Search

Alcoholism is a major public health problem in the United States, such that approximately 15.6 million people meet criteria for alcohol abuse or dependence, and over 800,000 received treatment for alcohol abuse or dependence in 2006 (SAMHSA, 2007). Despite the enormous impact of this disease on society, there are only three medications (disulfiram, naltrexone, and acamprosate) currently approved by the FDA for the treatment of alcohol dependence (e.g., Bouza et al., 2004; Heilig and Egli, 2006; Kiefer and Mann, 2005; Kranzler and Van Kirk, 2001) and given their limited efficacy there is a need for additional pharmacotherapies for alcohol dependence. The interaction of alcohol with the gamma-amino butyric acid (GABA)-ergic neurotransmitter system is well known (Grant and Lovinger, 2005) and targeting GABA-ergic neurotransmission has been considered as a potential treatment strategy for alcohol dependence (Johnson et al., 2005; Heilig and Egli, 2006). Baclofen, a GABA-B receptor agonist, has attracted considerable attention as a potential medication not only for alcoholism (Addolorato et al., 2006a; Colombo et al., 2004; Heilig and Egli, 2006; Johnson et al., 2005; Kranzler, 2000), but also for other addictive disorders (Cousins et al., 2002). There is encouraging preclinical evidence in laboratory rodents that baclofen decreases 1) alcohol withdrawal symptoms (Colombo et al., 2000; Knapp et al., 2007), 2) acquisition and maintenance of voluntary alcohol consumption (Colombo et al., 2000, 2002; Daoust et al., 1987), 3) alcohol consumption associated with alcohol deprivation (Colombo et al., 2003a, 2006), 4) alcohol self-administration (Anstrom et al., 2003; Besheer et al., 2004; Liang et al., 2006; Walker and Koob, 2007), and 5) responding for alcohol during extinction, suggestive of decreased motivation to obtain alcohol (Colombo et al., 2003b; Maccioni et al., 2008). However, not all preclinical studies have reported that baclofen produces a reduction in alcohol consumption or self-administration (e.g., Colombo et al., 2005; Czachowski et al., 2006; Moore et al., 2007; Petry, 1997; Smith et al., 1999; Tomkins and Fletcher, 1996). Nonetheless, the preclinical literature suggests that baclofen may have therapeutic efficacy for alcoholism. Several studies have been conducted in humans to evaluate the efficacy of baclofen for the treatment of patients with alcohol problems. One of the first studies used an open-label design in 10 alcohol-dependent patients (Addolorato et al., 2000) and found that maintenance on 30 mg/day of baclofen for 4 weeks decreased alcohol craving in the 9 patients who completed the study, with 7 patients maintaining total abstinence. Similar positive findings were obtained in two subsequent studies, both of which maintained alcohol-dependent patients on 30 mg/day of baclofen (Addolorato et al., 2002a; Flannery et al., 2004). These findings were recently extended and confirmed in a larger randomized clinical trial among alcohol-dependent patients with liver cirrhosis who were treated with either baclofen (30 mg/day) or placebo for 12 weeks (Addolorato et al., 2007). In all of these studies, side effects of baclofen were minimal and retention was excellent. Further, there have been two case reports showing that high doses of baclofen (100–140 mg/day) were effective in reducing alcohol craving and consumption (Ameisen, 2005; Buckman, 2007). Lastly, several small pilot studies have reported that baclofen (30 mg/day) reduces alcohol withdrawal symptoms in alcohol-dependent patients (Addolorato et al., 2002b, 2003, 2006b). Despite the promising preclinical and clinical findings to date suggesting that baclofen may be effective for treating alcohol dependence, there is a paucity of human laboratory studies assessing the interaction of baclofen and alcohol. Human behavioral laboratory studies can play an important role in the early stages of the medication development process for drug and alcohol abuse (Cousins et al., 2002; O’Brien and Gardner, 2005), particularly for assessing the safety of a candidate medication when administered alone and in combination with alcohol, as well as to elucidate the therapeutic mechanism. Baclofen is a centrally acting muscle relaxant approved by the FDA for the alleviation of signs and symptoms of spasticity; while the usual dose range is between 40–80 mg daily in divided doses, much higher doses have been used for the treatment of spasticity with a good safety profile (Aisen et al., 1992). Baclofen is also known to have anxiolytic effects (Breslow et al., 1989; Drake et al., 2003; Jamous et al., 1994), even among a population of alcoholic patients (Krupitsky et al.,1993), and these anxiolytic effects have been hypothesized to reduce alcohol craving and drinking. In fact, several studies have observed a reduction in anxiety in baclofen-treated alcohol-dependent patients (Addolorato et al., 2002a, 2006b, 2007;Flannery et al., 2004). Alternatively, baclofen may reduce alcohol craving and drinking by reducing the positive effects of alcohol, including the stimulant effects (Cousins et al., 2002), or by enhancing the negative effects of alcohol, including sedation. Despite these potential benefits, the sedative and anxiolytic effects of baclofen also raise concerns about the safety of baclofen in combination with alcohol and its abuse liability (Heilig and Egli, 2006). The purpose of the present study was to comprehensively assess the acute behavioral and physiological effects of baclofen (0, 40, 80 mg) alone, and in combination with an intoxicating dose of alcohol (0.75 g/kg) in non-treatment seeking heavy social drinkers. Specifically, we wanted to address the issues related to the safety profile of baclofen alone and in combination with alcohol, as well as the behavioral effects of baclofen that might elucidate the nature of its putative pharmacotherapeutic effect.

Background: There is growing evidence that N-methyl-d-aspartate (NMDA) receptor antagonists may have potential for the treatment of alcohol disorders. Memantine is a selective noncompetitive NMDA receptor antagonist that has been shown to decrease alcohol craving in moderate drinkers. This 16-week double-blind outpatient pilot clinical trial determined if memantine was more effective than placebo at reducing alcohol use in actively drinking alcohol-dependent patients. Methods: Forty-four treatment-seeking alcohol-dependent individuals were enrolled, with 34 patients stratified to either the memantine group (n=19; maximum dose of 40 mg/d) or the placebo (PBO; n=15) group. The primary outcome measures were related to alcohol use (average drinks per day, average drinks per drinking day, percentage of heavy drinking days, and percentage of days abstinent) based on the timeline follow-back (TLFB). Secondary outcome measures included the Obsessive Compulsive Drinking Scale, Clinical Global Impression ratings, and γ-glutamyltransferase (GGT), a biomarker of recent alcohol use. To enhance retention, patients received voucher incentives for clinic attendance. Results: Of those randomized, approximately 80% (27) completed the entire 16-week trial. Longitudinal analysis of drinks per day and drinks per drinking day showed a significant reduction in alcohol use, but no difference between the 2 groups. Further, the percentage of heavy drinking days indicated that both groups showed a significant decrease in drinking behavior, but there was significant treatment effect in favor of the PBO group. Similarly, for the percentage of days abstinent, the PBO group achieved a significantly greater percentage of days abstinent at a faster rate than the memantine group. Lastly, the memantine group reported a greater number of side effects compared with the PBO group, such that 26% of patients had their drug dose decreased or discontinued due to memantine-related side effects. Conclusions: The results of this double-blind placebo-controlled pilot trial do not support the use of memantine for the treatment of actively drinking alcohol-dependent patients. However, voucher incentives did facilitate retention.

There is a noticeable lack of targeted treatment options for marijuana dependence, in particular pharmacologic approaches. This is the first study evaluating a targeted pharmacologic approach for marijuana dependence. The goals of the study were to determine if such patients would seek pharmacologic treatment, whether these patients could be retained in treatment using a design previously developed for cocaine-dependent patients, and especially whether divalproex sodium showed promise as a treatment agent for marijuana dependence. We found that marijuana-dependent patients will seek treatment, and such patients can be adequately maintained in a pharmacologic trial. Regardless of treatment group, patients reported a significant reduction in their frequency and amount of marijuana use as well as a reduction in irritability. Given the lack of proven effective treatments for marijuana dependence, pharmacotherapies should be sought. The design of a preliminary clinical trial should include a psychosocial/behavioral intervention emphasizing motivation and medication compliance and a placebo control group.

A small, controlled study was conducted to assess whether pergolide mesylate has clinical promise as a treatment for cocaine abuse prior to embarking on a larger, randomized, double-blind, controlled trial. Fourteen individuals were placed on placebo for 2 weeks, followed by a 24-week single-blind study in which they were placed on pergolide for 12 weeks, followed by placebo for 12 weeks. Another 14 patients received single-blind placebo for two weeks and then were randomized into a 24-week double-blind, placebo-controlled, multiple baseline design. Initially, patients enrolled in the study were placed on risperidone (n = 9) or placebo (n = 5). During the first 12 weeks, retention was worse for those receiving pergolide compared to risperidone or placebo. Neither risperidone nor pergolide were more efficacious in reducing cocaine use than placebo. Although earlier open studies found pergolide to show promise as a treatment for cocaine abuse, this study did not support these earlier findings. Comparing an agent to both an active control and placebo group may better predict whether a promising new agent will have clinical utility compared to the standard open trial.

This paper provides a methodological survey of research of 1253 experiments on the acute effects of drugs used for non-medical purposes on human performance. 305 different tasks were tested, but only 118 tasks were used in more than two experiments. While the majority of experiments did have control conditions and measured drug effects at more than one time point after drug administration, they varied widely on other protocol details: (1) subject populations, (2) training on the tasks prior to drug administration, and (3) number of active test doses that were tested. Administration of stimulants either had no effect, or improved performance. In contrast, administration of marijuana, alcohol, or benzodiazepines had no effect, or impaired performance. In order to maximize comparability and utility, future protocols should use control groups, train subjects prior to participation, test more than one drug dose, and test performance before, and several times after, drug administration. A greater range of subject populations should also be studied. Finally, task standardization including type of instructions to subjects, duration of performance testing, feedback to subjects, motivational conditions, and inclusion of a benchmark task should also be used to enhance comparisons across studies.

This paper describes the rationale, practical details, and laboratory lore relevant to conducting an acute dose-effect crossover evaluation for abuse liability of a novel anxiolytic/hypnotic compound relative to a standard compound. Basic principles underlying meaningful abuse liability assessments are presented and illustrated with examples from a comparative evaluation of the hypnotics zolpidem and triazolam. These principles include using a double-blind placebo-controlled design, selecting an appropriate comparison compound, evaluating a wide range of doses including supratherapeutic doses, using subjects with histories of sedative drug abuse, and using a range of dependent measures. The dose-effect crossover evaluation is proposed as a crucial first step in any rigorous drug abuse liability evaluation of a novel anxiolytic or hypnotic drug. Such a study can be expected to generate a broad data base which not only provides a prediction about the likelihood of abuse of the novel compound, but provides an assessment of some of the adverse consequences of recreational abuse. The crossover study also establishes parameters for subsequent studies such as direct assessment of reinforcing effects with drug self-administration testing.