Alcohol use disorder (AUD) is a highly prevalent but severely under-treated disorder, with only three widely-approved pharmacotherapies. Given that AUD is a very heterogeneous disorder, it is unlikely that one single medication will be effective for all individuals with an AUD. As such, there is a need to develop new, more effective, and diverse pharmacological treatment options for AUD with the hopes of increasing utilization and improving care. In this qualitative literature review, we discuss the efficacy, mechanism of action, and tolerability of approved, repurposed, and novel pharmacotherapies for the treatment of AUD with a clinical perspective. Pharmacotherapies discussed include: disulfiram, acamprosate, naltrexone, nalmefene, topiramate, gabapentin, varenicline, baclofen, sodium oxybate, aripiprazole, ondansetron, mifepristone, ibudilast, suvorexant, prazosin, doxazosin, N-acetylcysteine, GET73, ASP8062, ABT-436, PF-5190457, and cannabidiol. Overall, many repurposed and novel agents discussed in this review demonstrate clinical effectiveness and promise for the future of AUD treatment. Importantly, these medications also offer potential improvements towards the advancement of precision medicine and personalized treatment for the heterogeneous AUD population. However, there remains a great need to improve access to treatment, increase the menu of approved pharmacological treatments, and de-stigmatize and increase treatment-seeking for AUD.

Ibudilast, a neuroimmune modulator which selectively inhibits phosphodiesterases (PDE)-3, -4, -10, and -11, and macrophage migration inhibitory factor (MIF), shows promise as a novel pharmacotherapy for alcohol use disorder (AUD). However, the mechanisms of action underlying ibudilast’s effects on the human brain remain largely unknown. Thus, the current study examined the efficacy of ibudilast to improve negative mood, reduce heavy drinking, and attenuate neural reward signals in individuals with AUD. Fifty-two nontreatment-seeking individuals with AUD were randomized to receive ibudilast (n = 24) or placebo (n = 28). Participants completed a 2-week daily diary study during which they filled out daily reports of their past day drinking, mood, and craving. Participants completed an functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) alcohol cue-reactivity paradigm half-way through the study. Ibudilast did not have a significant effect on negative mood (β = −0.34, p = 0.62). However, ibudilast, relative to placebo, reduced the odds of heavy drinking across time by 45% (OR = 0.55, (95% CI: 0.30, 0.98)). Ibudilast also attenuated alcohol cue-elicited activation in the ventral striatum (VS) compared to placebo (F(1,44) = 7.36, p = 0.01). Alcohol cue-elicited activation in the VS predicted subsequent drinking in the ibudilast group (F(1,44) = 6.39, p = 0.02), such that individuals who had attenuated ventral striatal activation and took ibudilast had the fewest number of drinks per drinking day in the week following the scan. These findings extend preclinical and human laboratory studies of the utility of ibudilast to treat AUD and suggest a biobehavioral mechanism through which ibudilast acts, namely, by reducing the rewarding response to alcohol cues in the brain leading to a reduction in heavy drinking.

No abstract

This study examines associations between two measures of impulsivity and brain response to alcohol taste cues. Impulsivity is both a risk factor for and a consequence of alcohol use and misuse. Frontostriatal circuits are linked to both impulsivity and addiction-related behaviors, including response to alcohol cues. Non-treatment-seeking heavy drinkers (n = 55) completed (i) an fMRI alcohol taste cue-reactivity paradigm; (ii) the monetary choice questionnaire (MCQ), a measure of choice impulsivity where participants choose between smaller, sooner rewards and larger, delayed rewards; (iii) and the UPPS-P Impulsive Behavior Scale, a self-report measure assessing five impulsivity factors. General linear models identified associations between neural alcohol taste cue-reactivity and impulsivity, adjusting for age, gender, and smoking status. Selfreported sensation seeking was positively associated with alcohol taste cue-elicited activation in frontostriatal regions, such that individuals who reported higher sensation seeking displayed greater neural response to alcohol taste cues. Conversely, delay discounting was negatively associated with activation in frontoparietal regions, such that individuals who reported greater discounting showed less cue-elicited activation. There were no significant associations between other self-reported impulsivity subscales and alcohol taste cue-reactivity. These results indicate that sensation seeking is associated with reward responsivity, while delay discounting is associated with recruitment of self-control circuitry.

Cognitive control dysfunction in MDD may persist after remission of mood symptoms MDD patients received rTMS treatment and performed the Stroop task pre-and post-rTMS Accuracy and reaction times improved particularly for responders in the incongruent condition Older subject had greatest accuracy improvement after rTMS rTMS is a promising approach for treatment of both clinical and cognitive symptoms