Alcohol Use Disorder, Cocaine Use Disorder
Conditions
Brief summary
The purpose of this research study is to determine whether a medication called pioglitazone (trade name Actos) can reduce behavioral problems associated with cocaine use, improve brain structural changes associated with cocaine use and reduce cocaine craving and drug use in cocaine dependent patients.
Interventions
Subjects randomized to pioglitazone begin with a starting dose of 15 mg daily administered. The dose will be titrated up to 30mg on the second week and 45 mg on the third week of the study. Subjects will remain on 45 mg of pioglitazone until the end of week 12. At the end of week 12 the study medication will be discontinued.
Subjects randomized to placebo receive placebo capsules once daily across all twelve weeks of the study.
Cognitive-behavioral therapy 1 hour per week
Prize-based contingency management for attendance
Sponsors
Study design
Eligibility
Inclusion criteria
* DSM-IV criteria for cocaine dependence * At least one cocaine positive urine during screening * Female subjects: a negative pregnancy test * Be in acceptable health on the basis of interview, medical history and physical exam * Be able to understand the consent form and provide written informed consent * Be able to provide the names of at least 2 persons who can generally locate their whereabouts.
Exclusion criteria
* Current Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM)-IV diagnosis of any psychoactive substance dependence other than cocaine marijuana, alcohol, or nicotine * Any serious medical or psychiatric illness and/or clinically significant abnormal laboratory value, which in the judgment of the Principal Investigator or his/her designee would make study participation unsafe, or would make treatment compliance difficult or put the study staff at undue risk * Significant current suicidal or homicidal ideation * Medical conditions contraindicating pioglitazone pharmacotherapy (e.g., congestive heart failure as determined by Framingham criteria, clinically significant edema, clinically significant liver disease, hypoglycemia, diabetes, history of bladder cancer) * Taking medications known to have significant drug interactions with the study medication (CYP2C8 inhibitors or inducers, antihyperglycemic medications) * Currently being treated for substance misuse with medication * Conditions of probation or parole requiring reports of drug use to officers of the court * Impending incarceration * Pregnant or planning to become pregnant during the course of the trial or nursing for female patients * Inability to read, write, or speak English (many of the research instruments in this study only exist in English) * Having plans to leave the immediate geographical area within 3 months * Unwillingness to sign a written informed consent form * Unwillingness to use a barrier method of birth control during the study for female patients * History of pacemaker or metal implants or welding or metal work without protective eyewear (for risk of MRI scans).
Design outcomes
Primary
| Measure | Time frame | Description |
|---|---|---|
| Brain White Matter (WM) Integrity as Assessed by Diffusion Tensor Imaging (DTI) Fractional Anisotropy (FA) Value (Region - Cingulum) | Baseline and Week 12 | DTI scans were acquired on a Philips Integra 3T magnet. Fractional anisotropy (FA) is a summary measure of the integrity of white matter neurons that provides a dimensionless index of the expected movement of water molecules inside and across the neuron. Higher values of FA indicate better neuronal integrity (that is, less movement of water across the neuron). There is no range of values, as this is a dimensionless index. |
| Craving as Assessed by the Obsessive Compulsive Drug Use Scale (OCDUS) | Weeks 1-12 | The obsessive compulsive drug use scale (OCDUS) measures the level of craving for cocaine during the past week. The mean score over all time points is reported in this outcome measure (i.e., a summary score is reported). The scale was administered once weekly. It consists of 12 items. The score range is 0 to 60, and higher scores indicates greater craving. |
| Cue Reactivity as Assessed by a Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) of Cocaine Craving | Baseline, week 2, week 4, week 6, week 8, week 10, week 12 | Every two weeks, visual analog scale ratings of craving (VAS craving) consisting of 100 mm line, anchored by 0 not at all and 100 extremely, were used to assess cocaine craving right now, craving on average in the past week, and the worst craving in the past week. Data were analyzed as a total score, which is the sum of the scores for the three questions. |
| Brain White Matter (WM) Integrity as Assessed by Diffusion Tensor Imaging (DTI) Fractional Anisotropy (FA) Value (Region - Posterior Thalamic Radiation) | Baseline and Week 12 | DTI scans were acquired on a Philips Integra 3T magnet. Fractional anisotropy (FA) is a summary measure of the integrity of white matter neurons that provides a dimensionless index of the expected movement of water molecules inside and across the neuron. Higher values of FA indicate better neuronal integrity (that is, less movement of water across the neuron). There is no range of values, as this is a dimensionless index. |
| Brain White Matter (WM) Integrity as Assessed by Diffusion Tensor Imaging (DTI) Fractional Anisotropy (FA) Value (Region - Anterior Thalamic Radiation) | Baseline and Week 12 | DTI scans were acquired on a Philips Integra 3T magnet. Fractional anisotropy (FA) is a summary measure of the integrity of white matter neurons that provides a dimensionless index of the expected movement of water molecules inside and across the neuron. Higher values of FA indicate better neuronal integrity (that is, less movement of water across the neuron). There is no range of values, as this is a dimensionless index. |
| Brain White Matter (WM) Integrity as Assessed by Diffusion Tensor Imaging (DTI) Fractional Anisotropy (FA) Value (Region - Splenium of Corpus Callosum) | Baseline and Week 12 | DTI scans were acquired on a Philips Integra 3T magnet. Fractional anisotropy (FA) is a summary measure of the integrity of white matter neurons that provides a dimensionless index of the expected movement of water molecules inside and across the neuron. Higher values of FA indicate better neuronal integrity (that is, less movement of water across the neuron). There is no range of values, as this is a dimensionless index. |
| Brain White Matter (WM) Integrity as Assessed by Diffusion Tensor Imaging (DTI) Fractional Anisotropy (FA) Value (Region - Genu of Corpus Callosum) | Baseline and Week 12 | DTI scans were acquired on a Philips Integra 3T magnet. Fractional anisotropy (FA) is a summary measure of the integrity of white matter neurons that provides a dimensionless index of the expected movement of water molecules inside and across the neuron. Higher values of FA indicate better neuronal integrity (that is, less movement of water across the neuron). There is no range of values, as this is a dimensionless index. |
| Brain White Matter (WM) Integrity as Assessed by Diffusion Tensor Imaging (DTI) Fractional Anisotropy (FA) Value (Region - External Capsule) | Baseline and Week 12 | DTI scans were acquired on a Philips Integra 3T magnet. Fractional anisotropy (FA) is a summary measure of the integrity of white matter neurons that provides a dimensionless index of the expected movement of water molecules inside and across the neuron. Higher values of FA indicate better neuronal integrity (that is, less movement of water across the neuron). There is no range of values, as this is a dimensionless index. |
| Craving as Assessed by the Brief Substance Craving Scale (BSCS) | Baseline, week 1, week 2, week 3, week 4, week 5, week 6, week 7, week 8, week 9, week 10, week 11, week 12 | The brief substance craving scale (BSCS) is a 16-item, self-report instrument assesses craving for cocaine and other substances of abuse over a 24 hour period. The domains of intensity, frequency, and duration are recorded on a five-point Likert scale. The range of scores for each domain is 0 to 4, and the total score is the sum of all three domains. The total score range is 0 to 12, and higher scores indicate higher craving (worse outcome.) |
Secondary
| Measure | Time frame | Description |
|---|---|---|
| Feasibility - Medication Compliance as Assessed by Percentage of Urine Samples That Were Riboflavin-Positive | weeks 1 - 12 | Riboflavin was added to pill capsules as a marker of medication compliance. The percentage over all time points is reported in this outcome measure. Urine samples were collected once weekly. |
| Feasibility - Medication Compliance as Assessed by Percentage of Self-reports That Indicate Capsules Were Taken | weeks 1 - 12 | A modified Timeline Followback (TLFB) procedure was used for self-reports. The percentage over all time points is reported in this outcome measure. Self-reports were collected once weekly. |
| Feasibility - Tolerability as Assessed by Number of Participants Reporting Side Effects | week 12 | — |
| Feasibility - Tolerability as Assessed by Number of Participants With Serious Adverse Events | week 12 | — |
| Cocaine Use as Assessed by Percentage of Urine Samples That Were Cocaine-positive | Weeks 1-12 | The mean percentage over all time points is reported in this outcome measure. Urine samples were collected once weekly. |
| Cocaine Use as Assessed by Percentage of Self-reports That Indicate Cocaine Use | Weeks 1-12 | A modified Timeline Followback (TLFB) procedure was used to assess cocaine use. The mean percentage over all time points is reported in this outcome measure. Self-reports were collected once weekly. |
| Feasibility - Subject Retention as Assessed by Number of Participants Who Completed All 12 Weeks of the Study | week 12 | — |
Countries
United States
Participant flow
Participants by arm
| Arm | Count |
|---|---|
| Pioglitazone + Therapy + Contingency Management Pioglitazone: Subjects randomized to pioglitazone begin with a starting dose of 15 mg daily administered. The dose will be titrated up to 30mg on the second week and 45 mg on the third week of the study. Subjects will remain on 45 mg of pioglitazone until the end of week 12. At the end of week 12 the study medication will be discontinued.
Therapy: Cognitive-behavioral therapy 1 hour per week
Contingency Management: Prize-based contingency management for attendance | 15 |
| Placebo + Therapy + Contingency Management Placebo: Subjects randomized to placebo receive placebo capsules once daily across all twelve weeks of the study.
Therapy: Cognitive-behavioral therapy 1 hour per week
Contingency Management: Prize-based contingency management for attendance | 15 |
| Total | 30 |
Baseline characteristics
| Characteristic | Pioglitazone + Therapy + Contingency Management | Placebo + Therapy + Contingency Management | Total |
|---|---|---|---|
| Age, Continuous | 48.3 years STANDARD_DEVIATION 7.1 | 47.4 years STANDARD_DEVIATION 7.8 | 47.8 years STANDARD_DEVIATION 7.45 |
| Region of Enrollment United States | 15 Participants | 15 Participants | 30 Participants |
| Sex: Female, Male Female | 4 Participants | 4 Participants | 8 Participants |
| Sex: Female, Male Male | 11 Participants | 11 Participants | 22 Participants |
Adverse events
| Event type | EG000 affected / at risk | EG001 affected / at risk |
|---|---|---|
| deaths Total, all-cause mortality | — / — | — / — |
| other Total, other adverse events | 0 / 12 | 0 / 14 |
| serious Total, serious adverse events | 0 / 12 | 0 / 14 |
Outcome results
Brain White Matter (WM) Integrity as Assessed by Diffusion Tensor Imaging (DTI) Fractional Anisotropy (FA) Value (Region - Anterior Thalamic Radiation)
DTI scans were acquired on a Philips Integra 3T magnet. Fractional anisotropy (FA) is a summary measure of the integrity of white matter neurons that provides a dimensionless index of the expected movement of water molecules inside and across the neuron. Higher values of FA indicate better neuronal integrity (that is, less movement of water across the neuron). There is no range of values, as this is a dimensionless index.
Time frame: Baseline and Week 12
Population: Although 21 completed the study, only 18 were analyzed for this measure. This is because DTI FA data was collected for only 18 subjects. Reasons for not completing DTI: 1 subject had a brain abnormality; 1 subject refused to do the scan; and 1 scan was not completed due to scanner shutdown for maintenance.
| Arm | Measure | Group | Value (MEAN) | Dispersion |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Pioglitazone + Therapy + Contingency Management | Brain White Matter (WM) Integrity as Assessed by Diffusion Tensor Imaging (DTI) Fractional Anisotropy (FA) Value (Region - Anterior Thalamic Radiation) | baseline | 518.20 DTI Fractional Anisotropy (FA) value | Standard Deviation 24.42 |
| Pioglitazone + Therapy + Contingency Management | Brain White Matter (WM) Integrity as Assessed by Diffusion Tensor Imaging (DTI) Fractional Anisotropy (FA) Value (Region - Anterior Thalamic Radiation) | week 12 | 522.40 DTI Fractional Anisotropy (FA) value | Standard Deviation 30.85 |
| Placebo + Therapy + Contingency Management | Brain White Matter (WM) Integrity as Assessed by Diffusion Tensor Imaging (DTI) Fractional Anisotropy (FA) Value (Region - Anterior Thalamic Radiation) | baseline | 530.31 DTI Fractional Anisotropy (FA) value | Standard Deviation 26.28 |
| Placebo + Therapy + Contingency Management | Brain White Matter (WM) Integrity as Assessed by Diffusion Tensor Imaging (DTI) Fractional Anisotropy (FA) Value (Region - Anterior Thalamic Radiation) | week 12 | 523.00 DTI Fractional Anisotropy (FA) value | Standard Deviation 36.46 |
Brain White Matter (WM) Integrity as Assessed by Diffusion Tensor Imaging (DTI) Fractional Anisotropy (FA) Value (Region - Cingulum)
DTI scans were acquired on a Philips Integra 3T magnet. Fractional anisotropy (FA) is a summary measure of the integrity of white matter neurons that provides a dimensionless index of the expected movement of water molecules inside and across the neuron. Higher values of FA indicate better neuronal integrity (that is, less movement of water across the neuron). There is no range of values, as this is a dimensionless index.
Time frame: Baseline and Week 12
Population: Although 21 completed the study, only 18 were analyzed for this measure. This is because DTI FA data was collected for only 18 subjects. Reasons for not completing DTI: 1 subject had a brain abnormality; 1 subject refused to do the scan; and 1 scan was not completed due to scanner shutdown for maintenance.
| Arm | Measure | Group | Value (MEAN) | Dispersion |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Pioglitazone + Therapy + Contingency Management | Brain White Matter (WM) Integrity as Assessed by Diffusion Tensor Imaging (DTI) Fractional Anisotropy (FA) Value (Region - Cingulum) | baseline | 465.06 DTI Fractional Anisotropy (FA) value | Standard Deviation 22.35 |
| Pioglitazone + Therapy + Contingency Management | Brain White Matter (WM) Integrity as Assessed by Diffusion Tensor Imaging (DTI) Fractional Anisotropy (FA) Value (Region - Cingulum) | week 12 | 471.40 DTI Fractional Anisotropy (FA) value | Standard Deviation 17.23 |
| Placebo + Therapy + Contingency Management | Brain White Matter (WM) Integrity as Assessed by Diffusion Tensor Imaging (DTI) Fractional Anisotropy (FA) Value (Region - Cingulum) | baseline | 463.91 DTI Fractional Anisotropy (FA) value | Standard Deviation 15.92 |
| Placebo + Therapy + Contingency Management | Brain White Matter (WM) Integrity as Assessed by Diffusion Tensor Imaging (DTI) Fractional Anisotropy (FA) Value (Region - Cingulum) | week 12 | 465.75 DTI Fractional Anisotropy (FA) value | Standard Deviation 16.98 |
Brain White Matter (WM) Integrity as Assessed by Diffusion Tensor Imaging (DTI) Fractional Anisotropy (FA) Value (Region - External Capsule)
DTI scans were acquired on a Philips Integra 3T magnet. Fractional anisotropy (FA) is a summary measure of the integrity of white matter neurons that provides a dimensionless index of the expected movement of water molecules inside and across the neuron. Higher values of FA indicate better neuronal integrity (that is, less movement of water across the neuron). There is no range of values, as this is a dimensionless index.
Time frame: Baseline and Week 12
Population: Although 21 completed the study, only 18 were analyzed for this measure. This is because DTI FA data was collected for only 18 subjects. Reasons for not completing DTI: 1 subject had a brain abnormality; 1 subject refused to do the scan; and 1 scan was not completed due to scanner shutdown for maintenance.
| Arm | Measure | Group | Value (MEAN) | Dispersion |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Pioglitazone + Therapy + Contingency Management | Brain White Matter (WM) Integrity as Assessed by Diffusion Tensor Imaging (DTI) Fractional Anisotropy (FA) Value (Region - External Capsule) | baseline | 420.68 DTI Fractional Anisotropy (FA) value | Standard Deviation 22.35 |
| Pioglitazone + Therapy + Contingency Management | Brain White Matter (WM) Integrity as Assessed by Diffusion Tensor Imaging (DTI) Fractional Anisotropy (FA) Value (Region - External Capsule) | week 12 | 423.91 DTI Fractional Anisotropy (FA) value | Standard Deviation 17.23 |
| Placebo + Therapy + Contingency Management | Brain White Matter (WM) Integrity as Assessed by Diffusion Tensor Imaging (DTI) Fractional Anisotropy (FA) Value (Region - External Capsule) | baseline | 418.71 DTI Fractional Anisotropy (FA) value | Standard Deviation 15.92 |
| Placebo + Therapy + Contingency Management | Brain White Matter (WM) Integrity as Assessed by Diffusion Tensor Imaging (DTI) Fractional Anisotropy (FA) Value (Region - External Capsule) | week 12 | 418.25 DTI Fractional Anisotropy (FA) value | Standard Deviation 16.98 |
Brain White Matter (WM) Integrity as Assessed by Diffusion Tensor Imaging (DTI) Fractional Anisotropy (FA) Value (Region - Genu of Corpus Callosum)
DTI scans were acquired on a Philips Integra 3T magnet. Fractional anisotropy (FA) is a summary measure of the integrity of white matter neurons that provides a dimensionless index of the expected movement of water molecules inside and across the neuron. Higher values of FA indicate better neuronal integrity (that is, less movement of water across the neuron). There is no range of values, as this is a dimensionless index.
Time frame: Baseline and Week 12
Population: Although 21 completed the study, only 18 were analyzed for this measure. This is because DTI FA data was collected for only 18 subjects. Reasons for not completing DTI: 1 subject had a brain abnormality; 1 subject refused to do the scan; and 1 scan was not completed due to scanner shutdown for maintenance.
| Arm | Measure | Group | Value (MEAN) | Dispersion |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Pioglitazone + Therapy + Contingency Management | Brain White Matter (WM) Integrity as Assessed by Diffusion Tensor Imaging (DTI) Fractional Anisotropy (FA) Value (Region - Genu of Corpus Callosum) | baseline | 566.66 DTI Fractional Anisotropy (FA) value | Standard Deviation 44.18 |
| Pioglitazone + Therapy + Contingency Management | Brain White Matter (WM) Integrity as Assessed by Diffusion Tensor Imaging (DTI) Fractional Anisotropy (FA) Value (Region - Genu of Corpus Callosum) | week 12 | 575.06 DTI Fractional Anisotropy (FA) value | Standard Deviation 30.78 |
| Placebo + Therapy + Contingency Management | Brain White Matter (WM) Integrity as Assessed by Diffusion Tensor Imaging (DTI) Fractional Anisotropy (FA) Value (Region - Genu of Corpus Callosum) | baseline | 562.52 DTI Fractional Anisotropy (FA) value | Standard Deviation 29.34 |
| Placebo + Therapy + Contingency Management | Brain White Matter (WM) Integrity as Assessed by Diffusion Tensor Imaging (DTI) Fractional Anisotropy (FA) Value (Region - Genu of Corpus Callosum) | week 12 | 547.15 DTI Fractional Anisotropy (FA) value | Standard Deviation 37.45 |
Brain White Matter (WM) Integrity as Assessed by Diffusion Tensor Imaging (DTI) Fractional Anisotropy (FA) Value (Region - Posterior Thalamic Radiation)
DTI scans were acquired on a Philips Integra 3T magnet. Fractional anisotropy (FA) is a summary measure of the integrity of white matter neurons that provides a dimensionless index of the expected movement of water molecules inside and across the neuron. Higher values of FA indicate better neuronal integrity (that is, less movement of water across the neuron). There is no range of values, as this is a dimensionless index.
Time frame: Baseline and Week 12
Population: Although 21 completed the study, only 18 were analyzed for this measure. This is because DTI FA data was collected for only 18 subjects. Reasons for not completing DTI: 1 subject had a brain abnormality; 1 subject refused to do the scan; and 1 scan was not completed due to scanner shutdown for maintenance.
| Arm | Measure | Group | Value (MEAN) | Dispersion |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Pioglitazone + Therapy + Contingency Management | Brain White Matter (WM) Integrity as Assessed by Diffusion Tensor Imaging (DTI) Fractional Anisotropy (FA) Value (Region - Posterior Thalamic Radiation) | baseline | 542.27 DTI Fractional Anisotropy (FA) value | Standard Deviation 24.6 |
| Pioglitazone + Therapy + Contingency Management | Brain White Matter (WM) Integrity as Assessed by Diffusion Tensor Imaging (DTI) Fractional Anisotropy (FA) Value (Region - Posterior Thalamic Radiation) | week 12 | 546.84 DTI Fractional Anisotropy (FA) value | Standard Deviation 32.79 |
| Placebo + Therapy + Contingency Management | Brain White Matter (WM) Integrity as Assessed by Diffusion Tensor Imaging (DTI) Fractional Anisotropy (FA) Value (Region - Posterior Thalamic Radiation) | baseline | 546.26 DTI Fractional Anisotropy (FA) value | Standard Deviation 27.02 |
| Placebo + Therapy + Contingency Management | Brain White Matter (WM) Integrity as Assessed by Diffusion Tensor Imaging (DTI) Fractional Anisotropy (FA) Value (Region - Posterior Thalamic Radiation) | week 12 | 535.14 DTI Fractional Anisotropy (FA) value | Standard Deviation 27.61 |
Brain White Matter (WM) Integrity as Assessed by Diffusion Tensor Imaging (DTI) Fractional Anisotropy (FA) Value (Region - Splenium of Corpus Callosum)
DTI scans were acquired on a Philips Integra 3T magnet. Fractional anisotropy (FA) is a summary measure of the integrity of white matter neurons that provides a dimensionless index of the expected movement of water molecules inside and across the neuron. Higher values of FA indicate better neuronal integrity (that is, less movement of water across the neuron). There is no range of values, as this is a dimensionless index.
Time frame: Baseline and Week 12
Population: Although 21 completed the study, only 18 were analyzed for this measure. This is because DTI FA data was collected for only 18 subjects. Reasons for not completing DTI: 1 subject had a brain abnormality; 1 subject refused to do the scan; and 1 scan was not completed due to scanner shutdown for maintenance.
| Arm | Measure | Group | Value (MEAN) | Dispersion |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Pioglitazone + Therapy + Contingency Management | Brain White Matter (WM) Integrity as Assessed by Diffusion Tensor Imaging (DTI) Fractional Anisotropy (FA) Value (Region - Splenium of Corpus Callosum) | baseline | 645.49 DTI Fractional Anisotropy (FA) value | Standard Deviation 48.82 |
| Pioglitazone + Therapy + Contingency Management | Brain White Matter (WM) Integrity as Assessed by Diffusion Tensor Imaging (DTI) Fractional Anisotropy (FA) Value (Region - Splenium of Corpus Callosum) | week 12 | 655.41 DTI Fractional Anisotropy (FA) value | Standard Deviation 26.73 |
| Placebo + Therapy + Contingency Management | Brain White Matter (WM) Integrity as Assessed by Diffusion Tensor Imaging (DTI) Fractional Anisotropy (FA) Value (Region - Splenium of Corpus Callosum) | baseline | 635.81 DTI Fractional Anisotropy (FA) value | Standard Deviation 26.26 |
| Placebo + Therapy + Contingency Management | Brain White Matter (WM) Integrity as Assessed by Diffusion Tensor Imaging (DTI) Fractional Anisotropy (FA) Value (Region - Splenium of Corpus Callosum) | week 12 | 620.98 DTI Fractional Anisotropy (FA) value | Standard Deviation 35.51 |
Craving as Assessed by the Brief Substance Craving Scale (BSCS)
The brief substance craving scale (BSCS) is a 16-item, self-report instrument assesses craving for cocaine and other substances of abuse over a 24 hour period. The domains of intensity, frequency, and duration are recorded on a five-point Likert scale. The range of scores for each domain is 0 to 4, and the total score is the sum of all three domains. The total score range is 0 to 12, and higher scores indicate higher craving (worse outcome.)
Time frame: Baseline, week 1, week 2, week 3, week 4, week 5, week 6, week 7, week 8, week 9, week 10, week 11, week 12
| Arm | Measure | Group | Value (MEAN) | Dispersion |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Pioglitazone + Therapy + Contingency Management | Craving as Assessed by the Brief Substance Craving Scale (BSCS) | week 2 | 4.42 units on a scale | Standard Deviation 2.11 |
| Pioglitazone + Therapy + Contingency Management | Craving as Assessed by the Brief Substance Craving Scale (BSCS) | week 7 | 2.12 units on a scale | Standard Deviation 1.64 |
| Pioglitazone + Therapy + Contingency Management | Craving as Assessed by the Brief Substance Craving Scale (BSCS) | week 4 | 4.00 units on a scale | Standard Deviation 3.16 |
| Pioglitazone + Therapy + Contingency Management | Craving as Assessed by the Brief Substance Craving Scale (BSCS) | week 8 | 3.25 units on a scale | Standard Deviation 2.12 |
| Pioglitazone + Therapy + Contingency Management | Craving as Assessed by the Brief Substance Craving Scale (BSCS) | week 1 | 5.00 units on a scale | Standard Deviation 3.36 |
| Pioglitazone + Therapy + Contingency Management | Craving as Assessed by the Brief Substance Craving Scale (BSCS) | week 9 | 2.88 units on a scale | Standard Deviation 2.53 |
| Pioglitazone + Therapy + Contingency Management | Craving as Assessed by the Brief Substance Craving Scale (BSCS) | week 5 | 2.60 units on a scale | Standard Deviation 2.55 |
| Pioglitazone + Therapy + Contingency Management | Craving as Assessed by the Brief Substance Craving Scale (BSCS) | week 10 | 2.56 units on a scale | Standard Deviation 2.55 |
| Pioglitazone + Therapy + Contingency Management | Craving as Assessed by the Brief Substance Craving Scale (BSCS) | week 3 | 4.00 units on a scale | Standard Deviation 3.33 |
| Pioglitazone + Therapy + Contingency Management | Craving as Assessed by the Brief Substance Craving Scale (BSCS) | week 11 | 2.89 units on a scale | Standard Deviation 2.62 |
| Pioglitazone + Therapy + Contingency Management | Craving as Assessed by the Brief Substance Craving Scale (BSCS) | week 6 | 3.22 units on a scale | Standard Deviation 2.78 |
| Pioglitazone + Therapy + Contingency Management | Craving as Assessed by the Brief Substance Craving Scale (BSCS) | week 12 | 2.00 units on a scale | Standard Deviation 2.39 |
| Pioglitazone + Therapy + Contingency Management | Craving as Assessed by the Brief Substance Craving Scale (BSCS) | baseline | 5.57 units on a scale | Standard Deviation 2.47 |
| Placebo + Therapy + Contingency Management | Craving as Assessed by the Brief Substance Craving Scale (BSCS) | week 12 | 3.55 units on a scale | Standard Deviation 2.88 |
| Placebo + Therapy + Contingency Management | Craving as Assessed by the Brief Substance Craving Scale (BSCS) | baseline | 6.23 units on a scale | Standard Deviation 3.3 |
| Placebo + Therapy + Contingency Management | Craving as Assessed by the Brief Substance Craving Scale (BSCS) | week 1 | 5.08 units on a scale | Standard Deviation 3.06 |
| Placebo + Therapy + Contingency Management | Craving as Assessed by the Brief Substance Craving Scale (BSCS) | week 2 | 2.91 units on a scale | Standard Deviation 2.55 |
| Placebo + Therapy + Contingency Management | Craving as Assessed by the Brief Substance Craving Scale (BSCS) | week 3 | 3.82 units on a scale | Standard Deviation 3.89 |
| Placebo + Therapy + Contingency Management | Craving as Assessed by the Brief Substance Craving Scale (BSCS) | week 4 | 3.18 units on a scale | Standard Deviation 2.75 |
| Placebo + Therapy + Contingency Management | Craving as Assessed by the Brief Substance Craving Scale (BSCS) | week 5 | 3.82 units on a scale | Standard Deviation 2.79 |
| Placebo + Therapy + Contingency Management | Craving as Assessed by the Brief Substance Craving Scale (BSCS) | week 6 | 3.45 units on a scale | Standard Deviation 3.39 |
| Placebo + Therapy + Contingency Management | Craving as Assessed by the Brief Substance Craving Scale (BSCS) | week 7 | 4.36 units on a scale | Standard Deviation 3.14 |
| Placebo + Therapy + Contingency Management | Craving as Assessed by the Brief Substance Craving Scale (BSCS) | week 8 | 3.55 units on a scale | Standard Deviation 2.38 |
| Placebo + Therapy + Contingency Management | Craving as Assessed by the Brief Substance Craving Scale (BSCS) | week 9 | 3.82 units on a scale | Standard Deviation 3.25 |
| Placebo + Therapy + Contingency Management | Craving as Assessed by the Brief Substance Craving Scale (BSCS) | week 10 | 3.36 units on a scale | Standard Deviation 2.98 |
| Placebo + Therapy + Contingency Management | Craving as Assessed by the Brief Substance Craving Scale (BSCS) | week 11 | 3.82 units on a scale | Standard Deviation 2.56 |
Craving as Assessed by the Obsessive Compulsive Drug Use Scale (OCDUS)
The obsessive compulsive drug use scale (OCDUS) measures the level of craving for cocaine during the past week. The mean score over all time points is reported in this outcome measure (i.e., a summary score is reported). The scale was administered once weekly. It consists of 12 items. The score range is 0 to 60, and higher scores indicates greater craving.
Time frame: Weeks 1-12
| Arm | Measure | Value (MEAN) | Dispersion |
|---|---|---|---|
| Pioglitazone + Therapy + Contingency Management | Craving as Assessed by the Obsessive Compulsive Drug Use Scale (OCDUS) | 19.1 units on a scale | Standard Deviation 3.5 |
| Placebo + Therapy + Contingency Management | Craving as Assessed by the Obsessive Compulsive Drug Use Scale (OCDUS) | 21.36 units on a scale | Standard Deviation 8.7 |
Cue Reactivity as Assessed by a Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) of Cocaine Craving
Every two weeks, visual analog scale ratings of craving (VAS craving) consisting of 100 mm line, anchored by 0 not at all and 100 extremely, were used to assess cocaine craving right now, craving on average in the past week, and the worst craving in the past week. Data were analyzed as a total score, which is the sum of the scores for the three questions.
Time frame: Baseline, week 2, week 4, week 6, week 8, week 10, week 12
| Arm | Measure | Group | Value (MEAN) | Dispersion |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Pioglitazone + Therapy + Contingency Management | Cue Reactivity as Assessed by a Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) of Cocaine Craving | week 4 | 37.93 units on a scale | Standard Deviation 22.3 |
| Pioglitazone + Therapy + Contingency Management | Cue Reactivity as Assessed by a Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) of Cocaine Craving | week 8 | 25.70 units on a scale | Standard Deviation 23.34 |
| Pioglitazone + Therapy + Contingency Management | Cue Reactivity as Assessed by a Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) of Cocaine Craving | week 2 | 53.76 units on a scale | Standard Deviation 23.1 |
| Pioglitazone + Therapy + Contingency Management | Cue Reactivity as Assessed by a Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) of Cocaine Craving | week 10 | 18.33 units on a scale | Standard Deviation 24.38 |
| Pioglitazone + Therapy + Contingency Management | Cue Reactivity as Assessed by a Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) of Cocaine Craving | week 6 | 21.75 units on a scale | Standard Deviation 22.97 |
| Pioglitazone + Therapy + Contingency Management | Cue Reactivity as Assessed by a Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) of Cocaine Craving | week 12 | 15.38 units on a scale | Standard Deviation 28.91 |
| Pioglitazone + Therapy + Contingency Management | Cue Reactivity as Assessed by a Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) of Cocaine Craving | baseline | 57.50 units on a scale | Standard Deviation 22.83 |
| Placebo + Therapy + Contingency Management | Cue Reactivity as Assessed by a Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) of Cocaine Craving | week 12 | 27.86 units on a scale | Standard Deviation 30.2 |
| Placebo + Therapy + Contingency Management | Cue Reactivity as Assessed by a Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) of Cocaine Craving | baseline | 52.29 units on a scale | Standard Deviation 29.49 |
| Placebo + Therapy + Contingency Management | Cue Reactivity as Assessed by a Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) of Cocaine Craving | week 2 | 40.31 units on a scale | Standard Deviation 29.38 |
| Placebo + Therapy + Contingency Management | Cue Reactivity as Assessed by a Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) of Cocaine Craving | week 4 | 35.58 units on a scale | Standard Deviation 29 |
| Placebo + Therapy + Contingency Management | Cue Reactivity as Assessed by a Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) of Cocaine Craving | week 6 | 29.86 units on a scale | Standard Deviation 31.27 |
| Placebo + Therapy + Contingency Management | Cue Reactivity as Assessed by a Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) of Cocaine Craving | week 8 | 35.88 units on a scale | Standard Deviation 34.2 |
| Placebo + Therapy + Contingency Management | Cue Reactivity as Assessed by a Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) of Cocaine Craving | week 10 | 31.42 units on a scale | Standard Deviation 35.61 |
Cocaine Use as Assessed by Percentage of Self-reports That Indicate Cocaine Use
A modified Timeline Followback (TLFB) procedure was used to assess cocaine use. The mean percentage over all time points is reported in this outcome measure. Self-reports were collected once weekly.
Time frame: Weeks 1-12
| Arm | Measure | Value (MEAN) | Dispersion |
|---|---|---|---|
| Pioglitazone + Therapy + Contingency Management | Cocaine Use as Assessed by Percentage of Self-reports That Indicate Cocaine Use | 35 percentage of self-reports | Standard Deviation 0.3 |
| Placebo + Therapy + Contingency Management | Cocaine Use as Assessed by Percentage of Self-reports That Indicate Cocaine Use | 29 percentage of self-reports | Standard Deviation 0.28 |
Cocaine Use as Assessed by Percentage of Urine Samples That Were Cocaine-positive
The mean percentage over all time points is reported in this outcome measure. Urine samples were collected once weekly.
Time frame: Weeks 1-12
| Arm | Measure | Value (MEAN) | Dispersion |
|---|---|---|---|
| Pioglitazone + Therapy + Contingency Management | Cocaine Use as Assessed by Percentage of Urine Samples That Were Cocaine-positive | 44 percentage of urine samples | Standard Deviation 0.34 |
| Placebo + Therapy + Contingency Management | Cocaine Use as Assessed by Percentage of Urine Samples That Were Cocaine-positive | 50 percentage of urine samples | Standard Deviation 0.4 |
Feasibility - Medication Compliance as Assessed by Percentage of Self-reports That Indicate Capsules Were Taken
A modified Timeline Followback (TLFB) procedure was used for self-reports. The percentage over all time points is reported in this outcome measure. Self-reports were collected once weekly.
Time frame: weeks 1 - 12
| Arm | Measure | Value (MEAN) | Dispersion |
|---|---|---|---|
| Pioglitazone + Therapy + Contingency Management | Feasibility - Medication Compliance as Assessed by Percentage of Self-reports That Indicate Capsules Were Taken | 84.1 percentage of self-reports | Standard Error 0.105562 |
| Placebo + Therapy + Contingency Management | Feasibility - Medication Compliance as Assessed by Percentage of Self-reports That Indicate Capsules Were Taken | 86.9 percentage of self-reports | Standard Error 0.090174 |
Feasibility - Medication Compliance as Assessed by Percentage of Urine Samples That Were Riboflavin-Positive
Riboflavin was added to pill capsules as a marker of medication compliance. The percentage over all time points is reported in this outcome measure. Urine samples were collected once weekly.
Time frame: weeks 1 - 12
| Arm | Measure | Value (MEAN) | Dispersion |
|---|---|---|---|
| Pioglitazone + Therapy + Contingency Management | Feasibility - Medication Compliance as Assessed by Percentage of Urine Samples That Were Riboflavin-Positive | 96.2 percentage of urine samples | Standard Error 0.055194 |
| Placebo + Therapy + Contingency Management | Feasibility - Medication Compliance as Assessed by Percentage of Urine Samples That Were Riboflavin-Positive | 95.4 percentage of urine samples | Standard Error 0.055987 |
Feasibility - Subject Retention as Assessed by Number of Participants Who Completed All 12 Weeks of the Study
Time frame: week 12
| Arm | Measure | Value (COUNT_OF_PARTICIPANTS) |
|---|---|---|
| Pioglitazone + Therapy + Contingency Management | Feasibility - Subject Retention as Assessed by Number of Participants Who Completed All 12 Weeks of the Study | 12 Participants |
| Placebo + Therapy + Contingency Management | Feasibility - Subject Retention as Assessed by Number of Participants Who Completed All 12 Weeks of the Study | 11 Participants |
Feasibility - Tolerability as Assessed by Number of Participants Reporting Side Effects
Time frame: week 12
| Arm | Measure | Group | Value (COUNT_OF_PARTICIPANTS) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Pioglitazone + Therapy + Contingency Management | Feasibility - Tolerability as Assessed by Number of Participants Reporting Side Effects | drowsiness | 0 Participants |
| Pioglitazone + Therapy + Contingency Management | Feasibility - Tolerability as Assessed by Number of Participants Reporting Side Effects | not sleeping well | 2 Participants |
| Pioglitazone + Therapy + Contingency Management | Feasibility - Tolerability as Assessed by Number of Participants Reporting Side Effects | headache | 0 Participants |
| Pioglitazone + Therapy + Contingency Management | Feasibility - Tolerability as Assessed by Number of Participants Reporting Side Effects | nervousness | 0 Participants |
| Pioglitazone + Therapy + Contingency Management | Feasibility - Tolerability as Assessed by Number of Participants Reporting Side Effects | blurry vision | 0 Participants |
| Pioglitazone + Therapy + Contingency Management | Feasibility - Tolerability as Assessed by Number of Participants Reporting Side Effects | dizziness | 0 Participants |
| Pioglitazone + Therapy + Contingency Management | Feasibility - Tolerability as Assessed by Number of Participants Reporting Side Effects | nausea | 0 Participants |
| Pioglitazone + Therapy + Contingency Management | Feasibility - Tolerability as Assessed by Number of Participants Reporting Side Effects | vomiting | 1 Participants |
| Pioglitazone + Therapy + Contingency Management | Feasibility - Tolerability as Assessed by Number of Participants Reporting Side Effects | diarrhea | 2 Participants |
| Pioglitazone + Therapy + Contingency Management | Feasibility - Tolerability as Assessed by Number of Participants Reporting Side Effects | stomach pain | 3 Participants |
| Pioglitazone + Therapy + Contingency Management | Feasibility - Tolerability as Assessed by Number of Participants Reporting Side Effects | muscle aches | 0 Participants |
| Pioglitazone + Therapy + Contingency Management | Feasibility - Tolerability as Assessed by Number of Participants Reporting Side Effects | shortness of breath | 0 Participants |
| Pioglitazone + Therapy + Contingency Management | Feasibility - Tolerability as Assessed by Number of Participants Reporting Side Effects | cough | 4 Participants |
| Pioglitazone + Therapy + Contingency Management | Feasibility - Tolerability as Assessed by Number of Participants Reporting Side Effects | increased urination | 4 Participants |
| Pioglitazone + Therapy + Contingency Management | Feasibility - Tolerability as Assessed by Number of Participants Reporting Side Effects | change in sexual function | 1 Participants |
| Pioglitazone + Therapy + Contingency Management | Feasibility - Tolerability as Assessed by Number of Participants Reporting Side Effects | weakness | 0 Participants |
| Pioglitazone + Therapy + Contingency Management | Feasibility - Tolerability as Assessed by Number of Participants Reporting Side Effects | fatigue | 1 Participants |
| Pioglitazone + Therapy + Contingency Management | Feasibility - Tolerability as Assessed by Number of Participants Reporting Side Effects | difficulty walking | 1 Participants |
| Pioglitazone + Therapy + Contingency Management | Feasibility - Tolerability as Assessed by Number of Participants Reporting Side Effects | fever or chills | 0 Participants |
| Pioglitazone + Therapy + Contingency Management | Feasibility - Tolerability as Assessed by Number of Participants Reporting Side Effects | loss of appetite | 0 Participants |
| Pioglitazone + Therapy + Contingency Management | Feasibility - Tolerability as Assessed by Number of Participants Reporting Side Effects | confusion | 0 Participants |
| Pioglitazone + Therapy + Contingency Management | Feasibility - Tolerability as Assessed by Number of Participants Reporting Side Effects | cloudiness | 0 Participants |
| Pioglitazone + Therapy + Contingency Management | Feasibility - Tolerability as Assessed by Number of Participants Reporting Side Effects | memory loss | 1 Participants |
| Placebo + Therapy + Contingency Management | Feasibility - Tolerability as Assessed by Number of Participants Reporting Side Effects | shortness of breath | 1 Participants |
| Placebo + Therapy + Contingency Management | Feasibility - Tolerability as Assessed by Number of Participants Reporting Side Effects | drowsiness | 1 Participants |
| Placebo + Therapy + Contingency Management | Feasibility - Tolerability as Assessed by Number of Participants Reporting Side Effects | difficulty walking | 0 Participants |
| Placebo + Therapy + Contingency Management | Feasibility - Tolerability as Assessed by Number of Participants Reporting Side Effects | not sleeping well | 1 Participants |
| Placebo + Therapy + Contingency Management | Feasibility - Tolerability as Assessed by Number of Participants Reporting Side Effects | cough | 1 Participants |
| Placebo + Therapy + Contingency Management | Feasibility - Tolerability as Assessed by Number of Participants Reporting Side Effects | headache | 1 Participants |
| Placebo + Therapy + Contingency Management | Feasibility - Tolerability as Assessed by Number of Participants Reporting Side Effects | confusion | 1 Participants |
| Placebo + Therapy + Contingency Management | Feasibility - Tolerability as Assessed by Number of Participants Reporting Side Effects | nervousness | 2 Participants |
| Placebo + Therapy + Contingency Management | Feasibility - Tolerability as Assessed by Number of Participants Reporting Side Effects | increased urination | 1 Participants |
| Placebo + Therapy + Contingency Management | Feasibility - Tolerability as Assessed by Number of Participants Reporting Side Effects | blurry vision | 2 Participants |
| Placebo + Therapy + Contingency Management | Feasibility - Tolerability as Assessed by Number of Participants Reporting Side Effects | fever or chills | 2 Participants |
| Placebo + Therapy + Contingency Management | Feasibility - Tolerability as Assessed by Number of Participants Reporting Side Effects | dizziness | 1 Participants |
| Placebo + Therapy + Contingency Management | Feasibility - Tolerability as Assessed by Number of Participants Reporting Side Effects | change in sexual function | 1 Participants |
| Placebo + Therapy + Contingency Management | Feasibility - Tolerability as Assessed by Number of Participants Reporting Side Effects | nausea | 1 Participants |
| Placebo + Therapy + Contingency Management | Feasibility - Tolerability as Assessed by Number of Participants Reporting Side Effects | memory loss | 0 Participants |
| Placebo + Therapy + Contingency Management | Feasibility - Tolerability as Assessed by Number of Participants Reporting Side Effects | vomiting | 1 Participants |
| Placebo + Therapy + Contingency Management | Feasibility - Tolerability as Assessed by Number of Participants Reporting Side Effects | weakness | 1 Participants |
| Placebo + Therapy + Contingency Management | Feasibility - Tolerability as Assessed by Number of Participants Reporting Side Effects | diarrhea | 1 Participants |
| Placebo + Therapy + Contingency Management | Feasibility - Tolerability as Assessed by Number of Participants Reporting Side Effects | loss of appetite | 1 Participants |
| Placebo + Therapy + Contingency Management | Feasibility - Tolerability as Assessed by Number of Participants Reporting Side Effects | stomach pain | 2 Participants |
| Placebo + Therapy + Contingency Management | Feasibility - Tolerability as Assessed by Number of Participants Reporting Side Effects | fatigue | 0 Participants |
| Placebo + Therapy + Contingency Management | Feasibility - Tolerability as Assessed by Number of Participants Reporting Side Effects | muscle aches | 1 Participants |
| Placebo + Therapy + Contingency Management | Feasibility - Tolerability as Assessed by Number of Participants Reporting Side Effects | cloudiness | 1 Participants |
Feasibility - Tolerability as Assessed by Number of Participants With Serious Adverse Events
Time frame: week 12
| Arm | Measure | Value (COUNT_OF_PARTICIPANTS) |
|---|---|---|
| Pioglitazone + Therapy + Contingency Management | Feasibility - Tolerability as Assessed by Number of Participants With Serious Adverse Events | 0 Participants |
| Placebo + Therapy + Contingency Management | Feasibility - Tolerability as Assessed by Number of Participants With Serious Adverse Events | 0 Participants |