World Health Organization risk drinking levels as a treatment outcome measure in topiramate trials

Examining cocaine use reductions and long-term outcomes in two clinical trials of continuing care for cocaine dependence

BACKGROUND

There is a need to identify clinically meaningful non-abstinent endpoints for cocaine use disorder (CUD) clinical trials. In this study, we sought to replicate and extend prior work validating reductions in cocaine use frequency levels as an endpoint by examining associations between reductions in cocaine use frequency and long-term functioning outcomes.

METHODS

We conducted a secondary analysis of two randomized clinical trials (N = 445; 77.5 % male; mean age = 42.18 years; 86.5 % Black, 10.8 % non-Hispanic white) that evaluated telephone-based continuing care for a 12- and 24-month period. Cocaine use frequency levels, measured with the Timeline Followback, were (1) abstinence (no past-month cocaine use), (2) low-frequency use (1-4 days of use/month), and (3) high-frequency use (5+ days of use/month).

RESULTS

Among those who completed the 12-month follow-up (n = 392), most reduced from high-frequency use at baseline to abstinence at the 12-month follow-up (n = 243; 62.0 %). An additional 21.2 % (n = 83) reported either high-to-low-frequency use (n = 35; 8.9 %) or low use-to-abstinence (n = 48; 12.2 %); 16.8 % of participants (n = 66) did not change or increased their cocaine frequency level. Compared to those who had no change/increases in frequency levels, at least a one-level reduction from baseline to 12-month follow-up (i.e., high-to-low-frequency use, high-to-abstinence, low-to-abstinence) was concurrently associated with lower levels of negative consequences at the 12-month follow-up and prospectively with lower levels of cocaine use and consequences at 24-month follow-up, with effect sizes in the medium-to-large range. Those who reduced to abstinence generally had fewer drug use consequences at the 12-month follow-up than those who reduced to a low-frequency level; however, these groups did not significantly differ on any outcomes at the 24-month follow-up.

CONCLUSIONS

Categorical reductions in cocaine use frequency levels, including those short of abstinence, are associated with less cocaine use and lower problem severity up to two years following treatment entry. Low-frequency cocaine use following the initial treatment phase does not appear to forebode worsening functioning, such as escalations in cocaine use.

Management of alcohol use disorder in patients with chronic liver disease

Alcohol use disorder (AUD) rates have risen dramatically in the United States, resulting in increasing rates of alcohol-associated liver disease (ALD), but many patients struggle to access alcohol use treatment. AUD treatment improves outcomes, including mortality, and represents the most urgent means by which care can be improved for those with liver disease (including ALD and others) and AUD. AUD care for those with liver disease involves 3 steps: detecting alcohol use, diagnosing AUD, and directing patients to alcohol treatment. Detecting alcohol use can involve questioning during the clinical interview, the use of standardized alcohol use surveys, and alcohol biomarkers. Identifying and diagnosing AUD are interview-based processes that should ideally be performed by a trained addiction professional, but nonaddiction clinicians can use surveys to determine the severity of hazardous drinking. Referral to formal AUD treatment should be made, especially where more severe AUD is suspected or identified. Therapeutic modalities are numerous and include different forms of one-on-one psychotherapy, such as motivational enhancement therapy or cognitive behavior therapy, group therapy, community mutual aid societies (such as Alcoholics Anonymous), inpatient addiction treatment, and relapse prevention medications. Finally, integrated care approaches that build strong relationships between addiction professionals and hepatologists or medical providers caring for those with liver disease are crucial to improving care for this population.

Motives for nonmedical use of prescription stimulants in community college students

Objective: The present study identified common motives for nonmedical use of prescription stimulants (NMUS) among community college (CC) students and examined behavioral and demographic correlates of certain motives. Participants: The survey was completed by 3,113 CC students (72.4% female; 81.7% White). Methods: Survey results from 10 CCs were evaluated. Results: NMUS was reported by 9% (n = 269) participants. The most common motive for NMUS was to "focus on studies or to improve academic performance" (67.5%) followed by to "have more energy" (52.4%). Females were more likely to report NMUS for weight loss, and males were more likely to report NMUS to experiment. The motive "to feel good or get high" was linked to polysubstance use. Conclusions: CC students report similar motives for NMUS to those commonly endorsed by 4-year university students. These findings may help identify CC students susceptible to risky substance use.

A Bayesian meta-analysis of topiramate's effectiveness for individuals with alcohol use disorder

BACKGROUND

Topiramate (TPM) has the potential to become one of the most prominent treatment options for alcohol use disorder (AUD). We investigated the efficacy of TPM for AUD treatment, considering new randomized controlled trials carried out since the publication of four prior investigations.

METHODS

We searched six major databases, comparing TPM to placebo for AUD treatment. We performed a Bayesian meta-analysis. We conducted a meta-regression, analyzing the effect of age, TPM dosage, duration of treatment, gender, and attrition rate on the outcomes measured. The protocol is registered with PROSPERO: CRD42021286266.

RESULTS

TPM reduced heavy drinking days (d = 0.401, Bayes factor (BF) = 23.088) and weeks (d = 0.461, BF = 3.784), lowered alcohol craving (d = 0.477, BF = 107.749), prolonged abstinence throughout the duration of trials (d = 0.505, BF = 54.998), and decreased the amount of gamma-glutamyl transferase in the blood (d = 0.345, BF = 39.048). The analysis pointed out that TPM could reduce anxiety (d = 0.517, BF = 5.993). TPM's efficacy in relieving alcohol withdrawal, minimizing relapse, and decreasing depressive symptoms was inconclusive. There was evidence of a meta-regression effect of attrition rate on heavy drinking days and craving and length of treatment on abstinence.

CONCLUSION

TPM has the potential to become a key pharmacological agent in the treatment of AUD.

Hazardous drinking and alcohol use disorders

Alcohol is one of the most widely consumed psychoactive drugs globally. Hazardous drinking, defined by quantity and frequency of consumption, is associated with acute and chronic morbidity. Alcohol use disorders (AUDs) are psychiatric syndromes characterized by impaired control over drinking and other symptoms. Contemporary aetiological perspectives on AUDs apply a biopsychosocial framework that emphasizes the interplay of genetics, neurobiology, psychology, and an individual's social and societal context. There is strong evidence that AUDs are genetically influenced, but with a complex polygenic architecture. Likewise, there is robust evidence for environmental influences, such as adverse childhood exposures and maladaptive developmental trajectories. Well-established biological and psychological determinants of AUDs include neuroadaptive changes following persistent use, differences in brain structure and function, and motivational determinants including overvaluation of alcohol reinforcement, acute effects of environmental triggers and stress, elevations in multiple facets of impulsivity, and lack of alternative reinforcers. Social factors include bidirectional roles of social networks and sociocultural influences, such as public health control strategies and social determinants of health. An array of evidence-based approaches for reducing alcohol harms are available, including screening, pharmacotherapies, psychological interventions and policy strategies, but are substantially underused. Priorities for the field include translating advances in basic biobehavioural research into novel clinical applications and, in turn, promoting widespread implementation of evidence-based clinical approaches in practice and health-care systems.

Combination treatment with varenicline and naltrexone reduces World Health Organization risk drinking levels

BACKGROUND

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration identifies abstinence and the absence of heavy drinking days as outcomes for pharmacotherapy trials for alcohol use disorder (AUD). However, many individuals with AUD struggle to achieve these outcomes, which may discourage them from seeking treatment. World Health Organization (WHO) risk drinking levels have garnered attention in the alcohol field as potential non-abstinent outcomes for AUD medication trials. Further, testing combination pharmacotherapy for AUD represents an important direction in the field, particularly using medications such as naltrexone and varenicline, which are approved for treating AUD and smoking, respectively. The objective of the current study was to test the utility of the WHO risk drinking levels as a drinking outcome in a randomized clinical trial of combined varenicline and naltrexone for smoking cessation and drinking reduction. These analyses provide additional tests of the efficacy of this combination treatment.

METHODS

The current study is a secondary analysis of a phase 2, randomized, double-blind clinical trial, wherein participants (N = 165) who were daily smokers and heavy drinkers were randomly assigned to receive either 2 mg/day of varenicline plus 50 mg/day of naltrexone or 2 mg/day of varenicline plus placebo for 12 weeks. Medication effects on 1- and 2-level reductions in WHO risk drinking levels were assessed at 4, 8, and 12 weeks into the active medication period.

RESULTS

In logistic growth curve models individuals receiving the combined treatment had greater reductions in WHO risk drinking levels than individuals taking varenicline alone when assessed at 4 weeks into the active medication period. Among individuals who were WHO high and very high risk drinkers at baseline, the largest effect sizes favoring combination treatment were at Week 4 for the WHO 2-level reduction outcome (Cohen's h = 0.202) and Week 12 for the WHO 1-level reduction outcome (Cohen's h = 0.244), although these effects did not reach statistical significance.

CONCLUSIONS

These findings provide evidence that combined varenicline plus naltrexone treatment is effective at reducing WHO risk drinking levels, particularly among individuals who smoke cigarettes daily and drink heavily. These results add to a growing body of literature validating reductions in WHO risk drinking levels as outcomes of alcohol medication trials.

The Brief Alcohol Use Disorder Severity Scale: An Initial Validation Evaluation

AIMS

The goal of this study was to develop a standard measure of AUD severity that includes multiple dimensions and can be used in clinical settings to inform treatment selection.

METHODS

A large sample (n = 1939) of moderate to heavy drinkers was amassed from six psychopharmacology studies. The severity factor was comprised of four dimensions: withdrawal, craving, AUD symptoms and alcohol-related consequences. First, a confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was conducted to examine model fit. Next, a comprehensive item list from the four measures (i.e. CIWA, DrinC, PACs and SCID-5 AUD criteria) was reduced through exploratory factor analysis (EFA). Once the final items were merged into a preliminary assessment, an EFA was run to observe the factor structure. Initial validation of the measure was obtained via associations with clinical endpoints.

RESULTS

The chi-square test statistic (${\chi}^2(2)=2.432\ P=0.297$) for a single-factor model of severity demonstrated good fit. Additional goodness-of-fit indices from the CFA revealed similar support for the single-factor model of severity (i.e. SRMSR = 0.011; RMSEA = 0.011; CFI = 0.999). Next, nine items from the individual EFAs were selected based on factor loading. The final EFA conducted on the 9-item scale demonstrated that a single factor model of severity best fit the data. Analysis of the psychometric properties revealed good internal consistency ($\alpha$= 0.79).

CONCLUSIONS

The current study extends upon the measurement of severity and supports a brief severity measure. This brief 9-item scale can be leveraged in future studies as a screening instrument and as a tool for personalized medicine.