Repurposing drugs for treatment of alcohol use disorder.

Repurposing drugs for the treatment of alcohol dependence involves the use of drugs that were initially developed for other conditions, but have shown promise in reducing alcohol use or preventing relapse. This approach can offer a more cost-effective and time-efficient alternative to developing new drugs from scratch. Currently approved medications for alcohol use disorder (AUD) include acamprosate, disulfiram, naltrexone, nalmefene, baclofen, and sodium oxybate. Acamprosate was developed specifically for AUD, while disulfiram's alcohol-deterrent effects were discovered incidentally. Naltrexone and nalmefene were originally approved for opioids but found secondary applications in AUD. Baclofen and sodium oxybate were repurposed from neurological conditions. Other drugs show promise. Topiramate and zonisamide, anticonvulsants, demonstrate efficacy in reducing alcohol consumption. Another anticonvulsant, gabapentin has been disappointing overall, except in cases involving alcohol withdrawal symptoms. Varenicline, a nicotinic receptor agonist, benefits individuals with less severe AUD or concurrent nicotine use. Ondansetron, a 5-HT3 antagonist, has potential for early-onset AUD, especially when combined with naltrexone. Antipsychotic drugs like aripiprazole and quetiapine have limited efficacy. Further investigation is needed for potential repurposing of α1 adrenergic receptor antagonists prazosin and doxazosin, glucocorticoid receptor antagonist mifepristone, the phosphodiesterase inhibitor Ibudilast, the cysteine prodrug N-acetylcysteine, and the OX1R and OX2R blocker Suvorexant. This review supports repurposing drugs as an effective strategy for expanding treatment options for AUD.

Using artificial intelligence to identify drugs for repurposing to treat l-DOPA-induced dyskinesia.

Repurposing regulatory agency-approved molecules, with proven safety in humans, is an attractive option for developing new treatments for disease. We identified and assessed the efficacy of 3 drugs predicted by an in silico screen as having the potential to treat l-DOPA-induced dyskinesia (LID) in Parkinson's disease. We analysed ∼1.3 million Medline abstracts using natural language processing and ranked 3539 existing drugs based on predicted ability to reduce LID. 3 drugs from the top 5% of the 3539 candidates; lorcaserin, acamprosate and ganaxolone, were prioritized for preclinical testing based on i) having a novel mechanism of action, ii) having not been previously validated for the treatment of LID, iii) being blood-brain-barrier penetrant and orally bioavailable and iv) being clinical trial ready. We assessed the efficacy of acamprosate, ganaxolone and lorcaserin in a rodent model of l-DOPA-induced hyperactivity, with lorcaserin affording a 58% reduction in rotational asymmetry (P < 0.05) compared to vehicle. Acamprosate and ganaxolone failed to demonstrate efficacy. Lorcaserin, a 5HT2C agonist, was then further tested in MPTP lesioned dyskinetic macaques where it afforded an 82% reduction in LID (P < 0.05), unfortunately accompanied by a significant increase in parkinsonian disability. In conclusion, although our data do not support the repurposing of lorcaserin, acamprosate or ganaxolone per se for LID, we demonstrate value of an in silico approach to identify candidate molecules which, in combination with an in vivo screen, can facilitate clinical development decisions. The present study adds to a growing literature in support of this paradigm shifting approach in the repurposing pipeline.

Quadruple pharmacotherapy for alcohol use disorder tolerable yet insufficient: a case report.

BACKGROUND: Combinations of alcohol use disorder (AUD) medications have been investigated, but few if any reports describe patients maintained on more than two options at the same time. CASE PRESENTATION: We report a case of a middle-aged man hospitalized with gastrointestinal bleeding and acute kidney injury who had been maintained on four AUD medications (naltrexone, acamprosate, disulfiram, and gabapentin) and multiple psychiatric medications simultaneously as an outpatient. Direct quotations of his experiences with each AUD medication are included, revealing some deviations from what was prescribed as well as nuanced perceptions of effects. Overall, he tolerated the regimen well, but its AUD effects were insufficient to prevent several episodes of returning to alcohol use. He had very high hospital utilization. This prompted the initiation of an involuntary commitment, which began a period of at least six months of sobriety. CONCLUSIONS: Quadruple pharmacotherapy for AUD may be well tolerated and supportive of recovery for an extended period of time. However, for our patient the regimen ultimately failed to prevent multiple episodes of returning to alcohol use and serious medical complications. In refractory cases like this, more intensive interventions such as involuntary commitment can be considered.

Medications for Alcohol Use Disorder.

Excessive alcohol use is a leading cause of preventable death in the United States, with alcohol-related deaths increasing during the pandemic. The Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration recommends that physicians offer pharmacotherapy with behavioral interventions for patients diagnosed with alcohol use disorder. Several medications are available to help patients reduce drinking and maintain abstinence; however, in 2019, only 7.3% of Americans with alcohol use disorder received any treatment, and only 1.6% were prescribed medications to treat the disorder. Strong evidence shows that naltrexone and gabapentin reduce heavy-drinking days and that acamprosate prevents return-to-use in patients who are currently abstinent; moderate evidence supports the use of topiramate in decreasing heavy-drinking days. Disulfiram has been commonly prescribed, but little evidence supports its effectiveness outside of supervised settings. Other medications, including varenicline and baclofen, may be beneficial in reducing heavy alcohol use. Antidepressants do not decrease alcohol use in patients who do not have mood disorders, but they may help patients who meet criteria for depression to decrease their alcohol intake. Systematic policies are needed to expand the use of medications when treating alcohol use disorder in inpatient and outpatient populations.

Patient Perspectives on Pharmacotherapy of Alcohol Dependence.

INTRODUCTION: Pharmacotherapy with drugs like naltrexone or acamprosate is a well-evaluated element in the treatment of alcohol dependence (AD). However, in many countries, these medications are rarely administered. The objective of the present study was to identify from patients' perspective factors that prevent the initiation and compliance with pharmacological treatment of AD. METHODS: Patients from inpatient alcohol withdrawal treatment underwent a standardized interview. Questions included socio-demographic data, history of AD, treatment history, knowledge and personal experience regarding pharmacotherapy of AD, and personal views about the causes of AD. RESULTS: Three hundred patients (mean age 47.3 years, 27.7% female, mean duration of AD 8.9 years, 67% with a history of previous inpatient withdrawal treatment) were included. The majority of patients (58.7%) already knew drugs for the pharmacotherapy of AD. Thirty percent had ever used such medications, most often acamprosate. Except for disulfiram, pharmacotherapy of AD had lasted only a few weeks, on average. Medication usually had been applied without additional psychotherapy. No severe side effects were reported. Patients had often stopped pharmacotherapy on their own, when assuming they had reached stable abstinence. Openness to start pharmacotherapy for AD was currently stated by 67% of the total sample. In multiple logistic regression, openness was predicted by having a concept of AD as a medical disease and by a shorter duration of AD. DISCUSSION: To improve the administration of pharmacotherapy for AD implementation strategies should be systematically developed and evaluated with a focus on the concept of AD as a medical disease.

Medications for alcohol use disorder promote abstinence in alcohol-associated cirrhosis: Results from a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: The role of medications for alcohol use disorder (MAUD) in patients with cirrhosis is not well established. Evidence on the efficacy and safety of these drugs in these patients is scarce. APPROACH AND RESULTS: We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis according to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis Protocol guidelines on the efficacy of MAUD in patients with cirrhosis. A search was conducted in PubMed, Embase, and Scopus, including all studies until May 2022. The population was defined as patients with AUD and cirrhosis. The primary outcome was alcohol abstinence. Safety was a secondary outcome. We performed a random-effect analysis and expressed the results as relative risk of alcohol consumption. Heterogeneity was measured by I2 . Out of 4095 unique references, 8 studies on 4 different AUD treatments [baclofen (n = 6), metadoxine (n = 1), acamprosate (n = 1), and fecal microbiota transplant (n = 1)] in a total of 794 patients were included. Four were cohort studies, and 4 were RCTs. Only RCTs were included in the meta-analysis. MAUD was associated with a reduced rate of alcohol consumption [relative risk = 0.68 (CI: 0.48-0.97), P = 0.03], increasing alcohol abstinence by 32% compared to placebo or standard treatment, despite high heterogeneity ( I2 = 67%). Regarding safety, out of 165 serious adverse events in patients treated with MAUD, only 5 (3%) were possibly or probably related to study medications. CONCLUSION: MAUD in patients with cirrhosis is effective in promoting alcohol abstinence and has a good safety profile. Larger studies on the effects of MAUD are needed, especially in patients with advanced liver disease.

Economic evaluations of alcohol pharmacotherapy: Systematic review of economic evaluations of pharmacotherapy for the treatment of alcohol use disorder.

OBJECTIVE: Alcohol use disorders confer a significant burden of disease and economic cost worldwide. However, the utilisation of pharmacotherapies to manage alcohol use disorder is poor. We aimed to conduct a systematic review of economic evaluation studies of alcohol use disorder pharmacotherapies. METHODS: A search was conducted in Embase, Medline, CINAHL, PsychINFO and EconLit (August 2019, updated September 2022). Full economic evaluations using pharmacotherapy to treat alcohol use disorders were included. Included studies were stratified by medication and summarised descriptively. The Consensus on Health Economic Criteria list was used to assess the methodological quality. RESULTS: A total of 1139 studies were retrieved, of which 15 met the inclusion criteria. All studies were conducted in high-income countries. Four studies analysed nalmefene, four studies assessed acamprosate, three for naltrexone and four for stand-alone and/or combinations of naltrexone and acamprosate. There were 21 interventions synthesised from 15 studies as some studies evaluated multiple interventions and comparators. More than half of the included studies (73%) reported pharmacotherapy as dominant (less costly and more effective than comparators). From healthcare payer perspectives, five studies found that pharmacotherapy added to psychosocial support was dominant or cost-effective, accruing additional benefits at a higher cost but under accepted willingness to pay thresholds. Three analyses from a societal perspective found pharmacotherapy added to psychosocial support was a dominant or cost-effective strategy. Quality scores ranged from 63% to 95%. CONCLUSION: Pharmacotherapy added to psychosocial support was cost-effective from both healthcare and societal perspectives, emphasising an increased role for pharmacotherapy to reduce the burden of alcohol use disorders.

Pharmacotherapy for Alcohol Use Disorder: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Importance: Alcohol use disorder affects more than 28.3 million people in the United States and is associated with increased rates of morbidity and mortality. Objective: To compare efficacy and comparative efficacy of therapies for alcohol use disorder. Data Sources: PubMed, the Cochrane Library, the Cochrane Central Trials Registry, PsycINFO, CINAHL, and EMBASE were searched from November 2012 to September 9, 2022 Literature was subsequently systematically monitored to identify relevant articles up to August 14, 2023, and the PubMed search was updated on August 14, 2023. Study Selection: For efficacy outcomes, randomized clinical trials of at least 12 weeks' duration were included. For adverse effects, randomized clinical trials and prospective cohort studies that compared drug therapies and reported health outcomes or harms were included. Data Extraction and Synthesis: Two reviewers evaluated each study, assessed risk of bias, and graded strength of evidence. Meta-analyses used random-effects models. Numbers needed to treat were calculated for medications with at least moderate strength of evidence for benefit. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was alcohol consumption. Secondary outcomes were motor vehicle crashes, injuries, quality of life, function, mortality, and harms. Results: Data from 118 clinical trials and 20 976 participants were included. The numbers needed to treat to prevent 1 person from returning to any drinking were 11 (95% CI, 1-32) for acamprosate and 18 (95% CI, 4-32) for oral naltrexone at a dose of 50 mg/d. Compared with placebo, oral naltrexone (50 mg/d) was associated with lower rates of return to heavy drinking, with a number needed to treat of 11 (95% CI, 5-41). Injectable naltrexone was associated with fewer drinking days over the 30-day treatment period (weighted mean difference, -4.99 days; 95% CI, -9.49 to -0.49 days) Adverse effects included higher gastrointestinal distress for acamprosate (diarrhea: risk ratio, 1.58; 95% CI, 1.27-1.97) and naltrexone (nausea: risk ratio, 1.73; 95% CI, 1.51-1.98; vomiting: risk ratio, 1.53; 95% CI, 1.23-1.91) compared with placebo. Conclusions and Relevance: In conjunction with psychosocial interventions, these findings support the use of oral naltrexone at 50 mg/d and acamprosate as first-line pharmacotherapies for alcohol use disorder.

Adjunctive Medication Management and Contingency Management to enhance adherence to acamprosate for alcohol dependence: the ADAM trial RCT.

Background: Acamprosate is an effective and cost-effective medication for alcohol relapse prevention but poor adherence can limit its full benefit. Effective interventions to support adherence to acamprosate are therefore needed. Objectives: To determine the effectiveness of Medication Management, with and without Contingency Management, compared to Standard Support alone in enhancing adherence to acamprosate and the impact of adherence to acamprosate on abstinence and reduced alcohol consumption. Design: Multicentre, three-arm, parallel-group, randomised controlled clinical trial. Setting: Specialist alcohol treatment services in five regions of England (South East London, Central and North West London, Wessex, Yorkshire and Humber and West Midlands). Participants: Adults (aged 18 years or more), an International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems, Tenth Revision, diagnosis of alcohol dependence, abstinent from alcohol at baseline assessment, in receipt of a prescription for acamprosate. Interventions: (1) Standard Support, (2) Standard Support with adjunctive Medication Management provided by pharmacists via a clinical contact centre (12 sessions over 6 months), (3) Standard Support with adjunctive Medication Management plus Contingency Management that consisted of vouchers (up to £120) to reinforce participation in Medication Management. Consenting participants were randomised in a 2 : 1 : 1 ratio to one of the three groups using a stratified random permuted block method using a remote system. Participants and researchers were not blind to treatment allocation. Main outcome measures: Primary outcome: self-reported percentage of medication taken in the previous 28 days at 6 months post randomisation. Economic outcome: EuroQol-5 Dimensions, a five-level version, used to calculate quality-adjusted life-years, with costs estimated using the Adult Service Use Schedule. Results: Of the 1459 potential participants approached, 1019 (70%) were assessed and 739 (73 consented to participate in the study, 372 (50%) were allocated to Standard Support, 182 (25%) to Standard Support with Medication Management and 185 (25%) to Standard Support and Medication Management with Contingency Management. Data were available for 518 (70%) of participants at 6-month follow-up, 255 (68.5%) allocated to Standard Support, 122 (67.0%) to Standard Support and Medication Management and 141 (76.2%) to Standard Support and Medication Management with Contingency Management. The mean difference of per cent adherence to acamprosate was higher for those who received Standard Support and Medication Management with Contingency Management (10.6%, 95% confidence interval 19.6% to 1.6%) compared to Standard Support alone, at the primary end point (6-month follow-up). There was no significant difference in per cent days adherent when comparing Standard Support and Medication Management with Standard Support alone 3.1% (95% confidence interval 12.8% to -6.5%) or comparing Standard Support and Medication Management with Standard Support and Medication Management with Contingency Management 7.9% (95% confidence interval 18.7% to -2.8%). The primary economic analysis at 6 months found that Standard Support and Medication Management with Contingency Management was cost-effective compared to Standard Support alone, achieving small gains in quality-adjusted life-years at a lower cost per participant. Cost-effectiveness was not observed for adjunctive Medication Management compared to Standard Support alone. There were no serious adverse events related to the trial interventions reported. Limitations: The trial's primary outcome measure changed substantially due to data collection difficulties and therefore relied on a measure of self-reported adherence. A lower than anticipated follow-up rate at 12 months may have lowered the statistical power to detect differences in the secondary analyses, although the primary analysis was not impacted. Conclusions: Medication Management enhanced with Contingency Management is beneficial to patients for supporting them to take acamprosate. Future work: Given our findings in relation to Contingency Management enhancing Medication Management adherence, future trials should be developed to explore its effectiveness and cost-effectiveness with other alcohol interventions where there is evidence of poor adherence. Trial registration: This trial is registered as ISRCTN17083622 https://doi.org/10.1186/ISRCTN17083622. Funding: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 27, No. 22. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Many people who are trying to stop drinking alcohol can find it difficult to remain alcohol free. There is a medication called acamprosate (Campral) that can reduce cravings thereby increasing the likelihood of abstinence. However, some people have trouble taking the right amount of acamprosate tablets needed every day at the right time, preferably at mealtimes. This means the medication is not as effective. We have tested some new ways to help support people taking acamprosate. We tested three different strategies to find the best way to support people taking acamprosate. We recruited 739 people aged 18 and over who were receiving alcohol treatment to stop drinking and were taking acamprosate. We randomly allocated these people to three groups. The first was Standard Support, the usual support people receive when taking acamprosate. The second group received Standard Support plus Medication Management. This consisted of 12 telephone calls over 6 months with a trained pharmacist to discuss the importance of taking the right amount of the medication, how the medication works and strategies to help people take the medication correctly. The third group received Standard Support, Medication Management and Contingency Management. This involved giving people shopping vouchers for participating with Medication Management calls. The maximum value of vouchers per person was £120. People who were in the group receiving Medication Management and Contingency Management took a greater number of acamprosate tablets. We also found that Medication Management plus Contingency Management was more cost-effective; there were greater gains in health with a smaller cost per person compared to Standard Support alone. This shows that there is likely to be a benefit to patients of Medication Management plus Contingency Management for supporting people taking acamprosate.

Alcohol Use Disorder Treatment in Sexually and Gender Diverse Patients: A Retrospective Cohort Study.

Objective: While sexually and gender diverse (SGD) people have higher odds of alcohol use disorder (AUD) compared to heterosexual and cisgender people, AUD treatment access and use disparities are not well characterized. The purpose of this study is to assess differences in AUD treatment among SGD versus non-SGD populations.Methods: A retrospective cohort study was performed using data from a federally qualified health center electronic health record system in Boston, Massachusetts. Patients were 18 years or older with an International Classification of Diseases (ICD)-9 or ICD-10 AUD diagnosis and any clinic visit from January 2013 until June 2021 (N = 3,607). Treatment for AUD was identified using binary variables for medication prescription orders and visits for AUD.Results: Among patients identifying as lesbian/gay, 6.9% had an AUD diagnosis, as compared to 2.6% of patients identifying as straight/heterosexual (P < .001). The prevalence of AUD was higher in the gender diverse group as compared to the cisgender group (5.5% vs 4.4%, P < .001). There were no significant differences in receipt of a prescription for injectable naltrexone, acamprosate, or disulfiram between SGD and non-SGD patients. For oral naltrexone, 16.1% of sexually diverse patients received a prescription, as compared to 9.8% of straight/heterosexual patients (P < .001). For visits, both the straight/heterosexual cohort and the cisgender cohorts had the lowest proportion of AUD-related pharmacotherapy and individual psychotherapy visits, as compared to SGD cohorts.Conclusions: SGD patients had higher proportions of AUD diagnosis and AUD care utilization through behavioral health as compared to non-SGD patients.

Overview of Alcohol Use Disorder.

Alcohol is regularly consumed throughout most of the world, including by nearly half the U.S. population age 12 or older. Heavy drinking, which is also common, contributes to multiple adverse medical, psychiatric, and social outcomes and more than 140,000 deaths annually in the United States. It is the major risk factor for alcohol use disorder (AUD), whose current U.S. prevalence is 11%. However, AUD is undertreated, with less than 15% of individuals with a lifetime diagnosis receiving any treatment. Risk of AUD is nearly equally genetic and environmental. AUD is responsive to psychosocial treatments, including cognitive-behavioral therapy and motivational enhancement therapy. Alcohol affects multiple neurotransmitter systems, and thus pharmacotherapy for AUD is also effective. The three medications approved in the United States to treat AUD-disulfiram, naltrexone (oral and long-acting injectable formulations), and acamprosate-are underprescribed, despite being considered first-line treatments in clinical practice guidelines. Two medications not approved for treating AUD, topiramate and gabapentin, have shown efficacy in treating the disorder and are used off-label. Recent studies of novel drug candidates, including psychedelics and phosphodiesterase-4 inhibitors, are promising additions for the treatment of AUD, although they require further evaluation before being used clinically. Despite the growing availability of efficacious psychosocial and pharmacological treatments for AUD, it remains a highly stigmatized condition. Research aimed at enhancing the identification and treatment of AUD, including precision therapeutics, could broaden the acceptability of AUD treatment, benefiting affected individuals and their families and reducing the stigma associated with the disorder.

Medication treatment for alcohol use disorder in special populations.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Alcohol use disorder (AUD) is a significant public health concern, with underutilized effective treatments, particularly in special populations. This article summarizes the current evidence and guidelines for treating AUD in special populations. METHODS: This article is a literature review that synthesizes the latest research on AUD treatment for special populations. We screened 242 articles and included 57 in our final review. RESULTS: There are four food and Drug Administration-approved medications for AUD (MAUD): disulfiram, oral naltrexone, extended-release injectable naltrexone (XR-NTX), and acamprosate. Naltrexone and disulfiram have the potential to cause liver toxicity, and acamprosate should be avoided in patients with severe kidney disease. Psychosocial treatments should be considered first-line for pregnant and nursing patients. Naltrexone is contraindicated in patients on opioids, as it may precipitate acute withdrawal. For patients experiencing homelessness, nonabstinent treatment goals may be more practical, and XR-NTX should be considered to improve adherence. Limited evidence suggests medication can improve AUD treatment outcomes in adolescents and young adults. For patients with poor treatment response despite adequate medication adherence, switching to a different medication and augmentation with psychosocial treatments should be considered. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS: Understanding the unique considerations for special populations with AUD is crucial, and addressing their special needs may improve their treatment outcomes. SCIENTIFIC SIGNIFICANCE: Our study significantly contributes to the existing literature by summarizing crucial information for the treatment of AUD in special populations, highlighting distinct challenges, and emphasizing tailored approaches to improve overall health and well-being.

Low rates of prescribing alcohol relapse prevention medicines in Australian Aboriginal Community Controlled Health Services.

INTRODUCTION: Alcohol dependence is a chronic condition impacting millions of individuals worldwide. Safe and effective medicines to reduce relapse can be prescribed by general practitioners but are underutilised in the general Australian population. Prescription rates of these medicines to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander (First Nations) Australians in primary care are unknown. We assess these medicines in Aboriginal Community Controlled Health Services and identify factors associated with prescription. METHODS: Baseline data (spanning 12 months) were used from a cluster randomised trial involving 22 Aboriginal Community Controlled Health Services. We describe the proportion of First Nations patients aged 15+ who were prescribed a relapse prevention medicine: naltrexone, acamprosate or disulfiram. We explore associations between receiving a prescription, a patient AUDIT-C score and demographics (gender, age, service remoteness) using logistic regression. RESULTS: During the 12-month period, 52,678 patients attended the 22 services. Prescriptions were issued for 118 (0.2%) patients (acamprosate n = 62; naltrexone n = 58; disulfiram n = 2; combinations n = 4). Of the total patients, 1.6% were 'likely dependent' (AUDIT-C ≥ 9), of whom only 3.4% received prescriptions for these medicines. In contrast, 60.2% of those who received a prescription had no AUDIT-C score. In multivariate analysis, receiving a script (OR = 3.29, 95% CI 2.25-4.77) was predicted by AUDIT-C screening, male gender (OR = 2.24, 95% CI 1.55-3.29), middle age (35-54 years; OR = 14.41, 95% CI 5.99-47.31) and urban service (OR = 2.87, 95% CI 1.61-5.60). DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS: Work is needed to increase the prescription of relapse prevention medicines when dependence is detected. Potential barriers to prescription and appropriate ways to overcome these need to be identified.

Acamprosate effect on neuropathic pain in rats: With emphasis on the role of ERK/MAPK pathway and SCN9A sodium channel.

BACKGROUND: Neuropathic pain is a chronic pain owing to nerve damage or diseases of the central nervous system (CNS). The expression of SCN9A, which encodes the Nav1.7 voltage-gated sodium channel and ERK have been found to change significantly in many cases of neuropathic pain. Here, we investigated effects of acamprosate on neuropathic pain, taking into account the crucial roles of SCN9A, the ERK signaling pathway, and inflammatory markers in a rat model of chronic constriction injury (CCI). METHODS: Acamprosate (300 mg/kg) was injected intraperitoneally (i.p.) for 14 days. The tail-immersion, acetone, and formalin tests were used to determine behavioral tests such as heat allodynia, cold allodynia, and chemical hyperalgesia, respectively. Lumbar spinal cord was extracted and processed for Nissl staining. The amount of spinal SCN9A expression and ERK phosphorylation were examined using ELISA assay. RESULTS: The expression of SCN9A, ERK, inflammatory cytokines (IL-6 and TNF-α), allodynia and hyperalgesia significantly increased on days 7 and 14 following CCI. The treatment not only reduced neuropathic pain but also blocked CCI's effects on SCN9A upregulation and ERK phosphorylation. CONCLUSION: This research demonstrated that acamprosate reduces the neuropathic pain induced by CCI of the sciatic nerve in rats by preventing cell loss, inhibiting spinal SCN9A expression, ERK phosphorylation, and inflammatory cytokines, suggesting potential therapeutic implications of acamprosate administration for the treatment of neuropathic pain.

[Pharmacological Treatment for Alcohol Dependence].

This review provides an overview of medications for the treatment of alcohol dependence. The medications were classified into three categories: medications for alcohol withdrawal, medications for maintaining abstinence from alcohol or reducing its consumption, and medications for insomnia in patients with alcohol dependence. Acamprosate is the first choice in maintaining abstinence, whereas to reduce drinking, nalmefene, which is available in Japan, is used. However, medications are not "stand-alone" treatments for alcohol dependence. Pharmacological treatments for maintaining abstinence and reducing drinking are effective only when used in conjunction with psychosocial treatment, such as cognitive and behavioral therapy for alcohol dependence.

Medications for alcohol use disorder improve survival in patients with hazardous drinking and alcohol-associated cirrhosis.

BACKGROUND: Medications for alcohol use disorder (MAUD) are highly effective in achieving and maintaining abstinence in patients with alcohol use disorder (AUD). Our aim was to evaluate the effect of MAUD on all-cause mortality in patients with alcohol-associated cirrhosis and active alcohol use. METHODS: This was a retrospective cohort study of patients with alcohol-associated cirrhosis and high-risk alcohol use disorder in the Veterans Outcomes and Costs Associated with Liver Disease (VOCAL) database. Propensity score matching for exposure to MAUD (acamprosate or naltrexone) within a year after cirrhosis diagnosis was performed to account for potential confounders, and the association between MAUD and all-cause mortality was subsequently evaluated using Cox regression analysis. RESULTS: A total of 9131 patients were included, of whom 886 (9.7%) were exposed to MAUD (naltrexone: 520, acamprosate: 307, both medications: 59). The duration of MAUD exposure was >3 months in 345 patients (39%). The strongest positive predictor of MAUD prescription was an inpatient diagnosis code for AUD, followed by a concurrent diagnosis of depression; the strongest negative predictor was a history of cirrhosis decompensation. After propensity score matching (866 patients in each group) with excellent covariate balance (absolute standardized mean differences <0.1), MAUD exposure was associated with improved survival, with an HR of 0.80 relative to no MAUD exposure (95% CI: 0.67-0.97, p = 0.024). CONCLUSION: MAUD are underutilized in patients with alcohol-associated cirrhosis with high-risk alcohol use behavior but are associated with improved survival after adjustment for confounders such as the severity of liver disease, age, and engagement in the healthcare system.

Medications for the Treatment of Alcohol Dependence-Current State of Knowledge and Future Perspectives from a Public Health Perspective.

No single effective therapy for alcohol abuse has been found, despite it being a serious sociological and economic problem for hundreds of years. It seems difficult to find a single drug as a panacea for the alcohol problem due to the complexity of the pathophysiology of alcohol dependence. The purpose of this narrative review is to review existing and potentially future pharmaceuticals for the treatment of alcohol dependence in the most affordable way possible. Psychotherapy is the mainstay of treatment for alcoholism, while few drugs approved by legislators are available in the augmentation of this treatment, such as acamprosate, disulfiram, and naltrexone, approved by the FDA, and nalmefene by the EMA. There are recent reports in the literature on the possibility of using baclofen, topiramate, varenicline, and gabapentin in the treatment of alcohol dependence. Moreover, the results of recent clinical trials using psychoactive substances such as psilocybin and MDMA appear to be a breakthrough in the modern treatment of alcohol abuse. Despite this initial optimism, a lot of scientific effort is still needed before new pharmacological methods supporting the treatment of alcohol dependence syndrome will be widely available.

Baclofen for alcohol use disorder.

BACKGROUND: Alcohol use disorder (AUD) is one of the most widespread psychiatric disorders leading to detrimental consequences to people with this disorder and others. Worldwide, the prevalence of heavy episodic drinking (30-day prevalence of at least one occasion of 60 g of pure alcohol intake among current drinkers) is estimated at 20% and the prevalence of AUD at 5% of the adult general population, with highest prevalence in Europe and North America. Therapeutic approaches, including pharmacotherapy, play an important role in treating people with AUD. This is an update of a Cochrane Review first published in 2018. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the benefits and harms of baclofen on achieving and maintaining abstinence or reducing alcohol consumption in people with AUD compared to placebo, no treatment or any other pharmacological relapse prevention treatment. SEARCH METHODS: We used standard, extensive Cochrane search methods. The latest search was 22 November 2021. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of at least four weeks' treatment duration and 12 weeks' overall study duration comparing baclofen for AUD treatment with placebo, no treatment or other treatments. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard Cochrane methods. Our primary outcomes were 1. relapse, 2. frequency of use, 3. amount of use, 4. adverse events, 5. dropouts from treatment and 6. dropouts from treatment due to adverse events. Our secondary outcomes were 7. craving, 8. anxiety, 9. depression and 10. frequency of most relevant adverse events. MAIN RESULTS: We included 17 RCTs (1818 participants) with a diagnosis of alcohol dependence according to the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 4th edition or International Classification of Diseases 10th edition criteria. Mean age was 46.5 years and 70% were men. Ten studies compared baclofen to placebo or another medication; seven compared two baclofen doses to placebo or another medication. Globally, 15 studies compared baclofen to placebo, two baclofen to acamprosate and two baclofen to naltrexone. In 16 studies, participants received psychosocial treatments. We judged most studies at low risk of selection, performance, detection (subjective outcome), attrition and reporting bias. Ten studies detoxified participants before treatment; in seven studies, participants were still drinking at the beginning of treatment. Treatment duration was 12 weeks for 15 RCTs and longer in two studies. Baclofen daily dose was 30 mg to 300 mg: 10 RCTs used low doses (30 mg or less); eight RCTs medium doses (above 30 and 100 mg or less) and four RCTs high doses (above 100 mg). Compared to placebo, moderate-certainty evidence found that baclofen probably decreases the risk to relapse (risk ratio (RR) 0.87, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.77 to 0.99; 12 studies, 1057 participants). This result was confirmed among detoxified participants but not among other subgroups of participants. High-certainty evidence found that baclofen increases the percentage of days abstinent (mean difference (MD) 9.07, 95% CI 3.30 to 14.85; 16 studies, 1273 participants). This result was confirmed among all subgroups of participants except non-detoxified or those who received medium doses. There was no difference between baclofen and placebo in the other primary outcomes: heavy drinking days (standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.18, 95% CI -0.48 to 0.11; 13 studies, 840 participants; moderate-certainty evidence); number of drinks per drinking days (MD -0.45, 95% CI -1.20 to 0.30; 9 studies, 392 participants; moderate-certainty evidence); number of participants with at least one adverse event (RR 1.05, 95% CI 0.99 to 1.11; 10 studies, 738 participants; high-certainty evidence); dropouts (RR 0.88, 95% CI 0.74 to 1.03; 17 studies, 1563 participants; high-certainty evidence); dropouts due to adverse events (RR 1.39, 95% CI 0.89 to 2.18; 16 studies, 1499 participants; high-certainty evidence). These results were confirmed by subgroup analyses except than for the dropouts that resulted lower among participants who received high doses of baclofen and studies longer than 12 weeks. Compared to placebo, there was no difference in craving (SMD -0.16, 95% CI -0.37 to 0.04; 17 studies, 1275 participants), anxiety (MD -0.01, 95% CI -0.14 to 0.11; 15 studies, 1123 participants) and depression (SMD 0.07, 95% CI -0.12 to 0.27; 11 studies, 1029 participants). Concerning the specific adverse events, baclofen increases fatigue, dizziness, somnolence/sedation, dry mouth, paraesthesia and muscle spasms/rigidity. There was no difference in the other adverse events. Compared to acamprosate, one study (60 participants) found no differences in any outcomes but the evidence was very uncertain: relapse (RR 1.25, 95% CI 0.71 to 2.20; very low-certainty evidence); number of participants with at least one adverse event (RR 0.63, 95% CI 0.23 to 1.69; very low-certainty evidence); dropouts (RR 0.56, 95% CI 0.21 to 1.46; very low-certainty evidence); dropouts due to adverse events (RR 0.33, 95% CI 0.01 to 7.87; very low-certainty evidence) and craving (MD 5.80, 95% CI -11.84 to 23.44); and all the adverse events evaluated. Compared to naltrexone, baclofen may increase the risk of relapse (RR 2.50, 95% CI 1.12 to 5.56; 1 study, 60 participants; very low-certainty evidence) and decrease the number of participants with at least one adverse event (RR 0.35, 95% CI 0.15 to 0.80; 2 studies, 80 participants; very low-certainty evidence) but the evidence is very uncertain. One study (60 participants) found no difference between baclofen and naltrexone in the dropouts at the end of treatment (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.32 to 3.10; very low-certainty evidence), craving (MD 2.08, 95% CI -3.71 to 7.87), and all the adverse events evaluated. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Baclofen likely reduces the risk of relapse to any drinking and increases the percentage of abstinent days, mainly among detoxified participants. It does not increase the number of participants with at least one adverse event, those who dropout for any reason or due to adverse events. It probably does not reduce number of heavy drinking days and the number of drinks per drinking days. Current evidence suggests that baclofen may help people with AUD in maintaining abstinence. The results of comparisons of baclofen with acamprosate and naltrexone were mainly based on only one study.

Impact of policy changes and drug shortages on acamprosate and naltrexone use in Ontario, Canada.

BACKGROUND: Acamprosate and naltrexone, evidence-based pharmacotherapies for alcohol use disorder (AUD), are publicly covered by the Ontario Drug Benefit (ODB) programs; however, their availability has changed over time, with expanded formulary access in July 2018, followed by an acamprosate shortage in February 2019 and ending in July 2020. We evaluated the impact of these events on the use of these medications in Ontario, Canada. METHODS: We conducted a time-series analysis among individuals with AUD dispensed acamprosate or naltrexone through the ODB from July 2016 to December 2020. Outcomes included monthly rates of those with AUD on therapy (primary), and rate of initiation (secondary) overall and by treatment type. We used autoregressive moving average models to evaluate the impact of expanded coverage and the acamprosate shortage on rates of use, and reported characteristics at first dispensation. RESULTS: Over the study period, 10,637 individuals (61.0% male) initiated acamprosate or naltrexone. Expanded coverage increased monthly utilization rates of acamprosate (p = 0.0004), naltrexone (p < 0.0001), and either AUD pharmacotherapy (p < 0.0001). The acamprosate shortage led to a 98.1% reduction in acamprosate use (p = 0.0003) but did not impact naltrexone (p = 0.51). Our secondary analysis yielded consistent results with respect to the shortage; however, the expanded formulary listing did not impact the rate of new acamprosate patients (p = 0.3). By December 2020, 5.3% of ODB recipients with AUD were accessing pharmacotherapy. CONCLUSIONS: Although coverage expansion increased access to medications that treat AUD, the shortage of acamprosate led to large reductions in its use, with no responsive increase in naltrexone prescribing.