A preliminary investigation of varenicline for heavy drinking smokers

Alcohol and the dopamine system

The mesolimbic dopamine pathway plays a major role in drug reinforcement and is likely involved also in the development of drug addiction. Ethanol, like most addictive drugs, acutely activates the mesolimbic dopamine system and releases dopamine, and ethanol-associated stimuli also appear to trigger dopamine release. In addition, chronic exposure to ethanol reduces the baseline function of the mesolimbic dopamine system. The molecular mechanisms underlying ethanol´s interaction with this system remain, however, to be unveiled. Here research on the actions of ethanol in the mesolimbic dopamine system, focusing on the involvement of cystein-loop ligand-gated ion channels, opiate receptors, gastric peptides and acetaldehyde is briefly reviewed. In summary, a great complexity as regards ethanol´s mechanism(s) of action along the mesolimbic dopamine system has been revealed. Consequently, several new targets and possibilities for pharmacotherapies for alcohol use disorder have emerged.

Nicotine receptor partial agonists for smoking cessation

Background

Nicotine receptor partial agonists may help people to stop smoking by a combination of maintaining moderate levels of dopamine to counteract withdrawal symptoms (acting as an agonist) and reducing smoking satisfaction (acting as an antagonist). This is an update of a Cochrane Review first published in 2007.

Objectives

To assess the effectiveness of nicotine receptor partial agonists, including varenicline and cytisine, for smoking cessation.

Search methods

We searched the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group's Specialised Register in April 2022 for trials, using relevant terms in the title or abstract, or as keywords. The register is compiled from searches of CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, and PsycINFO. 

Selection criteria

We included randomised controlled trials that compared the treatment drug with placebo, another smoking cessation drug, e‐cigarettes, or no medication. We excluded trials that did not report a minimum follow‐up period of six months from baseline.

Data collection and analysis

We followed standard Cochrane methods. Our main outcome was abstinence from smoking at longest follow‐up using the most rigorous definition of abstinence, preferring biochemically validated rates where reported. We pooled risk ratios (RRs), using the Mantel‐Haenszel fixed‐effect model. We also reported the number of people reporting serious adverse events (SAEs).

Main results

We included 75 trials of 45,049 people; 45 were new for this update. We rated 22 at low risk of bias, 18 at high risk, and 35 at unclear risk.

We found moderate‐certainty evidence (limited by heterogeneity) that cytisine helps more people to quit smoking than placebo (RR 1.30, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.15 to 1.47; I2 = 83%; 4 studies, 4623 participants), and no evidence of a difference in the number reporting SAEs (RR 1.04, 95% CI 0.78 to 1.37; I2 = 0%; 3 studies, 3781 participants; low‐certainty evidence). SAE evidence was limited by imprecision. We found no data on neuropsychiatric or cardiac SAEs.

We found high‐certainty evidence that varenicline helps more people to quit than placebo (RR 2.32, 95% CI 2.15 to 2.51; I2 = 60%, 41 studies, 17,395 participants), and moderate‐certainty evidence that people taking varenicline are more likely to report SAEs than those not taking it (RR 1.23, 95% CI 1.01 to 1.48; I2 = 0%; 26 studies, 14,356 participants). While point estimates suggested increased risk of cardiac SAEs (RR 1.20, 95% CI 0.79 to 1.84; I2 = 0%; 18 studies, 7151 participants; low‐certainty evidence), and decreased risk of neuropsychiatric SAEs (RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.61 to 1.29; I2 = 0%; 22 studies, 7846 participants; low‐certainty evidence), in both cases evidence was limited by imprecision, and confidence intervals were compatible with both benefit and harm.

Pooled results from studies that randomised people to receive cytisine or varenicline found no clear evidence of difference in quit rates (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.79 to 1.26; I2 = 65%; 2 studies, 2131 participants; low‐certainty evidence) and reported SAEs (RR 0.67, 95% CI 0.44 to 1.03; I2 = 45%; 2 studies, 2017 participants; low‐certainty evidence). However, the evidence was limited by imprecision, and confidence intervals incorporated the potential for benefit from either cytisine or varenicline. We found no data on neuropsychiatric or cardiac SAEs.

We found high‐certainty evidence that varenicline helps more people to quit than bupropion (RR 1.36, 95% CI 1.25 to 1.49; I2 = 0%; 9 studies, 7560 participants), and no clear evidence of difference in rates of SAEs (RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.61 to 1.31; I2 = 0%; 5 studies, 5317 participants), neuropsychiatric SAEs (RR 1.05, 95% CI 0.16 to 7.04; I2 = 10%; 2 studies, 866 participants), or cardiac SAEs (RR 3.17, 95% CI 0.33 to 30.18; I2 = 0%; 2 studies, 866 participants). Evidence of harms was of low certainty, limited by imprecision.

We found high‐certainty evidence that varenicline helps more people to quit than a single form of nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) (RR 1.25, 95% CI 1.14 to 1.37; I2 = 28%; 11 studies, 7572 participants), and low‐certainty evidence, limited by imprecision, of fewer reported SAEs (RR 0.70, 95% CI 0.50 to 0.99; I2 = 24%; 6 studies, 6535 participants). We found no data on neuropsychiatric or cardiac SAEs.

We found no clear evidence of a difference in quit rates between varenicline and dual‐form NRT (RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.87 to 1.20; I2 = 0%; 5 studies, 2344 participants; low‐certainty evidence, downgraded because of imprecision). While pooled point estimates suggested increased risk of SAEs (RR 2.15, 95% CI 0.49 to 9.46; I2 = 0%; 4 studies, 1852 participants) and neuropsychiatric SAEs (RR 4.69, 95% CI 0.23 to 96.50; I2 not estimable as events only in 1 study; 2 studies, 764 participants), and reduced risk of cardiac SAEs (RR 0.32, 95% CI 0.01 to 7.88; I2 not estimable as events only in 1 study; 2 studies, 819 participants), in all three cases evidence was of low certainty and confidence intervals were very wide, encompassing both substantial harm and benefit.

Authors' conclusions

Cytisine and varenicline both help more people to quit smoking than placebo or no medication. Varenicline is more effective at helping people to quit smoking than bupropion, or a single form of NRT, and may be as or more effective than dual‐form NRT. People taking varenicline are probably more likely to experience SAEs than those not taking it, and while there may be increased risk of cardiac SAEs and decreased risk of neuropsychiatric SAEs, evidence was compatible with both benefit and harm. Cytisine may lead to fewer people reporting SAEs than varenicline. Based on studies that directly compared cytisine and varenicline, there may be no difference or a benefit from either medication for quitting smoking.

Future trials should test the effectiveness and safety of cytisine compared with varenicline and other pharmacotherapies, and should also test variations in dose and duration. There is limited benefit to be gained from more trials testing the effect of standard‐dose varenicline compared with placebo for smoking cessation. Further trials on varenicline should test variations in dose and duration, and compare varenicline with e‐cigarettes for smoking cessation.

Can medications like varenicline and cytisine (nicotine receptor partial agonists) help people to stop smoking and do they cause unwanted effects?

Key messages

· Varenicline can help people to stop smoking for at least 6 months. Evidence shows it works better than bupropion and using only one type of nicotine replacement therapy (e.g. only patches). Quit rates might be similar to using more than one type of nicotine replacement therapy at the same time (e.g. patches and gum together).

· Cytisine can help people to stop smoking for at least 6 months. It may work as well as varenicline, but future evidence may show that while it helps, it is not quite as helpful as varenicline.

· Future studies should test the effectiveness and safety of cytisine compared with varenicline and other stop‐smoking medications, and should also  investigate giving cytisine or varenicline at different doses and for different lengths of time.

What are 'nicotine receptor partial agonists'?

Smoking tobacco is extremely bad for people’s health. For people who smoke, quitting is the best thing they can do to improve their health. Many people find it difficult to quit smoking. Nicotine receptor partial agonists (NRPAs) are a type of medication used to help people to stop smoking. They help to reduce the withdrawal symptoms people experience when they stop smoking, like cravings and unpleasant mood changes. They also reduce the pleasure people usually experience when they smoke. The most widely‐available treatment in this drug type is varenicline. Cytisine is another, similar medication. They may cause unwanted effects such as feeling sick (nausea) and other stomach problems, difficulties sleeping, abnormal dreams, and headache. They may also lead to potentially serious unwanted effects, such as suicidal thoughts, heart problems and raised blood pressure.

What did we want to find out?

We wanted to find out if using NRPAs can help people to quit smoking, and if they cause unwanted effects. We wanted to know:

· how many people stopped smoking for at least 6 months; and

· how many people had unwanted effects.

What did we do?

We searched for studies that investigated NRPAs used to help people quit smoking. People in the studies had to be chosen at random to receive an NRPA, or another NRPA, placebo (medication like the NRPA but with no active ingredients) or no treatment. They had to be adult tobacco smokers who wanted to stop smoking.

What did we find?

We found 75 studies that compared NRPAs with:

· placebo or no medicine;

· nicotine replacement therapy, such as patches or gum;

· bupropion (another medicine to help people stop smoking);

· another NRPA;

· e‐cigarettes.

The USA hosted the most studies (28 studies). Other studies took place in a range of countries across the world, some in several countries.

Main results

People are more likely to stop smoking for at least six months using varenicline than using placebo (41 studies, 17,395 people), bupropion (9 studies, 7560 people), or just one type of nicotine replacement therapy, like patches alone (11 studies, 7572 people). They may be just as likely to quit as people using two or more kinds of nicotine replacement therapy, like patches and gum together (5 studies, 2344 people).

Cytisine probably helps more people to stop smoking than placebo (4 studies, 4623 people) and may be just as effective as varenicline (2 studies, 2131 people).

For every 100 people using varenicline to stop smoking, 21 to 25 might successfully stop, compared with only 18 of 100 people using bupropion, 18 of 100 people using a single form of nicotine‐replacement therapy, and 20 of 100 using two or more kinds of nicotine‐replacement therapy. For every 100 people using cytisine to stop smoking, 18 to 23 might successfully stop.

The most common unwanted effect of varenicline is nausea, but this is mostly at mild or moderate levels and usually clears over time. People taking varenicline likely have an increased chance of a more serious unwanted effect that could result in going to hospital, however these are still rare (2.7% to 4% of people on varenicline, compared with 2.7% of people without) and may include many that are unrelated to varenicline. People taking cytisine may also have a slightly increased chance of serious unwanted effects compared with people not taking it, but this may be less likely compared with varenicline.

What are the limitations of the evidence?

The evidence for some of our results is very reliable. We’re very confident that varenicline helps people to quit smoking better than many alternatives. We’re less sure of some other results because fewer or smaller studies provided evidence.

Several results suggest one treatment is better or less harmful than another, but the opposite could still be true.

How up to date is the evidence?

The evidence is up to date to 29 April 2022.

Nicotine receptor partial agonists for smoking cessation

BACKGROUND

Nicotine receptor partial agonists may help people to stop smoking by a combination of maintaining moderate levels of dopamine to counteract withdrawal symptoms (acting as an agonist) and reducing smoking satisfaction (acting as an antagonist). This is an update of a Cochrane Review first published in 2007.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effectiveness of nicotine receptor partial agonists, including varenicline and cytisine, for smoking cessation.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group's Specialised Register in April 2022 for trials, using relevant terms in the title or abstract, or as keywords. The register is compiled from searches of CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, and PsycINFO.  SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials that compared the treatment drug with placebo, another smoking cessation drug, e-cigarettes, or no medication. We excluded trials that did not report a minimum follow-up period of six months from baseline.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We followed standard Cochrane methods. Our main outcome was abstinence from smoking at longest follow-up using the most rigorous definition of abstinence, preferring biochemically validated rates where reported. We pooled risk ratios (RRs), using the Mantel-Haenszel fixed-effect model. We also reported the number of people reporting serious adverse events (SAEs).

MAIN RESULTS

We included 75 trials of 45,049 people; 45 were new for this update. We rated 22 at low risk of bias, 18 at high risk, and 35 at unclear risk. We found moderate-certainty evidence (limited by heterogeneity) that cytisine helps more people to quit smoking than placebo (RR 1.30, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.15 to 1.47; I² = 83%; 4 studies, 4623 participants), and no evidence of a difference in the number reporting SAEs (RR 1.04, 95% CI 0.78 to 1.37; I² = 0%; 3 studies, 3781 participants; low-certainty evidence). SAE evidence was limited by imprecision. We found no data on neuropsychiatric or cardiac SAEs. We found high-certainty evidence that varenicline helps more people to quit than placebo (RR 2.32, 95% CI 2.15 to 2.51; I² = 60%, 41 studies, 17,395 participants), and moderate-certainty evidence that people taking varenicline are more likely to report SAEs than those not taking it (RR 1.23, 95% CI 1.01 to 1.48; I² = 0%; 26 studies, 14,356 participants). While point estimates suggested increased risk of cardiac SAEs (RR 1.20, 95% CI 0.79 to 1.84; I² = 0%; 18 studies, 7151 participants; low-certainty evidence), and decreased risk of neuropsychiatric SAEs (RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.61 to 1.29; I² = 0%; 22 studies, 7846 participants; low-certainty evidence), in both cases evidence was limited by imprecision, and confidence intervals were compatible with both benefit and harm. Pooled results from studies that randomised people to receive cytisine or varenicline showed that more people in the varenicline arm quit smoking (RR 0.83, 95% CI 0.66 to 1.05; I² = 0%; 2 studies, 2131 participants; moderate-certainty evidence) and reported SAEs (RR 0.67, 95% CI 0.44 to 1.03; I² = 45%; 2 studies, 2017 participants; low-certainty evidence). However, the evidence was limited by imprecision, and confidence intervals incorporated the potential for benefit from either cytisine or varenicline. We found no data on neuropsychiatric or cardiac SAEs. We found high-certainty evidence that varenicline helps more people to quit than bupropion (RR 1.36, 95% CI 1.25 to 1.49; I² = 0%; 9 studies, 7560 participants), and no clear evidence of difference in rates of SAEs (RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.61 to 1.31; I² = 0%; 5 studies, 5317 participants), neuropsychiatric SAEs (RR 1.05, 95% CI 0.16 to 7.04; I² = 10%; 2 studies, 866 participants), or cardiac SAEs (RR 3.17, 95% CI 0.33 to 30.18; I² = 0%; 2 studies, 866 participants). Evidence of harms was of low certainty, limited by imprecision. We found high-certainty evidence that varenicline helps more people to quit than a single form of nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) (RR 1.25, 95% CI 1.14 to 1.37; I² = 28%; 11 studies, 7572 participants), and low-certainty evidence, limited by imprecision, of fewer reported SAEs (RR 0.70, 95% CI 0.50 to 0.99; I² = 24%; 6 studies, 6535 participants). We found no data on neuropsychiatric or cardiac SAEs. We found no clear evidence of a difference in quit rates between varenicline and dual-form NRT (RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.87 to 1.20; I² = 0%; 5 studies, 2344 participants; low-certainty evidence, downgraded because of imprecision). While pooled point estimates suggested increased risk of SAEs (RR 2.15, 95% CI 0.49 to 9.46; I² = 0%; 4 studies, 1852 participants) and neuropsychiatric SAEs (RR 4.69, 95% CI 0.23 to 96.50; I² not estimable as events only in 1 study; 2 studies, 764 participants), and reduced risk of cardiac SAEs (RR 0.32, 95% CI 0.01 to 7.88; I² not estimable as events only in 1 study; 2 studies, 819 participants), in all three cases evidence was of low certainty and confidence intervals were very wide, encompassing both substantial harm and benefit.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Cytisine and varenicline both help more people to quit smoking than placebo or no medication. Varenicline is more effective at helping people to quit smoking than bupropion, or a single form of NRT, and may be as or more effective than dual-form NRT. People taking varenicline are probably more likely to experience SAEs than those not taking it, and while there may be increased risk of cardiac SAEs and decreased risk of neuropsychiatric SAEs, evidence was compatible with both benefit and harm. Cytisine may lead to fewer people reporting SAEs than varenicline. Based on studies that directly compared cytisine and varenicline, there may be a benefit from varenicline for quitting smoking, however further evidence could strengthen this finding or demonstrate a benefit from cytisine. Future trials should test the effectiveness and safety of cytisine compared with varenicline and other pharmacotherapies, and should also test variations in dose and duration. There is limited benefit to be gained from more trials testing the effect of standard-dose varenicline compared with placebo for smoking cessation. Further trials on varenicline should test variations in dose and duration, and compare varenicline with e-cigarettes for smoking cessation.

Efficacy of Varenicline in the Treatment of Alcohol Dependence: An Updated Meta-Analysis and Meta-Regression

BACKGROUND

Although varenicline has been used for alcohol dependence (AD) treatment, its efficacy for this condition remains controversial.

AIMS

This systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) assesses the efficacy and safety of varenicline in patients with AD.

METHODS

PubMed, Cochrane Library, ScienceDirect, Web of Science, and ThaiLis were systematically searched. RCTs investigating the efficacy and safety of varenicline in patients with AD were included. Study selection, data extraction, and quality assessment were independently performed by two authors. The Jadad score and Cochrane risk of bias were used to assess the quality of the included studies. Heterogeneity was assessed using I² and chi-squared tests.

RESULTS

Twenty-two high-quality RCTs on 1421 participants were included. Varenicline significantly reduced alcohol-related outcomes compared with placebo based on percentage of abstinent days (standardized mean difference [SMD] 4.20 days; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.21, 8.19; p = 0.04), drinks per day (SMD -0.23 drinks; 95% CI: -0.43, -0.04; p = 0.02), drinks per drinking day (SMD -0.24 drinks; 95% CI: -0.44, -0.05; p = 0.01), craving assessed using the Penn alcohol craving scale (SMD -0.35; 95% CI: -0.59, -0.12; p = 0.003), and craving assessed using the alcohol urge questionnaire (SMD -1.41; 95% CI: -2.12, -0.71; p < 0.0001). However, there were no significant effects on abstinence rate, percentage of drinking days, percentage of heavy drinking days, alcohol intoxication, or drug compliance. Serious side effects were not observed in the varenicline or placebo groups.

CONCLUSION

Our results indicated that AD patients treated with varenicline showed improvement in percentage of very heavy drinking days, percentage of abstinent days, drinks per day, drinks per drinking day, and craving. However, well-designed RCTs with a large sample size and long duration on varenicline treatment in AD remain warranted to confirm our findings.

Off-label and investigational drugs in the treatment of alcohol use disorder: A critical review

Compounds known to be successful in the treatment of alcohol use disorder include the aversive agent, Disulfiram, the glutamatergic NMDA receptor antagonist, Acamprosate, and the opioid receptor antagonists, Naltrexone and Nalmefene. Although all four are effective in maintaining abstinence or reduction of alcohol consumption, only a small percentage of patients receive pharmacological treatment. In addition, many other medications have been investigated for their therapeutic potential in the treatment of alcohol use disorder. In this review we summarize and compare Baclofen, Gabapentin, Topiramate, Ondansetron, Varenicline, Aripiprazole, Quetiapine, Clozapine, Antidepressants, Lithium, Neuropeptide Y, Neuropeptide S, Corticotropin-releasing factor antagonists, Oxytocin, PF-05190457, Memantine, Ifenprodil, Samidorphan, Ondelopran, ABT-436, SSR149415, Mifepristone, Ibudilast, Citicoline, Rimonabant, Surinabant, AM4113 and Gamma-hydroxybutyrate While some have shown promising results in the treatment of alcohol use disorder, others have disappointed and should be excluded from further investigation. Here we discuss the most promising results and highlight medications that deserve further preclinical or clinical study. Effective, patient-tailored treatment will require greater understanding provided by many more preclinical and clinical studies.

Varenicline as a treatment for cannabis use disorder: A placebo-controlled pilot trial

BACKGROUND

An efficacious pharmacotherapy for cannabis use disorder (CUD) has yet to be established. This study preliminarily evaluated the safety and efficacy of varenicline for CUD in a proof-of-concept clinical trial.

METHODS

Participants in this 6-week randomized, placebo-controlled pilot trial received either varenicline (n = 35) or placebo (n = 37), added to a brief motivational enhancement therapy intervention. Outcomes included cannabis withdrawal, cannabis abstinence, urine cannabinoid levels, percent cannabis use days, and cannabis sessions per day.

RESULTS

Both treatment groups noted significant decreases in self-reported cannabis withdrawal, percentage of days used, and use sessions per day during treatment compared to baseline. While this pilot trial was not powered to detect statistically significant between-group differences, participants randomized to varenicline evidenced numerically greater rates of self-reported abstinence at the final study visit [Week 6 intent-to-treat (ITT): Varenicline: 17.1% vs. Placebo: 5.4%; RR = 3.2 (95% CI: 0.7,14.7)]. End-of-treatment urine creatinine corrected cannabinoid levels were numerically lower in the varenicline group and higher in the placebo group compared to baseline [Change from baseline: Varenicline -1.7 ng/mg (95% CI: -4.1,0.8) vs. Placebo: 1.9 ng/mg (95% CI: -0.4,4.3); Δ = 3.5 (95% CI: 0.1,6.9)]. Adverse events related to study treatment did not reveal new safety signals.

CONCLUSIONS

Findings support the feasibility of conducting clinical trials of varenicline as a candidate pharmacotherapy for CUD, and indicate that a full-scale efficacy trial, powered based on effect sizes and variability yielded in this study, is warranted.

Rate and correlates of tobacco treatment during a primary care visit for a largely urban and African American sample of smokers

Introduction

Evidence-based treatments for tobacco use are under-utilized and primary care visits may be an opportune time to address this gap. This study examined the rate at which primary care visits included tobacco use treatment and examined patient demographics, smoking characteristics, attitudes about tobacco use treatments, and comorbidities as correlates of treatment provision.

Methods

This prospective study assessed demographics, smoking characteristics, attitudes about tobacco use treatments, and comorbidities via interview prior to a primary care visit among 105 patients. One week following the appointment, 85 patients were reassessed for the tobacco use treatments they received during their appointment (i.e., asked about their tobacco use, advised to quit, and provided with a referral to a tobacco use treatment program or an FDA-approved tobacco use medication).

Results

93% of patients were asked about their tobacco use, 74% were advised to quit, 37% were provided with a referral for tobacco use treatment, and 27% received an FDA-approved medication (16% NRT, 11% varenicline or bupropion). Patients with higher quit motivation and who endorsed that medications can reduce cravings were more likely to report receiving tobacco use medication. Patients with a self-reported substance abuse history were less likely to report receiving tobacco use medications.

Conclusions

The provision of tobacco use medications within primary care remains low. Strategies to increase patient quit motivation and help patients understand that tobacco use medications can mitigate cravings may increase use. Strategies may also be needed to ensure that patients with comorbid substance abuse still receive tobacco use treatments.

Smoking cessation medicines and e-cigarettes: a systematic review, network meta-analysis and cost-effectiveness analysis

BACKGROUND

Cigarette smoking is one of the leading causes of early death. Varenicline [Champix (UK), Pfizer Europe MA EEIG, Brussels, Belgium; or Chantix (USA), Pfizer Inc., Mission, KS, USA], bupropion (Zyban; GlaxoSmithKline, Brentford, UK) and nicotine replacement therapy are licensed aids for quitting smoking in the UK. Although not licensed, e-cigarettes may also be used in English smoking cessation services. Concerns have been raised about the safety of these medicines and e-cigarettes.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the clinical effectiveness, safety and cost-effectiveness of smoking cessation medicines and e-cigarettes.

DESIGN

Systematic reviews, network meta-analyses and cost-effectiveness analysis informed by the network meta-analysis results.

SETTING

Primary care practices, hospitals, clinics, universities, workplaces, nursing or residential homes.

PARTICIPANTS

Smokers aged ≥ 18 years of all ethnicities using UK-licensed smoking cessation therapies and/or e-cigarettes.

INTERVENTIONS

Varenicline, bupropion and nicotine replacement therapy as monotherapies and in combination treatments at standard, low or high dose, combination nicotine replacement therapy and e-cigarette monotherapies.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Effectiveness - continuous or sustained abstinence. Safety - serious adverse events, major adverse cardiovascular events and major adverse neuropsychiatric events.

DATA SOURCES

Ten databases, reference lists of relevant research articles and previous reviews. Searches were performed from inception until 16 March 2017 and updated on 19 February 2019.

REVIEW METHODS

Three reviewers screened the search results. Data were extracted and risk of bias was assessed by one reviewer and checked by the other reviewers. Network meta-analyses were conducted for effectiveness and safety outcomes. Cost-effectiveness was evaluated using an amended version of the Benefits of Smoking Cessation on Outcomes model.

RESULTS

Most monotherapies and combination treatments were more effective than placebo at achieving sustained abstinence. Varenicline standard plus nicotine replacement therapy standard (odds ratio 5.75, 95% credible interval 2.27 to 14.90) was ranked first for sustained abstinence, followed by e-cigarette low (odds ratio 3.22, 95% credible interval 0.97 to 12.60), although these estimates have high uncertainty. We found effect modification for counselling and dependence, with a higher proportion of smokers who received counselling achieving sustained abstinence than those who did not receive counselling, and higher odds of sustained abstinence among participants with higher average dependence scores. We found that bupropion standard increased odds of serious adverse events compared with placebo (odds ratio 1.27, 95% credible interval 1.04 to 1.58). There were no differences between interventions in terms of major adverse cardiovascular events. There was evidence of increased odds of major adverse neuropsychiatric events for smokers randomised to varenicline standard compared with those randomised to bupropion standard (odds ratio 1.43, 95% credible interval 1.02 to 2.09). There was a high level of uncertainty about the most cost-effective intervention, although all were cost-effective compared with nicotine replacement therapy low at the £20,000 per quality-adjusted life-year threshold. E-cigarette low appeared to be most cost-effective in the base case, followed by varenicline standard plus nicotine replacement therapy standard. When the impact of major adverse neuropsychiatric events was excluded, varenicline standard plus nicotine replacement therapy standard was most cost-effective, followed by varenicline low plus nicotine replacement therapy standard. When limited to licensed interventions in the UK, nicotine replacement therapy standard was most cost-effective, followed by varenicline standard.

LIMITATIONS

Comparisons between active interventions were informed almost exclusively by indirect evidence. Findings were imprecise because of the small numbers of adverse events identified.

CONCLUSIONS

Combined therapies of medicines are among the most clinically effective, safe and cost-effective treatment options for smokers. Although the combined therapy of nicotine replacement therapy and varenicline at standard doses was the most effective treatment, this is currently unlicensed for use in the UK.

FUTURE WORK

Researchers should examine the use of these treatments alongside counselling and continue investigating the long-term effectiveness and safety of e-cigarettes for smoking cessation compared with active interventions such as nicotine replacement therapy.

STUDY REGISTRATION

This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42016041302.

FUNDING

This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 25, No. 59. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Alcohol use disorder severity moderates clinical response to varenicline

BACKGROUND

In a multisite clinical trial, varenicline was effective in reducing drinking in both smoking and non-smoking patients with alcohol dependence. Because alcohol use disorder (AUD) is heterogeneous, research aimed at characterizing features associated with treatment response could advance personalized pharmacotherapy. The current study examined the utility of a multidimensional assessment of AUD severity to identify responders to varenicline treatment.

METHODS

The study utilized data from a 13-week, Phase 2, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, multisite trial of varenicline in 200 alcohol-dependent patients. Four hypothesized measures of AUD severity (i.e., DSM-IV criterion count, withdrawal, craving, and alcohol-related consequences) were combined into a single severity factor. A series of multilevel models that included the severity factor were conducted to examine its effects on treatment outcomes.

RESULTS

All hypothesized indices of AUD severity loaded significantly onto a singular severity factor. Among low-severity groups, varenicline treatment significantly reduced drinking (i.e., percent heavy drinking days, drinks per day, and drinks per drinking day) and, in the lowest severity group, it improved the mental health component of quality of life more than placebo. The most severe group showed no differences between the varenicline and placebo groups on drinking or quality of life measures.

CONCLUSIONS

Treatment response to varenicline may be greater among individuals with less-severe AUD, as evidenced by both reductions in drinking outcomes and improvements in psychosocial functioning.

Efficacy of Combining Varenicline and Naltrexone for Smoking Cessation and Drinking Reduction: A Randomized Clinical Trial

OBJECTIVE

Pharmacological treatments that can concomitantly address cigarette smoking and heavy drinking stand to improve health care delivery for these highly prevalent co-occurring conditions. This superiority trial compared the combination of varenicline and naltrexone against varenicline alone for smoking cessation and drinking reduction among heavy-drinking smokers.

METHODS

This was a phase 2 randomized double-blind clinical trial. Participants (N=165) who were daily smokers and drank heavily received either 2 mg/day of varenicline plus 50 mg/day of naltrexone or 2 mg/day of varenicline plus matched placebo pills for 12 weeks. Primary outcomes were 7-day point prevalence of nicotine abstinence (bioverified by a breath CO reading ≤5 ppm) at the 26-week follow-up and number of drinks per drinking day during the 12-week treatment phase.

RESULTS

Smoking abstinence at week 26 was significantly higher in the varenicline plus placebo condition than in the varenicline plus naltrexone condition (N=37 [45.1%] compared with N=22 [26.5%]). For drinks per drinking day, there was a medication effect favoring the combination of varenicline and naltrexone over varenicline alone across the 12-week treatment phase, although it did not meet the significance threshold.

CONCLUSIONS

These findings suggest that smoking cessation and drinking reduction can be concomitantly targeted with pharmacotherapy and that while varenicline alone may be sufficient as a smoking cessation aid in heavy-drinking smokers, the combination of varenicline and naltrexone may confer benefits with regard to drinking outcomes, particularly during the 12-week period of active medication treatment.

The impact of three weeks of pre-quit varenicline on reinforcing value and craving for cigarettes in a laboratory choice procedure

RATIONALE

Varenicline, a partial nicotinic agonist, is theorized to attenuate pre-quit smoking reinforcement and post-quit withdrawal and craving. However, the mechanisms of action have not been fully characterized, as most studies employ only retrospective self-report measures, hypothetical indices of reinforcing value, and/or nontreatment-seeking samples.

OBJECTIVES

The current research examined the impact of pre-quit varenicline (vs. placebo) on laboratory measures of smoking and food (vs. water) reinforcement and craving.

METHODS

Participants were 162 treatment-seeking smokers enrolled in a randomized controlled trial of smoking cessation ( clinicaltrials.gov ID: NCT03262662). Participants completed two laboratory sessions: a pre-treatment session, ~ 1 week prior to beginning varenicline or placebo, and an active treatment session, after ~ 3 weeks of treatment. At each session, participants completed a laboratory choice procedure; on each of 36 trials, a lit cigarette, food item, or cup of water was randomly presented. Participants reported level of craving and spent $0.01-0.25 to have a corresponding 5-95% chance to sample the cue.

RESULTS

As predicted, spending was significantly higher on cigarette trials than water trials, and varenicline resulted in a greater between-session decline in spending on cigarette trials (but not water) than did placebo. Cigarette craving was enhanced in the presence of smoking cues compared to water, but neither average (tonic) cigarette craving nor cue-specific cigarette craving was significantly influenced by varenicline. Food spending and craving were generally unaffected by varenicline treatment.

CONCLUSIONS

These laboratory data from treatment-seeking smokers provide the strongest evidence to date that varenicline selectively attenuates smoking reinforcement prior to quitting.

An integrated behavioural intervention combined with varenicline for heavy-drinking smokers: a randomized pilot study

Objectives

Combined smoking and heavy drinking is a significant health burden. Varenicline, an efficacious tobacco pharmacotherapy that also shows promise for drinking, has yielded mixed results among heavy-drinking smokers. This pilot study investigated integrated tobacco and alcohol counselling plus varenicline for this vulnerable group.

Design

Twelve-week parallel, randomized controlled pilot trial of two behavioural interventions in combination with open-label varenicline. Participants were randomized using computer-generated tables, stratified by sex.

Setting

Outpatient academic medical centre research clinic.

Participants

Volunteers who reported smoking and heavy drinking and sought tobacco or alcohol treatment (N = 26). Intervention. (1) Integrated tobacco + alcohol counselling (INT; n = 13) or (2) counselling focused on their presenting concern (i.e., tobacco or alcohol) (SINGLE; n = 13), plus varenicline (2 mg) for 12 weeks.

Main outcomes

Feasibility/acceptability, smoking quit rates and heavy drinking.

Results

INT feasibility/acceptability was high among men but not women. More participants quit smoking in INT than SINGLE. This outcome was only in men, not significant, but had a medium effect size. Both conditions yielded significant drinking reductions.

Conclusion

Integrated tobacco and alcohol behavioural counselling plus varenicline may be feasible and promote smoking cessation among men who smoke and drink heavily, but a larger sample is needed to replicate this finding.

Safety and Efficacy of Varenicline for Smoking Cessation in Alcohol-Dependent Smokers in Concurrent Treatment for Alcohol Use Disorder: A Pilot, Randomized Placebo-Controlled Trial

BACKGROUND

Smoking prevalence among those with alcohol dependence is much higher than the general population. Despite this, cessation treatment in those with concurrent alcohol dependence is seldom undertaken. We conducted a randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind pilot study, whereby patients enrolled at an addiction treatment facility in downtown Toronto, Canada, were recruited and assigned to placebo or varenicline treatment for 12 weeks. We hypothesized that varenicline would be a safe and efficacious treatment for tobacco dependence in this population.

METHODS

Daily dependent smokers in treatment for alcohol dependence and interested in participating in the study were first screened over the phone and then assessed in-person. If eligible, they were randomly assigned to placebo or varenicline in a double-blind fashion. They attended weekly appointments for smoking cessation counseling and completed daily diaries for the full 12 weeks of treatment.

RESULTS

Thirty-one subjects were randomized to either varenicline (n = 16) or placebo treatment (n = 15). Participants were predominantly male (73.3%) with a mean age of 44.6 (23-66). Only one subject in the placebo group was quit by end of treatment (7-day point prevalence abstinence), compared with 7 in the varenicline group (χ(1) = 5.56, P = 0.037). Both groups had a significant decline in cigarettes per day (CPD) by end of treatment (varenicline = 22.1 ± 13.3 to 2.0 ± 3.0 CPD, t(10) = 4.45, P = 0.001; placebo: 14.9 ± 4.4 to 5.3 ± 6.3 CPD, t(13) = 3.61, P = 0.003).

CONCLUSIONS

The results from this pilot study indicate that varenicline is a safe and effective treatment for tobacco dependence in a sample of alcohol-dependent smokers undergoing concurrent treatment for alcohol use disorder.

Cannabis and Alcohol Co-Use in a Smoking Cessation Pharmacotherapy Trial for Adolescents and Emerging Adults

INTRODUCTION

The co-use of cannabis and alcohol among tobacco-using youth is common. Alcohol co-use is associated with worse tobacco cessation outcomes, but results are mixed regarding the impact of cannabis on tobacco outcomes and if co-use leads to increased use of non-treated substances. This secondary analysis from a youth smoking cessation trial aimed to (1) evaluate the impact of cannabis or alcohol co-use on smoking cessation, (2) examine changes in co-use during the trial, and (3) explore secondary effects of varenicline on co-use.

METHODS

The parent study was a 12-week, randomized clinical trial of varenicline for smoking cessation among youth (ages 14-21, N = 157; Mage = 19, 40% female; 76% White). Daily cigarette, cannabis, and alcohol use data were collected via daily diaries during treatment and Timeline Follow-back for 14 weeks post-treatment.

RESULTS

Baseline cannabis co-users (68%) had double the odds of continued cigarette smoking throughout the trial compared with noncannabis users, which was pronounced in males and frequent cannabis users. Continued smoking during treatment was associated with higher probability of concurrent cannabis use. Baseline alcohol co-users (80%) did not have worse smoking outcomes compared with nonalcohol users, but continued smoking was associated with higher probability of concurrent drinking. Varenicline did not affect co-use.

CONCLUSIONS

Inconsistent with prior literature, results showed that alcohol co-users did not differ in smoking cessation, whereas cannabis co-users had poorer cessation outcomes. Youth tobacco treatment would benefit from added focus on substance co-use, particularly cannabis, but may need to be tailored appropriately to promote cessation.

IMPLICATIONS

Among youth cigarette smokers enrolled in a pharmacotherapy evaluation clinical trial, alcohol and/or cannabis co-use was prevalent. The co-use of cannabis affected smoking cessation outcomes, but more so for males and frequent cannabis users, whereas alcohol co-use did not affect smoking cessation. Reductions in smoking were accompanied by concurrent reductions in alcohol or cannabis use. Substance co-use does not appear to affect all youth smokers in the same manner and treatment strategies may need to be tailored appropriately for those with lower odds of smoking cessation.

A novel human laboratory model for screening medications for alcohol use disorder

Background

Alcohol use disorder (AUD) is a highly prevalent, chronic relapsing disorder with a high disease burden in the USA. Pharmacotherapy is a promising treatment method for AUD; however, the few FDA-approved medications are only modestly effective. Medications development for AUD is a high priority research area, but the cumbersome drug development process hinders many potential compounds from reaching approval. One area with major opportunities for improvement is the process of screening novel compounds for initial efficacy, also known as early phase 2 trials. Early phase 2 trials incorporate human laboratory paradigms to assess relevant clinical constructs, such as craving and subjective responses to alcohol. However, these controlled paradigms often lack the ecological validity of clinical trials. Therefore, early phase 2 trials can be more efficient and clinically meaningful if they combine the internal validity of experimental laboratory testing with the external validity of clinical trials. To that end, the current study aims to develop and validate a novel early efficacy paradigm, informed by smoking cessation literature, to screen novel medications for AUD. As an established AUD medication, naltrexone will serve as an active control to test both the practice quit attempt model and the efficacy of a promising AUD pharmacotherapy, varenicline.

Methods

Individuals with current AUD reporting intrinsic motivation to change their drinking will complete a week-long “practice quit attempt” while on study medication. Participants are randomized and blinded to either naltrexone, varenicline, or placebo. During the practice quit attempt, participants will complete daily visits over the phone and fill out online questionnaires regarding their drinking, alcohol craving, and mood. Additionally, participants will undergo two alcohol cue-reactivity sessions.

Discussion

The successful completion of this study will advance medications development by proposing and validating a novel early efficacy model for screening AUD pharmacotherapies, which in turn can serve as an efficient strategy for making go/no-go decisions as to whether to proceed with clinical trials.

Trial registration

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04249882. Registered on 31 January 2020.

Design of a randomized controlled trial of smoking cessation medications for alcohol reduction among HIV-positive heavy drinkers and daily smokers in St. Petersburg, Russia

BACKGROUND

HIV, heavy drinking, and smoking are all pro-inflammatory and increase risk for coronary heart disease (CHD). Interventions that reduce alcohol use, smoking, or both in HIV-positive people could lower inflammation, CHD and death risk. Varenicline and cytisine are proven therapies for smoking cessation and may also reduce alcohol consumption. The comparative efficacy of varenicline and cytisine to reduce alcohol consumption has not been tested, nor has their comparative effectiveness been reported for smoking.

OBJECTIVE

This paper describes the protocol of the Studying Partial agonists for Ethanol and Tobacco Elimination in Russians with HIV (St PETER HIV), a four-arm parallel-group randomized controlled trial comparing effects of varenicline, cytisine, and nicotine replacement therapy (NRT).

METHODS

The study is recruiting four hundred HIV-positive heavy drinking smokers interested in cutting down on alcohol and/or tobacco in St. Petersburg, Russia. Participants are randomly assigned to receive either active varenicline + NRT placebo, varenicline placebo + active NRT, active cytisine + NRT placebo, cytisine placebo + active NRT. All participants receive evidence-based counseling for alcohol and tobacco use, one active medication, and one placebo. Outcomes are: 1) % heavy drinking days in the past month (primary study outcome at three months) and alcohol craving; 2) cigarettes per day (primary smoking outcome at 3 months) and 7-day point prevalence abstinence and; 3) inflammation, CHD risk, and mortality risk.

CONCLUSION

St PETER HIV addresses the paucity of randomized controlled trial data to guide treatment of alcohol consumption and smoking in HIV-positive heavy drinking smokers.

The role of nicotinic acetylcholine receptors in alcohol-related behaviors

Alcohol use disorder (AUD) causes an alarming economic and health burden in the United States. Unfortunately, this disease does not exist in isolation; AUD is highly comorbid with nicotine use. Results from both human and animal models demonstrate a genetic correlation between alcohol and nicotine behaviors. These data support the idea of shared genetic and neural mechanisms underlying these behaviors. Nicotine acts directly at nicotinic acetylcholine receptors (nAChR) to have its pharmacological effect. Interestingly, alcohol also acts both directly and indirectly at these receptors. Research utilizing genetically engineered rodents and pharmacological manipulations suggest a role for nAChR in several ethanol behaviors. The current manuscript collates this literature and discusses findings that implicate specific nAChR subunits in ethanol phenotypes. These data suggest future directions for targeting nAChR as novel therapeutics for AUD.

Effects of Alcohol Cue Reactivity on Subsequent Treatment Outcomes Among Treatment-Seeking Individuals with Alcohol Use Disorder: A Multisite Randomized, Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled Clinical Trial of Varenicline

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.

Searching for Personalized Medicine for Binge Drinking Smokers: Smoking Cessation Using Varenicline, Nicotine Patch, or Combination Nicotine Replacement Therapy

OBJECTIVE

Heavy drinking is common among smokers and is associated with especially poor health outcomes. Varenicline may affect mechanisms and clinical outcomes that are relevant for both smoking cessation and alcohol use. The current study examines whether varenicline, relative to nicotine replacement therapy, yields better smoking cessation outcomes among binge drinking smokers.

METHOD

Secondary data analyses of a comparative effectiveness randomized controlled trial of three smoking cessation pharmacotherapies (12 weeks of varenicline, nicotine patch, or nicotine patch and lozenge) paired with six counseling sessions were conducted. Adult daily cigarette smokers (N = 1,078, 52% female) reported patterns of alcohol use, cigarette craving, and alcohol-related cigarette craving at baseline and over 4 weeks after quitting. Smoking cessation outcome was 7-day biochemically confirmed point-prevalence abstinence.

RESULTS

Binge drinkers had higher relapse rates than moderate drinkers at 4-week post-target quit day but not at the end of treatment or long-term follow up (12 and 26 weeks). Varenicline did not yield superior smoking cessation outcomes among binge drinkers, nor did it affect alcohol use early in the quit attempt. Varenicline did produce relatively large reductions in alcohol-related cigarette craving and overall cigarette craving during the first 4 weeks after quitting.

CONCLUSIONS

Varenicline did not yield higher smoking abstinence rates or reduce alcohol use among binge drinkers. Varenicline did reduce alcohol-related cigarette craving but this did not translate to meaningful differences in smoking abstinence. Varenicline's effects on smoking abstinence do not appear to vary significantly as a function of drinking status.

Efficacy of Varenicline in Patients With Severe Alcohol Dependence: A Pilot Double-Blind Randomized and Controlled Study

PURPOSE/BACKGROUND

Varenicline has proven its efficacy in the treatment of nicotine dependence, and there is also evidence that it could be helpful in the treatment of alcohol dependence. In our pilot study, we investigated the feasibility and acceptability of varenicline for the treatment of a population of patients with severe alcohol dependence and multiple somatic comorbidities after alcohol detoxification.

METHODS/PROCEDURES

We conducted a phase II, double-blind, placebo-controlled randomized trial of daily oral varenicline versus a placebo in alcohol-dependent men and women after alcohol detoxification (n = 28). Following our study protocol, somatic conditions and adverse events were thoroughly monitored and several study end points were investigated (percentage of abstinent days for both alcohol and nicotine, number of standardized drinks and cigarettes per day, days of heavy drinking).

FINDINGS/RESULTS

Compared with the placebo, varenicline did not have more side effects and did not provoke more adverse events. Patients in the varenicline group did not show a significantly higher percentage of alcohol abstinent days or fewer heavy drinking days. A trend significance was found for a reduced number of standard drinks per day (P = 0.06) in the varenicline group.

IMPLICATIONS/CONCLUSIONS

In this pilot trial, varenicline was shown to be well tolerated by our study population of severely alcohol-dependent patients with somatic conditions. Varenicline did not sustain alcohol abstinence or reduce the number of heavy drinking days, but it did reduce the daily amount of alcohol consumed.

Efficacy and acceptability of varenicline for alcoholism: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized-controlled trials

BACKGROUND

Current pharmacological treatment for alcoholism remains unsatisfactory. While there have been several clinical trials investigating the efficacy and safety of the therapeutic use of varenicline in alcoholism, no definitive review of this topic has been carried out. This systematic review aimed to determine the efficacy and acceptability of the use of varenicline in treating alcoholism.

METHODS

This systematic review included double-blinded, randomized, placebo-controlled trials reporting heavy drinking days, amount of alcohol consumption, overall dropouts, or dropouts due to adverse events. We searched PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, ClinicalTrials.gov, and the Cochrane Library in January 2019. We independently selected the trials and assessed the quality of included studies. We calculated standardized mean differences on heavy drinking days and the amount of alcohol consumption. We calculated the relative risks for dropout rate. All data were pooled using random-effects models.

RESULT

This systematic review included nine double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trials (N = 585). The study duration ranged from 4 to 13 weeks. Varenicline therapy was not superior to placebo in decreasing heavy drinking days but significantly superior to placebo in decreasing alcohol consumption. There were no statistically significant differences between groups on dropout rates due to any reason or due to adverse events.

CONCLUSION

Varenicline therapy is effective in decreasing alcohol consumption over a period of time. It may be an option for decreasing heavy drinking days in patients with alcoholism. It is a well-accepted medication for alcoholism. More studies are needed to determine if varenicline is effective in decreasing heavy drinking.

Effects of Varenicline Alone and in Combination With Low-dose Naltrexone on Alcohol-primed Smoking in Heavy-drinking Tobacco Users: A Preliminary Laboratory Study

OBJECTIVES

Heavy-drinking tobacco users are less likely to successfully quit smoking than their moderate-drinking counterparts, even when they are prescribed smoking cessation medication. One strategy for improving treatment outcomes in this subgroup of tobacco users may be to combine medication therapies to target both alcohol and tobacco use simultaneously. Adding naltrexone to frontline smoking cessation treatments may improve treatment outcomes in this group.

METHOD

This double-blind, placebo-controlled human laboratory study examined the effects of varenicline (2 mg/d) and varenicline (2 mg/d), combined with a low dose of naltrexone (25 mg/d) on alcohol-primed smoking behavior in a laboratory model of smoking relapse in heavy-drinking tobacco users (n = 30). Participants attended a laboratory session and received an alcohol challenge (target breath alcohol concentration = 0.030 g/dL). They completed a smoking delay task that assessed their ability to resist smoking followed by an ad libitum smoking phase (primary outcomes). They also provided ratings of subjective drug effects and craving, and carbon monoxide levels were measured after smoking (secondary outcomes).

RESULTS

Participants receiving varenicline monotherapy delayed smoking longer and smoked fewer cigarettes than those on placebo. Participants receiving varenicline + low-dose naltrexone did not delay smoking longer than those receiving varenicline alone. Participants in both active medication arms smoked fewer cigarettes ad libitum than those receiving placebo.

CONCLUSIONS

Varenicline can improve smoking outcomes even after an alcohol prime, supporting its use in heavy drinkers who wish to quit smoking. Findings did not support increased efficacy of combined varenicline + low-dose naltrexone relative to varenicline monotherapy.

Rats choose high doses of nicotine in order to compensate for changes in its price and availability

Restricting when and where smoking can occur is a major focus of public health policies in Western countries. In conjunction with increased taxation, these approaches have contributed to a reduction in smoking uptake among adolescents, yet the consequences for established smokers are less clear. In order to further explore this relationship, we developed a novel animal model of restricted nicotine self-administration. Rats were trained to choose between three doses of nicotine (15, 30 and 60 μg/kg/infusion) under conditions where nicotine was (1) freely available at a low cost (20-second post-infusion time-out, fixed-ratio 1 [FR1]), (2) available under restricted access at a low cost (300-second post-infusion time-out, FR1), or (3) freely available at a high cost (20-second post-infusion time-out, FR5). We demonstrate that as access to nicotine is restricted or when cost increases, rats compensate for these changes by increasing their intake of the highest dose of nicotine available. This preference was impervious to treatment with the smoking cessation medication varenicline, but was reduced when the cost of the highest dose only was increased, or when nicotine was again made freely available at a low cost. These results provide the first evidence in rats that nicotine availability and cost influence nicotine choice independently of variations in nicotine and context exposure. They imply that established smokers may compensate for changes in the availability and cost of tobacco by increasing their rate of smoking when they are free to do so.

Alcohol, tobacco, and marijuana consumption is associated with increased odds of same-day substance co- and tri-use

BACKGROUND

Little is known about event-level patterns of marijuana co- or tri-use with alcohol and tobacco. Thus, the study goal was to examine patterns of same-day alcohol, cigarette, and marijuana co- and tri-use at the individual level in non-treatment-seeking alcohol users.

METHODS

Participants (N = 551) completed an in-person interview for alcohol, cigarette, and marijuana use over the previous 30 days, and the event-level substance use patterns of n = 179 participants who reported using each of these substances at least once per month were analyzed.

RESULTS

The use of alcohol, marijuana, or cigarettes independently increased the probability of subsequent, simultaneous co-use of one of the two remaining substances. The co-use of alcohol with cigarettes and marijuana with cigarettes produced generally additive effects on the odds of same day tri-use of marijuana and alcohol, respectively. Conversely, the co-use of alcohol and marijuana produced sub-additive effects on likelihood of cigarette use. Sex moderated several of the observed patterns of co- and tri-use: the relationship between alcohol or cigarette use predicting marijuana co-use was stronger in men, whereas the observed additive relationships between drug co-use leading to tri-use was stronger in women.

CONCLUSIONS

The presented results may aid in the understanding of how simultaneous co-use of marijuana with alcohol and/or tobacco relates to the etiology, maintenance, and treatment of comorbid and trimorbid substance use disorder. Replication and extension of the results in treatment seeking populations using more fine-grained analysis approaches, e.g. ecological momentary assessment, is needed.

Longitudinal Findings from a Randomized Clinical Trial of Varenicline for Alcohol Use Disorder with Comorbid Cigarette Smoking

BACKGROUND

This study is the first to examine longitudinal posttreatment outcomes of a placebo-controlled trial of varenicline for alcohol use disorder (AUD) with comorbid cigarette smoking.

METHODS

Participants were 131 adults (n = 39 female) seeking alcohol treatment in a randomized, double-blind, parallel group, placebo-controlled, 16-week multisite trial of varenicline combined with medical management (MM). Timeline follow-back assessments of alcohol and smoking behavior were conducted at the end of treatment (4 months), with follow-ups at 6, 9, and 12 months. Outcomes were percentage of heavy drinking days (PHDD), percent of participants with no heavy drinking days (NHDD), cotinine-confirmed prolonged smoking abstinence (PA), and good clinical outcome on either NHDD or PA.

RESULTS

Treatment improvements were maintained posttreatment. For the sample overall, PHDD or NHDD did not differ significantly by treatment condition (ps > 0.13), but varenicline produced higher rates of PA versus placebo at 4, 9, and 12 months (p < 0.05). Significant differences were observed by sex: Males had higher rates of NHDD with varenicline (28.9%) versus placebo (6.4%) at the end of treatment (p = 0.004), and these effects were maintained at 12 months (varenicline: 40.0% vs. placebo: 19.2%, p = 0.03). Higher rates of PA were seen for varenicline in both males (8.9%) and females (21.1%) versus placebo (males/females: 0%) at the end of treatment (p = 0.05), and this effect was maintained at 12 months for females (varenicline: 21.1% vs. placebo, 0.0%, p = 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

Varenicline treatment combined with MM appears to have enduring benefits for patients with co-occurring AUD and cigarette smoking, and these effects may differ by sex.

Medication Development for Alcohol Use Disorder: A Focus on Clinical Studies

Compared to other medical disorders, including other brain diseases, the number of medications approved for alcohol use disorder (AUD) is very small. Disulfiram, naltrexone (oral and long-acting), and acamprosate are approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to treat patients with AUD. These medications are also approved in other countries, including in Europe, where the European Medicines Agency (EMA) also approved nalmefene for AUD. Furthermore, baclofen was recently approved for AUD in France. These approved medications have small effect sizes, which are probably the consequence of the fact that they only work for some patients, yet a personalized approach to match the right medication with the right patient is still in its infancy. Therefore, research is needed to expand the armamentarium of medications that clinicians can use to treat their patients, as well as to better develop personalized approaches. This book chapter reviews other medications, beyond those approved by the FDA, that have shown efficacy in clinical trials, as well as medications which are still in the early stages of evaluation in human studies.

Overcoming the "Valley of Death" in Medications Development for Alcohol Use Disorder

As the development of novel pharmacotherapies for alcohol use disorder (AUD) has been slow, the discovery and testing of more efficacious pharmacotherapies for AUD represent a high priority research area. In fact, the transition from preclinical to clinical testing of novel compounds has been termed the "valley of death" in medications development. One key obstacle consists of the lack of an articulated set of goals for each stage of medications development. Specifically, the knowledge outputs required to make the transition from safety testing, to early efficacy detection, to confirming clinical efficacy remain unclear, and this is despite a great deal of interest and substantial financial investment in developing novel therapeutics for AUD. This qualitative critical review seeks to draw parallels and lessons from the well-established stage model for behavioral therapies research with alcohol and other substance use disorders and to apply these insights into AUD pharmacotherapy development. We argue that human laboratory models and/or pilot randomized controlled trials should serve as intermediaries in the transition from preclinical studies to large, and costly, randomized controlled efficacy trials. The relative strengths and weaknesses of pilot clinical trials versus human laboratory studies for bridging the "valley of death" are discussed and explored via a Monte Carlo data simulation study. Multiple permutations of suitable research designs informed by the behavioral therapies development model are discussed with the overall goal of promoting consilience and maximizing efficiency across all phases of clinical testing of novel AUD pharmacotherapies.

Muscarinic M5 receptors modulate ethanol seeking in rats

Despite the cost to both individual and society, alcohol use disorders (AUDs) remain a major health risk within society, and both relapse and heavy drinking are still poorly controlled with current medications. Here we demonstrate for the first time that a centrally active and selective negative allosteric modulator for the rat M₅ muscarinic acetylcholine receptor (mAChR), ML375, decreases ethanol self-administration and attenuates cue-induced reinstatement of ethanol seeking in ethanol-preferring (iP) rats. Importantly, ML375 did not affect sucrose self-administration or general locomotor activity indicative of a selective effect on ethanol seeking. Based on the expression profile of M₅ mAChRs in the brain and the distinct roles different aspects of the dorsal striatum have on long-term and short-term ethanol use, we studied whether intra-striatal microinjection of ML375 modulated ethanol intake in rats. We show in iP rats with an extensive history of ethanol intake that intra-dorsolateral (DL), but not intra-dorsomedial, striatal injections of ML375 reduced ethanol self-administration to a similar extent as the nicotinic acetylcholine receptor ligand varenicline, which has preclinical and clinical efficacy in reducing the reinforcing effects of ethanol. These data implicate the DL striatum as a locus for the effects of cholinergic-acting drugs on ethanol seeking in rats with a history of long-term ethanol use. Accordingly, we demonstrate in rats that selectively targeting the M₅ mAChR can modulate both voluntary ethanol intake and cue-induced ethanol seeking and thereby provide direct evidence that the M₅ mAChR is a potential novel target for pharmacotherapies aimed at treating AUDs.

Medications for alcohol use disorders: An overview

Patients who suffer from alcohol use disorders (AUDs) usually go through various socio-behavioral and pathophysiological changes that take place in the brain and other organs. Recently, consumption of unhealthy food and excess alcohol along with a sedentary lifestyle has become a norm in both developed and developing countries. Despite the beneficial effects of moderate alcohol consumption, chronic and/or excessive alcohol intake is reported to negatively affect the brain, liver and other organs, resulting in cell death, organ damage/failure and death. The most effective therapy for alcoholism and alcohol related comorbidities is alcohol abstinence, however, chronic alcoholic patients cannot stop drinking alcohol. Therefore, targeted therapies are urgently needed to treat such populations. Patients who suffer from alcoholism and/or alcohol abuse experience harmful effects and changes that occur in the brain and other organs. Upon stopping alcohol consumption, alcoholic patients experience acute withdrawal symptoms followed by a protracted abstinence syndrome resulting in the risk of relapse to heavy drinking. For the past few decades, several drugs have been available for the treatment of AUDs. These drugs include medications to reduce or stop severe alcohol withdrawal symptoms during alcohol detoxification as well as recovery medications to reduce alcohol craving and support abstinence. However, there is no drug that completely antagonizes the adverse effects of excessive amounts of alcohol. This review summarizes the drugs which are available and approved by the FDA and their mechanisms of action as well as the medications that are under various phases of preclinical and clinical trials. In addition, the repurposing of the FDA approved drugs, such as anticonvulsants, antipsychotics, antidepressants and other medications, to prevent alcoholism and treat AUDs and their potential target mechanisms are summarized.

Nicotinic acetylcholine receptor (CHRN) expression and function in cultured human adult fungiform (HBO) taste cells

In rodents, CHRNs are involved in bitter taste transduction of nicotine and ethanol. Currently, it is not clear if CHRNs are expressed in human taste cells and if they play a role in transducing the bitter taste of nicotine and ethanol or in the synthesis and release of neurohumoral peptides. Accordingly, we investigated the expression and functional role of CHRNs in HBO cells. Using molecular techniques, we demonstrate that a subset of HBO cells express CHRNs that also co-express TRPM5, T1R3 or T2R38. Exposing HBO cells to nicotine or ethanol acutely or to nicotine chronically induced a differential increase in the expression of CHRN mRNA and protein in a dose- and time-dependent manner. Acutely exposing HBO cells to a mixture containing nicotine plus ethanol induced a smaller increase in CHRN mRNAs relative to nicotine or ethanol treatment alone. A subset of HBO cells responded to nicotine, acetylcholine and ATP with a transient increase in [Ca2+]i. Nicotine effects on [Ca2+]i were mecamylamine sensitive. Brain-derived neurotrophic factor (BDNF) protein was detected in HBO cells using ELISA. Acute nicotine exposure decreased BDNF in HBO cells and increased BDNF release in the medium. CHRNs were also detected in HEK293 cells by RT-PCR. Unlike HBO cells, CHRNs were localized in most of HEK293 cells and majority of HEK293 cells responded to nicotine and ethanol stimulation with a transient increase in [Ca2+]i. BDNF levels in HEK293 cells were significantly higher than in HBO cells but the nicotine induced release of BDNF in the media was a fraction of the BDNF cellular content. We conclude that CHRNs are expressed in TRPM5 positive HBO cells. CHRN mRNA expression is modulated by exposure to nicotine and ethanol in a dose- and time-dependent manner. Nicotine induces the synthesis and release of BDNF in HBO cells.

Varenicline for tobacco-dependence treatment in alcohol-dependent smokers: A randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Tobacco use is prevalent among persons with alcohol abuse and dependence. Varenicline has been shown to be the most effective pharmacotherapy for smoking cessation and may decrease alcohol consumption. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of 12 weeks of varenicline for increasing smoking abstinence rates in smokers with alcohol abuse or dependence.

METHODS

Participants were eligible for enrollment if they were 18 years or older, smoked 10 or more cigarettes per day for at least 6 months, had current alcohol abuse or dependence, and were interested in quitting smoking. Participants were randomly assigned to receive 12 weeks of varenicline 1 mg twice daily or matching placebo. The primary end point was 7-day point prevalence smoking abstinence at week 12.

RESULTS

The 7-day point prevalence smoking abstinence rate at 12 weeks was significantly higher with varenicline (n = 16) than placebo (n = 17) (43.8% vs 5.9%; P = .01). At 24 weeks, the 7-day point prevalence smoking abstinence rate was still significantly higher with varenicline than placebo (31.3% vs 0%; P = .02). At 12 weeks, mean (SD) drinks per drinking day was significantly lower with varenicline than placebo (5.7 [3.9] vs 9.0 [5.3] drinks; treatment effect estimate, -2.8 [90% CI, -6.6 to -1.0]). Adverse events were minor and comparable to varenicline clinical trials.

CONCLUSIONS

Varenicline is safe and efficacious for increasing smoking abstinence rates in smokers with alcohol abuse or dependence. Varenicline may decrease alcohol consumption in this population of smokers.

Effects of varenicline on cognitive performance in heavy drinkers: Dose-response effects and associations with drinking outcomes

Varenicline reduces drinking in people with alcohol use disorder, but little is known about the mechanisms underlying this effect. Varenicline targets α4β2 and α7 nicotinic acetylcholine receptors, which are associated with several cognitive functions such as working memory. Varenicline may improve drinking outcomes by enhancing cognitive functioning. The current manuscript reports on cognitive outcomes from a placebo-controlled, double-blind human laboratory experiment examining the effects of varenicline on drinking behavior (Verplaetse et al., 2016a). Participants were 55 adult heavy drinkers who met criteria for an alcohol use disorder. They were randomized to receive varenicline (1 mg/day, 2 mg/day) or placebo. They completed a baseline assessment of cognitive functioning (i.e., digits backward task, continuous performance task) before starting medication. After a medication titration period, they attended a laboratory session (post medication Day 8) where they completed the cognitive assessment battery and an alcohol-primed ad libitum drinking task. Blood was collected to measure plasma varenicline levels. Varenicline produced dose-dependent improvements in working memory. Although there was no significant effect of oral varenicline dose on response time on the continuous performance task, participants with higher levels of plasma varenicline showed greater improvement of reaction time (RT). Among participants receiving 2 mg/day varenicline, larger improvements in working memory were associated less drinking, although mediation analyses did not find a significant indirect effect. These findings suggest that varenicline can improve working memory above baseline levels in heavy drinkers. Varenicline may reduce rates of alcohol use by improving working memory. (PsycINFO Database Record

Effect of Varenicline Combined With Medical Management on Alcohol Use Disorder With Comorbid Cigarette Smoking: A Randomized Clinical Trial

IMPORTANCE

Individuals with alcohol use disorder have high rates of cigarette smoking. Varenicline tartrate, an approved treatment for smoking cessation, may reduce both drinking and smoking.

OBJECTIVES

To test the efficacy of varenicline with medical management for patients with alcohol use disorder and comorbid smoking seeking alcohol treatment, and to evaluate the secondary effects on smoking abstinence.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

This phase 2, randomized, double-blind, parallel group, placebo-controlled trial was conducted at 2 outpatient clinics from September 19, 2012, to August 31, 2015. Eligible participants met alcohol-dependence criteria and reported heavy drinking (≥5 drinks for men and ≥4 drinks for women) 2 or more times per week and smoking 2 or more times per week; 131 participants were randomized to either varenicline or placebo stratified by sex and site. All analyses were of the intention-to-treat type. Data analysis was conducted from February 5, 2016, to September 29, 2017.

INTERVENTIONS

Varenicline tartrate, 1 mg twice daily, and matching placebo pills for 16 weeks. Medical management emphasized medication adherence for 4 weeks followed by support for changing drinking.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

Percentage of heavy drinking days (PHDD) weeks 9 to 16, no heavy drinking days (NHDD) weeks 9 to 16, and prolonged smoking abstinence weeks 13 to 16.

RESULTS

Of 131 participants, 39 (29.8%) were women and 92 (70.2%) were men, the mean (SD) age was 42.7 (11.7) years, and the race/ethnicity self-identified by most respondents was black (69 [52.7%]). Sixty-four participants were randomized to receive varenicline, and 67 to receive placebo. Mean change in PHDD between varenicline and placebo across sex and site was not significantly different. However, a significant treatment by sex by time interaction for PHDD (F1,106 = 4.66; P = .03) revealed that varenicline compared with placebo resulted in a larger decrease in log-transformed PHDD in men (least square [LS] mean difference in change from baseline, 0.54; 95% CI, -0.09 to 1.18; P = .09; Cohen d = 0.45) but a smaller decrease in women (LS mean difference, -0.69; 95% CI, -1.63 to 0.25; P = .15; Cohen d = -0.53). Thirteen of 45 men (29%) had NHDD taking varenicline compared with 3 of 47 men (6%) taking placebo (Cohen h = 0.64; 95% CI, 0.22-1.03), whereas 1 of 19 women (5%) had NHDD compared with 5 of 20 women (25%) taking placebo (Cohen h = -0.60; 95% CI, -1.21 to 0.04). Taking varenicline, 8 of 64 participants (13%) achieved prolonged smoking abstinence; no one (0 of 67) quit smoking taking placebo (P = .003; Cohen h = 0.72; 95% CI, 0.38-1.07).

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

Varenicline with medical management resulted in decreased heavy drinking among men and increased smoking abstinence in the overall sample. Varenicline could be considered to promote improvements in men with these dual behavioral health risks.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT01553136.

Advances in Pharmacotherapy Development: Human Clinical Studies

For more than 25 years, researchers have made advances in developing medications to treat alcohol use disorder (AUD), highlighted by the US Food and Drug Administration's (FDA's) approval of disulfiram, naltrexone (oral and long-acting), and acamprosate. These medications are also approved in Europe, where the European Medicines Agency (EMA) recently added a fourth medication, nalmefene, for AUD. Despite these advances, today's medications have a small effect size, showing efficacy for only a limited number of individuals with AUD. However, a host of new medications, which act on variety of pharmacologic targets, are in the pipeline and have been evaluated in numerous human studies. This article reviews the efficacy and safety of medications currently being tested in human trials and looks at ongoing efforts to identify candidate compounds in human studies. As mentioned in the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism's Strategic Plan 2017-2021 ( https://www.niaaa.nih.gov/sites/default/files/StrategicPlan_NIAAA_optimized_2017-2020.pdf ), medications development remains a high priority. By developing more effective and safe medications, and identifying those patients who will benefit the most from these treatments, we can provide clinicians with the tools they need to treat this devastating disorder, providing relief for patients and their families and markedly improving public health and safety.

Mecamylamine treatment for alcohol dependence: a randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

The nicotinic acetylcholine receptor antagonist, mecamylamine, is a potential novel pharmacotherapy for alcohol use disorder. The aims were to compare alcohol consumption between mecamylamine and placebo and test if smoking status modified treatment effects.

DESIGN

Out-patient, randomized, double-blind clinical trial for 12 weeks of treatment with mecamylamine (10 mg) (n = 65) versus placebo (n = 63).

SETTING

Connecticut, USA.

PARTICIPANTS

Individuals had current alcohol dependence (n = 128), had an average age of 48.5 [standard deviation (SD) = 9.4], 110 (85.9%) were men, and included 74 smokers (57.8%) and 54 non-smokers (42.2%). Participants were randomized to mecamylamine 10 mg per day or placebo. All subjects also received medical management therapy administered by trained research personnel.

MEASUREMENTS

Primary outcome was percentage of heavy drinking days during the last month of treatment; other outcomes included drinking days, drinks per drinking days, alcohol craving, smoking, symptoms of nicotine withdrawal and side effects.

FINDINGS

There were no significant differences in the percentage of heavy drinking days at 3 months between the mecamylamine (mean = 18.4, SD = 29.0) and placebo treatment groups (mean = 20.4, SD = 29.2) [F1, 100  = 1.3, P = 0.25; effect size d = 0.07; mean difference = 2.06, 95% confidence interval (CI) = -8.96 to 13.08]. There were no significant differences in percentage of drinking days or in drinks per drinking day at month 3 between the mecamylamine and placebo groups; there were no significant interactions.

CONCLUSIONS

Mecamylamine 10 mg per day did not reduce alcohol consumption significantly in treatment-seeking smokers and non-smokers with alcohol use disorder.

The Corticotropin Releasing Factor Receptor 1 in Alcohol Use Disorder: Still a Valid Drug Target?

Corticotropin releasing factor (CRF) is a neuropeptide that plays a key role in behavioral and physiological responses to stress. A large body of animal literature implicates CRF acting at type 1 CRF receptors (CRFR1) in consumption by alcohol-dependent subjects, stress-induced reinstatement of alcohol seeking, and possibly binge alcohol consumption. These studies have encouraged recent pilot studies of CRFR1 antagonists in humans with alcohol use disorder (AUD). It was a great disappointment to many in the field that these studies failed to show an effect of these compounds on stress-induced alcohol craving. Here, we examine these studies to explore potential limitations and discuss preclinical and human literature to ask whether CRFR1 is still a valid drug target to pursue for the treatment of AUD.

Effects of varenicline on alcohol cue reactivity in heavy drinkers

RATIONALE

Clinical trials and human laboratory studies have established that varenicline can reduce rates of alcohol use among heavy drinkers. Less is known about the mechanisms by which varenicline has this effect on drinking behavior. Reactivity to alcohol cues is often cited as the primary cause of relapse among those being treated for alcohol use disorder, and several front-line treatments for alcohol use disorder work, at least in part, by minimizing cue-induced alcohol craving.

OBJECTIVE

The current double-blind, placebo-controlled human laboratory study tested the effects of varenicline on alcohol cue reactivity in a group of heavy-drinking adult smokers and nonsmokers.

METHODS

As part of a larger series of sequential human laboratory experiments testing the effects of varenicline on drinking outcomes, participants were assigned (between-participant) to receive either active varenicline (2 mg/day) or placebo. Following a titration period, participants (n = 77) attended a laboratory session during which they were exposed to alcohol and neutral cues using a standard cue reactivity paradigm.

RESULTS

Alcohol cue exposure increased craving for alcohol in both medication groups. However, participants receiving varenicline showed a smaller increase in alcohol craving compared to participants receiving placebo. The medication effect did not differ between smokers and nonsmokers. Among smokers, alcohol cue exposure also increased tobacco craving. Varenicline did not attenuate this effect.

CONCLUSIONS

Results support the use of varenicline for reducing alcohol use in heavy drinkers and identify a potential mechanism by which varenicline reduces drinking. Varenicline continues to show promise as a pharmacological treatment for alcohol use disorder.

Varenicline Reduces Alcohol Intake During Repeated Cycles of Alcohol Reaccess Following Deprivation in Alcohol-Preferring (P) Rats

BACKGROUND

Most alcoholics experience periods of voluntary alcohol abstinence or imposed alcohol deprivation followed by a return to alcohol drinking. This study examined whether varenicline (VAR) reduces alcohol intake during a return to drinking after periods of alcohol deprivation in rats selectively bred for high alcohol drinking (the alcohol preferring or "P" rats).

METHODS

Alcohol-experienced P rats were given 24-hour access to food and water and scheduled access to alcohol (15% and 30% v/v) for 2 h/d. After 4 weeks, rats were deprived of alcohol for 2 weeks, followed by reaccess to alcohol for 2 weeks, and this pattern was repeated for a total of 3 cycles. Rats were fed either vehicle (VEH) or VAR, in doses of 0.5, 1.0, or 2.0 mg/kg BW, at 1 hour prior to onset of the daily alcohol reaccess period for the first 5 days of each of the 3 alcohol reaccess cycles.

RESULTS

Low-dose VAR (0.5 mg/kg BW) reduced alcohol intake during the 5 days of drug treatment in alcohol reaccess cycles 1 and 2. Higher doses of VAR (1.0 mg/kg BW and 2.0 mg/kg BW) reduced alcohol intake during the 5 days of treatment in all 3 alcohol reaccess cycles. The decrease in alcohol intake disappeared with termination of VAR treatment in all alcohol reaccess cycles.

CONCLUSIONS

The results demonstrate that VAR decreases alcohol intake during multiple cycles of alcohol reaccess following alcohol deprivation in rats and suggests that it may prevent a return to heavy alcohol drinking during a lapse from alcohol abstinence in humans with alcohol use disorder.

Varenicline modulates ethanol and saccharin consumption in adolescent male and female C57BL/6J mice

Adolescence is a critical period in brain development that coincides with the initiation of alcohol use. Nicotinic acetylcholine receptors (nAChR) have been shown to modulate ethanol behaviors in adult humans and in animal models; however, the role of these receptors in adolescent ethanol behaviors has not been explored. Throughout adolescence, nAChR expression undergoes large-scale developmental changes which may alter behavioral responses to ethanol. Here we examined the effect of varenicline, a nAChR partial agonist, on ethanol consumption, ataxia, sedation, and metabolism in adolescent male and female C57BL/6J mice. The effect of varenicline on ethanol consumption was tested through the Drinking-in-the-Dark (DID) paradigm that models binge-like ethanol consumption. To ensure that results were specific for ethanol, we also tested the effect of varenicline on saccharin consumption. Additionally, varenicline was administered 30min prior to an acute injection of ethanol before being tested for ataxia on the balance beam, sedation using the loss of righting reflex, or ethanol metabolism. Varenicline dose dependently decreased ethanol consumption, but also influenced saccharin intake. Varenicline showed no significant effect on ethanol metabolism, ataxia, or sedation. Unlike its effects in adult animals, varenicline is able to reduce ethanol consumption without increasing the ataxic and sedative effects of ethanol. This work suggests that the neurobiological mechanisms of ethanol behaviors may change across the lifespan and highlights the need for more research on the role of nAChRs in ethanol behaviors throughout development.

Effects of varenicline versus transdermal nicotine replacement therapy on cigarette demand on quit day in individuals with substance use disorders

RATIONALE

Cigarette demand is a behavioral economic measure of the relative value of cigarettes. Decreasing the value of cigarette reinforcement may help with quitting smoking.

OBJECTIVES

This study aimed to evaluate the effects of initial use of varenicline (VAR) versus nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) on demand for cigarettes on quit day among smokers with substance use disorders (SUD) and to determine whether reduced demand was associated with subsequent abstinence from smoking at 1 and 3 months.

METHODS

Participants (N = 110) were randomized to double-blind, double-placebo conditions: VAR with placebo NRT or NRT with placebo capsules. The cigarette purchase task (CPT) was used to assess demand for cigarettes at baseline and on quit day, following a 1-week medication dose run-up/placebo capsule lead-in and first day use of the patch.

RESULTS

Demand for cigarettes decreased from baseline to quit day without significant differences between medications. Reductions in CPT intensity (number of cigarettes that would be smoked if they were free) and CPT breakpoint (lowest price at which no cigarettes would be purchased) predicted greater likelihood of abstaining on quit day. Reduced intensity predicted length of abstinence at 1 and 3 months while reduced breakpoint predicted only 1 month length of abstinence.

CONCLUSIONS

Initial therapeutic doses of VAR and NRT resulted in similar reductions in cigarette reinforcement. Larger initial reductions in demand on quit day were associated with early success with abstaining from cigarettes. Behavioral economic approaches may be useful for identifying individuals who benefit less from pharmacotherapy and may need additional treatment resources.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT00756275.

Effects of varenicline on alcohol self-administration and craving in drinkers with depressive symptoms

Varenicline (VAR) is approved to aid in smoking cessation and has been shown to be effective for reducing alcohol consumption in heavy drinkers. Little is known, however, about treatment moderators that may influence efficacy. The current study reanalyzed data from a human laboratory study (Verplaetse et al., 2016) to determine whether VAR was more effective at reducing alcohol use among drinkers reporting symptoms of depression. Participants were 60 adults meeting DSM-IV criteria for alcohol use disorders ( n = 60) who were randomly assigned to receive VAR (1 mg/day, 2 mg/day) or placebo. Following 7 days of medication pretreatment, participants attended a laboratory testing session. They provided self-reported ratings of alcohol craving and performed an ad libitum alcohol consumption task after receiving a priming dose of alcohol (target blood alcohol concentration = 0.030 g/dL). Higher blood VAR plasma levels were associated with less alcohol craving and less drinking among participants with more depressive symptoms. Among participants with fewer depressive symptoms, VAR was associated with more drinking during the ad libitum drinking task. These findings show that depression symptoms may be a moderator of VAR efficacy in alcohol users and provides evidence for the role of nAChRs in depression and alcohol use.

The clinical utility of the Medication Adherence Questionnaire (MAQ) in an alcohol pharmacotherapy trial

BACKGROUND

Medication nonadherence is a ubiquitous problem in pharmacology treatment for alcohol use disorders. Unintentional and purposeful nonadherence as measured by the Medication Adherence Questionnaire (MAQ) has been shown to predict problems with medication adherence; however, feedback from the MAQ has never been incorporated into a behavioral intervention to facilitate medication adherence. We assessed the integration of the MAQ into medical management (MM), a counseling approach frequently employed in conjunction with alcohol pharmacotherapy, to determine whether prior patterns of nonadherence could be addressed effectively to promote medication adherence.

METHODS

We conducted a post-hoc analysis of data from 131 alcohol dependent smokers who participated in a double blind, placebo controlled study of varenicline for the treatment of alcohol dependence. At baseline, participants completed a single administration of the MAQ, which asks 2 questions about unintentional nonadherence (e.g., forgetting) and 2 questions about purposeful nonadherence (e.g., stopping because feeling good or feeling bad). Based on these responses, participants were divided into 1 of 3 three categories. Adherent (n=60), Unintentional or Purposeful Nonadherent (n=50) and Unintentional and Purposeful Nonadherent (n=21). Over the course of the 16-week treatment period, patients were expected to participate in 12 medical management (MM) sessions; a brief psychosocial treatment. Feedback based on the MAQ responses was integrated into the MM sessions to facilitate medication and treatment adherence.

RESULTS

The 3 adherence groups were compared on baseline characteristics, medication adherence, treatment attendance and end-of-treatment patient ratings of treatment helpfulness. Baseline demographics and characteristics were not significantly different among the three categories. We found no statistically significant differences among the three groups with respect to pill adherence, treatment attendance, and treatment satisfaction ratings.

CONCLUSIONS

The findings suggest that the incorporation of MAQ feedback into the MM approach could be effective in mitigating risks associated with prior patterns of nonadherence suggesting that further testing of the integrated behavioral approach is warranted.

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.

Varenicline Reduces Context-Induced Relapse to Alcohol-Seeking through Actions in the Nucleus Accumbens

Varenicline, a pharmacotherapy for tobacco addiction, reduces alcohol consumption in humans and rodents. The therapeutic potential of varenicline would escalate if it also diminished conditioned responses elicited by alcohol-predictive cues, which can precipitate relapse in abstinent individuals. We investigated this application, along with the underlying neural substrates, using a robust preclinical assay in which relapse to alcohol-seeking was triggered by re-exposure to an alcohol-associated environmental context. Male, Long-Evans rats received Pavlovian conditioning sessions in which one auditory conditioned stimulus (CS+) was paired with 15% ethanol and a second conditioned stimulus (CS-) was not. Ethanol was delivered into a port for oral consumption and port entries triggered by each CS were recorded. Extinction was then conducted in a different context where the CS+ and CS- were presented without ethanol. To stimulate relapse, both cues were subsequently presented without ethanol in the prior conditioning context. Systemic varenicline (0, 0.5 or 2.5 mg/kg; intraperitoneal) blocked context-induced relapse to alcohol-seeking without affecting the ability to make a port entry. It also reduced context-induced relapse to sucrose-seeking, but only at the 2.5 mg/kg dose. Neuropharmacological studies showed that context-induced relapse to alcohol-seeking was attenuated by bilateral microinfusion of varenicline (0.3 μl/side) into the nucleus accumbens (NAc; 0 or 3.5 μg), but not the ventral tegmental area (0, 2 or 4 μg). These data show for the first time that varenicline reduces relapse triggered by contexts that predict alcohol, and suggest that nicotinic acetylcholine receptors in the NAc are critical for this effect.

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.

A Combination of Naltrexone + Varenicline Retards the Expression of a Genetic Predisposition Toward High Alcohol Drinking

BACKGROUND

This study examined whether naltrexone (NTX) or varenicline (VAR), alone or in combination, can retard the phenotypic expression of a genetic predisposition toward high alcohol drinking in rats selectively bred for high alcohol intake when drug treatment is initiated prior to, or concomitantly with, the onset of alcohol drinking.

METHODS

Alcohol-naïve P rats were treated daily with NTX (15.0 mg/kg BW), VAR (1.0 mg/kg BW), a combination of NTX (15.0 mg/kg BW) + VAR (1.0 mg/kg BW), or vehicle (VEH) for 2 weeks prior to, or concomitantly with, their first opportunity to drink alcohol and throughout 21 days of daily 2-hour alcohol access. Drug treatment was then discontinued for 3 weeks followed by reinstatement of drug treatment for an additional 3 weeks.

RESULTS

When P rats were pretreated with drug for 2 weeks prior to onset of alcohol access, only NTX + VAR in combination blocked the acquisition of alcohol drinking in alcohol-naïve P rats. When drug treatment was initiated concomitantly with the first opportunity to drink alcohol, NTX alone, VAR alone, and NTX + VAR blocked the acquisition of alcohol drinking. Following termination of drug treatment, NTX + VAR and VAR alone continued to reduce alcohol drinking but by the end of 3 weeks without drug treatment, alcohol intake in all groups was comparable to that seen in the vehicle-treated group as the expression of a genetic predisposition toward high alcohol drinking emerged in the drug-free P rats. After 3 weeks without drug treatment, reinstatement of NTX + VAR treatment again reduced alcohol intake.

CONCLUSIONS

A combination of NTX + VAR, when administered prior to, or concomitantly with, the first opportunity to drink alcohol, blocks the acquisition of alcohol drinking during both initial access to alcohol and during a later period of alcohol access in P rats with a genetic predisposition toward high alcohol intake. The results suggest that NTX + VAR may be effective in curtailing alcohol drinking in individuals at high genetic risk of developing alcoholism.

Experimental psychopathology paradigms for alcohol use disorders: Applications for translational research

In spite of high prevalence and disease burden, scientific consensus on the etiology and treatment of Alcohol Use Disorder (AUD) has yet to be reached. The development and utilization of experimental psychopathology paradigms in the human laboratory represents a cornerstone of AUD research. In this review, we describe and critically evaluate the major experimental psychopathology paradigms developed for AUD, with an emphasis on their implications, strengths, weaknesses, and methodological considerations. Specifically we review alcohol administration, self-administration, cue-reactivity, and stress-reactivity paradigms. We also provide an introduction to the application of experimental psychopathology methods to translational research including genetics, neuroimaging, pharmacological and behavioral treatment development, and translational science. Through refining and manipulating key phenotypes of interest, these experimental paradigms have the potential to elucidate AUD etiological factors, improve the efficiency of treatment developments, and refine treatment targets thus advancing precision medicine.