Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24650828›Full record

Trial reportJournal of studies on alcohol and drugs2014

Cumulative proportion of responders analysis (CPRA) as a tool to assess treatment outcome in alcohol clinical trials.

Daniel E Falk, Raye Z Litten, Raymond F Anton, Henry R Kranzler, Bankole A Johnson, Active Workgroup

Open access · greenAbstract readMulticenter StudyRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in Journal of studies on alcohol and drugs, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed
1.3field-weighted citation impact, top 19% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

9 citing papers in PubMed, 11 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.

Daniel E FalkDivision of Treatment and Recovery Research, National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism, Bethesda, Maryland.
Raye Z LittenDivision of Treatment and Recovery Research, National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism, Bethesda, Maryland.
Raymond F AntonDepartment of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, South Carolina.
Henry R KranzlerDepartment of Psychiatry, Perelman School of Medicine at the University of Pennsylvania and Veterans Integrated Service Network 4, Mental Illness Research, Education and Clinical Center, Philadelphia Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
Bankole A JohnsonDepartment of Psychiatry, University of Maryland School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland.
Active Workgroup
National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism · USMedical University of South Carolina · USUniversity of Maryland, Baltimore · USUniversity of Pennsylvania · US

Funding

Career Development and Mentoring in Clinical/Translational Alcohol ResearchK05AA017435 · NIAAA · MEDICAL UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH CAROLINA · PI ANTON, RAYMOND F · 2008 to 2017
$2.2M
NIAAA NIH HHS K05 AA017435
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveSeveral definitions of treatment response have been proposed for alcohol clinical trials (e.g., abstinence and no heavy drinking). However, each of these outcomes allows only one definition of successful response. In contrast, the cumulative proportion of responders analysis (CPRA) includes all of the possible drinking response cutoff points, providing a more complete picture of the therapeutic effects of a treatment. CPRA has been used to examine the efficacy of analgesics but not alcohol pharmacotherapy. To demonstrate its potential utility, we conducted CPRA in two large alcohol treatment trials: the COMBINE (Combined Pharmacotherapies and Behavioral Interventions for Alcohol Dependence) trial (naltrexone) and a multisite topiramate trial. CPRA was used to demonstrate the efficacy of naltrexone and topiramate on continuous measures of in-treatment drinking-heavy drinking days and drinks per day-and their reductions from pretreatment.

methodAll possible cutoff points were portrayed for each measure. We provide graphs to illustrate the effects of the active medications compared with placebo and examined them statistically over a number of salient drinking outcomes to evaluate their efficacy.

resultsTreatment group responder curves were not parallel across the entire range of cutoff points; rather, they separated only at lower levels of drinking. In general, effect sizes increased by 0.10-0.15 when going from the lowest drinking level cutoff (i.e., abstinence and no heavy drinking) to the cutoff associated with the maximal treatment effect.

conclusionsCPRA may be useful in designing subsequent trials and helping to illustrate for treatment providers the likelihood of treatment success given various definitions of a positive response.

Indexed as

Alcohol DeterrentsAlcohol DrinkingAlcoholismDouble-Blind MethodFructoseHumansNaltrexoneNarcotic AntagonistsTopiramateTreatment OutcomeAlcohol DeterrentsFructoseNaltrexoneNarcotic AntagonistsTopiramate

Identifiers

PMID24650828
PMCPMC3965687
OpenAlexW2169220235

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.