4.7 Article

Pharmacogenetic Randomized Trial for Cocaine Abuse: Disulfiram and Dopamine β-Hydroxylase

期刊

BIOLOGICAL PSYCHIATRY
卷 73, 期 3, 页码 219-224

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.biopsych.2012.07.011

关键词

Cocaine; dependence; disulfiram; genes; polymorphism; treatment

资金

  1. National Institutes of Health/National Institute on Drug Abuse [5 P50 DA018197-05]
  2. Veterans Health Administration
  3. David Toomim Fund

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Disulfiram has been an effective cocaine addiction pharmacotherapy, and one of its possible mechanisms of efficacy is through copper chelation and inhibition of an enzyme involved in catecholamine metabolism, dopamine beta-hydroxylase (D beta H), which converts dopamine to norepinephrine. A variant in the gene encoding D beta H leads to reduced D beta H activity, and as such, disulfiram might not be an effective treatment of cocaine dependence for individuals with this variant. This study explored that potential matching. Methods: Seventy-four cocaine-and opioid-codependent (DSM-V) subjects were stabilized on methadone for 2 weeks and subsequently randomized into disulfiram (250 mg/day, n = 34) and placebo groups (n = 40) for 10 weeks. We genotyped the DBH gene polymorphism, -1021C/T (rs1611115), that reduces D beta H enzyme levels and evaluated its role for increasing cocaine free urines with disulfiram. Results: With repeated measures analysis of variance, corrected for population structure, disulfiram pharmacotherapy reduced cocaine-positive urines from 80% to 62% (p = .0001), and this disulfiram efficacy differed by DBH genotype group. Patients with the normal D beta H level genotype dropped from 84% to 56% on disulfiram (p = .0001), whereas those with the low DBH level genotype showed no disulfiram effect. Conclusions: This study indicates that the DBH genotype of a patient could be used to identify a subset of individuals for which disulfiram treatment might be an effective pharmacotherapy for cocaine dependence.

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

4.7
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