4.4 Article

Varenicline, low dose naltrexone, and their combination for heavy-drinking smokers: human laboratory findings

期刊

PSYCHOPHARMACOLOGY
卷 231, 期 19, 页码 3843-3853

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s00213-014-3519-0

关键词

Naltrexone; Varenicline; Heavy drinker; Smoker; Human lab; Craving

资金

  1. California Tobacco Related Disease Research Program [TRDRP 18KT-0020]
  2. National Institute on Drug Abuse [DA030898]
  3. UCLA Clinical and Translational Science Institute (CTSI) [UL1RR033176, UL1TR000124]
  4. UCLA Training Program in Translational Neuroscience of Drug Abuse [T32 DA024635]
  5. GSK

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Heavy-drinking smokers constitute a sizeable and hard-to-treat subgroup of smokers, for whom tailored smoking cessation therapies are not yet available. The present study used a double-blind, randomized, 2 x 2 medication design, testing varenicline alone (VAR; 1 mg twice daily), low dose naltrexone alone (L-NTX; 25 mg once daily), varenicline plus naltrexone, and placebo for effects on cigarette craving and subjective response to alcohol and cigarettes in a sample (n = 130) of heavy-drinking daily smokers (a parts per thousand yen10 cigarettes/day). All participants were tested after a 9-day titration period designed to reach a steady state on the target medication. Testing was completed at 12 h of nicotine abstinence, after consuming a standard dose of alcohol (target breath alcohol concentration = 0.06 g/dl) and after smoking the first cigarette of the day. The combination of VAR + L-NTX was superior to placebo, and at times superior to monotherapy, in attenuating cigarette craving, cigarette and alcohol high, and in reducing ad-lib consumption of both cigarettes and alcohol during the 9-day medication titration period. These preliminary findings indicate that clinical studies of the combination of VAR + L-NTX for heavy drinkers trying to quit smoking are warranted and may ultimately improve clinical care for this sizeable and treatment-resistant subgroup of smokers.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据