Mood stabilizers in the treatment of substance use disorders

Individual-Level Risk Prediction of Return to Use During Opioid Use Disorder Treatment

Importance

No existing model allows clinicians to predict whether patients might return to opioid use in the early stages of treatment for opioid use disorder.

Objective

To develop an individual-level prediction tool for risk of return to use in opioid use disorder.

Design, Setting, and Participants

This decision analytical model used predictive modeling with individual-level data harmonized in June 1, 2019, to October 1, 2022, from 3 multicenter, pragmatic, randomized clinical trials of at least 12 weeks' duration within the National Institute on Drug Abuse Clinical Trials Network (CTN) performed between 2006 and 2016. The clinical trials covered a variety of treatment settings, including federally licensed treatment sites, physician practices, and inpatient treatment facilities. All 3 trials enrolled adult participants older than 18 years, with broad pragmatic inclusion and few exclusion criteria except for major medical and unstable psychiatric comorbidities.

Intervention

All participants received 1 of 3 medications for opioid use disorder: methadone, buprenorphine, or extended-release naltrexone.

Main Outcomes and Measures

Predictive models were developed for return to use, which was defined as 4 consecutive weeks of urine drug screen (UDS) results either missing or positive for nonprescribed opioids by week 12 of treatment.

Results

The overall sample included 2199 trial participants (mean [SD] age, 35.3 [10.7] years; 728 women [33.1%] and 1471 men [66.9%]). The final model based on 4 predictors at treatment entry (heroin use days, morphine- and cocaine-positive UDS results, and heroin injection in the past 30 days) yielded an area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC) of 0.67 (95% CI, 0.62-0.71). Adding UDS in the first 3 treatment weeks improved model performance (AUROC, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.78-0.85). A simplified score (CTN-0094 OUD Return-to-Use Risk Score) provided good clinical risk stratification wherein patients with weekly opioid-negative UDS results in the 3 weeks after treatment initiation had a 13% risk of return to use compared with 85% for those with 3 weeks of opioid-positive or missing UDS results (AUROC, 0.80; 95% CI, 0.76-0.84).

Conclusions and Relevance

The prediction model described in this study may be a universal risk measure for return to opioid use by treatment week 3. Interventions to prevent return to regular use should focus on this critical early treatment period.

Co-occurring opioid use disorder and serious mental illness: A selective literature review

OBJECTIVE

The overarching goal of this review is to provide a clinical overview of epidemiology, diagnosis, and treatment, and to discuss the public health impact, social determinants including access to care, and implications for health care delivery and research. It is estimated that approximately 1 in 4 individuals suffering from a serious mental illness (SMI) may have a co-occurring opioid use disorder (OUD). In these individuals, the overall disease burden is higher and clinical outcomes are worse compared to those without a co-occurring illness, making an integrated approach to diagnosis and treatment an urgent priority.

METHODS

We conducted a selective review of the literature to investigate prevalence, etiology for co-occurring OUD and SMI, and diagnostic and clinical guidelines in the United States, and consideration special populations.

FINDINGS

Our findings suggest that, despite the high prevalence of co-occurring OUD and SMI, contemporary diagnostics and treatment approaches are underutilized in this patient population. The literature also suggests that both pharmacological and psychosocial treatment approaches need to be tailored to optimize clinical management, and that integrated treatment is pivotal for improving overall outcomes, yet comprehensive clinical guidelines for co-occurring OUD and SMI are lacking at this time.

Drug use pattern for emergency psychiatric conditions in a tertiary care hospital: A prospective observational study

Purpose:

Psychiatric emergencies (PEs) are defined as acute disturbances of thought, mood, behavior, or social relationships requiring immediate interventions. The common emergency psychiatrics are attempted suicide, severe anxiety, schizophrenia, acute psychosis, substance abuse, acute panic attacks, drug toxicities, and extrapyramidal reactions. Emergency physicians in the general hospital may face the challenge of assessing and managing patients in PEs. This study was conducted to evaluate the clinical pattern and drug use pattern for PEs at a tertiary care hospital.

Materials and Methods:

This was a cross-sectional, observational study where patients presenting to emergency medical services of a tertiary care hospital were recruited after approval from Institutional Ethics Committee and written informed consent. Demographic details, diagnosis, medication details, cost of the treatment, and adherence to guidelines in the management of emergency psychiatric conditions were assessed using a validated questionnaire. Descriptive statistics was applied to analyze the data.

Results:

In 110 patients, a total number of drugs prescribed were 463 (mean: 4.21 drugs/prescription). The most commonly used psychotropic drug in emergency setting was found to be risperidone (19.39%), followed by lorazepam (13.60%) and clonazepam (4.28%). The most common diagnoses were substance abuse (32.72%) and schizophrenia (21.81%). About 74.5% of the physicians prescribed drugs abiding by the standard guidelines. The average total cost incurred by patients was about Rs. 366.

Conclusion:

The most commonly used drugs in emergency treatment found in this study are risperidone, followed by lorazepam and haloperidol.

Pharmacogenomics of Lithium Response in Bipolar Disorder

Despite being the most widely studied mood stabilizer, researchers have not confirmed a mechanism for lithium’s therapeutic efficacy in Bipolar Disorder (BD). Pharmacogenomic applications may be clinically useful in the future for identifying lithium-responsive patients and facilitating personalized treatment. Six genome-wide association studies (GWAS) reviewed here present evidence of genetic variations related to lithium responsivity and side effect expression. Variants were found on genes regulating the glutamate system, including GAD-like gene 1 (GADL1) and GRIA2 gene, a mutually-regulated target of lithium. In addition, single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) discovered on SESTD1 may account for lithium’s exceptional ability to permeate cell membranes and mediate autoimmune and renal effects. Studies also corroborated the importance of epigenetics and stress regulation on lithium response, finding variants on long, non-coding RNA genes and associations between response and genetic loading for psychiatric comorbidities. Overall, the precision medicine model of stratifying patients based on phenotype seems to derive genotypic support of a separate clinical subtype of lithium-responsive BD. Results have yet to be expounded upon and should therefore be interpreted with caution.

Treating Alcohol Use Disorder in U.S. Veterans: The Role of Traumatic Brain Injury

OBJECTIVE

The authors examined the efficacy of valproate to reduce relapse to heavy drinking among veterans with alcohol use disorder (AUD) and neuropsychiatric comorbidities and whether antecedent traumatic brain injury (TBI) or posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) affected treatment response.

METHODS

Participants were male veterans 18-60 years old with an AUD and no other substance use besides nicotine or cannabis. Sixty-two patients were randomly assigned to receive either valproate or naltrexone. Participants were evaluated at baseline and followed weekly for 24 weeks. All participants received standardized psychosocial interventions as well as treatment for coexistent psychiatric conditions.

RESULTS

During the follow-up period, nine study subjects in the naltrexone group and 14 in the valproate group relapsed to heavy drinking, but the difference did not reach statistical significance. Participants with a history of moderate to severe TBI were more likely to relapse to heavy drinking compared with those with no TBI (hazard ratio=4.834, 95% CI=1.103-21.194, p=0.033). PTSD status did not significantly affect outcome.

CONCLUSIONS

Intensive outpatient programs are efficacious alternatives to treat AUD in veterans, although the role of pharmacological treatment is not completely elucidated. Glutamatergic agents appear to be less effective than opiate antagonists to prevent relapse to heavy drinking and to increase cumulative abstinence. Future studies should examine novel pharmacological and nonpharmacological options.

Personalized and precision medicine as informants for treatment management of bipolar disorder

DSM-5 diagnostic categories, defined by a set of psychopathological symptoms are heterogeneous conditions that may include different biological entities, with distinct etiopathogenesis, different courses and requiring different treatment management. For bipolar disorder the major evidences for this lack of validity are the long paths before a proper diagnosis, the inconsistence of treatment guidelines, the long phases of pharmacological adjustment and the low average of long-term treatment response rates. Personalized medicine for mental disorders aims to couple established clinical-pathological indexes with new molecular profiling to create diagnostic, prognostic and therapeutic strategies precisely tailored to each patient. Regarding bipolar disorder, the clinical history and presentation are still the most reliable markers in stratifying patients and guiding therapeutic management, despite the research goes to great lengths to develop new neuropsychological or biological markers that can reliably predict individual therapy effectiveness. We provide an overview of the advancements in personalized medicine in bipolar disorder, with particular attention to how psychopathology, age at onset, comorbidity, course and staging, genetic and epigenetic, imaging and biomarkers can influence treatment management and provide an integration to the conventional treatment guidelines. This approach may offer a new and rational path for the development of treatments for targeted subgroups of patients with bipolar disorder.

What we have learned from the Methadone Maintenance Treatment of Dual Disorder Heroin Use Disorder patients

Mental Disorders and Heroin Use Disorder (HUD) often co-occur and constitute correlated risk factors that the authors believe are best considered from a unitary perspective. In this article we review and discuss data collected by the V.P. Dole Research Group in Dual Disorder (V.P. Dole DD-RG) patients according to the following six discussion points: (1) Treatment of personality disorders during Methadone Maintenance Treatment (MMT); (2) Treatment of Mood Disorders during MMT; (3) Treatment of Anxiety Disorders during MMT; (4) Treatment of Psychotic Disorders during MMT; (5) Treatment of violence during MMT; (6) Treatment of Alcohol Use Disorder (AUD) during MMT. In treating Mood Disorder in HUD patients, we must bear in mind the interactions (potentiation and side effects) between psychopharmacology, used substances and agonist opioid medications; the use of psychiatric medications as an anti-craving drug, and the possible use of agonist and antagonist opioid medications in treating the other mental disorders. In treating chronic psychosis in HUD patients, we must consider the potentiation and side effects of antipsychotic drugs consequent on HUD treatment, worsening addiction hypophoria and inducing a more severe reward deficiency syndrome (RDS) in hypophoric patients. Violence and AUD during MMT can benefit from adequate dosages of methadone and co-medication with Sodium gamma-hydroxybutyrate (GHB). The experience of our V.P. Dole DD-RG suggests the following: (a) DD is the new paradigm in neuroscience in deepening our understanding of mental health; (b) To successfully treat DD patients a double competence is needed; (c) In managing DD patients priority must be given to Substance Use Disorder (SUD) treatment (stabilizing patients); (d) Antidepressant use is ancillary to SUD treatment; antipsychotic use must be restricted to acute phases; mood stabilizers must be preferred; any use of Benzodiazepines (BDZs) must be avoided.

Use of Stimulants in Bipolar Disorder

Several international guidelines indicate stimulants, including methylphenidate (MPH), amphetamines and derivatives, modafinil, and armodafinil among the second-third-line choices for bipolar depression. Efficacy of stimulants has been also reported for the management of residual depressive symptoms such as fatigue and sleepiness and for the management of affective, cognitive, and behavioral symptoms in children and adult bipolar patients with comorbid ADHD. Few case reports show positive results with MPH in the treatment of resistant mania. Finally, MPH might be an option in some bipolar forms observed in psychiatric presentations of frontotemporal dementia and traumatic brain injury. In spite of these preliminary observations, the use of stimulants in bipolar patients is still controversial. Potential of misuse and abuse and mood destabilization with induction of (hypo)manic switches, mixed states, and rapid cycling are the concerns most frequently reported. Our aims are to summarize available literature on this topic and discuss practical management implications.

Bipolar disorder and gambling disorder comorbidity: current evidence and implications for pharmacological treatment

BACKGROUND

The co-occurrence of bipolar disorder (BD) and gambling disorder (GD), though of clinical and public health importance, is still scarcely investigated. Comorbid BD-GD subjects experience a more severe course of illness and poorer treatment outcome, due to a range of clinical and psychosocial factors that collectively impede remission and recovery. The aim of our paper is to review the role of pharmacotherapy in the treatment of comorbid BD-GD, in order to support clinical decisions according to the best available evidence.

METHODS

A qualitative systematic review of studies on pharmacological treatment in comorbid BD-GD was performed. A comprehensive literature search of online databases, bibliographies of published articles and gray literature was conducted. Data on efficacy, safety and tolerability were extracted and levels of evidence were assessed. We also provide a brief overview of current epidemiological, neurobiological and clinical findings, with the intention of proposing a dimensional approach to the choice of available drugs.

RESULTS

The only drug with a high level of evidence is lithium. Considering the inclusion of GD in DSM-5 'Substance-related and Addictive Disorders' category, we discuss the use of other drugs with a high level of evidence currently used in BD subjects with co-occurring substance use disorders.

LIMITATIONS

Only few clinical trials are available and the population is limited; therefore no conclusive evidence can be inferred.

CONCLUSIONS

Further randomized controlled trials are required to evaluate the efficacy of pharmacological treatment strategies in large samples of patients with comorbid BD-GD. Also, attempts should be made to identify other shared clinical and psychopathological domains that are amenable to treatment.

The long-term outcomes of heroin dependent-treatment-resistant patients with bipolar 1 comorbidity after admission to enhanced methadone maintenance

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to compare the long-term outcomes of treatment-resistant bipolar 1 heroin addicts with peers who were without DSM-IV axis I psychiatric comorbidity (dual diagnosis).

METHOD

104 Heroin-dependent patients (TRHD), who also met criteria for treatment resistance - 41 of them with DSM-IV-R criteria for Bipolar 1 Disorder (BIP1-TRHD) and 63 without DSM-IV-R axis I psychiatric comorbidity (NDD-TRHD) - were monitored prospectively (3 years on average, min. 0.5, max. 8) along a Methadone Maintenance Treatment Programme (MMTP).

RESULTS

The rates for survival-in-treatment were 44% for NDD-TRHD patients and 58% for BIP1-TRHD patients (p=0.062). After 3 years of treatment such rates tended to become progressively more stable. BIP1-TRHD patients showed better outcome results than NDD-TRHD patients regarding CGI severity (p<0.001) and DSM-IV GAF (p<0.001). No differences were found regarding urinalyses for morphine between groups during the observational period. Bipolar 1 patients needed a higher methadone dosage in the stabilization phase, but this difference was not statistically significant.

LIMITATIONS

The observational nature of the protocol, the impossibility of evaluating a follow-up in the case of the patients who dropped out, and the multiple interference caused by interindividual variability, the clinical setting and the temporary use of adjunctive medications.

CONCLUSIONS

Contrary to expectations, treatment-resistant patients with bipolar 1 disorder psychiatric comorbidity showed a better long-term outcome than treatment-resistant patients without psychiatric comorbidity.

Assessing the roles of stimulants/stimulant-like drugs and dopamine-agonists in the treatment of bipolar depression

Bipolar depression is considered the most difficult-to-treat phase of bipolar disorder, in relation to its pervasiveness and efficacy and/or tolerability limitations of available treatments. Indeed, most mood stabilizers and atypical antipsychotics are not as effective in ameliorating depressive compared with manic symptoms, and entail substantial tolerability limitations. However, the use of antidepressants is highly controversial, as their efficacy appears less robust in bipolar compared with unipolar depression. In addition, antidepressants, in spite of generally having adequate somatic tolerability, in BD may be associated with a higher risk of manic/hypomanic switch, suicidality and rapid cycling. Among alternative pharmacological strategies, compounds with stimulant and pro-dopaminergic effects, such as methylphenidate, modafinil, armodafinil and pramipexole, have showed potential antidepressant activity, even though their use in clinical practice has been limited by the paucity of controlled evidence. This article seeks to review available evidence about the use of the aforementioned compounds in the treatment of bipolar depression. Findings from reviewed studies suggested that pro-dopaminergic compounds, such as pramipexole and stimulants/stimulant-like agents, deserve consideration as adjunctive therapies in bipolar depressed patients, at least in some subgroups of patients. Nevertheless, caution regarding their use is recommended as further clinical trials with larger samples and longer follow-up periods are necessary to clarify the roles of these medications in bipolar depression.

Use of adjunctive stimulants in adult bipolar depression

Bipolar depression represents a high priority research field, due to its pervasiveness, and high economic and personal (suicidality, impaired function, quality of life) costs, and the limited evidence base to inform therapeutics. Mood stabilizers and second-generation antipsychotics for bipolar depression are commonly only partially effective, and their side-effects may overlap with depressive symptoms such as hypersomnia, daytime drowsiness, fatigue, psychomotor retardation, and weight gain. Moreover, the use of antidepressants in bipolar depression is controversial due to concerns regarding the risks of inefficacy or switching to mood elevation. Stimulants and related compounds such as modafinil and armodafinil have on occasion been used as adjuncts in bipolar depressed patients with encouraging results, but their use is limited by the paucity of systematic evidence of efficacy and safety. The present review aims to provide an updated perspective on the use of stimulants and stimulant-like medications in adult bipolar depression, considering not only recent randomized controlled trials, but also open naturalistic studies, in order to clarify the strengths and limitations of using these agents.

Treatment of substance abusing patients with comorbid psychiatric disorders

OBJECTIVE

To update clinicians on the latest in evidence-based treatments for substance use disorders (SUD) and non-substance use disorders among adults and suggest how these treatments can be combined into an evidence-based process that enhances treatment effectiveness in comorbid patients.

METHOD

Articles were extracted from Pubmed using the search terms "dual diagnosis," "comorbidity" and "co-occurring" and were reviewed for evidence of effectiveness for pharmacologic and psychotherapeutic treatments of comorbidity.

RESULTS

Twenty-four research reviews and 43 research trials were reviewed. The preponderance of the evidence suggests that antidepressants prescribed to improve substance-related symptoms among patients with mood and anxiety disorders are either not highly effective or involve risk due to high side-effect profiles or toxicity. Second generation antipsychotics are more effective for treatment of schizophrenia and comorbid substance abuse and current evidence suggests clozapine, olanzapine and risperidone are among the best. Clozapine appears to be the most effective of the antipsychotics for reducing alcohol, cocaine and cannabis abuse among patients with schizophrenia. Motivational interviewing has robust support as a highly effective psychotherapy for establishing a therapeutic alliance. This finding is critical since retention in treatment is essential for maintaining effectiveness. Highly structured therapy programs that integrate intensive outpatient treatments, case management services and behavioral therapies such as Contingency Management (CM) are most effective for treatment of severe comorbid conditions.

CONCLUSIONS

Creative combinations of psychotherapies, behavioral and pharmacological interventions offer the most effective treatment for comorbidity. Intensity of treatment must be increased for severe comorbid conditions such as the schizophrenia/cannabis dependence comorbidity due to the limitations of pharmacological treatments.