A pilot trial of topiramate for the treatment of cocaine dependence.
ABSTRACT Both GABAergic and glutamatergic neurons appear to be important modulators of the brain reward system and medications that affect GABA and glutamatergic neurotransmission may reduce the rewarding properties of cocaine and reduce cocaine craving. Topiramate, an anticonvulsant, raises cerebral GABA levels, facilitates GABAergic neurotransmission and inhibits glutametergic activity at AMPA/kainite receptors. Thus, it may be useful for treating cocaine dependence.
The efficacy of topiramate for cocaine dependence was tested in a 13-week, double-blind, placebo-controlled pilot trial (n = 40). Topiramate was titrated gradually over 8 weeks to a dose of 200 mg daily. The primary outcome measure was cocaine abstinence verified by twice weekly urine benzoylecgonine tests (UBT).
Eighty-two percent of subjects completed the trial. Analysis of the UBT using a GEE model showed that after week 8, when the dose titration was completed, topiramate-treated subjects were more likely to be abstinent from cocaine compared to placebo-treated subjects (Z = 2.67, P = 0.01). Topiramate-treated subjects were also more likely to attain 3 weeks of continuous abstinence from cocaine (chi2 = 3.9, d.f. = 1, P = 0.05).
Topiramate may be effective for the treatment of cocaine dependence.
SourceAvailable from: John RoacheEuropean Psychiatry 04/2008; 23:S307-S308. DOI:10.1016/j.eurpsy.2008.01.1056 · 3.21 Impact Factor
[Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Background Developing efficacious medications to treat methamphetamine dependence is a global challenge in public health. Topiramate (TPM) is undergoing evaluation for this indication. The molecular mechanisms underlying its effects are largely unknown. Examining the effects of TPM on genome-wide gene expression in methamphetamine addicts is a clinically and scientifically important component of understanding its therapeutic profile.Methods In this double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trial, 140 individuals who met the DSM-IV criteria for methamphetamine dependence were randomized to receive either TPM or placebo, of whom 99 consented to participate in our genome-wide expression study. The RNA samples were collected from whole blood for 50 TPM- and 49 placebo-treated participants at three time points: baseline and the ends of weeks 8 and 12. Genome-wide expression profiles and pathways of the two groups were compared for the responders and non-responders at Weeks 8 and 12. To minimize individual variations, expression of all examined genes at Weeks 8 and 12 were normalized to the values at baseline prior to identification of differentially expressed genes and pathways.ResultsAt the single-gene level, we identified 1054, 502, 204, and 404 genes at nominal P values¿<¿0.01 in the responders vs. non-responders at Weeks 8 and 12 for the TPM and placebo groups, respectively. Among them, expression of 159, 38, 2, and 21 genes was still significantly different after stringent Bonferroni corrections for multiple testing. Many of these genes, such as GRINA, PRKACA, PRKCI, SNAP23, and TRAK2, which are involved in glutamate receptor and GABA receptor signaling, are direct targets for TPM. In contrast, no TPM drug targets were identified in the 38 significant genes for the Week 8 placebo group. Pathway analyses based on nominally significant genes revealed 27 enriched pathways shared by the Weeks 8 and 12 TPM groups. These pathways are involved in relevant physiological functions such as neuronal function/synaptic plasticity, signal transduction, cardiovascular function, and inflammation/immune function.Conclusion Topiramate treatment of methamphetamine addicts significantly modulates the expression of genes involved in multiple biological processes underlying addiction behavior and other physiological functions.BMC Medical Genomics 12/2014; 7(1):65. DOI:10.1186/PREACCEPT-1348805959104583 · 3.91 Impact Factor
[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