An open randomized trial comparing disulfiram and topiramate in the treatment of alcohol dependence

Efficacy and safety of alcohol reduction pharmacotherapy according to treatment duration in patients with alcohol dependence or alcohol use disorder: A systematic review and network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Relapse is common in alcohol dependence (AD) and alcohol use disorder (AUD), so alcohol reduction therapy should be measured over as long a period as possible; however, existing reviews do not consider the duration of treatment and therefore alcohol reduction therapy may not have been appropriately evaluated. This review evaluated the efficacy and safety of alcohol reduction pharmacotherapy in patients with AD or AUD according to the duration of treatment.

METHODS

We conducted a systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that assessed 15 pharmacological agents. MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, the ClinicalTrials.gov and the International Clinical Trials Registry Platform were searched for eligible trials through to May 2021. Outcomes were heavy drinking days (HDD), total alcohol consumption (TAC), any adverse event and days without drinking.

RESULTS

Fifty-five RCTs (n = 8891) were included. Nalmefene was superior to placebo for reducing HDD (standard mean difference [SMD] -0.28, 95% confidence interval [CI] -0.37, -0.18) and TAC (SMD -0.25, 95% CI -0.35, -0.16) in the long-term, but not in the short-term. Topiramate was superior to placebo for reducing HDD (SMD -0.35, 95% CI -0.59, -0.12) and days without drinking (SMD 0.46, 95% CI 0.11, 0.82), and baclofen was superior for reducing TAC (SMD -0.70, 95% CI -1.29, -0.11), in the short-term. The frequency of adverse events was higher with nalmefene and topiramate than with placebo.

CONCLUSION

Nalmefene, topiramate and baclofen may be effective as alcohol reduction pharmacotherapy; however, only nalmefene has demonstrated long-term efficacy, and nalmefene and topiramate have a significantly higher frequency of adverse events compared with placebo.

Psychosocial and pharmacologic interventions to reduce harmful alcohol use in low- and middle-income countries

BACKGROUND

Harmful alcohol use is defined as unhealthy alcohol use that results in adverse physical, psychological, social, or societal consequences and is among the leading risk factors for disease, disability and premature mortality globally. The burden of harmful alcohol use is increasing in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) and there remains a large unmet need for indicated prevention and treatment interventions to reduce harmful alcohol use in these settings. Evidence regarding which interventions are effective and feasible for addressing harmful and other patterns of unhealthy alcohol use in LMICs is limited, which contributes to this gap in services.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the efficacy and safety of psychosocial and pharmacologic treatment and indicated prevention interventions compared with control conditions (wait list, placebo, no treatment, standard care, or active control condition) aimed at reducing harmful alcohol use in LMICs.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) indexed in the Cochrane Drugs and Alcohol Group (CDAG) Specialized Register, the Cochrane Clinical Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) in the Cochrane Library, PubMed, Embase, PsycINFO, CINAHL, and the Latin American and Caribbean Health Sciences Literature (LILACS) through 12 December 2021. We searched clinicaltrials.gov, the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, Web of Science, and Opengrey database to identify unpublished or ongoing studies. We searched the reference lists of included studies and relevant review articles for eligible studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

All RCTs comparing an indicated prevention or treatment intervention (pharmacologic or psychosocial) versus a control condition for people with harmful alcohol use in LMICs were included.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 66 RCTs with 17,626 participants. Sixty-two of these trials contributed to the meta-analysis. Sixty-three studies were conducted in middle-income countries (MICs), and the remaining three studies were conducted in low-income countries (LICs). Twenty-five trials exclusively enrolled participants with alcohol use disorder. The remaining 51 trials enrolled participants with harmful alcohol use, some of which included both cases of alcohol use disorder and people reporting hazardous alcohol use patterns that did not meet criteria for disorder. Fifty-two RCTs assessed the efficacy of psychosocial interventions; 27 were brief interventions primarily based on motivational interviewing and were compared to brief advice, information, or assessment only. We are uncertain whether a reduction in harmful alcohol use is attributable to brief interventions given the high levels of heterogeneity among included studies (Studies reporting continuous outcomes: Tau² = 0.15, Q =139.64, df =16, P<.001, I² = 89%, 3913 participants, 17 trials, very low certainty; Studies reporting dichotomous outcomes: Tau²=0.18, Q=58.26, df=3, P<.001, I² =95%, 1349 participants, 4 trials, very low certainty). The other types of psychosocial interventions included a range of therapeutic approaches such as behavioral risk reduction, cognitive-behavioral therapy, contingency management, rational emotive therapy, and relapse prevention. These interventions were most commonly compared to usual care involving varying combinations of psychoeducation, counseling, and pharmacotherapy. We are uncertain whether a reduction in harmful alcohol use is attributable to psychosocial treatments due to high levels of heterogeneity among included studies (Heterogeneity: Tau² = 1.15; Q = 444.32, df = 11, P<.001; I²=98%, 2106 participants, 12 trials, very low certainty). Eight trials compared combined pharmacologic and psychosocial interventions with placebo, psychosocial intervention alone, or another pharmacologic treatment. The active pharmacologic study conditions included disulfiram, naltrexone, ondansetron, or topiramate. The psychosocial components of these interventions included counseling, encouragement to attend Alcoholics Anonymous, motivational interviewing, brief cognitive-behavioral therapy, or other psychotherapy (not specified). Analysis of studies comparing a combined pharmacologic and psychosocial intervention to psychosocial intervention alone found that the combined approach may be associated with a greater reduction in harmful alcohol use (standardized mean difference (standardized mean difference (SMD))=-0.43, 95% confidence interval (CI): -0.61 to -0.24; 475 participants; 4 trials; low certainty). Four trials compared pharmacologic intervention alone with placebo and three with another pharmacotherapy. Drugs assessed were: acamprosate, amitriptyline, baclofen disulfiram, gabapentin, mirtazapine, and naltrexone. None of these trials evaluated the primary clinical outcome of interest, harmful alcohol use.   Thirty-one trials reported rates of retention in the intervention. Meta-analyses revealed that rates of retention between study conditions did not differ in any of the comparisons (pharmacologic risk ratio (RR) = 1.13, 95% CI: 0.89 to 1.44, 247 participants, 3 trials, low certainty; pharmacologic in addition to psychosocial intervention: RR = 1.15, 95% CI: 0.95 to 1.40, 363 participants, 3 trials, moderate certainty). Due to high levels of heterogeneity, we did not calculate pooled estimates comparing retention in brief (Heterogeneity: Tau² = 0.00; Q = 172.59, df = 11, P<.001; I2 = 94%; 5380 participants; 12 trials, very low certainty) or other psychosocial interventions (Heterogeneity: Tau² = 0.01; Q = 34.07, df = 8, P<.001; I2 = 77%; 1664 participants; 9 trials, very low certainty). Two pharmacologic trials and three combined pharmacologic and psychosocial trials reported on side effects. These studies found more side effects attributable to amitriptyline relative to mirtazapine, naltrexone and topiramate relative to placebo, yet no differences in side effects between placebo and either acamprosate or ondansetron. Across all intervention types there was substantial risk of bias. Primary threats to validity included lack of blinding and differential/high rates of attrition.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

In LMICs there is low-certainty evidence supporting the efficacy of combined psychosocial and pharmacologic interventions on reducing harmful alcohol use relative to psychosocial interventions alone. There is insufficient evidence to determine the efficacy of pharmacologic or psychosocial interventions on reducing harmful alcohol use largely due to the substantial heterogeneity in outcomes, comparisons, and interventions that precluded pooling of these data in meta-analyses. The majority of studies are brief interventions, primarily among men, and using measures that have not been validated in the target population. Confidence in these results is reduced by the risk of bias and significant heterogeneity among studies as well as the heterogeneity of results on different outcome measures within studies. More evidence on the efficacy of pharmacologic interventions, specific types of psychosocial interventions are needed to increase the certainty of these results.

Neurosteroids (allopregnanolone) and alcohol use disorder: From mechanisms to potential pharmacotherapy

Alcohol Use Disorder (AUD) is a multifaceted relapsing disorder that is commonly comorbid with psychiatric disorders, including anxiety. Alcohol exposure produces a plethora of effects on neurobiology. Currently, therapeutic strategies are limited, and only a few treatments - disulfiram, acamprosate, and naltrexone - are available. Given the complexity of this disorder, there is a great need for the identification of novel targets to develop new pharmacotherapy. The GABAergic system, the primary inhibitory system in the brain, is one of the well-known targets for alcohol and is responsible for the anxiolytic effects of alcohol. Interestingly, GABAergic neurotransmission is fine-tuned by neuroactive steroids that exert a regulatory role on several endocrine systems involved in neuropsychiatric disorders including AUD. Mounting evidence indicates that alcohol alters the biosynthesis of neurosteroids, whereas acute alcohol increases and chronic alcohol decreases allopregnanolone levels. Our recent work highlighted that chronic alcohol-induced changes in neurosteroid levels are mediated by epigenetic modifications, e.g., DNA methylation, affecting key enzymes involved in neurosteroid biosynthesis. These changes were associated with changes in GABAA receptor subunit expression, suggesting an imbalance between excitatory and inhibitory signaling in AUD. This review will recapitulate the role of neurosteroids in the regulation of the neuroendocrine system, highlight their role in the observed allostatic load in AUD, and develop a framework from mechanisms to potential pharmacotherapy.

Perspectives on the pharmacological management of alcohol use disorder: Are the approved medications effective?

INTRODUCTION

In the last decades, many medications have been tested for the treatment of Alcohol Use Disorder (AUD). Among them, disulfiram, acamprosate, naltrexone, nalmefene, sodium oxybate and baclofen have been approved in different countries, with different specific indications. Topiramate is not approved for the treatment of AUD, however, it is suggested as a therapeutic option by the American Psychiatric Association for patients who do not tolerate or respond to approved therapies.

AREAS COVERED

In this narrative review we have analyzed the main studies available in literature, investigating the efficacy and safety of these medications, distinguishing whether they were oriented towards abstinence or not. Randomized controlled studies, analyzing larger populations for longer periods were the main focus of our analysis.

CONCLUSIONS

The medications currently available for the treatment of AUD are quite effective, yet further progress can still be achieved through the personalized strategies. Also, these medications are still markedly underutilized in clinical practice and many patients do not have access to specialized treatment.

Treating Alcohol Use Disorder in Patients with Alcohol-Associated Liver Disease: Controversies in Pharmacological Therapy

Alcohol use disorder (AUD) is one of the main causes of global death and disability. The liver represents the main target of alcohol damage, and alcohol-associated liver disease (ALD) represents the first cause of liver cirrhosis in Western countries. Alcohol abstinence is the main goal of treatment in AUD patients with ALD, as treatments for ALD are less effective when drinking continues. Moreover, the persistence of alcohol consumption is associated with higher mortality, increased need for liver transplantation, and graft loss. The most effective treatment for AUD is the combination of psychosocial interventions, pharmacological therapy, and medical management. However, the effectiveness of these treatments in patients with ALD is doubtful even because AUD patients with ALD are usually excluded from pharmacological trials due to concerns on liver safety. This narrative review will discuss the treatment options for AUD-ALD patients focusing on controversies in pharmacological therapy.

Comorbid alcohol use and post-traumatic stress disorders: Pharmacotherapy with aldehyde dehydrogenase 2 inhibitors versus current agents

The increased risk of alcohol use disorder (AUD) in individuals with post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) is well-documented. Compared to individuals with PTSD or AUD alone, those with co-existing PTSD and AUD exhibit greater symptom severity, poorer quality of life, and poorer treatment outcomes. Although the treatment of comorbid AUD is vital for the effective management of PTSD, there is a lack of evidence on how to best treat comorbid PTSD and AUD, and currently, there are no FDA-approved treatments for the PTSD-AUD comorbidity. The objective of this manuscript is to review the evidence of a promising target for treating the AUD-PTSD comorbidity. First, we summarize the epidemiological evidence and review the completed clinical studies that have tested pharmacotherapeutic approaches for co-existing AUD and PTSD. Next, we summarize the shared pathological factors between AUD and PTSD. We conclude by providing a rationale for selectively inhibiting aldehyde dehydrogenase-2 as a potential target to treat comorbid AUD in persons with PTSD.

Patient-level interventions to reduce alcohol-related harms in low- and middle-income countries: A systematic review and meta-summary

BACKGROUND

Disease and disability from alcohol use disproportionately impact people in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). While varied interventions have been shown to reduce alcohol use in high-income countries, their efficacy in LMICs has not been assessed. This systematic review describes current published literature on patient-level alcohol interventions in LMICs and specifically describes clinical trials evaluating interventions to reduce alcohol use in LMICs.

METHODS AND FINDINGS

In accordance with PRISMA, we performed a systematic review using an electronic search strategy from January 1, 1995 to December 1, 2020. Title, abstract, as well as full-text screening and extraction were performed in duplicate. A meta-summary was performed on randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that evaluated alcohol-related outcomes. We searched the following electronic databases: PubMed, EMBASE, Scopus, Web of Science, Cochrane, WHO Global Health Library, and PsycINFO. Articles that evaluated patient-level interventions targeting alcohol use and alcohol-related harm in LMICs were eligible for inclusion. No studies were excluded based on language. After screening 5,036 articles, 117 articles fit our inclusion criteria, 75 of which were RCTs. Of these RCTs, 93% were performed in 13 middle-income countries, while 7% were from 2 low-income countries. These RCTs evaluated brief interventions (24, defined as any intervention ranging from advice to counseling, lasting less than 1 hour per session up to 4 sessions), psychotherapy or counseling (15, defined as an interaction with a counselor longer than a brief intervention or that included a psychotherapeutic component), health promotion and education (20, defined as an intervention encouraged individuals' agency of taking care of their health), or biologic treatments (19, defined as interventions where the biological function of alcohol use disorder (AUD) as the main nexus of intervention) with 3 mixing categories of intervention types. Due to high heterogeneity of intervention types, outcome measures, and follow-up times, we did not conduct meta-analysis to compare and contrast studies, but created a meta-summary of all 75 RCT studies. The most commonly evaluated intervention with the most consistent positive effect was a brief intervention; similarly, motivational interviewing (MI) techniques were most commonly utilized among the diverse array of interventions evaluated.

CONCLUSIONS

Our review demonstrated numerous patient-level interventions that have the potential to be effective in LMICs, but further research to standardize interventions, populations, and outcome measures is necessary to accurately assess their effectiveness. Brief interventions and MI techniques were the most commonly evaluated and had the most consistent positive effect on alcohol-related outcomes.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Protocol Registry: PROSPERO CRD42017055549.

Systematische Literaturübersicht der Wirksamkeit von Acamprosat, Naltrexon, Disulfiram und Nalmefen zur Trinkmengenreduktion und Aufrechterhaltung der Abstinenz bei Alkoholabhängigkeit

Das Ziel der vorliegenden Übersichtsarbeit ist die systematische Darstellung der aktuellen Evidenz zur Wirksamkeit von Acamprosat, Naltrexon, Disulfiram und Nalmefen für die Aufrechterhaltung der Abstinenz oder Trinkmengenreduktion bei alkoholabhängigen Patient:innen. Bezogen auf den Zeitraum 2005 bis 2020 wurden insgesamt 27 Studien identifiziert, die alle Einschlusskriterien (u. a. RCT, mind. 8 Wochen Behandlungsdauer) erfüllten. Es wurden überwiegend Hinweise zur Wirksamkeit von Nalmefen gefunden. Acamprosat war nicht (zusätzlich) wirksam. Naltrexon trug in kombinierten Interventionen einen zusätzlichen Nutzen bei, dies galt jedoch nicht für die Mehrzahl der Studien. Disulfiram war nicht wirksam darin, einen zusätzlichen Nutzen zur Erhaltung der Abstinenz beizutragen, im Vergleich zu Topiramat, einem Antikonvulsivum, jedoch effektiver. Die Ergebnisse stehen nicht im Einklang mit dem bisher bekannten Forschungsstand, der Acamprosat, Naltrexon und Nalmefen als überwiegend effektiv und sicher einstuft und Disulfiram als mäßig wirksam. Der pharmakologische Interventionsbedarf sollte bei Bestehen alkoholbezogener Probleme exploriert und ggf. erwogen werden, damit diesbezüglich Vorbehalte abgebaut und ein umfassendes und zugleich individuelles Behandlungsangebot geschaffen wird. Hinsichtlich der Trinkmengenreduktion sollten Aspekte der Schadensminderung als Behandlungsziel berücksichtigt werden.

Use of Topiramate in the Spectrum of Addictive and Eating Disorders: A Systematic Review Comparing Treatment Schemes, Efficacy, and Safety Features

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

Topiramate has been approved by the US Food and Drug Administration for the treatment of epilepsy since the 1990s, and it has also been used off-label in the treatment of many types of addictive disorders. To date, no systematic review has embraced the entire field of addiction, both substance use and behavioral addictions, including eating disorders, to compare topiramate-based protocols and the related level of evidence in each addictive disorder. Our objective is to fill this gap.

METHODS

A systematic search was conducted using the MEDLINE, PsycINFO, and Cochrane databases without a date or language limit. All trials and meta-analyses assessing the efficacy of topiramate in alcohol use disorder; cocaine use disorder; methamphetamine, nicotine, cannabis, opiate, and benzodiazepine use disorders; binge eating disorder; bulimia; and pathological gambling were analyzed. The quality of the studies was rated using the Cochrane Risk-of-Bias tool for randomized trials (ROB-2), the Risk of Bias In Nonrandomized Studies (ROBINS-I), or the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) checklist, depending on the study design. Safety features were assessed based on a wider non-systematic review.

RESULTS

Sixty-two articles were reviewed. Treatment protocols were relatively homogenous across addictive disorders, with slow dose titration schemes and a maximum dose range of 200-400 mg per day. The most supportive evidence for topiramate efficacy was found in alcohol use disorder for drinking reduction parameters only. To a lesser extent, topiramate could be a promising therapeutic option for binge eating disorder and cocaine use disorder. Evidence was weak for other addictive disorders. No major tolerability issues were found, provided that basic safety rules were followed. Adverse drug reactions could lead to early treatment discontinuation.

DISCUSSION

Though off-label, addiction specialists should consider topiramate as a second-line option for drinking reduction in alcohol use disorder, as well as for binge eating disorder or cocaine use disorder.

Pharmacotherapies and personalized medicine for alcohol use disorder: a review

Alcohol use disorder (AUD) is highly prevalent and among the leading causes of morbidity and mortality in the United States. Pharmacotherapies for AUD are limited, thus making identification of patient subgroups that are most likely to respond favorably crucial. In this article, pharmacogenetic research on US FDA-approved and commonly prescribed off-label medications for the treatment of AUD is comprehensively reviewed. While the field has advanced in understanding pharmacotherapies for AUD and potential genetic moderators of treatment responses, the pharmacogenetic data to guide the prescribing clinician are limited and should be interpreted with caution. Precision medicine for AUD with more beneficial treatment responses and minimal side effects remains a high priority for further research.

Topiramate Pharmacotherapy for Alcohol Use Disorder and Other Addictions: A Narrative Review

: Topiramate is a non-benzodiazepine anticonvulsant medication with multi-faceted pharmacologic action. It has emerged as an efficacious pharmacotherapeutic option for the treatment of addiction, especially alcohol use disorder (AUD). We present a broad narrative review of the putative mechanism of action and clinical utility of topiramate with regard to AUD and other substance use disorders. Collective evidence suggests topiramate is an effective treatment option in AUD, with notable efficacy in reducing harmful drinking patterns in AUD. Though not currently approved by the United States Food and Drug Administration for the indication of AUD, topiramate should be considered as a pharmacological treatment option with high utility among AUD patients. Early pharmacogenetic studies raise the intriguing possibility of identifying patients likely to respond to topiramate using genetic testing, and initial studies show that topiramate may also be useful in treating cocaine use disorder, smoking cessation and behavioral addictions. However, further research is needed in all these areas.

Comparison between baclofen and topiramate in alcohol dependence: A prospective study

INTRODUCTION

Baclofen and topiramate are GABAergic drugs, and both have been recommended for the treatment of alcohol dependence as anticraving agent. Several studies have demonstrated the effect of baclofen and topiramate as anticraving, but none has compared them. The main aim of the current study was to assess the baclofen and topiramate as anticraving agent in alcohol dependence during 1 month follow-up.

METHODOLOGY

After 1-week detoxification protocol, 94 patients were randomly assigned to either baclofen (n = 49) or topiramate (n = 45) for 1-month follow-up. Patients were assessed with clinical institute withdrawal assessment at baseline, and at 1 week, the Addiction Severity Index, ready to change questionnaire at baseline and weekly assessed with Obsessive and Compulsive drinking scale (OCDS) for craving. At every follow-up, adverse effects were also assessed to check tolerability.

RESULTS

A marked improvement was observed with baclofen in OCDS in each assessment as compared to topiramate. With baclofen, 61.22% of patients became complete abstinence, as compared to 37.78% in topiramate group. Baclofen was better tolerated as 24.49% patients were dropped out in baclofen group as compared to 33.33% in topiramate group.

CONCLUSION

Baclofen has better efficacy and tolerability as compared to topiramate.

Relationship between Craving and Early Relapse in Alcohol Dependence: A Short-Term Follow-up Study

BACKGROUND

The role of craving in alcohol dependence and its relationship with relapse has been studied widely in the past decade. The present study was undertaken to assess the role of craving in short-term relapse of patients seeking treatment for alcohol dependence and changes in craving score at the end of detoxification and at follow-up.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A total of 34 male individuals with alcohol dependence (excluding comorbid drug dependence, organic or psychiatric disorder), after detoxification and discharge, consented. No anticraving medicine, aversive or psychotherapy, was advised. They were diagnosed on the International Statistical Classification of Diseases-10 using Diagnostic Interview for Genetic Studies. Severity of Alcohol Dependence Questionnaire (SADQ) and Clinical Institute Withdrawal Assessment Scale-Alcohol-Revised (CIWA-AR) were administered at the time of admission. Penn Alcohol Craving Scale (PACS) was applied at the time of discharge and follow-up to measure craving for alcohol.

RESULTS

Out of a total of thirty patients analyzed after dropout, 21 relapsed at the end of 1 month. On comparing PACS scores between relapsed and nonrelapsed patients, the difference was significant at both time points, i.e., at discharge and follow-up (t = 4.15, P < 0.0001 and t = 4.01, P < 0.001, respectively). In the total sample, SADQ and CIWA-AR scores were positively correlated (r = 0.47, P = 0.009). PACS at discharge was compared with PACS at follow-up, of which the correlation was high (r = 0.832, P < 0.0001).

CONCLUSION

Craving seems to be a main factor related to relapse. Its measurement with PACS can be a useful tool to predict subsequent drinking and to identify individual risk for relapse during treatment.

Pharmacotherapy for relapse prevention of alcohol use disorder in the Indian setting: A systematic review

Alcohol use disorders (AUDs) is an important public health concern as estimates of the prevalence of AUD range at 4%-6% in the Indian population. Currently, there is limited literature on the pharmacotherapeutic interventions for AUD in the Indian setting. It is imperative to identify the possible variations in their effects from Western studies, and hence the current review was attempted to perform a comprehensive evaluation and critical appraisal of the methodology of the evidence on pharmacological strategies of relapse prevention of AUD in the Indian setting. A total of 18 studies were included in the review. Disulfiram was the most common pharmacological agent to be studied. The initial literature before 2000 focused primarily on disulfiram, whereas the studies in the next decade compared it to acamprosate and naltrexone and emerging interest in anticraving agents such as baclofen and topiramate had been noted over the past few years. No studies were available on newer agents such as ondansetron, selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors or formulations such as depot and implants. Deterrent agents were found to be better when compared to anticraving agents in terms of abstinence and relapse, whereas the latter were more effective for control of craving. Among the pharmacological agents studied, the greatest evidence exists for disulfiram for relapse prevention which could be due to affordability of disulfiram and social support in the Indian context. The chief methodological limitations include the lack of randomized trials and objective measures for assessing abstinence.

Medications development for the treatment of alcohol use disorder: insights into the predictive value of animal and human laboratory models

Development of effective treatments for alcohol use disorder (AUD) represents an important public health goal. This review provides a summary of completed preclinical and clinical studies testing pharmacotherapies for the treatment of AUD. We discuss opportunities for improving the translation from preclinical findings to clinical trial outcomes, focusing on the validity and predictive value of animal and human laboratory models of AUD. Specifically, while preclinical studies of medications development have offered important insights into the neurobiology of the disorder and alcohol's molecular targets, limitations include the lack of standardized methods and streamlined processes whereby animal studies can readily inform human studies. Behavioral pharmacology studies provide a less expensive and valuable opportunity to assess the feasibility of a pharmacotherapy prior to initiating larger scale clinical trials by providing insights into the mechanism of the drug, which can then inform recruitment, analyses, and assessments. Summary tables are provided to illustrate the wide range of preclinical, human laboratory, and clinical studies of medications development for alcoholism. Taken together, this review highlights the challenges associated with animal paradigms, human laboratory studies, and clinical trials with the overarching goal of advancing treatment development and highlighting opportunities to bridge the gap between preclinical and clinical research.

Guidelines for biological treatment of substance use and related disorders, part 1: Alcoholism, first revision

These practice guidelines for the biological treatment of alcohol use disorders are an update of the first edition, published in 2008, which was developed by an international Task Force of the World Federation of Societies of Biological Psychiatry (WFSBP). For this 2016 revision, we performed a systematic review (MEDLINE/PUBMED database, Cochrane Library) of all available publications pertaining to the biological treatment of alcoholism and extracted data from national guidelines. The Task Force evaluated the identified literature with respect to the strength of evidence for the efficacy of each medication and subsequently categorised it into six levels of evidence (A-F) and five levels of recommendation (1-5). Thus, the current guidelines provide a clinically and scientifically relevant, evidence-based update of our earlier recommendations. These guidelines are intended for use by clinicians and practitioners who evaluate and treat people with alcohol use disorders and are primarily concerned with the biological treatment of adults with such disorders.

Coadministration of disulfiram and lorazepam in the treatment of alcohol dependence and co-occurring anxiety disorder: an open-label pilot study

BACKGROUND

Anxiety is common among persons with alcohol use disorder during early abstinence from alcohol. Although benzodiazepines are effective for short-term treatment of anxiety, they are rarely used beyond acute detoxification due to concerns about misuse or interactions with alcohol.

OBJECTIVES

We conducted an open-label trial to explore the effects of coadministering lorazepam and disulfiram to alcohol-dependent patients with anxiety disorder symptoms. The rationale for this model is to minimize the risks of the benzodiazepine, while also potentially enhancing adherence to disulfiram.

METHODS

Forty-one participants with DSM-IV alcohol dependence who also met syndromal criteria for anxiety disorder with or without co-occurring major depressive syndrome initiated treatment with lorazepam (starting dose 0.5 mg three times daily) and disulfiram (starting dose 500 mg three times weekly). Participants received 16 weeks of monitored pharmacotherapy with manualized medical management.

RESULTS

Adherence to treatment decreased steadily with time (85.4% at 4 weeks, 36.6% at 16 weeks). Participants showed significant increases in percent abstinent days during treatment and at 24 weeks follow-up. Large reductions in anxiety, depression, and craving were observed during treatment, and improvement remained significant at 24 weeks. Duration of adherence with disulfiram strongly predicted abstinence at 16 weeks. There was no evidence of misuse of lorazepam or dose escalation during the study.

CONCLUSION

Lorazepam can be safely used for short-term treatment of anxiety in combination with disulfiram treatment of alcohol use disorder. However, it is not clear that making lorazepam dispensing contingent on adherence to disulfiram enhances retention in disulfiram treatment.

Critical needs in drug discovery for cessation of alcohol and nicotine polysubstance abuse

Polysubstance abuse of alcohol and nicotine has been overlooked in our understanding of the neurobiology of addiction and especially in the development of novel therapeutics for its treatment. Estimates show that as many as 92% of people with alcohol use disorders also smoke tobacco. The health risks associated with both excessive alcohol consumption and tobacco smoking create an urgent biomedical need for the discovery of effective cessation treatments, as opposed to current approaches that attempt to independently treat each abused agent. The lack of treatment approaches for alcohol and nicotine abuse/dependence mirrors a similar lack of research in the neurobiology of polysubstance abuse. This review discusses three critical needs in medications development for alcohol and nicotine co-abuse: (1) the need for a better understanding of the clinical condition (i.e. alcohol and nicotine polysubstance abuse), (2) the need to better understand how these drugs interact in order to identify new targets for therapeutic development and (3) the need for animal models that better mimic this human condition. Current and emerging treatments available for the cessation of each drug and their mechanisms of action are discussed within this context followed by what is known about the pharmacological interactions of alcohol and nicotine. Much has been and will continue to be gained from studying comorbid alcohol and nicotine exposure.

Clinical experience of baclofen in alcohol dependence: A chart review

INTRODUCTION

Craving is recognized as a formidable barrier in the management of patients with alcohol dependence. Among pharmacological agents that have been used in experimental studies for reduction in craving, baclofen appears to have a significant advantage over other agents.

METHODOLOGY

The study is retrospective chart review of patients (n = 113) who have been treated with baclofen for alcohol dependence in a tertiary hospital of North India. Baseline assessments included sociodemography, motivation, quantity-frequency of alcohol use, and other alcohol-related clinical parameters. Weekly assessments, for a period of 4 weeks, were extracted from records which included dose of baclofen, craving intensity, and alcohol consumption.

RESULTS

The study sample was predominantly male, mean age of 41.49 (±9.75) years, most having a family history of substance use (70.97%), and many reporting binge use pattern in last year (49.46%). Baseline assessment revealed 48.7% of the sample was in precontemplation phase for alcohol use and 70% reported severe and persistent craving. This persistent craving was reported by only 15% of the sample by the end of 4 weeks treatment with baclofen (20-40 mg/day). Thirty-four percent of patients reported continued problematic use of alcohol by the end of 4 weeks.

CONCLUSION

Our clinical experience suggests that baclofen reduces craving and alcohol consumption including in those with poor motivation. The drug causes few side effects and does not add to the intoxication effect of alcohol. Considering that baclofen is safe in those with liver cirrhosis and reduces withdrawal symptoms due to alcohol, a controlled trial comparing it with standard treatment is required.

Pharmacogenetics of alcohol use disorders and comorbid psychiatric disorders

Alcohol use disorders (AUDs) represent a significant health burden worldwide. Currently, there are three medications approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration for the treatment of AUDs, and other drugs are being prescribed off-label for this purpose. However, response rates for pharmacologic treatment are low, and extant research suggests that treatment effects may partially depend on genetic factors. Personalized medicine, or using a patient's genetics and/or personal history to determine efficacy of treatment prior to prescription, is an emerging tool that will help clinicians treat their patients more effectively and safely. This review systematically discusses current findings from AUD pharmacotherapy trials examining disulfiram, acamprosate, naltrexone, the injectable naltrexone, and topiramate. Furthermore, it presents pharmacogenetics findings associated with these medications in an attempt to further the field of personalized medicine. Research from trials examining AUDs and comorbid major depressive disorder and anxiety disorders is also presented, and pharmacogenetic findings for these treatments are discussed. Lastly, the authors comment on the present and future states of the field of personalized medicine for AUD.

Topiramate in Alcohol Use Disorders: Review and Update

To date, a limited number of pharmacological agents exist to treat alcohol use disorders (AUDs), and there is growing interest in new therapeutic tools. In this framework, topiramate may represent a useful treatment option, although its use is not yet approved for AUDs. The main focus of this review is to discuss all the existing data supporting the use of topiramate in AUDs, with an emphasis on the most recent and relevant clinical implications. In addition, the profile of the alcoholic patient who may benefit more from the use of topiramate is outlined. In this regard, the authors conducted a PubMed search of clinical human studies published in English using the following key words: topiramate alcohol dependence, topiramate alcohol withdrawal and topiramate alcoholism. The evidence suggests that topiramate could be an effective treatment option for the management of AUDs, while there are limited results for its use to treat alcohol withdrawal syndrome. In particular, topiramate shows a greater beneficial effect in subjects with a typology of craving characterised by drinking obsessions and automaticity of drinking. Topiramate, within the dosage range of 75-300 mg/day, could be considered as a first-line treatment option for the management of AUDs. Its use appears to be safe and well-tolerated, especially in light of very recent findings.

Anticonvulsants for the treatment of alcohol withdrawal syndrome and alcohol use disorders

Alcoholic patients suffer from harmful allostatic neuroplastic changes in the brain causing an acute withdrawal syndrome upon cessation of drinking followed by a protracted abstinence syndrome and an increased risk of relapse to heavy drinking. Benzodiazepines have long been the treatment of choice for detoxifying patients and managing alcohol withdrawal syndrome (AWS). Non-benzodiazepine anticonvulsants (NBACs) are increasingly being used both for alcohol withdrawal management and for ongoing outpatient treatment of alcohol dependence, with the goal of either abstinence or harm reduction. This expert narrative review summarizes the scientific basis and clinical evidence supporting the use of NBACs in treating AWS and for reducing harmful drinking patterns. There is less evidence in support of NBAC therapy for AWS, with few placebo-controlled trials. Carbamazepine and gabapentin appear to be the most promising adjunctive treatments for AWS, and they may be useful as monotherapy in select cases, especially in outpatient settings and for the treatment of mild-to-moderate low-risk patients with the AWS. The body of evidence supporting the use of the NBACs for reducing harmful drinking in the outpatient setting is stronger. Topiramate appears to have a robust effect on reducing harmful drinking in alcoholics. Gabapentin is a potentially efficacious treatment for reducing the risk of relapse to harmful drinking patterns in outpatient management of alcoholism. Gabapentin's ease of use, rapid titration, good tolerability, and efficacy in both the withdrawal and chronic phases of treatment make it particularly appealing. In summary, several NBACs appear to be beneficial in treating AWS and alcohol use disorders.

PTSD and comorbid AUD: a review of pharmacological and alternative treatment options

BACKGROUND

Although posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and alcohol use disorders (AUD) frequently co-occur there are no specific treatments for individuals diagnosed with these comorbid conditions. The main objectives of this paper are to review the literature on pharmacological options for PTSD and comorbid AUD, and to summarize promising behavioral and alternative interventions for those with these dual diagnoses.

METHODS

We conducted a comprehensive search on PsycINFO and MEDLINE/PubMed databases using Medical Subject Headings terms in various combinations to identify articles that used pharmacotherapy for individuals with dual diagnoses of PTSD and AUD. Similar strategies were used to identify articles on behavioral and alternative treatments for AUD and PTSD. We identified and reviewed six studies that tested pharmacological treatments for patients with PTSD and comorbid AUD.

RESULTS

The literature on treatment with US Food and Drug Administration approved medications for patients with dual diagnosis of PTSD and AUD is very limited and inconclusive. Promising evidence indicates that topiramate and prazosin may be effective in reducing PTSD and AUD symptoms in individuals with comorbidity. Seeking safety has had mixed efficacy in clinical trials. The efficacy of other behavioral and alternative treatments (mindfulness-based, yoga, and acupuncture) is more difficult to evaluate since the evidence comes from small, single studies without comparison groups.

CONCLUSION

There is a clear need for more systematic and rigorous study of pharmacological, behavioral, and alternative treatments for patients with dual diagnoses of PTSD and AUD.

Anticonvulsants for alcohol dependence

BACKGROUND

Alcohol dependence is a major public health problem that is characterised by recidivism and a host of medical and psychosocial complications. Besides psychosocial interventions, different pharmacological interventions have been or currently are under investigation through Cochrane systematic reviews.

OBJECTIVES

The primary aim of the review is to assess the benefits/risks of anticonvulsants for the treatment of alcohol dependence.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Drugs and Alcohol Group Trials Register (October 2013), PubMed (1966 to October 2013), EMBASE (1974 to October 2013) and CINAHL (1982 to October 2013).

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and controlled clinical trials (CCTs) comparing anticonvulsants alone or in association with other drugs and/or psychosocial interventions versus placebo, no treatment and other pharmacological or psychosocial interventions.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard methodological procedures as expected by The Cochrane Collaboration.

MAIN RESULTS

A total of 25 studies were included in the review (2641 participants). Most participants were male, with an average age of 44 years. Anticonvulsants were compared with placebo (17 studies), other medications (seven studies) and no medication (two studies). The mean duration of the trials was 17 weeks (range four to 52 weeks). The studies took place in the USA, Europe, South America, India and Thailand. Variation was reported in the characteristics of the studies, including their design and the rating instruments used. For many key outcomes, the risk of bias associated with unclear or unconcealed allocation and lack of blinding affected the quality of the evidence.Anticonvulsants versus placebo: For dropouts (16 studies, 1675 participants, risk ratio (RR) 0.94, 95% confidence interval (Cl) 0.74 to 1.19, moderate-quality evidence) and continuous abstinence (eight studies, 634 participants, RR 1.21, 95% Cl 95% 0.97 to 1.52, moderate-quality evidence), results showed no evidence of differences. Moderate-quality evidence suggested that anticonvulsants reduced drinks/drinking days (11 studies, 1126 participants, mean difference (MD) -1.49, 95% Cl -2.32 to -0.65) and heavy drinking (12 studies, 1129 participants, standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.35, 95% Cl -0.51 to -0.19). Moreover, withdrawal for medical reasons (12 studies, 1410 participants, RR 1.22, 95% Cl 0.58 to 2.56, moderate-quality evidence) showed no evidence of difference, but for specific adverse effects (nine studies, 1164 participants), two of 18 adverse event outcomes favoured placebo. The direction of results was confirmed by subgroup analyses for topiramate and partially for gabapentin and valproate.Anticonvulsants versus naltrexone: No evidence of difference was shown in dropout rates (five studies, 528 participants, RR 0.74, 95% CI 0.52 to 1.06), severe relapse rates (four studies, 427 participants, RR 0.69, 95% Cl 0.44 to 1.07) and continuous abstinence rates (five studies, 528 participants, RR 1.21, 95% Cl 0.99 to 1.49); anticonvulsants were associated with fewer heavy drinking days (three studies, 308 participants, MD -5.21, 95% Cl -8.58 to -1.83), more days to severe relapse (three studies, 244 participants, MD 11.88, 95% Cl 3.29 to 20.46) and lower withdrawal for medical reasons (three studies, 245 participants, RR 0.13, 95% Cl 0.03 to 0.58).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

At the current stage of research, randomised evidence supporting the clinical use of anticonvulsants to treat alcohol dependence is insufficient. Results are conditioned by heterogeneity and by the low number and quality of studies comparing anticonvulsants with other medications. The uncertainty associated with these results leaves to clinicians the need to balance possible benefits/risks of treatment with anticonvulsants versus other medications as supported by evidence of efficacy.

Disulfiram efficacy in the treatment of alcohol dependence: a meta-analysis

Background

Despite its success with compliant or supervised patients, disulfiram has been a controversial medication in the treatment of alcoholism. Often, study designs did not recognize a pivotal factor in disulfiram research, the importance of an open-label design. Our objectives are: (1) to analyze the efficacy and safety of disulfiram in RCTs in supporting abstinence and (2) to compare blind versus open-label studies, hypothesizing that blinded studies would show no difference between disulfiram and control groups because the threat would be evenly spread across all groups.

Methods and Findings

We searched PubMed, EMBASE and the Cochrane Central Register for RCTs on disulfiram use with alcoholics in comparison to any alcoholic control group. The primary outcome was defined by the authors of each trial. Additional analyses included: blind vs. open-label, with or without supervision, cocaine study or not, and type of control.

Overall, the 22 included studies showed a higher success rate of disulfiram compared to controls Hedges'g = .58 (95%CI = .35–.82). When comparing blind and open-label RCTs, only open-label trials showed a significant superiority over controls g = .70 (95%CI = .46–.93). RCTs with blind designs showed no efficacy of disulfiram compared to controls. Disulfiram was also more effective than the control condition when compared to naltrexone g = .77, 95%CI = .52–1.02, to acamprosate g = .76, 95%CI = .04–1.48, and to the no disulfiram groups g = .43, 95%CI = .17–.69.

Limits include: (1) a population of 89% male subjects and (2) a high but unavoidable heterogeneity of the studies with a substantial I-square in most subgroups of studies.

Conclusions

Blinded studies were incapable of distinguishing a difference between treatment groups and thus are incompatible with disulfiram research. Based on results with open-label studies, disulfiram is a safe and efficacious treatment compared to other abstinence supportive pharmacological treatments or to no disulfiram in supervised studies for problems of alcohol abuse or dependence.

Pharmacological strategies for detoxification

Detoxification refers to the safe discontinuation from a substance of dependence and is distinct from relapse prevention. Detoxification usually takes between a few days and a few weeks to complete, depending on the substance being misused, the severity of dependence and the support available to the user. Psychosocial therapies alongside pharmacological treatments are essential to improve outcome. The dependencies considered in this overview are detoxification from opioids (with methadone, buprenorphine, α2-adrenoceptor agonists and adjunct medications), alcohol (with benzodiazepines, anti-glutamatergics and γ-aminobutyric acid (GABA)-ergic drugs), stimulants and cannabis (with no clear recommended pharmacological treatments), benzodiazepines (with dose tapering) and nicotine (with nicotine replacement therapy, antidepressants and partial agonists). Evidence is limited by a lack of controlled trials robust enough for review bodies, and more research is required into optimal treatment doses and regimes, alone and in combination.

Alcohol use disorder: pathophysiology, effects, and pharmacologic options for treatment

Alcohol use disorders (AUD) continue to be a concerning health issue worldwide. Harmful alcohol use leads to 2.5 million deaths annually worldwide. Multiple options exist for the management of dependence on alcohol, not all of which are approved by drug-regulating agencies. Current practice in treating AUD does not reflect the diversity of pharmacologic options that have potential to provide benefit, and guidance for clinicians is limited. Few medications are approved for treatment of AUD, and these have exhibited small and/or inconsistent effects in broad patient populations with diverse drinking patterns. The need for continued research into the treatment of this disease is evident in order to provide patients with more specific and effective options. This review describes the neurobiological mechanisms of AUD that are amenable to treatment and drug therapies that target pathophysiological conditions of AUD to reduce drinking. In addition, current literature on pharmacologic (both approved and non-approved) treatment options for AUD offered in the United States and elsewhere are reviewed. The aim is to inform clinicians regarding the options for alcohol abuse treatment, keeping in mind that not all treatments are completely successful in reducing craving or heavy drinking or increasing abstinence.

Strategies to improve retention in randomised trials

BACKGROUND

Loss to follow-up from randomised trials can introduce bias and reduce study power, affecting the generalisability, validity and reliability of results. Many strategies are used to reduce loss to follow-up and improve retention but few have been formally evaluated.

OBJECTIVES

To quantify the effect of strategies to improve retention on the proportion of participants retained in randomised trials and to investigate if the effect varied by trial strategy and trial setting.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, PreMEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, DARE, CINAHL, Campbell Collaboration's Social, Psychological, Educational and Criminological Trials Register, and ERIC. We handsearched conference proceedings and publication reference lists for eligible retention trials. We also surveyed all UK Clinical Trials Units to identify further studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included eligible retention trials of randomised or quasi-randomised evaluations of strategies to increase retention that were embedded in 'host' randomised trials from all disease areas and healthcare settings. We excluded studies aiming to increase treatment compliance.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We contacted authors to supplement or confirm data that we had extracted. For retention trials, we recorded data on the method of randomisation, type of strategy evaluated, comparator, primary outcome, planned sample size, numbers randomised and numbers retained. We used risk ratios (RR) to evaluate the effectiveness of the addition of strategies to improve retention. We assessed heterogeneity between trials using the Chi(2) and I(2) statistics. For main trials that hosted retention trials, we extracted data on disease area, intervention, population, healthcare setting, sequence generation and allocation concealment.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified 38 eligible retention trials. Included trials evaluated six broad types of strategies to improve retention. These were incentives, communication strategies, new questionnaire format, participant case management, behavioural and methodological interventions. For 34 of the included trials, retention was response to postal and electronic questionnaires with or without medical test kits. For four trials, retention was the number of participants remaining in the trial. Included trials were conducted across a spectrum of disease areas, countries, healthcare and community settings. Strategies that improved trial retention were addition of monetary incentives compared with no incentive for return of trial-related postal questionnaires (RR 1.18; 95% CI 1.09 to 1.28, P value < 0.0001), addition of an offer of monetary incentive compared with no offer for return of electronic questionnaires (RR 1.25; 95% CI 1.14 to 1.38, P value < 0.00001) and an offer of a GBP20 voucher compared with GBP10 for return of postal questionnaires and biomedical test kits (RR 1.12; 95% CI 1.04 to 1.22, P value < 0.005). The evidence that shorter questionnaires are better than longer questionnaires was unclear (RR 1.04; 95% CI 1.00 to 1.08, P value = 0.07) and the evidence for questionnaires relevant to the disease/condition was also unclear (RR 1.07; 95% CI 1.01 to 1.14). Although each was based on the results of a single trial, recorded delivery of questionnaires seemed to be more effective than telephone reminders (RR 2.08; 95% CI 1.11 to 3.87, P value = 0.02) and a 'package' of postal communication strategies with reminder letters appeared to be better than standard procedures (RR 1.43; 95% CI 1.22 to 1.67, P value < 0.0001). An open trial design also appeared more effective than a blind trial design for return of questionnaires in one fracture prevention trial (RR 1.37; 95% CI 1.16 to 1.63, P value = 0.0003).There was no good evidence that the addition of a non-monetary incentive, an offer of a non-monetary incentive, 'enhanced' letters, letters delivered by priority post, additional reminders, or questionnaire question order either increased or decreased trial questionnaire response/retention. There was also no evidence that a telephone survey was either more or less effective than a monetary incentive and a questionnaire. As our analyses are based on single trials, the effect on questionnaire response of using offers of charity donations, sending reminders to trial sites and when a questionnaire is sent, may need further evaluation. Case management and behavioural strategies used for trial retention may also warrant further evaluation.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Most of the retention trials that we identified evaluated questionnaire response. There were few evaluations of ways to improve participants returning to trial sites for trial follow-up. Monetary incentives and offers of monetary incentives increased postal and electronic questionnaire response. Some other strategies evaluated in single trials looked promising but need further evaluation. Application of the findings of this review would depend on trial setting, population, disease area, data collection and follow-up procedures.

Emerging pharmacotherapies for alcohol dependence: a systematic review focusing on reduction in consumption

BACKGROUND

European Medicines Agency guidelines recognize two different treatment goals for alcohol dependence: abstinence and reduction in alcohol consumption. All currently approved agents are indicated for abstinence. This systematic review aimed to identify drugs in development for alcohol dependence treatment and to establish, based upon trial design, if any are seeking market authorization for reduction in consumption.

METHODS

We searched PubMed and Embase (December 2001-November 2011) to identify agents in development for alcohol dependence treatment. Additional studies were identified by searching ClinicalTrials.gov and the R&D Insight and Clinical Trials Insight databases. Studies in which the primary focus was treatment of comorbidity, or n≤20, were excluded. Studies were then classified as 'abstinence' if they: described a detoxification/alcohol withdrawal period; enrolled patients who had undergone detoxification previously; or presented relapse/abstinence rates as the primary outcome. Studies in patients actively drinking at baseline were classified as 'reduction in consumption'.

RESULTS

Of 602 abstracts identified, 45 full-text articles were eligible. Five monotherapies were in development for alcohol dependence treatment: topiramate, fluvoxamine, aripiprazole, flupenthixol and nalmefene. Nalmefene was the only agent whose sponsor was clearly seeking definitive approval for reduction in consumption. Development status was unclear for topiramate, fluvoxamine, aripiprazole and flupenthixol. Fifteen agents were examined in published exploratory investigator-initiated trials; the majority focused on abstinence. Ongoing (unpublished) trials tended to focus on reduction in consumption.

CONCLUSIONS

While published studies generally focused on abstinence, ongoing trials focused on reduction in consumption, suggesting a change in emphasis in the approach to treating alcohol dependence.

Efficacy of disulfiram for the treatment of alcohol dependence assessed with a multicenter randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

The efficacy of disulfiram in preventing an alcoholic relapse has been controversial. The aim of our study was to assess the efficacy of supervised disulfiram for the treatment of alcohol dependence with a multi-institutional study in Japan.

METHODS

In a single-blinded, randomized placebo-controlled study, we recruited 109 patients diagnosed with alcohol dependence under ICD-10 criteria. The patients were randomly allocated to 4 treatment groups, depending on whether they took disulfiram (200 mg daily) or a placebo or whether they received adjunctive therapy consisting of mailed letters which delineated and emphasized the harmful effect of alcohol and the management of alcohol craving. The proportion of abstinence among the 4 groups at 26 weeks after discharge was the primary outcome measure. The proportion of abstinence was compared with the severity of alcohol dependence and craving. Furthermore, we examined the proportion of abstinence in patients with inactive aldehyde dehydrogenase-2 (ALDH2).

RESULTS

There were no significant differences among the 4 groups in terms of abstinent patients or study dropouts. The ratio of abstinence was not related to the severity of alcohol dependence or the degree of alcohol craving. Patients with inactive ALDH2 significantly sustained abstinence with the use of disulfiram (p = 0.044).

CONCLUSIONS

Supervised oral disulfiram use followed by intervention via letters seems to be ineffective for increasing abstinence. Further studies are necessary to prove the efficacy of disulfiram for the pharmacological treatment of alcohol dependence. We indicated the effectiveness of disulfiram for the maintenance of abstinence in patients with inactive ALDH2.

Antabuse's diamond anniversary: still sparkling on?

Seventy-five years after its first medical use was described, disulfiram's place in treatment is being favourably re-evaluated. This paper reviews its discovery and subsequent development.

BAP updated guidelines: evidence-based guidelines for the pharmacological management of substance abuse, harmful use, addiction and comorbidity: recommendations from BAP

The British Association for Psychopharmacology guidelines for the treatment of substance abuse, harmful use, addiction and comorbidity with psychiatric disorders primarily focus on their pharmacological management. They are based explicitly on the available evidence and presented as recommendations to aid clinical decision making for practitioners alongside a detailed review of the evidence. A consensus meeting, involving experts in the treatment of these disorders, reviewed key areas and considered the strength of the evidence and clinical implications. The guidelines were drawn up after feedback from participants. The guidelines primarily cover the pharmacological management of withdrawal, short- and long-term substitution, maintenance of abstinence and prevention of complications, where appropriate, for substance abuse or harmful use or addiction as well management in pregnancy, comorbidity with psychiatric disorders and in younger and older people.

Treatment of substance abusing patients with comorbid psychiatric disorders

OBJECTIVE

To update clinicians on the latest in evidence-based treatments for substance use disorders (SUD) and non-substance use disorders among adults and suggest how these treatments can be combined into an evidence-based process that enhances treatment effectiveness in comorbid patients.

METHOD

Articles were extracted from Pubmed using the search terms "dual diagnosis," "comorbidity" and "co-occurring" and were reviewed for evidence of effectiveness for pharmacologic and psychotherapeutic treatments of comorbidity.

RESULTS

Twenty-four research reviews and 43 research trials were reviewed. The preponderance of the evidence suggests that antidepressants prescribed to improve substance-related symptoms among patients with mood and anxiety disorders are either not highly effective or involve risk due to high side-effect profiles or toxicity. Second generation antipsychotics are more effective for treatment of schizophrenia and comorbid substance abuse and current evidence suggests clozapine, olanzapine and risperidone are among the best. Clozapine appears to be the most effective of the antipsychotics for reducing alcohol, cocaine and cannabis abuse among patients with schizophrenia. Motivational interviewing has robust support as a highly effective psychotherapy for establishing a therapeutic alliance. This finding is critical since retention in treatment is essential for maintaining effectiveness. Highly structured therapy programs that integrate intensive outpatient treatments, case management services and behavioral therapies such as Contingency Management (CM) are most effective for treatment of severe comorbid conditions.

CONCLUSIONS

Creative combinations of psychotherapies, behavioral and pharmacological interventions offer the most effective treatment for comorbidity. Intensity of treatment must be increased for severe comorbid conditions such as the schizophrenia/cannabis dependence comorbidity due to the limitations of pharmacological treatments.

Critical thoughts on current rodent models for evaluating potential treatments of alcohol addiction and withdrawal

Despite years of neurobiological research that have helped to identify potential therapeutic targets, we do not have a reliable pharmacological treatment for alcoholism. There are a range of possible explanations for this failure, including arguments that alcoholism is a spectrum disorder and that different population subtypes may respond to different treatments. This view is supported by categorisations such as early- and late-onset alcoholism, whilst multifactorial genetic factors may also alter responsivity to pharmacological agents. Furthermore, experience of alcohol withdrawal may play a role in future drinking in a way that may distinguish alcoholism from other forms of addiction. Additionally, our neurobiological models, based largely upon results from rodent studies, may not mimic specific aspects of the human condition and may reflect different underlying phenomena and biological processes from the clinical pattern. As a result, potential treatments may be targeting inappropriate aspects of alcohol-related behaviours. Instead, we suggest a more profitable approach is (a) to identify well-defined intermediate behavioural phenotypes in human experimental models that reflect defined aspects of the human clinical disorder and (b) to develop animal models that are homologous with those phenotypes in terms of psychological processes and underlying neurobiological mechanisms. This review describes an array of animal models currently used in the addiction field and what they tell us about alcoholism. We will then examine how established pharmacological agents have been developed using only a limited number of these models, before describing some alternative novel approaches to achieving homology between animal and human experimental measures.

The efficacy of disulfiram for the treatment of alcohol use disorder

BACKGROUND

Alcohol use disorders (AUD) involving hazardous, harmful, and addictive misuse of alcohol are widespread in most parts of the world. The aim of this study was to review the effect of disulfiram in the treatment of patients with AUD. The effect of disulfiram was evaluated according to the primary outcome of an intake of alcohol below 30 and 20 g/d for men and women, respectively, as well as secondary outcomes such as days until relapse, alcohol intake, and numbers of drinking days.

METHODS

A systematic review of the literature was conducted using MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL).

RESULTS

Eleven randomized controlled trials were included with a total of 1,527 patients. They compared disulfiram treatment with placebo, none or other abstinence-supportive treatments. Overall, 6 studies reported of a significant better effect on abstinence for patients treated with disulfiram. Six of 9 studies measuring secondary outcomes reported that patients treated with disulfiram had significantly more days until relapse and fewer drinking days, respectively. The quality of the included studies was moderate. Heterogeneity was significant in most of the meta-analyses, but valid results were found regarding the effect of disulfiram versus placebo over 12 months and unsupervised disulfiram versus other or no treatment. The vast majority of significant studies were of shorter duration, while only 3 studies of 12 months were significant regarding more days until relapse and/or reduction in drinking days.

CONCLUSIONS

Supervised treatment with disulfiram has some effect on short-term abstinence and days until relapse as well as number of drinking days when compared with placebo, none, or other treatments for patients with alcohol dependency or abuse. Long-term effect on abstinence has not been evaluated yet. However, there is a need for more homogeneous and high-quality studies in the future regarding the efficacy of disulfiram.

Treatment of alcohol dependence with low-dose topiramate: an open-label controlled study

BACKGROUND

GABAergic anticonvulsants have been recommended for the treatment of alcohol dependence and the prevention of relapse. Several studies have demonstrated topiramate's efficacy in improving drinking behaviour and maintaining abstinence. The objective of the present open-label controlled study was to assess efficacy and tolerability of low-dose topiramate as adjunctive treatment in alcohol dependence during the immediate post-detoxification period and during a 16-week follow-up period after alcohol withdrawal.

METHODS

Following a 7-10 day inpatient alcohol detoxification protocol, 90 patients were assigned to receive either topiramate (up to 75 mg per day) in addition to psychotherapeutic treatment (n = 30) or psychotherapy alone (n = 60). Symptoms of depression and anxiety, as well as craving, were monitored for 4-6 weeks immediately following detoxification on an inpatient basis. Thereafter, both groups were followed as outpatients at a weekly basis for another 4 months in order to monitor their course and abstinence from alcohol.

RESULTS

A marked improvement in depressive (p < 0.01), anxiety (p < 0.01), and obsessive-compulsive drinking symptoms (p < 0.01) was observed over the consecutive assessments in both study groups. However, individuals on topiramate fared better than controls (p < 0.01) during inpatient treatment. Moreover, during the 4-month follow up period, relapse rate was lower among patients who received topiramate (66.7%) compared to those who received no adjunctive treatment (85.5%), (p = 0.043). Time to relapse in the topiramate augmentation group was significantly longer compared to the control group (log rank test, p = 0.008). Thus, median duration of abstinence was 4 weeks for the non-medicated group whereas it reached 10 weeks for the topiramate group. No serious side effects of topiramate were recorded throughout the study.

CONCLUSIONS

Low-dose topiramate as an adjunct to psychotherapeutic treatment is well tolerated and effective in reducing alcohol craving, as well as symptoms of depression and anxiety, present during the early phase of alcohol withdrawal. Furthermore, topiramate considerably helps to abstain from drinking during the first 16-week post-detoxification period.

Medical treatment of alcohol dependence: a systematic review

OBJECTIVE

To summarize published data on pharmacologic treatments for alcohol dependence alone and in combination with brief psychosocial therapies that may be feasible for primary care and specialty medical settings.

METHODS

We conducted electronic searches of published original research articles and reviews in MEDLINE, SCOPUS, CINAHL, Embase, and PsychINFO. In addition, hand searches of reference lists of review articles, supplemental searches of internet references and contacts with experts in the field were conducted. Randomized controlled studies published between January 1960 and August 2010 that met our inclusion/exclusion criteria were included.

RESULTS

A total of 85 studies, representing 18,937 subjects, met our criteria for inclusion. The evidence base for oral naltrexone (6% more days abstinent than placebo in the largest study) and topiramate (prescribed off-label) (e.g., 26.2% more days abstinent than placebo in a recent study) is positive but modest. Acamprosate shows modest efficacy with recently abstinent patients, with European studies showing better results than U.S. ones. The evidence-base for disulfiram is equivocal. Depot naltrexone shows efficacy (25% greater reduction in rate of heavy drinking vs. placebo, in one of the largest studies) in a limited number of studies. Some studies suggest that patients do better with extensive psychosocial treatments added to medications while others show that brief support can be equally effective.

CONCLUSIONS

Although treatment effects are modest, medications for alcohol dependence, in conjunction with either brief support or more extensive psychosocial therapy, can be effective in primary and specialty care medical settings.

Disulfiram in severe alcoholism--an open controlled study

BACKGROUND

Disulfiram is used to a great extent in Denmark to treat alcoholism but the evidence is limited.

AIM

To study the effect of supervised disulfiram treatment in alcohol dependence. Subjects were recruited from a psychiatric emergency ward following alcohol withdrawal treatment.

METHODS

A total of n=39 patients were openly randomized to either disulfiram 800 mg twice a week for 26 weeks (n=19) or no disulfiram (n=20). All patients were also treated with cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT) in groups.

RESULTS

The rate of abstinence was 20% and 26% in the control and disulfiram group, respectively. This difference was not statistically significant (NS). A trend towards increased mean time to first drink was found in the disulfiram group (96 vs. 76 days in the control group, NS), while fewer patients in this group completed CBT group therapy (41% vs. 67% in the control group, NS). Alcohol-free days were 100 days in both groups (NS).

CONCLUSION

Supervised disulfiram administration did not have any major impact on the treatment outcome.

Effect of the threat of a disulfiram-ethanol reaction on cue reactivity in alcoholics

RATIONALE

Little is known about the effect of disulfiram on subjective and autonomic nervous system cue reactivity in the laboratory. The dissuasive psychological effect manifested as a threat would seem to prevail over the pharmacological effect.

OBJECTIVES

The primary objective was to determine whether there was a difference in cue reactivity responses during a threat condition compared to a neutral condition during alcohol cue exposure.

METHODS

In a crossover randomized study, participants received threat and neutral messages during two cue exposure sessions. The threat condition consisted of leading the patients to believe they had ingested 500 mg of disulfiram and the neutral condition of informing them that they had ingested a placebo, while in both condition they received the same placebo.

RESULTS

Physiological cue reactivity was demonstrated by a decrease in diastolic blood pressure during the threat compared to the neutral condition (p=0.04). Heart rate and subjective cue reactivity measures remained unchanged. There was a negative affect (assessed by the Positive and Negative Affect Scale) by condition by exposure interaction.

CONCLUSIONS

The threat of a disulfiram-ethanol reaction appears to affect cue reactivity physiologically rather than subjectively. While the data does not show changes in subjective ratings, it is possible that there are alternative beneficial effects arising from other cognitive processes that are not captivated by self-reported craving scales, reflected by decreases in negative affect and blood pressure. From this perspective, disulfiram might be recast to be more acceptable to patients.

An approach to the patient with substance use and abuse

Substance use is ubiquitous among medically ill patients. The 2008 National Survey on Drug Abuse and Health survey estimated that 20.1 million Americans aged 12 years or older (8% of the US population) had used an illicit drug during the preceding month. Some licit substances also create havoc. The survey found that slightly more than half (56%) of Americans reported being current drinkers of alcohol. A total of 6.2 million (2.5%) Americans used prescription-type psychotherapeutic drugs for nonmedical purposes and 70.9 million Americans (or 28.4%) used tobacco during the survey period. Substance abuse problems were diagnosed in up to 36% of medically hospitalized patients for whom a psychiatric consultation was requested. Given how prevalent the use of substances is among the medically ill and their potential effect on comorbid medical conditions, it is important for physicians to be mindful of their prevalence and presentation. This article covers the presenting symptoms of intoxication and withdrawal states, addresses the acute management of the most commonly encountered substances, and summarizes all others in a table.

Topiramate in the new generation of drugs: efficacy in the treatment of alcoholic patients

Predicated upon a neuropharmacological conceptual model, there is now solid clinical evidence to support the efficacy of topiramate for the treatment of alcohol dependence. Topiramate treatment can be initiated whilst the alcohol-dependent individual is still drinking - just when crisis intervention is most likely to be needed by a patient with or without his or her family asking the health practitioner for assistance. Because topiramate can be paired with a brief intervention, there is now the exciting possibility of treating most alcohol- dependent individuals in office-based practice or generic treatment settings. Topiramate's additional effects on other impulsedyscontrol disorders make it a particularly interesting compound for the treatment of other comorbid drug or psychiatric disorders. Additionally, future studies should explore whether topiramate can be combined with other putative therapeutic agents to increase its efficacy. One notable clinical challenge in the development of topiramate as a pharmacotherapy to treat alcohol dependence is the determination of the smallest dose that can result in efficacy, thereby achieving the optimum balance between therapeutic benefit and adverse event profile. Animal data do provide support for topiramate's general anti-drinking effects but also indicate that its mechanisms of action might rely on several complex pharmacobehavioral changes. Additional preclinical studies are needed to elucidate more clearly the basic mechanistic processes that underlie topiramate's efficacy as a treatment for alcohol dependence. Preclinical information that topiramate may have differential effects based on genetic vulnerability opens up the possibility of future methods to optimize treatment.