4.7 Article

A Novel, Nonbinary Evaluation of Success and Failure Reveals Bupropion Efficacy Versus Methamphetamine Dependence: Reanalysis of a Multisite Trial

Journal

CNS NEUROSCIENCE & THERAPEUTICS
Volume 18, Issue 5, Pages 414-418

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/j.1755-5949.2011.00263.x

Keywords

Abstinence; Bupropion; Methamphetamine; Responder-based analysis

Ask authors/readers for more resources

A multisite, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of bupropion for methamphetamine dependence was reanalyzed using a novel, nonbinary method of evaluating success and failure. The original analysis focused on a group response endpoint (the change in percentage of participants with methamphetamine-free urines each week over the course of the trial) and no significant bupropion effect was observed in the total population of study participants. In this reanalysis, individual participants were regarded as treatment success if they achieved multiple weeks of abstinence lasting through the end of the study, and their degree of success was quantified by calculating the number of beyond-threshold weeks of success (NOBWOS). Thus, setting the threshold at 1 week of end-of-study abstinence (EOSA), treatment successes were assigned NOBWOS values ranging from 1 to 11, with 1 corresponding to 2 weeks EOSA and 11 corresponding to abstinence throughput the entire 12-week trial. Treatment failures were assigned a value of 0. Comparison of NOBWOS values revealed a significant effect of bupropion to facilitate abstinence (P= 0.0176). In the bupropion group, 20% of participants achieved 2 or more weeks EOSA, 14% achieved 6 or more weeks EOSA, and 6% were abstinent throughout the trial; this compares with 7%, 4%, and 1% in the placebo group, respectively. On the basis of the NOBWOS analysis, bupropion seems to effectively facilitate the achievement of abstinence in methamphetamine-dependent individuals.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available