Journal article
Lindsay R. Meredith, E. Grodin, A. Montoya, R. Miranda, L. Squeglia, Brandon Towns, C. Evans, L. Ray
Alcoholism, clinical and experimental research, 2022
Alcoholism, clinical and experimental research, 2022
Semantic Scholar
DOI
PubMed
Cite
Cite
APA
Click to copy
Meredith, L. R., Grodin, E., Montoya, A., Miranda, R., Squeglia, L., Towns, B., … Ray, L. (2022). The effect of neuroimmune modulation on subjective response to alcohol in the natural environment. Alcoholism, Clinical and Experimental Research.
Chicago/Turabian
Click to copy
Meredith, Lindsay R., E. Grodin, A. Montoya, R. Miranda, L. Squeglia, Brandon Towns, C. Evans, and L. Ray. “The Effect of Neuroimmune Modulation on Subjective Response to Alcohol in the Natural Environment.” Alcoholism, clinical and experimental research (2022).
MLA
Click to copy
Meredith, Lindsay R., et al. “The Effect of Neuroimmune Modulation on Subjective Response to Alcohol in the Natural Environment.” Alcoholism, Clinical and Experimental Research, 2022.
BibTeX Click to copy
@article{lindsay2022a,
title = {The effect of neuroimmune modulation on subjective response to alcohol in the natural environment.},
year = {2022},
journal = {Alcoholism, clinical and experimental research},
author = {Meredith, Lindsay R. and Grodin, E. and Montoya, A. and Miranda, R. and Squeglia, L. and Towns, Brandon and Evans, C. and Ray, L.}
}
Abstract
BACKGROUND Despite the promising implications for novel immune therapeutics, few clinical trials have tested these therapies to date. An understanding of how immune pharmacotherapies influence complex alcohol use disorder (AUD) profiles, including subjective response to alcohol is very limited. Initial findings show that ibudilast, a neuroimmune modulator, reduces rates of heavy drinking and measures of alcohol craving.
METHODS This study serves as a secondary analysis of a two-week clinical trial of ibudilast that enrolled a non-treatment seeking sample with AUD. Eligible participants (N = 52) were randomized to ibudilast or matched placebo and completed daily diary assessments (DDAs) during the two-week period. Each morning, participants retrospectively reported on their mood and craving levels both before and during the previous day's drinking episode, as well as stimulation and sedation levels during the previous day's drinking episode. Multilevel models compared the effects of ibudilast and placebo on subjective alcohol response. Exploratory analyses tested whether ibudilast moderated the relationship between daily stimulation/ sedation and alcohol intake and whether withdrawal-related dysphoria moderated ibudilast's effects on subjective response.
RESULTS Ibudilast did not significantly alter mean levels of stimulation or sedation (p's > .05). It did, however, moderate the effect of daily stimulation on drinking (p = .045). Ibudilast attenuated alcohol-induced increases in craving compared with placebo (p = .047), but not other subjective response measures. Only among individuals without withdrawal-related dysphoria did ibudilast significantly temper daily alcohol-induced changes in urge to drink and positive mood.
CONCLUSIONS Ibudilast's effects on subjective alcohol responses appear to be nuanced and perhaps most salient for individuals drinking for positive reinforcement versus to feel normal. Consistent with previous findings, reductions in alcohol craving may represent a primary mechanism of ibudilast. The ecologically valid nature of DDAs provide a clinically useful window into how individuals experience alcohol's effects while taking ibudilast.
