Oliveto A, Poling J, Mancino MJ, Feldman Z, Cubells JF, Pruzinsky R et al. Randomized, double blind, placebo-controlled trial of disulfiram for the treatment of cocaine dependence in methadone-stabilized patients. Drug Alcohol Depend 113: 184-191

Psychiatry Dept, University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences, Slot 843, 4301 W Markham St, Little Rock, AR 72205, USA.
Drug and alcohol dependence (Impact Factor: 3.42). 01/2011; 113(2-3):184-91. DOI: 10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2010.07.022
Source: PubMed


This study examined the dose-related efficacy of disulfiram for treating cocaine dependence in methadone-stabilized cocaine dependent participants.
One hundred and sixty-one cocaine- and opioid-dependent volunteers were entered into a 14-week, double blind, randomized, placebo-controlled clinical trial at two sites.
Participants were stabilized on methadone during weeks 1-2 and received disulfiram at 0, 62.5, 125 or 250 mg/day during weeks 3-14. All participants also received weekly cognitive behavioral therapy. Thrice-weekly urine samples and weekly self-reported drug use assessments were obtained.
Baseline subject characteristics, retention and drug use did not differ across groups. Outcome analyses were performed on those who participated beyond week 2. Opioid-positive urine samples and self-reported opioid use did not differ by treatment group. The prevalence of alcohol use was low prior to and during the trial and did not differ by treatment group. Cocaine-positive urines increased over time in the 62.5 and 125 mg disulfiram groups and decreased over time in the 250 mg disulfiram and placebo groups (p < 0.0001). Self-reported cocaine use increased in the 125 mg disulfiram group relative to the other three treatment groups (p = 0.04).
Disulfiram may be contraindicated for cocaine dependence at doses <250 mg/day. Whether disulfiram at higher doses is efficacious in reducing cocaine use in dually cocaine and opioid dependent individuals needs to be determined.

Download full-text


Available from: Michael J Mancino,
  • Source
    • "Various GABA agents (e.g., Vigabatrin, Baclofen, Taigabine) have shown no or mixed effects at best (e.g., Brodie et al., 2009; Shoptaw et al., 2003; Winhusen et al., 2007), and both a systematic review/meta-analysis and a Cochrane review, each involving 15 studies, concluded that there was no current evidence supporting the use of anti-convulsants for cocaine dependence treatment (Alvarez, Farré, Fonseca, & Torrens, 2010; Minozzi et al., 2008). Among Dopamine agents, several clinical studies involving disulfiram – some combined with CBT and potentially dose-related – resulted in reduced cocaine use or abstinence in cocaine-or co-drug dependent patients; however, concerns regarding various potential adverse effects of disulfiram exist (Carroll et al., 2004; Malcolm, Olive, & Lechner, 2008; Oliveto et al., 2011; Pettinati et al., 2008). Similarly, some evidence for the efficacy, yet also concerns about potential adverse effects, exist for varenicline (Eggertson, 2012; Plebani et al., 2012; Poling, Rounsaville, Gonsai, Severino, & Sofuoglu, 2010). "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: There are an estimated several million crack-cocaine users globally; use is highest in the Americas. Most crack users are socio-economically marginalized (e.g., homeless), and feature elevated risks for morbidity (e.g., blood-borne viruses), mortality and crime/violence involvement, resulting in extensive burdens. No comprehensive reviews of evidence-based prevention and/or treatment interventions specifically for crack use exist. We conducted a comprehensive narrative overview of English-language studies on the efficacy of secondary prevention and treatment interventions for crack (cocaine) abuse/dependence. Literature searches (1990-2014) using pertinent keywords were conducted in main scientific databases. Titles/abstracts were reviewed for relevance, and full studies were included in the review if involving a primary prevention/treatment intervention study comprising a substantive crack user sample. Intervention outcomes considered included drug use, health risks/status (e.g., HIV or sexual risks) and select social outcome indicators. Targeted (e.g., behavioral/community-based) prevention measures show mixed and short-term effects on crack use/HIV risk outcomes. Material (e.g., safer crack use kit distribution) interventions also document modest efficacy in risk reduction; empirical assessments of environmental (e.g., drug consumption facilities) for crack smokers are not available. Diverse psycho-social treatment (including contingency management) interventions for crack abuse/dependence show some positive but also limited/short-term efficacy, yet likely constitute best currently available treatment options. Ancillary treatments show little effects but are understudied. Despite ample studies, pharmaco-therapeutic/immunotherapy treatment agents have not produced convincing evidence; select agents may hold potential combined with personalized approaches and/or psycho-social strategies. No comprehensively effective 'gold-standard' prevention/treatment interventions for crack abuse exist; concerted research towards improved interventions is urgently needed. Copyright © 2015 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
    International Journal of Drug Policy 01/2015; 26(4). DOI:10.1016/j.drugpo.2015.01.002 · 2.40 Impact Factor
  • Source
    • "We obtained additional data from the authors in four of these studies. Because we did not obtain a response from the fifth author [30], we were unable to include their trial. The final selection procedure thus allowed us to analyze 22 studies (Figure 1). "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Despite its success with compliant or supervised patients, disulfiram has been a controversial medication in the treatment of alcoholism. Often, study designs did not recognize a pivotal factor in disulfiram research, the importance of an open-label design. Our objectives are: (1) to analyze the efficacy and safety of disulfiram in RCTs in supporting abstinence and (2) to compare blind versus open-label studies, hypothesizing that blinded studies would show no difference between disulfiram and control groups because the threat would be evenly spread across all groups. We searched PubMed, EMBASE and the Cochrane Central Register for RCTs on disulfiram use with alcoholics in comparison to any alcoholic control group. The primary outcome was defined by the authors of each trial. Additional analyses included: blind vs. open-label, with or without supervision, cocaine study or not, and type of control. Overall, the 22 included studies showed a higher success rate of disulfiram compared to controls Hedges'g = .58 (95%CI = .35-.82). When comparing blind and open-label RCTs, only open-label trials showed a significant superiority over controls g = .70 (95%CI = .46-.93). RCTs with blind designs showed no efficacy of disulfiram compared to controls. Disulfiram was also more effective than the control condition when compared to naltrexone g = .77, 95%CI = .52-1.02, to acamprosate g = .76, 95%CI = .04-1.48, and to the no disulfiram groups g = .43, 95%CI = .17-.69. LIMITS INCLUDE: (1) a population of 89% male subjects and (2) a high but unavoidable heterogeneity of the studies with a substantial I-square in most subgroups of studies. Blinded studies were incapable of distinguishing a difference between treatment groups and thus are incompatible with disulfiram research. Based on results with open-label studies, disulfiram is a safe and efficacious treatment compared to other abstinence supportive pharmacological treatments or to no disulfiram in supervised studies for problems of alcohol abuse or dependence.
    PLoS ONE 02/2014; 9(2):e87366. DOI:10.1371/journal.pone.0087366 · 3.23 Impact Factor
  • Source
    • "Inhibition of dopamine b-hydroxylase (DBH), a catecholamine biosynthetic enzyme that is required for NE production, reduces transmission at all NE receptors simultaneously. Disulfiram (Antabuse), which inhibits DBH by copper chelation, has shown promise in the clinic as a treatment for cocaine dependence (Carroll et al, 2004; Gaval-Cruz and Weinshenker, 2009; Oliveto et al, 2011), although disulfiram's lack of specificity, hepatotoxicity, and low tolerability limit its widespread and effective use (Gaval-Cruz and Weinshenker, 2009; Schroeder et al, 2010). Nepicastat is direct, competitive inhibitor of DBH "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Although norepinephrine (NE) does not typically modulate cocaine self-administration under traditional schedules of reinforcement, it is required for different inducers of the reinstatement of cocaine-seeking behavior via activation of multiple adrenergic receptor subtypes. We predicted that blockade of NE synthesis would attenuate all known modalities of reinstatement, and showed previously that the selective dopamine β-hydroxylase (DBH) inhibitor, nepicastat, had no effect on either maintenance of operant cocaine self-administration maintained on a fixed-ratio 1 schedule or reinstatement of food seeking, but did abolish cocaine-primed reinstatement (Schroeder et al., 2010). In the present series of studies, we first evaluated the dose-dependent effect of nepicastat (5, 50, or 100 mg/kg) on novelty-induced locomotor activity, and found that it blunted exploration only at the highest dose. Next, we assessed the ability of nepicastat (50 mg/kg) to reduce breakpoint responding for cocaine on a progressive ratio schedule and reinstatement induced by drug-associated cues and stress. We found that nepicastat significantly lowered the breakpoint for cocaine, but not for regular chow or sucrose, and attenuated cue-, footshock-, and yohimbine-induced reinstatement. Combined, these results indicate that nepicastat can reduce the reinforcing properties of cocaine under a stringent schedule and can attenuate relapse-like behavior produced by cocaine, formerly cocaine-paired cues, and physiological and pharmacological stressors. Thus, nepicastat is one of those rare compounds that can reduce reinforced cocaine seeking as well as all three reinstatement modalities, while sparing exploratory behavior and natural reward seeking, making it a promising pharmacotherapy for cocaine addiction.Neuropsychopharmacology accepted article preview online, 3 January 2013; doi:10.1038/npp.2012.267.
    Neuropsychopharmacology: official publication of the American College of Neuropsychopharmacology 01/2013; 38(6). DOI:10.1038/npp.2012.267 · 7.05 Impact Factor
Show more