A multisite, double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trial to evaluate the safety and efficacy of vigabatrin for treating cocaine dependence.

IMPORTANCE: Cocaine dependence is a significant public health problem, yet no validated pharmacological treatment exists. The potent γ-aminobutyric acid (GABA)ergic medication vigabatrin has previously been shown to be effective in a double-blind single-site study conducted in Mexico. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the safety and efficacy of vigabatrin for the treatment of cocaine dependence in a U.S. sample. DESIGN AND SETTING: Multisite, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, 12-week clinical trial with follow-up visits at weeks 13, 16, 20, and 24 in 11 U.S. sites. PARTICIPANTS: In total, 186 treatment-seeking participants with cocaine dependence (mean age, 45 years). Approximately 67% were male, and about 60% were of African American race/ethnicity. INTERVENTIONS: Participants received twice-daily doses of vigabatrin (total dosage, 3.0 g/d) or matched placebo, plus weekly computerized cognitive behavioral therapy and biweekly individual counseling for 13 weeks. Contingency management encouraged the provision of urine samples. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: The primary outcome measure was the proportion of participants with cocaine abstinence during the last 2 weeks of the 12-week treatment phase as assessed by self-reports and quantitative urine drug screens. The weekly fraction of cocaine use days and the number of drug-free urine samples during weeks 1 through 13 were key secondary measures. RESULTS: No significant differences were observed between the vigabatrin group and the placebo group on the primary outcome measure (P = .67), key secondary measures (P > .99), or other outcome measures. However, while pill counts and self-reports indicated that more than 66% of all participants (and >63% of the vigabatrin group) took more than 70% of their medication, post hoc vigabatrin urine concentration levels suggested that approximately 40% to 60% of patients taking vigabatrin may not have been adherent. This lack of adherence may have obscured any evidence of vigabatrin efficacy. No visual acuity or visual field deterioration occurred in any of the participants. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: No protocol-defined differences in efficacy between vigabatrin treatment and placebo were detected for any outcome variable. This may have been due to medication nonadherence or, alternatively, due to the weak efficacy of vigabatrin. TRIAL REGISTRATION: clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT00611130.

The SRPHK1 outcome measure for cocaine-dependence trials combines self-report, urine benzoylecgonine levels, and the concordance between the two to determine a cocaine-use status for each study day.

BACKGROUND: There is currently no FDA-approved medication for cocaine dependence and no standard primary outcome measure for reduction of cocaine use in cocaine-dependence trials. The ability to detect a significant medication effect will depend, in part, on the primary outcome measure utilized. The goal of the present paper is to compare self-report or either of two urine toxicology measures used alone to a relatively new measure -- the SRPHK1 -- which combines self-report, quantitative urine benzoylecgonine levels, and an estimate of the concordance between the two to determine the cocaine-use status of each study day. METHOD: Datasets from two separate randomized, placebo-controlled cocaine-dependence trials were used to compare four cocaine-use outcome measures. RESULTS: The two data sets yielded very similar findings and suggest that the combined measure is associated with significantly fewer missing data than urine toxicology and that estimated cocaine use varied significantly depending on which measure was used, with the lowest use estimate being yielded by self-report, the highest by the two urine toxicology measures evaluated, and an intermediate value obtained using the combined measure. The results also suggest that the concordance between self-report and urine toxicology is around 90% at the beginning of the clinical trial but decreases to around 75% by the end of the trial. CONCLUSION: By combining the objectivity of urine toxicology with the reduced incidence of missing data characteristic of self-report, the SRPHK1 may provide advantages over self-report or urine toxicology measures used alone. In any case, the SRPHK1 provides an interesting complement to these other outcome measures and may warrant further evaluation.