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.

Naltrexone (NTX) has been widely studied for the treatment of alcohol use disorder with overall support for its efficacy. The mechanisms of action of naltrexone are thought to involve attenuation of the hedonic effects of alcohol and potentiation of its aversive effects. In order to provide a quantitative estimate of the effects of naltrexone on subjective response to alcohol, the aims of this meta‐analytic review are to examine the effects of naltrexone across four domains of subjective response. Meta‐analyses of naltrexone effects on alcohol craving (k = 16, N = 686), stimulation (k = 15, N = 675), sedation (k = 18, N = 777), and negative mood (k = 9, N = 281) suggested that under laboratory conditions and compared with placebo, naltrexone reduces craving (Hedges g = −0.252; SE = 0.054; 95% CI, −0.375 to −0.130; P < 0.01), reduces stimulation (g = −0.223; SE = 0.067; 95% CI, −0.372 to −0.074; P < 0.01), increases sedation (g = 0.251; SE = 0.064; 95% CI, 0.112‐0.389; P < 0.01), and increases negative mood (g = 0.227; SE = 0.047; 95% CI, 0.100‐0.354; P < 0.01). Results were robust when drinks per month and alcohol dose were added to the models as covariates. The effects of naltrexone varied by severity of alcohol use with medication effects on craving and stimulation being observed in sample of both heavy drinkers and AUD individuals. These results are consistent with the hypothesized mechanisms of action of NTX, although the effects are of small magnitude. This meta‐analysis aggregates across multiple human laboratory studies of NTX's effects on subjective response to alcohol, providing a comprehensive summary of a key mechanism of NTX efficacy, namely, alteration of the subjective experience of alcohol.

No abstract

These findings in East Asians add to the mixed literature on naltrexone pharmacogenetics from predominantly Caucasian samples and highlight the complexity of these effects and their overall limited replicability. It is plausible that a consistent pharmacogenetic effect in tightly controlled preclinical and experimental medicine models "fades" in more complex and heterogeneous settings and samples.