Polysubstance abuse of alcohol and nicotine has been overlooked in our understanding of the neurobiology of addiction and especially in the development of novel therapeutics for its treatment. Estimates show that as many as 92% of people with alcohol use disorders also smoke tobacco. The health risks associated with both excessive alcohol consumption and tobacco smoking create an urgent biomedical need for the discovery of effective cessation treatments, as opposed to current approaches that attempt to independently treat each abused agent. The lack of treatment approaches for alcohol and nicotine abuse/dependence mirrors a similar lack of research in the neurobiology of polysubstance abuse. This review discusses three critical needs in medications development for alcohol and nicotine co-abuse: (1) the need for a better understanding of the clinical condition (i.e. alcohol and nicotine polysubstance abuse) (2) the need to better understand how these drugs interact in order to identify new targets for therapeutic development and (3) the need for animal models that better mimic this human condition. Current and emerging treatments available for the cessation of each drug and their mechanisms of action are discussed within this context followed by what is known about the pharmacological interactions of alcohol and nicotine. Much has been and will continue to be gained from studying comorbid alcohol and nicotine exposure.

These results indicate that therapeutics which may be useful for smoking cessation via selective inhibition of α4β2* or α6β2* nAChRs, or DAT inhibition, may not be sufficient to treat EtOH and nicotine co-use.

No abstract

No abstract

Background: Although pharmacotherapies are available for alcohol (EtOH) or tobacco use disorders individually, it may be possible to develop a single pharmacotherapy to treat heavy drinking tobacco smokers by capitalizing on the commonalities in their mechanisms of action. Methods: Female alcohol-preferring (P) rats were trained for EtOH drinking and nicotine self-administration in two phases: (1) EtOH alone (0 vs. 15% EtOH, 2-bottle choice) and (2) concomitant access, during which EtOH access continued with access to nicotine (0.03 mg/kg/infusion, i.v.) using a 2-lever choice procedure (active vs. inactive lever) in which the fixed ratio (FR) requirement was gradually increased to FR30. When stable co-use was obtained, rats were pretreated with varying doses of naltrexone, varenicline, or r-bPiDI, an α6β2* subtype-selective nicotinic acetylcholine receptor antagonist shown previously to reduce nicotine self-administration. Results: While EtOH intake was initially suppressed in phase 2 (co-use), pharmacologically relevant intake for both substances was achieved by raising the “price” of nicotine to FR30. In phase 2, naltrexone decreased EtOH and water consumption but not nicotine intake; in contrast, naltrexone in phase 1 (EtOH only) did not significantly alter EtOH intake. Varenicline and r-bPiDI in phase 2 both decreased nicotine self-administration and inactive lever pressing, but neither altered EtOH or water consumption. Conclusions: These results indicate that increasing the “price” of nicotine increases EtOH intake during co-use. Additionally, the efficacy of naltrexone, varenicline, and r-bPiDI was specific to either EtOH or nicotine, with no efficacy for co-use. Nevertheless, future studies on combining these treatments may reveal synergistic efficacy.