Ann L. Anderson

Bupropion for the Treatment of Methamphetamine Dependence

Bupropion was tested for efficacy in increasing weeks of abstinence in methamphetamine-dependent patients, compared to placebo. This was a double-blind placebo-controlled study, with 12 weeks of treatment and a 30-day follow-up. Five outpatient substance abuse treatment clinics located west of the Mississippi participated in the study. One hundred and fifty-one treatment-seekers with DSM-IV diagnosis of methamphetamine dependence were consented and enrolled. Seventy-two participants were randomized to placebo and 79 to sustained-release bupropion 150 mg twice daily. Patients were asked to come to the clinic three times per week for assessments, urine drug screens, and 90-min group psychotherapy. The primary outcome was the change in proportion of participants having a methamphetamine-free week. Secondary outcomes included: urine for quantitative methamphetamine, self-report of methamphetamine use, subgroup analyses of balancing factors and comorbid conditions, addiction severity, craving, risk behaviors for HIV, and use of other substances. The generalized estimating equation regression analysis showed that, overall, the difference between bupropion and placebo groups in the probability of a non-use week over the 12-week treatment period was not statistically significant (p=0.09). Mixed model regression was used to allow adjustment for baseline factors in addition to those measured (site, gender, level of baseline use, and level of symptoms of depression). This subgroup analysis showed that bupropion had a significant effect compared to placebo, among male patients who had a lower level of methamphetamine use at baseline (p<0.0001). Comorbid depression and attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder did not change the outcome. These data suggest that bupropion, in combination with behavioral group therapy, was effective for increasing the number of weeks of abstinence in participants with low-to-moderate methamphetamine dependence, mainly male patients, regardless of their comorbid condition.

Modafinil for the treatment of cocaine dependence

AIM Modafinil was tested for efficacy in facilitating abstinence in cocaine-dependent patients, compared to placebo. METHODS This was a double-blind placebo-controlled study, with 12 weeks of treatment and a 4-week follow-up. Six outpatient substance abuse treatment clinics participated in the study. There were 210 treatment-seekers randomized, having a diagnosis of cocaine dependence; 72 participants were randomized to placebo, 69 to modafinil 200mg, and 69 to modafinil 400mg, taken once daily on awakening. Participants came to the clinic three times per week for assessments and urine drug screens, and had one hour of individual psychotherapy weekly. The primary outcome measure was the weekly percentage of cocaine non-use days. RESULTS The GEE regression analysis showed that for the total sample, there was no significant difference between either modafinil group and placebo in the change in average weekly percent of cocaine non-use days over the 12-week treatment period (p>0.79). However, two secondary outcomes showed significant effects by modafinil 200mg: the maximum number of consecutive non-use days for cocaine (p=0.02), and a reduction in craving (p=0.04). Also, a post hoc analysis showed a significant effect of modafinil that increased the weekly percentage of non-use days in the subgroup of those cocaine patients who did not have a history of alcohol dependence (p<0.02). CONCLUSIONS These data suggest that modafinil, in combination with individual behavioral therapy, was effective for increasing cocaine non-use days in participants without co-morbid alcohol dependence, and in reducing cocaine craving.

Modafinil for the treatment of methamphetamine dependence

AIM Modafinil was tested for efficacy in decreasing use in methamphetamine-dependent participants, compared to placebo. METHODS This was a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study, with 12 weeks of treatment and a 4-week follow-up. Eight outpatient substance abuse treatment clinics participated in the study. There were 210 treatment-seekers randomized, who all had a DSM-IV diagnosis of methamphetamine dependence; 68 participants to placebo, 72 to modafinil 200mg, and 70 to modafinil 400mg, taken once daily on awakening. Participants came to the clinic three times per week for assessments, urine drug screens, and group psychotherapy. The primary outcome measure was a methamphetamine non-use week, which required all the weeks qualitative urine drug screens to be negative for methamphetamine. RESULTS Regression analysis showed no significant difference between either modafinil group (200 or 400mg) or placebo in change in weekly percentage having a methamphetamine non-use week over the 12-week treatment period (p=0.53). Similarly, a number of secondary outcomes did not show significant effects of modafinil. However, an ad-hoc analysis of medication compliance, by urinalysis for modafinil and its metabolite, did find a significant difference in maximum duration of abstinence (23 days vs. 10 days, p=0.003), between those having the top quartile of compliance (>85% of urines were positive for modafinil, N=36), and the lower three quartiles of modafinil 200 and 400mg groups (N=106). CONCLUSIONS Although these data suggest that modafinil, plus group behavioral therapy, was not effective for decreasing methamphetamine use, the study is probably inconclusive because of inadequate compliance with taking medication.

Topiramate for the treatment of methamphetamine addiction: a multi-center placebo-controlled trial

AIMS   Topiramate has shown efficacy at facilitating abstinence from alcohol and cocaine abuse. This double-blind, placebo-controlled out-patient trial tested topiramate for treating methamphetamine addiction. DESIGN   Participants (n = 140) were randomized to receive topiramate or placebo (13 weeks) in escalating doses from 25 mg/day [DOSAGE ERROR CORRECTED] to the target maintenance of 200 mg/day in weeks 6-12 (tapered in week 13). Medication was combined with weekly brief behavioral compliance enhancement treatment. SETTING   The trial was conducted at eight medical centers in the United States. PARTICIPANTS   One hundred and forty methamphetamine-dependent adults took part in the trial. MEASUREMENTS   The primary outcome was abstinence from methamphetamine during weeks 6-12. Secondary outcomes included use reduction versus baseline, as well as psychosocial variables. FINDINGS   In the intent-to-treat analysis, topiramate did not increase abstinence from methamphetamine during weeks 6-12. For secondary outcomes, topiramate reduced weekly median urine methamphetamine levels and observer-rated severity of dependence scores significantly. Subjects with negative urine before randomization (n = 26) had significantly greater abstinence on topiramate versus placebo during study weeks 6-12. Topiramate was safe and well tolerated. CONCLUSIONS   Topiramate does not appear to promote abstinence in methamphetamine users but can reduce the amount taken and reduce relapse rates in those who are already abstinent.

A double-blind, placebo-controlled assessment of the safety of potential interactions between intravenous cocaine, ethanol, and oral disulfiram

BACKGROUND A majority of cocaine addicts have a comorbid alcohol use disorder. Previous studies demonstrated efficacy of disulfiram in the treatment of cocaine dependence among patients with comorbid alcohol use disorder or opioid dependence. However, the cardiac risks of a disulfiram-ethanol reaction (DER) in individuals who drink, when coupled with the cardiac effects of cocaine, could result in significant toxicity or lethality due to the 3-way drug interaction. AIMS This study examined the safety of combining cocaine (30 mg i.v.) and ethanol (0.4 g/kg i.v.) in disulfiram-treated (0, 250, and 500 mg/d, p.o.) cocaine-dependent research volunteers. RESULTS The results showed that disulfiram did not enhance the cardiovascular effects of cocaine and may have reduced the subjective high from cocaine. In contrast, ethanol produced adverse ECG changes including QTc prolongation and a DER consisting of hypotension, tachycardia, nausea, and flushing in disulfiram-treated subjects. The severity of the DER was related to disulfiram dose and the trial with 500 mg/d was stopped prematurely due to safety concerns. The DER-related hypotension and tachycardia seen with ethanol infusion alone in disulfiram-treated subjects, was not exacerbated when combined with cocaine. In fact, cocaine tended to counteract the ethanol-related hypotension though it did exacerbate the tachycardia in two of seven subjects. CONCLUSIONS Though conclusions are limited by the moderate doses of cocaine, ethanol, and disulfiram tested, the data do suggest that the risks of the moderate use of cocaine and ethanol in individuals treated with moderate doses of disulfiram (≤ 250 mg/d) may not be as problematic as some may assume.

Safety of atomoxetine in combination with intravenous cocaine in cocaine-experienced participants.

Objectives:Atomoxetine has been considered as an agonist replacement therapy for cocaine. We investigated the safety of the interaction of atomoxetine with cocaine and also whether cognitive function was affected by atomoxetine during short-term administration. Methods:In a double-blind placebo-controlled inpatient study of 20 cocaine-dependent volunteers, participants received atomoxetine 80 mg daily followed by 100 mg daily for 5 days each. On the fourth and fifth day at each dose, cocaine (20 and 40 mg) was infused intravenously in sequential daily sessions. Results:Preinfusion mean systolic pressures showed a small but statistically significant difference between placebo and both doses of atomoxetine. Preinfusion mean diastolic pressures were significant between placebo and atomoxetine 80 mg only. The diastolic pressure response to 40 mg cocaine was statistically significant only between the 80- and 100-mg atomoxetine doses. All electrocardiogram parameters were unchanged. Visual Analog Scale (VAS) scores for “bad effect” in the atomoxetine group were significantly higher at baseline, then declined, and for “likely to use” declined with atomoxetine treatment. On the Addiction Research Center Inventory, the atomoxetine group scored significantly lower on amphetamine, euphoria, and energy subscales (P < 0.0001). Other VAS descriptors, Brief Substance Craving Scale, Profile of Moods State, and Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale showed no differences. Atomoxetine did not affect cocaine pharmacokinetics. In tests of working memory, sustained attention, cognitive flexibility, and decision-making, atomoxetine improved performance on the visual n-back task. There were no differences in any pharmacokinetic parameters for cocaine with atomoxetine. Conclusions:Atomoxetine was tolerated safely by all participants. Certain cognitive improvements and a dampening effect on VAS scores after cocaine were observed, but should be weighed against small but significant differences in hemodynamic responses after atomoxetine.

Advantages of Joint Modeling of Component HIV Risk Behaviors and Non-Response: Application to Randomized Trials in Cocaine-Dependent and Methamphetamine-Dependent Populations

The HIV risk-taking behavior scale (HRBS) is an 11-item instrument designed to assess the risks of HIV infection due to self-reported injection-drug use and sexual behavior. A retrospective analysis was performed on HRBS data collected from approximately 1,000 participants pooled across seven clinical trials of pharmacotherapies for either the treatment of cocaine dependence or methamphetamine dependence. Analysis faced three important challenges. The sample contained a high proportion of missing assessments after randomization. Also, the HRBS scale consists of two distinct behavioral components which may or may not coincide in response patterns. In addition, distributions of responses on the subscales were highly concentrated at just a few values (e.g., 0, 6). To address these challenges, a single probit regression model was fit to three outcomes variables simultaneously – the two subscale totals plus an indicator variable for assessments not obtained (non-response). This joint-outcome regression model was able to identify that those who left assessment early had higher self-reported risk of injection-drug use and lower self-reported risky sexual behavior because the model was able to draw on information on associations among the three outcomes collectively. These findings were not identified in analyses performed on each outcome separately. No evidence for an effect of pharmacotherapies was observed, except to reduce missing assessments. Univariate-outcome modeling is not recommended for the HRBS.