Search

Background: The alcohol cue reactivity paradigm is increasingly used to screen medications for the treatment of alcohol use disorder (AUD) and other substance use disorders. Yet, its prospective association with craving and naturalistic drinking outcomes in clinical trials remains unknown. This study embedded repeated human laboratory assessments of alcohol cue reactivity within the context of a randomized controlled trial to examine the effects of varenicline tartrate (Chantix®), a partial agonist of α4β2 nicotinic acetylcholine receptors, on alcohol craving among treatment‐seeking heavy drinkers with AUD. Our main objectives were to test whether varenicline, as compared to placebo, blunts alcohol cue–elicited craving and test whether alcohol cue reactivity observed in the human laboratory predicts subsequent alcohol craving and use during the remainder of the trial. Design and Methods: This double‐blind, randomized, 2‐site study compared the effects of varenicline (up to 2 mg/d) and placebo on responses to in vivo alcohol cue and affective picture cue exposure in the human laboratory. Forty‐seven volunteers (18 females, 29 males), ages 23 to 67 years (M = 43.7, SD = 11.5), were recruited from the community via advertisements to participate in a clinical trial designed to study the effects of varenicline on alcohol use. Participants were randomized to either varenicline or placebo for 6 weeks. Results: Varenicline did not attenuate cue‐induced alcohol craving relative to placebo, but craving captured during the cue reactivity paradigm significantly predicted subsequent alcohol use in real‐world settings during the clinical trial. Higher craving predicted heavier alcohol use. Conclusions: Our results are among the first to show alcohol cue–induced craving captured during a human laboratory paradigm predicts drinking outcomes in the context of a clinical trial. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article offers information on priority areas for improving medications development for alcohol use disorder and promoting. It mentions about the drug development process more efficient in terms of speed, cost, and predictability and also focuses on the U.S. Food and Drug Administration's (FDA's) approval of disulfiram.

Background: Reductions in the World Health Organization (WHO) risk drinking levels have been proposed as an alternative primary outcome for alcohol clinical trials. Yet, little is known about whether reductions in WHO risk drinking levels can be maintained over time. The current study examined whether reductions in WHO risk drinking levels were maintained for up to 1 year following treatment, and whether reductions over time were associated with improvements in functioning. Methods: Secondary data analysis of individuals with alcohol dependence (n = 1,226) enrolled in the COMBINE study, a multisite, randomized, placebo‐controlled clinical trial. Logistic regression was used to examine the maintenance of end‐of‐treatment WHO risk level reductions and WHO risk level reductions at the 1‐year follow‐up. Repeated‐measures mixed models were used to examine the association between WHO risk level reductions and functional outcomes over time. Results: Achieving at least a 1‐ or 2‐level reduction in risk by the end of treatment was significantly associated with WHO risk level reductions at the 1‐year follow‐up assessment (p < 0.001). Among individuals who achieved at least a 1‐level reduction by the end of treatment, 85.5% reported at least a 1‐level reduction at the 1‐year follow‐up. Among individuals who achieved at least a 2‐level reduction by the end of treatment, 77.8% reported at least a 2‐level reduction at the 1‐year follow‐up. WHO risk level reductions were associated with significantly lower alcohol consumption, better physical health (p < 0.01), and fewer alcohol‐related consequences (p < 0.001) up to 1 year following treatment. Conclusions: One‐ and 2‐level reductions in WHO risk levels during alcohol treatment were maintained after treatment and associated with better functioning over time. These findings support the use of the WHO risk level reductions as an outcome measure that reflects clinically significant improvement in how individuals seeking treatment for alcohol use disorder feel and function. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Several single‐site alcohol treatment clinical trials have demonstrated efficacy for immediate‐release (IR) gabapentin in reducing drinking outcomes among individuals with alcohol dependence. The purpose of this study was to conduct a large, multisite clinical trial of gabapentin enacarbil extended‐release (GE‐XR) (HORIZANT®), a gabapentin prodrug formulation, to determine its safety and efficacy in treating alcohol use disorder (AUD). Methods: Men and women (n = 346) who met DSM‐5 criteria for at least moderate AUD were recruited across 10 U.S. clinical sites. Participants received double‐blind GE‐XR (600 mg twice a day) or placebo and a computerized behavioral intervention (Take Control) for 6 months. Efficacy analyses were prespecified for the last 4 weeks of the treatment period. Results: The GE‐XR and placebo groups did not differ significantly on the primary outcome measure, percentage of subjects with no heavy drinking days (28.3 vs. 21.5, respectively, p = 0.157). Similarly, no clinical benefit was found for other drinking measures (percent subjects abstinent, percent days abstinent, percent heavy drinking days, drinks per week, drinks per drinking day), alcohol craving, alcohol‐related consequences, sleep problems, smoking, and depression/anxiety symptoms. Common side‐effects were fatigue, dizziness, and somnolence. A population pharmacokinetics analysis revealed that patients had lower gabapentin exposure levels compared with those in other studies using a similar dose but for other indications. Conclusions: Overall, GE‐XR at 600 mg twice a day did not reduce alcohol consumption or craving in individuals with AUD. It is possible that, unlike the IR formulation of gabapentin, which showed efficacy in smaller Phase 2 trials at a higher dose, GE‐XR is not effective in treating AUD, at least not at doses approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration for treating other medical conditions. Gabapentin enacarbil extended‐release (GE‐XR) (HORIZANT) at 600 mg twice a day did not reduce alcohol consumption or craving in individuals with alcohol use disorder, including the primary outcome – the percentage of subjects with no heavy drinking days (PSNHDD). There was no significant difference between GE‐XR and placebo on PSNHDD across trial months and across the entire maintenance period (Weeks 2 to 25) (all ps > 0.05). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Abstinence and no heavy drinking days are currently the only Food and Drug Administration–approved end points in clinical trials for alcohol use disorder (AUD). Many individuals who fail to meet these criteria may substantially reduce their drinking during treatment, and most individuals with AUD prefer drinking reduction goals. One‐ and two‐level reductions in World Health Organization (WHO) drinking risk levels have been proposed as alternative end points that reflect reduced drinking and are associated with reductions in drinking consequences, improvements in mental health, and reduced risk of developing alcohol dependence. The current study examined the association between WHO drinking risk level reductions and improvements in physical health and quality of life in a sample of individuals with alcohol dependence. Methods: Secondary data analysis of individuals with alcohol dependence (n = 1,142) enrolled in the longitudinal, prospective COMBINE study, a multi site randomized placebo‐controlled clinical trial, examining the association between reductions in WHO drinking risk levels and change in blood pressure, liver enzyme levels, and self‐reported quality of life following treatment for alcohol dependence. Results: One‐ and two‐level reductions in WHO drinking risk level during treatment were associated with significant reductions in systolic blood pressure (p < 0.001), improvements in liver enzyme levels (all p < 0.01), and significantly better quality of life (p < 0.001). Conclusions: One‐ and two‐level reductions in WHO drinking risk levels predicted significant improvements in markers of physical health and quality of life, suggesting that the WHO drinking risk level reduction could be a meaningful surrogate marker of improvements in how a person "feels and functions" following treatment for alcohol dependence. The WHO drinking risk levels could be useful in medical practice for identifying drinking reduction targets that correspond with clinically significant improvements in health and quality of life. At least 1‐ and 2‐level reductions in the World Health Organization (WHO) drinking risk levels by the end of treatment were associated with significant improvements at the end of treatment for physical health and quality of life outcomes. The WHO drinking risk level reductions capture considerable improvement in how patients feel and function in alcohol clinical trials. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background Recently, the Food and Drug Administration ( FDA) proposed to expand the options for primary end points in the development of medications for alcohol use disorder to include either abstinence from alcohol or a nonabstinent outcome: no heavy drinking days (with a heavy drinking day defined as more than 3 drinks per day for women and more than 4 drinks per day for men [>3/>4 cutoff]). The FDA also suggested that 6 months would be the most appropriate length for a clinical trial to demonstrate the stability of this nonabstinent drinking outcome. However, few alcohol clinical trials have examined the stability of nonheavy drinking during and after treatment. Methods In a secondary analysis of the COMBINE study data ( n = 1,383), we examined transitions in heavy drinking days during the course of treatment (months 1 through 4), during the transition out of treatment (months 4 through 7), and up to 12 months afterward (months 13 through 16) using latent variable mixture models. Results Heavy drinking and nonheavy drinking were relatively stable in consecutive months (minimum agreement [kappa] = 0.64 for months 1 to 2). Most individuals were stable low-risk drinkers/abstainers or heavy drinkers by the end of treatment, as characterized by a 10% probability (or less) of transitioning out of either a no heavy drinking state or a heavy drinking state. More than two-thirds of the heavy drinkers who exceeded the heavy drinking threshold during treatment reported, on average, a 64% reduction in drinking frequency and a 38% reduction in drinking intensity from pretreatment drinking levels. Conclusions The results show stability of no heavy drinking as an outcome within the first 4 months of treatment and that the >3/>4 drink cutoff may mask substantial reductions in alcohol consumption among some patients. Future studies should explore the clinical utility of reduction end points. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background Treatment for alcohol use disorders (AUDs) has traditionally been abstinence oriented, but new research and regulatory guidelines suggest that low-risk drinking may also be an acceptable treatment outcome. However, little is known about long-term outcomes for patients who become low-risk drinkers posttreatment. This study explores a posttreatment low-risk drinking outcome as a predictor of future drinking and psychosocial outcomes over 9 years. Methods Study participants were adults with AUDs at treatment entry who received follow-up interviews 6 months posttreatment intake ( N = 1,061) in 2 large randomized studies conducted at Kaiser Permanente Northern California, a large private, nonprofit, integrated health system. Six-month drinking status was defined as abstinent, low-risk (nonabstinent, no 5+ drinking days), or heavy drinking (1 or more days of 5+ drinks). Using logistic regression models, we explored the relationship between past 30-day drinking status at 6 months and odds of being abstinent or a low-risk drinker (compared to heavy drinking), and positive Addiction Severity Index psychosocial outcomes over 9 years (9-year follow-up rate of 73%). Results Abstainers and low-risk drinkers at 6 months had higher odds of recent abstinence/low-risk drinking over 9 years than heavy drinkers; abstainers had better drinking outcomes than low-risk drinkers. Additionally, among those with interview data, 95% of abstainers and 94% of low-risk drinkers at 6 months were abstinent/low-risk drinkers at 9 years; surprisingly, 89% of heavy drinkers at 6 months were also abstinent/low-risk drinkers although still significantly fewer than the other groups. Abstainers and low-risk drinkers at 6 months had better psychiatric outcomes, and abstainers had better family/social outcomes than heavy drinkers; medical outcomes did not differ. Low-risk drinkers and abstainers showed no reliable differences across psychosocial measures. Conclusions The findings suggest that a low-risk drinking outcome may be reasonable over the long-term for some alcohol-dependent individuals receiving addiction treatment. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background Alcoholism is a chronic relapsing disorder with complex behavioral and functional heterogeneity. To date, attempts to characterize subgroups of alcohol-dependent (AD) individuals have largely been focused on categorical distinctions based on behaviors such as ability to abstain, age of onset, and drinking motives, but these have failed to yield predictors of treatment response and disease course. The distinction between AD individuals who are or are not interested in treatment holds significant implications for interpreting results of human laboratory studies with nontreatment seekers and clinical trials with treatment-seeking AD patients. However, despite their crucial role in alcohol-related research, these 2 groups are poorly defined. In this exploratory analysis, we attempt to better define the phenotypic differences between these 2 experimentally relevant populations. Methods We analyzed data from AD individuals who participated in screening protocols to evaluate their suitability for participation in either treatment or nontreatment research studies at NIAAA. Scores on individual measures from a battery of behavioral, neuropsychological, and blood laboratory measures were compared between those who presented seeking treatment for AD and those who were not seeking treatment. Differences in each measure were assessed between the 2 groups. In addition, we explored whether significant differences were apparent when drinking behavior was used as a covariate. Results Treatment seekers manifested more impairment compared to nontreatment seekers on a wide variety of measures in the following categories: alcohol drinking, personality, impulsivity, trauma/stress, cognition, aggression, mood, and liver enzyme tests. Treatment seekers endorsed a greater number of AD criteria. Several measures including elevations in liver enzyme tests remained significantly different between the 2 groups when average daily alcohol consumption per drinking day was used as a covariate. Conclusions Treatment-seeking, compared to nontreatment-seeking AD subjects who present for alcohol-related research studies, differ in characteristics beyond the quantity of alcohol consumption. Implications of these differences with respect to clinical research for treatments of AD are discussed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background Alcohol use disorder (AUD) is a highly prevalent public health problem associated with considerable individual and societal costs. Abstinence from alcohol is the most widely accepted target of treatment for AUD, but it severely limits treatment options and could deter individuals who prefer to reduce their drinking from seeking treatment. Clinical validation of reduced alcohol consumption as the primary outcome of alcohol clinical trials is critical for expanding treatment options. One potentially useful measure of alcohol treatment outcome is a reduction in the World Health Organization (WHO, International Guide for Monitoring Alcohol Consumption and Related Harm. Geneva, Switzerland, 2000) risk levels of alcohol use (very high risk, high risk, moderate risk, and low risk). For example, a 2-shift reduction in WHO risk levels (e.g., high risk to low risk) has been used by the European Medicines Agency (2010, Guideline on the Development of Medicinal Products for the Treatment of Alcohol Dependence. UK) to evaluate nalmefene as a treatment for alcohol dependence (AD; Mann et al. 2013, Biol Psychiatry 73, 706-13). Methods The current study was a secondary data analysis of the COMBINE study ( n = 1,383; Anton et al., ) to examine the association between reductions in WHO risk levels and reductions in alcohol-related consequences and mental health symptoms during and following treatment in patients with AD. Results Any reduction in WHO risk drinking level during treatment was associated with significantly fewer alcohol-related consequences and improved mental health at the end of treatment and for up to 1 year posttreatment. A greater reduction in WHO risk drinking level predicted a greater reduction in consequences and greater improvements in mental health. Conclusions Changes in WHO risk levels appear to be a valid end point for alcohol clinical trials. Based on the current findings, reductions in WHO risk drinking levels during treatment reflect meaningful reductions in alcohol-related consequences and improved functioning. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

For more than 25 years, advances have been made in developing medications to treat alcohol use disorder (AUD), highlighted by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration's approval of naltrexone (oral and long-acting) and acamprosate. Despite this progress, more work remains to be done in this area because these medications, although effective for some people, do not work for everyone. A high priority for the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcohol is to put into place a solid infrastructure to aid in the development of medications that are more effective than those currently available and with few side effects. Medication development, especially for a disorder as complex as AUD, is challenging and involves multiple phases, including discovery of "druggable" targets, preclinical studies, human clinical trials, and the adoption and implementation of the new medication into mainstream medicine. A successful medications development program requires clearly established goals for each phase to ensure that a candidate compound is not trapped in one particular phase, a condition known as "the valley of death." In this article, the phases of medication development are described as they apply to AUD, and specific goals of each phase are identified for the next decade. In addition, several important crosscutting themes are outlined for each phase, all of which are essential for advancing medications development. These include identifying and validating screening models and druggable targets, making use of precision medicine, and establishing partnerships among key stakeholders. Our goal in writing this article is to provide a guide on medications development that will aid the alcohol research community in planning, testing, and developing medications for AUD. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Missing data are common in alcohol clinical trials for both continuous and binary end points. Approaches to handle missing data have been explored for continuous outcomes, yet no studies have compared missing data approaches for binary outcomes (e.g., abstinence, no heavy drinking days). This study compares approaches to modeling binary outcomes with missing data in the COMBINE study. Methods: We included participants in the COMBINE study who had complete drinking data during treatment and who were assigned to active medication or placebo conditions (N = 1,146). Using simulation methods, missing data were introduced under common scenarios with varying sample sizes and amounts of missing data. Logistic regression was used to estimate the effect of naltrexone (vs. placebo) in predicting any drinking and any heavy drinking outcomes at the end of treatment using 4 analytic approaches: complete case analysis (CCA), last observation carried forward (LOCF), the worst case scenario (WCS) of missing equals any drinking or heavy drinking, and multiple imputation (MI). In separate analyses, these approaches were compared when drinking data were manually deleted for those participants who discontinued treatment but continued to provide drinking data. Results: WCS produced the greatest amount of bias in treatment effect estimates. MI usually yielded less biased estimates than WCS and CCA in the simulated data and performed considerably better than LOCF when estimating treatment effects among individuals who discontinued treatment. Conclusions: Missing data can introduce bias in treatment effect estimates in alcohol clinical trials. Researchers should utilize modern missing data methods, including MI, and avoid WCS and CCA when analyzing binary alcohol clinical trial outcomes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

A review of the article "Clinical validation of reduced alcohol consumption after treatment for alcohol dependence using the World Health Organization risk drinking levels" by Witkiewitz K, et al, which appeared in the periodical "Alcoholism: Clinical & Experimental Research" in 2017, is presented.