Background: Alcohol use disorder (AUD) and its associated consequences remain significant public health concerns. Given that AUD represents a spectrum of severity, treatment options represent a continuum of care, ranging from single-session brief interventions to more intensive, prolonged, and specialized treatment modalities. Objective: This qualitative literature review seeks to describe the best practices for AUD by placing a particular emphasis on identifying those practices which have received the most empirical support. Method: This review summarizes psychological and pharmacological intervention options for AUD treatment, with a focus on the relapse prevention phase of recovery. Psychological and pharmacological treatments are summarized in terms of the empirical evidence favoring each approach and the level of AUD severity for which they are most indicated. Scientific Significance: One of the broad assertions from this review is that while AUD is highly prevalent, seeking treatment for AUD is not. There are a myriad of behavioral and pharmacological treatments that have shown compelling evidence of efficacy for the treatment of AUD. In the behavioral treatment literature, Cognitive Behavioral Therapy (CBT) has received the most consistent support. Opioid antagonism (via naltrexone) has been the most widely studied pharmacotherapy and has produced moderate effect sizes. While none of the treatments reviewed herein represents a so called “silver bullet” for AUD, they each have the potential to significantly improve the odds of recovery. Precision medicine, or the identification of best treatment matches for individual patients, looms as an important overarching goal for the field; although specific matches are not yet sufficiently reliable in their empirical evidence to warrant clinical dissemination.

Ibudilast, a neuroimmune modulator which selectively inhibits phosphodiesterases (PDE)-3, -4, -10, and -11, and macrophage migration inhibitory factor (MIF), shows promise as a novel pharmacotherapy for alcohol use disorder (AUD). However, the mechanisms of action underlying ibudilast’s effects on the human brain remain largely unknown. Thus, the current study examined the efficacy of ibudilast to improve negative mood, reduce heavy drinking, and attenuate neural reward signals in individuals with AUD. Fifty-two nontreatment-seeking individuals with AUD were randomized to receive ibudilast (n = 24) or placebo (n = 28). Participants completed a 2-week daily diary study during which they filled out daily reports of their past day drinking, mood, and craving. Participants completed an functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) alcohol cue-reactivity paradigm half-way through the study. Ibudilast did not have a significant effect on negative mood (β = −0.34, p = 0.62). However, ibudilast, relative to placebo, reduced the odds of heavy drinking across time by 45% (OR = 0.55, (95% CI: 0.30, 0.98)). Ibudilast also attenuated alcohol cue-elicited activation in the ventral striatum (VS) compared to placebo (F(1,44) = 7.36, p = 0.01). Alcohol cue-elicited activation in the VS predicted subsequent drinking in the ibudilast group (F(1,44) = 6.39, p = 0.02), such that individuals who had attenuated ventral striatal activation and took ibudilast had the fewest number of drinks per drinking day in the week following the scan. These findings extend preclinical and human laboratory studies of the utility of ibudilast to treat AUD and suggest a biobehavioral mechanism through which ibudilast acts, namely, by reducing the rewarding response to alcohol cues in the brain leading to a reduction in heavy drinking.

Among alcohol-dependent individuals, alcohol dependence severity is associated with overactivation of ventromedial prefrontal areas during delayed and underactivation of dorsolateral prefrontal regions during impulsive reward decisions.

No abstract