Disulfiram for the treatment of cocaine dependence.

BACKGROUND: Cocaine is a psychostimulant used by approximately 0.4% of the general population worldwide. Cocaine dependence is a chronic mental disorder characterised by the inability to control cocaine use and a host of severe medical and psychosocial complications. There is current no approved pharmacological treatment for cocaine dependence. Some researchers have proposed disulfiram, a medication approved to treat alcohol use disorder. This is an update of a Cochrane review first published in 2010. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of disulfiram for the treatment of cocaine dependence. SEARCH METHODS: We updated our searches of the following databases to August 2022: the Cochrane Drugs and Alcohol Group Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, and PsycINFO. We also searched for ongoing and unpublished studies via two trials registries. We handsearched the references of topic-related systematic reviews and included studies. The searches had no language restrictions. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials that evaluated disulfiram alone or associated with psychosocial interventions versus placebo, no intervention, other pharmacological interventions, or any psychosocial intervention for the treatment of cocaine dependence. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. MAIN RESULTS: Thirteen studies (1191 participants) met our inclusion criteria. Disulfiram versus placebo or no treatment Disulfiram compared to placebo may increase the number of people who are abstinent at the end of treatment (point abstinence; risk ratio (RR) 1.58, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.05 to 2.36; 3 datasets, 142 participants; low-certainty evidence). However, compared to placebo or no pharmacological treatment, disulfiram may have little or no effect on frequency of cocaine use (standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.11 standard deviations (SDs), 95% CI -0.39 to 0.17; 13 datasets, 818 participants), amount of cocaine use (SMD -0.00 SDs, 95% CI -0.30 to 0.30; 7 datasets, 376 participants), continuous abstinence (RR 1.23, 95% CI 0.80 to 1.91; 6 datasets, 386 participants), and dropout for any reason (RR 1.20, 95% CI 0.92 to 1.55; 14 datasets, 841 participants). The certainty of the evidence was low for all these outcomes. We are unsure about the effects of disulfiram versus placebo on dropout due to adverse events (RR 12.97, 95% CI 0.77 to 218.37; 1 study, 67 participants) and on the occurrence of adverse events (RR 3.00, 95% CI 0.35 to 25.98), because the certainty of the evidence was very low for these outcomes. Disulfiram versus naltrexone Disulfiram compared with naltrexone may reduce the frequency of cocaine use (mean difference (MD) -1.90 days, 95% CI -3.37 to -0.43; 2 datasets, 123 participants; low-certainty evidence) and may have little or no effect on amount of cocaine use (SMD 0.12 SDs, 95% CI -0.27 to 0.51, 2 datasets, 123 participants; low-certainty evidence). We are unsure about the effect of disulfiram versus naltrexone on dropout for any reason (RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.56 to 1.32, 3 datasets, 131 participants) and dropout due to adverse events (RR 0.50, 95% CI 0.07 to 3.55; 1 dataset, 8 participants), because the certainty of the evidence was very low for these outcomes. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Our results show that disulfiram compared to placebo may increase point abstinence. However, disulfiram compared to placebo or no pharmacological treatment may have little or no effect on frequency of cocaine use, amount of cocaine use, continued abstinence, and dropout for any reason. We are unsure if disulfiram has any adverse effects in this population. Caution is required when transferring our results to clinical practice.

Alcohol-medication interactions: A systematic review and meta-analysis of placebo-controlled trials.

Alcohol and other xenobiotics may limit the therapeutic effects of medications. We aimed at investigating alcohol-medication interactions (AMI) after the exclusion of confounding effects related to other xenobiotics. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of controlled studies comparing the effects induced by alcohol versus placebo on pharmacodynamic and/or pharmacokinetic parameters of approved medications. Certainty in the evidence of AMI was assessed when at least 3 independent studies and at least 200 participants were available. We included 107 articles (3097 participants): for diazepam, cannabis, opioids, and methylphenidate, we found significant AMI and enough data to assign the certainty of evidence. Alcohol consumption significantly increases the peak plasma concentration of diazepam (low certainty; almost 290 participants), cannabis (high certainty; almost 650 participants), opioids (low certainty; 560 participants), and methylphenidate (moderate certainty; 290 participants). For most medications, we found some AMI but not enough data to assign them the certainty grades; for some medications, we found no differences between alcohol and placebo in any outcomes evaluated. Our results add further evidence for interactions between alcohol and certain medications after the exclusion of confounding effects related to other xenobiotics. Physicians should advise patients who use these specific medications to avoid alcohol consumption. Further studies with appropriate control groups, enough female participants to investigate sex differences, and elderly population are needed to expand our knowledge in this field. Short phrases suitable for indexing terms.

Use of Medications for the Treatment of Alcohol Dependence: A Retrospective Study Conducted in 2011-2012.

BACKGROUND: Pharmacotherapy for Alcohol Dependence (AD) is underutilized. Barriers preventing the use of AD medications include high prices, lack of access to prescribing physicians, and a limited number of available medications. OBJECTIVE: The study evaluated the use of AD medications in a sample of Italian outpatients who received these medications free of charge, had access to physicians during office hours, and for whom substitution therapy [gamma-hydroxybutyrate (GHB)] was available. We also evaluated the rate of patients who received a combination of non-pharmacological and pharmacological treatments among participants who were still drinking. METHODS: SCID for AD and questionnaire were filled by to AD outpatients during a face-to-face interview. RESULTS & DISCUSSION: 345 AD outpatients were interviewed: 58.8% were currently receiving at least one AD medication (GHB: 34.3%, disulfiram: 29.6%, acamprosate: 5.9%; naltrexone: 2.5%; more than one medication: 16.7%). Less than 30% of participants who were still drinking, received a combination of non-pharmacological and pharmacological treatments. Nonetheless, we found higher use of AD medications compared to previous studies conducted in other countries. This higher use of AD medications may be due to access to free medications, prescribing physicians' style, and a larger number of available medications. CONCLUSION: Our results confirm the underutilization of AD medications, as less than 60% of AD outpatients received medications, and less than 30% of those who were still drinking, received a combination of non-pharmacological and pharmacological treatments. These findings may be useful in improving our knowledge of the barriers that prevent the use of AD medications in clinical practice.

Delineating the Psychic Structure of Substance Use and Addictions, from Neurobiology to Clinical Implications: Ten Years Later.

The diagnosis of substance use disorder is currently based on the presence of specifically identified behavioral symptoms. In addition, other psychiatric signs and symptoms accompany addictive behavior, contributing to the full picture of patients' psychopathologic profile. Historically, such symptoms were confined within the framework of "comorbidity", as comorbid psychiatric disorders or personality traits. However, an alternative unitary view of the psychopathology of addiction, inclusive of related psychiatric symptoms, has been claimed, with the support of epidemiological, neurobiological, and neuropsychological evidence. In the present article, we highlight the research advancements that strengthen this unified perspective. We then give an account of our group's definition of a specific SCL-90-based construct of the psychopathology of addiction. Lastly, we discuss the benefits that can be expected to be acquired in the evaluation and treatment of patients with a longitudinal approach including psychological/psychiatric predisposing features, addictive behavior, and psychiatric manifestations.

Antidepressants for the treatment of people with co-occurring depression and alcohol dependence.

BACKGROUND: Alcohol dependence is a major public health problem characterized by recidivism, and medical and psychosocial complications. The co-occurrence of major depression in people entering treatment for alcohol dependence is common, and represents a risk factor for morbidity and mortality, which negatively influences treatment outcomes. OBJECTIVES: To assess the benefits and risks of antidepressants for the treatment of people with co-occurring depression and alcohol dependence. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Drugs and Alcohol Group Specialised Register (via CRSLive), Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, and Embase from inception to July 2017. We also searched for ongoing and unpublished studies via ClinicalTrials.gov (www.clinicaltrials.gov) and the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) (apps.who.int/trialsearch/).All searches included non-English language literature. We handsearched references of topic-related systematic reviews and the included studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomized controlled trials and controlled clinical trials comparing antidepressants alone or in association with other drugs or psychosocial interventions (or both) versus placebo, no treatment, and other pharmacological or psychosocial interventions. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard methodological procedures as expected by Cochrane. MAIN RESULTS: We included 33 studies in the review (2242 participants). Antidepressants were compared to placebo (22 studies), psychotherapy (two studies), other medications (four studies), or other antidepressants (five studies). The mean duration of the trials was 9.9 weeks (range 3 to 26 weeks). Eighteen studies took place in the USA, 12 in Europe, two in Turkey, and one in Australia. The antidepressant included in most of the trials was sertraline; other medications were amitriptyline, citalopram, desipramine, doxepin, escitalopram, fluoxetine, fluvoxamine, imipramine, mianserin, mirtazepine, nefazodone, paroxetine, tianeptine, venlafaxine, and viloxazine. Eighteen studies were conducted in an outpatient setting, nine in an inpatient setting, and six in both settings. Psychosocial treatment was provided in 18 studies. There was high heterogeneity in the selection of outcomes and the rating systems used for diagnosis and outcome assessment.Comparing antidepressants to placebo, low-quality evidence suggested that antidepressants reduced the severity of depression evaluated with interviewer-rated scales at the end of trial (14 studies, 1074 participants, standardized mean difference (SMD) -0.27, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.49 to -0.04). However, the difference became non-significant after the exclusion of studies with a high risk of bias (SMD -0.17, 95% CI -0.39 to 0.04). In addition, very low-quality evidence supported the efficacy of antidepressants in increasing the response to the treatment (10 studies, 805 participants, risk ratio (RR) 1.40, 95% Cl 1.08 to 1.82). This result became non-significant after the exclusion of studies at high risk of bias (RR 1.27, 95% CI 0.96 to 1.68). There was no difference for other relevant outcomes such as the difference between baseline and final score, evaluated using interviewer-rated scales (5 studies, 447 participants, SMD 0.15, 95% CI -0.12 to 0.42).Moderate-quality evidence found that antidepressants increased the number of participants abstinent from alcohol during the trial (7 studies, 424 participants, RR 1.71, 95% Cl 1.22 to 2.39) and reduced the number of drinks per drinking days (7 studies, 451 participants, mean difference (MD) -1.13 drinks per drinking days, 95% Cl -1.79 to -0.46). After the exclusion of studies with high risk of bias, the number of abstinent remained higher (RR 1.69, 95% CI 1.18 to 2.43) and the number of drinks per drinking days lower (MD -1.21 number of drinks per drinking days, 95% CI -1.91 to -0.51) among participants who received antidepressants compared to those who received placebo. However, other outcomes such as the rate of abstinent days did not differ between antidepressants and placebo (9 studies, 821 participants, MD 1.34, 95% Cl -1.66 to 4.34; low-quality evidence).Low-quality evidence suggested no differences between antidepressants and placebo in the number of dropouts (17 studies, 1159 participants, RR 0.98, 95% Cl 0.79 to 1.22) and adverse events as withdrawal for medical reasons (10 studies, 947 participants, RR 1.15, 95% Cl 0.65 to 2.04).There were few studies comparing one antidepressant versus another antidepressant or antidepressants versus other interventions, and these had a small sample size and were heterogeneous in terms of the types of interventions that were compared, yielding results that were not informative. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We found low-quality evidence supporting the clinical use of antidepressants in the treatment of people with co-occurring depression and alcohol dependence. Antidepressants had positive effects on certain relevant outcomes related to depression and alcohol use but not on other relevant outcomes. Moreover, most of these positive effects were no longer significant when studies with high risk of bias were excluded. Results were limited by the large number of studies showing high or unclear risk of bias and the low number of studies comparing one antidepressant to another or antidepressants to other medication. In people with co-occurring depression and alcohol dependence, the risk of developing adverse effects appeared to be minimal, especially for the newer classes of antidepressants (such as selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors). According to these results, in people with co-occurring depression and alcohol dependence, antidepressants may be useful for the treatment of depression, alcohol dependence, or both, although the clinical relevance may be modest.

Toward the Identification of a Specific Psychopathology of Substance Use Disorders.

Addiction is a mental illness in which psychiatric conditions imply a prominent burden. Psychopathological symptoms in substance use disorder (SUD) patients are usually viewed as being assignable to the sphere of a personality trait or of comorbidity, leaving doubts about the presence of a specific psychopathology that could only be related to the toxicomanic process. Our research group at the University of Pisa has shed light on the possible definition of a specific psychopathological dimension in SUDs. In heroin use disorder patients, performing an exploratory principal component factor analysis (PCA) on all the 90 items included in the SCL-90 questionnaire led to a five-factor solution. The first factor accounted for a depressive "worthlessness and being trapped" dimension; the second factor picked out a "somatic symptoms" dimension; the third identified a "sensitivity-psychoticism" dimension; the fourth a "panic-anxiety" dimension; and the fifth a "violence-suicide" dimension. These same results were replicated by applying the PCA to another Italian sample of 1,195 heroin addicts entering a Therapeutic Community Treatment. Further analyses confirmed the clusters of symptoms, independently of demographic and clinical characteristics, active heroin use, lifetime psychiatric problems, kind of treatment received, and, especially, other substances used by the patient such as alcohol or cocaine. Moreover, these clusters were able to discriminate patients affected by addiction from those affected by psychiatric diseases such as major depressive disorder. Our studies seem to suggest the trait-dependent, rather than the state-dependent, nature of the introduced psychopathology dimensions of SUDs.

The impact of psychopathological subtypes on retention rate of patients with substance use disorder entering residential therapeutic community treatment.

BACKGROUND: A specific psychopathology of addiction has been proposed and described using the self-report symptom inventory (SCL-90), leading to a 5-factor aggregation of psychological/psychiatric symptoms: 'worthlessness and being trapped', 'somatic symptoms', 'sensitivity-psychoticism', 'panic-anxiety' and 'violence-suicide' in various populations of patients with heroin use disorder (HUD) and other substance use disorders (SUDs). These clusters of symptoms, according to studies that have highlighted the role of possible confounding factors (such as demographic and clinical characteristics, active heroin use, lifetime psychiatric problems and kind of treatment received by the patients), seem to constitute a trait rather than a state of the psychological structure of addiction. These five psychopathological dimensions defined on the basis of SCL-90 categories have also been shown to be correlated with the outcomes of a variety of agonist opioid treatments. The present study aims to test whether the 5-factor psychopathological model of addiction correlates with the outcome (retention rate) of patients with SUDs entering a therapeutic community (TC) treatment. METHODS: 2016 subjects with alcohol, heroin or cocaine dependence were assigned to one of the five clusters on the basis of the highest SCL-90 factor score shown. Retention in treatment was analysed by means of the survival analysis and Wilcoxon statistics for comparison between the survival curves. The associations between the psychopathological subtypes defined by SCL-90 categories and length of retention in treatment, after taking into account substance of abuse and other sociodemographic and clinical variables, were summarized using Cox regression. RESULTS: Patients with cocaine use disorder (CUD) showed poorer outcomes than those with heroin dependence (HUD). Prominent symptoms of "worthlessness-being trapped" lead to a longer retention in treatment than in the case of the other four prominent psychopathological groups. At the multivariate level, age, detoxified status and total number of psychopathological symptoms proved to influence outcome negatively, especially in CUD. Somatic symptoms and violence-suicide symptoms turned out to correlate with dropout from residential treatment. CONCLUSIONS: The SCL-90 5-factor dimensions can be appropriately used as a prognostic tool for drug-dependent subjects entering a residential treatment.

Psychopathology of addiction: May a SCL-90-based five dimensions structure be applied irrespectively of the involved drug?

BACKGROUND: We previously found a five cluster of psychological symptoms in heroin use disorder (HUD) patients: 'worthlessness-being trapped', 'somatic-symptoms', 'sensitivity-psychoticism', 'panic-anxiety', and 'violence-suicide'. We demonstrated that this aggregation is independent of the chosen treatment, of intoxication status and of the presence of psychiatric problems. METHODS: 2314 Subjects, with alcohol, heroin or cocaine dependence were assigned to one of the five clusters. Differences between patients dependent on alcohol, heroin and cocaine in the frequency of the five clusters and in their severity were analysed. The association between the secondary abuse of alcohol and cocaine and the five clusters was also considered in the subsample of HUD patients. RESULTS: We confirmed a positive association of the 'somatic symptoms' dimension with the condition of heroin versus cocaine dependence and of the 'sensitivity-psychoticism' dimension with the condition of alcohol versus heroin dependence. 'Somatic symptoms' and 'panic anxiety' successfully discriminated between patients as being alcohol, heroin or cocaine dependents. Looking at the subsample of heroin dependents, no significant differences were observed. CONCLUSIONS: The available evidence coming from our results, taken as a whole, seems to support the extension of the psychopathological structure previously observed in opioid addicts to the population of alcohol and cocaine dependents.

Antipsychotic medications for cocaine dependence.

BACKGROUND: Cocaine dependence is a public health problem characterised by recidivism and a host of medical and psychosocial complications. Cocaine dependence remains a disorder for which no pharmacological treatment of proven efficacy exists. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the efficacy and the acceptability of antipsychotic medications for cocaine dependence. SEARCH METHODS: This review is an update of a previous Cochrane review published in 2007. We searched up to 15 July 2015 in Cochrane Drugs and Alcohol Group Specialised Register (searched in CRSLive); the Cochrane Library (including the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL); the Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects (DARE)); PubMed; EMBASE; CINAHL and Web of Science. All searches included non-English language literature. SELECTION CRITERIA: All randomised controlled trials and controlled clinical trials with focus on the use of any antipsychotic medication for the treatment of cocaine dependence. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. MAIN RESULTS: We included 14 studies (719 participants). The antipsychotic drugs studied were risperidone, olanzapine, quetiapine, lamotrigine, aripiprazol, haloperidol and reserpine. Comparing any antipsychotic drugs versus placebo, we found that antipsychotics reduced dropout: eight studies, 397 participants, risk ratio (RR) 0.75 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.57 to 0.97), moderate quality of evidence. We found no significant differences for any of the other primary outcomes considered: number of participants using cocaine during the treatment, two studies, 91 participants: RR 1.02 (95% CI 0.65 to 1.62); continuous abstinence, three studies, 139 participants: RR 1.30 (95% CI 0.73 to 2.32); side effects, six studies, 291 participants: RR 1.01 (95% CI 0.93 to 1.10); and craving, four studies, 240 participants: RR 0.13 (-1.08 to 1.35). For all of these comparisons we rated the quality of evidence as low.Comparisons of single drug versus placebo or versus another drug are conducted in few trials with small sample sizes, limiting the reliability of the results. Among these comparisons, only quetiapine seemed to outperform placebo in reducing cocaine use, measured by grams per week: mean difference (MD) -0.54 (95% CI -0.92 to -0.16), by US dollars spent per week: MD -53.80 (95% CI -97.85 to -9.75), and by craving: MD -1.23 (95% CI -2.19 to -0.27), but results came from one study with 60 participants.The major limitations of the studies were the high risk of attrition bias (40% of the included studies) and low quality of reporting, mainly for the risk of selection bias, performance and detection bias, that we rated as being at unclear risk for 75% to 80% of the studies. Furthermore, most of the included studies did not report results on important outcomes such as side effects, or use of cocaine during treatment and craving, which prevented the possibility of including them in statistical synthesis. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: At present, there is no evidence supporting the clinical use of antipsychotic medications in the treatment of cocaine dependence, although results come from only 14 trials, with small sample sizes and moderate to low quality of evidence.

Efficacy of Medications Approved for the Treatment of Alcohol Dependence and Alcohol Withdrawal Syndrome in Female Patients: A Descriptive Review.

The aim of this study was to evaluate whether the number of women recruited for studies to establish the efficacy of medications approved for treatment of alcohol dependence (AD) and of alcohol withdrawal syndrome (AWS) is sufficient to reveal possible gender differences in the response to these medications and in suggesting the use of different doses in female patients. Our results show that the rates of women recruited for studies evaluating the efficacy of disulfiram (1%), benzodiazepines (3%), and anticonvulsants (13%) were too low to establish possible gender differences. The rates of women recruited for studies evaluating the efficacy of acamprosate (22%), naltrexone (23%), and nalmefene (30%) were higher and allowed evaluation of data obtained for female patients. Women receive medications for treatment of AD and/or AWS for which efficacy has been demonstrated in studies in which men were more largely represented.

Harm Reduction as "Continuum Care" in Alcohol Abuse Disorder.

Alcohol abuse is one of the most important risk factors for health and is a major cause of death and morbidity. Despite this, only about one-tenth of individuals with alcohol abuse disorders receive therapeutic intervention and specific rehabilitation. Among the various dichotomies that limit an effective approach to the problem of alcohol use disorder treatment, one of the most prominent is integrated treatment versus harm reduction. For years, these two divergent strategies have been considered to be opposite poles of different philosophies of intervention. One is bound to the search for methods that aim to lead the subject to complete abstinence; the other prioritizes a progressive decline in substance use, with maximum reduction in the damage that is correlated with curtailing that use. Reduction of alcohol intake does not require any particular setting, but does require close collaboration between the general practitioner, specialized services for addiction, alcohology services and psychiatry. In patients who reach that target, significant savings in terms of health and social costs can be achieved. Harm reduction is a desirable target, even from an economic point of view. At the present state of neuroscientific knowledge, it is possible to go one step further in the logic that led to the integration of psychosocial and pharmacological approaches, by attempting to remove the shadows of social judgment that, at present, are aiming for a course of treatment that is directed towards absolute abstention.

Dopamine agonists for the treatment of cocaine dependence.

BACKGROUND: Cocaine misuse is a disorder for which no pharmacological treatment of proven efficacy exists. Advances in neurobiology could guide future medication development. OBJECTIVES: To investigate the efficacy and acceptability of dopamine agonists alone or in combination with any psychosocial intervention for the treatment of of people who misuse cocaine. SEARCH METHODS: We run the search on 12 January 2015. We searched the Cochrane Drugs and Alcohol Group (CDAG) Specialized Register, PubMed, EMBASE, CINAHL, PsycINFO, ICTRP, clinicaltrials.gov and screened reference lists. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and controlled clinical trials (CCTs) comparing dopamine agonists alone or associated with psychosocial intervention with placebo, no treatment or other pharmacological interventions. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard Cochrane methodological procedures. MAIN RESULTS: Twenty four studies, including 2147 participants, met the inclusion criteria. Comparing any dopamine agonist versus placebo, we found no differences for any of the outcomes considered: dropout (moderate quality of evidence), abstinence (low quality of evidence), severity of dependence (low quality of evidence), adverse events (moderate quality of evidence). This was also observed when single dopamine agonists were compared against placebo. Comparing amantadine versus antidepressants, we found low quality of evidence that antidepressants performed better for abstinence (RR 0.25, 95% CI 0.12 to 0.53) based on two studies with 44 participants. No differences were found for dropout or adverse events, for both moderate quality of evidence.The major flaws of the included studies concerned selection bias because most studies did not report information about sequence generation (80%) and allocation concealment methods (86%): half of the included studies were judged at unclear risk of performance bias and 62.5% at unclear risk of detection bias for what concerns subjective outcomes. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Current evidence from RCTs does not support the use of dopamine agonists for treating cocaine misuse. This absence of evidence may leave to clinicians the alternative of balancing the possible benefits against the potential adverse effects of the treatment. Even the potential benefit of combining a dopamine agonist with a more potent psychosocial intervention, which was suggested by the previous Cochrane Review (Soares 2003), is not supported by the results of this Cochrane Review update.

Anticonvulsants for cocaine dependence.

BACKGROUND: Cocaine dependence is a major public health problem that is characterised by recidivism and a host of medical and psychosocial complications. Although effective pharmacotherapy is available for alcohol and heroin dependence, none is currently available for cocaine dependence, despite two decades of clinical trials primarily involving antidepressant, anticonvulsivant and dopaminergic medications. Extensive consideration has been given to optimal pharmacological approaches to the treatment of individuals with cocaine dependence, and both dopamine antagonists and agonists have been considered. Anticonvulsants have been candidates for use in the treatment of addiction based on the hypothesis that seizure kindling-like mechanisms contribute to addiction. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of anticonvulsants for individuals with cocaine dependence. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Drugs and Alcohol Group Trials Register (June 2014), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (2014, Issue 6), MEDLINE (1966 to June 2014), EMBASE (1988 to June 2014), the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL) (1982 to June 2014), Web of Science (1991 to June 2014) and the reference lists of eligible articles. SELECTION CRITERIA: All randomised controlled trials and controlled clinical trials that focus on the use of anticonvulsant medications to treat individuals with cocaine dependence. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used the standard methodological procedures expected by The Cochrane Collaboration. MAIN RESULTS: We included a total of 20 studies with 2068 participants. We studied the anticonvulsant drugs carbamazepine, gabapentin, lamotrigine, phenytoin, tiagabine, topiramate and vigabatrin. All studies compared anticonvulsants versus placebo. Only one study had one arm by which the anticonvulsant was compared with the antidepressant desipramine. Upon comparison of anticonvulsant versus placebo, we found no significant differences for any of the efficacy and safety measures. Dropouts: risk ratio (RR) 0.95, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.86 to 1.05, 17 studies, 20 arms, 1695 participants, moderate quality of evidence. Use of cocaine: RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.84 to 1.02, nine studies, 11 arms, 867 participants, moderate quality of evidence; side effects: RR 1.39, 95% CI 1.01 to 1.90, eight studies, 775 participants; craving: standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.25, 95% CI -0.59 to 0.09, seven studies, eight arms, 428 participants, low quality of evidence. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Although caution is needed when results from a limited number of small clinical trials are assessed, no current evidence supports the clinical use of anticonvulsant medications in the treatment of patients with cocaine dependence. Although the findings of new trials will improve the quality of study results, especially in relation to specific medications, anticonvulsants as a category cannot be considered first-, second- or third-line treatment for cocaine dependence.

Psychopathological symptoms of patients with heroin addiction entering opioid agonist or therapeutic community treatment.

BACKGROUND: The relationship between substance use disorders and psychiatric pathology is still an open question. The main aim of the present study was to verify whether the five psychopathological dimensions identified through the SCL-90 tool in a previous study carried out on patients with heroin addiction entering an outpatient opioid agonist treatment (OAT) were also observable in those entering a residential treatment community (TC). Further aims were to look at differences in the psychopathological profiles of patients entering a TC versus an OAT treatment and at the correlation between gender and the observed psychopathology. METHODS: A confirmatory factor analysis was performed on the results of SCL-90 filled by 1,195 patients with heroin dependence entering TC treatment. It replicates the extraction method previously used on 1,055 OAT patients with heroin addiction by using a principal component factor analysis (PCA). The association between the kind of treatment received (TC or OAT), gender, and the psychopathological dimensions was assessed through logistic regression and general linear model (GLM) analysis. RESULTS: The PCA carried out on the SCL-90 results of patients entering a TC yielded a five-factor solution, confirming the same dimensions observed in patients entering an OAT: 'worthlessness and being trapped', 'somatization', 'sensitivity-psychoticism', 'panic anxiety', and 'violence-suicide'. The logistic regression analysis showed a statistically significant association between 'somatization' and 'violence-suicide' severity score and OAT. GLM analysis showed that psychopathological factorial scores for 'worthlessness-being trapped', 'somatic symptoms', and 'panic anxiety' dimensions were more severe in OAT vs TC male patients and in TC vs OAT female ones. 'Violence suicide' followed the same severity pattern for males, but did not differ in TC vs OAT females, while 'sensitivity-psychoticism' did not differ in OAT vs TC patients. The five dimensions did not differ in OAT males vs females. CONCLUSIONS: Our research appears to confirm the existence of a specific aggregation of psychological/psychiatric features within the category of individuals with heroin addiction. It also shows a correlation between the dominant psychopathological subgroup and the assignment to TC versus OAT. Further research is needed to clarify the differences between the five psychopathological subgroups and their determinants.

Towards a unitary perspective between post-traumatic stress disorder and substance use disorder. Heroin use disorder as case study.

BACKGROUND: Genetic, neurobiological, environmental and psychosocial mechanisms have received considerable attention in exploring the mechanisms that underlie comorbid PTSD and SUD. PTSD and SUD are not necessarily linked by a causal relationship, as the self-medication hypothesis had supposed. They might, in fact, both be caused by a third factor that predisposes these subjects to develop the two disorders (so allowing a unitary perspective). METHODS: Using a conceptualization of the PTSD spectrum, we studied the PTSD-SUD unitary perspective by testing the correlation between severity of heroin addiction, dose of opioid medication and severity of PTSD spectrum in 82 methadone-treated, heroin-dependent patients. RESULTS: Canonical correlation analysis (Wilks Lambda=0.125F=1.41 p=0.014), univariate and multivariate comparisons between subgroups, identified on the basis of addiction severity, showed a highly positive correlation between the PTSD spectrum and the severity of heroin addiction. In addition, negative correlations were found between PTSD spectrum severity and methadone dose (r=0.225; p=0.042). CONCLUSIONS: This strength and breadth of the correlations encourage us to move towards a unified vision of the two disorders.

Anticonvulsants for alcohol dependence.

BACKGROUND: Alcohol dependence is a major public health problem that is characterised by recidivism and a host of medical and psychosocial complications. Besides psychosocial interventions, different pharmacological interventions have been or currently are under investigation through Cochrane systematic reviews. OBJECTIVES: The primary aim of the review is to assess the benefits/risks of anticonvulsants for the treatment of alcohol dependence. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Drugs and Alcohol Group Trials Register (October 2013), PubMed (1966 to October 2013), EMBASE (1974 to October 2013) and CINAHL (1982 to October 2013). SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and controlled clinical trials (CCTs) comparing anticonvulsants alone or in association with other drugs and/or psychosocial interventions versus placebo, no treatment and other pharmacological or psychosocial interventions. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard methodological procedures as expected by The Cochrane Collaboration. MAIN RESULTS: A total of 25 studies were included in the review (2641 participants). Most participants were male, with an average age of 44 years. Anticonvulsants were compared with placebo (17 studies), other medications (seven studies) and no medication (two studies). The mean duration of the trials was 17 weeks (range four to 52 weeks). The studies took place in the USA, Europe, South America, India and Thailand. Variation was reported in the characteristics of the studies, including their design and the rating instruments used. For many key outcomes, the risk of bias associated with unclear or unconcealed allocation and lack of blinding affected the quality of the evidence.Anticonvulsants versus placebo: For dropouts (16 studies, 1675 participants, risk ratio (RR) 0.94, 95% confidence interval (Cl) 0.74 to 1.19, moderate-quality evidence) and continuous abstinence (eight studies, 634 participants, RR 1.21, 95% Cl 95% 0.97 to 1.52, moderate-quality evidence), results showed no evidence of differences. Moderate-quality evidence suggested that anticonvulsants reduced drinks/drinking days (11 studies, 1126 participants, mean difference (MD) -1.49, 95% Cl -2.32 to -0.65) and heavy drinking (12 studies, 1129 participants, standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.35, 95% Cl -0.51 to -0.19). Moreover, withdrawal for medical reasons (12 studies, 1410 participants, RR 1.22, 95% Cl 0.58 to 2.56, moderate-quality evidence) showed no evidence of difference, but for specific adverse effects (nine studies, 1164 participants), two of 18 adverse event outcomes favoured placebo. The direction of results was confirmed by subgroup analyses for topiramate and partially for gabapentin and valproate.Anticonvulsants versus naltrexone: No evidence of difference was shown in dropout rates (five studies, 528 participants, RR 0.74, 95% CI 0.52 to 1.06), severe relapse rates (four studies, 427 participants, RR 0.69, 95% Cl 0.44 to 1.07) and continuous abstinence rates (five studies, 528 participants, RR 1.21, 95% Cl 0.99 to 1.49); anticonvulsants were associated with fewer heavy drinking days (three studies, 308 participants, MD -5.21, 95% Cl -8.58 to -1.83), more days to severe relapse (three studies, 244 participants, MD 11.88, 95% Cl 3.29 to 20.46) and lower withdrawal for medical reasons (three studies, 245 participants, RR 0.13, 95% Cl 0.03 to 0.58). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: At the current stage of research, randomised evidence supporting the clinical use of anticonvulsants to treat alcohol dependence is insufficient. Results are conditioned by heterogeneity and by the low number and quality of studies comparing anticonvulsants with other medications. The uncertainty associated with these results leaves to clinicians the need to balance possible benefits/risks of treatment with anticonvulsants versus other medications as supported by evidence of efficacy.

QTc interval screening for cardiac risk in methadone treatment of opioid dependence.

BACKGROUND: Methadone represents today the gold standard of efficacy for the pharmacological treatment of opioid dependence. Methadone, like many other medications, has been implicated in the prolongation of the rate-corrected QT (QTc) interval of the electrocardiogram (ECG), which is considered a marker for arrhythmias such as torsade de pointes (TdP). Indications on the association between methadone, even at therapeutic dosages, and TdP or sudden cardiac death have been reported. On these bases, consensus and recommendations involving QTc screening of patients receiving methadone treatment have been developed to identify patients with QTc above the thresholds considered at risk for cardiac arrhythmias, and they provide these individuals with alternative treatment (reduction of methadone dosage; provision of alternative opioid agonist treatment; treatment of associated risk factors). OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the efficacy and acceptability of QTc screening for preventing cardiac-related morbidity and mortality in methadone-treated opioid dependents. SEARCH METHODS: We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL (to April 2013), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), The Cochrane Library Cochrane Drug and Alcohol Review Group Specialised Register (Issue 3, 2013), main electronic sources of ongoing trials, specific trial databases and reference lists of all relevant papers. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs), controlled clinical trials (CCTs) and non-randomised studies (cohort studies, controlled before and after studies, interrupted time series studies, case control studies) examining the efficacy of QTc screening for the prevention of methadone-related mortality and morbidity in opioid addicts. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently screened and extracted data from studies. MAIN RESULTS: The search strategy led to the identification of 872 records. Upon full-text assessment, no study was found to meet the quality criteria used for this review. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: It is not possible to draw any conclusions about the effectiveness of QTc screening strategies for preventing cardiac morbidity/mortality in methadone-treated opioid addicts. Research efforts should focus on strengthening the evidence about the effectiveness of widespread implementation of such strategies and clarifying the associated benefits and harms.

Negative dimension in psychiatry. Amotivational syndrome as a paradigm of negative symptoms in substance abuse.

Negative symptoms, conceptualized as clinical manifestations of schizophrenia, and subsequently described in other psychiatric disorders, include the loss of normal arousal, drive and affective reactivity. In the field of substance abuse, an interesting analogy can be detected between negative symptoms, in their classical meaning, and the amotivational syndrome (AS), which has been described as a form of chronic cannabis intoxication. AS also shows a close resemblance to the reward deficiency syndrome (RDS) of alcoholics and stimulant abusers, and to the post-withdrawal syndrome (PWS) of detoxified heroin addicts. A variety of substances share a common tropism for the dopaminergic system, leading to a state of hypophoria, which seems to represent a common pathway for chronic substance abusers. In the light of these convergences, a common treatment principle for addictive disorders can be enunciated. This consists in resorting to pro-dopaminergic drugs, that are supposed to replace damaged functions and control craving, and in avoiding anti-dopaminergic drugs, that are expected to exacerbate craving and impede the reversal of the reward deficiency.

Antidepressants for cocaine dependence and problematic cocaine use.

BACKGROUND: Cocaine dependence is a disorder for which no pharmacological treatment of proven efficacy exists, advances in the neurobiology could guide future medication development. OBJECTIVES: To investigate the efficacy and acceptability of antidepressants alone or in combination with any psychosocial intervention for the treatment of cocaine dependence and problematic cocaine use. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), PubMed, EMBASE and CINAHL in July 2011 and researchers for unpublished trials. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised clinical trials comparing antidepressants alone or associated with psychosocial intervention with placebo, no treatment, other pharmacological or psychosocial interventions. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two authors independently assessed trial quality and extracted data. MAIN RESULTS: 37 studies were included in the review (3551 participants).Antidepressants versus placebo: results for dropouts did not show evidence of difference, 31 studies, 2819 participants, RR 1.03 (Cl 95% 0.93 to 1.14). Looking at Abstinence from cocaine use, even though not statistically significant, the difference shown by the analysis in the three-weeks abstinence rate was in favour of antidepressants (eight studies, 942 participants, RR 1.22 (Cl 95% 0.99 to 1.51)). Considering only studies involving tricyclics, five studies, 367 participants, or only desipramine, four studies, 254 participants, the evidence was in favour of antidepressants. However, selecting only studies with operationally defined diagnostic criteria, statistical significance favouring antidepressants, as well as the trend for significance shown by the full sample, disappeared. Looking at safety issues, the results did not show evidence of differences (number of patients withdrawn for medical reasons, thirteen studies, 1396 participants, RR 1.39 (Cl 95% 0.91 to 2.12)). Subgroup analysis considering length of the trial, associated opioid dependence or associated psychosocial interventions as confounding factors, failed in showing consistent and statistically significant differences in favour of antidepressants.Antidepressants versus other drugs: Comparing antidepressants with dopamine agonists or with anticonvulsants, no evidence of differences was shown on dropouts and on other outcomes (abstinence from cocaine use, adverse events). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: At the current stage of evidence data do not support the efficacy of antidepressants in the treatment of cocaine abuse/dependence. Partially positive results obtained on secondary outcome measures, such as depression severity, do not seem to be associated with an effect on direct indicators of cocaine abuse/dependence. Antidepressants cannot be considered a mainstay of treatment for unselected cocaine abusers/dependents.