Aimee L McRae-Clark1, Kevin M Gray2, Nathaniel L Baker3, Brian J Sherman2, Lindsay Squeglia2, Gregory L Sahlem4, Amanda Wagner2, Rachel Tomko2. 1. Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, SC, United States of America; Ralph H. Johnson VA Medical Center, Charleston, SC, United States of America. Electronic address: mcraeal@musc.edu. 2. Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, SC, United States of America. 3. Department of Public Health Sciences, Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, SC, United States of America. 4. Department of Psychiatry, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, United States of America.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: An efficacious pharmacotherapy for cannabis use disorder (CUD) has yet to be established. This study preliminarily evaluated the safety and efficacy of varenicline for CUD in a proof-of-concept clinical trial. METHODS: Participants in this 6-week randomized, placebo-controlled pilot trial received either varenicline (n = 35) or placebo (n = 37), added to a brief motivational enhancement therapy intervention. Outcomes included cannabis withdrawal, cannabis abstinence, urine cannabinoid levels, percent cannabis use days, and cannabis sessions per day. RESULTS: Both treatment groups noted significant decreases in self-reported cannabis withdrawal, percentage of days used, and use sessions per day during treatment compared to baseline. While this pilot trial was not powered to detect statistically significant between-group differences, participants randomized to varenicline evidenced numerically greater rates of self-reported abstinence at the final study visit [Week 6 intent-to-treat (ITT): Varenicline: 17.1% vs. Placebo: 5.4%; RR = 3.2 (95% CI: 0.7,14.7)]. End-of-treatment urine creatinine corrected cannabinoid levels were numerically lower in the varenicline group and higher in the placebo group compared to baseline [Change from baseline: Varenicline -1.7 ng/mg (95% CI: -4.1,0.8) vs. Placebo: 1.9 ng/mg (95% CI: -0.4,4.3); Δ = 3.5 (95% CI: 0.1,6.9)]. Adverse events related to study treatment did not reveal new safety signals. CONCLUSIONS: Findings support the feasibility of conducting clinical trials of varenicline as a candidate pharmacotherapy for CUD, and indicate that a full-scale efficacy trial, powered based on effect sizes and variability yielded in this study, is warranted. Published by Elsevier B.V.
BACKGROUND: An efficacious pharmacotherapy for cannabis use disorder (CUD) has yet to be established. This study preliminarily evaluated the safety and efficacy of varenicline for CUD in a proof-of-concept clinical trial. METHODS: Participants in this 6-week randomized, placebo-controlled pilot trial received either varenicline (n = 35) or placebo (n = 37), added to a brief motivational enhancement therapy intervention. Outcomes included cannabis withdrawal, cannabis abstinence, urine cannabinoid levels, percent cannabis use days, and cannabis sessions per day. RESULTS: Both treatment groups noted significant decreases in self-reported cannabis withdrawal, percentage of days used, and use sessions per day during treatment compared to baseline. While this pilot trial was not powered to detect statistically significant between-group differences, participants randomized to varenicline evidenced numerically greater rates of self-reported abstinence at the final study visit [Week 6 intent-to-treat (ITT): Varenicline: 17.1% vs. Placebo: 5.4%; RR = 3.2 (95% CI: 0.7,14.7)]. End-of-treatment urine creatinine corrected cannabinoid levels were numerically lower in the varenicline group and higher in the placebo group compared to baseline [Change from baseline: Varenicline -1.7 ng/mg (95% CI: -4.1,0.8) vs. Placebo: 1.9 ng/mg (95% CI: -0.4,4.3); Δ = 3.5 (95% CI: 0.1,6.9)]. Adverse events related to study treatment did not reveal new safety signals. CONCLUSIONS: Findings support the feasibility of conducting clinical trials of varenicline as a candidate pharmacotherapy for CUD, and indicate that a full-scale efficacy trial, powered based on effect sizes and variability yielded in this study, is warranted. Published by Elsevier B.V.
Authors: Mallory J E Loflin; Brian D Kiluk; Marilyn A Huestis; Will M Aklin; Alan J Budney; Kathleen M Carroll; Deepak Cyril D'Souza; Robert H Dworkin; Kevin M Gray; Deborah S Hasin; Dustin C Lee; Bernard Le Foll; Frances R Levin; Joshua A Lile; Barbara J Mason; Aimee L McRae-Clark; Ivan Montoya; Erica N Peters; Tatiana Ramey; Dennis C Turk; Ryan Vandrey; Roger D Weiss; Eric C Strain Journal: Drug Alcohol Depend Date: 2020-04-26 Impact factor: 4.492
Authors: Douglas E Jorenby; J Taylor Hays; Nancy A Rigotti; Salomon Azoulay; Eric J Watsky; Kathryn E Williams; Clare B Billing; Jason Gong; Karen R Reeves Journal: JAMA Date: 2006-07-05 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: David Gonzales; Stephen I Rennard; Mitchell Nides; Cheryl Oncken; Salomon Azoulay; Clare B Billing; Eric J Watsky; Jason Gong; Kathryn E Williams; Karen R Reeves Journal: JAMA Date: 2006-07-05 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Frances R Levin; John J Mariani; Martina Pavlicova; Daniel Brooks; Andrew Glass; Amy Mahony; Edward V Nunes; Adam Bisaga; Elias Dakwar; Kenneth M Carpenter; Maria A Sullivan; Jean C Choi Journal: Drug Alcohol Depend Date: 2015-11-27 Impact factor: 4.492
Authors: Cleo L Crunelle; Sybille Schulz; Kora de Bruin; Michelle L Miller; Wim van den Brink; Jan Booij Journal: Eur Neuropsychopharmacol Date: 2010-12-04 Impact factor: 4.600
Authors: Karen J Hartwell; Todd Lematty; Aimee L McRae-Clark; Kevin M Gray; Mark S George; Kathleen T Brady Journal: Am J Drug Alcohol Abuse Date: 2013-03 Impact factor: 3.829
Authors: Kriti D Gandhi; Meghna P Mansukhani; Victor M Karpyak; Terry D Schneekloth; Zhen Wang; Bhanu Prakash Kolla Journal: J Clin Psychiatry Date: 2020-02-25 Impact factor: 4.384
Authors: Catherine A Dennen; Kenneth Blum; Abdalla Bowirrat; Jag Khalsa; Panayotis K Thanos; David Baron; Rajendra D Badgaiyan; Ashim Gupta; Eric R Braverman; Mark S Gold Journal: Epigenomes Date: 2022-08-26