A Meta-Regression of Trial Features Predicting the Effects of Alcohol Use Disorder Pharmacotherapies on Drinking Outcomes in Randomized Clinical Trials: A Secondary Data Analysis.

AIMS: To test whether two critical design features, inclusion criteria of required pre-trial abstinence and pre-trial alcohol use disorder (AUD) diagnosis, predict the likelihood of detecting treatment effects in AUD pharmacotherapy trials. METHODS: This secondary data analysis used data collected from a literature review to identify randomized controlled pharmacotherapy trials for AUD. Treatment outcomes were selected into abstinence and no heavy drinking. Target effect sizes were calculated for each outcome and a meta-regression was conducted to test the effects of required pre-trial abstinence, required pre-trial AUD diagnosis, and their interaction on effect sizes. A sub-analysis was conducted on trials, which included FDA-approved medications for AUD. RESULTS: In total, 118 studies testing 19 medications representing 21,032 treated participants were included in the meta-regression analysis. There was no significant effect of either predictor on abstinence or no heavy drinking outcomes in the full analysis or in the sub-study of FDA-approved medications. CONCLUSION: By examining these design features in a quantitative, rather than qualitative, fashion the present study advances the literature and shows that requiring AUD diagnosis or requiring pre-trial abstinence do not impact the likelihood of a significant medication effect in the trial.

Lifetime heavy drinking years predict alcohol use disorder severity over and above current alcohol use.

Background: Preclinical studies demonstrate that chronic and heavy alcohol use facilitates neuroadaptations that perpetuate addiction-like behaviors. In clinical studies, it is unclear whether the extent of heavy alcohol use over the lifetime contributes to alcohol use disorder (AUD) severity over and above current alcohol use patterns (i.e. last 30 days to 3-months). Such information may improve our understanding of the phenomenology of AUD.Objectives: The purpose of this study was to examine lifetime heavy drinking years in relation to a clinical assessment of AUD.Methods: Participants, who were non-treatment-seeking and engaged in heavy drinking (n = 140; 50% male), completed an interview-based assessment of lifetime regular and heavy drinking years along with a battery of measures indexing alcohol use and problems, drinking motives, and depression and anxiety symptomatology.Results: Lifetime heavy drinking years was positively associated with lifetime regular drinking years, current alcohol use, alcohol problems, tonic alcohol craving, drinking for the enhancing effects of alcohol, and drinking to cope (r's = .21-.58). Adjusting for lifetime regular drinking years and current alcohol use, lifetime heavy drinking years predicted higher scores on the Alcohol Use Disorder Identification Test (AUDIT; B = .382; SE = .123). A multivariate logistic regression found that lifetime heavy drinking years predicted greater odds of more severe AUD over and above current alcohol use (OR = 1.147).Conclusion: Our findings suggest that lifetime heavy drinking years are a clinically meaningful indicator of AUD severity that is not redundant with current alcohol use measures.

Ibudilast, a neuroimmune modulator, reduces heavy drinking and alcohol cue-elicited neural activation: a randomized trial.

Ibudilast, a neuroimmune modulator which selectively inhibits phosphodiesterases (PDE)-3, -4, -10, and -11, and macrophage migration inhibitory factor (MIF), shows promise as a novel pharmacotherapy for alcohol use disorder (AUD). However, the mechanisms of action underlying ibudilast's effects on the human brain remain largely unknown. Thus, the current study examined the efficacy of ibudilast to improve negative mood, reduce heavy drinking, and attenuate neural reward signals in individuals with AUD. Fifty-two nontreatment-seeking individuals with AUD were randomized to receive ibudilast (n = 24) or placebo (n = 28). Participants completed a 2-week daily diary study during which they filled out daily reports of their past day drinking, mood, and craving. Participants completed an functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) alcohol cue-reactivity paradigm half-way through the study. Ibudilast did not have a significant effect on negative mood (ß = -0.34, p = 0.62). However, ibudilast, relative to placebo, reduced the odds of heavy drinking across time by 45% (OR = 0.55, (95% CI: 0.30, 0.98)). Ibudilast also attenuated alcohol cue-elicited activation in the ventral striatum (VS) compared to placebo (F(1,44) = 7.36, p = 0.01). Alcohol cue-elicited activation in the VS predicted subsequent drinking in the ibudilast group (F(1,44) = 6.39, p = 0.02), such that individuals who had attenuated ventral striatal activation and took ibudilast had the fewest number of drinks per drinking day in the week following the scan. These findings extend preclinical and human laboratory studies of the utility of ibudilast to treat AUD and suggest a biobehavioral mechanism through which ibudilast acts, namely, by reducing the rewarding response to alcohol cues in the brain leading to a reduction in heavy drinking.

A meta-regression of methodological features that predict the effects of medications on the subjective response to alcohol.

BACKGROUND: Alcohol administration paradigms have been used for early efficacy testing of novel compounds for alcohol use disorder (AUD). There has been an ongoing debate about sample characteristics and methodological features that affect the likelihood of detecting an early efficacy signal for AUD medications. We conducted a meta-regression to test whether the drinking level of the study sample and the peak breath alcohol concentration (BrAC) in the alcohol administration study predict the efficacy of AUD pharmacotherapies on the subjective responses to alcohol. METHODS: We computed the effects of 21 medications on alcohol-induced stimulation, sedation, negative mood, and craving during alcohol administration in 49 studies. RESULTS: Meta-regression analyses indicated a significant and positive effect of pre-study drinks per month on alcohol-induced stimulation (ß = 0.142, p < 0.0001), such that as drinking increases, the benefit of medication over placebo decreases. There was an effect of drinks per month on negative mood (ß = -0.164, p = 0.0248), such that at higher levels of drinks per month, the effects of medications on negative mood are stronger. For sedation, there was an effect of peak BrAC (ß = 0.119, p = 0.0002), such that at low levels of peak BrAC, the effects of medication on sedation were null. For craving, there was a peak BrAC × drinks per month interaction such that at low levels of BrAC, a heavier drinking sample is required to detect the effects of medication on craving. Sensitivity analyses comparing naltrexone studies and non-naltrexone studies suggested that naltrexone was less sensitive to drinks per month across subjective response domains. CONCLUSIONS: These analyses show that design features are critical in studies that test the effects of medications on the subjective responses to alcohol. By specifying the significance and directionality of these effects, as well as the specific points in BrAC or drinks per month at which medication effects are detectable, the study offers recommendations for design features of alcohol administration studies that aim to inform AUD medication development.

Modeling motivation for alcohol in humans using traditional and machine learning approaches.

Given the significant cost of alcohol use disorder (AUD), identifying risk factors for alcohol seeking represents a research priority. Prominent addiction theories emphasize the role of motivation in the alcohol seeking process, which has largely been studied using preclinical models. In order to bridge the gap between preclinical and clinical studies, this study examined predictors of motivation for alcohol self-administration using a novel paradigm. Heavy drinkers (n = 67) completed an alcohol infusion consisting of an alcohol challenge (target breath alcohol = 60 mg%) and a progressive-ratio alcohol self-administration paradigm (maximum breath alcohol 120 mg%; ratio requirements range = 20-3 139 response). Growth curve modeling was used to predict breath alcohol trajectories during alcohol self-administration. K-means clustering was used to identify motivated (n = 41) and unmotivated (n = 26) self-administration trajectories. The data were analyzed using two approaches: a theory-driven test of a-priori predictors and a data-driven, machine learning model. In both approaches, steeper delay discounting, indicating a preference for smaller, sooner rewards, predicted motivated alcohol seeking. The data-driven approach further identified phasic alcohol craving as a predictor of motivated alcohol self-administration. Additional application of this model to AUD translational science and treatment development appear warranted.

Do behavioral pharmacology findings predict clinical trial outcomes? A proof-of-concept in medication development for alcohol use disorder.

Behavioral pharmacology paradigms have been used for early efficacy testing of novel compounds for alcohol use disorder (AUD). However, the degree to which early efficacy in the human laboratory predicts clinical efficacy remains unclear. To address this gap in the literature we employed a novel meta-analytic approach. We searched the literature for medications tested for AUD using both behavioral pharmacology (i.e., alcohol administration) and randomized clinical trials (RCTs). For behavioral pharmacology, we computed medication effects on alcohol-induced stimulation, sedation, and craving during the alcohol administration (k = 51 studies, 24 medications). For RCTs, we computed medication effects on any drinking and heavy drinking (k = 118 studies, 17 medications). We used medication as the unit of analysis and applied the Williamson-York bivariate weighted least squares estimation to preserve the errors in both the independent and dependent variables. Results, with correction for publication bias, revealed a significant and positive relationship between medication effects on alcohol-induced stimulation (ß = 1.18 p < 0.05), sedation (ß = 2.38, p < 0.05), and craving (ß = 3.28, p < 0.001) in the laboratory, and drinking outcomes in RCTs, such that medications that reduced stimulation, sedation, and craving during the alcohol administration were associated with better clinical outcomes. A leave-one-out Monte Carlo analysis examined the predictive utility of these laboratory endpoints for each medication. The observed clinical effect size was within one standard deviation of the mean predicted effect size for all but three pharmacotherapies. This proof-of-concept study demonstrates that behavioral pharmacology endpoints of alcohol-induced stimulation, sedation, and craving track medication effects from the human laboratory to clinical trial outcomes. These results apply to alcohol administration phenotypes and may be especially useful to medications for which the mechanisms of action involve alterations in subjective responses to alcohol (e.g., antagonist medication). These methods and results can be applied to a host of clinical questions and can streamline the process of screening novel compounds for AUD. For instance, this approach can be used to quantify the predictive utility of cue-reactivity screening models and even preclinical models of medication development.

Sensitivity and specificity of a commercial urinary ethyl glucuronide (ETG) test in heavy drinkers.

INTRODUCTION: To advance the use of alcohol metabolites as biomarkers in the context of alcohol research, the present study tested the sensitivity and specificity of a commercially available urinary ethyl glucuronide (uEtG) test (DrugConfirm Advanced 80hr EtG) in a clinical research context. METHODS: A community sample of heavy drinkers (N = 68) completed the 30-day Timeline Follow-Back (TLFB) interview and provided a urine sample for uEtG analysis. Analyses of sensitivity and specificity of the uEtG assay were conducted using the following outcomes: (a) past day drinking, (b) past day binge drinking (defined as ≥4 drinks for women and ≥5 drinks for men), (c) past 3-day drinking, and (d) past 3-day binge drinking. RESULTS: The majority of participants reported past-3-day drinking (80.9%) and a sizeable minority reported past day drinking (33.8%). While uEtG-based detection of past day drinking and binge drinking was acceptable (sensitivity = 73.91%, and 83.33%; specificity = 80.00% and 66.13%, respectively), detection of any drinking and binge drinking in the past 3 days was poor (sensitivity and specificity of 43.64% and 84.62%, and 39.39% and 62.86%, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: This study contributes to the mixed findings on the validity of EtG tests, which suggest that commercial uEtG tests with conservative detection thresholds are not a reliable alcohol biomarker without corroborating self-report data. Lower detection thresholds are recommended when using uEtG as an alcohol biomarker. Efforts to reach acceptable levels of sensitivity and specificity with commercial assays hold potential to advance the measurement of alcohol intake, overcoming the pitfalls of self-report data.

Capturing habitualness of drinking and smoking behavior in humans.

BACKGROUND: Recent findings suggest that overreliance on habit may be common in individuals diagnosed with addiction. To advance our understanding of habit in clinical samples and from behavioral measures, this study examines the interrelations between self-reported habit index for smoking and drinking as well as behavioral measures of intraindividual variability in smoking and drinking. METHODS: Treatment-seeking heavy drinking smokers (N = 416) completed the Self-Report Habit Index (SRHI) adapted for both smoking and drinking. "Behavioral habitualness" was computed from the degree of intraindividual variability in patterns of smoking and drinking over the past month. Using the 28-day Timeline-Follow Back (TLFB) interview, we derived two measures of intraindividual variability: interclass correlation (ICC) and autocorrelation [AR(7) coefficients]. RESULTS: Self-report measures of habit were robustly associated with clinical severity of drinking and smoking with higher habit scores indicating greater severity of drinking and smoking, respectively. ICC and AR(7) coefficients, the behavioral measure of "patterness" and putative habit, were not associated with SRHI scores. While ICC for smoking was associated with higher nicotine dependence scores, this pattern was not found for drinking ICC and alcohol problem severity. CONCLUSIONS: These results support the construct validity of the self-report measures of habit for smoking and drinking, as well an initial evaluation of behavioral measure of smoking "patterness" as a potential proxy for habit smoking. Because habit represents a complex phenotype with limited clinical translation, additional studies capturing a wider range of substance use severity and coupled with brain-based validation methods are warranted.

Reward, Relief and Habit Drinking: Initial Validation of a Brief Assessment Tool.

AIMS: Alcohol use disorder is highly heterogeneous. One approach to understanding this heterogeneity is the identification of drinker subtypes. A candidate classification consists of reward and relief subtypes. The current study examines a novel self-report measure of reward, relief, and habit drinking for its clinical correlates and subjective response (SR) to alcohol administration. METHODS: Non-treatment-seeking heavy drinkers (n = 140) completed the brief reward, relief, habit drinking scale (RRHDS). A subset of this sample (n = 67) completed an intravenous alcohol administration. Individuals were classified into drinker subtypes. A crowdsourced sample of heavy drinkers (n = 187) completed the RRHDS and a validated reward relief drinking scale to compare drinking classification results. RESULTS: The majority of the sample was classified as reward drinkers (n = 100), with fewer classified as relief (n = 19) and habit (n = 21) drinkers. Relief and habit drinkers reported greater tonic alcohol craving compared to reward drinkers. Reward drinkers endorsed drinking for enhancement, while relief drinkers endorsed drinking for coping. Regarding the alcohol administration, the groups differed in negative mood, such that relief/habit drinkers reported a decrease in negative mood during alcohol administration, compared to reward drinkers. The follow-up crowdsourcing study found a 62% agreement in reward drinker classification between measures and replicated the tonic craving findings. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings suggest that reward drinkers are dissociable from relief/habit drinkers using the brief measure. However, relief and habit drinkers were not successfully differentiated, which suggests that these constructs may overlap phenotypically. Notably, measures of dysphoric mood were better at detecting group differences than measures capturing alcohol's rewarding effects.

Convergence between the Penn Alcohol Craving Scale and diagnostic interview for the assessment of alcohol craving.

INTRODUCTION: The Penn Alcohol Craving Scale (PACS) is one of the most widely used instruments to measure craving for alcohol. Recent research has suggested that scores on the PACS can be used as a "stand in" for the diagnostic criterion of alcohol craving with a proposed cutoff of >20 on the PACS indicating a "positive" alcohol craving symptom. The present study examined the convergence between the PACS and face-to-face diagnostic interview for the assessment of alcohol craving. METHOD: A sample of non-treatment seeking heavy drinkers (N = 338) enrolled in experimental studies of AUD completed the PACS as well as a face-to-face diagnostic interview for AUD, which included the craving item from the Semi-Structured Assessment for the Genetics of Alcoholism (SSAGA). RESULTS: Using the PACS cut-off score of >20, 12.9% (N = 43) of the sample met criteria for alcohol craving compared to 21% (N = 74) of the sample meeting criteria based on the diagnostic interview. Using the PACS cutoff of >20, sensitivity (i.e., true positive rate) was 41% and specificity (i.e., true negative rate) was 95%. Exploratory analyses suggested that a cut-off score of ≥15 achieved the optimal balance of sensitivity (67%) and specificity (81%) in our sample. CONCLUSIONS: Advancing the assessment of alcohol craving and the conversion from DSM-IV to DSM-5 diagnostic criteria represents an important research direction. The present study recommends that a PACS score cut off of ≥15 should be used as an indicator of clinically significant alcohol craving in community samples of non-treatment seekers.

Neuroimaging findings from an experimental pharmacology trial of naltrexone in heavy drinkers of East Asian descent.

BACKGROUND: Despite known genetic variation across races, studies examining pharmacogenetics of a single nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) of the mu-opioid receptor gene (OPRM1) on clinical response to naltrexone have been conducted in predominantly Caucasian samples. Evidence is mixed for pharmacogenetic OPRM1 and naltrexone effects on neural responses to alcohol cues. The current study tests the pharmacogenetic effects of naltrexone and OPRM1 on neural responses to alcohol taste cues in heavy drinkers of East Asian descent. METHODS: Participants (N = 41) completed two double-blinded and counterbalanced functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) sessions: one after taking naltrexone (50 mg/day) for four days and one after taking placebo for four days. Following titration, participants completed an fMRI alcohol taste-cues task. Analyses tested effects of naltrexone, OPRM1, and their interaction in whole-brain and region of interest (ROI) analyses of functional activation and functional connectivity in response to alcohol versus water taste cues. RESULTS: We found no effects of naltrexone orOPRM1 on neural activation in whole-brain and ROI analyses, which included left and right ventral striatum (VS), anterior cingulate cortex (ACC), and orbitofrontal cortex (OFC). Naltrexone increased functional connectivity between left VS and clusters in medial prefrontal cortex, posterior cingulate gyrus, as well as right VS and occipital cortex, compared to placebo. CONCLUSIONS: Naltrexone treatment enhanced functional connectivity in a key reinforcement-related pathway during alcohol versus water taste cues, corroborating neuroimaging work with other substances. Null medication and pharmacogenetics effects on functional activation add to a mixed naltrexone literature and may underscore the modest size of these effects in East Asians.

Naltrexone effects on subjective responses to alcohol in the human laboratory: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Naltrexone (NTX) has been widely studied for the treatment of alcohol use disorder with overall support for its efficacy. The mechanisms of action of naltrexone are thought to involve attenuation of the hedonic effects of alcohol and potentiation of its aversive effects. In order to provide a quantitative estimate of the effects of naltrexone on subjective response to alcohol, the aims of this meta-analytic review are to examine the effects of naltrexone across four domains of subjective response. Meta-analyses of naltrexone effects on alcohol craving (k = 16, N = 686), stimulation (k = 15, N = 675), sedation (k = 18, N = 777), and negative mood (k = 9, N = 281) suggested that under laboratory conditions and compared with placebo, naltrexone reduces craving (Hedges g = -0.252; SE = 0.054; 95% CI, -0.375 to -0.130; P < 0.01), reduces stimulation (g = -0.223; SE = 0.067; 95% CI, -0.372 to -0.074; P < 0.01), increases sedation (g = 0.251; SE = 0.064; 95% CI, 0.112-0.389; P < 0.01), and increases negative mood (g = 0.227; SE = 0.047; 95% CI, 0.100-0.354; P < 0.01). Results were robust when drinks per month and alcohol dose were added to the models as covariates. The effects of naltrexone varied by severity of alcohol use with medication effects on craving and stimulation being observed in sample of both heavy drinkers and AUD individuals. These results are consistent with the hypothesized mechanisms of action of NTX, although the effects are of small magnitude. This meta-analysis aggregates across multiple human laboratory studies of NTX's effects on subjective response to alcohol, providing a comprehensive summary of a key mechanism of NTX efficacy, namely, alteration of the subjective experience of alcohol.

The Interplay Between Subjective Response to Alcohol, Craving, and Alcohol Self-Administration in the Human Laboratory.

BACKGROUND: Despite a rich literature on human laboratory paradigms of subjective response (SR) to alcohol, craving for alcohol, and alcohol self-administration, few studies have examined the interplay across these 3 constructs. The present study addresses this gap in the literature by examining the interplay between SR, craving, and self-administration in the human laboratory. METHODS: Data were culled from a medication study (NCT02026011) in which heavy drinking participants of East Asian ancestry completed 2 double-blinded and counterbalanced experimental sessions. In each experimental session, participants received a priming dose of intravenous (IV) alcohol to a target breath alcohol concentration (BrAC) of 0.06 g/dl and measures of SR (stimulation and sedation) and alcohol craving were collected across rising BrACs. The IV alcohol challenge was immediately followed by a 1-hour alcohol self-administration period. RESULTS: Mixed model analyses found a positive and significant relationship between the slope of stimulation and the slope of craving during the alcohol challenge. The relationship between sedation and craving, however, was not significant. The slope of craving during the alcohol challenge significantly predicted a higher number of mini-drinks consumed and lower latency to first drink. Further, mediation analyses found that craving was a significant mediator of the relationship between stimulation and total number of mini-drinks consumed, but the same pattern was not found for sedation. CONCLUSIONS: Insofar as alcohol self-administration represents the end point of interest for a host of experimental and clinical research questions, the present study suggests that alcohol craving represents a more proximal predictor of self-administration than measures of alcohol-induced stimulation. It is recommended that human laboratory models interpret measures of SR and craving in light of their relative predictive utility for drinking outcomes.

Naltrexone and alcohol effects on craving for cigarettes in heavy drinking smokers.

Naltrexone has been extensively studied for the treatment of alcohol use disorder. However, less is known about the effects of naltrexone on smoking outcomes in the context of alcohol use among East Asian individuals who have been suggested to differ in response to alcohol and to naltrexone. The present study is a secondary analysis that used a double-blind placebo-controlled design (n = 31) to examine the (a) effects of alcohol on basal craving for cigarettes, (b) effects of naltrexone on cigarette craving and alcohol craving during alcohol administration, and (c) relationship between craving for alcohol and cigarettes. Heavy drinking smokers of East Asian descent completed two counterbalanced intravenous alcohol administration sessions, one after taking naltrexone (50 mg) for five days and one after taking a placebo for five days. Self-reported subjective craving for cigarettes and for alcohol was recorded during each experimental session. Craving for cigarettes and alcohol increased significantly throughout the intravenous alcohol administration. A significant breath alcohol concentration (BrAC) × Medication interaction revealed that naltrexone blunted cigarette craving during alcohol administration, compared to placebo. Naltrexone significantly reduced craving for alcohol during alcohol administration in this group of heavy drinking smokers. Alcohol craving significantly predicted cigarette craving, however this effect did not vary across rising alcohol administration or by medication. These findings demonstrate that naltrexone reduces the urge to smoke and to drink during alcohol administration. Clinical studies are needed to further ascertain whether naltrexone may be of benefit to this distinct subgroup of heavy drinking smokers. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2019 APA, all rights reserved).

State-of-the-art behavioral and pharmacological treatments for alcohol use disorder.

BACKGROUND: Alcohol use disorder (AUD) and its associated consequences remain significant public health concerns. Given that AUD represents a spectrum of severity, treatment options represent a continuum of care, ranging from single-session brief interventions to more intensive, prolonged, and specialized treatment modalities. OBJECTIVE: This qualitative literature review seeks to describe the best practices for AUD by placing a particular emphasis on identifying those practices which have received the most empirical support. METHOD: This review summarizes psychological and pharmacological intervention options for AUD treatment, with a focus on the relapse prevention phase of recovery. Psychological and pharmacological treatments are summarized in terms of the empirical evidence favoring each approach and the level of AUD severity for which they are most indicated. SCIENTIFIC SIGNIFICANCE: One of the broad assertions from this review is that while AUD is highly prevalent, seeking treatment for AUD is not. There are a myriad of behavioral and pharmacological treatments that have shown compelling evidence of efficacy for the treatment of AUD. In the behavioral treatment literature, cognitive behavioral therapy has received the most consistent support. Opioid antagonism (via naltrexone) has been the most widely studied pharmacotherapy and has produced moderate effect sizes. While none of the treatments reviewed herein represents a so-called silver bullet for AUD, they each have the potential to significantly improve the odds of recovery. Precision medicine, or the identification of best treatment matches for individual patients, looms as an important overarching goal for the field, although specific matches are not yet sufficiently reliable in their empirical evidence to warrant clinical dissemination.

Overcoming the "Valley of Death" in Medications Development for Alcohol Use Disorder.

As the development of novel pharmacotherapies for alcohol use disorder (AUD) has been slow, the discovery and testing of more efficacious pharmacotherapies for AUD represent a high priority research area. In fact, the transition from preclinical to clinical testing of novel compounds has been termed the "valley of death" in medications development. One key obstacle consists of the lack of an articulated set of goals for each stage of medications development. Specifically, the knowledge outputs required to make the transition from safety testing, to early efficacy detection, to confirming clinical efficacy remain unclear, and this is despite a great deal of interest and substantial financial investment in developing novel therapeutics for AUD. This qualitative critical review seeks to draw parallels and lessons from the well-established stage model for behavioral therapies research with alcohol and other substance use disorders and to apply these insights into AUD pharmacotherapy development. We argue that human laboratory models and/or pilot randomized controlled trials should serve as intermediaries in the transition from preclinical studies to large, and costly, randomized controlled efficacy trials. The relative strengths and weaknesses of pilot clinical trials versus human laboratory studies for bridging the "valley of death" are discussed and explored via a Monte Carlo data simulation study. Multiple permutations of suitable research designs informed by the behavioral therapies development model are discussed with the overall goal of promoting consilience and maximizing efficiency across all phases of clinical testing of novel AUD pharmacotherapies.

Differences in the subjective and motivational properties of alcohol across alcohol use severity: application of a novel translational human laboratory paradigm.

The Allostatic Model proposes that Alcohol Use Disorder (AUD) is associated with a transition in the motivational structure of alcohol drinking: from positive reinforcement in early-stage drinking to negative reinforcement in late-stage dependence. However, direct empirical support for this preclinical model from human experiments is limited. This study tests predictions derived from the Allostatic Model in humans. Specifically, this study tested whether alcohol use severity (1) independently predicts subjective responses to alcohol (SR; comprised of stimulation/hedonia, negative affect, sedation and craving domains), and alcohol self-administration and 2) moderates associations between domains of SR and alcohol self-administration. Heavy drinking participants ranging in severity of alcohol use and problems (N = 67) completed an intravenous alcohol administration paradigm combining an alcohol challenge (target BrAC = 60 mg%), with progressive ratio self-administration. Alcohol use severity was associated with greater baseline negative affect, sedation, and craving but did not predict changes in any SR domain during the alcohol challenge. Alcohol use severity also predicted greater self-administration. Craving during the alcohol challenge strongly predicted self-administration and sedation predicted lower self-administration. Neither stimulation, nor negative affect predicted self-administration. This study represents a novel approach to translating preclinical neuroscientific theories to the human laboratory. As expected, craving predicted self-administration and sedation was protective. Contrary to the predictions of the Allostatic Model, however, these results were inconsistent with a transition from positively to negatively reinforced alcohol consumption in severe AUD. Future studies that assess negative reinforcement in the context of an acute stressor are warranted.

Pharmacogenetic Effects of Naltrexone in Individuals of East Asian Descent: Human Laboratory Findings from a Randomized Trial.

BACKGROUND: Genetic variation in the endogenous opioid system has been identified as 1 potential source of individual variability in naltrexone treatment outcomes. The majority of naltrexone pharmacogenetic studies have focused on a particular single nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) of the mu-opioid receptor gene (OPRM1; rs1799971; commonly known as the Asn40Asp SNP) in Caucasian samples with decidedly mixed results. The goal of this study was to test the pharmacogenetic effects of naltrexone on subjective response to alcohol and self-administration of alcohol in individuals of East Asian descent. We hypothesized that naltrexone, compared with placebo, would potentiate the aversive and sedative effects of alcohol and reduce alcohol self-administration to a greater extent in Asp40 carriers. METHODS: Participants (N = 77; Asn40Asn, n = 29; Asn40Asp, n = 34, and Asp40Asp, n = 14) completed 2 double-blinded and counterbalanced experimental sessions: one after taking naltrexone (50 mg/d) for 5 days and one after taking matched placebo for 5 days. In each experimental session, participants received a priming dose of intravenous alcohol up to the breath alcohol concentration target of 0.06 g/dl which was immediately followed by an alcohol self-administration period (1 hour). RESULTS: There were no pharmacogenetic effects observed for alcohol-induced stimulation, sedation, craving for alcohol, or alcohol self-administration in the laboratory. During the self-administration period, Asp40 carriers consumed fewer drinks and had a longer latency to first drink as compared to Asn40 homozygotes. CONCLUSIONS: These findings in East Asians add to the mixed literature on naltrexone pharmacogenetics from predominantly Caucasian samples and highlight the complexity of these effects and their overall limited replicability. It is plausible that a consistent pharmacogenetic effect in tightly controlled preclinical and experimental medicine models "fades" in more complex and heterogeneous settings and samples.

Differences between treatment-seeking and non-treatment-seeking participants in medication studies for alcoholism: do they matter?

BACKGROUND: Medication development for alcoholism typically includes experimental pharmacology studies with non-treatment-seeking individuals with alcohol use disorder (AUD) paving the way for randomized controlled trials in treatment-seekers with AUD. OBJECTIVES: The goal of this study is to provide a direct comparison between AUD treatment-seeking research participants and non-treatment-seeking participants on demographic and clinical variables and to test whether variables that differentiate the two groups are associated with clinical outcomes. METHOD: Non-treatment-seeking AUD participants (n = 213; 76.3% male) who completed behavioral pharmacology studies were compared to treatment-seekers who completed the COMBINE Study (n = 1383; 69.1% male) on demographic and clinical variables. Analyses examined whether the variables that differentiated the two groups predicted treatment outcomes in the COMBINE Study. RESULTS: Analyses revealed that treatment-seeking participants were older, had more years of education, higher Alcohol Dependence Scale scores, higher Drinker Inventory of Consequences scores, higher Obsessive Compulsive Drinking Scale scores, a greater number of DSM-IV symptoms of AUD, longer duration of AUD, and consumed more standard drinks and more drinks per drinking day (i.e., in the past 30 days) compared to non-treatment-seeking participants. Nearly all characteristics that differed between the groups predicted at least one of the primary clinical outcomes of the COMBINE Study. CONCLUSIONS: This study highlights a host of clinical and demographic factors that differ between non-treatment-seeking and treatment-seeking research participants and the clinical significance of these variables. Differences between samples should be considered and addressed in order to promote greater consilience across stages of medication development.