Abstract:

Rationale: Alcohol use disorder (AUD) is associated with steeper delay discounting rates; however, it is unknown whether substance co-use, particularly cannabis use, has an additive effect on discounting rates among heavy drinkers. Furthermore, it is unclear whether substance co-use and delay discounting are independently associated with AUD severity.

Objectives: The purpose of this study was to determine whether alcohol, tobacco, and cannabis co-use impacts delay discounting rates. We also sought to determine whether substance co-use and delay discounting were associated with AUD symptom counts.

Methods: The study sample was culled from several human laboratory studies and consisted of 483 heavy drinking individuals who completed a baseline visit (prior to experimental procedures). Participants were divided into groups based on self-reported alcohol, tobacco, and cannabis use during the past 30 days: alcohol only (n = 184), alcohol + cigarettes (n = 89), alcohol + cannabis (n = 82), and tri-use (n = 128). We examined discounting rates across the 4 groups and used multiple linear regression to test whether co-use and delay discounting were associated with AUD symptoms.

Results: After adjusting for covariates, individuals in the alcohol + cannabis group and the tri-use group had steeper discounting rates relative to the alcohol-only group. In addition, tri-use and delay discounting rates were independently correlated with a greater number of AUD symptoms.

Conclusions: Delay discounting rates were significantly greater among subgroups reporting cannabis use providing partial support for an additive effect, while also highlighting the importance of co-use substance type. Both tri-use and delay discounting were associated with greater AUD severity, which may provide relevant intervention targets.

Abstract:

Objective: Alcohol, tobacco, and cannabis are the three most frequently used drugs in the United States and co-use is common. Alcohol, tobacco, and cannabis use has been separately associated with altered brain structure, and alcohol and tobacco co-use results in decreases in gray matter volume. Less is known about the effect of alcohol and cannabis co-use, and alcohol, tobacco, and cannabis tri-use. Therefore, this study examined the effect of co- and tri-use on gray matter volume, a measure of brain cell density, in heavy drinkers.

Method: Heavy drinkers (n = 237; 152m/85f; age = 32.52; white = 111; black = 28; Latino = 9; American Indian = 2; Pacific Islander = 4; Asian = 59; mixed = 15; other = 9) were classified into four groups based on their alcohol, tobacco, and cannabis use: alcohol only users (n = 70), alcohol and tobacco co-users (n = 90), alcohol and cannabis co-users (n = 35), and alcohol, tobacco, and cannabis tri-users (n = 42). All participants completed a structural MRI scan. Voxel-based morphometry was conducted to evaluate the effect of co-use on gray matter volume, with alcohol only users as the reference group. Age, sex, and scanner were included as covariates.

Results: Alcohol and tobacco co-users had significantly decreased left orbitofrontal gray matter volume relative to alcohol only users (Cohen's d = .79). There were no differences in gray matter volume between the alcohol only and alcohol and cannabis co-users, or between the alcohol only and tri-user groups.

Conclusion: The additive effect of tobacco co-use on gray matter volumes in heavy drinkers was limited and localized. The effect of tri-use of alcohol, tobacco, and cannabis may have interacted, such that overlapping cannabis and tobacco use masked volume differences present in separate co-using groups.

Abstract:

Background: There is a strong bidirectional relationship between the use of alcohol and cigarettes which results in various challenges for treating those who co-use both substances. While varenicline and naltrexone each have FDA-approval for nicotine and alcohol use disorder, respectively, there is evidence that their clinical benefit may extend across the two disorders. Critically, the effect of combined varenicline and naltrexone on neural reactivity to alcohol cues among heavy drinking smokers has not yet been studied. Probing the effect of the combination therapy on alcohol cue-reactivity may give insight to the mechanisms underlying its efficacy.

Methods: Forty-seven heavy drinking smokers enrolled in two medication studies were randomized to receive varenicline alone (n = 11), varenicline plus naltrexone (n = 11), or placebo (n = 25). Participants completed an fMRI alcohol cue-reactivity task and rated their in-scanner alcohol craving. Whole-brain analyses examined the effect of medication on alcohol cue-elicited neural response.

Results: Varenicline plus naltrexone attenuated alcohol cue-elicited activation in mesolimbic regions relative to varenicline alone and to placebo (Z > 2.3, p < 0.05). The combination varenicline and naltrexone group also endorsed lower in-scanner alcohol craving relative to varenicline alone group (p = 0.04).

Conclusions: These findings provide evidence for the benefit of combined therapy of varenicline and naltrexone over varenicline alone for the attenuation of alcohol cue-elicited neural activation. This study provides a preliminary proof-of-mechanism for this combination pharmacotherapy and suggests that naltrexone may be driving the reductions in cue-elicited alcohol craving in the brain. Further clinical studies using the combined therapy to treat heavy drinking smokers are warranted.

Abstract:

Studies of inflammation in alcohol use disorder (AUD) are overwhelmingly preclinical, and translation to clinical samples is necessary. Endotoxin administration has been used successfully in humans to study mood disorders, offering a translational, reliable and safe model that may be validated in AUD research. We argue for the use of endotoxin challenge to elucidate the interplay between AUD and inflammation.

Abstract:

Background: Alcohol use disorder (AUD) is heterogenous. One approach to parsing this heterogeneity is to phenotype individuals by their underlying motivation to drink, specifically drinking for reward (i.e. positive reinforcement) or for relief (i.e. negative reinforcement/normalizing). Reward- vs. relief-motivated behavior is thought to be associated with a shift from ventral to dorsal striatal signaling. The present study examined whether reward and relief drinking were differentially associated with other clinical characteristics and with alcohol cue-elicited activation of the ventral and dorsal striatum.

Methods: Non-treatment-seeking heavy drinkers (N=184; 61 female, 123 male) completed the UCLA Reward, Relief, Habit Drinking Scale (RRHDS) and the Reasons for Heavy Drinking Questionnaire (RHDQ), to categorize drinking motivation. Measures of alcohol use, alcohol problems, mood, and craving were also collected. A subset of participants (N=45; 17 female, 28 male) also completed a functional neuroimaging alcohol cue reactivity task.

Results: RRHDS-designated relief/habit drinkers scored lower than reward drinkers on the RHDQ Reinforcement subscale (p=0.04) and higher on the RHDQ Normalizing subscale (p=0.004). Relief/habit drinkers also demonstrated greater AUD severity on a host of clinical measures. Relief/habit drinkers displayed higher cue-elicited dorsal striatal activation compared to reward drinkers (p=0.04), while ventral striatal cue-elicited activation did not significantly differ between groups.

Conclusions: Our findings support and extend the differentiation of reward from relief/habit-motivated drinking and suggest that differences in dorsal striatal response to conditioned alcohol cues may underlie this distinction. Elucidating neurobiological and clinical differences between these subtypes may facilitate treatment matching and precision medicine for AUD.

Abstract:

Background: Alcohol use disorder (AUD) is a chronic and relapsing condition for which current pharmacological treatments are only modestly effective. The development of efficacious medications for AUD remains a high research priority with recent emphasis on identifying novel molecular targets for AUD treatment and to efficiently screen new compounds aimed at those targets. Ibudilast, a phosphodiesterase inhibitor, has been advanced as a novel addiction pharmacotherapy that targets neurotrophin signaling and neuroimmune function.

Methods: This study will conduct a 12-week, double-blind, placebo controlled randomized clinical trial of ibudilast (50 mg BID) for AUD treatment. We will randomize 132 treatment-seeking men and women with current AUD. We will collect a number of alcohol consumption outcomes. Primary among these is percent heavy drinking days (PHDD); secondary drinking outcomes include drinks per day, drinks per drinking day, percent days abstinent, percent subjects with no heavy drinking days, and percent subjects abstinent, as well as measures of alcohol craving and negative mood. Additionally, participants will have the option to opt-in to a neuroimaging session in which we examine the effects of ibudilast on neural activation to psychosocial stress and alcohol cues. Finally, we will also collect plasma levels of proinflammatory markers, as well as subjective and biological (salivary cortisol) markers of stress response.

Discussion: This study will further develop ibudilast, a safe and promising novel compound with strong preclinical and clinical safety data for AUD, and will probe biological mechanisms underlying the effects of Ibudilast on stress, neuroinflammation, and alcohol cue-reactivity and craving. If ibudilast proves superior to placebo in this study, it will set the stage for a confirmatory multi-site trial leading to FDA approval of a novel AUD treatment.

Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03594435 "Ibudilast for the Treatment of Alcohol Use Disorder". Registered on 20 July 2018.

Abstract:

Background: Major Depressive Disorder (MDD) is commonly accompanied by cognitive control dysfunction that may persist after remission of clinical symptoms with antidepressant medication treatment. Repetitive Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation (rTMS) is an effective treatment alternative for medication-resistant MDD. In this study, we investigated whether rTMS treatment had a beneficial effect not only on depressive symptoms, but on also cognitive control dysfunction.

Methods: 77 subjects with MDD received a 30-session treatment course of 10 Hz rTMS administered at the left dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (DLPFC). Treatment efficacy was assessed using the Inventory of Depressive Symptomatology Self-Rated (IDS-SR) before and after treatment, with clinical response defined as 50% or greater decrease in the IDS-SR score at treatment 30. Cognitive control function was assessed before and after treatment using the Stroop word-color interference task. We examined changes in Stroop accuracy and reaction time for congruent and incongruent trials, as well as in relation to changes in depressive symptoms.

Results: Performance accuracy improved particularly for the rTMS responders in the incongruent condition, with older subjects benefitting most from the rTMS treatment. Improvement in reaction times was positively associated with clinical improvement, especially in the incongruent condition.

Limitations: We used a single cognitive task in a naturalistic setting without control for individual rTMS treatment parameters or concomitant medication.

Conclusions: Overall, these results indicate that rTMS treatment for MDD has beneficial effects on psychomotor speed and cognitive control. Future studies should extend these findings to larger patient populations and other cognitive domains.

Abstract:

Purpose: The purpose of this study was to determine whether a significant order effect exists in the binaural bithermal caloric test.

Method: Fifteen volunteers (mean age = 24.3 years, range = 18-38 years) with no history of vestibular disorder, hearing loss, concussion, or neurological disease underwent caloric testing on 3 occasions. Irrigations were randomized using 8 possible order combinations. The parameters of interest included unilateral weakness, directional preponderance, total response from the right ear, and total response from the left ear.

Results: Order effects were analyzed using 2 methods. The first analysis was done looking at the 8 possible orders. We also had an a priori established hypothesis that the first irrigation tested would influence the calculation of unilateral weakness more than the other 3 irrigations. To test this hypothesis, the 8 orders were condensed into 4 order conditions based on the first irrigation. The effect of order was determined using analysis of variance tests. Although the first irrigation tended to be the largest, no significant effects were observed.

Conclusions: This experiment demonstrated that while there is great inter-individual and intra-individual variability in caloric test results, the order of irrigations had no significant effect in the test. Future studies may explore the effects of nonphysiological factors on test results.