Are alcoholism treatments effective? The Project MATCH data

Robert B. Cutler, David A Fishbain

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

72 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Background: Project MATCH was the largest and most expensive alcoholism treatment trial ever conducted. The results were disappointing. There were essentially no patient-treatment matches, and three very different treatments produced nearly identical outcomes. These results were interpreted post hoc as evidence that all three treatments were quite effective. We re-analyzed the data in order to estimate effectiveness in relation to quantity of treatment. Methods: This was a secondary analysis of data from a multisite clinical trial of alcohol dependent volunteers (N = 1726) who received outpatient psychosocial therapy. Analyses were confined to the primary outcome variables, percent days abstinent (PDA) and drinks per drinking day (DDD). Overall tests between treatment outcome and treatment quantity were conducted. Next, three specific groups were highlighted. One group consisted of those who dropped out immediately; the second were those who dropped out after receiving only one therapy session, and the third were those who attended 12 therapy sessions. Results: Overall, a median of only 3% of the drinking outcome at follow-up could be attributed to treatment. However this effect appeared to be present at week one before most of the treatment had been delivered. The zero treatment dropout group showed great improvement, achieving a mean of 72 percent days abstinent at follow-up. Effect size estimates showed that two-thirds to three-fourths of the improvement in the full treatment group was duplicated in the zero treatment group. Outcomes for the one session treatment group were worse than for the zero treatment group, suggesting a patient self selection effect. Nearly all the improvement in all groups had occurred by week one. The full treatment group had improved in PDA by 62% at week one, and the additional 11 therapy sessions added only another 4% improvement. Conclusion: The results suggest that current psychosocial treatments for alcoholism are not particularly effective. Untreated alcoholics in clinical trials show significant improvement. Most of the improvement which is interpreted as treatment effect is not due to treatment. Part of the remainder appears to be due to selection effects.

Original languageEnglish
JournalBMC Public Health
Volume5
DOIs
StatePublished - Jul 14 2005

Fingerprint

Alcoholism
Therapeutics
Drinking
Clinical Trials
Alcoholics

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health

Cite this

Are alcoholism treatments effective? The Project MATCH data. / Cutler, Robert B.; Fishbain, David A.

In: BMC Public Health, Vol. 5, 14.07.2005.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Cutler, Robert B. ; Fishbain, David A. / Are alcoholism treatments effective? The Project MATCH data. In: BMC Public Health. 2005 ; Vol. 5.
@article{8c27b706ab634586bbae57f5d721ef2e,
title = "Are alcoholism treatments effective? The Project MATCH data",
abstract = "Background: Project MATCH was the largest and most expensive alcoholism treatment trial ever conducted. The results were disappointing. There were essentially no patient-treatment matches, and three very different treatments produced nearly identical outcomes. These results were interpreted post hoc as evidence that all three treatments were quite effective. We re-analyzed the data in order to estimate effectiveness in relation to quantity of treatment. Methods: This was a secondary analysis of data from a multisite clinical trial of alcohol dependent volunteers (N = 1726) who received outpatient psychosocial therapy. Analyses were confined to the primary outcome variables, percent days abstinent (PDA) and drinks per drinking day (DDD). Overall tests between treatment outcome and treatment quantity were conducted. Next, three specific groups were highlighted. One group consisted of those who dropped out immediately; the second were those who dropped out after receiving only one therapy session, and the third were those who attended 12 therapy sessions. Results: Overall, a median of only 3{\%} of the drinking outcome at follow-up could be attributed to treatment. However this effect appeared to be present at week one before most of the treatment had been delivered. The zero treatment dropout group showed great improvement, achieving a mean of 72 percent days abstinent at follow-up. Effect size estimates showed that two-thirds to three-fourths of the improvement in the full treatment group was duplicated in the zero treatment group. Outcomes for the one session treatment group were worse than for the zero treatment group, suggesting a patient self selection effect. Nearly all the improvement in all groups had occurred by week one. The full treatment group had improved in PDA by 62{\%} at week one, and the additional 11 therapy sessions added only another 4{\%} improvement. Conclusion: The results suggest that current psychosocial treatments for alcoholism are not particularly effective. Untreated alcoholics in clinical trials show significant improvement. Most of the improvement which is interpreted as treatment effect is not due to treatment. Part of the remainder appears to be due to selection effects.",
author = "Cutler, {Robert B.} and Fishbain, {David A}",
year = "2005",
month = "7",
day = "14",
doi = "10.1186/1471-2458-5-75",
language = "English",
volume = "5",
journal = "BMC Public Health",
issn = "1471-2458",
publisher = "BioMed Central",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Are alcoholism treatments effective? The Project MATCH data

AU - Cutler, Robert B.

AU - Fishbain, David A

PY - 2005/7/14

Y1 - 2005/7/14

N2 - Background: Project MATCH was the largest and most expensive alcoholism treatment trial ever conducted. The results were disappointing. There were essentially no patient-treatment matches, and three very different treatments produced nearly identical outcomes. These results were interpreted post hoc as evidence that all three treatments were quite effective. We re-analyzed the data in order to estimate effectiveness in relation to quantity of treatment. Methods: This was a secondary analysis of data from a multisite clinical trial of alcohol dependent volunteers (N = 1726) who received outpatient psychosocial therapy. Analyses were confined to the primary outcome variables, percent days abstinent (PDA) and drinks per drinking day (DDD). Overall tests between treatment outcome and treatment quantity were conducted. Next, three specific groups were highlighted. One group consisted of those who dropped out immediately; the second were those who dropped out after receiving only one therapy session, and the third were those who attended 12 therapy sessions. Results: Overall, a median of only 3% of the drinking outcome at follow-up could be attributed to treatment. However this effect appeared to be present at week one before most of the treatment had been delivered. The zero treatment dropout group showed great improvement, achieving a mean of 72 percent days abstinent at follow-up. Effect size estimates showed that two-thirds to three-fourths of the improvement in the full treatment group was duplicated in the zero treatment group. Outcomes for the one session treatment group were worse than for the zero treatment group, suggesting a patient self selection effect. Nearly all the improvement in all groups had occurred by week one. The full treatment group had improved in PDA by 62% at week one, and the additional 11 therapy sessions added only another 4% improvement. Conclusion: The results suggest that current psychosocial treatments for alcoholism are not particularly effective. Untreated alcoholics in clinical trials show significant improvement. Most of the improvement which is interpreted as treatment effect is not due to treatment. Part of the remainder appears to be due to selection effects.

AB - Background: Project MATCH was the largest and most expensive alcoholism treatment trial ever conducted. The results were disappointing. There were essentially no patient-treatment matches, and three very different treatments produced nearly identical outcomes. These results were interpreted post hoc as evidence that all three treatments were quite effective. We re-analyzed the data in order to estimate effectiveness in relation to quantity of treatment. Methods: This was a secondary analysis of data from a multisite clinical trial of alcohol dependent volunteers (N = 1726) who received outpatient psychosocial therapy. Analyses were confined to the primary outcome variables, percent days abstinent (PDA) and drinks per drinking day (DDD). Overall tests between treatment outcome and treatment quantity were conducted. Next, three specific groups were highlighted. One group consisted of those who dropped out immediately; the second were those who dropped out after receiving only one therapy session, and the third were those who attended 12 therapy sessions. Results: Overall, a median of only 3% of the drinking outcome at follow-up could be attributed to treatment. However this effect appeared to be present at week one before most of the treatment had been delivered. The zero treatment dropout group showed great improvement, achieving a mean of 72 percent days abstinent at follow-up. Effect size estimates showed that two-thirds to three-fourths of the improvement in the full treatment group was duplicated in the zero treatment group. Outcomes for the one session treatment group were worse than for the zero treatment group, suggesting a patient self selection effect. Nearly all the improvement in all groups had occurred by week one. The full treatment group had improved in PDA by 62% at week one, and the additional 11 therapy sessions added only another 4% improvement. Conclusion: The results suggest that current psychosocial treatments for alcoholism are not particularly effective. Untreated alcoholics in clinical trials show significant improvement. Most of the improvement which is interpreted as treatment effect is not due to treatment. Part of the remainder appears to be due to selection effects.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=23944451929&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=23944451929&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1186/1471-2458-5-75

DO - 10.1186/1471-2458-5-75

M3 - Article

C2 - 16018798

AN - SCOPUS:23944451929

VL - 5

JO - BMC Public Health

JF - BMC Public Health

SN - 1471-2458

ER -