Search

BackgroundSeveral single-site alcohol treatment clinical trials have demonstrated efficacy for immediate-release (IR) gabapentin in reducing drinking outcomes among individuals with alcohol dependence. The purpose of this study was to conduct a large, multisite clinical trial of gabapentin enacarbil extended-release (GE-XR) (HORIZANT® ), a gabapentin prodrug formulation, to determine its safety and efficacy in treating alcohol use disorder (AUD).MethodsMen and women (n = 346) who met DSM-5 criteria for at least moderate AUD were recruited across 10 U.S. clinical sites. Participants received double-blind GE-XR (600 mg twice a day) or placebo and a computerized behavioral intervention (Take Control) for 6 months. Efficacy analyses were prespecified for the last 4 weeks of the treatment period.ResultsThe GE-XR and placebo groups did not differ significantly on the primary outcome measure, percentage of subjects with no heavy drinking days (28.3 vs. 21.5, respectively, p = 0.157). Similarly, no clinical benefit was found for other drinking measures (percent subjects abstinent, percent days abstinent, percent heavy drinking days, drinks per week, drinks per drinking day), alcohol craving, alcohol-related consequences, sleep problems, smoking, and depression/anxiety symptoms. Common side-effects were fatigue, dizziness, and somnolence. A population pharmacokinetics analysis revealed that patients had lower gabapentin exposure levels compared with those in other studies using a similar dose but for other indications.ConclusionsOverall, GE-XR at 600 mg twice a day did not reduce alcohol consumption or craving in individuals with AUD. It is possible that, unlike the IR formulation of gabapentin, which showed efficacy in smaller Phase 2 trials at a higher dose, GE-XR is not effective in treating AUD, at least not at doses approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration for treating other medical conditions.

BackgroundTreatment 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.MethodsStudy 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%).ResultsAbstainers 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.ConclusionsThe findings suggest that a low-risk drinking outcome may be reasonable over the long-term for some alcohol-dependent individuals receiving addiction treatment.

BackgroundThe development and approval of an efficacious pharmacotherapy for stimulant use disorders has been limited by the lack of a meaningful indicator of treatment success, other than sustained abstinence.MethodsIn March, 2015, a meeting sponsored by Analgesic, Anesthetic, and Addiction Clinical Trial Translations, Innovations, Opportunities, and Networks (ACTTION) was convened to discuss the current state of the evidence regarding meaningful outcome measures in clinical trials for stimulant use disorders. Attendees included members of academia, funding and regulatory agencies, pharmaceutical companies, and healthcare organizations. The goal was to establish a research agenda for the development of a meaningful outcome measure that may be used as an endpoint in clinical trials for stimulant use disorders.Results and conclusionsBased on guidelines for the selection of clinical trial endpoints, the lessons learned from prior addiction clinical trials, and the process that led to identification of a meaningful indicator of treatment success for alcohol use disorders, several recommendations for future research were generated. These include a focus on the validation of patient reported outcome measures of functioning, the exploration of patterns of stimulant abstinence that may be associated with physical and/or psychosocial benefits, the role of urine testing for validating self-reported measures of stimulant abstinence, and the operational definitions for reduction-based measures in terms of frequency rather than quantity of stimulant use. These recommendations may be useful for secondary analyses of clinical trial data, and in the design of future clinical trials that may help establish a meaningful indicator of treatment success.

BackgroundLower-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.MethodsParticipants 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.ResultsHeavy 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

BackgroundTreatment 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.MethodsStudy 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.ResultsCompared 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.ConclusionsCompared 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.

BackgroundTreatment 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.MethodsStudy 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.ResultsCompared 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.ConclusionsCompared 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.

The 2001-2002 National Epidemiologic Survey on Alcohol and Related Conditions (NESARC) sought to determine the prevalence of drinking, smoking, and associated disorders in the general population. This survey, which includes [...]

The article offers information on priority areas for improving medications development for alcohol use disorder and promoting. It mentions about the drug development process more efficient in terms of speed, cost, and predictability and also focuses on the U.S. Food and Drug Administration's (FDA's) approval of disulfiram.

Importance: The US Food and Drug Administration recognizes total abstinence and no heavy drinking days as outcomes for pivotal pharmacotherapy trials for alcohol use disorder (AUD). Many patients have difficulty achieving these outcomes, which can discourage seeking treatment and has slowed the development of medications that affect alcohol use.Objective: To compare 2 drinking-reduction outcomes with total abstinence and no heavy drinking outcomes.Design, Setting, and Participants: Data were obtained from 3 multisite, randomized, placebo-controlled clinical trials of medications for treating alcohol dependence (naltrexone, varenicline, and topiramate) in adults with DSM-IV-categorized alcohol dependence.Main Outcomes and Measures: Within each trial, the percentage of participants in active and placebo conditions who met responder definitions of abstinence, no heavy drinking days, a WHO 1-level reduction, and a WHO 2-level reduction was computed by month with corresponding effect sizes (Cohen h).Results: Across the 3 trials (N = 1169; mean [SD] age, 45 [10] years; 824 [70.5%] men), the percentage of participants classified as responders during the last 4 weeks of treatment was lowest for abstinence (naltrexone, 34.7% [100 of 288]; varenicline, 7.3% [7 of 96]; topiramate, 11.7% [21 of 179]) followed by no heavy drinking days (naltrexone, 51.0% [147 of 288]; varenicline, 24.0% [23 of 96]; topiramate, 20.7% [37 of 179]), WHO 2-level reduction (naltrexone, 75.0% [216 of 288]; varenicline, 55.2% [53 of 96]; topiramate, 44.7% [80 of 179]), and WHO 1-level reduction (naltrexone, 83.3% [240 of 288]; varenicline, 69.8 [67 of 96]; topiramate, 54.7% [98 of 179]) outcomes. Standardized treatment effects observed for the WHO 2-level reduction outcomes (naltrexone, Cohen h = 0.214 [95% CI, 0.053 -0.375]; varenicline, 0.273 [95% CI, -0.006 to 0.553]; topiramate, 0.230 [95% CI, 0.024-0.435]) and WHO 1-level reduction (naltrexone, Cohen h = 0.116 [95% CI, -0.046 to 0.277]; varenicline, 0.338 [95% CI, 0.058-0.617]; topiramate, 0.014 [95% CI, -0.192 to 0.219]) were comparable with those obtained using abstinence (naltrexone, Cohen h = 0.142 [95% CI, -0.020 to 0.303]; varenicline, 0.146 [95% CI, -0.133 to 0.426]; topiramate, 0.369 [95% CI, 0.163-0.574]) and no heavy drinking days (naltrexone, Cohen h = 0.140 [95% CI, -0.021 to 0.302]; varenicline, 0.232 [95% CI, -0.048 to 0.511]; topiramate, 0.207 [95% CI, 0.002-0.413]).Conclusions and Relevance: WHO drinking risk level reductions appear to be worthwhile indicators of treatment outcome in AUD pharmacotherapy trials. These outcomes may align with drinking reduction goals of many patients and capture clinically meaningful improvements experienced by more patients than either abstinence or no heavy drinking days.Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov identifiers: NCT00006206; NCT01146613; NCT00210925. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Missing data are common in alcohol clinical trials for both continuous and binary end points. Approaches to handle missing data have been explored for continuous outcomes, yet no studies have compared missing data approaches for binary outcomes (e.g., abstinence, no heavy drinking days). This study compares approaches to modeling binary outcomes with missing data in the COMBINE study. Methods: We included participants in the COMBINE study who had complete drinking data during treatment and who were assigned to active medication or placebo conditions (N = 1,146). Using simulation methods, missing data were introduced under common scenarios with varying sample sizes and amounts of missing data. Logistic regression was used to estimate the effect of naltrexone (vs. placebo) in predicting any drinking and any heavy drinking outcomes at the end of treatment using 4 analytic approaches: complete case analysis (CCA), last observation carried forward (LOCF), the worst case scenario (WCS) of missing equals any drinking or heavy drinking, and multiple imputation (MI). In separate analyses, these approaches were compared when drinking data were manually deleted for those participants who discontinued treatment but continued to provide drinking data. Results: WCS produced the greatest amount of bias in treatment effect estimates. MI usually yielded less biased estimates than WCS and CCA in the simulated data and performed considerably better than LOCF when estimating treatment effects among individuals who discontinued treatment. Conclusions: Missing data can introduce bias in treatment effect estimates in alcohol clinical trials. Researchers should utilize modern missing data methods, including MI, and avoid WCS and CCA when analyzing binary alcohol clinical trial outcomes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: Several definitions of treatment response have been proposed for alcohol clinical trials (e.g., abstinence and no heavy drinking). However, each of these outcomes allows only one definition of successful response. In contrast, the cumulative proportion of responders analysis (CPRA) includes all of the possible drinking response cutoff points, providing a more complete picture of the therapeutic effects of a treatment. CPRA has been used to examine the efficacy of analgesics but not alcohol pharmacotherapy. To demonstrate its potential utility, we conducted CPRA in two large alcohol treatment trials: the COMBINE (Combined Pharmacotherapies and Behavioral Interventions for Alcohol Dependence) trial (naltrexone) and a multisite topiramate trial. CPRA was used to demonstrate the efficacy of naltrexone and topiramate on continuous measures of in-treatment drinking--heavy drinking days and drinks per day and their reductions from pretreatment. Method: All possible cutoff points were portrayed for each measure. We provide graphs to illustrate the effects of the active medications compared with placebo and examined them statistically over a number of salient drinking outcomes to evaluate their efficacy. Results: Treatment group responder curves were not parallel across the entire range of cutoff points; rather, they separated only at lower levels of drinking. In general, effect sizes increased by 0.10-0.15 when going from the lowest drinking level cutoff (i.e., abstinence and no heavy drinking) to the cutoff associated with the maximal treatment effect. Conclusions: CPRA may be useful in designing subsequent trials and helping to illustrate for treatment providers the likelihood of treatment success given various definitions of a positive response. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Although progress has been made in the treatment of alcohol use disorders, more effective treatments are needed. In the last 15 years, several medications have been approved for use in alcohol dependence but have only limited effectiveness and clinical acceptance. While academics have developed some 'standards' for the performance of clinical trials for alcohol dependence, they vary considerably, in the type of populations to be studied, the length of trials, salient outcome measures, and data analyses to be used (especially in the treatment of missing data). This variability impedes the commercial development of medications to treat alcohol dependence. Using a model similar to that used to develop an expert consensus for medications to improve cognitive aspects of schizophrenia (MATRICS) and in the treatment of pain (IMMPACT), a workgroup has been formed under the auspices of ACNP, known as the ACTIVE (Alcohol Clinical Trials Initiative) group, to evaluate data from completed clinical trials to develop a consensus on key issues in the conduct of clinical trials in alcohol dependence. ACTIVE consists of academic experts, industry representatives, and staff from the Food and Drug Administration, the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism, and the National Institute on Drug Abuse. This paper describes the rationale behind the effort, its history and organization, and initial key questions that have been identified as the primary focus of the workgroup. Future papers will focus on knowledge gained from the re-analysis of completed trials and provide consensus opinions regarding the performance of clinical trials that might be undertaken in the future. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]