A randomized trial of low-dose gabapentin for post hospitalization relapse prevention in a Thai clinical sample of alcohol dependence

Advancements in addressing drug dependence: A review of promising therapeutic strategies and interventions

Substance dependence represents a pervasive global concern within the realm of public health. Presently, it is delineated as a persistent and recurrent neurological disorder stemming from drug-triggered neuroadaptations in the brain's reward circuitry. Despite the availability of various therapeutic modalities, there has been a steady escalation in the mortality rate attributed to drug overdoses. Substantial endeavors have been directed towards the exploration of innovative interventions aimed at mitigating cravings and drug-induced repetitive behaviors. Within this review, we encapsulate the most auspicious contemporary treatment methodologies, accentuating meta-analyses of efficacious pharmacological and non-pharmacological approaches: including gabapentin, topiramate, prazosin, physical exercise regimens, and cerebral stimulation techniques.

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

BACKGROUND

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

OBJECTIVES

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

SEARCH METHODS

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

SELECTION CRITERIA

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

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane.

MAIN RESULTS

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

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

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

Pilot randomized placebo-controlled clinical trial of high-dose gabapentin for alcohol use disorder

BACKGROUND

Despite advances in the development of pharmacotherapy for alcohol use disorder (AUD), there remains a need for medications that can be administered to actively drinking outpatients to promote a reduction in harmful alcohol consumption. The primary aim of this pilot study was to determine whether high-dose gabapentin (3600 mg/daily) is more effective than placebo in reducing harmful alcohol consumption in outpatients with AUD.

METHODS

Forty patients (27 men) who met DSM-IV-TR criteria for alcohol dependence and reporting at least 4 heavy drinking days (HDD) per week were recruited at a single site. Participants were actively drinking at study entry and received double-blind gabapentin (3600 mg/day; n = 19) or placebo (n = 20) for 8 weeks. Study medication was titrated over 5 days and administered in three divided doses (1200 mg three times per day). The proportion of HDD (primary outcome) and percent days abstinent (PDA; secondary outcome) were analyzed using generalized longitudinal mixed models with the predictors being study arm, week, study arm by week interaction, and corresponding baseline drinking measure.

RESULTS

There was a significant interaction between study arm and week for the proportion of HDD per week, F (7, 215) = 3.33, p = 0.002 . There was also a significant interaction between study arm and week for PDA per week, F (7, 215) = 3.11, p = 0.004. The overall retention rate was 67.5% with no significant difference in time-to-dropout between treatment groups. There were no serious adverse events. No participants were removed from the trial due to the development of moderate-to-severe alcohol withdrawal (CIWA-Ar ≥ 13).

CONCLUSIONS

Gabapentin treatment rapidly titrated to a dosage of 3600 mg/day is associated with a reduction in the proportion of HDD per week and an increase in PDA per week in actively drinking outpatients with AUD. High-dose gabapentin is potentially a feasible approach to treating AUD and deserving of further study.

An open-label pilot study of pregabalin pharmacotherapy for alcohol use disorder

Background: There is a need for alcohol use disorder (AUD) pharmacotherapy that can be administered to actively drinking outpatients. Pregabalin, a gabapentoid anticonvulsant, has preliminary evidence supporting effects on alcohol withdrawal and AUD.Objectives: To evaluate the safety, tolerability, and optimal dosing of pregabalin for treating AUD.Methods: In an open-label, 8-week, outpatient trial of eighteen adults (nine women) with AUD, participants were titrated to 600 mg/day (or the maximum tolerated dose) over 3 weeks and then maintained for 5 weeks.Results: The majority (11/14, 78.6%) of participants with at least one-week of medication exposure achieved a maximum dose of 600 mg/day. Mean retention was 6.8 weeks (SD = 2.6). Eighty percent (12/15) of participants with post-enrollment data reported any adverse effects during the trial; and for those reporting adverse effects the most common were drowsiness (33.3%, 4/12), and fogginess (25%, 3/12), dizziness (25%, 3/12), and insomnia (25%, 3/12). Two participants discontinued study medication due to adverse effects and one had a dose reduction. Mean Heavy Drinking Days (HDD)/week decreased significantly by 3.43 days (SD = 2.47; median (IQR) = 4.00 (1.00 to 5.50)); Wilcoxon signed rank test statistic ((S) = 49.5, p = .0006). Mean proportion of HDD significantly decreased on average by 48.7% (SD = 35.1%; median (IQR) = 57.1% (14.3% to 78.6%)). The proportion of abstinent days increased significantly on average by 36.1% (SD = 35.0%; median (IQR) = 17.9% (14.3% to 75.0%); S = 49.5, p = .0005).Conclusions: Pregabalin treatment of AUD appears to be safe and well tolerated in doses up to 600 mg per day.Trial Registration: clinicaltrials.gov identifier: NCT03256253.

Gabapentinoids for treatment of alcohol use disorder: A systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

Gabapentin (GBP) and pregabalin (PGB) have been used to treat alcohol use disorder (AUD) and alcohol withdrawal, but with inconsistent results. In this meta-analysis, we explored the effects of GBP/PGB treatment on AUD and their effects on withdrawal, craving, depression, and sleep disturbance in AUD patients.

METHODS

We carried out a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials comparing the effects of GBP/PGB on AUD with those of a placebo or control treatment. Electronic databases were searched for relevant articles published before September 2019. The primary outcome was defined as the efficacy measure on achieving abstinence or reducing alcohol consumption in a hierarchical order. We included 16 studies in our meta-analysis.

RESULTS

Overall, GBP had no significant benefit comparing to placebo or control treatment (Hedges' g = 0.0725, p = 0.6743). For specific alcohol-related outcome, GBP had significant effect on percentage of heavy drink (Hedges' g = 0.5478, p = 0.0441) and alcohol withdrawal symptoms (Hedges' g = 0.2475, p = 0.0425). GBP/PGB did not have significant beneficial effect on craving, depressive symptoms, or sleep disturbance. Instability was shown in sensitivity analyses of some above results.

CONCLUSIONS

GBP may be helpful to reduce AUD patients' heavy drinking behavior and withdrawal, but more studies are needed for drawing conclusions.

Pharmacotherapies and personalized medicine for alcohol use disorder: a review

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

Gabapentin for Post-Hospitalization Alcohol Relapse Prevention; Should Gabapentin Be Considered for FDA Approval in the Treatment of Alcohol Use Disorder?: A Case Presentation and Literature Review

Alcohol use disorder (AUD), a chronic condition that affects many people worldwide, is characterized most commonly by a preoccupation with alcohol, an irresistible craving for or the inability to control the consumption of alcohol, and the marked resultant disturbance it bestows upon one’s life. Although a difficult and time-consuming condition to attempt to treat, there are currently three FDA-approved medications for AUD, including naltrexone, acamprosate, and disulfiram. However, literature points towards another agent, gabapentin, that may be efficacious in preventing relapse symptoms and cravings with enhanced effectivity in reducing post-hospitalization alcohol consumption behaviors. In this paper, we discuss a case presentation and literature review demonstrating the role of gabapentin in treating AUD and symptoms associated with alcohol withdrawal, along with its potential use in relapse prevention.

A meta-analysis of the efficacy of gabapentin for treating alcohol use disorder

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Studies of the efficacy of gabapentin for treating alcohol use disorder (AUD) have yielded mixed findings. The aims of our study were to estimate gabapentin's effects on six alcohol-related outcomes, test potential moderators, examine publication bias and evaluate the quality of the studies.

METHODS

Meta-analysis of placebo-controlled randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Using PubMed and ClinicalTrials.gov, we selected RCTs of gabapentin's effects on alcohol consumption or a biochemical correlate of it, excluding studies limited to other primary outcomes or that combined gabapentin with other medications. We assessed study quality and used a random-effects model to analyze each outcome measure and the Egger regression test and funnel plots to assess publication bias.

RESULTS

We identified seven RCTs of gabapentin that met study criteria. The quality of the studies overall was good, and there was no evidence of publication bias. Four to seven studies contributed to the analysis of the six outcome measures. For all outcome measures the effect estimates were in a direction that favored gabapentin over placebo. However, only for percentage of heavy drinking days was there good evidence of a benefit (g = -0.64, 95% confidence interval = -1.22 to -0.06).

CONCLUSIONS

Although gabapentin appears to be more efficacious than placebo in treating AUD, the only measure on which the analysis clearly favors the active medication is percentage of heavy drinking days. Additional studies are needed to define more clearly the role of gabapentin in AUD treatment.

Prospects for pharmacotherapies to treat alcohol use disorder: an update on recent human studies

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

The aim of this study was to provide an update on medication development efforts for alcohol use disorder (AUD) by reviewing recently published (past 2 years) human studies that evaluated medications' effects on alcohol-related outcomes.

RECENT FINDINGS

Forty-five publications were found suitable for this review. A variety of compounds have been tested in the past 2 years as potential pharmacological options for AUD, including medications that act on multiple targets (topiramate, aripiprazole, quetiapine), calcium channels (gabapentin), gamma-Aminobutyric acid receptors (baclofen, diazepam), glutamate receptors (ifenprodil, memantine, glycine), nicotinic acetylcholine receptors (varenicline, mecamylamine), α1 adrenergic receptors (prazosin, doxazosin), neuroendocrine pathways (oxytocin, a vasopressin receptor 1b antagonist, a ghrelin receptor inverse agonist) and others (samidorphan, ibudilast, N-acetylcysteine, citoline). Important findings and limitations regarding the effects of these medications on alcohol-related outcomes are discussed.

SUMMARY

There is a critical need to increase the armamentarium of medications for AUD. Human laboratory studies may help screen and prioritize promising targets and compounds before running large clinical trials. Given the complexity of AUD and the heterogeneity of afflicted patients, future studies should also investigate potential moderators and predictors of response to each pharmacological intervention.

Selecting an appropriate alcohol pharmacotherapy: review of recent findings

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Only a few pharmacological treatments are available for treating alcohol use disorders (AUDs). Disulfiram, naltrexone and acamprosate are Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-approved and nalmefene is EMA-approved in European Union. Off-label medications, such as baclofen, gabapentin, ondansetron and topiramate are medications commonly prescribed for the treatment of AUD. The aim of this review is to give an update on recent randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and reviews evaluating pharmacological treatment for AUD.

RECENT FINDINGS

A literature search was conducted for pharmacological treatment for alcohol use disorder, published from January 2017 to January 2019. An additional search from two ongoing-study databases was performed. A total of 13 studies, 11 reviews and 7 on-going clinical trials were identified. Interest in studying baclofen as a treatment for AUD was greater compared with other medications, yet with inconclusive results. Three new RCTs of first-line medication naltrexone showed reduction in drinking.

SUMMARY

Three new published RCTs focus on baclofen and naltrexone. These results are consistent with old findings demonstrating that naltrexone reduces heavy drinking. Several RCT on baclofen do not support the use of baclofen for treatment of AUD. Encouraging results have been reported for topiramate, gabapentin and also varenicline, which might be useful in patients with comorbid nicotine dependence.

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.