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.

[Top 5 Research Studies of the month for Italian Primary Care Physicians: March 2024.] / La Top 5 di marzo 2024. Gli studi clinici che vale la pena conoscere se lavori nelle cure primarie in Italia.

This monthly article provides a collection of summaries of the most relevant studies identified as POEMs (patient-oriented evidence that matters) for Italian primary care physicians. 1) A simple, well-validated risk score can help clinicians counsel patients with atrial fibrillation regarding the use of DOACs to prevent stroke. The score shares its name with the drug class (the "DOAC" score). 2) Presumably by perturbing the intestinal microbiome, antibiotic treatment is associated with an increase in the likelihood of the development of irritable bowel disease; this is especially true with multiple courses of antibiotics. 3) Patients with uncomplicated gallstones can be managed over time with analgesia and monitoring, though approximately 25% will eventually undergo cholecystectomy over the next 18 months. Still, there appears to be no need to rush to surgery without evidence of common bile duct blockage or acute pancreatitis. 4) Delivering bad news (e.g. a cancer diagnosis) by telephone does not affect levels of anxiety, depression, or satisfaction with care as compared with delivering the news in person. 5) An updated high quality systematic review found that, in conjunction with psychosocial interventions, oral naltrexone (50 mg/day) and oral acamprosate have the strongest evidence for being effective in the treatment of alcohol use disorder.

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.

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.

DNA methylation at DLGAP2 and risk for relapse in alcohol dependence during acamprosate treatment.

BACKGROUND: Alcohol use disorders are prevalent mental disorders with significant health implications. Epigenetic alterations may play a role in their pathogenesis, as DNA methylation at several genes has been associated with these disorders. We have previously shown that methylation in the DLGAP2 gene, coding for a synaptic density protein, is associated with alcohol dependence. In this study, we aimed to examine the association between DLGAP2 methylation and treatment response among patients undergoing acamprosate treatment. METHODS: 102 patients under acamprosate treatment were included. DNA methylation analysis at DLGAP2 was performed by bisulfite pyrosequencing at the start and after 3-month treatment. Treatment outcomes were having a relapse during the treatment and severity of craving at the end of three months. Cox proportional hazard and linear regression models were performed. RESULTS: Patients whose methylation levels were decreased during the treatment showed an increased risk for relapse within three months in comparison to the ones without methylation change (hazard ratio [HR]=2.44; 95% confidence interval [CI]=1.04, 5.73; p=0.04). For the same group, a positive association for the severity of craving was observed, yet statistical significance was not reached (ß=2.97; 95% CI=-0.41, 6.34; p=0.08). CONCLUSION: We demonstrate that patients whose DLGAP2 methylation levels decrease during acamprosate treatment are more likely to relapse compared to the ones without changes. This is in line with our previous findings showing that DLGAP2 methylation is lower in alcohol dependent subjects compared to controls, and might suggest a role for changes in DLGAP2 methylation in treatment response.

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.

The neutral CB1 antagonist AM6527 reduces ethanol seeking, binge-like consumption, reinforcing, and withdrawal effects in male and female mice.

RATIONALE: Alcohol use disorder (AUD) is a debilitating physiological and psychiatric disorder which affects individuals globally. The current pharmacological interventions to treat AUD are limited, and hence there is an urgent need for a novel pharmacological therapy which can be effective and safe across the population. OBJECTIVE: We aimed to investigate a novel neutral cannabinoid receptor-1 (CB1R) antagonist, AM6527, in several preclinical models of ethanol consumption using male and female C57BL6/J mice. METHODS: Independent groups of male and female mice were subjected to repeated cycles of drinking in the dark (DID), or intermittent access to alcohol (IAA) procedures. Twenty minutes prior to ethanol access in each procedure, animals were treated with intraperitoneal injections of either 1, 3, and 10 mg/kg of AM6527 or its respective vehicle. Acamprosate (100, 200, 300, and 400 mg/kg) or its respective vehicle was used as a positive control. Separate groups of male mice were subjected to a chain schedule of ethanol reinforcement to gain access to ethanol wherein completion of a fixed interval (FI; 5 min) schedule (link 1: "Seeking") was reinforced with continuous access to ethanol (fixed ratio; FR1) for up to 1.8 g/kg (link 2: "consumption"). All the animals were treated with 1, 3, and 10 mg/kg of AM6527 or its respective vehicle 20 mins prior to the start of the FI chain of the procedure. Separately, AM6527 was also evaluated in male and female mice undergoing acute ethanol withdrawal following 8 weeks of intermittent or continuous access to 20% ethanol drinking. RESULTS: In both DID and IAA procedures, AM6527 reduced ethanol consumption in a dose-related manner in both male and female mice. AM6527 produced no tolerance in the DID procedure; mice treated with 3 mg/kg of AM6527 for 3 weeks continuously drank significantly smaller amounts of ethanol as compared to vehicle-treated mice over a period of three DID cycles. Moreover, in the IAA procedure, AM6527 caused an increase in water intake over the 24-h period. Acamprosate transiently reduced ethanol intake in male mice in both the DID and the IAA procedures but failed to produce any significant effect in female mice. AM6527 also produced a decrease in the FI responding ("ethanol seeking") in animals trained to self-administer ethanol. Lastly, AM6527 mitigated neurological withdrawal signs, i.e., handling induced convulsions (HIC) in mice undergoing acute ethanol withdrawal. CONCLUSIONS: Current findings support previous studies with CB1R neutral antagonist in reducing voluntary ethanol intake and seeking behavior. Based on results shown in this work, AM6527 can be developed as a first in class CB1R neutral antagonist to treat AUD in both males and females.

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.

Acamprosate reduces ethanol intake in the rat by a combined action of different drug components.

Alcohol misuse accounts for a sizeable proportion of the global burden of disease, and Campral® (acamprosate; calcium-bis-(N-acetylhomotaurinate)) is widely used as relapse prevention therapy. The mechanism underlying its effect has in some studies been attributed to the calcium moiety and not to the N-acetylhomotaurine part of the compound. We recently suggested that the dopamine elevating effect of acamprosate is mediated both by N-acetylhomotaurine and calcium in a glycine receptor dependent manner. Here we aimed to explore, by means of in vivo microdialysis, if our previous study using local administration was functionally relevant and if systemic administration of the sodium salt of N-acetylhomotaurine (sodium acamprosate; 200 mg/kg, i.p.) enhanced the effects of calcium chloride (CaCl2; 73.5 mg/kg, i.p.) on nucleus accumbens (nAc) dopamine and/or taurine levels in male Wistar rats. In addition, we investigated the impact of regular acamprosate and the combination of CaCl2 and N-acetylhomotaurine on the alcohol deprivation effect (ADE). Finally, we assessed if N-acetylhomotaurine potentiates the ethanol-intake reducing effect of CaCl2 in a two-bottle choice voluntary ethanol consumption model followed by an ADE paradigm. Systemic administration of regular acamprosate, sodium acamprosate and CaCl2 all trended to increase nAc dopamine whereas the combination of CaCl2 and sodium acamprosate produced a significant increase. Sodium acamprosate elevated extracellular taurine levels without additional effects of CaCl2. Ethanol intake was significantly reduced by systemic administration of CaCl2 without additional effects of the combination of CaCl2 and sodium acamprosate. Both acamprosate and CaCl2 combined with sodium acamprosate blocked the ADE following acute treatment. The data presented suggest that CaCl2 and N-acetylhomotaurine act in concert on a neurochemical level, but calcium appears to have the predominant effect on ethanol intake.

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.

Psychosocial and pharmacologic interventions to reduce harmful alcohol use in low- and middle-income countries.

BACKGROUND: Harmful alcohol use is defined as unhealthy alcohol use that results in adverse physical, psychological, social, or societal consequences and is among the leading risk factors for disease, disability and premature mortality globally. The burden of harmful alcohol use is increasing in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) and there remains a large unmet need for indicated prevention and treatment interventions to reduce harmful alcohol use in these settings. Evidence regarding which interventions are effective and feasible for addressing harmful and other patterns of unhealthy alcohol use in LMICs is limited, which contributes to this gap in services. OBJECTIVES: To assess the efficacy and safety of psychosocial and pharmacologic treatment and indicated prevention interventions compared with control conditions (wait list, placebo, no treatment, standard care, or active control condition) aimed at reducing harmful alcohol use in LMICs. SEARCH METHODS: We searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) indexed in the Cochrane Drugs and Alcohol Group (CDAG) Specialized Register, the Cochrane Clinical Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) in the Cochrane Library, PubMed, Embase, PsycINFO, CINAHL, and the Latin American and Caribbean Health Sciences Literature (LILACS) through 12 December 2021. We searched clinicaltrials.gov, the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, Web of Science, and Opengrey database to identify unpublished or ongoing studies. We searched the reference lists of included studies and relevant review articles for eligible studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: All RCTs comparing an indicated prevention or treatment intervention (pharmacologic or psychosocial) versus a control condition for people with harmful alcohol use in LMICs were included. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. MAIN RESULTS: We included 66 RCTs with 17,626 participants. Sixty-two of these trials contributed to the meta-analysis. Sixty-three studies were conducted in middle-income countries (MICs), and the remaining three studies were conducted in low-income countries (LICs). Twenty-five trials exclusively enrolled participants with alcohol use disorder. The remaining 51 trials enrolled participants with harmful alcohol use, some of which included both cases of alcohol use disorder and people reporting hazardous alcohol use patterns that did not meet criteria for disorder. Fifty-two RCTs assessed the efficacy of psychosocial interventions; 27 were brief interventions primarily based on motivational interviewing and were compared to brief advice, information, or assessment only. We are uncertain whether a reduction in harmful alcohol use is attributable to brief interventions given the high levels of heterogeneity among included studies (Studies reporting continuous outcomes: Tau² = 0.15, Q =139.64, df =16, P<.001, I² = 89%, 3913 participants, 17 trials, very low certainty; Studies reporting dichotomous outcomes: Tau²=0.18, Q=58.26, df=3, P<.001, I² =95%, 1349 participants, 4 trials, very low certainty). The other types of psychosocial interventions included a range of therapeutic approaches such as behavioral risk reduction, cognitive-behavioral therapy, contingency management, rational emotive therapy, and relapse prevention. These interventions were most commonly compared to usual care involving varying combinations of psychoeducation, counseling, and pharmacotherapy. We are uncertain whether a reduction in harmful alcohol use is attributable to psychosocial treatments due to high levels of heterogeneity among included studies (Heterogeneity: Tau² = 1.15; Q = 444.32, df = 11, P<.001; I²=98%, 2106 participants, 12 trials, very low certainty). Eight trials compared combined pharmacologic and psychosocial interventions with placebo, psychosocial intervention alone, or another pharmacologic treatment. The active pharmacologic study conditions included disulfiram, naltrexone, ondansetron, or topiramate. The psychosocial components of these interventions included counseling, encouragement to attend Alcoholics Anonymous, motivational interviewing, brief cognitive-behavioral therapy, or other psychotherapy (not specified). Analysis of studies comparing a combined pharmacologic and psychosocial intervention to psychosocial intervention alone found that the combined approach may be associated with a greater reduction in harmful alcohol use (standardized mean difference (standardized mean difference (SMD))=-0.43, 95% confidence interval (CI): -0.61 to -0.24; 475 participants; 4 trials; low certainty). Four trials compared pharmacologic intervention alone with placebo and three with another pharmacotherapy. Drugs assessed were: acamprosate, amitriptyline, baclofen disulfiram, gabapentin, mirtazapine, and naltrexone. None of these trials evaluated the primary clinical outcome of interest, harmful alcohol use.   Thirty-one trials reported rates of retention in the intervention. Meta-analyses revealed that rates of retention between study conditions did not differ in any of the comparisons (pharmacologic risk ratio (RR) = 1.13, 95% CI: 0.89 to 1.44, 247 participants, 3 trials, low certainty; pharmacologic in addition to psychosocial intervention: RR = 1.15, 95% CI: 0.95 to 1.40, 363 participants, 3 trials, moderate certainty). Due to high levels of heterogeneity, we did not calculate pooled estimates comparing retention in brief (Heterogeneity: Tau² = 0.00; Q = 172.59, df = 11, P<.001; I2 = 94%; 5380 participants; 12 trials, very low certainty) or other psychosocial interventions (Heterogeneity: Tau² = 0.01; Q = 34.07, df = 8, P<.001; I2 = 77%; 1664 participants; 9 trials, very low certainty). Two pharmacologic trials and three combined pharmacologic and psychosocial trials reported on side effects. These studies found more side effects attributable to amitriptyline relative to mirtazapine, naltrexone and topiramate relative to placebo, yet no differences in side effects between placebo and either acamprosate or ondansetron. Across all intervention types there was substantial risk of bias. Primary threats to validity included lack of blinding and differential/high rates of attrition. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: In LMICs there is low-certainty evidence supporting the efficacy of combined psychosocial and pharmacologic interventions on reducing harmful alcohol use relative to psychosocial interventions alone. There is insufficient evidence to determine the efficacy of pharmacologic or psychosocial interventions on reducing harmful alcohol use largely due to the substantial heterogeneity in outcomes, comparisons, and interventions that precluded pooling of these data in meta-analyses. The majority of studies are brief interventions, primarily among men, and using measures that have not been validated in the target population. Confidence in these results is reduced by the risk of bias and significant heterogeneity among studies as well as the heterogeneity of results on different outcome measures within studies. More evidence on the efficacy of pharmacologic interventions, specific types of psychosocial interventions are needed to increase the certainty of these results.

[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.