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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Impulsivity Moderates Subjective Responses to Alcohol in Alcohol-Dependent Individuals.

AIMS: Studies of social drinkers indicate that subjective response (SR) to alcohol and impulsivity are risk factors for the development of alcohol use disorder which may be related. It is unclear, however, whether there are significant relationships between SR and impulsivity among individuals with alcohol dependence. Using data from an intravenous (IV) alcohol challenge study, the present study is the first to explore the relationship between impulsivity and SR during alcohol administration among alcohol-dependent individuals. METHODS: Non-treatment-seeking, alcohol-dependent individuals (N = 42) completed the Delay Discounting Task to measure impulsivity and then completed two counterbalanced, placebo-controlled IV alcohol administration sessions, which included assessments of SR at breath alcohol concentration (BrAC) levels of 0.00, 0.02, 0.04 and 0.06 g/dl. RESULTS: Analyses revealed that more impulsive participants experienced higher subjective stimulation and positive mood in response to rising BrACs as compared to less impulsive individuals. More impulsive participants also experienced increased sedation over time regardless of condition (i.e. alcohol vs. saline). CONCLUSION: These findings suggest that among alcohol-dependent individuals, impulsivity is positively associated with the hedonic effects of alcohol as compared to placebo. High impulsivity may characterize a subset of alcohol-dependent individuals who drink to experience the rewarding effects of alcohol.

Functional significance of subjective response to alcohol across levels of alcohol exposure.

Pre-clinical neurobiological models of addiction etiology including both the allostatic model and incentive sensitization theory suggest that alcohol consumption among alcohol-dependent (AD) individuals will be dissociated from hedonic reward as positive reinforcement mechanisms wane in later stage dependence. The aims of this study are to test this claim in humans by examining the relationship between dimensions of subjective responses to alcohol (SR) and alcohol craving across levels of alcohol exposure. Non-treatment-seeking drinkers (n = 205) completed an i.v. alcohol challenge (final target breath alcohol concentration = 0.06 g/dl) and reported on SR and craving. Participants were classified as light-to-moderate drinkers (LMD), heavy drinkers (HD) or AD. Analyses examined group differences in SR and craving response magnitude, as well as concurrent and predictive associations between SR domains and craving. At baseline, LMD and AD reported greater stimulation than HD, which carried over post-alcohol administration. However, stimulation was dose-dependently associated with alcohol craving in HD only. Furthermore, lagged models found that stimulation preceded craving among HD only, whereas this hypothesized pattern of results was not observed for craving preceding stimulation. Sedation was also positively associated with craving, yet no group differences were observed. In agreement with the prediction of diminished positive reinforcement in alcohol dependence, this study showed that stimulation/hedonic reward from alcohol did not precede craving in AD, whereas stimulation was dose-dependently associated with and preceded craving among non-dependent HD.

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.

Subjective Response to Alcohol as a Research Domain Criterion.

BACKGROUND: Individual differences in the subjective experience of the pharmacological effects of alcohol have long been implicated in the likelihood that one will drink heavily and develop alcoholism. The theme of this conceptual review and perspective article is to synthesize the literature on subjective responses to alcohol and to set an agenda for the next generation of research in the area. Specifically, we contend that in order for subjective response to alcohol to play a prominent role in alcoholism research, it is critical that it be studied as a multimodal phenotype. METHODS: First, we review the human research on subjective response to alcohol measured under controlled laboratory conditions and draw recommendations for the application of these findings to understanding alcoholism neurobiology in humans. Second, we highlight multimodal approaches, including studies of the genetic and neural substrates of individual differences in subjective response to alcohol. Third, we review treatment implications with a focus on subjective response to alcohol as an intervention target. Upon review of the research on subjective response to alcohol across levels of analyses, we provide recommendations for leveraging these phenotypes in a systematic and methodologically rigorous fashion that can address central questions about alcoholism etiology, disease progression, and personalized treatment. DISCUSSION: The approach recommended herein is largely consistent with the Research Domain Criteria (RDoC) initiative across the National Institute of Mental Health. The defining feature of such domains is that they inform behavior yet be amenable to examination through multiple units of analysis, such as molecular, genetic, circuit-level, and behavioral measurements. To that end, we contend that subjective response to alcohol represents a behaviorally and biologically plausible phenotype upon which to build using the RDoC framework for understanding alcohol use disorder.

Factor Structure of Subjective Responses to Alcohol in Light and Heavy Drinkers.

BACKGROUND: Subjective responses (SRs) to alcohol have been implicated in alcoholism etiology, yet less is known about the latent factor structure of alcohol responses. The aim of this study was to examine the factor structure of SR using a battery of self-report measures during a controlled alcohol challenge. METHODS: Nontreatment seeking drinkers (N = 242) completed an intravenous alcohol challenge including the following SR measures: Biphasic Alcohol Effects Scale, Subjective High Assessment Scale, Profile of Mood States, Alcohol Urge Questionnaire, and single items assessing alcohol "Liking" and "Wanting." Ascending limb target breath alcohol concentrations were 0.02, 0.04, and 0.06, and descending limb target was 0.04 g/dl. Exploratory factor analyses were conducted separately on estimates of mean and dose responses on the ascending limb and on descending limb data. To examine the generalizability of this factor structure, these analyses were repeated in heavy drinkers (≥14 drinks/wk for men, ≥7 for women; n = 132) and light drinkers (i.e., nonheavy drinkers; n = 110). RESULTS: In the full sample, a 4-factor solution was supported for ascending limb mean and dose responses and descending limb data representing the following SR domains: Stimulation/Hedonia, Craving/Motivation, Sedation/Motor Intoxication, and Negative Affect. This 4-factor solution was replicated in heavy drinkers. In light drinkers, however, SR was better summarized by a 3-factor solution where ascending mean and descending limb responses consisted of Stimulation/Hedonia, Craving/Motivation, and a general negative valence factor, and dose responses consisted of a general positive valence factor, Sedation/Motor Intoxication, and Negative Affect. CONCLUSIONS: These findings suggest that SR represents a multifaceted construct with consistent factor structure across both ascending and descending limbs. Further, as drinking levels escalate, more defined Craving/Motivation and negative valence dimensions may emerge. Longitudinal studies examining these constructs are needed to further our understanding of SR as potentially sensitive to alcohol-induced neuroadaptation.

The Association of Alcohol Severity and Sleep Quality in Problem Drinkers.

AIMS: The association between alcohol use and sleep problems is well established and clinically meaningful, particularly as predictors of relapse. This study aims to elucidate the relationship between sleep disturbances and alcohol problems in a non-treatment-seeking community sample using an alcoholism problem severity factor. METHODS: Participants were problem drinkers (N = 295) from the Los Angeles community who had a breath alcohol content (BrAC) of 0.00 g/dl when they completed an in-person assessment battery comprised of measures of sleep quality, anxiety and depression, cigarette smoking, as well as multiple assessments of alcohol use and alcohol use problems. RESULTS: A series of hierarchical regressions showed that alcohol problem severity explained a significant amount of variance in sleep disturbance beyond demographic, mood and smoking variables. Alcohol problem severity was predictive of the PSQI global score (B = 1.11, P < 0.001), perceived sleep quality factor (B = 0.18, P < 0.001) and daily disturbance factor (B = 0.28, P < 0.001). However, contrary to study hypothesis, alcohol problem severity was predictive of improved sleep efficiency (B = -0.14, P < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: In sum, alcohol problem severity may be predictive of sleep disturbances. Given the complex nature of these relationships, further work is needed to develop adequate treatment for sleep disturbance during alcohol recovery. Nonetheless, this study suggests that as alcohol problem severity increases so do sleep problems. Thus, attending to sleep problems at early stages of alcohol problems may be warranted.

Interactive effects of OPRM1 and DAT1 genetic variation on subjective responses to alcohol.

AIMS: Subjective response to alcohol represents a marker of alcoholism risk. The A118G single-nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) of the mu opioid receptor (OPRM1) gene has been associated with subjective response to alcohol. Recently, the dopamine transporter (DAT1) variable number of tandem repeat (VNTR; SLC6A3) has been found to interact with the OPRM1 A118G SNP in predicting neural and behavioral responses to naltrexone and to alcohol. This exploratory study examines the OPRM1 × DAT1 interaction on subjective responses to alcohol. METHODS: Non-treatment-seeking problem drinkers (n = 295) were assessed in the laboratory for alcohol dependence. Following prospective genotyping for the OPRM1 gene, 43 alcohol-dependent individuals were randomized to two intravenous infusion sessions, one of alcohol (target BrAC = 0.06 g/dl) and one of saline. Measures of subjective responses to alcohol were administered in both infusion sessions. RESULTS: Analyses revealed significant Alcohol × OPRM1 × DAT1 interactions for alcohol-induced stimulation, vigor and positive mood as well as significant Alcohol × OPRM1 × DAT1 × Time interactions for stimulation and positive mood. These effects were such that, compared with other genotype groups, OPRM1 G-allele carriers + DAT1 A10 homozygotes reported steeper increases in stimulation and positive mood across rising BrAC, when compared with placebo. All Alcohol × OPRM1 × DAT1 interactions remained significant when analyses were restricted to a subsample of Caucasian participants (n = 34); however, 4-way interactions did not reach statistical significance in this subsample. CONCLUSIONS: This study suggests that the contribution of OPRM1 genotype to alcohol-induced stimulation, vigor and positive mood is moderated by DAT1 genotype. These findings are consistent with the purported interaction between opioidergic and dopaminergic systems in determining the reinforcing properties of alcohol.

Subjective response to alcohol among alcohol-dependent individuals: effects of the µ-opioid receptor (OPRM1) gene and alcoholism severity.

BACKGROUND: Subjective response to alcohol has been examined as a marker of alcoholism risk. The A118G single-nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) of the mu-opioid receptor (OPRM1) gene has been previously associated with subjective response to alcohol in heavy drinkers. This study seeks to extend the literature by examining the effect of OPRM1 genotype on responses to alcohol in a sample of alcohol-dependent individuals. A secondary aim of this study is to examine alcoholism severity as a predictor of subjective responses to alcohol. METHODS: Nontreatment seeking problem drinkers (n = 295) were assessed in the laboratory for clinical dimensions of alcohol dependence. Following prospective genotyping, 43 alcohol-dependent individuals across the 2 genotype conditions (AA, n = 23 and AG/GG, n = 20) were randomized to 2 intravenous infusion sessions: 1 of alcohol (target breath alcohol concentration = 0.06 g/dl) and 1 of saline. Measures of subjective responses to alcohol were administered in both infusion sessions. RESULTS: Alcohol-dependent G-allele carriers reported greater alcohol-induced stimulation, vigor, and positive mood, as compared to A-allele homozygotes. There was no genotype effect on alcohol-induced sedation or craving. There was a statistical trend-level severity × alcohol interaction such that individuals at higher levels of severity reported greater alcohol-induced tension reduction. CONCLUSIONS: These results support the hypothesis that OPRM1 genotype moderates the hedonic effects of alcohol, but not the sedative and unpleasant effects of alcohol, in a sample of alcohol-dependent patients. Results are discussed in light of a clinical neuroscience framework to alcoholism.