4.7 Article

A double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of modafinil for cocaine dependence

期刊

NEUROPSYCHOPHARMACOLOGY
卷 30, 期 1, 页码 205-211

出版社

SPRINGERNATURE
DOI: 10.1038/sj.npp.1300600

关键词

modafinil; cocaine; glutamate; pharmacotherapy; abstinence; addiction

资金

  1. NATIONAL INSTITUTE ON DRUG ABUSE [P50DA012756, P60DA005186] Funding Source: NIH RePORTER

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Despite years of active research, there are still no approved medications for the treatment of cocaine dependence. Modafinil is a glutamate-enhancing agent that blunts cocaine euphoria under controlled conditions, and the current study assessed whether modafinil would improve clinical outcome in cocaine-dependent patients receiving standardized psychosocial treatment. This was a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial conducted at a university outpatient center (from 2002 to 2003) on a consecutive sample of 62 (predominantly African American) cocaine-dependent patients (aged 25-63) free of significant medical and psychiatric conditions. After screening, eligible patients were randomized to a single morning dose of modafinil (400 mg), or matching placebo tablets, for 8 weeks while receiving manual-guided, twice-weekly cognitive behavioral therapy. The primary efficacy measure was cocaine abstinence based on urine benzoylecgonine levels. Secondary measures were craving, cocaine withdrawal, retention, and adverse events. Modafinil-treated patients provided significantly more BE-negative urine samples (p = 0.03) over the 8-week trial when compared to placebos, and were more likely to achieve a protracted period (greater than or equal to3 weeks) of cocaine abstinence (p = 0.05). There were no serious adverse events, and none of the patients failed to complete the study as a result of adverse events. This study provides preliminary evidence, which should be confirmed by a larger study, that modafinil improves clinical outcome when combined with psychosocial treatment 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