Scientific rationale for the use of α2A-adrenoceptor agonists in treating neuroinflammatory cognitive disorders.

Neuroinflammatory disorders preferentially impair the higher cognitive and executive functions of the prefrontal cortex (PFC). This includes such challenging disorders as delirium, perioperative neurocognitive disorder, and the sustained cognitive deficits from "long-COVID" or traumatic brain injury. There are no FDA-approved treatments for these symptoms; thus, understanding their etiology is important for generating therapeutic strategies. The current review describes the molecular rationale for why PFC circuits are especially vulnerable to inflammation, and how α2A-adrenoceptor (α2A-AR) actions throughout the nervous and immune systems can benefit the circuits in PFC needed for higher cognition. The layer III circuits in the dorsolateral PFC (dlPFC) that generate and sustain the mental representations needed for higher cognition have unusual neurotransmission and neuromodulation. They are wholly dependent on NMDAR neurotransmission, with little AMPAR contribution, and thus are especially vulnerable to kynurenic acid inflammatory signaling which blocks NMDAR. Layer III dlPFC spines also have unusual neuromodulation, with cAMP magnification of calcium signaling in spines, which opens nearby potassium channels to rapidly weaken connectivity and reduce neuronal firing. This process must be tightly regulated, e.g. by mGluR3 or α2A-AR on spines, to prevent loss of firing. However, the production of GCPII inflammatory signaling reduces mGluR3 actions and markedly diminishes dlPFC network firing. Both basic and clinical studies show that α2A-AR agonists such as guanfacine can restore dlPFC network firing and cognitive function, through direct actions in the dlPFC, but also by reducing the activity of stress-related circuits, e.g. in the locus coeruleus and amygdala, and by having anti-inflammatory actions in the immune system. This information is particularly timely, as guanfacine is currently the focus of large clinical trials for the treatment of delirium, and in open label studies for the treatment of cognitive deficits from long-COVID.

Pharmacotherapy for ADHD in children and adolescents: A summary and overview of different European guidelines.

Attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) is a neurodevelopmental disorder characterized by a persistent pattern of inattention, hyperactivity, and impulsivity. It is the most common neurodevelopmental disorder presenting to pediatric services, and pediatricians are often involved in the early assessment, diagnosis, and treatment of children with ADHD. The treatment of ADHD typically involves a multimodal approach that encompasses a combination of psychoeducation, parent/teacher training, psychosocial/psychotherapeutic interventions, and pharmacotherapy. Concerning pharmacotherapy, guidelines vary in drug choice and sequencing, with psychostimulants, such as methylphenidate and (lis)dexamfetamine, generally being the favored initial treatment. Alternatives include atomoxetine and guanfacine. Pharmacotherapy has been proven effective, but close follow-up focusing on physical growth, cardiovascular monitoring, and the surveillance of potential side effects including tics, mood fluctuations, and psychotic symptoms, is essential. This paper presents an overview of current pharmacological treatment options for ADHD and explores disparities in treatment guidelines across different European countries.   Conclusion: Pharmacological treatment options for ADHD in children and adolescents are effective and generally well-tolerated. Pharmacotherapy for ADHD is always part of a multimodal approach. While there is a considerable consensus among European guidelines on pharmacotherapy for ADHD, notable differences exist, particularly concerning the selection and sequencing of various medications. What is Known: • There is a significant base of evidence for pharmacological treatment for ADHD in children and adolescents. • Pediatricians are often involved in assessment, diagnosis and management of children with ADHD. What is New: • Our overview of different European guidelines reveals significant agreement in the context of pharmacotherapy for ADHD in children and adolescents. • Discrepancies exist primarily in terms of selection and sequencing of different medications.

Association between Early Guanfacine Discontinuation and Somnolence for Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder.

Guanfacine, used as a medication for attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), leads to a high incidence of somnolence, in contrast to methylphenidate, which leads to a high incidence of insomnia. The impact of somnolence on continuing guanfacine treatment is unclear. Therefore, we investigated the reasons for discontinuing guanfacine and analyzed the factors associated with discontinuation caused by somnolence. We surveyed 96 patients under guanfacine from July 2017 to December 2021 at the Saga University Hospital. Patients who discontinued guanfacine by the end date of our study were divided into a median early and late group. We compared the reasons for discontinuation in both groups. Of all patients, 47 continued and 49 discontinued guanfacine. A higher percentage of patients discontinued guanfacine caused by somnolence for ≤70 d than for >70 d of treatment (44.0 vs. 8.3%; p = 0.008). When stratified by the concomitant use of other ADHD drugs, somnolence resulted in a higher discontinuation rate for ≤70 d than for >70 d of treatment without concomitant use (55.0 vs. 7.1%; p = 0.009). Nonetheless, concomitant use resulted in no difference. In conclusion, somnolence affects the early discontinuation of guanfacine as an ADHD drug. The combination of methylphenidate or atomoxetine may decrease withdrawal caused by somnolence.

Anxiety and dysautonomia symptoms in patients with a NaV1.7 mutation and the potential benefits of low-dose short-acting guanfacine.

PURPOSE: Guanfacine is an α2A-adrenergic receptor agonist, FDA-approved to treat attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder and high blood pressure, typically as an extended-release formulation up to 7 mg/day. In our dysautonomia clinic, we observed that off-label use of short-acting guanfacine at 1 mg/day facilitated symptom relief in two families with multiple members presenting with severe generalized anxiety. We also noted anecdotal improvements in associated dysautonomia symptoms such as hyperhidrosis, cognitive impairment, and palpitations. We postulated that a genetic deficit existed in these patients that might augment guanfacine susceptibility. METHODS: We used whole-exome sequencing to identify mutations in patients with shared generalized anxiety and dysautonomia symptoms. Guanfacine-induced changes in the function of voltage-gated Na+ channels were investigated using voltage-clamp electrophysiology. RESULTS: Whole-exome sequencing uncovered the p.I739V mutation in SCN9A in the proband of two nonrelated families. Moreover, guanfacine inhibited ionic currents evoked by wild-type and mutant NaV1.7 encoded by SCN9A, as well as other NaV channel subtypes to a varying degree. CONCLUSION: Our study provides further evidence for a possible pathophysiological role of NaV1.7 in anxiety and dysautonomia. Combined with off-target effects on NaV channel function, daily administration of 1 mg short-acting guanfacine may be sufficient to normalize NaV channel mutation-induced changes in sympathetic activity, perhaps aided by partial inhibition of NaV1.7 or other channel subtypes. In a broader context, expanding genetic and functional data about ion channel aberrations may enable the prospect of stratifying patients in which mutation-induced increased sympathetic tone normalization by guanfacine can support treatment strategies for anxiety and dysautonomia symptoms.

Therapeutics for Substance-Using Women: The Need to Elucidate Sex-Specific Targets for Better-Tailored Treatments.

In the last decade, alcohol consumption in the US has risen by 84% in women compared with 35% in men. Furthermore, research has shown that sex- and gender-related differences may disadvantage women in terms of developing a range of psychological, cognitive, and medical problems considerably earlier in their drinking history than men, and despite consuming a similar quantity of substances. While this "telescoping" process has been acknowledged in the literature, a concomitant understanding of the underlying biobehavioral mechanisms, and an increase in the development of specific treatments tailored to women, has not occurred. In the current chapter we focus on understanding why the need for personalized, sex-specific medications is imperative, and highlight some of the potential sex-specific gonadal and stress-related adaptations underpinning the accelerated progress from controlled to compulsive drug and alcohol seeking in women. We additionally discuss the efficacy of these mechanisms as novel targets for medications development, using exogenous progesterone and guanfacine as examples. Finally, we assess some of the challenges faced and progress made in terms of developing innovative medications in women. We suggest that agents such as exogenous progesterone and adrenergic medications, such as guanfacine, may provide some efficacy in terms of attenuating stress-induced craving for several substances, as well as improving the ability to emotionally regulate in the face of stress, preferentially in women. However, to fully leverage the potential of these therapeutics in substance-using women, greater focus needs to the placed on reducing barriers to treatment and research by encouraging women into clinical trials.

Patterns of attention deficit hyperactivity disorder medicine use in the era of new non-stimulant medicines: A population-based study among Australian children and adults (2013-2020).

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: New therapeutic options such as lisdexamfetamine and guanfacine have recently become available for the treatment of attention deficit hyperactivity disorder. We described contemporary patterns of attention deficit hyperactivity disorder medicine use among children, adolescents and adults in Australia. METHODS: This population-based study used dispensing data for a 10% random sample of Australian residents between July 2012 and December 2020. We estimated the annual prevalence and incidence of attention deficit hyperactivity disorder medicines, second-line guanfacine use and examined concurrent medicine use of both stimulants and non-stimulants. We followed incident users for up to 5 years and analysed treatment persistence using a novel proportion of people covered method. Analyses were stratified by attention deficit hyperactivity disorder medicine, sex and age group; young children (0-5 years), children (6-12 years), adolescents (13-17 years), young adults (18-24 years) and adults (⩾25 years). RESULTS: We observed a twofold increase in the overall prevalence of attention deficit hyperactivity disorder medicine use between 2013 and 2020, from 4.9 to 9.7 per 1000 persons. Incident use also increased across all age groups and both sexes, with the most pronounced increases among adolescent females (from 1.4 to 5.3 per 1000 persons). Stimulant treatment persistence after 5 years was highest among those initiating treatment as young children (64%) and children (69%) and lowest among those initiating treatment in adolescence (19%). Concurrent use of stimulants and non-stimulants was more common among males and younger age groups. Most children (87%) initiating guanfacine had prior dispensings of attention deficit hyperactivity disorder medicines. CONCLUSION: We observed increasing attention deficit hyperactivity disorder medicine use in Australia, especially among young females. Nevertheless, treatment rates remain lower than the estimated prevalence of attention deficit hyperactivity disorder across all subpopulations. Poor long-term treatment persistence in adolescence may warrant improved clinical monitoring of attention deficit hyperactivity disorder in patients transitioning from paediatric to adult care. Reassuringly, use of newly approved guanfacine appeared to be in accordance with guidelines among children.

Determination of Guanfacine in Oral Fluid and Serum of Children and Adolescents with Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder: A Short Communication.

BACKGROUND: Guanfacine, a selective α2A-adrenoreceptor agonist, is a second-line medication for treating children and adolescents with attention-deficit/hyperkinetic disorder. The dosage administered as milligram per body weight to balance the potential benefits and risks of treatment. Therapeutic drug monitoring (TDM) is useful for identifying a patient's therapeutic window to optimize individual drug dosing and reduce the risk of adverse drug reactions. However, in children and adolescents, intravenous sample collection is especially stressful and thus remains a primary challenge, restricting the use of TDM. Therefore, evaluating alternative specimens to facilitate TDM is a worthwhile task. The aim of this study was to assess the feasibility of using oral fluid for TDM of guanfacine in children and adolescents. METHODS: In this article, 9 patients (median age 8.1 years; 6 boys and 3 girls) undergoing treatment with guanfacine were included. Simultaneously collected oral fluid and serum samples were deproteinized using methanol containing a stable isotope-labeled internal standard before the determination of guanfacine by liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry. Pearson correlation and paired t test were used for statistical analysis. RESULTS: The mean serum guanfacine concentration was 3 times higher than that detected in oral fluid (7.47 ng/mL versus 2.36 ng/mL; t (8) = 5.94; P < 0.001). A strong positive linear correlation (r = 0.758, P = 0.018) was identified between oral fluid and serum concentrations. A strong but nonsignificant negative correlation (r = -0.574, P = 0.106) was detected between the oral fluid pH and oral fluid-to-serum concentration ratio. CONCLUSIONS: The strong correlation between oral fluid and serum concentration and the probable small effect of oral fluid pH on oral fluid-to-serum concentration ratio supports guanfacine as a suitable candidate for TDM in oral fluid.

Current and future nonstimulants in the treatment of pediatric ADHD: monoamine reuptake inhibitors, receptor modulators, and multimodal agents.

Attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), the single most common neuropsychiatric disorder with cognitive and behavioral manifestations, often starts in childhood and usually persists into adolescence and adulthood. Rarely seen alone, ADHD is most commonly complicated by other neuropsychiatric disorders that must be factored into any intervention plan to optimally address ADHD symptoms. With more than 30 classical Schedule II (CII) stimulant preparations available for ADHD treatment, only three nonstimulants (atomoxetine and extended-release formulations of clonidine and guanfacine) have been approved by the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA), all of which focus on modulating the noradrenergic system. Given the heterogeneity and complex nature of ADHD in most patients, research efforts are identifying nonstimulants which modulate pathways beyond the noradrenergic system. New ADHD medications in clinical development include monoamine reuptake inhibitors, monoamine receptor modulators, and multimodal agents that combine receptor agonist/antagonist activity (receptor modulation) and monoamine transporter inhibition. Each of these "pipeline" ADHD medications has a unique chemical structure and differs in its pharmacologic profile in terms of molecular targets and mechanisms. The clinical role for each of these agents will need to be explored with regard to their potential to address the heterogeneity of individuals struggling with ADHD and ADHD-associated comorbidities. This review profiles alternatives to Schedule II (CII) stimulants that are in clinical stages of development (Phase 2 or 3). Particular attention is given to viloxazine extended-release, which has completed Phase 3 studies in children and adolescents with ADHD.

European clinical guidelines for Tourette syndrome and other tic disorders-version 2.0. Part III: pharmacological treatment.

In 2011, the European Society for the Study of Tourette Syndrome (ESSTS) published the first European guidelines for Tourette Syndrome (TS). We now present an update of the part on pharmacological treatment, based on a review of new literature with special attention to other evidence-based guidelines, meta-analyses, and randomized double-blinded studies. Moreover, our revision took into consideration results of a recent survey on treatment preferences conducted among ESSTS experts. The first preference should be given to psychoeducation and to behavioral approaches, as it strengthens the patients' self-regulatory control and thus his/her autonomy. Because behavioral approaches are not effective, available, or feasible in all patients, in a substantial number of patients pharmacological treatment is indicated, alone or in combination with behavioral therapy. The largest amount of evidence supports the use of dopamine blocking agents, preferably aripiprazole because of a more favorable profile of adverse events than first- and second-generation antipsychotics. Other agents that can be considered include tiapride, risperidone, and especially in case of co-existing attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), clonidine and guanfacine. This view is supported by the results of our survey on medication preference among members of ESSTS, in which aripiprazole was indicated as the drug of first choice both in children and adults. In treatment resistant cases, treatment with agents with either a limited evidence base or risk of extrapyramidal adverse effects might be considered, including pimozide, haloperidol, topiramate, cannabis-based agents, and botulinum toxin injections. Overall, treatment of TS should be individualized, and decisions based on the patient's needs and preferences, presence of co-existing conditions, latest scientific findings as well as on the physician's preferences, experience, and local regulatory requirements.

A Critical Review of Alcohol Administration Guidelines in Laboratory Medication Screening Research: Is It Time to Include Treatment Seekers?

Human laboratory studies play an important role in alcohol use disorder (AUD) medication development. Medications that are found to be safe and effective during human laboratory screening will then move to more expensive clinical trials in patient populations. Given the gatekeeping role of human laboratory studies in the medication development pipeline, it is critical that these studies accurately forecast how pharmacotherapies will perform under true-to-life clinical conditions. On the other hand, the design of these studies also must adhere to ethical guidelines: certain aspects of clinical reality cannot be incorporated into screening studies because doing so might place the participant at risk for harm or breach other ethical guidelines. Conventions exist that guide the resolution of these conflicting ideals. This article considers the practice of recruiting non-treatment-seeking heavy drinkers to participate in laboratory screening studies. By convention, volunteers are excluded from laboratory screening studies that involve alcohol administration if they are deemed "treatment seeking," meaning that they recently stopped drinking or are motivated to do so. Although this common practice may reduce risk to participants, findings may not accurately predict medication effects on treatment seekers. Indeed, there is empirical evidence that treatment seekers differ from nontreatment seekers in their responses to medications (Neuropsychopharmacology 2017a; 42: 1776; Am J Drug Alcohol Abuse 2017b; 43: 703; J Psychiatr Res 2006; 40: 383). Here, we argue for the importance of recruiting treatment seekers for this research due to their qualitative difference from nontreatment seekers. We argue that these individuals should be the default population in human laboratory medication screening studies. We conclude by discussing 2 case examples of medication experiments led by our research groups that involved administering medications to treatment seekers.

The 10-year trend in drug prescriptions for attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) in Germany.

PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to analyse whether the global trend in drug prescriptions for attention-deficit hyperactivity disorders (ADHD), as observed during the last years and often criticized as medicalization, have remained stable or shifted. METHODS: This observational study was based on a secondary analysis of data from a large German database including patients with an ADHD diagnosis between 2008 and 2018. Prescription data comprised all important ADHD drugs. RESULTS: A total of 620 practices delivered data from a total of 77,504 patients (31% of them females) with a diagnosis of AHDH. Nearly 38% (29,396/77,504) of all patients received, at least, one prescription for an ADHS medicine between 2008 and 2018. The number of patients receiving a drug steadily increased annually until 2012 and then slowly fell, but unevenly distributed across the age groups. While the number of younger patients ( ≤ 16 years) receiving a prescription fell by 24% and the defined daily doses (DDDs) remained stable, the number of patients between 17 and 24 years receiving a prescription increased by 113% and the DDDs by 150%. Respectively, the number of older adults (≥ 25 years) with a prescription increased by 355% and the DDDs by 515%. Nearly one-third of older adults received an ADHD medicine only once. CONCLUSION: The ever-increasing prescription of ADHD medicines stopped some years ago for children. ADHS and its pharmacological management are increasingly observed among older adolescents and adults, with a different pattern of drug persistence compared with children.

α2-Adrenergic Agonists or Stimulants for Preschool-Age Children With Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder.

Importance: Attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) is diagnosed in approximately 2.4% of preschool-age children. Stimulants are recommended as first-line medication treatment. However, up to 25% of preschool-age children with ADHD are treated with α2-adrenergic agonist medications, despite minimal evidence about their efficacy or adverse effects in this age range. Objective: To determine the frequency of reported improvement in ADHD symptoms and adverse effects associated with α2-adrenergic agonists and stimulant medication for initial ADHD medication treatment in preschool-age children. Design, Setting, and Participants: Retrospective electronic health record review. Data were obtained from health records of children seen at 7 outpatient developmental-behavioral pediatric practices in the Developmental Behavioral Pediatrics Research Network in the US. Data were abstracted for 497 consecutive children who were younger than 72 months when treatment with an α2-adrenergic agonist or stimulant medication was initiated by a developmental-behavioral pediatrician for ADHD and were treated between January 1, 2013, and July 1, 2017. Follow-up was complete on February 27, 2019. Exposures: α2-Adrenergic agonist vs stimulant medication as initial ADHD medication treatment. Main Outcomes and Measures: Reported improvement in ADHD symptoms and adverse effects. Results: Data were abstracted from electronic health records of 497 preschool-age children with ADHD receiving α2-adrenergic agonists or stimulants. Median child age was 62 months at ADHD medication initiation, and 409 children (82%) were males. For initial ADHD medication treatment, α2-adrenergic agonists were prescribed to 175 children (35%; median length of α2-adrenergic agonist use, 136 days) and stimulants were prescribed to 322 children (65%; median length of stimulant use, 133 days). Improvement was reported in 66% (95% CI, 57.5%-73.9%) of children who initiated α2-adrenergic agonists and 78% (95% CI, 72.4%-83.4%) of children who initiated stimulants. Only daytime sleepiness was more common for those receiving α2-adrenergic agonists vs stimulants (38% vs 3%); several adverse effects were reported more commonly for those receiving stimulants vs α2-adrenergic agonists, including moodiness/irritability (50% vs 29%), appetite suppression (38% vs 7%), and difficulty sleeping (21% vs 11%). Conclusions and Relevance: In this retrospective review of health records of preschool-age children with ADHD treated in developmental-behavioral pediatric practices, improvement was noted in the majority of children who received α2-adrenergic agonists or stimulants, with differing adverse effect profiles between medication classes. Further research, including from randomized clinical trials, is needed to assess comparative effectiveness of α2-adrenergic agonists vs stimulants.

Chronic Administrations of Guanfacine on Mesocortical Catecholaminergic and Thalamocortical Glutamatergic Transmissions.

It has been established that the selective α2A adrenoceptor agonist guanfacine reduces hyperactivity and improves cognitive impairment in patients with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). The major mechanisms of guanfacine are considered to involve the activation of the postsynaptic α2A adrenoceptor of glutamatergic pyramidal neurons in the frontal cortex, but the effects of chronic guanfacine administration on catecholaminergic and glutamatergic transmissions associated with the orbitofrontal cortex (OFC) are yet to be clarified. The actions of guanfacine on catecholaminergic transmission, the effects of acutely local and systemically chronic (for 7 days) administrations of guanfacine on catecholamine release in pathways from the locus coeruleus (LC) to OFC, the ventral tegmental area (VTA) and reticular thalamic-nucleus (RTN), from VTA to OFC, from RTN to the mediodorsal thalamic-nucleus (MDTN), and from MDTN to OFC were determined using multi-probe microdialysis with ultra-high performance liquid chromatography. Additionally, the effects of chronic guanfacine administration on the expression of the α2A adrenoceptor in the plasma membrane fraction of OFC, VTA and LC were examined using a capillary immunoblotting system. The acute local administration of therapeutically relevant concentrations of guanfacine into the LC decreased norepinephrine release in the OFC, VTA and RTN without affecting dopamine release in the OFC. Systemically, chronic administration of therapeutically relevant doses of guanfacine for 14 days increased the basal release of norepinephrine in the OFC, VTA, RTN, and dopamine release in the OFC via the downregulation of the α2A adrenoceptor in the LC, OFC and VTA. Furthermore, systemically, chronic guanfacine administration did not affect intrathalamic GABAergic transmission, but it phasically enhanced thalamocortical glutamatergic transmission. The present study demonstrated the dual actions of guanfacine on catecholaminergic transmission-acute attenuation of noradrenergic transmission and chronic enhancement of noradrenergic transmission and thalamocortical glutamatergic transmission. These dual actions of guanfacine probably contribute to the clinical effects of guanfacine against ADHD.

Guanfacine's mechanism of action in treating prefrontal cortical disorders: Successful translation across species.

The selective norepinephrine (NE) α2A-adrenoceptor (α2A-AR) agonist, guanfacine (Intuniv™), is FDA-approved for treating Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) based on research in animals, a translational success story. Guanfacine is also widely used off-label in additional mental disorders that involve impaired functioning of the prefrontal cortex (PFC), including stress-related disorders such as substance abuse, schizotypic cognitive deficits, and traumatic brain injury. The PFC subserves high order cognitive and executive functions including working memory, abstract reasoning, insight and judgment, and top-down control of attention, action and emotion. These abilities arise from PFC microcircuits with extensive recurrent excitation through NMDAR synapses. There is powerful modulation of these synapses, where cAMP-PKA opening of nearby potassium (K+) channels can rapidly and dynamically alter synaptic strength to coordinate arousal state with cognitive state, e.g. to take PFC "offline" during uncontrollable stress. A variety of evidence shows that guanfacine acts within the PFC via post-synaptic α2A-AR on dendritic spines to inhibit cAMP-PKA-K+ channel signaling, thus strengthening network connectivity, enhancing PFC neuronal firing, and improving PFC cognitive functions. Although guanfacine's beneficial effects are present in rodent, they are especially evident in primates, where the PFC greatly expands and differentiates. In addition to therapeutic actions in PFC, stress-related disorders may also benefit from additional α2-AR actions, such as weakening plasticity in the amygdala, reducing NE release, and anti-inflammatory actions by deactivating microglia. Altogether, these NE α2-AR actions optimize top-down control by PFC networks, which may explain guanfacine's benefits in a variety of mental disorders.

Guanfacine extended-release for cannabis use disorder: a pilot feasibility trial.

Background: Currently, there are no established pharmacotherapies for cannabis use disorders (CUDs). As a long-acting alpha-2-adrenergic receptor agonist, guanfacine extended-release (G-XR) could be useful in the treatment of CUDs by mitigating withdrawal and improving behavioral control.Objectives: To evaluate the feasibility and tolerability of G-XR as a treatment for CUDs.Methods: In an eight-week open-label outpatient pilot trial, we evaluated the safety and tolerability of G-XR in 22 cannabis dependent individuals. Using 2 different titration schedules, G-XR was gradually titrated to a dose of 4 mg or the highest dose tolerated. All participants received standard medication management.Results: Retention at week eight was 41%. Average daily amount of cannabis use (in grams: F1,86 = 8.74, p = .004; in dollars: F1,86 = 16.67, p < .0001) and cannabis using days (F1,86 = 7.67, p = .007) significantly reduced over the course of study participation. There were no significant differences between the titration schedules on emergence of side effects (Fisher exact test, p = .378) or retention (Log-Rank Test X21 = 0.021, p = .886). A total of 3 participants achieved 3 weeks or greater of total abstinence.Conclusions: G-XR is a feasible treatment for CUDs, and should be evaluated further in an efficacy trial.

Guanfacine decreases symptoms of cannabis withdrawal in daily cannabis smokers.

The α2a-adrenergic agonist, lofexidine, reduced cannabis withdrawal-related sleep disruption in the laboratory, but side effects (e.g. fatigue, hypotension) limit its utility as a treatment for cannabis use disorder. This study tested the potential efficacy and tolerability of a daily bedtime administration of the FDA-approved α2a-adrenergic agonist, guanfacine, in a human laboratory model of cannabis use disorder. Daily, nontreatment-seeking cannabis smokers (13M, 2F) completed a within-subject study comprising two 9-day inpatient study phases. Each phase tested the effects of daily placebo or immediate-release guanfacine (2 mg) on cannabis intoxication (5.6 percent THC; 2 days), withdrawal (4 days of abstinence) and subsequent 'relapse' (3 days of cannabis self-administration). Ratings of mood, sleep, cardiovascular effects, food intake, psychomotor performance and cannabis self-administration were assessed. An outpatient phase preceded each inpatient phase for medication clearance or dose induction. Under placebo medication conditions, cannabis abstinence produced significant withdrawal, including irritability, sleep disruption and anorexia. Guanfacine reduced ratings of irritability and improved objective measures of sleep during cannabis withdrawal relative to placebo but did not reduce cannabis self-administration. Guanfacine was well tolerated with little evidence of fatigue and only small decreases in blood pressure: no dose was held due to hypotension. Thus, a single daily administration of guanfacine at bedtime improved sleep and mood during cannabis withdrawal relative to placebo. This positive signal supports further studies varying the guanfacine dose, formulation or frequency of administration, or combining it with other medications to increase the likelihood of having an impact on cannabis use.

Use of Guanfacine for Cannabis Use Disorder and Related Symptomology.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: No medication has Food and Drug Administration approval for cannabis use disorder (CUD), and most medication development focuses on the withdrawal syndrome. We evaluated the effects of short-term treatment using the α-2A-adrenergic receptor agonist, guanfacine, on withdrawal symptoms in volunteers with CUD and a history of early onset of cannabis use. METHODS: Non-treatment-seeking healthy volunteers (n = 7) who met the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 4th Edition criteria for CUD participated in a two-phase, within-subjects study. Volunteers received placebo or guanfacine (3 mg/day) for the first 8-day inpatient study and the alternative medication for the second 8-day inpatient study. On day 1 of both treatment periods, participants received 30 mg of synthetic Δ9 -tetrahydrocannabinol for standardization of abstinence onset. On days 2 to 7, participants received study medication. Cannabis withdrawal symptoms, sleep, craving, and physiology were assessed on all inpatient days. RESULTS: Compared with placebo, guanfacine did not show significant effects on withdrawal, craving, or sleep, although there were trends for guanfacine to increase positive mood symptoms and decrease craving-associated compulsivity. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS: Compared with former studies, we could not prove significant improvement in sleep or decrease of negative symptoms, but we found trends for increased positive mood symptoms. Our data did not show significant effects of guanfacine on withdrawal symptoms or craving. Due to early and longer cannabis use, our subjects indicate a great severity of illness increasing the likelihood of treatment resistance. SCIENTIFIC SIGNIFICANCE: On the basis of trends demonstrated here and other lines of evidence, further investigation is warranted regarding the utility of guanfacine as a potential treatment for CUD. (Am J Addict 2019;00:1-10).

[Effectiveness of guanfacin on comorbid disorders in children and adolescents with adhd: a systematic literature review]. / Effectiviteit van guanfacine bij comorbide stoornissen bij kinderen en jongeren met ADHD: systematische literatuurstudie.

BACKGROUND: Attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) is a frequently occurring problem in child and adolescent psychiatry. Most prevalent comorbid disorders are oppositional defiant behavior, tics, autism spectrum disorder, anxiety and depression. Stimulants are the first pharmacological choice. Recently, long-acting guanfacin became available in Belgium and the Netherlands.
AIM: To investigate the efficacy of guanfacin on comorbid symptoms in ADHD.
METHOD: A systematic search in Medline and Cochrane databases for randomized controlled trials in which the effect of guanfacin on comorbid symptoms is evaluated.
RESULTS: Guanfacin had an effect on autism symptoms, oppositional defiant symptoms and possibly on tics in children and adolescents with adhd. On anxiety symptoms, no effect was reported. The effect on depression needs to be further investigated. The side effects of guanfacin are similar in comorbid disorders and pure ADHD.
CONCLUSION: Guanfacin is a treatment option for ADHD in children and adolescents with comorbid autism or behavioural symptoms and possibly also tics, as it has a demonstrated effect on these comorbid features. Further research is necessary in order to decide on the preference for a particular medication in ADHD with these various comorbid disorders.