Designing clinical trials to address alcohol use and alcohol-associated liver disease: an expert panel Consensus Statement.

Most patients with alcohol-associated liver disease (ALD) engage in heavy drinking defined as 4 or more drinks per day (56 g) or 8 (112 g) or more drinks per week for women and 5 or more drinks per day (70 g) or 15 (210 g) or more drinks per week for men. Although abstinence from alcohol after diagnosis of ALD improves life expectancy and reduces the risk of decompensation of liver disease, few studies have evaluated whether treatment of alcohol use disorders will reduce progression of liver disease and improve liver-related outcomes. In November 2021, the National Institute of Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism commissioned a task force that included hepatologists, addiction medicine specialists, statisticians, clinical trialists and members of regulatory agencies to develop recommendations for the design and conduct of clinical trials to evaluate the effect of alcohol use, particularly treatment to reduce or eliminate alcohol use in patients with ALD. The task force conducted extensive reviews of relevant literature on alcohol use disorders and ALD. Findings were presented at one in-person meeting and discussed over the next 16 months to develop the final recommendations. As few clinical trials directly address this topic, the 28 recommendations approved by all members of the task force represent a consensus of expert opinions.

Defining Recovery From Alcohol Use Disorder: Development of an NIAAA Research Definition.

The objective of this article is to provide an operational definition of recovery from alcohol use disorder (AUD) to facilitate the consistency of research on recovery and stimulate further research. The construct of recovery has been difficult to operationalize in the alcohol treatment and recovery literature. Several formal definitions of recovery have been developed but have limitations because 1) they require abstinence from both alcohol and substance use, 2) they do not include the DSM-5 diagnostic criteria for AUD as part of the recovery process (i.e., no focus on remission from AUD), 3) they do not link remission and cessation from heavy drinking to improvements in biopsychosocial functioning and quality-of-life constructs, and 4) they do not distinguish between alcohol and other drug use. The authors present a newly developed National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism (NIAAA) definition of recovery from DSM-5 AUD based on qualitative feedback from key recovery stakeholders (e.g., researchers, clinicians, and recovery specialists). The definition views recovery as both a process of behavioral change and an outcome and incorporates two key components of recovery, namely, remission from DSM-5 AUD and cessation from heavy drinking, a nonabstinent recovery outcome. The NIAAA definition of recovery also emphasizes the importance of biopsychosocial functioning and quality of life in enhancing recovery outcomes. This new NIAAA definition of recovery is an operational definition that can be used by diverse stakeholders to increase consistency in recovery measurement, stimulate research to better understand recovery, and facilitate the process of recovery.

Effects of Alcohol Cue Reactivity on Subsequent Treatment Outcomes Among Treatment-Seeking Individuals with Alcohol Use Disorder: A Multisite Randomized, Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled Clinical Trial of Varenicline.

BACKGROUND: The alcohol cue reactivity paradigm is increasingly used to screen medications for the treatment of alcohol use disorder (AUD) and other substance use disorders. Yet, its prospective association with craving and naturalistic drinking outcomes in clinical trials remains unknown. This study embedded repeated human laboratory assessments of alcohol cue reactivity within the context of a randomized controlled trial to examine the effects of varenicline tartrate (Chantix® ), a partial agonist of α4ß2 nicotinic acetylcholine receptors, on alcohol craving among treatment-seeking heavy drinkers with AUD. Our main objectives were to test whether varenicline, as compared to placebo, blunts alcohol cue-elicited craving and test whether alcohol cue reactivity observed in the human laboratory predicts subsequent alcohol craving and use during the remainder of the trial. DESIGN AND METHODS: This double-blind, randomized, 2-site study compared the effects of varenicline (up to 2 mg/d) and placebo on responses to in vivo alcohol cue and affective picture cue exposure in the human laboratory. Forty-seven volunteers (18 females, 29 males), ages 23 to 67 years (M = 43.7, SD = 11.5), were recruited from the community via advertisements to participate in a clinical trial designed to study the effects of varenicline on alcohol use. Participants were randomized to either varenicline or placebo for 6 weeks. RESULTS: Varenicline did not attenuate cue-induced alcohol craving relative to placebo, but craving captured during the cue reactivity paradigm significantly predicted subsequent alcohol use in real-world settings during the clinical trial. Higher craving predicted heavier alcohol use. CONCLUSIONS: Our results are among the first to show alcohol cue-induced craving captured during a human laboratory paradigm predicts drinking outcomes in the context of a clinical trial.

World Health Organization risk drinking level reductions are associated with improved functioning and are sustained among patients with mild, moderate and severe alcohol dependence in clinical trials in the United States and United Kingdom.

AIMS: To examine whether World Health Organization (WHO) risk-level reductions in drinking were achievable, associated with improved functioning and maintained over time among patients at varying initial alcohol dependence severity levels. Design and setting Secondary data analysis of multi-site randomized clinical trials: the US Combined Pharmacotherapies and Behavioral Interventions for Alcohol Dependence (COMBINE) study and the UK Alcohol Treatment Trial (UKATT). PARTICIPANTS: Individuals with alcohol dependence enrolled in COMBINE (n = 1383; 68.8% male) and seeking treatment for alcohol problems in UKATT (n = 742; 74.1% male). Interventions Naltrexone, acamprosate or placebo, and combined behavioral intervention or medication management in COMBINE. Social behavior network therapy or motivational enhancement therapy in UKATT. MEASUREMENTS: WHO risk-level reductions were assessed via the calendar method. Alcohol dependence was measured by the Alcohol Dependence Scale, the Leeds Dependence Questionnaire and the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders. Measures of functioning included alcohol-related consequences (Drinker Inventory of Consequences and Alcohol Problems Questionnaire), mental health (Short Form Health Survey) and liver enzyme tests. FINDINGS: One- and two-level reductions in WHO risk levels in the last month of treatment were maintained at the 1-year follow-up [adjusted odds ratio (OR), 95% confidence interval (CI) = one-level reduction in COMBINE: 3.51 (2.73, 4.29) and UKATT: 2.65 (2.32, 2.98)] and associated with fewer alcohol-related consequences [e.g. B, 95% CI = one-level reduction COMBINE: -26.22 (-30.62, -21.82)], better mental health [e.g. B, 95% CI = one-level reduction UKATT: 9.53 (7.36, 11.73)] and improvements in γ-glutamyltransferase [e.g. B, 95% CI = one-level reduction UKATT: -89.77 (-122.50, -57.04)] at the end of treatment, even among patients with severe alcohol dependence. Results were similar when abstainers were excluded. Conclusions Reductions in World Health Organization risk levels for alcohol consumption appear to be achievable, associated with better functioning and maintained over time in both the United States and the United Kingdom.

Medication Development for Alcohol Use Disorder: A Focus on Clinical Studies.

Compared to other medical disorders, including other brain diseases, the number of medications approved for alcohol use disorder (AUD) is very small. Disulfiram, naltrexone (oral and long-acting), and acamprosate are approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to treat patients with AUD. These medications are also approved in other countries, including in Europe, where the European Medicines Agency (EMA) also approved nalmefene for AUD. Furthermore, baclofen was recently approved for AUD in France. These approved medications have small effect sizes, which are probably the consequence of the fact that they only work for some patients, yet a personalized approach to match the right medication with the right patient is still in its infancy. Therefore, research is needed to expand the armamentarium of medications that clinicians can use to treat their patients, as well as to better develop personalized approaches. This book chapter reviews other medications, beyond those approved by the FDA, that have shown efficacy in clinical trials, as well as medications which are still in the early stages of evaluation in human studies.

Reduction in non-abstinent World Health Organization (WHO) drinking risk levels and drug use disorders: 3-year follow-up results in the US general population.

BACKGROUND: To provide information on the clinical relevance of a reduction in the World Health Organization (WHO) drinking risk categories, we examined their relationship to an important indicator of how individuals feel and function: drug use disorders (DUDs), i.e., those involving substances other than alcohol. METHOD: Current drinkers in a U.S. national survey (n = 22,005) were interviewed in 2001-02 and re-interviewed 3 years later. WHO drinking risk levels and DSM-IV-defined DUD were assessed at both waves. The relationship of changes in WHO drinking risk levels to the presence of DUD were examined using adjusted odds ratios (aOR). RESULTS: At Wave 1, 2.5% of respondents were WHO very-high-risk drinkers, and 2.5%, 4.8%, and 90.2% were high-risk, moderate-risk, and low-risk drinkers, respectively. Among Wave 1 very-high-risk drinkers, significantly lower odds of DUD at Wave 2 were predicted by reductions in WHO risk levels of one, two or three levels (aOR = 0.15, 0.01, 0.24, respectively; all p-values <.0001). Among participants who initially were drinking at lower risk levels, reductions in drinking or abstinence were generally associated with significantly lower odds of DUD, although the results were less consistent. CONCLUSIONS: Among very-high-risk drinkers, reduction in the WHO drinking risk categories were associated with lower risk of a DUD. These results add to findings indicating that reductions in WHO drinking risk levels are a meaningful indicator of how individuals feel and function and could therefore serve as informative outcomes in alcohol clinical trials. WHO risk levels can also guide treatment goals and clinical recommendations on drinking reduction.

Maintenance of World Health Organization Risk Drinking Level Reductions and Posttreatment Functioning Following a Large Alcohol Use Disorder Clinical Trial.

BACKGROUND: Reductions in the World Health Organization (WHO) risk drinking levels have been proposed as an alternative primary outcome for alcohol clinical trials. Yet, little is known about whether reductions in WHO risk drinking levels can be maintained over time. The current study examined whether reductions in WHO risk drinking levels were maintained for up to 1 year following treatment, and whether reductions over time were associated with improvements in functioning. METHODS: Secondary data analysis of individuals with alcohol dependence (n = 1,226) enrolled in the COMBINE study, a multisite, randomized, placebo-controlled clinical trial. Logistic regression was used to examine the maintenance of end-of-treatment WHO risk level reductions and WHO risk level reductions at the 1-year follow-up. Repeated-measures mixed models were used to examine the association between WHO risk level reductions and functional outcomes over time. RESULTS: Achieving at least a 1- or 2-level reduction in risk by the end of treatment was significantly associated with WHO risk level reductions at the 1-year follow-up assessment (p < 0.001). Among individuals who achieved at least a 1-level reduction by the end of treatment, 85.5% reported at least a 1-level reduction at the 1-year follow-up. Among individuals who achieved at least a 2-level reduction by the end of treatment, 77.8% reported at least a 2-level reduction at the 1-year follow-up. WHO risk level reductions were associated with significantly lower alcohol consumption, better physical health (p < 0.01), and fewer alcohol-related consequences (p < 0.001) up to 1 year following treatment. CONCLUSIONS: One- and 2-level reductions in WHO risk levels during alcohol treatment were maintained after treatment and associated with better functioning over time. These findings support the use of the WHO risk level reductions as an outcome measure that reflects clinically significant improvement in how individuals seeking treatment for alcohol use disorder feel and function.

Evaluation of Drinking Risk Levels as Outcomes in Alcohol Pharmacotherapy Trials: A Secondary Analysis of 3 Randomized Clinical Trials.

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.

Reduction in non-abstinent WHO drinking risk levels and depression/anxiety disorders: 3-year follow-up results in the US general population.

BACKGROUND: Non-abstinent drinking reductions that predict improvement in how individuals feel or function, such as the World Health Organization (WHO) drinking risk levels, may be useful outcomes in clinical trials for alcohol use disorders (AUD). METHODS: Current drinkers in a U.S. national survey (n = 22,005) were interviewed in 2001-02 (Wave 1) and re-interviewed 3 years later (Wave 2). WHO drinking risk levels, a 4- level categorization system (very-high-risk, high-risk, moderate-risk, and low-risk drinkers) defined using estimated mean ethanol consumption (grams) per day in the prior 12 months, and DSM-IV depressive and anxiety disorders were assessed at both waves. Logistic regression was used to produce adjusted odds ratios (aOR) testing the associations of changes between Wave 1 and Wave 2 WHO risk levels to the presence or persistence of depression and/or anxiety disorder by each initial Wave 1 risk level. RESULTS: Among Wave 1 very-high-risk drinkers, lower odds of depression and/or anxiety disorders at Wave 2 were predicted by reductions in WHO risk levels of one-, two- or three-levels (aOR = 0.42, 0.37, 0.67, p-values 0.04-<.0001), as was the persistence of depression and/or anxiety disorders among those with such disorders at Wave 1 (aOR = 0.37, 0.29, 0.51, p-values .03-<.0001). Results were less consistent for participants initially drinking at lower risk levels. CONCLUSIONS: Among very-high-risk drinkers, reductions in the WHO drinking risk categories were associated with lower risk of depression and/or anxiety disorders. These results add to findings indicating reductions in WHO risk levels are a meaningful indicator of how individuals feel and function.

Gabapentin Enacarbil Extended-Release for Alcohol Use Disorder: A Randomized, Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled, Multisite Trial Assessing Efficacy and Safety.

BACKGROUND: Several 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). METHODS: Men 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. RESULTS: The 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. CONCLUSIONS: Overall, 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.

Drinking Risk Level Reductions Associated with Improvements in Physical Health and Quality of Life Among Individuals with Alcohol Use Disorder.

BACKGROUND: Abstinence and no heavy drinking days are currently the only Food and Drug Administration-approved end points in clinical trials for alcohol use disorder (AUD). Many individuals who fail to meet these criteria may substantially reduce their drinking during treatment, and most individuals with AUD prefer drinking reduction goals. One- and two-level reductions in World Health Organization (WHO) drinking risk levels have been proposed as alternative end points that reflect reduced drinking and are associated with reductions in drinking consequences, improvements in mental health, and reduced risk of developing alcohol dependence. The current study examined the association between WHO drinking risk level reductions and improvements in physical health and quality of life in a sample of individuals with alcohol dependence. METHODS: Secondary data analysis of individuals with alcohol dependence (n = 1,142) enrolled in the longitudinal, prospective COMBINE study, a multi site randomized placebo-controlled clinical trial, examining the association between reductions in WHO drinking risk levels and change in blood pressure, liver enzyme levels, and self-reported quality of life following treatment for alcohol dependence. RESULTS: One- and two-level reductions in WHO drinking risk level during treatment were associated with significant reductions in systolic blood pressure (p < 0.001), improvements in liver enzyme levels (all p < 0.01), and significantly better quality of life (p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: One- and two-level reductions in WHO drinking risk levels predicted significant improvements in markers of physical health and quality of life, suggesting that the WHO drinking risk level reduction could be a meaningful surrogate marker of improvements in how a person "feels and functions" following treatment for alcohol dependence. The WHO drinking risk levels could be useful in medical practice for identifying drinking reduction targets that correspond with clinically significant improvements in health and quality of life.

Reduction in Nonabstinent WHO Drinking Risk Levels and Change in Risk for Liver Disease and Positive AUDIT-C Scores: Prospective 3-Year Follow-Up Results in the U.S. General Population.

BACKGROUND: Abstinence is often the treatment aim for alcohol use disorders (AUD), but this may deter individuals who prefer drinking reduction goals from entering treatment, and be an overly restrictive end point in alcohol clinical trials. Nonabstinent drinking reductions that predict improvement in how individuals feel or function may be useful clinical trial outcomes, for example, reductions in the 4-category World Health Organization (WHO) drinking risk levels. To investigate the clinical relevance of these reductions, we examined their relationship with 2 outcomes of interest to medical providers: liver disease, and positive scores on an alcohol screening measure. METHODS: Current drinkers in a U.S. national survey (n = 21,925) were interviewed in 2001 to 2002 (Wave 1) and re-interviewed 3 years later (Wave 2). WHO drinking risk levels, liver disease, and the Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test-Consumption (AUDIT-C) were assessed at both waves. Adjusted odds ratios (aORs) were used to indicate the association of change in WHO drinking risk levels with Wave 2 liver disease and AUDIT-C scores. RESULTS: Wave 1 very-high-risk drinkers who reduced 1, 2, or 3 WHO drinking risk levels had significantly lower odds of Wave 2 liver disease (aORs = 0.34, 0.23, 0.17) and positive AUDIT-C scores (aORs = 0.27, 0.09, 0.03). Wave 1 high-risk drinkers who reduced 1 or 2 WHO risk levels had significantly lower odds of positive AUDIT-C scores (aORs = 0.61, 0.25). Adjusting for alcohol dependence or AUDIT-C scoring variations did not affect results. CONCLUSIONS: In the highest-risk drinkers, reductions in WHO drinking risk levels predicted lower likelihood of liver disease and positive AUDIT-C scores. Results add to findings that reductions in the 4-category WHO drinking risk levels are a meaningful indicator of how individuals feel and function, and could serve as nonabstinent end points in clinical trials. Results also connect the WHO risk drinking levels to commonly used alcohol screening questions, which may be more familiar to healthcare providers.

Advances in Pharmacotherapy Development: Human Clinical Studies.

For more than 25 years, researchers have made advances in developing medications to treat alcohol use disorder (AUD), highlighted by the US Food and Drug Administration's (FDA's) approval of disulfiram, naltrexone (oral and long-acting), and acamprosate. These medications are also approved in Europe, where the European Medicines Agency (EMA) recently added a fourth medication, nalmefene, for AUD. Despite these advances, today's medications have a small effect size, showing efficacy for only a limited number of individuals with AUD. However, a host of new medications, which act on variety of pharmacologic targets, are in the pipeline and have been evaluated in numerous human studies. This article reviews the efficacy and safety of medications currently being tested in human trials and looks at ongoing efforts to identify candidate compounds in human studies. As mentioned in the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism's Strategic Plan 2017-2021 ( https://www.niaaa.nih.gov/sites/default/files/StrategicPlan_NIAAA_optimized_2017-2020.pdf ), medications development remains a high priority. By developing more effective and safe medications, and identifying those patients who will benefit the most from these treatments, we can provide clinicians with the tools they need to treat this devastating disorder, providing relief for patients and their families and markedly improving public health and safety.

Change in non-abstinent WHO drinking risk levels and alcohol dependence: a 3 year follow-up study in the US general population.

BACKGROUND: Alcohol dependence is often untreated. Although abstinence is often the aim of treatment, many drinkers prefer drinking reduction goals. Therefore, if supported by evidence of benefit, drinking reduction goals could broaden the appeal of treatment. Regulatory agencies are considering non-abstinent outcomes as efficacy indicators in clinical trials, including reduction in WHO drinking risk levels-very high, high, moderate, and low-defined in terms of mean ethanol consumption (in grams) per day. We aimed to study the relationship between reductions in WHO drinking risk levels and subsequent reduction in the risk of alcohol dependence. METHODS: In this population-based cohort study, we included data from 22 005 drinkers who were interviewed in 2001-02 (Wave 1) and re-interviewed 3 years later (2004-05; Wave 2) in the US National Epidemiologic Survey on Alcohol and Related Conditions. Alcohol consumption (WHO drinking risk levels) and alcohol dependence (at least three of seven DSM-IV criteria in the previous 12 months) were assessed at both waves. We used logistic regression to test the relationship between change in WHO drinking risk levels between Waves 1 and 2, and alcohol dependence at Wave 2. FINDINGS: At Wave 1, 2·5% (weighted proportion) of the respondents were very-high-risk drinkers, 2·5% were high-risk drinkers, 4·8% were moderate-risk drinkers, and most (90·2%) were low-risk drinkers. Reduction in WHO drinking risk level predicted significantly lower odds of alcohol dependence at Wave 2, particularly among very-high-risk drinkers (adjusted odds ratios 0·27 [95% CI 0·18-0·41] for reduction by one level, 0·17 [0·10-0·27] for two levels, and 0·07 [0·05-0·10] for three levels) and high-risk drinkers (0·64 [0·54-0·75] for one level and 0·12 [0·09-0·15] for two levels), and among those with alcohol dependence at Wave 1 (0·29 [0·15-0·57] for one level, 0·06 [0·04-0·10] for two levels, and 0·04 [0·03-0·06] for three levels in very-high-risk drinkers). INTERPRETATION: Our results support the use of reductions in WHO drinking risk levels as an efficacy outcome in clinical trials. Because these risk levels can be readily translated into standard drink equivalents per day of different countries, the WHO risk levels could also be used internationally to guide treatment goals and clinical recommendations on drinking reduction. FUNDING: US National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism, New York State Psychiatric Institute, the Alcohol Clinical Trials Initiative.

Temporal Stability of Heavy Drinking Days and Drinking Reductions Among Heavy Drinkers in the COMBINE Study.

BACKGROUND: Recently, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) proposed to expand the options for primary end points in the development of medications for alcohol use disorder to include either abstinence from alcohol or a nonabstinent outcome: no heavy drinking days (with a heavy drinking day defined as more than 3 drinks per day for women and more than 4 drinks per day for men [>3/>4 cutoff]). The FDA also suggested that 6 months would be the most appropriate length for a clinical trial to demonstrate the stability of this nonabstinent drinking outcome. However, few alcohol clinical trials have examined the stability of nonheavy drinking during and after treatment. METHODS: In a secondary analysis of the COMBINE study data (n = 1,383), we examined transitions in heavy drinking days during the course of treatment (months 1 through 4), during the transition out of treatment (months 4 through 7), and up to 12 months afterward (months 13 through 16) using latent variable mixture models. RESULTS: Heavy drinking and nonheavy drinking were relatively stable in consecutive months (minimum agreement [kappa] = 0.64 for months 1 to 2). Most individuals were stable low-risk drinkers/abstainers or heavy drinkers by the end of treatment, as characterized by a 10% probability (or less) of transitioning out of either a no heavy drinking state or a heavy drinking state. More than two-thirds of the heavy drinkers who exceeded the heavy drinking threshold during treatment reported, on average, a 64% reduction in drinking frequency and a 38% reduction in drinking intensity from pretreatment drinking levels. CONCLUSIONS: The results show stability of no heavy drinking as an outcome within the first 4 months of treatment and that the >3/>4 drink cutoff may mask substantial reductions in alcohol consumption among some patients. Future studies should explore the clinical utility of reduction end points.

Addictions Neuroclinical Assessment: A reverse translational approach.

Incentive salience, negative emotionality, and executive function are functional domains that are etiologic in the initiation and progression of addictive disorders, having been implicated in humans with addictive disorders and in animal models of addictions. Measures of these three neuroscience-based functional domains can capture much of the effects of inheritance and early exposures that lead to trait vulnerability shared across different addictive disorders. For specific addictive disorders, these measures can be supplemented by agent specific measures such as those that access pharmacodynamic and pharmacokinetic variation attributable to agent-specific gatekeeper molecules including receptors and drug-metabolizing enzymes. Herein, we focus on the translation and reverse translation of knowledge derived from animal models of addiction to the human condition via measures of neurobiological processes that are orthologous in animals and humans, and that are shared in addictions to different agents. Based on preclinical data and human studies, measures of these domains in a general framework of an Addictions Neuroclinical Assessment (ANA) can transform the assessment and nosology of addictive disorders, and can be informative for staging disease progression. We consider next steps and challenges for implementation of ANA in clinical care and research. This article is part of the Special Issue entitled "Alcoholism".