Reduced use was significantly associated with decreases in craving for the primary drug [60.1%, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 54.3%–64.7%], drug seeking behaviors (41.0%, 95% CI = 36.6%–45.7%), depression severity (39.9%, 95% CI = 30.9%–48.3%), as well as multiple measures of global improvement in psychosocial functioning and severity of drug‐related problems, albeit less strongly so than abstinence. Moreover, reduced use was associated with sustained clinical benefit at follow‐up, as confirmed by negative urine tests (adjusted odds ratio compared with those with no reduction in use: 0.50, 95% CI = 0.35–0.71). Conclusion: Reduced frequency of stimulant use appears to be associated with meaningful improvement in various clinical indicators of recovery. Assessment of reduced use, in addition to abstinence, could broaden the scope of outcomes measured in randomized controlled trials of stimulant use disorders and facilitate the development of more diverse treatment approaches.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/add.16409

Cites

56 of 56 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Changes in MA use following psilocybin dosing were expressed as reduced use or abstinence because these reductions have been associated with meaningful improvements in clinical indicators of recovery.

    “In addition, changes in MA use following psilocybin dosing were also expressed as reduced use (from greater than 5 days use at baseline to less) or abstinence, as these reductions have been associated with meaningful improvements in clinical indicators of recovery [47].”

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. Stroup WW. Generalized linear mixed models: modern concepts, methods and applications CRC press; 2012.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Amin‐Esmaeili, M., Farokhnia, M., Susukida, R., Leggio, L., Johnson, R. M., Crum, R. M., & Mojtabai, R.
Affiliations
  • Johns Hopkins University (US)
  • National Institutes of Health (US)
  • Department of Mental Health Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health Baltimore MD USA
Corresponding author
Amin‐Esmaeili, Masoumeh
Venue
Addiction
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2024-01-10
Volume
119
Issue
5
Pages
833-843
ISSN
  • 0965-2140 (ISSN-L)
  • 1360-0443
OpenAlex
W4390704561
Cited by
43
References
56
Citations by year
2026: 14 · 2025: 16 · 2024: 13
FWCI
13.04
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Addiction (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
Funders
  • National Institutes of Health (R01DA054700(PI, RM))
  • Intramural Research Program (ZIA‐DA000635(PI, LL))
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Epidemiology › Substance Abuse Treatment and Outcomes
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Opioid Use Disorder Treatment
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Epidemiology › HIV, Drug Use, Sexual Risk
Keywords
stimulant use disorder, cocaine dependence, methamphetamine dependence, harm reduction, abstinence, outcome validity, craving, drug-seeking behavior, depression, urine toxicology, pharmacotherapy
MeSH terms
Central Nervous System Stimulants, Cocaine, Humans, Methamphetamine, Multicenter Studies as Topic, Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic, Substance-Related Disorders

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review