4.2 Article

Anhedonia Is Associated with Poorer Outcomes in Contingency Management for Cocaine Use Disorder

Journal

JOURNAL OF SUBSTANCE ABUSE TREATMENT
Volume 72, Issue -, Pages 32-39

Publisher

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.jsat.2016.08.020

Keywords

Contingency management; Incentives; Cocaine use disorder; Anhedonia; Levodopa; Bayesian statistics

Funding

  1. National Institute on Drug Abuse [P50 DA009262]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This study explored anhedonia (lack of interest or pleasure in non-drug rewards) as a potentially modifiable individual difference associated with the effectiveness of Contingency Management (CM). It also tested the hypothesis that a dopaminergic drug, levodopa (L-DOPA), would improve the effectiveness of CM, particularly in individuals high in anhedonia. The study was a single-site, randomized, double-blind, parallel group, 12-week trial comparing L-DOPA with placebo, with both medication groups receiving voucher-based CM targeting cocaine-negative urines. Participants were N = 85 treatment-seeking adults with CUD. Anhedonia was measured at baseline using a validated self report measure and a progressive ratio behavioral measure. Treatment Effectiveness Score (TES) was defined as the total number of cocaine-negative urines submitted. Analyses based on Frequentist general linear models were not significant, but Bayesian analyses indicated a high probability (92.6%) that self-reported anhedonia was associated with poor treatment outcomes (lower TES). L-DOPA did not significantly improve outcomes, nor was the effect of L-DOPA moderated by anhedonia. While the study failed to replicate positive findings from previous studies of L-DOPA in combination with CM, it does provide preliminary evidence that anhedonia may be a modifiable individual difference associated with poorer CM outcomes. (C) 2016 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.2
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available