Topiramate for the treatment of alcohol dependence: comparison with naltrexone

Topiramate Versus Naltrexone for Alcohol Use Disorder: A Genotype-Stratified Double-Blind Randomized Controlled Trial

OBJECTIVE

There have been no well-controlled and well-powered comparative trials of topiramate with other pharmacotherapies for alcohol use disorder (AUD), such as naltrexone. Moreover, the literature is mixed on the effects of two polymorphisms-rs2832407 (in GRIK1) and rs1799971 (in OPRM1)-on response to topiramate and naltrexone, respectively. The authors sought to examine the comparative effectiveness of topiramate and naltrexone in improving outcomes in AUD and to examine the role of the rs2832407 and rs1799971 polymorphisms, respectively, on response to these medications.

METHODS

In a 12-week, double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomized, multisite, genotype-stratified (rs2832407 and rs1799971) clinical trial comparing topiramate and naltrexone in treating AUD, 147 patients with AUD were randomly assigned to treatment with topiramate or naltrexone, stratified by genotype (rs2832407*CC and *AC/AA genotypes and rs1799971*AA and *AG/GG genotypes). The predefined primary outcome was number of heavy drinking days per week. Predefined secondary outcomes included standard drinks per drinking day per week, body mass index (BMI), craving, markers of liver injury, mood, and adverse events.

RESULTS

For the number of heavy drinking days per week, there was a near-significant time-by-treatment interaction. For the number of standard drinks per drinking day per week, there was a significant time-by-treatment interaction, which favored topiramate. There were significant time-by-treatment effects, with greater reductions observed with topiramate than naltrexone for BMI, craving, and gamma-glutamyltransferase level. Withdrawal due to side effects occurred in 8% and 5% of the topiramate and naltrexone groups, respectively. Neither polymorphism showed an effect on treatment response.

CONCLUSIONS

Topiramate is at least as effective and safe as the first-line medication, naltrexone, in reducing heavy alcohol consumption, and superior in reducing some clinical outcomes. Neither rs2832407 nor rs1799971 had effects on topiramate and naltrexone treatments, respectively.

A Bayesian meta-analysis of topiramate's effectiveness for individuals with alcohol use disorder

BACKGROUND

Topiramate (TPM) has the potential to become one of the most prominent treatment options for alcohol use disorder (AUD). We investigated the efficacy of TPM for AUD treatment, considering new randomized controlled trials carried out since the publication of four prior investigations.

METHODS

We searched six major databases, comparing TPM to placebo for AUD treatment. We performed a Bayesian meta-analysis. We conducted a meta-regression, analyzing the effect of age, TPM dosage, duration of treatment, gender, and attrition rate on the outcomes measured. The protocol is registered with PROSPERO: CRD42021286266.

RESULTS

TPM reduced heavy drinking days (d = 0.401, Bayes factor (BF) = 23.088) and weeks (d = 0.461, BF = 3.784), lowered alcohol craving (d = 0.477, BF = 107.749), prolonged abstinence throughout the duration of trials (d = 0.505, BF = 54.998), and decreased the amount of gamma-glutamyl transferase in the blood (d = 0.345, BF = 39.048). The analysis pointed out that TPM could reduce anxiety (d = 0.517, BF = 5.993). TPM's efficacy in relieving alcohol withdrawal, minimizing relapse, and decreasing depressive symptoms was inconclusive. There was evidence of a meta-regression effect of attrition rate on heavy drinking days and craving and length of treatment on abstinence.

CONCLUSION

TPM has the potential to become a key pharmacological agent in the treatment of AUD.

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.

Problems with the MetaBLIND study: An examination of data on blinding patients in trials with patient-reported outcomes

MetaBLIND is the largest meta-epidemiological study on the impact of blinding in randomized trials to date. We examined MetaBLIND data on the impact of blinding patients on patient-reported outcomes. 68 out of 132 included trials tested knowledge recall and had questionable relevance to clinical trials. In 17 out of 18 comparisons, the number of trials in the blinded or nonblinded group was 2 or lower. In several key trials, the blinding status was uncertain. Effect sizes compared in MetaBLIND appear to reflect random differences in study design and setting rather than the impact of blinding trial participants.

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.

Anticraving therapy for alcohol use disorder: A clinical review

Aim

In this review, the author focused on anticraving therapy for alcohol use disorder (AUD) defined by DMS‐5. A comprehensive review was carried out on the available published papers on anticraving drugs for treating AUD patients.

Methods

The author described all drugs with anticraving benefits for treating AUD patients approved by the Food and Drug Administration of the United States (US FDA) and European Medicines Agency of the European Union. Then, the commonly prescribed anticraving drugs and those under development were also described.

Results

The US FDA‐approved anticraving drugs included acamprosate and naltrexone, and those approved by European Medicines Agency were gamma‐hydroxybutyrate and nalmefene. The author also highlighted topiramate, gabapentin, ondansetron, LY196044, ifenprodil, varenicline, ABT‐436, mifepristone, citicoline, and baclofen. The putative mechanisms of action of and the use in clinical practice of those anticraving drugs were also described.

Conclusion

Although slowly developing, the field of anticraving drugs is getting into shape as a promising entity of a pharmaceutical class of drugs. Then, the author addressed on the underused issues of those recommended, and suggested anticraving drugs by the practice guideline of the American Psychiatric Association. The author urges that clinicians should be more “adventurous” in prescribing those promising drugs because benefits of those anticraving drugs are far‐outweighing the possible side effects of anticraving drugs, or the harms of untreated AUD itself.

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.

Topiramate versus naltrexone for alcohol use disorder: study protocol for a genotype-stratified, double-blind randomised controlled trial (TOP study)

Background

Current treatments for alcohol use disorders have limited efficacy and there is a high degree of variability in treatment response. In a randomised, placebo-controlled clinical trial, there was a large effect size for topiramate in people homozygous for the GRIK1 rs2832407*C allele. The primary aim of the TOP study is to examine prospectively the therapeutic and cost-effectiveness of topiramate versus an active control (naltrexone) in improving treatment outcomes for alcohol dependence. Participants will be stratified on rs2832407 to compare C-allele homozygotes with A-allele carriers to examine the moderating effect of rs2832407 on drinking outcomes. An exploratory aim is to examine the moderating effects of rs1799971, a polymorphism in OPRM1, on the response to naltrexone by comparing Asn40 homozygotes with Asp40 carriers.

Methods/design

This double-blind trial will randomise 180 alcohol-dependent participants to a 12-week regime of either topiramate (titrating the dose up to 200 mg/day) or naltrexone (50 mg/day). Participants will be stratified on the two polymorphisms before randomisation. All participants will receive medical management. The primary drinking outcome will be the number of heavy drinking days per week and secondary drinking outcomes will include the time to relapse, the time to lapse and the percentage of abstinent days. Other secondary outcomes will include body mass index, tobacco use, anxiety symptoms and depressive symptoms.

Discussion

If successful, the TOP study will improve management strategies for alcohol dependence by providing support for the use of genetic biomarkers to inform medication selection.

Trial registration

ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03479086. Registered on 27 March 2018.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1186/s13063-018-2824-z) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

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.

Treatment of Comorbid Alcohol Dependence and Anxiety Disorder: Review of the Scientific Evidence and Recommendations for Treatment

Patients with alcohol-use disorders (AUDs) have a high prevalence of anxiety disorders (AnxDs). "Co-occurring disorders" refers to the coexistence of an AUD and/or drug related disorders with another non-addictive psychiatric disorder. The aim of this study was to assess the effectiveness of psychopharmacological treatments and psychotherapy in patients with AUD and AnxD and to propose recommendations for the treatment of patients with comorbid AnxDs and AUDs. Randomized clinical trials, meta-analyses, and clinical guidelines were retrieved from PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane databases. Paroxetine was found to be effective in social anxiety patients with alcohol dependence. Selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs), especially sertraline, showed effective results in posttraumatic stress disorder and in comorbid AnxD-AUD. However, SSRIs should be used with caution when patients are actively drinking because they may increase alcohol consumption. Buspirone, gabapentin, and pregabalin were found to be effective in comorbid AnxD-AUD. The treatment of dual AnxDs should start as early as possible. Since AUDs and AnxDs can reinforce each other, treatments targeting both pathologies can be effective. Women suffer from higher levels of stress and AnxDs than men, and they are also more vulnerable to maintaining alcohol consumption levels. Further research is needed in this comorbid patient population, including the study of different types of patients and gender perspectives.

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.

Does retigabine affect the development of alcohol dependence?--A pharmaco-EEG study

New antiepileptic drugs have been investigated for their potential role in the treatment of alcohol dependence. One of these drugs is retigabine and this study examines the effect of retigabine co-administered with ethanol on the development of alcohol dependence and the course of acute withdrawal syndrome. A pharmaco-EEG method was used to examine this impact in selected brain structures of rabbits (midbrain reticular formation, hippocampus and frontal cortex). Retigabine was administered p.o. at a dose of 5mg/kg/day with ethanol ad libitum for 6 weeks and then alone for 2 weeks during an abstinence period. Changes in bioelectric activity, which demonstrated the inhibitory effect of alcohol on the brain structures, were already visible after 2 weeks of ethanol administration. In the abstinence period, changes were of a different nature and significant neuronal hyperactivity was observed, particularly in the midbrain reticular formation and the hippocampus. This findings reveal that retigabine decreased ethanol-induced changes during both alcohol administration and abstinence periods. In particular, the modulatory effect of retigabine on the hippocampus may be a significant element of its mechanism of action in alcohol dependence therapy.

Posttreatment effects of topiramate treatment for heavy drinking

BACKGROUND

We examined whether the effects of topiramate and a single nucleotide polymorphism (rs2832407) in GRIK1, which encodes a kainate receptor subunit, persisted following a 12-week, placebo-controlled trial in 138 heavy drinkers with a treatment goal of reduced drinking. During treatment, topiramate 200 mg/d significantly reduced heavy drinking days and increased the frequency of abstinent days (Am J Psychiatry, 2014, 171:445). In the European-American (EA) subsample (n = 122), rs2832407 moderated the treatment effect on heavy drinking.

METHODS

Patients were re-interviewed 3 and 6 months after the end of treatment. During treatment, we obtained 92.4% of drinking data, with 89.1 and 85.5% complete data at the 3- and 6-month follow-up visits, respectively. We examined 4 outcomes over time in the overall sample and the EA subsample: percent heavy drinking days (PHDD), percent days abstinent (PDA), serum γ-glutamyl transpeptidase (GGTP) concentration, and a measure of alcohol-related problems.

RESULTS

In the full sample, the lower PHDD and higher PDA seen with topiramate treatment were no longer significant during follow-up. Nonetheless, the topiramate-treated patients had lower alcohol-related problem scores during treatment and both follow-up periods. Further, in the EA subsample, the greater reduction in PHDD seen with topiramate treatment in rs2832407*C-allele homozygotes persisted throughout follow-up, with no significant effects in A-allele carriers. A reduction in GGTP concentration was consistent with the reduction in heavy drinking, but did not reach statistical significance.

CONCLUSIONS

There are persistent therapeutic effects of topiramate in heavy drinkers, principally in rs2832407*C-allele homozygotes.

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.

Predictors of posttreatment drinking outcomes in patients with alcohol dependence

AIM

This cohort study examined how predictors of alcohol dependence treatment outcomes work together over time by comparing pretreatment and posttreatment predictors.

METHODS

A sample of 274 alcohol-dependent patients was recruited and assessed at baseline, 6 months after treatment initiation (end of the active intervention phase), and 18 months after treatment initiation (end of the 12-month research follow-up phase). At each assessment point, the participants completed a battery of standardized tests [European Addiction Severity Index (EuropASI), Obsessive Compulsive Drinking Scale (OCDS), Alcohol Timeline Followback (TLFB), Fagerström, and International Personality Disorder Examination (IPDE)] that measured symptom severity and consequences; biological markers of alcohol consumption were also tested at each assessment point. A sequential strategy with univariate and multivariate analyses was used to identify how pretreatment and posttreatment predictors influence outcomes up to 1 year after treatment.

RESULTS

Pretreatment variables had less predictive power than posttreatment ones. OCDS scores and biological markers of alcohol consumption were the most significant variables for the prediction of posttreatment outcomes. Prior pharmacotherapy treatment and relapse prevention interventions were also associated with posttreatment outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

The findings highlight the positive impact of pharmacotherapy during the first 6 months after treatment initiation and of relapse prevention during the first year after treatment and how posttreatment predictors are more important than pretreatment predictors.

Low-dose topiramate in alcohol dependence: a single-blind, placebo-controlled study

INTRODUCTION

Topiramate (TOP) and anticonvulsants in general are considered safe and effective drugs for the treatment of alcohol dependence, even though TOP-induced adverse events are quite common, especially for high initial doses or if titration to 300 mg/d is too rapid. The aim of the present study was to assess the efficacy and tolerability profile of low-dose TOP for relapse prevention.

METHODS

After detoxification, 52 patients were randomized into 2 groups as follows: 26 patients received 100 mg of TOP (oral, twice daily), titrated over 2 weeks, and 26 patients received placebo (PLA). Both groups underwent rehabilitation twice a week.

RESULTS

After 6 weeks of treatment, compared with the PLA group, patients receiving TOP showed the following: (1) fewer drinking days (P < 0.05); (2) less daily alcohol consumption (P < 0.05); (3) more days of treatment (P < 0.05); (4) reduced levels of craving (Obsessive-Compulsive Drinking Scale) and withdrawal symptoms (Clinical Institute Withdrawal Assessment for Alcohol-Revised); and (5) improvement of anxiety, depression, and obsessive-compulsive symptom severity (Symptom Check List 90 Revised).

CONCLUSIONS

Despite the small sample size and the short follow-up period, the present PLA-controlled study demonstrated the potential usefulness of TOP, even when administered at a dosage of 100 mg/d, for the treatment of detoxified alcohol-dependent subjects, confirming results from previous studies testing higher doses of TOP.

Effects of naltrexone plus topiramate on ethanol self-administration and tyrosine hydroxylase gene expression changes

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effects of naltrexone (0.7 mg/kg) and/or topiramate (25 mg/kg) on ethanol consumption and the motivation to drink in an oral-operant conditioning paradigm in C57BL/6 mice. Subsequent real-time polymerase chain reaction (PCR) experiments were performed to analyze gene expression changes in tyrosine hydroxylase (TH) in the ventral tegmental area (VTA). The administration of naltrexone significantly reduced ethanol consumption and the motivation to drink during the different stages of the experiment, whereas the treatment with topiramate resulted in a much lower effect. Interestingly, the administration of naltrexone plus topiramate reduced ethanol consumption markedly compared with single-drug treatment. The water self-administration paradigm was also performed using the same drugs and no differences were found between treatment groups. Real-time PCR analyses revealed that naltrexone significantly normalized the increase of TH gene expression in the VTA induced by ethanol, whereas the administration of topiramate did not produce any significant effect. In the ethanol self-administration procedure, the combination of both drugs further reduced TH gene expression, reaching statistical significance compared with the vehicle, naltrexone or topiramate groups. Taken together, these findings indicate that the administration of naltrexone plus topiramate further reduced ethanol consumption and the motivation to drink in comparison with single-drug treatment. This action may be due, at least in part, to a greater decrease in TH gene expression in the VTA. These results suggest that the combination of both drugs deserves further exploration for the treatment of problems related to alcohol consumption.

A meta-analysis of topiramate's effects for individuals with alcohol use disorders

BACKGROUND

Influenced by several trials and reviews highlighting positive outcomes, topiramate is increasingly prescribed as a treatment for alcohol use disorders (AUDs). The only previously published meta-analysis of topiramate for AUDs was limited by a sample of only 3 randomized, placebo-controlled trials (RCTs).

METHODS

A systematic search identified 7 RCTs (including a total of 1,125 participants) that compared topiramate to placebo for the treatment for AUDs. This meta-analysis estimated the overall effects of topiramate on abstinence, heavy drinking, craving, and γ-glutamyltranspeptidase (GGT) outcomes and included several sensitivity analyses to account for the small sample of studies.

RESULTS

Overall, the small to moderate effects favored topiramate, although the effect on craving was not quite significantly different from 0. The largest effect was found on abstinence (g = 0.468, p < 0.01), followed by heavy drinking (g = 0.406, p < 0.01), GGT (g = 0.324, p = 0.02), and craving (g = 0.312, p = 0.07) outcomes. Sensitivity analyses did not change the magnitude or direction of the results, and tests did not indicate significant publication bias. The small sample size did not allow for examination of specific moderators of the effects of topiramate.

CONCLUSIONS

Topiramate can be a useful tool in the treatment of AUDs. Its efficacy, based on the current sample of studies, seems to be of somewhat greater magnitude than that of the most commonly prescribed medications for AUDs (naltrexone and acamprosate). Further research will help to identify the contexts in which topiramate is most beneficial (e.g., dose, concurrent psychotherapy, patient characteristics).

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.

Combined pharmacotherapies for the management of alcoholism: rationale and evidence to date

Pharmacotherapies for alcohol use disorders (AUDs) have limited efficacy. One approach to improving treatment outcomes for AUDs is to combine pharmacotherapies that have shown some efficacy as individual agents. The rationale for combining medications rests on the following principles: a combination of medications can target more than one neurotransmitter system that is dysfunctional in AUDs, can target different drinking behaviors (i.e., positive and negative reinforcement), can treat co-morbid psychiatric and medical disorders, and can minimize side effects, improving adherence to treatment by using lower doses of each drug in combination. Combined pharmacotherapy strategies may produce additive or even synergistic effects to decrease alcohol craving and consumption. Here, we reviewed the literature investigating the effect on alcohol-related outcomes of combinations of medications that have shown efficacy as single agents to reduce drinking in animal studies and clinical trials. We focused on 17 clinical studies investigating the combination of medications in AUDs, 11 of which were randomized, double-blind, and placebo-controlled. Ten of the 11 studies showed the combination to be superior to placebo, but only three showed an advantage of the combination compared with the single agent. Overall, these studies used diverse methodologies, assessments of severity, outcome measures, and adjunctive psychosocial treatments. Limitations of the current published studies and possible future directions for new combinations are discussed.

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.

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.

Current progress in pharmacologic treatment strategies for alcohol dependence

Alcoholism is a progressive neurological disorder that represents one of the leading preventable causes of morbidity and mortality in the USA. Individuals with alcohol dependence may exhibit differences in their sensitivity to intoxication, the age at which they begin heavy drinking or the presentation of comorbid psychiatric illness. The heterogeneous nature of the disorder has complicated efforts to predict treatment outcomes, indicating a need for improved diagnostic and therapeutic approaches. Pharmaceutical development has focused on treating the symptoms of alcohol withdrawal, reducing consumption of and craving for alcohol, preventing relapse and treating associated psychiatric problems. Current therapies may be optimized by combining psychosocial and pharmacologic approaches to treat alcoholic patients with the most appropriate regimen to achieve the desired therapeutic outcome. This article will describe the neurobiological mechanisms of dependence on alcohol in brief and review major medications approved for the treatment of alcoholism with regard to recent clinical evidence for the therapeutic efficacy of each agent. Investigations on the use of drugs with other indications (e.g., antidepressants and anticonvulsants) to target alcohol-dependent subtypes will also be discussed.

Effect of repeated treatment with topiramate on voluntary alcohol intake and beta-endorphin plasma level in Warsaw alcohol high-preferring rats

RATIONALE

Pharmacological treatment currently used for alcohol dependence is not sufficient for the all patients, and there is a crucial need to find more effective treatments. Recent studies indicate that topiramate is likely the most promising new medication for alcohol dependence. The rationale for topiramate as treatment for alcohol addiction is based on its multifaceted neurochemical activity that targets multiple neural pathways.

OBJECTIVES

This study aims to assess the effect of repeated treatment with topiramate on voluntary alcohol intake and beta-endorphin plasma level in rats selectively bred for high alcohol preference.

METHODS

Initially, Warsaw high preferring rats (N = 50) were given a 24-h/day free choice between a 10 % (v/v) alcohol solution and water for three consecutive weeks. Subsequently, rats were administered with topiramate (40 or 80 mg/kg b.w.) or vehicle for 14 days and ethanol intake was measured daily. Subsequently, we examined the effects of topiramate on plasma beta-endorphin levels, while alcohol was available and when it was not available for an extended period time.

RESULTS

We observed significantly increase in the levels of beta-endorphin in rats with free access to alcohol both in a topiramate- or vehicle-treated group. However, in topiramate-treated group, a voluntary consumption of alcohol diminished in comparison with the vehicle-treated rats.

CONCLUSION

The results from this study indicated that topiramate reduces voluntary alcohol intake and support our previous findings that the increase of beta-endorphin level is responsible at least partly for the effectiveness of drugs in treating the alcohol addiction.

The importance of quality of life in patients with alcohol abuse and dependence

LEARNING OBJECTIVES

After participating in this educational activity, the reader should be better able to identify the instruments that are currently being used to measure quality of life (QoL) in alcohol abuse and dependence; determine the impact of alcohol abuse and dependence on QoL; and evaluate the impact of treating alcohol abuse and dependence on QoL.

OBJECTIVE

Quality of life, which consists of the physical, mental, and social domains, has been shown to be negatively affected by alcohol abuse and dependence. This review aims to examine QoL in alcohol abuse and dependence by reviewing the instruments used to measure it and by analyzing the impact of alcohol abuse and dependence and of treatment on QoL.

METHODS

Studies were identified using a database search of PubMed and PsycINFO from the past 40 years (1971-2011) using the following keywords: abuse OR dependence, OR use AND alcohol, AND Quality of Life, QoL, Health-related quality of life, HRQOL. Two authors agreed independently on including 50 studies that met specific selection criteria.

RESULTS

Although several global measures of QoL have established reliability and validity, many alcohol-specific measures of QoL have not yet been validated. Nevertheless, QoL has been shown to be significantly impaired in those with alcohol abuse and dependence, particularly in the domains of mental health and social functioning, the very areas that show the greatest improvement with abstinence and its maintenance. Moreover, the literature demonstrates the utility of using QoL measures throughout assessment and treatment as a motivational tool and as a marker for treatment efficacy.

CONCLUSIONS

Measuring and monitoring QoL during assessment and treatment can add important value to patient recovery, for QoL improves with treatment and successful abstinence. Therefore, targeted, disease-specific assessments of QoL are warranted to address the impairments in the physical, mental, and social domains in alcohol abuse and dependence, thereby improving long-term outcomes.

Endogenous opiates and behavior: 2011

This paper is the thirty-fourth consecutive installment of the annual review of research concerning the endogenous opioid system. It summarizes papers published during 2011 that studied the behavioral effects of molecular, pharmacological and genetic manipulation of opioid peptides, opioid receptors, opioid agonists and opioid antagonists. The particular topics that continue to be covered include the molecular-biochemical effects and neurochemical localization studies of endogenous opioids and their receptors related to behavior (Section 2), and the roles of these opioid peptides and receptors in pain and analgesia (Section 3); stress and social status (Section 4); tolerance and dependence (Section 5); learning and memory (Section 6); eating and drinking (Section 7); alcohol and drugs of abuse (Section 8); sexual activity and hormones, pregnancy, development and endocrinology (Section 9); mental illness and mood (Section 10); seizures and neurologic disorders (Section 11); electrical-related activity and neurophysiology (Section 12); general activity and locomotion (Section 13); gastrointestinal, renal and hepatic functions (Section 14); cardiovascular responses (Section 15); respiration (Section 16); and immunological responses (Section 17).

Quality of life among alcohol-dependent patients: how satisfactory are the available instruments? A systematic review

AIM

The purpose of this systematic review was to compare quality-of-life instruments used as outcome measures in randomized clinical trials for alcohol-dependence treatment.

METHODS

Randomized controlled clinical trials, indexed in the EMBASE, PubMed and PsycINFO databases since 1981, which aimed at improving the quality of life in alcohol-dependent patients and used as instrument to measure the quality of life, as specifically designated by the authors, were included.

RESULTS

Of the 331 articles screened, 18 studies were included in the review. Eight different quality-of-life instruments were used as outcome measures. Twenty-seven life domains were explored. Between-scale heterogeneity was high. The scale most frequently used was the medical outcomes study 36-item short-form health survey (SF-36). Only 1 clinical trial demonstrated a significant difference between intervention groups at all endpoints, using the quality of life enjoyment and satisfaction questionnaire (Q-LES-Q).

CONCLUSION

Because many different instruments were used, it is difficult to compare quality-of-life improvement between trials. The most frequently used instrument was a generic health status measure that may not be well suited as a quality-of-life measure for subjects with alcohol dependence. The construction and validation of a specific patient-reported outcome based on alcohol-dependent patients' concerns would effectively contribute to the assessment of treatment efficacy.

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.

Cocaine Addiction Treatments to improve Control and reduce Harm (CATCH): new pharmacological treatment options for crack-cocaine dependence in the Netherlands

BACKGROUND

Cocaine, particularly in its base form ('crack'), has become one of the drugs of most concern in the Netherlands, being associated with a wide range of medical, psychiatric and social problems for the individual, and with significant public order consequences for society. Available treatment options for cocaine dependent users are limited, and a substantial part of the cocaine dependent population is not reached by the addiction treatment system. Psychosocial interventions for cocaine dependence generally show modest results, and there are no registered pharmacological treatments to date, despite the wide range of medications tested for this type of dependence. The present study (Cocaine Addiction Treatments to improve Control and reduce Harm; CATCH) investigates the possibilities and problems associated with new pharmacological treatments for crack dependent patients.

METHODS/DESIGN

The CATCH-study consists of three separate randomised controlled, open-label, parallel-group feasibility trials, conducted at three separate addiction treatment institutes in the Netherlands. Patients are either new referrals or patients already in treatment. A total of 216 eligible outpatients are randomised using pre-randomisation double-consent design and receive either 12 weeks treatment with oral topiramate (n = 36; Brijder Addiction Treatment, The Hague), oral modafinil (n = 36; Arkin, Amsterdam), or oral dexamphetamine sustained-release (n = 36; Bouman GGZ, Rotterdam) as an add-on to cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT), or receive a 12-week CBT only (controls: n = 3 × 36). Primary outcome in these feasibility trials is retention in the underlying psychosocial treatment (CBT). Secondary outcomes are acceptance and compliance with the study medication, safety, changes in cocaine (and other drug) use, physical and mental health, social functioning, and patient satisfaction.

DISCUSSION

To date, the CATCH-study is the first study in the Netherlands that explores new treatment options for crack-cocaine dependence focusing on both abstinence and harm minimisation. It is expected that the study will contribute to the development of new treatments for one of the most problematic substance use disorders.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

The Netherlands National Trial Register NTR2576The European Union Drug Regulating Authorities Clinical Trials EudraCT2009-010584-16.

Antiepileptic drugs in the treatment of psychiatric disorders

The clinical interface between psychiatry and neurology is epilepsy; the pharmacological expression of this interface is antiepileptic drugs (AEDs), as they are used to treat both epilepsy and psychiatric disorders, especially bipolar disorders. The prevalence of psychiatric comorbidity and the risk of suicidal behavior/ideation/suicide are markedly increased in patients with epilepsy (PWE). Though AEDs receive initial indications for the treatment of epilepsy, currently the majority of AEDs are used to treat pain and psychiatric disorders. Thus in selecting the appropriate AEDs for treatment of PWE, consideration should be given to which AEDs best treat the epileptic disorder and the psychiatric comorbidity. This review is an overview of 21 AEDs in which negative psychotropic properties, approved indications in psychiatry, off-label studied uses in psychiatry, and principal uses in psychiatry are presented with literature review. A total of 40 psychiatric uses have been identified. Of the 21 AEDs reviewed, only 5 have U.S. Food and Drug Administration and/or European Medicines Agency psychiatric approval for limited uses; the majority of AEDs are used off-label. Many of these off-label uses are based on case reports, open-label studies, and poorly controlled or small-sample-size studies. In some instances, off-label use persists in the face of negative pivotal trials. Further placebo-controlled (augmentation and monotherapy) parallel-arm research with active comparators is required in the complex field of AED treatment of psychiatric disorders to minimize the treatment gap not only for PWE with psychiatric disorders, but also for psychiatric patients who would benefit from properly studied AEDs while minimizing adverse effects.

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.