Search

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]

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]

The article discusses heterogeneity in disorders related to alcohol use and mentions mechanism for personalized treatment. Topics discussed include existence of several typologies of alcohol use disorder (AUD) due to reasons like drinking history, psychiatric co-existence and alcohol dependence, use of behavioral therapies based on specific patient characteristics and psychosocial and biological basis of mental disorders among patients.

Background: Despite advances in developing medications to treat alcohol dependence, few such medications have been approved by the Food and Drug Administration. Identified molecular targets are encouraging and can lead to the development and testing of new compounds. Atypical antipsychotic medications have been explored with varying results. Prior research suggests that the antipsychotic quetiapine may be beneficial in an alcohol-dependent population of very heavy drinkers. Methods: In this double-blind, placebo-controlled trial, 224 alcohol-dependent patients who reported very heavy drinking were recruited across 5 clinical sites. Patients received either quetiapine or placebo and Medical Management behavioral intervention. Patients were stratified on gender, clinical site, and reduction in drinking prior to randomization. Results: No differences between the quetiapine and placebo groups were detected in the primary outcome, percentage heavy-drinking days, or other drinking outcomes. Quetiapine significantly reduced depressive symptoms and improved sleep but had no effect on other nondrinking outcomes. Results from a subgroup analysis suggest that patients who reduced their drinking prior to randomization had significantly better drinking outcomes during the maintenance phase ( p < 0.0001). No significant interactions, however, were observed between reducer status and treatment group. Finally, quetiapine was generally well tolerated. Statistically significant adverse events that were more common with quetiapine versus placebo include dizziness (14 vs. 4%), dry mouth (32 vs. 9%), dyspepsia (13 vs. 2%), increased appetite (11 vs. 1%), sedation (15 vs. 3%), and somnolence (34 vs. 9%). Conclusions: This multisite clinical trial showed no efficacy for quetiapine compared with placebo at reducing alcohol consumption in heavy-drinking alcohol-dependent patients. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]