TY - JOUR T1 - A meta-analysis of cocaine use disorder treatment effectiveness JF - medRxiv DO - 10.1101/2020.06.09.20127142 SP - 2020.06.09.20127142 AU - Brandon S Bentzley AU - Summer S Han AU - Sherman C Stein AU - Sophie Neuner AU - Keith Humphreys AU - Kyle M Kampman AU - Casey H Halpern Y1 - 2020/01/01 UR - http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2020/06/11/2020.06.09.20127142.abstract N2 - Background In both the U.S. and U.K., after a period of decline, prevalence of cocaine use has been increasing since 2012 and is now the second leading cause of overdose death from an illicit drug. However, psychosocial treatments for cocaine use disorders are limited, and no pharmacotherapy is approved by regulatory bodies in the U.S. or Europe. We performed a comprehensive meta-analysis to assess treatments’ impacts on cocaine use.Methods We performed a meta-analysis of clinical trials that included the word ‘cocaine’ in the title and were published between 31/12/1995 and 31/12/2017. All studies of outpatient adults with active cocaine use and reporting urinalysis results were included. Treatment approaches were clustered into 11 categories. Missing data were imputed using multiple imputation by chained equations. We calculated intention-to-treat log-odds ratios (OR) for the change in proportion of patients testing negative for cocaine at the end of each study and performed multivariate mixed-effects meta-regression. This study was prospectively registered on covidence.org on 31/12/2015, study 8731.Findings One hundred fifty-seven studies with 15,842 participants were included. Only contingency management was significantly associated with increased odds of testing negative for cocaine (OR of 2.13, 95% CI 1.62-2.80) and remained significant after all sensitivity analyses.Interpretation This meta-analysis is unique in its broad inclusivity of treatment types and trial designs over a two-decade period of investigation. Our results converge with focused meta-analyses on treatments for cocaine use disorders; thus, research efforts and policy changes that expanded implementation of contingency management programs are expected to reduce cocaine use in active users and the associated individual, community, and societal burdens associated.Funding NoneEvidence before this study Before undertaking this study, we examined all cocaine use disorder treatment reviews in Cochrane Collaboration as well as all meta-analyses indexed on PubMed (search term = “cocaine” and article type = Meta-analysis). We identified meta-analyses of several treatments for cocaine use disorders that were negative or indeterminant, including anticonvulsants, antidepressants, antipsychotics, acupuncture, disulfiram, dopamine agonists, opioids, and psychostimulants. Meta-analyses of psychosocial interventions showed variable effect sizes with large heterogeneity between approaches. Meta-analyses of contingency management indicated efficacy in reducing cocaine use, but these have been limited to specific subpopulations or to controlled studies. We expanded our scope beyond prior investigations to comprehensively assess all treatment categories simultaneously across all study types with the aim of increasing our sensitivity for detecting an effective treatment for cocaine use disorders in an otherwise largely negative evidence base.Added value of this study Our findings indicate robust effectiveness of contingency management approaches in reducing cocaine use. Other treatment categories were either negative or failed sensitivity testing. This finding highlights the inaccuracy of the common notion that there is no effective treatment for cocaine use disorder.Implications of all the available evidence Based on our study, contingency management is an effective treatment for cocaine use disorder. Cocaine use and its associated adverse effects could be significantly reduced in patients suffering from cocaine use disorder through expanded implementation of contingency management programs.Competing Interest StatementDr. Bentzley receives consulting fees from Owl Insights. Dr. Halpern receives consulting fees from Medtronic, Neuropace, Boston Scientific, and Ad-Tech.Funding StatementThe work presented was not funded.Author DeclarationsI confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.YesThe details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:The article is a meta-analysis of published works.All necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived.YesI understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).YesI have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.YesThe article is a meta-analysis of published works. ER -