Levetiracetam for the treatment of co-occurring alcohol dependence and anxiety: case series and review

Glutamate Systems in DSM-5 Anxiety Disorders: Their Role and a Review of Glutamate and GABA Psychopharmacology

Serotonin reuptake inhibitors and benzodiazepines are evidence-based pharmacological treatments for Anxiety Disorders targeting serotonin and GABAergic systems, respectively. Although clearly effective, these medications fail to improve anxiety symptoms in a significant proportion of patients. New insights into the glutamate system have directed attention toward drugs that modulate glutamate as potential alternative treatments for anxiety disorders. Here we summarize the current understanding of the potential role of glutamate neurotransmission in anxiety disorders and highlight specific glutamate receptors that are potential targets for novel anxiety disorder treatments. We also review clinical trials of medications targeting the glutamate system in DSM-5 anxiety disorders. Understanding the role of the glutamate system in the pathophysiology of anxiety disorder may aid in developing novel pharmacological agents that are effective in treating anxiety disorders.

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.

Anticonvulsants for the treatment of alcohol withdrawal syndrome and alcohol use disorders

Alcoholic patients suffer from harmful allostatic neuroplastic changes in the brain causing an acute withdrawal syndrome upon cessation of drinking followed by a protracted abstinence syndrome and an increased risk of relapse to heavy drinking. Benzodiazepines have long been the treatment of choice for detoxifying patients and managing alcohol withdrawal syndrome (AWS). Non-benzodiazepine anticonvulsants (NBACs) are increasingly being used both for alcohol withdrawal management and for ongoing outpatient treatment of alcohol dependence, with the goal of either abstinence or harm reduction. This expert narrative review summarizes the scientific basis and clinical evidence supporting the use of NBACs in treating AWS and for reducing harmful drinking patterns. There is less evidence in support of NBAC therapy for AWS, with few placebo-controlled trials. Carbamazepine and gabapentin appear to be the most promising adjunctive treatments for AWS, and they may be useful as monotherapy in select cases, especially in outpatient settings and for the treatment of mild-to-moderate low-risk patients with the AWS. The body of evidence supporting the use of the NBACs for reducing harmful drinking in the outpatient setting is stronger. Topiramate appears to have a robust effect on reducing harmful drinking in alcoholics. Gabapentin is a potentially efficacious treatment for reducing the risk of relapse to harmful drinking patterns in outpatient management of alcoholism. Gabapentin's ease of use, rapid titration, good tolerability, and efficacy in both the withdrawal and chronic phases of treatment make it particularly appealing. In summary, several NBACs appear to be beneficial in treating AWS and alcohol use disorders.

Levetiracetam as adjunctive therapy for acute alcohol withdrawal syndrome in hospitalized patients

BACKGROUND

Benzodiazepines are often considered the standard of care for managing symptoms of acute alcohol withdrawal syndrome. Because of potential adverse effects, other agents have been evaluated in this patient population. Previous studies have produced mixed results on the efficacy of levetiracetam in alcohol withdrawal.

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this study was to determine whether adjunctive levetiracetam reduces the amount of symptom-triggered benzodiazepines required by patients experiencing symptoms of alcohol withdrawal.

METHODS

We conducted a retrospective chart review of patients who experienced symptoms of alcohol withdrawal while hospitalized. The outcomes of patients who received adjunctive levetiracetam were compared with those of patients who received only the standard of care (control group).

RESULTS

Two hundred fifty patients (125 in each cohort) were included. No significant differences were found in the benzodiazepine requirements of the 2 cohorts. The control group required a median average daily dose of 2.0 mg of lorazepam (range, 0.1-17 mg/d) compared with the levetiracetam group, which required a median average daily dose of 1.3 mg of lorazepam (range, 0.0-53.5 mg/d) (P = 0.09). The patients in the control group required a median total of 6 mg of lorazepam during their hospitalization compared with a median total of 5.5 mg in the levetiracetam group. Both cohorts had a median length of stay of 3 days, although those in the levetiracetam group had a shorter length of intensive care unit stay and spent less time mechanically ventilated.

CONCLUSIONS

The adjunctive use of levetiracetam does not significantly reduce the benzodiazepine requirements of patients experiencing symptoms of alcohol withdrawal in the inpatient setting.

Levetiracetam results in increased and decreased alcohol drinking with different access procedures in C57BL/6J mice

The antiepileptic levetiracetam (LEV) has been investigated for the treatment of alcohol abuse. However, little is known about how LEV alters the behavioral effects of alcohol in laboratory animals. The acute effects of LEV on alcohol drinking by male C57BL/6J mice were investigated using two different drinking procedures, limited access [drinking-in-the-dark (DID)] and intermittent access (IA) drinking. In the first experiment (DID), mice had access to a single bottle containing alcohol or sucrose for 4 h every other day. In the second experiment (IA), mice had IA to two bottles, one containing alcohol or sucrose and one containing water, for 24 h on Monday, Wednesday, and Friday. In both experiments, mice were administered LEV (0.3-100 mg/kg intraperitoneally) or vehicle 30 min before access to the drinking solutions. In the DID mice, LEV increased alcohol intake from 4.3 to 5.4 g/kg, whereas in the IA mice LEV decreased alcohol intake from 4.8 to 3.0 g/kg in the first 4 h of access and decreased 24 h alcohol intake from 20 to ∼15 g/kg. These effects appear specific to alcohol, as LEV did not affect sucrose intake in either experiment. LEV appears to differentially affect drinking in animal models of moderate and heavier alcohol consumption.

Levetiracetam has opposite effects on alcohol- and cocaine-related behaviors in C57BL/6J mice

The antiepileptic drug levetiracetam (LEV) is a potential treatment for alcohol use disorders, yet few preclinical studies exist on its effects in animal models relevant to drug or alcohol abuse. We investigated the effects of LEV on locomotor stimulation following acute and repeated administration of alcohol or cocaine and on alcohol- and cocaine-mediated changes in responding for brain stimulation reward (BSR) in C57BL/6J mice. LEV alone (10.0-100.0 mg/kg intraperitoneally) had no significant effect on locomotor activity or intracranial self-stimulation. Pretreatment with LEV reduced acute locomotor stimulation by 2.0 g/kg alcohol, attenuated the development of locomotor sensitization to alcohol with repeated exposure, and produced a shift in the dose-response curve for alcohol on BSR threshold without affecting maximum operant response rate (MAX). Conversely, LEV pretreatment enhanced both acute locomotor stimulation by 15 mg/kg cocaine and development of locomotor sensitization following repeated exposure and produced a leftward shift in the dose-response curve for cocaine on BSR threshold without affecting MAX. Electrophysiological recordings in vitro showed that LEV reduced excitatory currents in both ventral tegmental area (VTA) dopamine neurons and nucleus accumbens (NAc) medium spiny neurons, consistent with a presynaptic effect. The opposite effects of LEV pretreatment on alcohol- and cocaine-related behaviors may predict its clinical utility in the treatment of patients with alcohol, but not psychostimulant abuse disorders.

Efficacy and safety of levetiracetam for the prevention of alcohol relapse in recently detoxified alcohol-dependent patients: a randomized trial

BACKGROUND

Antiepileptics have been shown to reduce alcohol intake or to prevent relapse in patients with alcoholism.

GOAL

To investigate if the new antiepileptic levetiracetam (LEV) prevents relapse after detoxification compared with placebo in patients with alcohol dependence.

METHODS

Two hundred one patients were included in the prospective, randomized, double-blind, multicenter, placebo-controlled trial. After detoxification treatment and a screening period of 7 days, patients were randomized to treatment with LEV or placebo. Medication was administered in a fixed-dose schedule for 16 weeks. Primary outcome parameters were the overall rate and time to relapse with heavy drinking. Secondary outcome parameters were time to the first drink, craving, adherence, tolerability, and safety data (mean corpuscular volume, serum alanine aminotransferase, serum aspartate aminotransferase, γ-glutamyltransferase).

RESULTS

The rate of relapse and the time to relapse did not differ significantly between both groups, but less patients treated with LEV terminated treatment early compared with patients receiving placebo. Tolerability and safety data were similar in the LEV group compared with placebo.

CONCLUSIONS

Our data do not support a significant effect of LEV on relapse prevention in patients with alcohol dependence during the first 16 weeks of abstinence.

A double-blind, placebo-controlled trial assessing the efficacy of levetiracetam extended-release in very heavy drinking alcohol-dependent patients

BACKGROUND

Despite advances in the development of medications to treat alcohol dependence, few medications have been approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration. The use of certain anticonvulsant medications has demonstrated potential efficacy in treating alcohol dependence. Previous research suggests that the anticonvulsant levetiracetam may be beneficial in an alcohol-dependent population of very heavy drinkers.

METHODS

In this double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled clinical trial, 130 alcohol-dependent patients who reported very heavy drinking were recruited across 5 clinical sites. Patients received either levetiracetam extended-release (XR) or placebo and a Brief Behavioral Compliance Enhancement Treatment intervention. Levetiracetam XR was titrated during the first 4 weeks to 2,000 mg/d. This target dose was maintained during weeks 5 through 14 and was tapered during weeks 15 and 16.

RESULTS

No significant differences were detected between the levetiracetam XR and placebo groups in either the primary outcomes (percent heavy drinking days and percent subjects with no heavy drinking days) or in other secondary drinking outcomes. Treatment groups did not differ on a number of nondrinking outcomes, including depression, anxiety, mood, and quality of life. The only difference observed was in alcohol-related consequences. The levetiracetam XR treatment group showed significantly fewer consequences than did the placebo group during the maintenance period (p = 0.02). Levetiracetam XR was well tolerated, with fatigue being the only significantly elevated adverse event, compared with placebo (53% vs. 24%, respectively; p = 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

This multisite clinical trial showed no efficacy for levetiracetam XR compared with placebo in reducing alcohol consumption in heavy drinking alcohol-dependent patients.