4.4 Article

Gender differences in clinical outcomes for cocaine dependence: Randomized clinical trials of behavioral therapy and disulfiram

Journal

DRUG AND ALCOHOL DEPENDENCE
Volume 145, Issue -, Pages 156-167

Publisher

ELSEVIER IRELAND LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2014.10.007

Keywords

Cocaine; Sex; Gender; Psychotherapy; CBT; Disulfiram

Funding

  1. National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA) [R01 DA015969-09S1]
  2. ORWH [K12DA031050]
  3. NIDA
  4. NIAAA
  5. OD
  6. [P50-DA09241]
  7. [U10 DA015831]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background: Despite extensive research on gender differences in addiction, there are relatively few published reports comparing treatment outcomes for women versus men based on evidence-based treatments evaluated in randomized clinical trials. Methods: An aggregate sample comprised of data from five randomized clinical trials of treatment for cocaine dependence (N = 434) was evaluated for gender differences in clinical outcomes. Secondary analyses compared gender differences in outcome by medication condition (disulfiram versus no medication) and across multiple behavioral treatment conditions. Results: Women, compared with men, had poorer treatment outcomes on multiple measures of cocaine use during treatment and at post-treatment follow-up. These results appear to be primarily accounted for by disulfiram being less effective in women compared with men. There was no evidence of meaningful gender differences in outcome as a function of the behavioral therapies evaluated. Conclusions: These findings suggest that women and men may benefit to similar degrees from some empirically validated behavioral treatments for addiction. Conversely, some addiction pharmacotherapies, such as disulfiram, may be associated with poorer outcomes among women relative to men and point to the need for careful assessment of pharmacological treatments in both sexes prior to widespread clinical implementation. (C) 2014 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available