Anticonvulsants for alcohol dependence

Gabapentinoids: a therapeutic review

The Australian Therapeutic Goods Administration's approved indications for prescription of gabapentinoids are refractory focal epilepsy and neuropathic pain. Use of gabapentinoids outside of the approved indications is common, but evidence for this is limited, especially for chronic nonspecific back pain and nonradicular leg pain. Some effects of gabapentinoids encourage their nonmedical use (e.g. euphoria, sedation, disinhibition). Widespread nonmedical use has increased the incidence of accidental and deliberate poisonings. Dependence may develop with chronic use of gabapentinoids and abrupt cessation may induce withdrawal symptoms. If the indication for continued use is unclear, gradual dose tapering as a means of deprescribing is recommended. Clinicians should consider the indication, patient characteristics and harm-benefit profile when prescribing gabapentinoids. Some people, such as those with kidney disease, have an increased risk of harm when using these drugs.

Re-incarceration and associated social, structural and behavioural factors among people who use drugs in an urban Canadian setting

BACKGROUND

People who use drugs (PWUD) are disproportionately incarcerated, however little is known about specific substance use, social and structural factors associated with re-incarceration among PWUD. We aimed to identify the socio-structural and substance use factors associated with re-incarceration among structurally-marginalized PWUD.

METHODS

We used longitudinal data from two prospective cohorts of PWUD in Vancouver, Canada. We included adults reporting at least one incarceration event in the last six months and who completed at least one additional follow-up study visit. We performed multivariable extended Cox regression to explore factors associated with re-incarceration.

RESULTS

Among 468 eligible participants, the median age was 40 years (Q1-Q3 = 34-46 years), 346 (73.9%) were men, 177 (37.8%) identified as Indigenous, and 227 (48.5%) experienced at least one re-incarceration event. Incidence rate of re-incarceration was 157 incarceration events per 1000 person years. In multivariable analyses, homelessness (adjusted hazard ratio [AHR] = 2.17; 95% confidence interval [95% CI]: 1.79-2.61), community judicial supervision (AHR = 3.89; 95% CI: 3.21-4.71) and re-incarceration during the study period (once: AHR = 1.95, 95% CI: 1.55-2.44; two or more events: AHR = 1.53, 95% CI: 1.23-1.90) were positively associated with re-incarceration. Among substance use variables that included illicit drugs, only heavy alcohol use remained significantly associated with re-incarceration across analyses after adjustment (AHR = 1.32; 95% CI: 1.06-1.65). Engagement in addiction treatment (AHR = 0.63; 95% CI: 0.53-0.75), mental illness (AHR = 0.70; 95% CI: 0.59-0.84) and age (AHR = 0.96; 95% CI: 0.95-0.97) were negatively associated with re-incarceration.

CONCLUSION

Access to housing and substance use services, including treatment for alcohol use disorder, following incarceration may reduce re-incarceration among PWUD. The high rates of re-incarceration of PWUD in our sample underscores how structural factors-such as homelessness and criminalization of substance use-drive re-incarceration among PWUD.

Which interventions for alcohol use should be included in a universal healthcare benefit package? An umbrella review of targeted interventions to address harmful drinking and dependence

BACKGROUND

This study aimed to identify targeted interventions for the prevention and treatment of harmful alcohol use. Umbrella review methodology was used to summarise the effectiveness across a broad range of interventions, in order to identify which interventions should be considered for inclusion within universal health coverage schemes in low- and middle-income countries.

METHODS AND FINDINGS

We included systematic reviews with meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) on targeted interventions addressing alcohol use in harmful drinkers or individuals with alcohol use disorder. We only included outcomes related to alcohol consumption, heavy drinking, binge drinking, abstinence, or alcohol-attributable accident, injury, morbidity or mortality. PubMed, Embase, PsycINFO, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, and the International HTA Database were searched from inception to 3 September 2021. Risk of bias of reviews was assessed using the AMSTAR2 tool. After reviewing the abstracts of 9,167 articles, results were summarised narratively and certainty in the body of evidence for each intervention was assessed using GRADE. In total, 86 studies met the inclusion criteria, of which the majority reported outcomes for brief intervention (30 studies) or pharmacological interventions (29 studies). Overall, methodological quality of included studies was low.

CONCLUSIONS

For harmful drinking, brief interventions, cognitive behavioural therapy, and motivational interviewing showed a small effect, whereas mentoring in adolescents and children may have a significant long-term effect. For alcohol use disorder, social network approaches and acamprosate showed evidence of a significant and durable effect. More evidence is required on the effectiveness of gamma-hydroxybutyric acid (GHB), nalmefene, and quetiapine, as well as optimal combinations of pharmacological and psychosocial interventions. As an umbrella review, we were unable to identify the extent to which variation between studies stemmed from differences in intervention delivery or variation between country contexts. Further research is required on applicability of findings across settings and best practice for implementation. Funded by the Thai Health Promotion Foundation, grant number 61-00-1812.

Baclofen for alcohol use disorder

BACKGROUND

Alcohol use disorder (AUD) is one of the most widespread psychiatric disorders leading to detrimental consequences to people with this disorder and others. Worldwide, the prevalence of heavy episodic drinking (30-day prevalence of at least one occasion of 60 g of pure alcohol intake among current drinkers) is estimated at 20% and the prevalence of AUD at 5% of the adult general population, with highest prevalence in Europe and North America. Therapeutic approaches, including pharmacotherapy, play an important role in treating people with AUD. This is an update of a Cochrane Review first published in 2018.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the benefits and harms of baclofen on achieving and maintaining abstinence or reducing alcohol consumption in people with AUD compared to placebo, no treatment or any other pharmacological relapse prevention treatment.

SEARCH METHODS

We used standard, extensive Cochrane search methods. The latest search was 22 November 2021.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of at least four weeks' treatment duration and 12 weeks' overall study duration comparing baclofen for AUD treatment with placebo, no treatment or other treatments.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard Cochrane methods. Our primary outcomes were 1. relapse, 2. frequency of use, 3. amount of use, 4. adverse events, 5. dropouts from treatment and 6. dropouts from treatment due to adverse events. Our secondary outcomes were 7. craving, 8. anxiety, 9. depression and 10. frequency of most relevant adverse events.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 17 RCTs (1818 participants) with a diagnosis of alcohol dependence according to the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 4th edition or International Classification of Diseases 10th edition criteria. Mean age was 46.5 years and 70% were men. Ten studies compared baclofen to placebo or another medication; seven compared two baclofen doses to placebo or another medication. Globally, 15 studies compared baclofen to placebo, two baclofen to acamprosate and two baclofen to naltrexone. In 16 studies, participants received psychosocial treatments. We judged most studies at low risk of selection, performance, detection (subjective outcome), attrition and reporting bias. Ten studies detoxified participants before treatment; in seven studies, participants were still drinking at the beginning of treatment. Treatment duration was 12 weeks for 15 RCTs and longer in two studies. Baclofen daily dose was 30 mg to 300 mg: 10 RCTs used low doses (30 mg or less); eight RCTs medium doses (above 30 and 100 mg or less) and four RCTs high doses (above 100 mg). Compared to placebo, moderate-certainty evidence found that baclofen probably decreases the risk to relapse (risk ratio (RR) 0.87, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.77 to 0.99; 12 studies, 1057 participants). This result was confirmed among detoxified participants but not among other subgroups of participants. High-certainty evidence found that baclofen increases the percentage of days abstinent (mean difference (MD) 9.07, 95% CI 3.30 to 14.85; 16 studies, 1273 participants). This result was confirmed among all subgroups of participants except non-detoxified or those who received medium doses. There was no difference between baclofen and placebo in the other primary outcomes: heavy drinking days (standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.18, 95% CI -0.48 to 0.11; 13 studies, 840 participants; moderate-certainty evidence); number of drinks per drinking days (MD -0.45, 95% CI -1.20 to 0.30; 9 studies, 392 participants; moderate-certainty evidence); number of participants with at least one adverse event (RR 1.05, 95% CI 0.99 to 1.11; 10 studies, 738 participants; high-certainty evidence); dropouts (RR 0.88, 95% CI 0.74 to 1.03; 17 studies, 1563 participants; high-certainty evidence); dropouts due to adverse events (RR 1.39, 95% CI 0.89 to 2.18; 16 studies, 1499 participants; high-certainty evidence). These results were confirmed by subgroup analyses except than for the dropouts that resulted lower among participants who received high doses of baclofen and studies longer than 12 weeks. Compared to placebo, there was no difference in craving (SMD -0.16, 95% CI -0.37 to 0.04; 17 studies, 1275 participants), anxiety (MD -0.01, 95% CI -0.14 to 0.11; 15 studies, 1123 participants) and depression (SMD 0.07, 95% CI -0.12 to 0.27; 11 studies, 1029 participants). Concerning the specific adverse events, baclofen increases fatigue, dizziness, somnolence/sedation, dry mouth, paraesthesia and muscle spasms/rigidity. There was no difference in the other adverse events. Compared to acamprosate, one study (60 participants) found no differences in any outcomes but the evidence was very uncertain: relapse (RR 1.25, 95% CI 0.71 to 2.20; very low-certainty evidence); number of participants with at least one adverse event (RR 0.63, 95% CI 0.23 to 1.69; very low-certainty evidence); dropouts (RR 0.56, 95% CI 0.21 to 1.46; very low-certainty evidence); dropouts due to adverse events (RR 0.33, 95% CI 0.01 to 7.87; very low-certainty evidence) and craving (MD 5.80, 95% CI -11.84 to 23.44); and all the adverse events evaluated. Compared to naltrexone, baclofen may increase the risk of relapse (RR 2.50, 95% CI 1.12 to 5.56; 1 study, 60 participants; very low-certainty evidence) and decrease the number of participants with at least one adverse event (RR 0.35, 95% CI 0.15 to 0.80; 2 studies, 80 participants; very low-certainty evidence) but the evidence is very uncertain. One study (60 participants) found no difference between baclofen and naltrexone in the dropouts at the end of treatment (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.32 to 3.10; very low-certainty evidence), craving (MD 2.08, 95% CI -3.71 to 7.87), and all the adverse events evaluated.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Baclofen likely reduces the risk of relapse to any drinking and increases the percentage of abstinent days, mainly among detoxified participants. It does not increase the number of participants with at least one adverse event, those who dropout for any reason or due to adverse events. It probably does not reduce number of heavy drinking days and the number of drinks per drinking days. Current evidence suggests that baclofen may help people with AUD in maintaining abstinence. The results of comparisons of baclofen with acamprosate and naltrexone were mainly based on only one study.

[Pharmacotherapy of alcohol withdrawal: update and new developments]

Bislang sind nur wenige Medikamente zur pharmakologischen Rückfallprophylaxe der Alkoholabhängigkeit zugelassen. Neben dem in Deutschland nicht mehr vertriebenen Disulfiram sind es die Opioidantagonisten Naltrexon und Nalmefen sowie das vermutlich über glutamaterge Neurone wirkende Acamprosat. Baclofen und γ‑Hydroxybutyrat (GHB) sind in einzelnen Ländern zugelassen. Wirkstoffe wie z. B. Vareniclin, Gabapentin und Topiramat können für die Rückfallprophylaxe der Alkoholabhängigkeit von Interesse sein, jedoch ist bislang keine Zulassung erfolgt. Vor dem Hintergrund der zur Revision anstehenden S3-Leitlinie zur Diagnose und Behandlung alkoholbezogener Störungen wird der heutige Kenntnisstand zur Pharmakotherapie der Alkoholabhängigkeit dargestellt.

Alcohol intake reduction for controlling hypertension

BACKGROUND

High blood pressure constitutes one of the leading causes of mortality and morbidity all over the world. At the same time, heavy drinking increases the risk for developing cardiovascular diseases, including cardiomyopathy, hypertension, atrial arrhythmias, or stroke. Several studies have already assessed specifically the relationship between alcohol intake and hypertension. However, the potential effect on blood pressure of alcohol intake reduction interventions is largely unknown.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effect of any intervention to reduce alcohol intake in terms of blood pressure decrease in hypertensive people with alcohol consumption compared to a control intervention or no intervention at all. To determine additional effects related to mortality, major cardiovascular events, serious adverse events, or quality of life.

SEARCH METHODS

The Cochrane Hypertension Information Specialist searched the following databases for randomised controlled trials up to June 2020: the Cochrane Hypertension Specialised Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (Issue 5, 2020), MEDLINE Ovid (from 1946), MEDLINE Ovid Epub Ahead of Print, and MEDLINE Ovid In-Process, Embase Ovid (from 1974), ClinicalTrials.gov and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform. Trial authors were contacted when needed and no language restrictions were applied.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials with minimum 12 weeks duration and including 50 or more subjects per group with quantitative measurement of alcohol consumption and/or biological measurement of the outcomes of interest. Participants were adults (16 years of age or older) with systolic blood pressure (SBP) greater than 140 mmHg and diastolic blood pressure (DBP) greater than 90 mmHg, and SBP ≥ 130 or DBP ≥ 80 mmHg in participants with diabetes. We included any intervention implemented to reduce their alcohol intake.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently assessed search results and extracted data using standard methodological procedures adopted by Cochrane.

MAIN RESULTS

A total of 1210 studies were screened. We included one randomised controlled trial involving a total of 269 participants with a two-year follow-up. Individual patient data for all participants were provided and used in this review. No differences were found between the cognitive-behavioural intervention group and the control group for overall mortality (RR 0.72, 95% CI 0.16 to 3.17; low-certainty evidence), cardiovascular mortality (not estimable) and cardiovascular events (RR 0.80, 95% CI 0.36 to 1.79; very low-certainty evidence). There was no statistical difference in systolic blood pressure (SBP) reduction (Mean Difference (MD) -0.92 mmHg, 95% confidence interval (CI) -5.66 to 3.82 mmHg; very low-certainty evidence) or diastolic blood pressure (DBP) decrease (MD 0.98 mmHg, 95% CI -1.69 to 3.65 mmHg; low-certainty evidence) between the cognitive-behavioural intervention group and the control group. We also did not find any differences in the proportion of subjects with SBP < 140 mmHg and DBP < 90 mmHg (Risk Ratio (RR) 1.21, 95% CI 0.88 to 1.65; very low-certainty evidence). Concerning secondary outcomes, the alcohol intake was significantly reduced in the cognitive-behavioural intervention compared with the control group (MD 191.33 g, 95% CI 85.36 to 297.30 g). We found no differences between the active and control intervention in the proportion of subjects with lower-risk alcohol intake versus higher-risk and extreme drinkers at the end of the study (RR 1.04, 95% CI 0.68 to 1.60). There were no estimable results for the quality of life outcome.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

An intervention for decreasing alcohol intake consumption did not result in differences in systolic and diastolic blood pressure when compared with a control intervention, although there was a reduction in alcohol intake favouring the active intervention. No differences were found either for overall mortality, cardiovascular mortality or cardiovascular events. No data on serious adverse events or quality of life were available to assess. Adequate randomised controlled trials are needed to provide additional evidence on this specific question.

Safety of Gabapentin Prescribed for Any Indication in a Large Clinical Cohort of 571,718 US Veterans with and without Alcohol Use Disorder

BACKGROUND

Gabapentin is prescribed for seizures and pain and has efficacy for treating alcohol use disorder (AUD) starting at doses of 900 milligrams per day (mg/d). Recent evidence suggests safety concerns associated with gabapentin including adverse neurologic effects. Individuals with hepatitis C (HCV), HIV, or AUD may be at increased risk due to comorbidities and potential medication interactions.

METHODS

We identified patients prescribed gabapentin for ≥ 60 days for any indication between 2002 and 2015. We propensity-score matched each gabapentin-exposed patient with up to 5 gabapentin-unexposed patients. We followed patients for 2 years or until diagnosed with (i) falls or fractures, or (ii) altered mental status using validated ICD-9 diagnostic codes. We used Poisson regression to estimate incidence rates and relative risk (RR) of these adverse events in association with gabapentin exposure overall and stratified by age, race/ethnicity, sex, HCV, HIV, AUD, and dose.

RESULTS

Incidence of falls or fractures was 1.81 per 100 person-years (PY) among 140,310 gabapentin-exposed and 1.34/100 PY among 431,408 gabapentin-unexposed patients (RR 1.35, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.28 to 1.44). Incidence of altered mental status was 1.08/100 PY among exposed and 0.97/100 PY among unexposed patients, RR of 1.12 (95% CI 1.04 to 1.20). Excess risk of falls or fractures associated with gabapentin exposure was observed in all subgroups except patients with HCV, HIV, or AUD; however, these groups had elevated incidence regardless of exposure. There was a clear dose-response relationship for falls or fractures with highest risk observed among those prescribed ≥ 2,400 mg/d (RR 1.90, 95% CI 1.50 to 2.40). Patients were at increased risk for altered mental status at doses 600 to 2,399 mg/d; however, low number of events in the highest dose category limited power to detect a statistically significant association ≥ 2,400 mg/d.

CONCLUSIONS

Gabapentin is associated with falls or fractures and altered mental status. Clinicians should be monitoring gabapentin safety, especially at doses ≥ 600 mg/d, in patients with and without AUD.

Association Between Gabapentin Receipt for Any Indication and Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test-Consumption Scores Among Clinical Subpopulations With and Without Alcohol Use Disorder

BACKGROUND

Current medications for alcohol use disorder (AUD) have limited efficacy and utilization. Some clinical trials have shown efficacy for gabapentin among treatment-seeking individuals. The impact of gabapentin on alcohol consumption in a more general sample remains unknown.

METHODS

We identified patients prescribed gabapentin for ≥180 consecutive days for any clinical indication other than substance use treatment between 2009 and 2015 in the Veterans Aging Cohort Study. We propensity-score matched each gabapentin-exposed patient with up to 5 unexposed patients. Multivariable difference-in-difference (DiD) linear regression models estimated the differential change in Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test-Consumption (AUDIT-C) scores during follow-up between exposed and unexposed patients, by baseline level of alcohol consumption and daily gabapentin dose. Analyses were stratified by AUD history. Clinically meaningful changes were a priori considered a DiD ≥1 point.

RESULTS

Among patients with AUD, AUDIT-C scores decreased 0.39 points (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.05, 0.73) more among exposed than unexposed patients (p < 0.03). Potentially clinically meaningful differences were observed among those with AUD and exposed to ≥1,500 mg/d (DiD 0.77, 95% CI 0.15, 1.38, p < 0.02). No statistically significant effects were found among patients with AUD at doses lower than 1,500 mg/d or baseline AUDIT-C ≥4. Among patients without AUD, we found no overall difference in changes in AUDIT-C scores, nor in analyses stratified by baseline level of alcohol consumption.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients exposed to doses of gabapentin consistent with those used in clinical trials, particularly those with AUD, experienced a greater decrease in AUDIT-C scores than matched unexposed patients.

Baclofen for alcohol use disorder

BACKGROUND

Alcohol use disorder (AUD) and alcohol-related impairments belong to the most widespread psychiatric disorders leading to specific psychophysical, affective and cognitive symptoms and consequences for psychosocial well-being and health. Alcohol consumption is increasingly becoming a problem in many developing regions and AUD prevalence is estimated at 4.1% worldwide, with highest prevalence in European countries (7.5%), and the North America (6.0%). Therapeutic approaches, including pharmacotherapy, play an important role in treating patients with AUD.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the efficacy and safety of baclofen for treating people with AUD, who are currently drinking, with the aim of achieving and maintaining abstinence or reducing alcohol consumption.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Drugs and Alcohol Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, two further databases and two clinical trials registries, conference proceedings, and the reference lists of retrieved articles. The date of the most recent search was 30 January 2018.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of at least four weeks' treatment duration and 12 weeks' overall study duration comparing baclofen for relapse prevention of AUD with placebo, no treatment or other treatments.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 12 RCTs (1128 participants). All studies but three recruited fewer than 100 participants. Participants had a diagnosis of alcohol dependence according the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) IV or the International Classification of Diseases (ICD)-10 criteria who were currently drinking. The mean age of participants was 48 years, and there were more men (69%), than women. All studies compared baclofen to placebo, except for one study that evaluated baclofen versus acamprosate. The included studies considered baclofen at different doses (range 10 mg a day to 150 mg a day). In all but one of the studies, participants in both the baclofen and placebo groups received psychosocial treatment or counselling of various intensity.We judged most of the studies at low risk of selection, performance, detection (subjective outcome), attrition and reporting bias.We did not find any difference between baclofen and placebo for the primary outcomes: relapse-return to any drinking (RR 0.88, 95% CI 0.74 to 1.04; 5 studies, 781 participants, moderate certainty evidence); frequency of use by percentage of days abstinent (MD 0.39, 95% CI -11.51 to 12.29; 6 studies, 465 participants, low certainty evidence) and frequency of use by percentage of heavy drinking days at the end of treatment (MD 0.25, 95% CI -1.25 to 1.76; 3 studies, 186 participants, moderate certainty evidence); number of participants with at least one adverse event (RR 1.04, 95% CI 0.99 to 1.10; 4 studies, 430 participants, high certainty evidence); the dropout rate at the end of treatment (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.77 to 1.26, 8 studies, 977 participants, high certainty evidence) and dropout due to adverse events (RR 1.11, 95% CI 0.59 to 2.07; 7 studies, 913 participants, high certainty evidence).We found evidence that baclofen increases amount of use (drink per drinking days), (MD 1.55, 95% CI 1.32 to 1.77; 2 studies, 72 participants, low certainty evidence).Among secondary outcomes, there was no difference on craving (MD 1.38, 95% CI -1.28 to 4.03, 5 studies, 469 participants), and anxiety (SMD 0.07, 95% CI -0.14 to 0.28; 5 trials, 509 participants). We found that baclofen increased depression (SMD 0.27, 95% CI 0.05 to 0.48; 3 studies, 387 participants).Concerning the specific adverse events we found that baclofen increased: vertigo (RR 2.16, 95% CI 1.24 to 3.74; 7 studies, 858 participants), somnolence/sedation (RR 1.48, 95%CI 1.11 to 1.96; 8 studies, 946 participants), paraesthesia (RR 4.28, 95% CI 2.11 to 8.67; 4 studies, 593 participants), and muscle spasms/rigidity (RR 1.94, 95%CI 1.08 to 3.48; 3 studies, 551 participants). For all the other adverse events we did not find significant differences between baclofen and placebo.For the comparison baclofen versus acamprosate, we were only able to extract data for one outcome, craving. For this outcome, we found that baclofen increased craving compared with acamprosate (MD 14.62, 95% CI 12.72 to 16.52; 1 study, 49 participants).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

None of the primary or secondary outcomes of the review showed evidence of a difference between baclofen and placebo. The high heterogeneity among primary studies results limits the interpretation of the summary estimate, the identification of moderators and mediators of baclofen's effects on alcohol use remains a challenge for further research. Even though some results from RCTs are promising, current evidence remains uncertain regarding the use of baclofen as a first-line treatment for people with AUDs.

State-of-the-art behavioral and pharmacological treatments for alcohol use disorder

BACKGROUND

Alcohol use disorder (AUD) and its associated consequences remain significant public health concerns. Given that AUD represents a spectrum of severity, treatment options represent a continuum of care, ranging from single-session brief interventions to more intensive, prolonged, and specialized treatment modalities.

OBJECTIVE

This qualitative literature review seeks to describe the best practices for AUD by placing a particular emphasis on identifying those practices which have received the most empirical support.

METHOD

This review summarizes psychological and pharmacological intervention options for AUD treatment, with a focus on the relapse prevention phase of recovery. Psychological and pharmacological treatments are summarized in terms of the empirical evidence favoring each approach and the level of AUD severity for which they are most indicated.

SCIENTIFIC SIGNIFICANCE

One of the broad assertions from this review is that while AUD is highly prevalent, seeking treatment for AUD is not. There are a myriad of behavioral and pharmacological treatments that have shown compelling evidence of efficacy for the treatment of AUD. In the behavioral treatment literature, cognitive behavioral therapy has received the most consistent support. Opioid antagonism (via naltrexone) has been the most widely studied pharmacotherapy and has produced moderate effect sizes. While none of the treatments reviewed herein represents a so-called silver bullet for AUD, they each have the potential to significantly improve the odds of recovery. Precision medicine, or the identification of best treatment matches for individual patients, looms as an important overarching goal for the field, although specific matches are not yet sufficiently reliable in their empirical evidence to warrant clinical dissemination.

Patient Survival After Acute Voluntary Poisoning With a Huge Dose of Oxcarbazepine and Olanzapine

INTRODUCTION

Oxcarbazepine is a carbamazepine pre-drug with less drug interactions. Its adverse effects, including hyponatremia, somnolence and ataxia, are dose dependent. Olanzapine is an atypical antipsychotic drug most commonly used to manage psychoses and symptoms of irritability and aggressive behavior. Main side effects include extrapyramidal and anticholinergic symptoms, weight gain, and hyperglycemia.

CASE REPORT

In this manuscript a case of oxcarbazepine and olanzapine intoxication is discussed. A 45-year-old woman, previously diagnosed with bipolar disorder and chronic alcoholism, was presented two hours after ingestion of 30,000mg of oxcarbazepine and 140 mg of olanzapine, combined with alcohol. She was immediately treated with gastric lavage and administration of activated charcoal. During her hospitalization she was hemodynamically and respiratory stable with no neurological signs and symptoms except for somnolence. Another side effect was hyponatremia. She was discharged from our department in stable clinical condition after being evaluated by a psychiatrist.

CONCLUSION

Early approach is crucial for the management of drug intoxication. Late symptoms can be avoided through close monitoring of vital signs, mental status and laboratory values. Psychiatric consultation is essential for a better long-term outcome.

Gabapentin for Off-Label Use: Evidence-Based or Cause for Concern?

Gabapentin is widely used in the United States for a number of off-label indications, often as an alternative to opioid therapy. Increasing evidence has emerged suggesting that gabapentin may not be as benign as once thought and may be associated with substance abuse in concert with opioids. With concerns for safety mounting, it is prudent to examine the efficacy of gabapentin across its many uses to understand the risk-benefit balance. Reviews on off-label indications such as migraine, fibromyalgia, mental illness, and substance dependence have found modest to no effect on relevant clinical outcomes. This high-quality evidence has often been overshadowed by uncontrolled studies and limited case reports. Furthermore, the involvement of gabapentin in questionable marketing schemes further calls its use into question. Overall, clinicians should exercise rigorous appraisal of the available evidence for a given indication, and researchers should conduct larger, higher-quality studies to better assess the efficacy of gabapentin for many of its off-label uses.

Study characteristics influence the efficacy of substance abuse treatments: A meta-analysis of medications for alcohol use disorder

BACKGROUND

Understanding study characteristics' influence on treatment efficacy could improve methodologies and interpretation of findings. We examine study characteristics as predictors of outcomes in clinical trials of medications for alcohol problems.

METHODS

We obtained data on 23 trials of naltrexone and 22 trials of acamprosate from Cochrane reviews. We extracted data for 14 study characteristics and 3 dependent variables (odds ratio; percent abstinent in placebo; medication conditions). We used general linear models to determine which study characteristics explained the variability among outcomes after controlling for medication characteristics.

RESULTS

Study characteristics accounted for 45% of the variance in odds ratio when trials of different medications were combined, 19% among acamprosate, and 48% among naltrexone trials above and beyond medication characteristics. When medications were combined, greater odds ratios were predicted by having more dropouts in the placebo than medication conditions, an earlier publication year, and not receiving industry funding. Whether this was due to effects on placebo or medication conditions was unclear. Among acamprosate trials, smaller sample sizes predicted greater odds ratios, which appeared to be due to more abstinence in medication conditions. Among naltrexone trials, greater odds ratios were predicted by having more dropouts in the placebo than medication conditions and a greater probability of randomizing participants to treatment. This appeared to be due to less abstinence in placebo conditions.

CONCLUSION

Study characteristics influence the assessment of treatment efficacy beyond medication characteristics in alcohol treatment trials. Future studies are needed to determine which study characteristics reliably influence efficacy to help investigators design and help clinicians interpret trials.

New steps for treating alcohol use disorder

Alcohol use disorder is a complex syndrome with multiple treatment points including drug-induced pathology, withdrawal management, behavioral/cognitive strategies, and relapse prevention. These different components may be complicated by genotype and phenotype. A huge milestone for the treatment of alcohol use disorder across several countries in the last 10 years was the introduction of practice guidelines integrating clinical expertise and research evidence. These provide a summary of interventions that have been shown to be effective following rigorous and replicated clinical trials. Inspection of these guidelines reveals good consistency, but little evidence of progress in treatment approaches for alcohol use disorder over the past decade. In this mini-review, we discuss emerging treatments for alcohol use disorder that may supplement or improve the evidence-based treatments that are currently recommended. New medications, the emergence of digital technology, and other novel approaches such as transcranial magnetic stimulation are all discussed with reference to treatments already in practice. We also consider how individual differences in genotype and phenotype may affect outcomes. Together with improvements in technology, this knowledge offers a powerful tool for designing personalized approaches to treatment, and hence improving prognosis for rehabilitation programs.

Practical outpatient pharmacotherapy for alcohol use disorder

Alcohol use disorder (AUD) is commonly encountered in clinical practice. A combination of psychosocial intervention and pharmacotherapy is the cornerstone of AUD treatment. Despite their efficacy, safety and cost-effectiveness, clinicians are reluctant to prescribe medications to treat individuals with AUD. Given the high rate of relapse with psychosocial intervention alone, increasing patient access to this underutilized treatment has the potential to improve clinical outcome in this difficult-to-treat population. Herein, we provide practical pharmacotherapy strategies to improve treatment outcome for AUD. We review the efficacy and side effects of both on- and off-label agents with a particular focus on clinical applicability. Recommendations are supported by findings from randomized controlled trials (RCT) and meta-analyses selected to be representative, where possible, of current treatment guidelines. The goal of this paper is to help readers use pharmacotherapy with greater confidence when treating patients with AUD.

The Effect of the Cognitive-behavioral Model-based Psychoeducation and Exercise Intervention on Quality of Life in Alcohol Use Disorder

PURPOSE

The aim of the study was to assess the effect of the cognitive behavior model (CBM)-based psychoeducation and exercise intervention on quality of life (QoL) in alcohol use disorder (AUD).

DESIGN

This study was a non-randomized controlled trial.

METHODS

CBM-based psychoeducation and exercise intervention was applied to the experimental group four times a week for 6weeks; no intervention was applied to the control group.

FINDINGS

No difference was seen between the points of pretest QoL of the experimental and control groups (p>0.05). However, according to the posttest, the experimental group's mean score of QoL was higher than the control groups (p<0.05).

CONCLUSION

It was found that CBM-based psychoeducation and exercise intervention applied to individuals with AUD affected the QoL positively.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

CBM-based psychoeducation and exercise intervention can be used by nurses to improve AUD individuals' quality of life.

Ultrasonography for diagnosis of alcoholic cirrhosis in people with alcoholic liver disease

BACKGROUND

Heavy alcohol consumption causes alcoholic liver disease and is a causal factor of many types of liver injuries and concomitant diseases. It is a true systemic disease that may damage the digestive tract, the nervous system, the heart and vascular system, the bone and skeletal muscle system, and the endocrine and immune system, and can lead to cancer. Liver damage in turn, can present as multiple alcoholic liver diseases, including fatty liver, steatohepatitis, fibrosis, alcoholic cirrhosis, and hepatocellular carcinoma, with presence or absence of hepatitis B or C virus infection. There are three scarring types (fibrosis) that are most commonly found in alcoholic liver disease: centrilobular scarring, pericellular fibrosis, and periportal fibrosis. When liver fibrosis progresses, alcoholic cirrhosis occurs. Hepatocellular carcinoma occurs in 5% to 15% of people with alcoholic cirrhosis, but people in whom hepatocellular carcinoma has developed are often co-infected with hepatitis B or C virus.Abstinence from alcohol may help people with alcoholic disease in improving their prognosis of survival at any stage of their disease; however, the more advanced the stage, the higher the risk of complications, co-morbidities, and mortality, and lesser the effect of abstinence. Being abstinent one month after diagnosis of early cirrhosis will improve the chance of a seven-year life expectancy by 1.6 times. Liver transplantation is the only radical method that may change the prognosis of a person with alcoholic liver disease; however, besides the difficulties of finding a suitable liver transplant organ, there are many other factors that may influence a person's survival.Ultrasound is an inexpensive method that has been used for years in clinical practice to diagnose alcoholic cirrhosis. Ultrasound parameters for assessing cirrhosis in people with alcoholic liver disease encompass among others liver size, bluntness of the liver edge, coarseness of the liver parenchyma, nodularity of the liver surface, size of the lymph nodes around the hepatic artery, irregularity and narrowness of the inferior vena cava, portal vein velocity, and spleen size.Diagnosis of cirrhosis by ultrasound, especially in people who are asymptomatic, may have its advantages for the prognosis, motivation, and treatment of these people to decrease their alcohol consumption or become abstinent.Timely diagnosis of alcoholic cirrhosis in people with alcoholic liver disease is the cornerstone for evaluation of prognosis or choosing treatment strategies.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the diagnostic accuracy of ultrasonography for detecting the presence or absence of cirrhosis in people with alcoholic liver disease compared with liver biopsy as reference standard.To determine the diagnostic accuracy of any of the ultrasonography tests, B-mode or echo-colour Doppler ultrasonography, used singly or combined, or plus ultrasonography signs, or a combination of these, for detecting hepatic cirrhosis in people with alcoholic liver disease compared with liver biopsy as a reference standard, irrespective of sequence.

SEARCH METHODS

We performed searches in The Cochrane Hepato-Biliary Group Controlled Trials Register, The Cochrane Hepato-Biliary Group Diagnostic Test Accuracy Studies Register, The Cochrane Library (Wiley), MEDLINE (OvidSP), EMBASE (OvidSP), and the Science Citation Index Expanded to 8 January 2015. We applied no language limitations.We screened study references of the retrieved studies to identify other potentially relevant studies for inclusion in the review and read abstract and poster publications.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Three review authors independently identified studies for possible inclusion in the review. We excluded references not fulfilling the inclusion criteria of the review protocol. We sent e-mails to study authors.The included studies had to evaluate ultrasound in the diagnosis of hepatic cirrhosis using only liver biopsy as the reference standard.The maximum time interval of investigation with liver biopsy and ultrasonography should not have exceeded six months. In addition, ultrasonography could have been performed before or after liver biopsy.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We followed the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Diagnostic Test Accuracy.

MAIN RESULTS

The review included two studies that provided numerical data regarding alcoholic cirrhosis in 205 men and women with alcoholic liver disease. Although there were no applicability concerns in terms of participant selection, index text, and reference standard, we judged the two studies at high risk of bias. Participants in both studies had undergone both liver biopsy and ultrasonography investigations. The studies shared only a few comparable clinical signs and symptoms (index tests).We decided to not perform a meta-analysis due to the high risk of bias and the high degree of heterogeneity of the included studies.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

As the accuracy of ultrasonography in the two included studies was not informative enough, we could not recommend the use of ultrasonography as a diagnostic tool for liver cirrhosis in people with alcoholic liver disease. In order to be able to answer the review questions, we need diagnostic ultrasonography prospective studies of adequate sample size, enrolling only participants with alcoholic liver disease.The design and report of the studies should follow the Standards for Reporting of Diagnostic Accuracy. The sonographic features, with validated cut-offs, which may help identify clinical signs used for diagnosis of fibrosis in alcoholic liver disease, should be carefully selected to achieve maximum diagnostic accuracy on ultrasonography.

A systematic review of placebo-controlled trials of topiramate: How useful is a multiple-indications review for evaluating the adverse events of an antiepileptic drug?

OBJECTIVE

Topiramate (TPM) is an antiepileptic drug that is also used for other indications (e.g., migraine). Adverse event (AE) data from epilepsy trials could be supplemented by data from trials in other indications. Combining data across trials and indications is a novel method for evaluating AEs. We conducted a multiple-indications review by systematically reviewing randomized placebo-controlled trials of TPM, to compare the nervous system AEs of TPM in epilepsy with those in other indications.

METHODS

Randomized placebo-controlled trials of TPM including patients with any indication were included. We searched Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (Issue 2, 2012) and MEDLINE (1966-February 2012). Two authors assessed eligibility and risk of bias, and extracted data. For each reported nervous system AE, we extracted event rates, applied random-effects inverse-variance meta-analysis (pooling within-indications then across-indications), and assessed within- and across-indication heterogeneity.

RESULTS

Ninety trials, including 16 epilepsy trials, were included. A difference was detected between TPM and placebo for three events (i.e., drooling, dysgeusia, and hypoesthesia) that were not reported in epilepsy trials but were reported by other trials. A difference between TPM and placebo was detected for speech disorder using epilepsy trials but not when combining all trials. For two events (i.e., cognitive disorder and "language problems"), no difference was detected between TPM and placebo when using epilepsy trials alone, but a difference was identified using all trials. A difference was detected between TPM and placebo for six events (i.e., ataxia, disturbance in attention, dizziness, memory impairment, paraesthesia, and somnolence) when using epilepsy trials alone, and using all trials.

SIGNIFICANCE

Including trials of any indication enabled detection of differences that would have been missed using epilepsy trials alone. Multiple-indications reviews can improve the synthesis of AEs for antiepileptic drugs.

Effects of Varenicline on Neural Correlates of Alcohol Salience in Heavy Drinkers

BACKGROUND

Preclinical and emerging clinical evidence indicates that varenicline, a nicotinic partial agonist approved for smoking cessation, attenuates alcohol seeking and consumption. Reductions of alcohol craving have been observed under varenicline treatment and suggest effects of the medication on alcohol reward processing, but this hypothesis remains untested.

METHODS

In this double-blind, placebo-controlled randomized experimental medicine study, 29 heavy drinkers underwent a functional magnetic resonance imaging scan after 2 weeks of varenicline (2mg/d) or placebo administration. During functional magnetic resonance imaging, participants performed the Alcohol-Food Incentive Delay task, where they could earn points for snacks or alcohol. At baseline and after 3 weeks of medication, participants underwent intravenous alcohol self-administration sessions in the laboratory.

RESULTS

During the functional magnetic resonance imaging scan, participants in the varenicline group (N=17) reported lower feelings of happiness and excitement on subjective mood scales when anticipating alcohol reward compared with the placebo group (N=12). Linear mixed effects analysis revealed that anticipation of alcohol reward was associated with significant blood oxygen level dependent activation of the ventral striatum, amygdala, and posterior insula in the placebo group; this activation was attenuated in the varenicline group. The varenicline group showed no difference in intravenous alcohol self-administration relative to the placebo group for either session. Participants with higher insula activation when anticipating alcohol reward showed higher alcohol self-administration behavior across groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Our findings suggest that varenicline decreases blood oxygen level dependent activation in striato-cortico-limbic regions associated with motivation and incentive salience of alcohol in heavy drinkers. This mechanism may underlie the clinical effectiveness of varenicline in reducing alcohol intake and indicates its potential utility as a pharmacotherapy for alcohol use disorders.

Targeting glutamate uptake to treat alcohol use disorders

Alcoholism is a serious public health concern that is characterized by the development of tolerance to alcohol's effects, increased consumption, loss of control over drinking and the development of physical dependence. This cycle is often times punctuated by periods of abstinence, craving and relapse. The development of tolerance and the expression of withdrawal effects, which manifest as dependence, have been to a great extent attributed to neuroadaptations within the mesocorticolimbic and extended amygdala systems. Alcohol affects various neurotransmitter systems in the brain including the adrenergic, cholinergic, dopaminergic, GABAergic, glutamatergic, peptidergic, and serotonergic systems. Due to the myriad of neurotransmitter and neuromodulator systems affected by alcohol, the efficacies of current pharmacotherapies targeting alcohol dependence are limited. Importantly, research findings of changes in glutamatergic neurotransmission induced by alcohol self- or experimenter-administration have resulted in a focus on therapies targeting glutamatergic receptors and normalization of glutamatergic neurotransmission. Glutamatergic receptors implicated in the effects of ethanol include the ionotropic glutamate receptors (AMPA, Kainate, and NMDA) and some metabotropic glutamate receptors. Regarding glutamatergic homeostasis, ceftriaxone, MS-153, and GPI-1046, which upregulate glutamate transporter 1 (GLT1) expression in mesocorticolimbic brain regions, reduce alcohol intake in genetic animal models of alcoholism. Given the hyperglutamatergic/hyperexcitable state of the central nervous system induced by chronic alcohol abuse and withdrawal, the evidence thus far indicates that a restoration of glutamatergic concentrations and activity within the mesocorticolimbic system and extended amygdala as well as multiple memory systems holds great promise for the treatment of alcohol dependence.