Effect of Lowering the Dose of Varenicline on Alcohol Self-administration in Drinkers With Alcohol Use Disorders

Antismoking agents do not contribute synergistically to semaglutide's ability to reduce alcohol intake in rats

Preclinical studies have identified glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor (GLP-1R) agonists, and the antismoking agents varenicline and bupropion as tentative agents for treatment of alcohol use disorder (AUD). Combining different medications is a recent approach that has gained attention regarding heterogenous and difficult-to-treat diseases, like AUD. Successfully, this approach has been tested for the combination of varenicline and bupropion as it prevents relapse to alcohol drinking in rats. However, studies assessing the effects of the combination of semaglutide, an FDA-approved GLP-1R agonist for diabetes type II, and varenicline or bupropion to reduce alcohol intake in male and female rats remains to be conducted. Another approach to influence treatment outcome is to combine a medication with feeding interventions like high fat diet (HFD). While HFD reduces alcohol intake, the ability of the combination of HFD and semaglutide to alter alcohol drinking is unknown and thus the subject for a pilot study. Therefore, three intermittent alcohol drinking experiments were conducted to elucidate the effectiveness of these treatment combinations. We show that semaglutide, bupropion or HFD reduces alcohol intake in male as well as female rats. While various studies reveal beneficial effects of combinatorial pharmacotherapies for the treatment of AUD, we herein do not report any additive effects on alcohol intake by adding either varenicline or bupropion to semaglutide treatment. Neither does HFD exposure alter the ability of semaglutide to reduce alcohol intake. Although no additive effects by the combinatorial treatments are found, these findings collectively provide insight into possible monotherapeutical treatments for AUD.

Emotion regulation strategies moderate the impact of negative affect induction on alcohol craving in college drinkers: an experimental paradigm

Objectives: Observational studies suggest emotion regulation (ER) as a potential treatment target for problematic college drinking. The primary aim of this laboratory study was to determine whether trait ER strategies would moderate the impact of negative affect induction on alcohol craving in college drinkers. Methods: Participants were randomly assigned to a neutral (n = 74) or a negative affect induction (n = 76) and reported their craving after the affect inductions. Results: Greater use of drinking to cope and less use of cognitive reappraisal predicted greater alcohol craving after the negative affect induction, but not after the neutral condition. In contrast, emotion suppression did not predict alcohol craving in either condition. Conclusion: Our results highlight the role of ER tendencies-particularly the benefits of cognitive reappraisal-on alcohol craving when experiencing emotional distress. Therefore, ER strategies may be an important target for college drinkers to prevent and reduce problematic drinking.

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.

A novel human laboratory alcohol self-administration paradigm for medication screening: Modeling the ability to resist drinking and heavy drinking

Background

Human laboratory analogues of drinking behavior provide an efficient, cost-effective mechanistic evaluation of a medication signal on drinking. We developed a novel alcohol self-administration paradigm which models the ability to resist drinking and heavy drinking.

Methods

We compared a de-escalating schedule of monetary reinforcement (n=16, 50% female) to no schedule (n=16, 50% female) on the ability to resist drinking (i.e., latency to start drinking) and subsequent ad-libitum alcohol consumption of preferred alcoholic beverage in participants with alcohol use disorder (AUD). Participants completed two laboratory sessions designed to model the ability to resist drinking using stress (versus neutral imagery, within-subject factor) as a prime for drinking.

Results

Participants consumed more alcohol with no schedule (74.2%) versus with the de-escalating reinforcement schedule (40.3%,). The de-escalating schedule reduced alcohol consumption by 49%. Eighty-one percent of participants drank heavily with no schedule and this was reduced with the schedule. Use of the de-escalating schedule also increased the latency to pour and sip the first drink. Participants poured and sipped alcohol faster following stress imagery (vs. neutral), had greater craving, and consumed more alcohol in the first 30 minutes.

Conclusions

Our novel alcohol self-administration model generated heavy drinking. Over 80% of participants without reinforcement consumed more than 2/3 of their preferred alcoholic beverage designed to increase blood alcohol levels to 0.12 mg% within a 2-hour window. Our model was sensitive to stress, and the de-escalating schedule highlighted stress effects on drinking. Thus, this model is ideal for a cross-over design to test medications for AUD.

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.

A Critical Review of Alcohol Administration Guidelines in Laboratory Medication Screening Research: Is It Time to Include Treatment Seekers?

Human laboratory studies play an important role in alcohol use disorder (AUD) medication development. Medications that are found to be safe and effective during human laboratory screening will then move to more expensive clinical trials in patient populations. Given the gatekeeping role of human laboratory studies in the medication development pipeline, it is critical that these studies accurately forecast how pharmacotherapies will perform under true-to-life clinical conditions. On the other hand, the design of these studies also must adhere to ethical guidelines: certain aspects of clinical reality cannot be incorporated into screening studies because doing so might place the participant at risk for harm or breach other ethical guidelines. Conventions exist that guide the resolution of these conflicting ideals. This article considers the practice of recruiting non-treatment-seeking heavy drinkers to participate in laboratory screening studies. By convention, volunteers are excluded from laboratory screening studies that involve alcohol administration if they are deemed "treatment seeking," meaning that they recently stopped drinking or are motivated to do so. Although this common practice may reduce risk to participants, findings may not accurately predict medication effects on treatment seekers. Indeed, there is empirical evidence that treatment seekers differ from nontreatment seekers in their responses to medications (Neuropsychopharmacology 2017a; 42: 1776; Am J Drug Alcohol Abuse 2017b; 43: 703; J Psychiatr Res 2006; 40: 383). Here, we argue for the importance of recruiting treatment seekers for this research due to their qualitative difference from nontreatment seekers. We argue that these individuals should be the default population in human laboratory medication screening studies. We conclude by discussing 2 case examples of medication experiments led by our research groups that involved administering medications to treatment seekers.

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.

Probing the Manipulated Neurochemical Drive in Alcohol Addiction and Novel Therapeutic Advancements

Alcohol addiction is one of the highly prevalent neurological disorders and a major threat to public health in the 21st century. Alcohol addiction affects people from all age groups and often leads to other serious comorbidities. The pathophysiology of alcohol addiction involves imbalance between the excitatory and inhibitory neurotransmitters in the brain. These changes occur in various regions of the brain including reward circuit such as the ventral tegmental area (VTA), nucleus accumbens (NAc), and prefrontal cortex. In this review, we have discussed several neurochemical circuitries which get manipulated and maladapted during alcohol addiction. To date there is no effective therapeutic intervention in clinics devoid of side effects that can successfully treat the patients suffering from alcohol addiction. Understanding the neurobiological intricacies of alcohol addiction is critical for the development of novel anti-addiction therapeutics. Apart from this, we have also discussed the recent therapeutic milestones for the management of alcohol addiction including vasopressin receptors, corticotrophin-releasing factor, GABA receptors, glucocorticoid receptors, brain stimulation and mindfulness-oriented recovery enhancement.

The Human Laboratory and Drug Development in Alcohol Use Disorder: Recent Updates

Despite a number of approved medications for alcohol use disorder (AUD), this chronic relapsing disease still produces a considerable global burden, with both health-related and financial consequences. While clinical trials are a critical step in drug development, human laboratory studies provide the field with means of screening pharmacotherapy for more nuanced aspects of AUD. Specifically, studies employing alcohol administration techniques (e.g., alcohol challenge and self-administration) are able to investigate potential drugs with respect to their ability to alter various responses to alcohol administration or alter alcohol consumption in laboratory settings. This chapter reviews methodological designs and provides updates from alcohol administration studies used to screen for potential AUD pharmacotherapy over the past decade. These recent studies have supported the efficacy of approved drugs, identified some promising novel drugs, and investigated other drugs that appear ineffective in AUD treatment. Yet, few drugs are explored using the different variants of alcohol administration methods, and using the different methods has provided inconsistent results for the same drug. Future research would aid advancement in the field by testing medication with various methodologies and refining recently developed techniques.

Promoting activity of (α4)3(β2)2 nicotinic cholinergic receptors reduces ethanol consumption

There is increasing interest in developing drugs that act at α4β2 nicotinic acetylcholine receptors (nAChRs) to treat alcohol use disorder. The smoking cessation agent varenicline, a partial agonist of α4β2 nAChRs, reduces alcohol intake, but its use can be limited by side effects at high therapeutic doses. There are two stoichiometric forms of α4β2 nAChRs, (α4)₃(β2)₂ and (α4)₂(β2)₃. Here we investigated the hypothesis that NS9283, a positive allosteric modulator selective for the (α4)₃(β2)₂ form, reduces ethanol consumption. NS9283 increased the potency of varenicline to activate and desensitize (α4)₃(β2)₂ nAChRs in vitro without affecting other known targets of varenicline. In male and female C57BL/6J mice, NS9283 (10 mg/kg) reduced ethanol intake in a two-bottle choice, intermittent drinking procedure without affecting saccharin intake, ethanol-induced incoordination or ethanol-induced loss of the righting reflex. Subthreshold doses of NS9283 (2.5 mg/kg) plus varenicline (0.1 mg/kg) synergistically reduced ethanol intake in both sexes. Finally, despite having no aversive valence of its own, NS9283 enhanced ethanol-conditioned place aversion. We conclude that compounds targeting the (α4)₃(β2)₂ subtype of nAChRs can reduce alcohol consumption, and when administered in combination with varenicline, may allow use of lower varenicline doses to decrease varenicline side effects.

Pharmacokinetics and Pharmacodynamics of Immediate-Release Versus Extended-Release Guanfacine in Adult Daily Smokers

BACKGROUND

Guanfacine is Food and Drug Administration approved for hypertension and attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder and has been used off-label for migraine prophylaxis, heroin withdrawal, and more recently smoking cessation. Previous studies have shown positive effects of 3 mg/d of immediate-release (IR) guanfacine on smoking outcomes, but the dose equivalency of the IR and extended-release (ER) formulations is unknown.

PROCEDURES

A within-subject design was used to compare the pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of 3 mg/d of IR, 4 mg/d of ER, and 6 mg/d of ER guanfacine in adult daily smokers (n = 5). Plasma medication levels, vital signs, cigarettes per day, tobacco craving, and adverse events were assessed. Medication was titrated to stable dosing after each laboratory day (3 mg/d IR, then 4 mg/d ER, then 6 mg/d ER).

RESULTS

Plasma medication levels did not differ between the 3 mg/d of IR and 4 mg/d of ER doses after 24 hours from last dose and were highest at the 6 mg/d of ER dose (3 mg/d IR: M = 3.40 ng/mL, SE = 0.34 vs 4 mg/d ER: M = 3.46 ng/mL, SE = 0.67 vs 6 mg/d ER: M = 5.92 ng/mL, SE = 1.02). All doses of guanfacine decreased heart rate and blood pressure from baseline. Absolute values of cigarettes per day (6 mg/d ER) and tobacco craving (4 and 6 mg/d ER) were lowest with the ER formulations. Treatment-emergent adverse events were subject rated as minimal to mild, except dry mouth.

CONCLUSIONS

We demonstrated similar pharmacokinetic profiles between 3 mg/d of IR guanfacine and 4 mg/d of ER guanfacine, as hypothesized. All doses of guanfacine were well tolerated.

An improved model of ethanol and nicotine co-use in female P rats: Effects of naltrexone, varenicline, and the selective nicotinic α6β2* antagonist r-bPiDI

Background Although pharmacotherapies are available for alcohol (EtOH) or tobacco use disorders individually, it may be possible to develop a single pharmacotherapy to treat heavy drinking tobacco smokers by capitalizing on the commonalities in their mechanisms of action. Methods Female alcohol-preferring (P) rats were trained for EtOH drinking and nicotine self-administration in two phases: (1) EtOH alone (0 vs. 15% EtOH, 2-bottle choice) and (2) concomitant access, during which EtOH access continued with access to nicotine (0.03 mg/kg/infusion, i.v.) using a 2-lever choice procedure (active vs. inactive lever) in which the fixed ratio (FR) requirement was gradually increased to FR30. When stable co-use was obtained, rats were pretreated with varying doses of naltrexone, varenicline, or r-bPiDI, an α6β2* subtype-selective nicotinic acetylcholine receptor antagonist shown previously to reduce nicotine self-administration. Results While EtOH intake was initially suppressed in phase 2 (co-use), pharmacologically relevant intake for both substances was achieved by raising the "price" of nicotine to FR30. In phase 2, naltrexone decreased EtOH and water consumption but not nicotine intake; in contrast, naltrexone in phase 1 (EtOH only) did not significantly alter EtOH intake. Varenicline and r-bPiDI in phase 2 both decreased nicotine self-administration and inactive lever pressing, but neither altered EtOH or water consumption. Conclusions These results indicate that increasing the "price" of nicotine increases EtOH intake during co-use. Additionally, the efficacy of naltrexone, varenicline, and r-bPiDI was specific to either EtOH or nicotine, with no efficacy for co-use. Nevertheless, future studies on combining these treatments may reveal synergistic efficacy.

Pilot investigation of the effect of carvedilol on stress-precipitated smoking-lapse behavior

INTRODUCTION

Separate α1- and β-adrenergic antagonists have shown efficacy in reducing nicotine-motivated behaviors in rodents and humans, supporting a role for the noradrenergic system in mediating the reinforcing properties of drugs of abuse. However, the effect of the combined α1- and β-adrenergic antagonist, carvedilol, on stress-related smoking is unknown.

METHODS

Using a well-established human laboratory model of stress-precipitated smoking-lapse behavior, we examined whether carvedilol (0 or 50 mg/day; between subject, n=17 per group), administered to steady-state, would attenuate the ability to resist smoking following stress imagery (vs. neutral imagery) and reduce subsequent smoking self-administration in nicotine-deprived smokers ( n = 34 total). Tobacco craving, withdrawal, and physiologic reactivity were also assessed.

RESULTS

Latency to start smoking and number of cigarettes smoked during the self-administration period did not differ by medication condition. Counter to our hypothesis, tobacco craving demonstrated a medication × time effect, with greater craving in the carvedilol condition. Systolic blood pressure and heart rate demonstrated lower values in the carvedilol versus placebo group, consistent with known effects of carvedilol.

CONCLUSION

While carvedilol attenuated physiologic reactivity consistent with its clinical indication, beneficial effects on smoking outcomes were absent in this preliminary investigation and may suggest possible worsening. Future work may benefit from discerning the single versus combined effects of α1- and β-adrenergic antagonism on smoking outcomes.

Effects of the nicotinic agonist varenicline, nicotinic antagonist r-bPiDI, and DAT inhibitor (R)-modafinil on co-use of ethanol and nicotine in female P rats

RATIONALE

Co-users of alcohol and nicotine are the largest group of polysubstance users worldwide. Commonalities in mechanisms of action for ethanol (EtOH) and nicotine proposes the possibility of developing a single pharmacotherapeutic to treat co-use.

OBJECTIVES

Toward developing a preclinical model of co-use, female alcohol-preferring (P) rats were trained for voluntary EtOH drinking and i.v. nicotine self-administration in three phases: (1) EtOH alone (0 vs. 15%, two-bottle choice), (2) nicotine alone (0.03 mg/kg/infusion, active vs. inactive lever), and (3) concurrent access to both EtOH and nicotine. Using this model, we examined the effects of (1) varenicline, a nicotinic acetylcholine receptor (nAChR) partial agonist with high affinity for the α4β2* subtype; (2) r-bPiDI, a subtype-selective antagonist at α6β2* nAChRs; and (3) (R)-modafinil, an atypical inhibitor of the dopamine transporter (DAT).

RESULTS

In phases 1 and 2, pharmacologically relevant intake of EtOH and nicotine was achieved. In the concurrent access phase (phase 3), EtOH consumption decreased while nicotine intake increased relative to phases 1 and 2. For drug pretreatments, in the EtOH access phase (phase 1), (R)-modafinil (100 mg/kg) decreased EtOH consumption, with no effect on water consumption. In the concurrent access phase, varenicline (3 mg/kg), r-bPiDI (20 mg/kg), and (R)-modafinil (100 mg/kg) decreased nicotine self-administration but did not alter EtOH consumption, water consumption, or inactive lever pressing.

CONCLUSIONS

These results indicate that therapeutics which may be useful for smoking cessation via selective inhibition of α4β2* or α6β2* nAChRs, or DAT inhibition, may not be sufficient to treat EtOH and nicotine co-use.

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

The Effects of Long-Term Varenicline Administration on Ethanol and Sucrose Seeking and Self-Administration in Male P Rats

BACKGROUND

Varenicline, a partial agonist at α4β2 and full agonist at α7 nicotinic cholinergic receptors, is FDA-approved for treatment of smoking cessation and has been found to reduce alcohol craving in clinical populations. In rodents, varenicline decreases free-choice ethanol (EtOH) intake with somewhat mixed findings in operant paradigms that utilize a combined appetitive/consummatory response.

METHODS

The present experiment utilized an operant paradigm that procedurally separates appetitive from consummatory responding and a "reward-blocking" approach (i.e., rats were able to consume EtOH during treatment) to better understand the efficacy of varenicline as a treatment for EtOH self-administration and subsequent EtOH seeking. Separate groups of EtOH- and sucrose-reinforced alcohol-preferring, male P rats experienced alternating cycles of vehicle (2-week cycles) and varenicline (0.3, 1.0, and 2.0 mg/kg self-administered in a gelatin preparation) treatment (3-week cycles) prior to daily sessions where a single lever press resulted in 20 minutes of reinforcer access. At the end of each cycle, a single extinction session assessed the seeking response in the absence of drug pretreatment.

RESULTS

Varenicline dose dependently decreased EtOH intake. Sucrose intake was largely unaffected, with no overall treatment effects and only sporadic days where the medium and high dose differed from vehicle. Neither sucrose nor EtOH seeking was significantly decreased by varenicline, and there were no treatment effects on either lick or lever-press latency. Overall effect sizes were much greater for both drinking and seeking in the EtOH group as compared to the sucrose group.

CONCLUSIONS

Varenicline effectively attenuates EtOH self-administration during treatment, but the experience with EtOH consumption while varenicline is "on board" is not sufficient to alter subsequent EtOH seeking. The overall pattern of findings indicates that varenicline blocks the rewarding properties of EtOH while not substituting for EtOH, that the nonspecific effects on an alternate reinforcer are negligible, and that blood levels of varenicline need to be maintained in order for treatment to remain effective.

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.

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.

Promising pharmacogenetic targets for treating alcohol use disorder: evidence from preclinical models

Inherited genetic variants contribute to risk factors for developing an alcohol use disorder, and polymorphisms may inform precision medicine strategies for treating alcohol addiction. Targeting genetic mutations linked to alcohol phenotypes has provided promising initial evidence for reducing relapse rates in alcoholics. Although successful in some studies, there are conflicting findings and the reports of adverse effects may ultimately limit their clinical utility, suggesting that novel pharmacogenetic targets are necessary to advance precision medicine approaches. Here, we describe promising novel genetic variants derived from preclinical models of alcohol consumption and dependence that may uncover disease mechanisms that drive uncontrolled drinking and identify novel pharmacogenetic targets that facilitate therapeutic intervention for the treatment of alcohol use disorder.

Effect of Varenicline Combined with High-Dose Alcohol on Craving, Subjective Intoxication, Perceptual Motor Response, and Executive Cognitive Function in Adults with Alcohol Use Disorders: Preliminary Findings

BACKGROUND

Varenicline has been found to decrease alcohol-motivated behaviors. Recent warnings regarding aversive events associated with varenicline used in conjunction with alcohol warrant further investigation into the safety of the drug when combined with alcohol. The purpose of this preliminary investigation was to examine the effect of combining varenicline with a high, fixed dose of alcohol on subjective reactivity and cognitive function in adults with alcohol use disorders (AUDs).

METHODS

This double-blind, placebo-controlled preliminary investigation examined the effects of varenicline (0, 1, 2 mg/d) on subjective reactivity, cognition, perceptual motor function, and physiologic reactivity to a fixed dose of alcohol (vs. nonalcohol control beverage) using an established laboratory paradigm in smokers and nonsmokers meeting criteria for AUDs (n = 44). All participants had completed a parent varenicline study evaluating alcohol self-administration. Each subject completed 2 fixed-dose laboratory sessions assessing reactivity to a high-dose alcohol (0.08 g/dl) or a nonalcoholic control beverage, order counterbalanced.

RESULTS

Varenicline attenuated alcohol-related increases in subjective intoxication and alcohol-related decreases in executive cognitive function. At baseline, varenicline reduced alcohol craving and diastolic blood pressure, and increased associative learning, working memory, and perceptual motor function. Varenicline produced nonspecific effects on diastolic blood pressure and heart rate. Overall, there were few differences in effects between 1 and 2 mg/d varenicline versus placebo.

CONCLUSIONS

These preliminary results continue to support the safety and use of varenicline in combination with alcohol in individuals meeting criteria for AUDs.