Impulsiveness as a predictor of topiramate response for cocaine use disorder

Predictors of cocaine use disorder treatment outcomes: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

Psychosocial approaches are the first-line treatments for cocaine dependence, although they still present high dropout and relapse rates. Thus, there is a pressing need to understand which variables influence treatment outcomes to improve current treatments and prevent dropout and relapse rates. The aim of this study is to explore predictors of treatment retention and abstinence in CUD.

METHODS

This systematic review was performed according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA). We searched three databases-PubMed, PsychINFO and Web of Science-for randomized clinical trials (RCTs) published in English and Spanish from database inception through April 1, 2023. We selected all studies that met the inclusion criteria (adults aged ≥ 18, outpatient treatment, CUD as main addiction, and no severe mental illness) to obtain data for the narrative synthesis addressing cocaine abstinence and treatment retention as main outcome variables. After data extraction was completed, risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool for randomized trials (RoB-2).

RESULTS

A total of 566 studies were screened, and, of those, 32 RCTs were included in the synthesis. Younger age, more years of cocaine use, and craving levels were significant predictors of relapse and treatment dropout. Fewer withdrawal symptoms, greater baseline abstinence, greater treatment engagement, and more self-efficacy were all predictors of longer duration of abstinence. The role of impulsivity as a predictor of CUD is unclear due to conflicting data, although the evidence generally suggests that higher impulsivity scores can predict more severe addiction and withdrawal symptoms, and earlier discontinuation of treatment.

CONCLUSION

Current evidence indicates which variables have a direct influence on treatment outcomes, including well-studied cocaine use-related variables. However, additional variables, such as genetic markers, appear to have a high impact on treatment outcomes and need further study.

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION

This systematic review is registered at PROSPERO (ID: CRD42021271847). This study was funded by the Spanish Ministry of Science, Innovation and Universities, Instituto Carlos III (ISCIII) (FIS PI20/00929) and FEDER funds and Fundació Privada Hospital de la Santa Creu i Sant Pau (Pla d'acció social 2020).

Pharmacotherapy compared to placebo for people with Bulimia Nervosa: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Bulimia Nervosa is a disorder with high rates of psychiatric and medical comorbidity and substantial societal costs. Cognitive Behavioural Therapy is considered the preferred treatment, but access can be problematic. Pharmacotherapy is more accessible but remains significantly underutilised. We aimed to assess the efficacy, tolerability, and safety of all available forms of pharmacotherapy for the treatment of bulimia nervosa. We conducted a comprehensive search of PubMed, EMBASE, CENTRAL, ClinicalTrials.gov, and reference lists of relevant articles up until April 2023. The primary outcomes were remission and binge frequency. 52 randomised controlled trials (RCTs) involving 3313 participants were included in the meta-analysis. Overall, no significant difference was observed between drugs and placebo in terms of remission; however, the available data were limited. Notably, drugs, particularly antidepressants, demonstrated a significant reduction in the frequency of binge episodes compared to placebo. Antidepressants were also found to be more effective than placebo in terms of treatment response and other clinically meaningful outcomes. An important limitation is that few RCTs were available for individual drugs. Our findings provide evidence supporting the increased utilisation of pharmacotherapy in clinical practice and underscore the need for further research involving larger populations and a broader range of outcomes.

Cognitive Alterations in Addictive Disorders: A Translational Approach

The cognitive decline in people with substance use disorders is well known and can be found during both the dependence and drug abstinence phases. At the clinical level, cognitive decline impairs the response to addiction treatment and increases dropout rates. It can be irreversible, even after the end of drug abuse consumption. Improving our understanding of the molecular and cellular alterations associated with cognitive decline could be essential to developing specific therapeutic strategies for its treatment. Developing animal models to simulate drug abuse-induced learning and memory alterations is critical to continue exploring this clinical situation. The main aim of this review is to summarize the most recent evidence on cognitive impairment and the associated biological markers in patients addicted to some of the most consumed drugs of abuse and in animal models simulating this clinical situation. The available information suggests the need to develop more studies to further explore the molecular alterations associated with cognitive impairment, with the ultimate goal of developing new potential therapeutic strategies.

Integrating Harm Reduction into Outpatient Opioid Use Disorder Treatment Settings : Harm Reduction in Outpatient Addiction Treatment

Opioid use disorder (OUD) is increasingly recognized as a chronic, relapsing brain disease whose treatment should be integrated into primary care settings alongside other chronic conditions. However, abstinence from all non-prescribed substance use continues to be prioritized as the only desired goal in many outpatient, primary care-based treatment programs. This presents a barrier to engagement for patients who continue to use substances and who may be at high risk for complications of ongoing substance use such as human immunodeficiency virus (HIV), hepatitis C virus (HCV), superficial and deep tissue infections, and overdose. Harm reduction aims to reduce the negative consequences of substance use and offers an alternative to abstinence as a singular goal. Incorporating harm reduction principles into primary care treatment settings can support programs in engaging patients with ongoing substance use and facilitate the delivery of evidence-based screening and prevention services. The objective of this narrative review is to describe strategies for the integration of evidence-based harm reduction principles and interventions into outpatient, primary care-based OUD treatment settings. We will offer specific tools for providers and programs including strategies to support safer injection practices, assess the risks and benefits of continuing medications for opioid use disorder in the setting of ongoing substance use, promote a non-stigmatizing program culture, and address the needs of special populations with ongoing substance use including adolescents, parents, and families.

Topiramate-chitosan nanoparticles prevent morphine reinstatement with no memory impairment: Dopaminergic and glutamatergic molecular aspects in rats

Besides their clinical application, chronic misuse of opioids has often been associated to drug addiction due to their addictive properties, underlying neuroadaptations of AMPA glutamate-receptor-dependent synaptic plasticity. Topiramate (TPM), an AMPAR antagonist, has been used to treat psychostimulants addiction, despite its harmful effects on memory. This study aimed to evaluate the effects of a novel topiramate nanosystem on molecular changes related to morphine reinstatement. Rats were previously exposed to morphine in conditioned place preference (CPP) paradigm and treated with topiramate-chitosan nanoparticles (TPM-CS-NP) or non-encapsulated topiramate in solution (S-TPM) during CPP extinction; following memory performance evaluation, they were re-exposed to morphine reinstatement. While morphine-CPP extinction was comparable among all experimental groups, TPM-CS-NP treatment prevented morphine reinstatement, preserving memory performance, which was impaired by both morphine-conditioning and S-TPM treatment. In the NAc, morphine increased D1R, D2R, D3R, DAT, GluA1 and MOR immunoreactivity. It also increased D1R, DAT, GluA1 and MOR in the dorsal hippocampus. TPM-CS-NP treatment decreased D1R, D3R and GluA1 and increased DAT in the NAc, decreasing GluA1 and increasing D2 and DAT in the dorsal hippocampus. Taken together, we may infer that TPM-CS-NP treatment was able to prevent the morphine reinstatement without memory impairment. Therefore, TPM-CS-NP may be considered an innovative therapeutic tool due to its property to prevent opioid reinstatement because it acts modifying both dopaminergic and glutamatergic neurotransmission, which are commonly related to morphine addiction.

Efficacy and safety of topiramate for reducing impulsivity: A transdiagnostic systematic review and meta-analysis of a common clinical use

Impulsivity is an important transdiagnostic feature of many psychiatric disorders, as well as a marker of poorer outcome. Topiramate is broadly used for reducing impulsivity in various neuropsychiatric disorders, but no systematic review or meta-analysis has ever explored whether evidence supports this clinical use. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of the literature, using PubMed, PsycInfo and Cochrane databases. We included all studies assessing the efficacy of topiramate in adults with high levels of impulsivity, based on either psychometric or neuropsychological measures. Seven articles were included, involving 578 participants. Important heterogeneity in designs and quality features was observed. Topiramate lowered impulsivity levels in two of the studies that used the Barratt Impulsiveness Scale (BIS) (401 participants) and in one of the studies that used neuropsychological measures (63 participants). Four other studies found no effect of topiramate on impulsivity. A larger reduction in the BIS-11 overall score, with a mean difference of 2.57 (95% confidence interval -4.12 to -1.02), was found in the topiramate group than the placebo group using a random effects model. However, one study accounted for the major part (85.5%) of it, and most included studies presented a high risk of bias. The use of a self-assessment scale induced an additional risk of self-report bias. No clear-cut evidence was found for a transdiagnostic effectiveness of topiramate in reducing impulsivity levels. However, encouraging results were found in some specific disorders.

Use of Topiramate in the Spectrum of Addictive and Eating Disorders: A Systematic Review Comparing Treatment Schemes, Efficacy, and Safety Features

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

Topiramate has been approved by the US Food and Drug Administration for the treatment of epilepsy since the 1990s, and it has also been used off-label in the treatment of many types of addictive disorders. To date, no systematic review has embraced the entire field of addiction, both substance use and behavioral addictions, including eating disorders, to compare topiramate-based protocols and the related level of evidence in each addictive disorder. Our objective is to fill this gap.

METHODS

A systematic search was conducted using the MEDLINE, PsycINFO, and Cochrane databases without a date or language limit. All trials and meta-analyses assessing the efficacy of topiramate in alcohol use disorder; cocaine use disorder; methamphetamine, nicotine, cannabis, opiate, and benzodiazepine use disorders; binge eating disorder; bulimia; and pathological gambling were analyzed. The quality of the studies was rated using the Cochrane Risk-of-Bias tool for randomized trials (ROB-2), the Risk of Bias In Nonrandomized Studies (ROBINS-I), or the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) checklist, depending on the study design. Safety features were assessed based on a wider non-systematic review.

RESULTS

Sixty-two articles were reviewed. Treatment protocols were relatively homogenous across addictive disorders, with slow dose titration schemes and a maximum dose range of 200-400 mg per day. The most supportive evidence for topiramate efficacy was found in alcohol use disorder for drinking reduction parameters only. To a lesser extent, topiramate could be a promising therapeutic option for binge eating disorder and cocaine use disorder. Evidence was weak for other addictive disorders. No major tolerability issues were found, provided that basic safety rules were followed. Adverse drug reactions could lead to early treatment discontinuation.

DISCUSSION

Though off-label, addiction specialists should consider topiramate as a second-line option for drinking reduction in alcohol use disorder, as well as for binge eating disorder or cocaine use disorder.

The Neurobiology of Binge-eating Disorder Compared with Obesity: Implications for Differential Therapeutics

PURPOSE

Emerging work indicates divergence in the neurobiologies of binge-eating disorder (BED) and obesity despite their frequent co-occurrence. This review highlights specific distinguishing aspects of BED, including elevated impulsivity and compulsivity possibly involving the mesocorticolimbic dopamine system, and discusses implications for differential therapeutics for BED.

METHODS

This narrative review describes epidemiologic, clinical, genetic, and preclinical differences between BED and obesity. Subsequently, this review discusses human neuroimaging work reporting differences in executive functioning, reward processing, and emotion reactivity in BED compared with obesity. Finally, on the basis of the neurobiology of BED, this review identifies existing and new therapeutic agents that may be most promising given their specific targets based on putative mechanisms of action relevant specifically to BED.

FINDINGS

BED is characterized by elevated impulsivity and compulsivity compared with obesity, which is reflected in divergent neurobiological characteristics and effective pharmacotherapies. Therapeutic agents that influence both reward and executive function systems may be especially effective for BED.

IMPLICATIONS

Greater attention to impulsivity/compulsivity-related, reward-related, and emotion reactivity-related processes may enhance conceptualization and treatment approaches for patients with BED. Consideration of these distinguishing characteristics and processes could have implications for more targeted pharmacologic treatment research and interventions.

Pharmacological interventions for antisocial personality disorder

BACKGROUND

Antisocial personality disorder (AsPD) is associated with rule-breaking, criminality, substance use, unemployment, relationship difficulties, and premature death. Certain types of medication (drugs) may help people with AsPD. This review updates a previous Cochrane review, published in 2010.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the benefits and adverse effects of pharmacological interventions for adults with AsPD.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, 13 other databases and two trials registers up to 5 September 2019. We also checked reference lists and contacted study authors to identify studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials in which adults (age 18 years and over) with a diagnosis of AsPD or dissocial personality disorder were allocated to a pharmacological intervention or placebo control condition.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Four authors independently selected studies and extracted data. We assessed risk of bias and created 'Summary of findings tables' and assessed the certainty of the evidence using the GRADE framework. The primary outcomes were: aggression; reconviction; global state/global functioning; social functioning; and adverse events.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 11 studies (three new to this update), involving 416 participants with AsPD. Most studies (10/11) were conducted in North America. Seven studies were conducted exclusively in an outpatient setting, one in an inpatient setting, and one in prison; two studies used multiple settings. The average age of participants ranged from 28.6 years to 45.1 years (overall mean age 39.6 years). Participants were predominantly (90%) male. Study duration ranged from 6 to 24 weeks, with no follow-up period. Data were available from only four studies involving 274 participants with AsPD. All the available data came from unreplicated, single reports, and did not allow independent statistical analysis to be conducted. Many review findings were limited to descriptive summaries based on analyses carried out and reported by the trial investigators. No study set out to recruit participants on the basis of having AsPD; many participants presented primarily with substance abuse problems. The studies reported on four primary outcomes and six secondary outcomes. Primary outcomes were aggression (six studies) global/state functioning (three studies), social functioning (one study), and adverse events (seven studies). Secondary outcomes were leaving the study early (eight studies), substance misuse (five studies), employment status (one study), impulsivity (one study), anger (three studies), and mental state (three studies). No study reported data on the primary outcome of reconviction or the secondary outcomes of quality of life, engagement with services, satisfaction with treatment, housing/accommodation status, economic outcomes or prison/service outcomes.   Eleven different drugs were compared with placebo, but data for AsPD participants were only available for five comparisons. Three classes of drug were represented: antiepileptic; antidepressant; and dopamine agonist (anti-Parkinsonian) drugs. We considered selection bias to be unclear in 8/11 studies, attrition bias to be high in 7/11 studies, and performance bias to be low in 7/11 studies. Using GRADE, we rated the certainty of evidence for each outcome in this review as very low, meaning that we have very little confidence in the effect estimates reported. Phenytoin (antiepileptic) versus placebo One study (60 participants) reported very low-certainty evidence that phenytoin (300 mg/day), compared to placebo, may reduce the mean frequency of aggressive acts per week (phenytoin mean = 0.33, no standard deviation (SD) reported; placebo mean = 0.51, no SD reported) in male prisoners with aggression (skewed data) at endpoint (six weeks). The same study (60 participants) reported no evidence of difference between phenytoin and placebo in the number of participants reporting the adverse event of nausea during week one (odds ratio (OR) 1.00, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.06 to 16.76; very low-certainty evidence). The study authors also reported that no important side effects were detectable via blood cell counts or liver enzyme tests (very low-certainty evidence). The study did not measure reconviction, global/state functioning or social functioning. Desipramine (antidepressant) versus placebo One study (29 participants) reported no evidence of a difference between desipramine (250 to 300 mg/day) and placebo on mean social functioning scores (desipramine = 0.19; placebo = 0.21), assessed with the family-social domain of the Addiction Severity Index (scores range from zero to one, with higher values indicating worse social functioning), at endpoint (12 weeks) (very low-certainty evidence). Neither of the studies included in this comparison measured the other primary outcomes: aggression; reconviction; global/state functioning; or adverse events. Nortriptyline (antidepressant) versus placebo One study (20 participants) reported no evidence of a difference between nortriptyline (25 to 75 mg/day) and placebo on mean global state/functioning scores (nortriptyline = 0.3; placebo = 0.7), assessed with the Symptom Check List-90 (SCL-90) Global Severity Index (GSI; mean of subscale scores, ranging from zero to four, with higher scores indicating greater severity of symptoms), at endpoint (six months) in men with alcohol dependency (very low-certainty evidence). The study measured side effects but did not report data on adverse events for the AsPD subgroup. The study did not measure aggression, reconviction or social functioning. Bromocriptine (dopamine agonist) versus placebo One study (18 participants) reported no evidence of difference between bromocriptine (15 mg/day) and placebo on mean global state/functioning scores (bromocriptine = 0.4; placebo = 0.7), measured with the GSI of the SCL-90 at endpoint (six months) (very low-certainty evidence). The study did not provide data on adverse effects, but reported that 12 patients randomised to the bromocriptine group experienced severe side effects, five of whom dropped out of the study in the first two days due to nausea and severe flu-like symptoms (very low-certainty evidence). The study did not measure aggression, reconviction and social functioning. Amantadine (dopamine agonist) versus placebo The study in this comparison did not measure any of the primary outcomes.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The evidence summarised in this review is insufficient to draw any conclusion about the use of pharmacological interventions in the treatment of antisocial personality disorder. The evidence comes from single, unreplicated studies of mostly older medications. The studies also have methodological issues that severely limit the confidence we can draw from their results. Future studies should recruit participants on the basis of having AsPD, and use relevant outcome measures, including reconviction.

Psychological interventions for antisocial personality disorder

BACKGROUND

Antisocial personality disorder (AsPD) is associated with poor mental health, criminality, substance use and relationship difficulties. This review updates Gibbon 2010 (previous version of the review).

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the potential benefits and adverse effects of psychological interventions for adults with AsPD.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, 13 other databases and two trials registers up to 5 September 2019. We also searched reference lists and contacted study authors to identify studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials of adults, where participants with an AsPD or dissocial personality disorder diagnosis comprised at least 75% of the sample randomly allocated to receive a psychological intervention, treatment-as-usual (TAU), waiting list or no treatment. The primary outcomes were aggression, reconviction, global state/functioning, social functioning and adverse events.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane.

MAIN RESULTS

This review includes 19 studies (eight new to this update), comparing a psychological intervention against TAU (also called 'standard Maintenance'(SM) in some studies). Eight of the 18 psychological interventions reported data on our primary outcomes. Four studies focussed exclusively on participants with AsPD, and 15 on subgroups of participants with AsPD. Data were available from only 10 studies involving 605 participants. Eight studies were conducted in the UK and North America, and one each in Iran, Denmark and the Netherlands. Study duration ranged from 4 to 156 weeks (median = 26 weeks). Most participants (75%) were male; the mean age was 35.5 years. Eleven studies (58%) were funded by research councils. Risk of bias was high for 13% of criteria, unclear for 54% and low for 33%. Cognitive behaviour therapy (CBT) + TAU versus TAU One study (52 participants) found no evidence of a difference between CBT + TAU and TAU for physical aggression (odds ratio (OR) 0.92, 95% CI 0.28 to 3.07; low-certainty evidence) for outpatients at 12 months post-intervention. One study (39 participants) found no evidence of a difference between CBT + TAU and TAU for social functioning (mean difference (MD) -1.60 points, 95% CI -5.21 to 2.01; very low-certainty evidence), measured by the Social Functioning Questionnaire (SFQ; range = 0-24), for outpatients at 12 months post-intervention. Impulsive lifestyle counselling (ILC) + TAU versus TAU One study (118 participants) found no evidence of a difference between ILC + TAU and TAU for trait aggression (assessed with Buss-Perry Aggression Questionnaire-Short Form) for outpatients at nine months (MD 0.07, CI -0.35 to 0.49; very low-certainty evidence). One study (142 participants) found no evidence of a difference between ILC + TAU and TAU alone for the adverse event of death (OR 0.40, 95% CI 0.04 to 4.54; very low-certainty evidence) or incarceration (OR 0.70, 95% CI 0.27 to 1.86; very low-certainty evidence) for outpatients between three and nine months follow-up. Contingency management (CM) + SM versus SM One study (83 participants) found evidence that, compared to SM alone, CM + SM may improve social functioning measured by family/social scores on the Addiction Severity Index (ASI; range = 0 (no problems) to 1 (severe problems); MD -0.08, 95% CI -0.14 to -0.02; low-certainty evidence) for outpatients at six months. 'Driving whilst intoxicated' programme (DWI) + incarceration versus incarceration One study (52 participants) found no evidence of a difference between DWI + incarceration and incarceration alone on reconviction rates (hazard ratio 0.56, CI -0.19 to 1.31; very low-certainty evidence) for prisoner participants at 24 months. Schema therapy (ST) versus TAU One study (30 participants in a secure psychiatric hospital, 87% had AsPD diagnosis) found no evidence of a difference between ST and TAU for the number of participants who were reconvicted (OR 2.81, 95% CI 0.11 to 74.56, P = 0.54) at three years. The same study found that ST may be more likely to improve social functioning (assessed by the mean number of days until patients gain unsupervised leave (MD -137.33, 95% CI -271.31 to -3.35) compared to TAU, and no evidence of a difference between the groups for overall adverse events, classified as the number of people experiencing a global negative outcome over a three-year period (OR 0.42, 95% CI 0.08 to 2.19). The certainty of the evidence for all outcomes was very low. Social problem-solving (SPS) + psychoeducation (PE) versus TAU One study (17 participants) found no evidence of a difference between SPS + PE and TAU for participants' level of social functioning (MD -1.60 points, 95% CI -5.43 to 2.23; very low-certainty evidence) assessed with the SFQ at six months post-intervention. Dialectical behaviour therapy versus TAU One study (skewed data, 14 participants) provided very low-certainty, narrative evidence that DBT may reduce the number of self-harm days for outpatients at two months post-intervention compared to TAU. Psychosocial risk management (PSRM; 'Resettle') versus TAU One study (skewed data, 35 participants) found no evidence of a difference between PSRM and TAU for a number of officially recorded offences at one year after release from prison. It also found no evidence of difference between the PSRM and TAU for the adverse event of death during the study period (OR 0.89, 95% CI 0.05 to 14.83, P = 0.94, 72 participants (90% had AsPD), 1 study, very low-certainty evidence).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is very limited evidence available on psychological interventions for adults with AsPD. Few interventions addressed the primary outcomes of this review and, of the eight that did, only three (CM + SM, ST and DBT) showed evidence that the intervention may be more effective than the control condition. No intervention reported compelling evidence of change in antisocial behaviour. Overall, the certainty of the evidence was low or very low, meaning that we have little confidence in the effect estimates reported. The conclusions of this update have not changed from those of the original review, despite the addition of eight new studies. This highlights the ongoing need for further methodologically rigorous studies to yield further data to guide the development and application of psychological interventions for AsPD and may suggest that a new approach is required.

Perfil farmacoterapêutico em um Centro de Atenção Psicossocial Álcool e Drogas (CAPS-ad) do Nordeste brasileiro

Objetivo: Verificar o perfil farmacoterapêutico de usuários de um Centro de Atenção Psicossocial Álcool e Drogas de Drogas (CAPS-ad) de uma capital do nordeste brasileiro. Métodos: Estudo exploratório, descritivo, retrospectivo com abordagem quantitativa, realizado em usuários de drogas maiores de 18 anos, sem distinção de sexo e etnia. Os dados (medicamentos, diagnóstico clínico, uso de drogas ilícitas, entre outros) foram coletados dos prontuários do serviço. A análise foi realizada por meio de estatística descritiva (frequências absoluta e relativa, média e desvio padrão). Resultados: Foram analisados 60 prontuários de pacientes em acompanhamento no CAPS-ad, sendo 83,3% do sexo masculino, com predomínio de pacientes com faixa etária entre 30 a 39 anos (35%), ensino fundamental incompleto (40%) e diagnóstico CID-10 F19 (transtornos mentais e comportamentais devidos ao uso de múltiplas drogas e ao uso de outras substâncias psicoativas; 45%). A classe medicamentosa mais prescrita foi a dos benzodiazepínicos (23,8%), sendo preponderante o uso do princípio ativo clonazepam (15,4%), seguida dos antidepressivos (16,1%), com a amitriptilina (4,9%) sendo o mais prescrito quando comparado com outros da mesma classe. Conclusão: O estudo permitiu ressaltar a importância do papel do farmacêutico junto à equipe de saúde visando promover o uso racional dos medicamentos bem como o controle das reações adversas e êxito na terapia medicamentosa.

Impulsiveness as a moderator of amphetamine treatment response for cocaine use disorder among ADHD patients

BACKGROUND

Amphetamines are a first-line treatment for ADHD and have shown promise for the treatment of cocaine use disorder (CUD), both alone and with comorbid ADHD. Impulsiveness is a key aspect of both ADHD and substance use disorders. We sought to understand the role of baseline impulsiveness in the treatment of comorbid CUD and ADHD.

METHODS

In a post hoc analysis (N = 76) of a 14-week, double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial of mixed amphetamine salts-extended release (MAS-ER) for comorbid ADHD and CUD, we examined the relationship between treatment response and participants' baseline Barratt Impulsiveness Scale (BIS-11) score by comparing those with scores below versus above the median. In the original trial, participants received daily 60 mg MAS-ER, 80 mg MAS-ER, or placebo, in conjunction with cognitive behavioral therapy.

RESULTS

The odds of a cocaine-abstinent week over time were significantly greater in the high BIS group compared to the low BIS group, both when missing data was treated as missing (p = .0155; OR = 1.23, 95% CI: 1.13, 1.35 versus OR = 1.04, 95% CI: 0.95, 1.15) and when missing data was treated as cocaine-positive (p = .003; OR = 1.15, 95% CI: 1.06, 1.24 versus OR = 0.96, 95% CI: 0.88, 1.05).

CONCLUSIONS

The results show an association between higher within-group trait impulsiveness, as measured by the BIS-11, and response to MAS-ER for CUD in a cohort with comorbid ADHD. This result further demonstrates that impulsiveness is an important factor when considering treatment options for patients with CUD and that higher baseline impulsiveness may predict response to treatment with psychostimulants for CUD.