Search

Background: Treatment for alcohol use disorders (AUDs) has traditionally been abstinence oriented, but new research and regulatory guidelines suggest that low-risk drinking may also be an acceptable treatment outcome. However, little is known about long-term outcomes for patients who become low-risk drinkers posttreatment. This study explores a posttreatment low-risk drinking outcome as a predictor of future drinking and psychosocial outcomes over 9 years., Methods: Study participants were adults with AUDs at treatment entry who received follow-up interviews 6 months posttreatment intake (N = 1,061) in 2 large randomized studies conducted at Kaiser Permanente Northern California, a large private, nonprofit, integrated health system. Six-month drinking status was defined as abstinent, low-risk (nonabstinent, no 5+ drinking days), or heavy drinking (1 or more days of 5+ drinks). Using logistic regression models, we explored the relationship between past 30-day drinking status at 6 months and odds of being abstinent or a low-risk drinker (compared to heavy drinking), and positive Addiction Severity Index psychosocial outcomes over 9 years (9-year follow-up rate of 73%)., Results: Abstainers and low-risk drinkers at 6 months had higher odds of recent abstinence/low-risk drinking over 9 years than heavy drinkers; abstainers had better drinking outcomes than low-risk drinkers. Additionally, among those with interview data, 95% of abstainers and 94% of low-risk drinkers at 6 months were abstinent/low-risk drinkers at 9 years; surprisingly, 89% of heavy drinkers at 6 months were also abstinent/low-risk drinkers although still significantly fewer than the other groups. Abstainers and low-risk drinkers at 6 months had better psychiatric outcomes, and abstainers had better family/social outcomes than heavy drinkers; medical outcomes did not differ. Low-risk drinkers and abstainers showed no reliable differences across psychosocial measures., Conclusions: The findings suggest that a low-risk drinking outcome may be reasonable over the long-term for some alcohol-dependent individuals receiving addiction treatment., (Copyright © 2017 by the Research Society on Alcoholism.)

Background: Alcohol use disorder (AUD) is a highly prevalent public health problem associated with considerable individual and societal costs. Abstinence from alcohol is the most widely accepted target of treatment for AUD, but it severely limits treatment options and could deter individuals who prefer to reduce their drinking from seeking treatment. Clinical validation of reduced alcohol consumption as the primary outcome of alcohol clinical trials is critical for expanding treatment options. One potentially useful measure of alcohol treatment outcome is a reduction in the World Health Organization (WHO, International Guide for Monitoring Alcohol Consumption and Related Harm. Geneva, Switzerland, 2000) risk levels of alcohol use (very high risk, high risk, moderate risk, and low risk). For example, a 2-shift reduction in WHO risk levels (e.g., high risk to low risk) has been used by the European Medicines Agency (2010, Guideline on the Development of Medicinal Products for the Treatment of Alcohol Dependence. UK) to evaluate nalmefene as a treatment for alcohol dependence (AD; Mann et al. 2013, Biol Psychiatry 73, 706-13)., Methods: The current study was a secondary data analysis of the COMBINE study (n = 1,383; Anton et al., ) to examine the association between reductions in WHO risk levels and reductions in alcohol-related consequences and mental health symptoms during and following treatment in patients with AD., Results: Any reduction in WHO risk drinking level during treatment was associated with significantly fewer alcohol-related consequences and improved mental health at the end of treatment and for up to 1 year posttreatment. A greater reduction in WHO risk drinking level predicted a greater reduction in consequences and greater improvements in mental health., Conclusions: Changes in WHO risk levels appear to be a valid end point for alcohol clinical trials. Based on the current findings, reductions in WHO risk drinking levels during treatment reflect meaningful reductions in alcohol-related consequences and improved functioning., (Copyright © 2016 by the Research Society on Alcoholism.)

Placebo-controlled pharmacotherapy trials for alcohol use disorder (AUD) require an active behavioral platform to avoid putting participants at risk for untreated AUD and to better assess the effectiveness of the medication. Therapist-delivered platforms (TDP) can be costly and present a risk to study design because of the variability in therapist fidelity. Take Control is a novel computer-delivered behavioral platform developed for use in pharmacotherapy trials sponsored by the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism Clinical Investigations Group (NCIG). This behavioral platform was developed with the goal of reducing trial implementation costs and limiting potential bias introduced by therapists providing TDP. This exploratory study is the first to compare Take Control with TDP on measures related to placebo response rate, medication adherence, and participant retention. Data were drawn from the placebo arms of four multisite, double-blind, randomized controlled trials (RCT) for AUD conducted by NCIG from 2007 to 2015. Data were compared from subjects receiving TDP (n=156) in two RCTs and Take Control (n=155) in another two RCTs. Placebo response rate, as represented by weekly percentage of heavy drinking days, was similar between groups. Subjects who received Take Control had a higher rate of medication adherence than those who received TDP. Subject retention was not significantly different between groups. The findings suggest that Take Control is comparable to TDP on measures of retention, medication adherence, and placebo response. Additional research is needed to evaluate Take Control directly against TDPs in a randomized trial., (Copyright © 2016 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

This article proposes a heuristic framework for the Addictions Neuroclinical Assessment that incorporates key functional domains derived from the neurocircuitry of addiction. We review how addictive disorders (ADs) are presently diagnosed and the need for new neuroclinical measures to differentiate patients who meet clinical criteria for addiction to the same agent while differing in etiology, prognosis, and treatment response. The need for a better understanding of the mechanisms provoking and maintaining addiction, as evidenced by the limitations of current treatments and within-diagnosis clinical heterogeneity, is articulated. In addition, recent changes in the nosology of ADs, challenges to current classification systems, and prior attempts to subtype individuals with ADs are described. Complementary initiatives, including the Research Domain Criteria project, that have established frameworks for the neuroscience of psychiatric disorders are discussed. Three domains-executive function, incentive salience, and negative emotionality-tied to different phases in the cycle of addiction form the core functional elements of ADs. Measurement of these domains in epidemiologic, genetic, clinical, and treatment studies will provide the underpinnings for an understanding of cross-population and temporal variation in addictions, shared mechanisms in addictive disorders, impact of changing environmental influences, and gene identification. Finally, we show that it is practical to implement such a deep neuroclinical assessment using a combination of neuroimaging and performance measures. Neuroclinical assessment is key to reconceptualizing the nosology of ADs on the basis of process and etiology, an advance that can lead to improved prevention and treatment., (Published by Elsevier Inc.)

Objectives: To explore whether varenicline (Chantix) showed more efficacy in treating certain subgroups of patients. In a recent multisite trial, varenicline was shown to be effective in reducing drinking in alcohol-dependent patients, both smokers and nonsmokers. Given the heterogeneity among alcohol-dependent patients, secondary analyses were conducted to determine whether certain subgroups responded more favorably than others to treatment with varenicline., Methods: Data were drawn from a phase 2 randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled multisite 13-week trial of varenicline in alcohol-dependent patients (Litten et al., 2013). Seventeen moderator variables were selected for exploratory testing on the basis of theoretical and scientific interest., Results: Of the 17 moderator variables assessed, 4 were statistically significant, including cigarettes per day reduction, treatment drinking goal, years drinking regularly, and age of the patient. Two other variables—the type of adverse events experienced by patients and the severity of alcohol-related consequences—seemed to moderate the varenicline treatment effect at borderline statistical significance. Individuals who reduced the number of cigarettes per day experienced a significant effect from varenicline in reducing drinking, whereas those who did not change or who increased their number of cigarettes observed no beneficial effect. Reviewing the moderators related to severity, varenicline seemed to have greater efficacy than placebo among less severely dependent patients., Conclusions: Varenicline seems to be more efficacious in certain subgroups, particularly in those who reduced their smoking and in the "less severe" patient. Additional studies are warranted to confirm the results of these exploratory analyses.

Background: Attrition is common in alcohol clinical trials and the resultant loss of data represents an important methodological problem. In the absence of a simulation study, the drinking outcomes among those who are lost to follow-up are not known. Individuals who drop out of treatment and continue to provide drinking data, however, may be a reasonable proxy group for making inferences about the drinking outcomes of those lost to follow-up., Methods: We used data from the COMBINE study, a multisite, randomized clinical trial, to examine drinking during the 4 months of treatment among individuals who dropped out of treatment but continued to provide drinking data (i.e., "treatment dropouts;" n = 185). First, we estimated the observed treatment effect size for naltrexone versus placebo in a sample that included both treatment completers (n = 961) and treatment dropouts (n = 185; total N = 1,146), as well as the observed treatment effect size among just those who dropped out of treatment (n = 185). In both the total sample (N = 1,146) and the dropout sample (n = 185), we then deleted the drinking data after treatment dropout from those 185 individuals to simulate missing data. Using the deleted data sets, we then estimated the effect of naltrexone on the continuous outcome percent heavy drinking days using 6 methods to handle missing data (last observation carried forward, baseline observation carried forward, placebo mean imputation, missing = heavy drinking days, multiple imputation (MI), and full information maximum likelihood [FIML])., Results: MI and FIML produced effect size estimates that were most similar to the true effects observed in the full data set in all analyses, while missing = heavy drinking days performed the worst., Conclusions: Although missing drinking data should be avoided whenever possible, MI and FIML yield the best estimates of the treatment effect for a continuous outcome measure of heavy drinking when there is dropout in an alcohol clinical trial., (Copyright © 2014 by the Research Society on Alcoholism.)

The process of developing pharmacological treatments for alcohol use disorder is notoriously complex and challenging. The path to market is long, costly, and inefficient. One way of expediting and reducing the drug development process is through collaborations-building partnerships among government, academia, pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies, healthcare organizations and advocacy groups, and the patients (end consumers) themselves. By forging collaborations, particularly with pharmaceutical companies, the alcohol treatment field stands to reap benefits in generating new medications for use in mainstream treatment settings. At the same time, there are certain caveats that should be considered, particularly by academic researchers, before entering into such partnerships. This commentary examines the advantages and caveats of government and academia collaborations with pharmaceutical companies., (Published 2014. This article is a U.S. Government work and is in the public domain in the USA.)

Background: Lower-risk drinking is increasingly being examined as a treatment outcome for some patients following addiction treatment. However, few studies have examined the relationship between drinking status (lower-risk drinking in particular) and healthcare utilization and cost, which has important policy implications., Methods: Participants were adults with alcohol dependence and/or abuse diagnoses who received outpatient alcohol and other drug treatment in a private, nonprofit integrated healthcare delivery system and had a follow-up interview 6 months after treatment entry (N = 995). Associations between past 30-day drinking status at 6 months (abstinence, lower-risk drinking defined as nonabstinence and no days of 5+ drinking, and heavy drinking defined as 1 or more days of 5+ drinking) and repeated measures of at least 1 emergency department (ED), inpatient or primary care visit, and their costs over 5 years were examined using mixed-effects models. We modeled an interaction between time and drinking status to examine trends in utilization and costs over time by drinking group., Results: Heavy drinkers and lower-risk drinkers were not significantly different from the abstainers in their cost or utilization at time 0 (i.e., 6 months postintake). Heavy drinkers had increasing odds of inpatient (p < 0.01) and ED (p < 0.05) utilization over 5 years compared with abstainers. Lower-risk drinkers and abstainers did not significantly differ in their service use in any category over time. No differences were found in changes in primary care use among the 3 groups over time. The cost analyses paralleled the utilization results. Heavy drinkers had increasing ED (p < 0.05) and inpatient (p < 0.001) costs compared with the abstainers; primary care costs did not significantly differ. Lower-risk drinkers did not have significantly different medical costs compared with those who were abstinent over 5 years. However, post hoc analyses found lower-risk drinkers and heavy drinkers to not significantly differ in their ED use or costs over time., Conclusions: Performance measures for treatment settings that consider treatment outcomes may need to take into account both abstinence and reduction to nonheavy drinking. Future research should examine whether results are replicated in harm reduction treatment, or whether such outcomes are found only in abstinence-based treatment., (Copyright © 2013 by the Research Society on Alcoholism.)

During the past decade, significant advances have been made in the development of medications to treat alcohol dependence. Four medications have been approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration for treating alcohol dependence-naltrexone, injectable naltrexone, acamprosate, and disulfiram-and several others show promise. The fact remains, however, that because of the heterogeneity of alcohol dependence, these medications will not work for all people, in all circumstances. Moreover, clinicians are not routinely prescribing these medications for alcohol treatment. This commentary poses a number of issues that must be addressed in order to advance the alcohol research field and to make medications a mainstream treatment for problematic drinking. These issues are framed from the perspective of the various stakeholders involved, including clinicians, patients, regulatory agencies, the pharmaceutical industry, and third-party payers. Addressing these issues will not only help to improve treatment but, as further described, will also open up many new research opportunities for alcohol investigators in the coming decade., (Copyright © 2013 by the Research Society on Alcoholism.)

Background: The placebo effect often undermines efforts to determine treatment effectiveness in clinical trials. A significant placebo response occurs in alcohol trials, but it is not well understood. The purpose of this study was to characterize the placebo response across multiple naltrexone and acamprosate studies., Methods: Fifty-one trials, 3 with a naltrexone and an acamprosate arm, 31 with at least 1 naltrexone arm, and 17 with at least 1 acamprosate arm, were identified from Cochrane reviews and PubMed search. To be included in this study, patients had to be at least 18 years old, abstinent from alcohol before randomization, and meet a diagnosis of alcohol dependence. Pearson correlation coefficients (rp ) and simple linear regression were used to describe the strength of linear relationships between placebo response and treatment effect size. Spearman's rank correlation coefficients (rs ) were used to examine the strength of associations between study characteristics and placebo response., Results: For the end point measures of percent days abstinent and total abstinence, a negative relationship was evident between placebo response and treatment effect size in the naltrexone trials (rp  = -0.55, p < 0.01 and rp  = -0.20, p = 0.35, respectively) as well as in the acamprosate trials (rp  = -0.45, p = 0.09 and rp  = -0.56, p = 0.01, respectively). The placebo response for percent days abstinent was negatively correlated with mean age of participants (rs  = -0.42, p = 0.05) across naltrexone trials and positively correlated with publication year (rs  = 0.57, p = 0.03) across acamprosate trials. However, these 2 study characteristics were not significantly correlated with treatment effect size., Conclusions: The placebo response varied considerably across trials and was negatively correlated with the treatment effect size. Additional studies are required to fully understand the complex nature of the placebo response and to evaluate approaches to minimize its effects., (Copyright © 2013 by the Research Society on Alcoholism.)

Objectives: To assess the efficacy and safety of varenicline (Chantix) for the treatment of alcohol dependence. Varenicline is a partial α4β2 nicotinic acetylcholine agonist approved by the Food and Drug Administration for smoking cessation. It has reduced drinking in animal studies and in small studies of humans who were both heavy drinkers and smokers. This is the first multisite clinical trial of varenicline in a population of smokers and nonsmokers with alcohol dependence., Methods: Men and women (n = 200) meeting the criteria for alcohol dependence were recruited across 5 clinical sites. Patients received double-blind varenicline or placebo and a computerized behavioral intervention. Varenicline was titrated during the first week to 2 mg/d, which was maintained during weeks 2 to 13., Results: The varenicline group had significantly lower weekly percent heavy drinking days (primary outcome) (adjusted mean difference = 10.4), drinks per day, drinks per drinking day, and alcohol craving compared with the placebo group (P < 0.05). The average treatment effect on alcohol use was similar for smokers and nonsmokers. Varenicline was well-tolerated; adverse events were expected and mild., Conclusions: Varenicline significantly reduced alcohol consumption and craving, making it a potentially viable option for the treatment of alcohol dependence.

The accurate assessment of drinking by patients with alcoholic liver disease is important both before and after liver transplantation. Unfortunately, self-reports by these individuals often underestimate their actual alcohol consumption. Several recently developed biochemical measures can provide additional information on a patient's use of alcohol. This article describes ethyl glucuronide, ethyl sulfate, phosphatidyl ethanol, and carbohydrate-deficient transferrin as biomarkers of drinking and summarizes research dealing with their application in patients with alcohol use disorders who are candidates for or recipients of liver transplantation. The article also offers suggestions for enhancing the reliability of self-report measures of drinking status., (Copyright © 2013 American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases.)

Background: Treatment for alcohol disorders has traditionally been abstinence-oriented, but evaluating the merits of a low-risk drinking outcome as part of a primary treatment endpoint is a timely issue given new pertinent regulatory guidelines. This study explores a posttreatment low-risk drinking outcome as a predictor of future drinking and problem severity outcomes among individuals with alcohol use disorders in a large private, not for profit, integrated care health plan., Methods: Study participants include adults with alcohol use disorders at 6 months (N = 995) from 2 large randomized studies. Logistic regression models were used to explore the relationship between past 30-day drinker status at 6 months posttreatment (abstinent [66%], low-risk drinking [14%] defined as nonabstinence and no days of 5+ drinking, and heavy drinking [20%] defined as 1 or more days of 5+ drinking) and 12-month outcomes, including drinking status and Addiction Severity Index measures of medical, psychiatric, family/social, and employment severity, controlling for baseline covariates., Results: Compared to heavy drinkers, abstinent individuals and low-risk drinkers at 6 months were more likely to be abstinent or low-risk drinkers at 12 months (adj. ORs = 16.7 and 3.4, respectively; p < 0.0001); though, the benefit of abstinence was much greater than that of low-risk drinking. Compared to heavy drinkers, abstinent and low-risk drinkers were similarly associated with lower 12-month psychiatric severity (adj. ORs = 1.8 and 2.2, respectively, p < 0.01) and family/social problem severity (adj. OR = 2.2; p < 0.01). While abstinent individuals had lower 12-month employment severity than heavy drinkers (adj. OR = 1.9; p < 0.01), low-risk drinkers did not differ from heavy drinkers. The drinking groups did not differ on 12-month medical problem severity., Conclusions: Compared to heavy drinkers, low-risk drinkers did as well as abstinent individuals for many of the outcomes important to health and addiction policy. Thus, an endpoint that allows low-risk drinking may be tenable for individuals undergoing alcohol specialty treatment., (Copyright © 2012 by the Research Society on Alcoholism.)

Background: Despite advances in the development of medications to treat alcohol dependence, few medications have been approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration. The use of certain anticonvulsant medications has demonstrated potential efficacy in treating alcohol dependence. Previous research suggests that the anticonvulsant levetiracetam may be beneficial in an alcohol-dependent population of very heavy drinkers., Methods: In this double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled clinical trial, 130 alcohol-dependent patients who reported very heavy drinking were recruited across 5 clinical sites. Patients received either levetiracetam extended-release (XR) or placebo and a Brief Behavioral Compliance Enhancement Treatment intervention. Levetiracetam XR was titrated during the first 4 weeks to 2,000 mg/d. This target dose was maintained during weeks 5 through 14 and was tapered during weeks 15 and 16., Results: No significant differences were detected between the levetiracetam XR and placebo groups in either the primary outcomes (percent heavy drinking days and percent subjects with no heavy drinking days) or in other secondary drinking outcomes. Treatment groups did not differ on a number of nondrinking outcomes, including depression, anxiety, mood, and quality of life. The only difference observed was in alcohol-related consequences. The levetiracetam XR treatment group showed significantly fewer consequences than did the placebo group during the maintenance period (p = 0.02). Levetiracetam XR was well tolerated, with fatigue being the only significantly elevated adverse event, compared with placebo (53% vs. 24%, respectively; p = 0.001)., Conclusions: This multisite clinical trial showed no efficacy for levetiracetam XR compared with placebo in reducing alcohol consumption in heavy drinking alcohol-dependent patients., (Copyright © 2012 by the Research Society on Alcoholism.)

More than 76 million people world-wide are estimated to have diagnosable alcohol use disorders (AUDs) (alcohol abuse or dependence), making these disorders a major global health problem. Pharmacotherapy offers promising means for treating AUDs, and significant progress has been made in the past 20 years. The US Food and Drug Administration approved three of the four medications for alcoholism in the last two decades. Unfortunately, these medications do not work for everyone, prompting the need for a personalized approach to optimize clinical benefit or more efficacious medications that can treat a wider range of patients, or both. To promote global health, the potential reorganization of the National Institutes of Health (NIH) must continue to support the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism's (NIAAA's) vision of ensuring the development and delivery of new and more efficacious medications to treat AUDs in the coming decade. To achieve this objective, the NIAAA Medications Development Team has identified three fundamental long-range goals: (1) to make the drug development process more efficient; (2) to identify more efficacious medications, personalize treatment approaches, or both; and (3) to facilitate the implementation and adaptation of medications in real-world treatment settings. These goals will be carried out through seven key objectives. This paper describes those objectives in terms of rationale and strategy. Successful implementation of these objectives will result in the development of more efficacious and safe medications, provide a greater selection of therapy options and ultimately lessen the impact of this devastating disorder., (Published 2012. This article is a U.S. Government work and is in the public domain in the USA.)

Background: Despite advances in developing medications to treat alcohol dependence, few such medications have been approved by the Food and Drug Administration. Identified molecular targets are encouraging and can lead to the development and testing of new compounds. Atypical antipsychotic medications have been explored with varying results. Prior research suggests that the antipsychotic quetiapine may be beneficial in an alcohol-dependent population of very heavy drinkers., Methods: In this double-blind, placebo-controlled trial, 224 alcohol-dependent patients who reported very heavy drinking were recruited across 5 clinical sites. Patients received either quetiapine or placebo and Medical Management behavioral intervention. Patients were stratified on gender, clinical site, and reduction in drinking prior to randomization., Results: No differences between the quetiapine and placebo groups were detected in the primary outcome, percentage heavy-drinking days, or other drinking outcomes. Quetiapine significantly reduced depressive symptoms and improved sleep but had no effect on other nondrinking outcomes. Results from a subgroup analysis suggest that patients who reduced their drinking prior to randomization had significantly better drinking outcomes during the maintenance phase (p < 0.0001). No significant interactions, however, were observed between reducer status and treatment group. Finally, quetiapine was generally well tolerated. Statistically significant adverse events that were more common with quetiapine versus placebo include dizziness (14 vs. 4%), dry mouth (32 vs. 9%), dyspepsia (13 vs. 2%), increased appetite (11 vs. 1%), sedation (15 vs. 3%), and somnolence (34 vs. 9%)., Conclusions: This multisite clinical trial showed no efficacy for quetiapine compared with placebo at reducing alcohol consumption in heavy-drinking alcohol-dependent patients., (Copyright © 2011 by the Research Society on Alcoholism.)

Background: Percent subjects with no heavy drinking days (PSNHDDs), an efficacy end point recommended by the Food and Drug Administration, considers abstinent individuals or those engaging in low-risk drinking behavior as successful responders to treatment. As PSNHDD has been used infrequently in previous alcohol clinical trials, we evaluated the utility and validity of the PSNHDD outcome measure in 2 large alcohol clinical trials., Methods: Data sets from 2 alcohol trials, COMBINE and a multisite topiramate trial, were used to analyze PSNHDDs and other traditional end points for the topiramate, naltrexone, acamprosate, and placebo groups. Effect sizes of PSNHDDs were determined for each month of active treatment and by varying grace periods-early periods in the trial where outcome is not considered in the analysis-and were compared with that of other traditional outcome measures. Long-term outcomes were compared for groups that had no heavy drinking days versus those that had heavy drinking days during active treatment., Results: PSNHDD effect sizes were significant for both topiramate (0.34 and 0.25 at months 2 and 3, respectively) and naltrexone (0.24 and 0.26 at months 3 and 4, respectively). Given a 2-month grace period for naltrexone, the effect size of PSNHDDs was comparable to the effect sizes using traditional outcome measures. With a 1-month grace period for topiramate, it was greater than the majority of traditional outcome measures. Little is gained by allowing up to 1, 2, or 3 heavy drinking days as an end point. Subjects with no HDDs during treatment fared better than those with some HDDs on drinking outcomes and alcohol-related consequences during a 1-year follow-up., Conclusions: PSNHDD appears to be a clinically informative end point measure, especially when used with a grace period, and is as sensitive as most traditional outcome measures in detecting differences between the medication and placebo groups. Nonetheless, these findings should be replicated in other clinical data sets, particularly with medications that work via different mechanisms., (Copyright © 2010 by the Research Society on Alcoholism. No claim to original U.S. government works.)

During the past decade, advances have been made in the identification, development, and application of alcohol biomarkers. This is important because of the unique functions that alcohol biomarkers can serve in various applied settings. To carry out these functions, biomarkers must display several features including validity, reliability, adequacy of temporal window of assessment, reasonable cost, and transportability. During the past two decades, several traditional alcohol biomarkers have been studied in multiple human studies. Meanwhile, several new, promising biomarkers, including various alcohol metabolites and alcohol biosensors, are being explored in human studies. In addition, researchers have explored using biomarkers in combination and using biomarkers in combination with self-reports, resulting in increased sensitivity with little sacrifice in specificity. Despite these advances, more research is needed to validate biomarkers, especially the new ones, in humans. Moreover, recent advances in high-throughput technologies for genomics, proteomics, and metabolomics offer unique opportunities to discover novel biomarkers, while additional research is needed to perfect newly developed alcohol sensors. Development of more accurate biomarkers will help practicing clinicians to more effectively screen and monitor individuals who suffer from alcohol use disorders.

Treatment of alcohol disorders through the use of combinations of pharmacological and behavioral modalities may more effectively address the multicomponent nature of the disorder than single-modality approaches. Interdisciplinary models of the biological, psychological and social components of alcohol disorders are emerging rapidly from basic research, and treatment researchers have begun to test various strategies to combine medications and behavioral treatments. In addition to behavioral and pharmacological combinations, effective treatment pairs can be composed of two medications whose mechanisms of action are believed to be compatible and potentially additive, or even synergistic. Combining Medications and Behavioral Interventions (COMBINE) is a large multisite clinical trial sponsored by the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism. Its goal is to determine if improvements in treatment outcome for alcohol dependence can be achieved by combining pharmacotherapy and behavioral interventions. Under evaluation is the efficacy of two promising medications (naltrexone and acamprosate), both singly and together, when used in conjunction with two behavioral treatments of differing intensities. This supplement describes in detail the methods and rationale for the approach taken in COMBINE. This first article in the supplement has three objectives: (1) to review strategies for conducting combination treatment studies as illustrated with selected examples from the literature, (2) to summarize the main design features of COMBINE as background for the articles in this supplement and (3) to comment on future directions for combination treatment research as the field moves beyond COMBINE.