Explore the vast range of titles available.

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. Alcohol-associated liver disease is the main cause of liver-related morbidity and mortality globally. This Consensus Statement makes recommendations for the design, best practice and conduct of clinical trials to evaluate the effects of alcohol use in alcohol-associated liver disease and alcohol use disorder.

Alcohol use disorder has been linked to dysregulation of the brain stress systems, producing a negative emotional state leading to chronic relapsing behavior. Vasopressin receptors appear to have a regulatory role in stress, anxiety, and alcohol. This study evaluated the novel compound, ABT-436, a V1b receptor antagonist, in alcohol-dependent participants in a 12-week clinical trial. Men and women (n=150) who met criteria for DSM-IV alcohol dependence were recruited across four sites. Participants received double-blind ABT-436 or placebo, and a computerized behavioral intervention. ABT-436 was titrated to 800 mg/day during weeks 2-12. Although the primary outcome, percentage of heavy drinking days, was lower in participants receiving ABT-436 compared with placebo, this difference was not statistically significant (31.3 vs 37.6, respectively; p=0.172; d=0.20). However, participants receiving ABT-436 had significantly greater percentage of days abstinent than those receiving placebo (51.2 vs 41.6, respectively; p=0.037; d=0.31). No significant differences were found between treatment groups on any other measures of drinking, alcohol craving, or alcohol-related consequences. Smokers receiving ABT-436 smoked significantly fewer cigarettes per week than those receiving placebo (p=0.046). ABT-436 was well tolerated, with diarrhea (mild-to-moderate severity) being the most common side effect. In subgroup analyses, participants with relatively higher baseline levels of stress responded better to ABT-436 than placebo on select drinking outcomes, suggesting there may be value in testing medications targeting the vasopressin receptor in high stress, alcohol-dependent patients.

Although progress has been made in the treatment of alcohol use disorders, more effective treatments are needed. In the last 15 years, several medications have been approved for use in alcohol dependence but have only limited effectiveness and clinical acceptance. While academics have developed some ‘standards’ for the performance of clinical trials for alcohol dependence, they vary considerably, in the type of populations to be studied, the length of trials, salient outcome measures, and data analyses to be used (especially in the treatment of missing data). This variability impedes the commercial development of medications to treat alcohol dependence. Using a model similar to that used to develop an expert consensus for medications to improve cognitive aspects of schizophrenia (MATRICS) and in the treatment of pain (IMMPACT), a workgroup has been formed under the auspices of ACNP, known as the ACTIVE (Alcohol Clinical Trials Initiative) group, to evaluate data from completed clinical trials to develop a consensus on key issues in the conduct of clinical trials in alcohol dependence. ACTIVE consists of academic experts, industry representatives, and staff from the Food and Drug Administration, the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism, and the National Institute on Drug Abuse. This paper describes the rationale behind the effort, its history and organization, and initial key questions that have been identified as the primary focus of the workgroup. Future papers will focus on knowledge gained from the re-analysis of completed trials and provide consensus opinions regarding the performance of clinical trials that might be undertaken in the future.

The 2001-2002 National Epidemiologic Survey on Alcohol and Related Conditions (NESARC) sought to determine the prevalence of drinking, smoking, and associated disorders in the general population. This survey, which includes a large representative sample of the adult population of the United States, found that drinking rates were highest among young adults and declined with increasing age. Rates of smoking and co-use of alcohol and tobacco were highest among the youngest respondents and declined thereafter. Similar patterns existed for the presence of alcohol use disorders (AUDs), nicotine dependence, and comorbidity between AUDs and nicotine dependence. Among ethnic/racial groups evaluated, Whites were most likely to drink and Native Americans/Alaskan Natives were most likely to smoke and to have an AUD, nicotine dependence, or comorbid AUD and nicotine dependence. Finally, the rates of tobacco use, daily tobacco use, and nicotine dependence increased with increasing levels of alcohol consumption and the presence of an AUD. These findings have important implications for the development of prevention and intervention approaches.

The 2001-2002 National Epidemiologic Survey on Alcohol and Related Conditions (NESARC) sought to determine the prevalence of drinking, smoking, and associated disorders in the general population. This survey, which includes a large representative sample of the adult population of the United States, found that drinking rates were highest among young adults and declined with increasing age. Rates of smoking and co-use of alcohol and tobacco were highest among the youngest respondents and declined thereafter. Similar patterns existed for the presence of alcohol use disorders (AUDs), nicotine dependence, and comorbidity between AUDs and nicotine dependence. Among ethnic/racial groups evaluated, Whites were most likely to drink and Native Americans/Alaskan Natives were most likely to smoke and to have an AUD, nicotine dependence, or comorbid AUD and nicotine dependence. Finally, the rates of tobacco use, daily tobacco use, and nicotine dependence increased with increasing levels of alcohol consumption and the presence of an AUD. These findings have important implications for the development of prevention and intervention approaches. [PUBLICATION ABSTRACT]

The last decades of neuroscience research have produced immense progress in the methods available to understand brain structure and function. Social, cognitive, clinical, affective, economic, communication, and developmental neurosciences have begun to map the relationships between neuro-psychological processes and behavioral outcomes, yielding a new understanding of human behavior and promising interventions. However, a limitation of this fast moving research is that most findings are based on small samples of convenience. Furthermore, our understanding of individual differences may be distorted by unrepresentative samples, undermining findings regarding brain–behavior mechanisms. These limitations are issues that social demographers, epidemiologists, and other population scientists have tackled, with solutions that can be applied to neuroscience. By contrast, nearly all social science disciplines, including social demography, sociology, political science, economics, communication science, and psychology, make assumptions about processes that involve the brain, but have incorporated neural measures to differing, and often limited, degrees; many still treat the brain as a black box. In this article, we describe and promote a perspective—population neuroscience—that leverages interdisciplinary expertise to (i) emphasize the importance of sampling to more clearly define the relevant populations and sampling strategies needed when using neuroscience methods to address such questions; and (ii) deepen understanding of mechanisms within population science by providing insight regarding underlying neural mechanisms. Doing so will increase our confidence in the generalizability of the findings. We provide examples to illustrate the population neuroscience approach for specific types of research questions and discuss the potential for theoretical and applied advances from this approach across areas.