4.4 Article

Randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of modafinil for the treatment of methamphetamine dependence

期刊

DRUG AND ALCOHOL DEPENDENCE
卷 109, 期 1-3, 页码 20-29

出版社

ELSEVIER IRELAND LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2009.11.023

关键词

Methamphetamine; Modafinil; Pharmacotherapy; Randomized clinical trial

资金

  1. NIDA [1 P50 DA 18185, 1 K23 DA 023558]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective: To compare modafinil to placebo for reducing methamphetamine (MA) use, improving retention, and reducing depressive symptoms and MA cravings. Rates of adverse events and cigarette smoking with modafinil versus placebo were also compared. Methods: Following a 2-week, non-medication lead-in period, 71 treatment-seeking MA-dependent participants were randomly assigned to modafinil (400 mg once daily; N = 34) or placebo (once daily; N = 37) for 12 weeks under double-blind conditions. Participants attended clinic thrice-weekly to provide urine samples analyzed for MA-metabolite, to complete research assessments, and to receive contingency management and weekly cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) sessions. Results: There were no statistically significant effects for modafinil on MA use, retention, depressive symptoms, or MA cravings in pre-planned analyses. Outcomes for retention and MA use favored modafinil in a post hoc analysis among participants with low CBT attendance and among participants with baseline high-frequency of MA use (MA use on >18 of past 30 days), but did not reach statistical significance in these small subgroups. Modafinil was safe and well tolerated and did not increase cigarette smoking. Conclusions: Modafinil was no more effective than placebo at 400 mg daily in a general sample of MA users. A post hoc analysis showing a trend favoring modafinil among subgroups with baseline high-frequency MA use and low CBT attendance suggests that further evaluation of modafinil in MA users is warranted. (C) 2009 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.

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