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

Human laboratory models of reward in substance use disorder

Human laboratory models in substance use disorder provide a key intermediary step between highly controlled and mechanistically informative non-human preclinical methods and clinical trials conducted in human populations. Much like preclinical models, the variety of human laboratory methods provide insights into specific features of substance use disorder rather than modelling the diverse causes and consequences simultaneously in a single model. This narrative review provides a discussion of popular models of reward used in human laboratory research on substance use disorder with a focus on the specific contributions that each model has towards informing clinical outcomes (forward translation) and analogs within preclinical models (backward translation). Four core areas of human laboratory research are discussed: drug self-administration, subjective effects, behavioral economics, and cognitive and executive function. Discussion of common measures and models used, the features of substance use disorder that these methods are purported to evaluate, unique issues for measure validity and application, and translational links to preclinical models and special considerations for studies wishing to evaluate homology across species is provided.

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.

A Brief Introduction to Human Behavioral Pharmacology: Methods, Design Considerations and Ethics

Human behavioral pharmacology methods have been used to rigorously evaluate the effects of a range of centrally acting drugs in humans under controlled conditions for decades. Methods like drug self-administration and drug discrimination have been adapted from nonhuman laboratory animal models. Because humans have the capacity to communicate verbally, self-report methods are also commonly used to understand drug effects. This perspective article provides an overview of these traditional human behavioral pharmacology methods and introduces some novel methodologies that have more recently been adapted for use in the field. Design (e.g., using placebo controls, testing multiple doses) and ethical (e.g., avoiding enrollment of individuals seeking treatment, determining capacity to consent) considerations that must be addressed when conducting these types of studies are also described.