Objective It is well known to clinicians and researchers in the field of alcoholism that patients vary with respect to drinking goal. The objective of this study is to elucidate the contribution of drinking goal to treatment outcome in the context of specific behavioral and pharmacological interventions. Method Participants were 1226 alcohol dependent individuals enrolled in a large, multi-site trial of Combined Behavioral Intervention (CBI), acamprosate, and naltrexone. Drinking goal was coded as follows: (a) controlled drinking, (b) conditional abstinence, and (c) complete abstinence. Results Analysis revealed a main effect of drinking goal on percent days abstinent (p < .0001), days to relapse to heavy drinking (p < 0.0001), and global clinical outcome (p < .001). These results were such that a goal of complete abstinence was associated with the best outcomes, followed by conditional abstinence; controlled drinking was associated with the poorest outcomes. Conversely, a main effect of drinking goal was observed on drinks per drinking day (p < .01), such that controlled drinking was associated with fewer drinks per drinking day whereas complete abstinence was associated with the highest drinks per drinking day. CBI performed better than medical management alone for participants whose drinking goal was not complete abstinence. Conclusion These results suggest that drinking goal represents a highly predictive clinical variable and should be an integral part of the clinical assessment of patients with alcohol dependence. Assessment of patients' drinking goals may also help match patients to interventions best suited to address their goals and clinical needs.

Methamphetamine (MA) use disorder is a serious psychiatric condition for which there are no FDA-approved medications. Naltrexone (NTX) is an opioid receptor antagonist with demonstrated efficacy, albeit moderate, for the treatment of alcoholism and opioid dependence. Preclinical and clinical studies suggest that NTX may be useful for the treatment of MA use disorder. To inform treatment development, we conducted a double-blind, randomized, crossover, placebo-controlled human laboratory study of NTX. Non-treatmentseeking individuals meeting DSM-IV criteria for MA abuse or dependence (n = 30) completed two separate 5-day inpatient stays. During each admission, participants completed testing sessions comprised of MA cue-reactivity and intravenous MA administration (30 mg) after receiving oral NTX (50 mg) or placebo for 4 days. This study tested the hypotheses that NTX would (a) attenuate cue-induced MA craving, and (b) reduce subjective responses to MA administration. Results largely supported the study hypotheses such that (a) NTX significantly blunted cue-induced craving for MA and (b) attenuated several of the hedonic subjective effects of MA, including craving, during controlled MA administration and as compared with placebo. NTX decreased overall subjective ratings of 'crave drug,' 'stimulated,' and 'would like drug access,' decreased the the post-MA administration timecourse of 'anxious' and increased ratings of 'bad drug effects,' as compared with placebo. These findings support a potential mechanism of action by showing that NTX reduced cue-induced craving and subjective responses to MA. This is consistent with positive treatment studies of NTX for amphetamine dependence, as well as ongoing clinical trials for MA.

Background While methamphetamine (MA) and alcohol are often used in combination, little is known about the pattern of co-use between these substances. The goal of the present study is to examine the relationship between MA use and alcohol use in a community sample of non-treatment seeking regular MA users. Methods Participants completed a face-to-face assessment battery, which included a diagnostic interview for MA dependence and the Timeline Follow-Back interview for both alcohol and MA use over the past 30 days. Sixty regular MA and alcohol users supplied data for 1800 person-days. Results Compared with non-drinking days, drinking days and binge drinking days increased the odds of same day MA use by 4.22 and 4.50 times, respectively (p’s < 0.0001). Further, binge drinking incrementally increased risk for MA use above and beyond the effects of drinking itself (p < 0.0001). Lagged models revealed previous day MA use to predict following day MA use (p < 0.0001), yet, after controlling for this relationship, neither previous day alcohol use nor previous day binge drinking predicted following-day MA use. Finally, the effect of binge drinking on MA use was stronger among individuals with lower MA dependence severity or higher alcohol problem severity (p’s < 0.05). Conclusions These results suggest that alcohol and MA are co-used in predictable patterns, and in particular, that binge drinking may be incrementally associated with the likelihood of MA use. Future studies are needed to explore the temporal relationship between alcohol and MA use within a given episode.

No abstract

Background Ivermectin (IVM) is an antiparasitic agent that has been shown to reduce alcohol intake in mice, suggesting IVM as a potential treatment for alcohol use disorder (AUD). However, the safety profile of IVM administered in combination with an intoxicating dose of alcohol has not been characterized in humans. Methods This pilot project sought to provide the first clinical evidence that IVM could be repositioned as an AUD pharmacotherapy by examining 1) the safety of combining IVM (30 mg oral QD) with an intoxicating dose of intravenous alcohol (0.08 g/dl) and 2) the effects of IVM on alcohol cue-induced craving and subjective response to alcohol. Eleven individuals with AUD participated in a randomized, placebo-controlled, crossover study in which they received the study medication, participated in a cue exposure paradigm followed by intravenous alcohol administration, and remained in an inpatient unit overnight for observation. Results Ivermectin treatment, vs. placebo, did not increase the number or severity of adverse effects during alcohol administration or throughout the visit. However, IVM did not reduce cue-induced craving nor did it significantly affect subjective response to alcohol. Conclusions These results suggest that IVM (30 mg oral, QD) is safe in combination with an intoxicating dose of alcohol, but do not provide evidence that this dose of IVM is effective in reducing alcohol craving or its reinforcing effects. Given the preclinical data suggesting IVM is effective in reducing alcohol consumption in mice, additional studies testing larger samples and alternate dosing regimens are warranted to further characterize the potential efficacy of IVM as an AUD treatment.