Balancing risk and benefit in heavy drinkers treated with topiramate: implications for personalized care

Appropriate design and reporting of superiority, equivalence and non-inferiority clinical trials incorporating a benefit-risk assessment: the BRAINS study including expert workshop

Background

Randomised controlled trials are designed to assess the superiority, equivalence or non-inferiority of a new health technology, but which trial design should be used is not always obvious in practice. In particular, when using equivalence or non-inferiority designs, multiple outcomes of interest may be important for the success of a trial, despite the fact that usually only a single primary outcome is used to design the trial. Benefit-risk methods are used in the regulatory clinical trial setting to assess multiple outcomes and consider the trade-off of the benefits against the risks, but are not regularly implemented in publicly funded trials.

Objectives

The aim of the project is to aid the design of clinical trials with multiple outcomes of interest by defining when each trial design is appropriate to use and identifying when to use benefit-risk methods to assess outcome trade-offs (qualitatively or quantitatively) in a publicly funded trial setting.

Methods

A range of methods was used to elicit expert opinion to answer the project objectives, including a web-based survey of relevant researchers, a rapid review of current literature and a 2-day consensus workshop of experts (in 2019).

Results

We created a list of 19 factors to aid researchers in selecting the most appropriate trial design, containing the following overarching sections: population, intervention, comparator, outcomes, feasibility and perspectives. Six key reasons that indicate a benefit-risk method should be considered within a trial were identified: (1) when the success of the trial depends on more than one outcome; (2) when important outcomes within the trial are in competing directions (i.e. a health technology is better for one outcome, but worse for another); (3) to allow patient preferences to be included and directly influence trial results; (4) to provide transparency on subjective recommendations from a trial; (5) to provide consistency in the approach to presenting results from a trial; and (6) to synthesise multiple outcomes into a single metric. Further information was provided to support the use of benefit-risk methods in appropriate circumstances, including the following: methods identified from the review were collated into different groupings and described to aid the selection of a method; potential implementation of methods throughout the trial process were provided and discussed (with examples); and general considerations were described for those using benefit-risk methods. Finally, a checklist of five pieces of information that should be present when reporting benefit-risk methods was defined, with two additional items specifically for reporting the results.

Conclusions

These recommendations will assist research teams in selecting which trial design to use and deciding whether or not a benefit-risk method could be included to ensure research questions are answered appropriately. Additional information is provided to support consistent use and clear reporting of benefit-risk methods in the future. The recommendations can also be used by funding committees to confirm that appropriate considerations of the trial design have been made.

Limitations

This research was limited in scope and should be considered in conjunction with other trial design methodologies to assess appropriateness. In addition, further research is needed to provide concrete information about which benefit-risk methods are best to use in publicly funded trials, along with recommendations that are specific to each method.

Study registration

The rapid review is registered as PROSPERO CRD42019144882.

Funding

Funded by the Medical Research Council UK and the National Institute for Health and Care Research as part of the Medical Research Council-National Institute for Health and Care Research Methodology Research programme.

Topiramate Pharmacotherapy for Alcohol Use Disorder and Other Addictions: A Narrative Review

: Topiramate is a non-benzodiazepine anticonvulsant medication with multi-faceted pharmacologic action. It has emerged as an efficacious pharmacotherapeutic option for the treatment of addiction, especially alcohol use disorder (AUD). We present a broad narrative review of the putative mechanism of action and clinical utility of topiramate with regard to AUD and other substance use disorders. Collective evidence suggests topiramate is an effective treatment option in AUD, with notable efficacy in reducing harmful drinking patterns in AUD. Though not currently approved by the United States Food and Drug Administration for the indication of AUD, topiramate should be considered as a pharmacological treatment option with high utility among AUD patients. Early pharmacogenetic studies raise the intriguing possibility of identifying patients likely to respond to topiramate using genetic testing, and initial studies show that topiramate may also be useful in treating cocaine use disorder, smoking cessation and behavioral addictions. However, further research is needed in all these areas.

Pharmacogenetics of alcohol use disorder treatments: an update

Introduction: Alcohol use disorder (AUD) is highly prevalent; costly economically, socially, and interpersonally; and grossly undertreated. The low rate of utilization of medications with demonstrated (albeit modest) efficacy is particularly noteworthy. One approach to increasing the utility and safety of available medications is to use a precision medicine approach, which seeks to identify patients for whom specific medications are likely to be most efficacious and have the fewest adverse effects. Areas Covered: We review the literature on the pharmacogenetics of AUD treatment using both approved and off-label medications. We cover both laboratory studies and clinical trials, highlighting valuable mechanistic insights and underscoring the potential value of precision-based care for AUD. Expert Opinion: Pharmacotherapy can be a useful component of AUD treatment. Currently, the evidence regarding genetic predictors of medication efficacy is very limited. Thus, a precision medicine approach is not yet ready for widespread clinical implementation. Further research is needed to identify candidate genetic variants that moderate the response to both established and novel medications. The growing availability of large-scale, longitudinal datasets that enable the synthesis of genetic and electronic health record data provides important opportunities to develop this area of research.

Comparing and Combining Topiramate and Aripiprazole on Alcohol-Related Outcomes in a Human Laboratory Study

Aims

The goal of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of topiramate up to 200 mg/day and of aripiprazole up to 15 mg/day, alone and combined, in reducing alcohol-related outcomes in a human laboratory study.

Method

This was a 5 week, between-subject, double-blind, placebo-controlled human laboratory study with topiramate [0 mg/day (placebo), 100 mg/day, 200 mg/day] and aripiprazole [0 mg/day (placebo), 7.5 mg/day, 15 mg/day] in 90 non-treatment seeking, heavy drinking, alcohol-dependent individuals. Main outcomes were the efficacy of 200 mg/day topiramate and 15 mg/day aripiprazole, alone and combined, in reducing drinks consumed during an alcohol self-administration procedure (human laboratory phase) and while receiving the study medications prior to the laboratory session (naturalistic drinking phase). Other outcomes in the laboratory phase included alcohol craving, and alcohol biphasic effects.

Results

In the human laboratory phase, topiramate 200 mg/day reduced alcohol craving [**P < 0.01] and amplified alcohol-induced stimulation [*P < 0.05], but did not reduce the number of drinks consumed. Topiramate 200 mg/day was also effective in reducing drinking days [*P < 0.05], and alcohol craving [*P < 0.05], in the naturalistic drinking phase. No significant findings were found for aripiprazole for any of the outcomes analyzed.

Conclusion

Participants receiving 200 mg/day topiramate reported reduced alcohol drinking and craving, and increased alcohol-related stimulation. These findings provide further support for the role of topiramate as a pharmacological treatment for AUD.

ClinicalTrial.gov Identifier

NCT00884884.

Short Summary

This study tested topiramate and aripiprazole alone and in combination. The results replicate past findings and suggest that topiramate may be an effective treatment for alcohol use disorder. The present results suggest that the combination of topiramate and aripiprazole do not warrant further evaluation.

Predictors of Topiramate Tolerability in Heavy Cannabis-Using Adolescents and Young Adults: A Secondary Analysis of a Randomized, Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled Trial

PURPOSE/BACKGROUND

Cannabis is the most commonly abused illicit drug and accounts for the greatest number of adolescent substance abuse treatment admissions. Despite urgent need for effective interventions, the best available psychosocial treatment options yield only modest effects. Topiramate showed promise as an adjunctive pharmacotherapy to a psychosocial intervention for cannabis misuse among adolescents and young adults in a recent clinical trial, but it was not well tolerated. This study investigated associations between clinical characteristics and side effects and dropout among adolescents and young adults randomized to topiramate.

METHODS

This study involved secondary data analysis of a randomized placebo-controlled trial of topiramate for treating cannabis misuse (ages, 15-24 years; 50% female). We explored the interaction effects of baseline characteristics and medication condition (topiramate vs placebo) on treatment dropout. We also explored the relationship between side effects and dropout.

FINDINGS/RESULTS

Higher cannabis problems were significantly associated with reduced hazard of dropout in the topiramate group (P = 0.048) and were nonsignificantly associated with increased hazard of dropout in the placebo group (P = 0.062). Results also showed that memory difficulties were an overwhelming predictor of dropout in the topiramate condition; 42% of participants who dropped out experienced memory difficulties, whereas none of those who remained in the study experienced these effects.

IMPLICATIONS/CONCLUSIONS

By identifying who may most benefit from and tolerate this medication, treatment for substance use disorders can become more individualized and positive outcomes may be enhanced.

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.

Reduced Drinking in Alcohol Dependence Treatment, What Is the Evidence?

Abstinence from alcohol has been the prevailing treatment goal for individuals with alcohol dependence (AD) within the context of specialty alcohol treatment. Yet, alcohol use has been conceptualized as existing on a continuum. Importantly, most people who meet criteria for AD and could benefit from treatment never receive treatment. About half of these individuals do not seek treatment because they report a desire to continue drinking. To increase acceptability of treatment, reductions in alcohol consumption have been examined as alternative outcomes in treatment trials for AD. The current study reviews data which indicate that long-term reduction in alcohol consumption among patients with AD is possible. Controlled studies have tested reduced alcohol consumption and show sustained improvements in drinking reductions for many patients following behavioral treatments and pharmacotherapy. Evidence-based treatment guidelines and medicines development guidance authorities have taken note of these developments and accept "intermediate harm reduction" (European Medicines Agency) or "low-risk drinking limits" (US Federal Drug Administration) as optional trial endpoints. In conclusion, while abstinence remains the safest treatment goal for individuals with AD, evidence supports that reduced drinking approaches may be an important extension in the treatment of AD.

Primary Care Providers' Interest in Using a Genetic Test to Guide Alcohol Use Disorder Treatment

BACKGROUND

Efforts to identify genetic moderators of pharmacotherapy response have generated interest in clinical applications of pharmacogenetic tests in alcohol use disorder (AUD) treatment. To date, no research on providers' interest in using pharmacogenetic tests in the context of AUD treatment has been reported. We conducted qualitative interviews with primary care providers from 5 clinics in the Veterans Health Administration (VA) to assess their interest in using a hypothetical genetic test to inform treatment of AUD with pharmacotherapy.

METHODS

Key contacts were used to recruit 24 providers from 5 primary care clinics associated with a single large VA medical facility. Participants completed 30-minute in-person semi-structured interviews focused on barriers and facilitators to provision of pharmacotherapy for AUD. Interviews included a hypothetical scenario regarding the availability of a genetic test to inform AUD pharmacotherapy provision and/or selection. Provider responses to the hypothetical scenario were recorded, transcribed and analyzed qualitatively using inductive content analysis. Data were independently coded by three investigators, and themes were identified via consensus.

RESULTS

Participants were generally interested in a genetic test to aid in AUD treatment planning. Five common themes were identified, including: perceived benefits of a pharmacogenetic test (e.g., aiding with therapeutic choice, positively impacting patient motivation for and engagement with AUD treatment), perceived drawbacks (e.g., limiting potential benefits of pharmacotherapy by reducing the target population for its receipt, adverse impacts of "negative" results), caveats to clinical utility (e.g., utility would depend on prognostic accuracy and/or medication characteristics), uncertainty as to whether such a test would impact clinical decision-making, and pragmatic barriers to use (costs and other resources, such as laboratory facilities).

CONCLUSIONS

Primary care providers in this study generally believed a genetic test to aid in AUD treatment planning would be useful, due to its potential to hone treatment choice as well as to influence patient motivation and adherence to treatment. However, providers acknowledged that a test's utility would depend on the strength of its prognostic characteristics, its other benefits relative to standard care, and lack of pragmatic barriers.