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.

IL17RB genetic variants are associated with acamprosate treatment response in patients with alcohol use disorder: A proteomics-informed genomics study.

Acamprosate is a Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved medication for the treatment of alcohol use disorder (AUD). However, only a subset of patients achieves optimal treatment outcomes. Currently, no biological measures are utilized to predict response to acamprosate treatment. We applied our established pharmaco-omics informed genomics strategy to identify potential biomarkers associated with acamprosate treatment response. Specifically, our previous open-label acamprosate clinical trial recruited 442 patients with AUD who were treated with acamprosate for three months. We first performed proteomics using baseline plasma samples to identify potential biomarkers associated with acamprosate treatment outcomes. Next, we applied our established "proteomics-informed genome-wide association study (GWAS)" research strategy, and identified 12 proteins, including interleukin-17 receptor B (IL17RB), associated with acamprosate treatment response.​ A GWAS for IL17RB concentrations identified several genome-wide significant signals. Specifically, the top hit single nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) rs6801605 with a minor allele frequency of 38% in the European American population mapped 4 kilobase (Kb) upstream of IL17RB, and intron 1 of the choline dehydrogenase (CHDH) gene on chromosome 3 (p: 4.8E-20). The variant genotype (AA) for the SNP rs6801605 was associated with lower IL17RB protein expression. In addition, we identified a series of genetic variants in IL17RB that were associated with acamprosate treatment outcomes. Furthermore, the variantgenotypes for all of those IL17RB SNPs were protective for alcohol relapse. Finally, we demonstrated that the basal level of mRNA expression of IL17RB was inversely correlated with those of nuclear factor-κB (NF-κB) subunits, and a significantly higher expression of NF-κB subunits was observed in AUD patients who relapsed to alcohol use. In summary, this study illustrates that IL17RB genetic variants might contribute to acamprosate treatment outcomes. This series of studies represents an important step toward generating functional hypotheses that could be tested to gain insight into mechanisms underlying acamprosate treatment response phenotypes. (The ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT00662571).

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.

Psychosocial and medication interventions to stop or reduce alcohol consumption during pregnancy.

BACKGROUND: Despite the known harms, alcohol consumption is common in pregnancy. Rates vary between countries, and are estimated to be 10% globally, with up to 25% in Europe. OBJECTIVES: To assess the efficacy of psychosocial interventions and medications to reduce or stop alcohol consumption during pregnancy. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Drugs and Alcohol Group Specialised Register (via CRSLive), Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, Web of Science, and PsycINFO, from inception to 8 January 2024. We also searched for ongoing and unpublished studies via ClinicalTrials.gov and the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP). All searches included non-English language literature. We handsearched references of topic-related systematic reviews and included studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials that compared medications or psychosocial interventions, or both, to placebo, no intervention, usual care, or other medications or psychosocial interventions used to reduce or stop alcohol use during pregnancy. Our primary outcomes of interest were abstinence from alcohol, reduction in alcohol consumption, retention in treatment, and women with any adverse event. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard Cochrane methodological procedures. MAIN RESULTS: We included eight studies (1369 participants) in which pregnant women received an intervention to stop or reduce alcohol use during pregnancy. In one study, almost half of participants had a current diagnosis of alcohol use disorder (AUD); in another study, 40% of participants had a lifetime diagnosis of AUD. Six studies took place in the USA, one in Spain, and one in the Netherlands. All included studies evaluated the efficacy of psychosocial interventions; we did not find any study that evaluated the efficacy of medications for the treatment of AUD during pregnancy. Psychosocial interventions were mainly brief interventions ranging from a single session of 10 to 60 minutes to five sessions of 10 minutes each. Pregnant women received the psychosocial intervention approximately at the end of the first trimester of pregnancy, and the outcome of alcohol use was reassessed 8 to 24 weeks after the psychosocial intervention. Women in the control group received treatment as usual (TAU) or similar treatments such as comprehensive assessment of alcohol use and advice to stop drinking during pregnancy. Globally, we found that, compared to TAU, psychosocial interventions may increase the rate of continuously abstinent participants (risk ratio (RR) 1.34, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.14 to 1.57; I2 =0%; 3 studies; 378 women; low certainty evidence). Psychosocial interventions may have little to no effect on the number of drinks per day, but the evidence is very uncertain (mean difference -0.42, 95% CI -1.13 to 0.28; I2 = 86%; 2 studies; 157 women; very low certainty evidence). Psychosocial interventions probably have little to no effect on the number of women who completed treatment (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.94 to 1.02; I2 = 0%; 7 studies; 1283 women; moderate certainty evidence). None of the included studies assessed adverse events of treatments. We downgraded the certainty of the evidence due to risk of bias and imprecision of the estimates. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Brief psychosocial interventions may increase the rate of continuous abstinence among pregnant women who report alcohol use during pregnancy. Further studies should be conducted to investigate the efficacy and safety of psychosocial interventions and other treatments (e.g. medications) for women with AUD. These studies should provide detailed information on alcohol use before and during pregnancy using consistent measures such as the number of drinks per drinking day. When heterogeneous populations are recruited, more detailed information on alcohol use during pregnancy should be provided to allow future systematic reviews to be conducted. Other important information that would enhance the usefulness of these studies would be the presence of other comorbid conditions such as anxiety, mood disorders, and the use of other psychoactive substances.

Alcohol pharmacotherapy dispensing trends in Australia between 2006 and 2023.

AIMS: This study aimed to investigate acamprosate and naltrexone dispensing patterns in Australia. METHODS: A 10% representative sample of medications subsidized by the Australian Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme (PBS) was used to identify individuals who were dispensed naltrexone or acamprosate between January 2006 and December 2023. Data were used to examine concurrent dispensing, medication switching and treatment episode length, as well as changes in prevalence and incidence over time. RESULTS: During the study, we identified 22 745 individuals with a total of 117 548 dispensed prescriptions (45.3% naltrexone, 43.0% acamprosate, and 11.7% concurrent dispensing). Alcohol pharmacotherapy dispensing occurred in 1354 per 100 000 individuals. It is estimated that 2.9% of individuals with an alcohol use disorder in Australia are receiving a PBS-listed pharmacological treatment. For both pharmacotherapies, individuals were most likely to be male (60.0%) and 35-54 years of age (56.0%). Individuals were more likely to switch from acamprosate to naltrexone rather than the reverse. From 2006 and 2023, the number of prevalent individuals treated with an alcohol pharmacotherapy significantly increased, driven mainly the use of naltrexone, which more than doubled over the study period. Incident naltrexone-treated individuals were more likely to remain on treatment for the recommended minimum 3-month period compared to acamprosate treated individuals, although overall dispensing for at least 3 months was low (5.1%). CONCLUSIONS: In Australia between 2006 and 2023, rates of naltrexone dispensing have substantially increased, while acamprosate dispensing showed minimal changes. However, the use of alcohol pharmacotherapies remains low compared with the likely prevalence of alcohol use disorders.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

TSPAN5 influences serotonin and kynurenine: pharmacogenomic mechanisms related to alcohol use disorder and acamprosate treatment response.

We previously reported that SNPs near TSPAN5 were associated with plasma serotonin (5-HT) concentrations which were themselves associated with selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor treatment outcomes in patients with major depressive disorder (MDD). TSPAN5 SNPs were also associated with alcohol consumption and alcohol use disorder (AUD) risk. The present study was designed to explore the biological function of TSPAN5 with a focus on 5-HT and kynurenine concentrations in the tryptophan pathway. Ethanol treatment resulted in decreased 5-HT concentrations in human induced pluripotent stem cell (iPSC)-derived neuron culture media, and the downregulation of gene expression of TSPAN5, DDC, MAOA, MAOB, TPH1, and TPH2 in those cells. Strikingly, similar observations were made when the cells were treated with acamprosate-an FDA approved drug for AUD therapy. These results were replicated in iPSC-derived astrocytes. Furthermore, TSPAN5 interacted physically with proteins related to clathrin and other vesicle-related proteins, raising the possibility that TSPAN5 might play a role in vesicular function in addition to regulating expression of genes associated with 5-HT biosynthesis and metabolism. Downregulation of TSPAN5 expression by ethanol or acamprosate treatment was also associated with decreased concentrations of kynurenine, a major metabolite of tryptophan that plays a role in neuroinflammation. Knockdown of TSPAN5 also influenced the expression of genes associated with interferon signaling pathways. Finally, we determined that TSPAN5 SNPs were associated with acamprosate treatment outcomes in AUD patients. In conclusion, TSPAN5 can modulate the concentrations of 5-HT and kynurenine. Our data also highlight a potentially novel pharmacogenomic mechanism related to response to acamprosate.

Service Users' Views and Experiences of Alcohol Relapse Prevention Treatment and Adherence: New Role for Pharmacists?

AIMS: To understand service users' views and experiences of alcohol relapse prevention medication, views of a telephone behavioural modification intervention delivered by pharmacists and the use of Contingency Management (CM) to support acamprosate adherence following assisted alcohol withdrawal. METHODS: Four focus groups were conducted within four alcohol treatment and recovery groups across England (UK), with service users with lived experience of alcohol dependence (26 participants). Semi-structured topic guide was used to explore participants' views and experiences of alcohol relapse prevention medication, a telephone behavioural modification medication intervention delivered by pharmacists, and the use of CM to support acamprosate adherence. These were audio-recorded, transcribed verbatim and thematically analysed inductively and deductively. RESULTS: Four themes were identified: concerns about support and availability of alcohol relapse prevention medication; lack of knowledge and understanding about acamprosate treatment; positive perceptions of acamprosate adherence telephone support from pharmacists; and negative perceptions of CM to support acamprosate adherence. There were misunderstandings about acamprosate's mode of action and strong negative beliefs about CM. However, most were positive about pharmacists' new role to support acamprosate adherence. CONCLUSION: This study highlighted challenges service users face to commence alcohol relapse prevention medication. It appears service users could benefit from a pharmacist-led telephone intervention to improve understanding about acamprosate medication, particularly, if delivered in an engaging and motivating way.

Sodium acamprosate and calcium exert additive effects on nucleus accumbens dopamine in the rat.

Acamprosate (Campral® - calcium-bis[N-acetylhomotaurinate]) is one of few available pharmacotherapies for individuals suffering from alcohol use disorder. Previously, we suggested that acamprosate reduces ethanol intake by increasing dopamine in the nucleus accumbens (nAc), thereby partly substituting for alcohol's dopamine releasing effect. An experimental study suggested the calcium moiety of acamprosate to be the active component of the drug and to mediate the relapse preventing effect. The aim of the present study was to, by means of reversed in vivo microdialysis, elucidate if the dopamine elevating properties of acamprosate are mediated by N-acetylhomotaurine or by the calcium moiety. Male rats were equipped with a microdialysis probe in the nAc and received acute local treatment with regular acamprosate (CaAcamp 0.5 mM), calcium chloride (CaCl2 0.5 mM), sodium acamprosate (NaAcamp 0.5-1 mM), the glycine receptor (GlyR) antagonist strychnine (Stry 20 µM), or vehicle. In all experiments, extracellular levels of dopamine and taurine were examined. We found that local perfusion with both CaAcamp and CaCl2 increased dopamine levels in a GlyR-dependent manner. NaAcamp did not influence dopamine levels, but concomitant administration with CaCl2 resulted in an additive dopamine output compared to the drugs administrated alone. We also found CaAcamp and the combination of CaCl2 and NaAcamp to increase accumbal taurine levels, suggesting that CaAcamp may act indirectly on GlyRs via taurine release. The present results indicate that both N-acetylhomotaurine and the calcium moiety of acamprosate have dopamine elevating properties within the nAc and that, in this respect, these substances are beneficial in combination.

In recently detoxified alcohol-dependent adults, acamprosate increases abstinence maintenance and reduces dropout.

SOURCE CITATION: Cheng HY, McGuinness LA, Elbers RG, et al. Treatment interventions to maintain abstinence from alcohol in primary care: systematic review and network meta-analysis. BMJ. 2020;371:m3934. 33239318.

Relapse prevention for alcohol use disorders: combined acamprosate and cue exposure therapy as aftercare.

AIMS: Many patients with alcohol use disorders are challenged by cravings leading to repeated relapses. Both cue exposure therapy (CET) and acamprosate target alcohol cravings and are often combined (CET + acamprosate). The main aim of this study was to investigate whether aftercare treatment consisting of CET combined with acamprosate is equivalent to (A) CET as monotherapy, (B) aftercare as usual (AAU) as monotherapy or (C) AAU combined with acamprosate. METHODS: Patients were randomized to receive either CET with urge-specific coping skills (USCS) as aftercare or AAU. Acamprosate prescription data were extracted from patient case records. Alcohol consumption, cravings, and USCS were assessed at pre-aftercare, post-aftercare, and 6-month follow-up. RESULTS: Overall, patients increased their alcohol consumption during and following aftercare treatment, thereby relapsing despite any treatment. However, CET + acamprosate achieved greater abstinence compared to AAU + acamprosate at follow-up (p=.047). CET + acamprosate also reduced number of drinking days (p=.020) and number of days with excessive drinking (p=.020) at post-aftercare, when compared to AAU monotherapy. CET monotherapy increased sensible drinking at post-aftercare compared to AAU monotherapy (p=.045) and AAU + acamprosate (p=.047). Only CET monotherapy showed improvement in cravings, when compared to AAU at follow-up (mean urge level: p=.032; peak urge level: p=.014). CONCLUSION: The study showed that CET both as monotherapy and combined with acamprosate was superior to AAU monotherapy and AAU + acamprosate in reducing alcohol consumption. Only CET + acamprosate was capable of reducing alcohol consumption in the longer term, indicating that anti-craving medication may not impede CET from exerting an effect on alcohol consumption. Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov ID: NCT02298751 (24/11-2014).

Cost-effectiveness of alcohol use treatments in patients with alcohol-related cirrhosis.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Alcohol use treatment such as medication-assisted therapies (MATs) and counseling are available and effective in promoting alcohol abstinence. We sought to explore the cost-effectiveness of different alcohol use treatments among patients with compensated alcohol-related cirrhosis (AC). METHODS: We simulated a cohort of patients with compensated AC receiving care from a hepatology clinic over their lifetimes. We estimated costs (in 2017 US$) and benefits in terms of quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) gained from healthcare and societal perspectives. Transition probabilities, costs, and health utility weights were taken from the literature. Treatment effects of FDA-approved MATs (acamprosate and naltrexone) and non-FDA approved MATs (baclofen, gabapentin, and topiramate) and counseling were based on a study of employer-insured patients with AC. We calculated incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) and performed one-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses to understand the impact of parameter uncertainty. RESULTS: Compared to a do-nothing scenario, MATs and counseling were found to be cost-saving from a healthcare perspective, which means that they provide more benefits with less costs than no intervention. Compared to other interventions, acamprosate and naltrexone cost the least and provide the most QALYs. If the effectiveness of MATs and counseling decreased, these interventions would still be cost-effective based on the commonly used $100,000 per QALY gained threshold. Several sensitivity and scenario analyses showed that our main findings are robust. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with compensated AC, MATs and counseling are extremely cost-effective, and in some cases cost-saving, interventions to prevent decompensation and improve health. Health policies (e.g. payer reimbursement) should emphasize and appropriately compensate for these interventions. LAY SUMMARY: Alcohol use treatments, including physician counseling and medication-assisted therapies (MATs), improve the outcomes of patients with compensated alcohol-related cirrhosis, though use and access have remained suboptimal. In this study, we found that counseling and MATs are extremely cost-effective, and in some cases cost-saving, interventions to help patients with alcohol-related cirrhosis abstain from alcohol and improve their health. Wider use of these interventions should be encouraged.

Geographic differences in receipt of addictions treatment in a national sample of patients with alcohol use disorders from the U.S. Veterans Health Administration.

Background: In the United States, alcohol use disorder (AUD) is common and costly but substantially undertreated. Rurality is an important determinant of health that may influence receipt of evidence-based alcohol-related care. In a large, national sample of Veterans Health Administration (VA) patients with AUD with documented and non-Hispanic Black, Hispanic, or non-Hispanic White race/ethnicity, we examine whether meeting national Healthcare Effectiveness Data and Information Set (HEDIS) quality measures for specialty addictions care and receiving evidence-based medications for AUD differs across patients living in urban, large rural, and small rural areas. Methods: VA electronic health record data were used to identify all patients with AUD documented in Fiscal Year 2012. Rurality was measured using a three-category rural and urban commuting area (RUCA) classification linked to patient zip code. Logistic regression models with clustered standard errors-iteratively adjusted for hypothesized confounders-were used to estimate the likelihood and marginal probabilities of receiving care for patients living in small and large rural areas, relative to urban areas. Primary outcomes included HEDIS initiation (any visit within 14 days of initial AUD visit after a 60-day period of no treatment), HEDIS engagement (2 or more AUD visits within 30 days of HEDIS initiation visit) and having any filled prescription for AUD medications (naltrexone, disulfiram, acamprosate, or topiramate). Results: For all outcomes, patients living in large and small rural areas had a lower likelihood of receiving evidence-based AUD treatment than patients living in urban areas (all p-values < 0.05); differences in marginal probabilities across groups were relatively small. Conclusions: In this national sample of VA patients with AUD, those living in more rural areas were less likely to receive evidence-based treatment for AUD than those living in urban areas. Further research is needed to investigate strategies to increase receipt of specialty care and pharmacotherapy in more rural areas.

Rates of prescription orders for United States active duty service members diagnosed with alcohol use disorder.

Background: Alcohol-use disorders (AUD) pose a significant challenge for the United States (US) military. The US Department of Defense has strongly recommended several medications for use in the treatment of patients with diagnosed AUD. This study assessed the prescription of medications for active duty service members (ADSMs) diagnosed with AUD in the US Military Health System (MHS). Methods: Rates of prescription orders were retrospectively examined from 2010 to 2017 among ADSMs with an incident diagnosis of moderate-to-severe AUD. The rate of prescription orders was defined as the proportion of ADSMs with an ICD-9 or ICD-10 diagnosis code of alcohol dependence who received an order for acamprosate, disulfiram, naltrexone, and/or topiramate at a military treatment facility in the year following their incident diagnosis. Results: ADSMs receiving an order for at least one medication in the year following their incident AUD diagnosis increased from 8.8% in 2010 to 16.2% in 2017 (RR = 1.84, 95% CI, 1.76, 1.93). Oral naltrexone was ordered most frequently among this patient population, while injectable naltrexone, a medication option meant to ease and improve adherence, was ordered for a smaller proportion of patients. Conclusions: Most ADSMs who might benefit from prescriptions for AUD are not receiving them as part of their treatment despite strong clinical evidence and Department of Defense policy support for their use among this cohort.

[Pharmacotherapy of alcohol withdrawal: update and new developments]. / Pharmakotherapie der Alkoholentwöhnung: Update und neue Entwicklungen.

So far few medications are approved for prophylactic treatment of alcohol dependence relapse. Apart from disulfiram, which is no longer marketed in Germany, the opioid antagonists naltrexone, nalmefene and the putative glutamate antagonist acamprosate are approved. In some other countries, baclofen and gamma-hydroxybutyrate (GHB) are licensed. Possible other drugs of interest for prophylaxis of alcohol dependence relapse are vareniclin, gabapentin, and topiramate, but so far none of them have received approval. In the light of the currently running revision of the German guidelines for the diagnosis and treatment of alcohol related disorders, an update on the pharmacotherapy of alcohol dependence is presented.