sodium oxybate in the treatment of alcohol dependence ......areas covered: this review covers the...
Post on 22-Jun-2020
2 Views
Preview:
TRANSCRIPT
Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found athttp://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=ieop20
Download by: [Inova Fairfax Hospital] Date: 07 January 2017, At: 22:29
Expert Opinion on Pharmacotherapy
ISSN: 1465-6566 (Print) 1744-7666 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ieop20
Sodium oxybate in the treatment of alcoholdependence: from the alcohol withdrawalsyndrome to the alcohol relapse prevention
Katrin Skala MD, Fabio Caputo MD, Antonio Mirijello MD, Gabriele VassalloMD, Mariangela Antonelli MD, Anna Ferrulli MD, Phd, Henriette Walter MD,Otto Lesch MD, Prof & Giovanni Addolorato MD
To cite this article: Katrin Skala MD, Fabio Caputo MD, Antonio Mirijello MD, Gabriele VassalloMD, Mariangela Antonelli MD, Anna Ferrulli MD, Phd, Henriette Walter MD, Otto Lesch MD, Prof& Giovanni Addolorato MD (2014) Sodium oxybate in the treatment of alcohol dependence:from the alcohol withdrawal syndrome to the alcohol relapse prevention, Expert Opinion onPharmacotherapy, 15:2, 245-257, DOI: 10.1517/14656566.2014.863278
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1517/14656566.2014.863278
Published online: 28 Nov 2013.
Submit your article to this journal
Article views: 220
View related articles
View Crossmark data
1. Introduction
2. Sodium oxybate
3. Sodium oxybate for the
treatment of alcohol
withdrawal syndrome
4. Sodium oxybate for the
treatment of alcohol relapse
prevention and maintenance
of alcohol abstinence
5. Craving for and abuse of
sodium oxybate
6. Conclusions
7. Expert opinion
Drug Evaluation
Sodium oxybate in the treatmentof alcohol dependence: from thealcohol withdrawal syndrome tothe alcohol relapse preventionKatrin Skala, Fabio Caputo, Antonio Mirijello, Gabriele Vassallo,Mariangela Antonelli, Anna Ferrulli, Henriette Walter, Otto Lesch &Giovanni Addolorato†
†Catholic University of Rome, Gemelli Hospital, Department of Internal Medicine,
Alcohol Use Disorders Unit, Rome, Italy
Introduction: Sodium oxybate (SMO) has been shown to be safe and effective
in the treatment of patients with alcohol use disorders (AUDs); it was
approved in Italy and Austria for the treatment of alcohol withdrawal
syndrome and for relapse prevention. The focus of this review is to discuss
the clinical evidence on the therapeutic potential of SMO for AUDs.
Areas covered: This review covers the studies in patients with alcohol
withdrawal syndrome who received SMO for the treatment of withdrawal
symptoms and the studies in patients with AUDs who received SMO to achieve
total alcohol abstinence, reduction of alcohol intake, and relapse prevention.
Relevant medical literature on SMO was identified by searching databases
including MEDLINE and EMBASE (searches last updated 20 September 2013),
bibliographies from published literature, clinical trial registries/databases,
and websites.
Expert opinion: SMO has proved safe and effective in the treatment of alcohol
withdrawal syndrome and in the prevention of relapses. Craving for and
abuse of SMO have been reported, in particular in some subtypes of alcoholic
patients, e.g., those affected by co-addiction and/or psychiatric comorbidity.
Future multicenter, multinational, randomized clinical trials should be useful
to optimize the treatments in relation with patients’ characteristics, for exam-
ple, pharmacogenetic, neurobiological, and psychological.
Keywords: alcoholism, gamma-hydroxybutyric acid, GHB, SMO
Expert Opin. Pharmacother. (2014) 15(2):245-257
1. Introduction
About 2 billion people consume alcoholic beverages worldwide [1]. Alcohol con-sumption, in particular harmful alcohol use related to alcohol use disorders(AUDs), accounts for 5.5% of the global burden of disease, 4.6% of disability-adjusted life year, and 3.8% of global mortality worldwide [2,3]. AUDs affect nearly10% of the general population both in the United States and in Europe [1,4]. Themain goal in the management of AUD patients is to help them in reducing or stop-ping alcohol consumption and prevent relapse. As such, several medications havebeen tested for the treatment of AUDs, combined with psychosocial interventions,and a few drugs have been approved, such as disulfiram (DSF) [5], naltrexone(NTX) [6], acamprosate [7], and nalmefene [8], although the exact panel of approveddrugs may vary across countries. Other drugs, such as topiramate, baclofen, ondan-setron, varenicline, and sodium oxybate (SMO) (Box 1), have been tested in patientswith AUDs, with promising results [9]. Among them, SMO has been approved in
10.1517/14656566.2014.863278 © 2014 Informa UK, Ltd. ISSN 1465-6566, e-ISSN 1744-7666 245All rights reserved: reproduction in whole or in part not permitted
Italy and Austria for the treatment of alcohol withdrawal syn-drome (AWS) and for relapse prevention and maintenance ofabstinence. The present review reports and discusses the avail-able clinical evidence studies supporting the use of SMO as ananti-alcohol medication.
2. Sodium oxybate
2.1 MetabolismSMO (or GHB --Gamma-hydroxybutyric acid -- as commonlycalled in pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic studies), is ashort-chain 4-carbon fatty acid which occurs naturally inmammalian brain tissue [10]. The primary precursor of GHBin the brain is GABA, which is transformed into succinic semi-aldehyde (SSA) through a GABA-transaminase and then con-verted into GHB via a specific succinic semialdehydereductase (SSR) (Figure 1). GHB can be reconverted to SSAvia a GHB dehydrogenase, and then SSA can be convertedback to GABA; SSA can also be transformed by succinic semi-aldehyde dehydrogenase into succinic acid and further metab-olized via the mitochondrial Krebs cycle. GHB is primarilymetabolized and eliminated by the liver, and only a modestquantity of it remains unmodified (2 -- 5%) and eliminatedin the urine and/or by a still not fully ascertained process ofb-oxidation [10].
Exogenous SMO is rapidly absorbed by the gastrointestinaltract; its peak plasma concentration appears after 15 -- 45 min,and its clinical effects after 15 -- 20 min. This drug has a dose-dependent and saturable elimination; however, the pharmaco-kinetics of SMO is linear in the AUDs therapeutic interval,and the elimination half-life of SMO in healthy subjectsranges between 20 and 53 min [11].
2.2 Neuromodulatory propertiesIn the central nervous system (CNS), SMO binds to GHBand GABAB receptors with high and low affinity, respectively(Figure 2) [10]. The endogenous neurobiological activity ofSMO is mediated through the GHB receptor, while manyof the pharmacological and clinical effects of exogenouslyadministered SMO appear to be mediated through theGABAB receptor, where SMO may act both directly, as apartial GABAB receptor agonist, and indirectly throughGHB-derived GABA [10,12]. Irrespective of the brain SMOconcentration, it is far from certain that SMO interactsdirectly with the GABAA receptors [10-12]. However, the con-version of SMO to GABA induces an activation of GABAB
and GABAA receptors [10-12] which may account for SMOsedative and anxiolytic effects. Moreover, a recent Australianstudy performed in rats’ brain cortex has documented thehigh affinity of GHB for an extra-synaptic a4-subunit ofGABAA receptor concluding that it may, likely, representthe elusive GHB receptor [13].
Both endogenous and exogenous SMO have a dual actionon GHB receptors and GABAB receptors. SMO binds withhigh affinity to presynaptic GHB receptors and decreasesthe release of GABA, while low-affinity binding of SMO toa low-affinity site on the GABAB receptors increases the acti-vation of cell-surface receptors. Therefore, the SMO adminis-tration primarily decreases the release of GABA frompresynaptic GABA-ergic neurons through a direct activationof GHB receptors [10]. This may result in a disinhibition ofdopaminergic neurons (DA) in the ventral tegmental area,an increase of dopamine within that circuitry, which isresponsible of the alcohol-mimetic effect of SMO [10].
In summary, experimental data indicate that the sedativeeffect of SMO observed at medium to high doses may bedue to a direct effect on GABAB and indirect effects onGABAA receptors: in the treatment of AUDs, doses up to100 mg/kg/day are used to treat some severe AWS symptoms(e.g., anxiety) and from 4.5 to 9.5 g/day are used to treatcataplexy and excessive daytime sleepiness in narcolepticpatients. At low doses, SMO seems to have alcohol-mimeticeffects due to a reduced release of GABA mediated by GHBreceptors on presynaptic GABA-ergic and noradrenergicneurons, with a resultant disinhibition of DA release andincrease in dopaminergic activity in the mesocorticolimbiccircuitry [10]: these effects are observed at lower doses: mainly50 mg/kg/day to suppress craving for alcohol and alcoholintake.
Box 1. Drug summary.
Drug name Sodium oxybate (SMO)Phase Product approved in Italy and
AustriaIndication Control of alcohol withdrawal
syndrome (AWS)Maintenance of alcohol abstinenceand prevention of relapse
Pharmacologydescription
It is believed that stimulationof GABAB receptors, in competitionwith alcohol, is a key mechanismof action of GHB in the CNS. SMOalso binds to specific GHB receptorswith low affinity for GABAIn addition, nonclinical pharmacologyand clinical studies of SMO andalcohol have also shown manysimilarities between the acuteeffects of alcohol and SMO
Route ofadministration
Oral
Chemicalstructure
HO
O
ONaPivotaltrial(s)
[28,29,31,40,41,44,45,48,49,52,
58,62,70,84,85]
Pharmaprojects -- copyright to Citeline Drug Intelligence (an Informa
business). Readers are referred to Pipeline (http://informa-pipeline.
citeline.com) and Citeline (http://informa.citeline.com).
K. Skala et al.
246 Expert Opin. Pharmacother. (2014) 15(2)
2.3 Clinical indicationsSMO was identified and synthesized > 40 years ago [14]. SMOwas first developed as a CNS depressant [15] and used as ananesthetic adjuvant for minor surgical procedures in the labo-ratory as well as in clinical settings [16-18]. The use of SMO asan anesthetic is now decreasing, although it is still approved inGermany for intravenous anesthesia [12]. In the 1970s, SMOwas found to be effective in the treatment of narcolepsy [19,20].In particular, nightly doses of SMO were shown to improvethe structure of sleep in narcoleptic patients, reducing thenumber of nocturnal awakenings and daytime attacks of cata-plexy [21]. In the USA, Canada, the European Union, andSwitzerland, SMO has now been approved with an orphandrug status for the treatment of narcolepsy (Jazz Pharmaceut-icals, Inc., Valeant Pharmaceuticals International, and UCB).In particular, in the USA, through a limited distribution pro-gram, the FDA approved SMO as a schedule III controlledsubstance to treat patients with narcolepsy who have episodesof weak or paralyzed muscles (i.e., cataplexy).
3. Sodium oxybate for the treatment ofalcohol withdrawal syndrome
AWS is a life-threatening condition affecting alcohol-dependent patients who discontinue or decrease their alcoholconsumption [22]. The main objectives of the clinical manage-ment of AWS are to decrease the severity of symptoms, pre-vent more severe withdrawal clinical manifestations such asseizure and delirium, and facilitate entry of the patient intoa treatment program in order to attempt to achieve and tomaintain long-term abstinence from alcohol [23]. At present,benzodiazepines (e.g., diazepam, 0.5 -- 0.75 mg/kg/day) arethe drugs of choice in the treatment of AWS [24]. However,the use of benzodiazepines is associated with several sideeffects, such as risk of excess sedation, memory deficits, andrespiratory depression in particular in patients with liver
impairment, as is often the case in alcoholics [25]. Conse-quently, the discovery of new potentially useful non-benzodiazepine GABA-ergic drugs for the treatment of AWSis of considerable practical importance [25].
The GABA-ergic action of SMO and its alcohol-mimicking effects on the CNS [26] represented the rationalefor testing this compound in the treatment of AWS. Preclin-ical data showed the efficacy of SMO to suppress ethanolwithdrawal syndrome in rats [26,27]. Subsequently a numberof clinical studies versus placebo and active comparatorshave demonstrated the safety and efficacy of SMO in sup-pressing AWS symptoms. The proof-of-concept study inpatients with AWS was performed by Gallimberti et al. [28].This was a randomized double-blind placebo-controlled trialin 23 patients. A single oral dose of SMO (50 mg/kg)decreased significantly and very rapidly the AWS symptomsscore as compared to placebo.
The efficacy of repeated doses of SMO (50 mg/kg/day inmost studies given orally in three divided doses) was subse-quently confirmed in comparative studies versus benzodiaze-pines [29,30] and versus clomethiazole [31,32]. SMO was testedin large samples of in- and outpatients who developed AWSsymptoms of various levels of severity, after being admittedto different clinical settings (e.g., Psychiatry, Internal Medi-cine, Surgery, Intensive Care Unit (ICU)). In almost all stud-ies of SMO in patients with AWS, the primary efficacyendpoint was the decrease of the Clinical Institute With-drawal Assessment for Alcohol Scale--revised (CIWA-Ar)score and/or CIWA-Ar subscores, the validated and referenceinstrument to assess interventions in patients with AWS [33].
A single-blind, randomized study compared a 10-day treat-ment course of oral SMO (50 mg/kg in three divided doses)and oral diazepam in 30 patients [29]. The daily dose of diaz-epam was 0.50 -- 0.75 mg/kg body weight for the first sixdays; from the seventh day onwards, the dose of diazepamwas reduced by at least 25%/day and stopped on day 10.SMO and diazepam were effective in decreasing CIWA-Arscore and no statistically or clinically significant differencewas observed between SMO and diazepam in CIWA-Ar totalscore at baseline and at any subsequent time of assessment.This study showed that SMO is as effective as diazepam,widely considered as the gold-standard pharmacotherapy inthe treatment of AWS. Interestingly, a statistically signifi-cantly higher decrease in several CIWA-Ar subscores wasobserved with SMO as compared to diazepam. This was thecase of the mean score of anxiety on day 4 and the mean scoreof agitation on day 5. This observation suggests a morerapid effect of SMO in reducing and suppressing thesesymptoms [29].
A comparative study with a similar design was performedin 42 inpatients with severe AWS [30]. The study drugs wereSMO (50 mg/kg/day q.i.d) or diazepam (0.5 mg/kg/dayq.i.d) for three weeks, using a randomized, open-label design.SMO was more effective than diazepam in reducing bothCIWA-Ar total score and CIWA-Ar mean subscores (tremor,
SSA
Succinicacid
Krebscycles
GABA
GHB
Mitochondrion
SSADH
SSASSR
GABAT
GHBDH(95%)
CO2 + H2O
β-oxidation(2 – 5%)
Urine(2 – 5%)
Figure 1. Pathways of GHB metabolism.Modified from Caputo F, et al. Int J Environ Res Public Health 2009.
GHBDH: GHB dehydrogenase; GABA: gamma-aminobutyric acid; GABAT:
GABA-transaminase; SSA: Succinic semialdehyde; SSADH: Succinic semialde-
hyde dehydrogenase; SSR: Succinic semialdehyde reductase.
Sodium oxybate
Expert Opin. Pharmacother. (2014) 15(2) 247
paroxysmal sweats, anxiety, and agitation) and in reducingcortisol levels at different times of observation [30].A further comparative study was carried out to compare the
efficacy of two daily doses of SMO (50 or 100 mg/kg in threedivided doses), and of clomethiazole, an effective non-benzodiazepine AWS pharmacotherapy [31]. No significantdifference in CIWA-Ar and other secondary efficacy end-points was found between the three treatment arms and therewas no rebound of withdrawal symptoms after tapering offstudy medications [31].An additional study compared the efficacy of intravenous
SMO (30 mg/kg initially, followed by 15 mg/kg) and orallyadministered clomethiazole (250 mg every 4 h) in patientsaffected by AWS and treated in a medical ICU setting. Intra-venous SMO was found to be more effective than oral clome-thiazole in the treatment of AWS symptoms in this patientpopulation [32].In all these trials [29-32], no severe side effects have been
reported. Mild side effects included vertigo, drowsiness, dizzi-ness, rhinitis, diarrhea, and nausea. In the study where twodifferent doses of SMO were tested, the 100 mg/kg dailydose was not more effective than the 50 mg/kg daily dose,
but was associated with more frequent non-serious side effects(especially vertigo and diarrhea) [31].
A meta-analysis of the safety and efficacy of SMO in thetreatment of AD (AWS and maintenance of alcohol absti-nence) was performed in 2010 by The Cochrane Collabora-tion [34]. The AWS review included six trials which met themethodological requirements defined by The Cochrane Col-laboration. These trials had included 286 patients withvarious levels of AWS severity and clinical settings. Themeta-analysis showed that SMO (50 mg/kg/day) is moreeffective than placebo in reducing AWS symptoms score; theefficacy of SMO was at least equivalent to that of benzodiaze-pines and clomethiazole. No differences between the groupswere observed for side effects and numbers of drop-outsbetween treatments [34].
Another meta-analysis evaluated a variety of drugs in sixcontrolled trials for AWS prevention and eight trials forAWS therapy in ICU [35]. In this meta-analysis, no studywith SMO was available for AWS prevention, and all evalu-ated drugs (benzodiazepines, SMO, and clomethiazole assingle agents and phenobarbital, clonidine, and haloperidolas adjuncts) in randomized controlled trials were found to
SMO+(GABAB receptor)
SMO+(GABAB receptor)
SMO +(GHB receptor)
GABA-ergic
Dopaminergic
Noradrenergic
(-) neurons
Pre-frontalcortex
Ventraltegmentalarea(VTA)
Nucleusaccumbens(NAc)
Locusceruleus(LC)
‘_’ inhibition‘+’ activation‘O’ dopamine increase
(+) neurons
(-) neurons
Figure 2. ----"Activity of meso-corticolimbic system in physiological condition. --"Activity of meso-corticolimbic system
during exogenous administration of sodium oxybate (SMO).----" Dopamine neurons (DA) originate from ventral tegmental area (VTA) and project their fibers to the nucleus accumbens (NAc) and to the pre-frontal cortex;
DA neurons play a relevant role in physiological reward (i.e., food, sleeping, sexual activity); this circuit is often inhibited by noradrenergic and GABA-ergic neurons
originated from the nucleus ceruleus (LC).
--" Sodium oxybate (SMO) induces disinhibition of DA originated from VTA through direct activation and inhibition of GABA-ergic and noradrenergic neurons
with a consequent increase in dopamine release from NAc and pre-frontal cortex; this mechanism is on the basis of the alcohol-mimicking effect of SMO.
K. Skala et al.
248 Expert Opin. Pharmacother. (2014) 15(2)
be effective for AWS therapy. In particular, benzodiazepinesappeared as slightly superior to SMO and clomethiazole,although the authors stated that caution was needed becauseof the large methodological differences between studies thatwere included in the meta-analysis.
4. Sodium oxybate for the treatment ofalcohol relapse prevention and maintenanceof alcohol abstinence
4.1 Sodium oxybate as an anti-craving drug in the
treatment of AUDsAs mentioned above, SMO exerts an ethanol-mimickingeffect on the CNS [36-38]. Consistent with this rationale,SMO has been shown to be capable of inhibiting voluntaryethanol consumption in rats that have a preference forethanol [36-39]. In humans, a randomized double-blind studytreating patients with SMO at dose of 50 mg/kg (dividedinto three daily administrations) or placebo for three monthsshowed that SMO was significantly superior to placebo inincreasing the number of abstinent days, in reducing thenumber of daily drinks and in reducing alcohol craving [40].A subsequent open multicenter study confirmed the efficacyof SMO in improving the abstinence rate and in reducingcraving for alcohol [41]. SMO also proved to be manageable,with few side effects, such as dizziness, sleepiness, and tired-ness early on during treatment (usually resolved after2 -- 3 weeks). About 30 -- 40% of alcoholics treated withSMO fail to achieve complete abstinence from alcohol eventhough they sometimes describe a temporary reduction ofalcohol craving. Taking into account the short half-life ofSMO [42,43], a study was conducted to investigate the efficacyof the administration of a greater fractioning (six times a day)of the same dose (50 mg/kg) of SMO in those subjects whohave not achieved alcohol abstinence after the administrationof the conventional three daily doses [44]. The results showed asignificant reduction of alcohol craving in a greater percentageof alcoholics who were able to achieve complete abstinencefrom alcohol.
The already mentioned meta-analysis by The CochraneCollaboration evaluated the safety and efficacy of SMO inprevention of alcohol relapse [34]. The meta-analysis evaluated7 clinical trials having included 362 alcoholic patients whoreceived SMO and a placebo or an active comparator to pre-vent alcohol relapses and maintain alcohol abstinence. Com-pared to placebo, SMO administered at the daily dose of50 mg/kg significantly increased the number of patientswith complete abstinence or controlled drinking and reducedthe number of daily drinks and the craving score. SMO wasmore effective than NTX and DSF in reducing craving andpromoting abstinence.
More recently, a one-year open-label study tested the effi-cacy of SMO (doses ranging between 25 and 100 mg/kg/day)in “treatment-resistant” chronic alcoholics defined as patients
who have previously followed at least two attempts at treatment[i.e., use of psychoactive drugs such as selective serotonin reup-take inhibitors, mood stabilizers, tricycles, and/or self-helpgroup intervention] without achieving alcohol abstinence orwho relapsed into heavy drinking during attendance at self-help groups or who were not helped in achieving alcoholabstinence by their precarious psycho-social or environmen-tal conditions [45]. The results of the study showed that60% of patients were “responders”, that is, patients who suc-cessfully achieved complete abstinence from alcohol togetherwith social adjustment (full-responders) or patients whoreduced their alcohol intake but did not accomplish com-plete alcohol abstinence (partial responders) [45]. The reten-tion rate during treatment with SMO was significantlyhigher than the retention rate of the same sample previouslytreated with other pharmacotherapies. Furthermore, thisstudy confirmed that the only significant predictor of theretention rate was the six-times/daily fractionated administra-tion of SMO [45], a result in close agreement with the previ-ous study [44].
Two laboratory studies in healthy subjects investigated theeffects of a concomitant administration of single doses of alco-hol and SMO. Both studies had a randomized, double-blind,placebo-controlled, four-way crossover design. These studiesare of interest, since they investigate possible side effects incase of alcohol intake during treatment with SMO.
The first study compared the effect of single doses of SMO(50 mg/kg), alcohol, the combination of SMO and alcohol,both at the same doses, and placebo in eight healthyvolunteers [46].
A similar study was performed in 24 healthy volunteerswith the same dose of alcohol but a smaller dose of SMOwas used (2.25 g or 30 mg/kg) [47]. This dose is close to theupper limit of the therapeutic interval (33.3 mg/kg). The pri-mary objective of that study was to investigate the effects ofstudy drugs on objective and subjective psychometric tests.SMO was found to have less sedative effects than alcohol.Antagonistic and less frequently synergistic interactions with-out potentiation between SMO and alcohol were found in asmall number of psychometric tests. The combination wasassociated with a nonsignificantly increased number ofnon-serious adverse events.
The daily dose of SMO used to treat alcohol dependence(3 -- 6 g) is much smaller than the dose used in the treatmentof narcolepsy (4.5 -- 9 g).
This may account for the absence of reported seriousadverse effects (SAEs) when alcohol-dependent patientstreated with SMO have an alcohol relapse. In fact, no sideeffects due to the combination of SMO 50 mg/kg/day(divided into 3 -- 6 daily administrations) and alcohol wereobserved in SMO-treated alcoholics who were still drinkingduring the treatment [40,41,44,48,49]. It is conceivable that theuse of the same dose of 50 mg/kg divided into 3 -- 6 dailyadministrations was able to prevent the occurrence of adverseeffects when associated with ethanol [50].
Sodium oxybate
Expert Opin. Pharmacother. (2014) 15(2) 249
4.2 Results of the “GHB in alcohol-dependence
treatment efficacy” studyGHB in Alcohol-dependence treatment efficacy (GATE 2) trialwas a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, multicen-ter study which was conducted in 11 centers in 4 EuropeanCountries (Austria, Germany, Italy, and Poland) [51,52]. Theobjective of the study was to confirm the efficacy and the safetyof oral SMO in the long-term treatment of alcohol dependencein a large patient population. A total of 314 patients, who metDiagnostic and StatisticalManual ofMentalDisorders, 4th Edi-tion (DSM-IV) criteria for alcohol abuse and dependence, butwithout history of any other drug dependence except nicotine,were randomized. Among them, 154 patients were randomizedto the SO group, and 160 patients to the placebo group.Patients were stratified according to Lesch’s typology [53,54],
which classifies alcohol-dependent subjects into four clinically
defined groups. Patients with body weight < 65 kg received
3.06 g of the SMO solution per day, and patients with body
weight > 65 kg received 3.50 g of SMO, split into three doses.
Patients remained on the allocated double-blind treatment for
6 months, and entered a 6-month untreated follow-up period.
The primary efficacy outcome was the cumulative abstinence
duration (CAD); CAD is the number of days of abstinence
during the observed period. Secondary outcomes were i) the
number and percentage of patients abstinent from alcohol
each month, at the end of the 6-month treatment period, and
at the end of the 6-month untreated follow-up period, ii) the
time to first relapse (assessed by the Kaplan-Meier abstinence
survival curve), iii) the proportion of drop-outs, and alcohol
relapses and slips, respectively, defined by an increase of at least
1.0 and 0.5% in Carbohydrate Deficient Transferrin (%CDT);
and iv) alcohol craving and desire for medication assessed by
the Lubecker Craving Risiko Ruckfall (LCRR) scale.A total of 74 (48.1%) and 40 (26.0%), respectively, of
SMO-treated patients completed the 6-month treated periodand the 6-month untreated follow-up period. Correspondingfigures were 58 (36.2%) and 31 (19.4%) in the placebogroup. These figures are slightly higher than retention ratesin published long-term trials in alcohol-dependent patientpopulations. At the end of the treated period, the differenceof the mean values of CAD between the SMO group andthe placebo group reached borderline statistical significanceusing analysis-of-variance testing: 90.4 days vs 73.9 days(p = 0.050). In addition, a statistically significant differencebetween SMO group and placebo group in maintaining acontinuous abstinence from alcohol at the end of the firstmonth (67.5 vs 55.6%; p = 0.030) and of the fifth month(40.9 vs 30.0%; p = 0.043) of treatment was found.At the end of the 6-month untreated period, the mean values
of CAD were 136.0 days in the SMO group and 108.9 days inthe placebo group (p = 0.071). Tests of normality showed thatthe distribution of CAD significantly deviates in both studygroups from a Gaussian distribution. In this case, the medianvalue of CAD is a better index of centrality than the mean value.
At the end of the treated period, themedian values of CADwere90.5 days and 57.5 days in the SMO group and the placebo,respectively, and at the end of the follow-up period, median val-ues were 91.5 days and 58.0 days in the SMOgroup and the pla-cebo group, respectively. Though GATE 2 trial was notdesigned and powered to demonstrate the persistence of the effi-cacy of SMO over a long time after drug discontinuation, theseanalyses strongly suggest that the therapeutic advantage of SMOis maintained for a long time after drug cessation. The mediantime to first relapse estimated by Kaplan-Meier methodologywas 77.00 days in the SMOgroup and 46.00 days in the placebogroup (p = 0.133). Interestingly, the effect of SMO differedaccording to Lesch’s typologies [53,54]. Indeed, in Lesch type IIpatients, the SMO group showed a statistically significanthigher CAD than the placebo group (p = 0.035). No statisticallysignificant difference was found between study groups at anyvisit in terms of desire for medication. Alcohol craving, assessedby LCCR, significantly decreased in both groups with no signif-icant intergroup difference. Alcohol biomarkers (liver functiontests,MCV,%CDT) improved throughout the study, but with-out any significant difference between study groups. This maybe related to the fact that almost 50% of patients had normalbaseline values of alcohol craving and alcohol biomarkers. Thelong screening period (at least 20 abstinent days prior to ran-domization) may account for normalized values at randomiza-tion. SAEs were very uncommon in both groups and wereunrelated with studymedications: injury, poisoning, and proce-dural complications in 3 (1.9%) patients in the SMO group and2 (1.3%) patients in the placebo group.
When interpreting the efficacy outcomes of GATE 2 study,it is important to underline some limitations of the studywhich may have contributed to an underestimation ofSMO’s efficacy compared to previous trials:
. The dose level of SMO was significantly lower than inprevious studies. The average daily doses in patientswith body weight below 65 kg and over 65 kg were44.3 mg/kg or more, and 52.5 mg/kg or less, respectively.This means that 66% of patients received daily doses sig-nificantly lower than 50 mg/kg, the lowest dose of thetherapeutic interval defined by the Summary of ProductCharacteristics of SMO in Austria and in Italy.
. The number of dropped-out patients was much higherthan in the protocol assumptions underlying samplesize calculation.
. The study protocol required at least 20-day completealcohol abstinence prior to randomization; such a longtime interval may enhance placebo effect [55].
4.3 Sodium oxybate compared and combined with
other medications in the treatment of alcohol
dependenceA 3-month open randomized comparative study evaluatingthe efficacy of SMO (50 mg/kg of body weight t.i.d)
K. Skala et al.
250 Expert Opin. Pharmacother. (2014) 15(2)
compared with NTX (50 mg o.d.) in maintaining abstinencefrom alcohol in patients with mostly moderate alcoholdependence. SMO was significantly more effective thanNTX in maintaining alcohol abstinence (66.7 vs 35.3%;p < 0.02) [48]. Nevertheless, in the same study, in the NTXgroup, patients who failed to be abstinent did not relapseinto heavy drinking, confirming the ability of this drug toreduce alcohol relapses, while in the SMO group all thepatients who did not maintain abstinence relapsed into heavydrinking (~ 11%). This finding had been reported in anotherSMO trial in alcoholic patients [49]. However, in both studies,the difference between SMO and NTX did not reach thestatistical significance.
Craving for SMO was not observed, and no sedative addi-tive effects due to an alcohol--SMO interaction in patientswho relapsed were found. Similarly, an SMO withdrawal syn-drome or symptoms and signs related to drug suspension ordiscontinuation were reported. Moreover, a 12-month com-parative study showed that SMO, administered at a dose of50 mg/kg/day, NTX at a dose of 50 mg/day, and DSF at adose of 200 mg/day did not statistically differ, although theabstinence rate was higher in SMO group (65%) comparedto NTX (49%) and DSF (40%) [56]. No patient treatedwith SMO developed craving for this drug, and only mild-to-moderate side effects were found in all groups.
Considering the data emerging from the comparative stud-ies, a 3-month randomized study was performed in patientswith mostly severe alcohol dependence [49]. In this 3-monthopen randomized comparative study, the combined treatmentof SMO and NTX was shown to be more effective in main-taining abstinence from alcohol than single SMO and NTXtherapies, with 72.2, 40, and 5.9% completely abstinentpatients, respectively [49]. The number of relapses into heavydrinking also tended to occur less frequently in the combina-tion group (no cases) than in either the SMO group or theNTX group. These data suggest that the two drugs may com-bine their different actions synergistically without suppressingthe favorable effects of each other. In addition, as demon-strated by the absence of patients who developed craving forSMO in the combined group with respect to the group takingSMO alone (~ 10%) [49], it is possible that the anti-rewardproperty of NTX prevents the onset of craving for SMO aspreviously observed in by three clinical experiences [57].Another 6-month open randomized study compared the effi-cacy of SMO, NTX, and their combination in maintainingalcohol abstinence in patients treated by escitalopram, anSSRI anti-depressant agent [58]. In this study, the triple com-bination therapy (SMO + NTX + escitalopram) proved tobe more effective than SMO plus escitalopram, NTX plusescitalopram, or escitalopram alone in preventing alcoholrelapses: the abstinence rate was 83.3, 50, 33.3, and 18.1%,respectively [58]. In fact, the mechanism of alcohol cravingmay differ in the various subtypes of alcohol depen-dence [59,60]. In particular, a dopaminergic/opioidergicdysregulation has been hypothesized in reward craving,
GABAergic/glutamatergic dysregulation in relief craving,and serotonergic dysregulation in obsessive craving [59-61].Different craving conditions and profiles may coexist in asingle patient, so that drug combinations (e.g., or i.e.,SMO, NTX, and escitalopram) could be more effectivethan single or double drug therapies in preventing alcoholrelapses. Finally, a recent Italian observational trial foundthat ~ 60% of patients not responding to a single-drugSMO therapy responded to the combination of DSF andSMO [62].
5. Craving for and abuse of sodium oxybate
SMO has a potential for abuse, misuse, dependence, andwithdrawal symptoms in relation with its neurobiologicalproperties. SMO has complex and biphasic effects on thedopaminergic system: initial stimulation followed by long-lasting inhibition. The acute stimulation underlies the eupho-rizing effects of SMO, usually observed at doses significantlyhigher than therapeutic doses used in AUDs or even narco-lepsy. Chronic administration of SMO may result in compen-satory mechanisms which offset the inhibition of dopaminerelease, and lead to an increase of dopamine, GABA, and/orglutamate release [63]. This scenario could contribute to theaddictive liability of SMO. Addictive properties of SMOhave been reported in both non-alcoholics and alcoholics [64].However, there is a major difference between the use of SMOas a therapeutic agent to treat alcohol-dependent subjects andthe illegal use, misuse, and abuse of illicit GHB in non-alcoholic subjects [65]. Euphorizing and disinhibiting effectsof GHB have made it popular as a recreational drug [66] inthe US and the UK where it is sold clandestinely mostly inthe street or by internet sites [67]. More recently, the recrea-tional use of GHB has also become popular in Europe andother countries [68]. GHB has also been used in the body-building community because of its supposed ability to pro-mote muscle growth and decrease body fat [69]; some studiessuggest that high doses of SMO may stimulate the release ofhuman growth hormone from the anterior pituitary gland.However, in alcoholics there is no evidence that treatmentwith SMO results in an increase in muscle mass [70]. TheCNS depressant effects of GHB are somewhat comparableto those of sedative hypnotics such as barbiturates and benzo-diazepines and explain the risk of GHB overdosage. The riskof overdosage of illicit GHB is also related to two aggravatingfactors: i) illicit GHB consumers commonly ingest prepara-tions containing inaccurate/unknown doses of GHB andii) these subjects also consume other illicit drugs in combina-tion with GHB, including CNS depressants [57]. In addition,a recent Dutch paper has demonstrated that the most riskyfactor of GHB overdose, during its recreational use, is thedrug itself, and taking GHB in a company of friends mayreduce the risk of overdose of the drug [71]. The number ofcases of GHB intoxication treated in Emergency departmentsof hospitals has been increasing in some countries and
Sodium oxybate
Expert Opin. Pharmacother. (2014) 15(2) 251
decreasing in other countries during the last years [72,73]. Signsand symptoms induced by GHB intoxication have beenreported at doses ranging from a few grams to 30 g or more.However, severe intoxications are usually observed foringested doses in excess of 8 -- 10 g, especially for doses higherthan 30 g [74]. Adverse effects include dizziness, nausea, vom-iting, myoclonic muscle movements (jerks), agitation, confu-sion, hallucinations, loss of peripheral vision, and delirium.In case of vomiting, there is a risk of pulmonary aspirationwhich may be life-threatening. Doses higher than 10 -- 20 gcan decrease cardiac output and may produce coma, seizure-like convulsions, and severe respiratory depression requiringrespiratory assistance [74]. Psychosis, stroke, and possiblelong-term neurotoxic effects are much less common [75]. Nospecific antidotes are available for the treatment of GHBintoxication and the medical treatment is essentially support-ive, based on respiratory assistance and maintenance of vitalfunctions. Some uncontrolled clinical studies have suggestedthat opioid antagonists such as naloxone could be effectiveon GHB intoxication [68]. In some individuals who abuseGHB, repeated and persistent use of high doses may lead tothe development of physical dependence including a risk ofa withdrawal syndrome [76]. GHB withdrawal syndromemay include anxiety, insomnia, and tremor. If untreated,there is a risk of delirium, hallucinations, and/or acute psy-chosis. GHB withdrawal syndrome may require an out- orinpatient treatment with administration of benzodiazepinesdepending on symptom severity [76,77]. Because of its abusepotential, FDA classified in 2000 GHB as a Schedule I con-trolled substance [78]. In 2002, FDA approved SMO as a ther-apeutic agent for the treatment of narcolepsy with cataplexy.In this case SMO has a Schedule III drug labeling, as a reflec-tion of its reduced abuse potential as compared to illicitGHB [79]. A retrospective safety study on the 26,000 patientstreated worldwide with SMO for narcolepsy during 6 years(2002 -- 2008) evaluated the incidence of adverse eventsrelated to abuse, misuse, and addiction [80]. The numberand incidence of the following DSM-IV-defined adverseevents were, respectively, abuse (10 = 0.039%), dependence(4 = 0.016%), withdrawal symptoms (8 = 0.031%), drug-facilitated sexual assault (2 = 0.008%), overdose with suicidalintent (8 = 0.031%), and death, whichever the relatednesswith the drug (21 = 0.080%). Overall, the incidence ofpatients with at least 1 of those adverse events was 0.2% [80].A retrospective analysis included 732 alcohol-dependent
outpatients treated with SMO in clinical trials [81]. Dailydoses in these trials ranged between 50 and 100 mg/kgdivided in three or more doses for an average duration of132.2 ± 57.9 days. These patients also attended supportivepsychosocial programs, and the administration of SMO wasentrusted to a family member. A small percentage of thesepatients (2.6 -- 10.1% depending on reports) showed cravingfor the drug and increased the dosage (up to 6 -- 7 times therecommended dose) [41,81,82]. However, in these studies, crav-ing assessment was based on spontaneous patient reports and
not measured using a specific validated instrument. In theGATE 2 study performed in 314 alcohol-dependent patients,addictive symptoms were searched systematically throughanamnesis and by the LCRR questionnaire [51,52]. Items1 and 2 of LCCR questionnaire investigated desire for studymedication; no significant difference was found betweendrug- and placebo-treated groups at any visit in terms of crav-ing for medication. It has been suggested that craving forSMO observed in treated alcohol-dependent patients couldbe partly related to the consequences of the short eliminationhalf-life of SMO [11]. This hypothesis is supported by clinicalstudies which showed that a greater fractioning of the dailyamount of SMO (from 3 to 6 daily doses) not only enhancedthe efficacy of SMO in preventing alcohol relapses, but alsosignificantly reduced the incidence of drug abuse [44,83].
5.1 Risk factors of sodium oxybate in alcoholic
patientsCraving for and abuse of SMO represent crucial aspects in thetreatment of alcohol-dependent patients. Therefore, it isessential to identify subgroups of AUDs patients at risk forSMO abuse.
A recent study assessed the risk of developing craving forand abuse of SO in four groups of alcoholics, with or withouthistory of co-addictions to heroin or cocaine [84]. In this study,AUDs patients were enrolled and treated with SMO orallyadministered (50 mg/kg of body weight t.i.d.) for 3 months.At the end of the study, SMO was found to be effective inpromoting alcohol abstinence and in alcohol relapse preven-tion in all four study groups. Craving for SMO was foundto be very uncommon in patients without co-addiction. How-ever, craving for SMO was significantly higher in alcoholicswith previous cocaine or heroin dependence than in alcoholicwithout co-addiction. This study suggests that the administra-tion of SMO is safe and does not lead to addiction in alcohol-dependent patients without co-addiction but may bedangerous in alcoholics with history of cocaine or heroindependence [84].
In a subsequent study performed in AUDs patients withand without psychiatric comorbidity, the efficacy of a12-week treatment with SMO was similar in obtaining andmaintaining complete abstinence in both groups. However,no patient without psychiatric comorbidity showed cravingfor or abuse of SMO, whereas 40% of patients with psychiat-ric comorbidity showed craving for the drug, without no sta-tistically significant difference between DSM-IV-TR-definedAxis I or Axis II psychiatric comorbidity [85]. In particular,AUD patients with a borderline personality disorder seem tobe at high risk of developing craving for SMO [85].
In conclusion, SMO abuse, misuse, and dependence duringtreatment for AUDs can be observed but with a very low inci-dence in patients without co-addiction and psychiatriccomorbidity. The risk of SMO abuse must, however, be taken
K. Skala et al.
252 Expert Opin. Pharmacother. (2014) 15(2)
into account in alcohol-dependent patients having theserisk factors.
6. Conclusions
A large number of well-conducted clinical studies performedwith SMO in alcohol-dependent patients have demonstratedthat SMO is a safe and effective drug in the treatment ofAWS as well as in alcohol relapse prevention. Several studieshave provided preliminary evidence that SMO is more effec-tive than NTX and DSF in the prevention of alcohol relapses.Recent studies have also suggested the possible benefits fromcombining medications acting on different neurobiologicaltargets. The combination of SMO and NTX is of particularinterest, because these two drugs have a different mechanismof action and neurobiological targets and can be synergistic.The risk of abuse is low, but still underlines the need to detectearly evidence of abuse and/or misuse, and to avoid theadministration of the drug to some of the alcoholic patients(co-addiction, psychiatric comorbidity). For these reasons,SMO must be prescribed and monitored by physicians withexpertise in Addiction Medicine. In conclusion, SMO hasbeen shown to be safe and effective in the treatment ofAUDs, although further studies will be useful to optimizethe use of SMO.
7. Expert opinion
Relapse prevention should be based on a multidisciplinaryapproach, where pharmacological treatment is combinedwith psychosocial interventions, including motivational orcognitive behavioral therapy and/or self-help groups. Up torecently, pharmacotherapy of AUD only included threeapproved drugs for the maintenance of alcohol abstinence:DSF, acamprosate, and NTX; these drugs are widely consid-ered as having a modest efficacy. Nalmefene, an opioid antag-onist, has recently been approved by European healthauthorities to reduce alcohol consumption without specifi-cally targeting alcohol abstinence though the long-term conse-quences of the risk reduction approach are still unclear.Baclofen and topiramate are two promising GABA-ergicdrugs but the risk-to-benefit ratio of these drugs has yet tobe clarified.
SMO is approved in two European countries and hasproved safe and effective in the treatment of AWS and inthe long-term prevention of alcohol relapses. Convergentpilot trials suggest that SMO is more effective than NTX
and DSF. Large-scale trials will be needed to confirm thesuperiority of SMO on existing drugs. The same is true for“treatment-resistant” patients who could particularly benefitfrom SMO.
As opposed to other chronic conditions such as hyperten-sion or diabetes mellitus, combination therapy is not a com-mon practice and has not been extensively assessed inpatients with AUDs. A study has provided evidence that thecombination of SMO and NTX has a strong pharmacologicalrationale and is more effective and possibly safer than singledrug therapy. This finding must be confirmed with NTX orpossibly nalmefene, another opioid antagonist.
Patients with alcoholic liver cirrhosis (ALC) are only con-sidered for life-saving liver transplantation if they have beencompletely abstinent for a long duration. No approved drughas been shown to promote abstinence in this patient popula-tion. SMO should be assessed in a double-blind placebo-con-trolled study of 6 -- 12-month duration. The objectives wouldbe to determine if SMO can help patients meet the require-ments for liver transplantation and modify the natural historyof ALC.
However, AUDs are heterogeneous, complex disorders,and an "ideal" and effective drug for all types of AUD patientsdoes not exist. Clinical evidence shows that many AUDpatients may need and benefit from a substitution ther-apy [86,87], and SMO could be particularly useful for thesepatients. The future challenge will consist in tailoring person-alized treatments [9] and basic research indicates that a phar-macogenomic approach to the treatment of AUD patients isconceivable [88]. Future multicenter, multinational, random-ized clinical trials should be useful to deeply investigate theuse and characteristics of SMO in the treatment of AUDs ina rigorous setting and to optimize the treatments in relationwith patients’ characteristics, e.g., pharmacogenetic [89-91],neurobiological, and psychological.
Declaration of interest
G Addolorato served as a consultant for Ortho-McNeil Jans-sen Scientific Affairs, LLC, and D&A Pharma, and was paidfor his consulting services. He has received lecture fees fromD&A Pharma. F Caputo and O Lesch have served as a consul-tant for D&A Pharma, and they were paid for their consultingservices. They have received lecture fees from D&A Pharma.All remaining authors have no conflicts of interest.
Sodium oxybate
Expert Opin. Pharmacother. (2014) 15(2) 253
BibliographyPapers of special note have been highlighted as
either of interest (�) or of considerable interest(��) to readers.
1. Schuckit MA. Alcohol-use disorders.
Lancet 2009;37:492-501
2. Rehm J, Mathers C, Popova S, et al.
Global burden of disease and injury and
economic cost attributable to alcohol use
and alcohol-use disorders. Lancet
2009;373:2223-33
3. Lim SS, Vos T, Flaxman AD, et al.
A comparative risk assessment of burden
of disease and injury attributable to
67 risk factors and risk factor clusters in
21 regions, 1990----2010: a systematic
analysis for the Global Burden of Disease
Study, 2010. Lancet 2012;380:2224-60
4. Friedmann PD. Alcohol use in adults.
New Engl J Med 2013;368:365-73
5. Suh JJ, Pettinati HM, Kampman KM,
et al. The status of disulfiram: a half of a
century later. J Psychopharmacol
2006;26:290-302
6. R€osner S, Hackl-errwerth A, Leucht S,
et al. Opioid antagonists for alcohol
dependence. Cochrane Database Syst Rev
2010;8:CD001867
7. R€osner S, Hackl-Herrwerth A, Leucht S,
et al. Acamprosate for alcohol
dependence. Cochrane Database Syst Rev
2010;8:CD004332
8. van den Brink W, Aubin HJ,
Bladstr€om A, et al. Efficacy of as-needed
nalmefene in alcohol-dependent patients
with at least a high drinking risk level:
results from a subgroup analysis of two
randomized controlled 6-month studies.
Alcohol Alcohol 2013;48:570-8
9. Addolorato G, Mirijello A, Leggio L.
Alcohol addiction: towards a patient-
oriented pharmacological treatment.
Expert Opin Pharmacother
2013; [Epub ahead of print]
10. Snead OC, Gibson KM.
Gamma-hydroxybutyric acid. N Engl
J Med 2005;352:2721-32
11. Palatini P, Tedeschi L, Frison G, et al.
Dose-dependent absorption and
elimination of gamma-hydroxybutyric
acid in healthy volunteers. Eur J
Clin Pharmacol 1993;45:353-6
12. Carter LP, Koek W, France CP.
Behavioral analyses of GHB: receptor
mechanisms. Pharmacol Ther
2009;121:100-4
13. Absalom N, Eghorn LF, Villumsen IS,
et al. alpha4betadelta GABA(A) receptors
are high-affinity targets for gamma-
hydroxybutyric acid (GHB). Proc Natl
Acad Sci USA 2012;109:13404-9
14. Bessmann SP, Fishbein WM.
Gamma-hydroxybutyric acid, a normal
brain metabolite. Nature
1963;200:1207-8
15. Laborit H, Jouany JM, Gerard J,
Fabiani F. Summary of an experimental
and clinical study on a metabolic
substrate with inhibitory central action:
sodium 4-hydroxybutyrate. Presse Med
1960;68:1867-9
16. Aldrete JA, Barnes DP.
4-hydroxybutyrate anaesthesia for
cardiovascular surgery. A comparison
with halothane. Anaesthesia
1968;23:558-65
17. Kleinschmidt S, Grundmann U,
Janneck U, et al. Total intravenous
anaesthesia using propofol, gamma-
hydroxybutyrate or midazolam in
combination with sufentanil for patients
undergoing coronary artery bypass
surgery. Eur J Anaesthesiol
1997;14:590-9
18. Kleinschmidt S, Grundmann U,
Knocke T, et al. Total intravenous
anaesthesia with gamma-hydroxybutyrate
(GHB) and sufentanil in patients
undergoing coronary artery bypass graft
surgery: a comparison in patients with
unimpaired and impaired left ventricular
function. Eur J Anaesthesiol
1998;15:559-64
19. Mamelak M, Escriu JM, Stokan O. The
effects of gamma-hydroxybutyrate on
sleep. Biol Psychiatry 1977;2:273-88
20. Mamelak M, Scharf MB, Woods M.
Treatment of narcolepsy with gamma-
hydroxybutyrate. A review of clinical and
sleep laboratory findings. Sleep
1986;9:285-9
21. Broughton R, Mamelak M. Effects of
nocturnal gamma-hydroxybutyrate on
sleep/waking patterns in
narcolepsy-cataplexy. Can J Neurol Sci
1980;7:23-31
22. Fiellin DA, O’Connor PG, Holmboe ES,
Horwitz RI. Risk for delirium tremens in
patients with alcohol withdrawal
syndrome. Subst Abuse 2002;23:83-94
23. O’Connor PG, Schottenfeld RS. Patients
with alcohol problems. N Engl J Med
1998;338:592-602
24. Mayo-Smith MF. Pharmacological
management of alcohol withdrawal:
a meta-analysis and evidence-based
practice guideline: american Society of
Addiction Medicine Working Group on
Pharmacological Management of Alcohol
Withdrawal. JAMA 1997;278:144-51
25. Leggio L, Kenna GA, Swift RM. New
developments for the pharmacological
treatment of alcohol withdrawal
syndrome. A focus on non-
benzodiazepine GABAergic medications.
Prog Neuropsychopharmacol
Biol Psychiatry 2008;32(5):1106-17
26. Gessa GL, Agabio R, Carai M, et al.
Mechanism of the anti-alcohol effect of
gamma hydroxybutyric acid (GHB).
Alcohol 2000;20:271-6
27. Fadda F, Colombo G, Mosca E,
Gessa GL. Suppression by gamma-
hydroxybutyric acid of ethanol
withdrawal syndrome in rats.
Alcohol Alcohol 1989;24:447-51
. In this article authors performed the
first preclinical study, showing the
efficacy of Sodium oxybate (SMO) to
suppress alcohol withdrawal syndrome
in rats.
28. Gallimberti L, Canton G, Gentile N,
et al. Gamma-hydroxybutyric acid for the
treatment of alcohol withdrawal
syndrome. Lancet 1989;2:787-9
.. First double-blind, controlled study
showing the efficacy of SMO in the
treatment of alcohol
withdrawal syndrome.
29. Addolorato G, Balducci G, Capristo E,
et al. Gamma-hydroxybutyric acid
(GHB) in the treatment of alcohol
withdrawal syndrome: a randomized
comparative study versus benzodiazepine.
Alcohol Clin Exp Res 1999;23:1596-604
.. First comparative study between SMO
and the gold-standard diazepam in the
treatment of alcohol
withdrawal syndrome.
30. Nava F, Premi S, Manzato E, et al.
Gamma-hydroxybutyrate reduces both
withdrawal syndrome and
hypercortisolism in severe abstinent
alcoholics: an open study vs. diazepam.
Am J Drug Alcohol Abuse
2007;33:379-92
K. Skala et al.
254 Expert Opin. Pharmacother. (2014) 15(2)
31. Nimmerrichter AA, Walter H,
Gutierrez-Lobos KE, Lesch OM. Double
blind controlled trial of
gamma-hydroxybutyrate and
clomethiazole in the treatment of alcohol
withdrawal. Alcohol Alcohol
2002;37:67-73
.. In this study two doses of SMO
(50 mg/kg and 100 kg/mg) were
compared to clomethiazole in the
treatment of alcohol
withdrawal syndrome.
32. Sullivan JT, Sykora K, Schniederman J,
et al. Assessment of alcohol withdrawal:
the revised clinical institute withdrawal
assessment for alcohol scale (CIWA-Ar).
Br J Addict 1989;84:1353-7
33. Elsing C, Stremmel W, Grenda U,
Herrmann T. Gamma-hydroxybutyric
acid versus clomethiazole for the
treatment of alcohol withdrawal
syndrome in a medical intensive care
unit: an open, single-center randomized
study. Am J Drug Alcohol Abuse
2009;35(3):189-92
34. Leone MA, Vigna-Taglianti F,
Avanzi GC, et al.
Gamma-hydroxybutyrate (GHB) for
treatment of alcohol withdrawal and
prevention of relapses.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev
2010(2):CD006266
. Meta-analysis of the efficacy and safety
of SMO in the treatment of alcohol
withdrawal and relapse prevention.
35. Ungur LA, Neuner B, John S, et al.
Prevention and therapy of alcohol
withdrawal on intensive care units:
systematic review of controlled trials.
Alcohol Clin Exp Res 2013;37(4):675-86
.. Meta-analysis on effective drugs for
prevention and treatment of alcohol
withdrawal syndrome in Intensive
Care Unit.
36. Agabio R, Colombo G, Loche A, et al.
Gamma-hydroxybutyric acid reducing
effect on ethanol intake: evidence in
favour of a substitution mechanism.
Alcohol Alcohol 1998;33:465-74
37. Colombo G, Agabio R, Lobina C, et al.
Cross tolerance to ethanol and gamma-
hydroxybutyric acid. Eur J Pharmacol
1995;273:235-8
38. Gessa GL, Agabio R, Carai MA, et al.
Mechanism of the anti-alcohol effect of
gamma-hydroxybutyric acid. Alcohol
2000;20:271-6
39. Biggio G, Cibin M, Diana M, et al.
Suppression of voluntary ethanol intake
in rats and alcoholics by gamma-
hydroxybutyric acid: a non-GABAergic
mechanism.
Adv Biochem Psychopharmacol
1992;47:281-8
40. Gallimberti L, Ferri M, Ferrara SD,
et al. Gamma-hydroxybutyric acid in the
treatment of alcohol dependence:
a double-blind study. Alcohol Clin
Exp Res 1992;16:673-6
.. First randomized clinical trials testing
SMO in the treatment of
alcohol dependence.
41. Addolorato G, Castelli E, Stefanini GF,
et al. An open multicentric study
evaluating 4-hydroxybutyric acid sodium
salt in the medium-term treatment of
179 alcohol-dependent subjects. GHB
Study Group. Alcohol Alcohol
1996;31:341-5
.. First multicentric study testing SMO
in the treatment of alcohol dependence
and relapse prevention.
42. Palatini P, Tedeschi L, Frison G, et al.
Dose-dependent absorption and
elimination of gamma-hydroxybutyric
acid in healthy volunteers. Eur J
Clin Pharmacol 1993;45:353-6
43. Ferrara SD, Zotti S, Tedeschi L, et al.
Pharmacokinetics of gamma-
hydroxybutyric acid in alcohol dependent
patients after single and repeated oral
doses. Br J Clin Pharmacol
1992;34:231-5
44. Addolorato G, Cibin M, Caputo F, et al.
Gamma-hydroxybutyric acid in the
treatment of alcoholism: dosage
fractioning utility in non-responder
alcoholic patients. Drug Alcohol Depend
1998;53:7-10
.. In this study the usefulness of greater
dosage fractioning of SMO in non-
responder patients to the usual three
administrations per day
was investigated.
45. Maremmani I, La Manna F,
Tagliamone A. Long-term therapy using
GHB (sodium gamma-hydroxybutyrate)
for treatment-resistant chronic alcoholics.
J Psychoactive Drug 2001;33:135-42
46. Thai D, Dyer JE, Benowitz NL,
Haller CA. Gamma-hydroxybutyrate and
ethanol effects and interactions in
humans. J Clin Psychopharmacol
2006;26:524-9
.. In this study the effects and
interactions of the co-administration of
SMO and alcohol in human volunteers
were investigated.
47. Vivet P, Pross N, Denot C, et al.
Pharmacodynamic interactions of a solid
formulation of sodium oxybate and
alcohol in healthy volunteers.
Alcohol Alcohol 2013;48:S1-i34
.. In this study was confirmed the
absence of adverse events by the co-
administration of SMO and alcohol in
human volunteers.
48. Caputo F, Addolorato G, Lorenzini F,
et al. Gamma-hydroxybutyric acid versus
naltrexone in maintaining alcohol
abstinence: an open randomized
comparative study.
Drug Alcohol Depend 2003;70:85-91
.. First comparative study between SMO
and naltrexone in the treatment of
alcohol dependence.
49. Caputo F, Addolorato G, Stoppo M,
et al. Comparing and combining gamma-
hydroxybutyric acid (GHB) and
naltrexone in maintaining abstinence
from alcohol: an open randomised
comparative study.
Eur Neuropsychopharmacol
2007;17:781-9
.. This study showed that the
combination between SMO and
naltrexone is useful in promoting
alcohol abstinence and reducing the
risk of SMO craving and abuse.
50. Caputo F, Stoppo M, Vignoli T, et al.
Use of alcohol during the treatment of
alcohol dependence with gamma-
Hydroxybutyric Acid: risk of severe
events are avoided by the dose
fractioning of the drug.
J Clin Psychopharmacol 2007;27:418
51. Caputo F, Skala K, Walter H, et al.
Sodium Oxybate in the prevention of
alcohol relapses in alcohol dependent
patients (GATE 2 study).
Alcohol Alcohol 2013;48:S1-i33
52. Cacciaglia R, Lesch OM, Vivet P. GATE
2 Study: sodium oxybate in the
maintainance of alcohol abstinence and
prevention of alcohol relapse.
Alcohol Alcohol 2013;48:S1-i47
53. Pombo S, Lesch OM. The alcoholic
phenotypes among different
multidimensional typologies: similarities
Sodium oxybate
Expert Opin. Pharmacother. (2014) 15(2) 255
and their classification procedures.
Alcohol Alcohol 2009;44:46-54
54. Lesch OM, Kefer J, Lentner S, et al. The
course of alcoholism. Long term-
prognosis in different subtypes.
Forensic Sci Int 1988;36:121-38
55. Anton RF, O’Malley SS, Ciraulo DA,
et al. Combine Study Research Group
(2006) Combine pharmacotherapies and
behavioural intervention for alcohol
dependence: the COMBINE study:
a randomized controlled study. JAMA
2006;295:2003-17
.. Large multicentric trial testing the
combination between acamprosate,
naltrexone and behavioural therapy in
the treatment of alcohol dependence
56. Nava F, Premi S, Manzato E, et al.
Comparing treatments of alcoholism on
craving and bio-chemical measures of
alcohol consumptions.
J Psychoactive Drug 2006;38:211-17
57. Caputo F, Vignoli T, Lorenzini F, et al.
Suppression of craving for
gamma-hydroxybutyric acid by
naltrexone administration: three case
reports. Clin Neuropharmacol
2005;28:87-9
58. Stella L, Addolorato G, Rinaldi B, et al.
An open randomized study of the
treatment of escitalopram alone and
combined with gamma-hydroxybutyric
acid and naltrexone in alcoholic patients.
Pharmacol Res 2008;57:312-17
. This study showed that that
combination of escitalopram, SMO
and naltrexone is more effective to
prevent relapse than either drug alone.
59. Verheul R, Van Den Brink W,
Geerlings P. A three-pathway
psychological model of craving for
alcohol. Alcohol Alcohol
1999;34:197-222
60. Addolorato G, Abenavoli L, Leggio L,
Gasbarrini G. How many cravings?
Pharmacological aspects of craving
treatment in alcohol addiction: a review.
Neuropsychobiology 2005;51:59-66
61. Leggio L, Kenna GA, Fenton M, et al.
Typologies of alcohol dependence from
Jellinek to genetics and beyond.
Neuropsychol Rev 2009;19(1):115-29
62. Maremmani AG, Pani PP, Rovai L, et al.
Long-term gamma-hydroxybutyric acid
(GHB) and disulfiram combination
therapy in GHB treatment-resistant
chronic alcoholics. Int J Environ Res
Public Health 2011;8:2816-27
. In this article authors suggested that
the combination of SMO and
disulfiram is more effective than SMO
alone in treatment of
alcoholic patients.
63. Wong CGT, Gibson KM, Snead OC.
From the street to the brain:
neurobiology of the recreational drug
gamma-hydroxybutyric acid.
Trends Pharmacol Sci 2004;25:29-34
64. Addolorato G, Caputo F, Capristo E,
et al. Gamma-hydroxybutyric acid
efficacy, potential of abuse, and
dependence in the treatment of alcohol
addiction. Alcohol 2000;20:217-22
65. Addolorato G, Leggio L, Ferrulli A, et al.
The therapeutic potential of gamma-
hydroxybutyric acid for alcohol
dependence: balancing the risks and
benefits. A focus on clinical data.
Expert Opin Investig Drugs
2009;18(5):675-86
66. Tunnicliff G. Site of action of Gamma-
hydroxybutyrate (GHB) - a neuroactive
drug with abuse potential. J Toxicol
Clin Toxicol 1997;35:581-90
67. Nicholson KL, Balster RL. GHB: a new
and novel drug of abuse.
Drug Alcohol Depend 2000;63:1-22
68. Drasbek KR, Christensen J, Jensen K.
Gamma-hydroxybutyrate -- a drug of
abuse. Acta Neurol Scand
2006;114:145-56
69. Friedman J, Westlake R, Furman M.
‘Grievous bodily harm’: gamma
hydroxybutyrate abuse leading to the
Wernicke-Korsakoff syndrome.
Neurology 1996;46:469-71
70. Addolorato G, Capristo E, Gessa GL,
et al. Long-term administration of GHB
does not affect muscular mass in
alcoholics. Life Sci 1999;65:191-6
.. This study showed the absence of
anabolic effects long-term treatment
with SMO in alcoholic patients.
71. Korf DJ, Nabben T, Benschop A, et al.
Risk factors of gamma-hydroxybutyrate
overdosing. Eur Addict res
2014;20:66-74
72. Liechti ME, Kunz I, Greminger P, et al.
Clinical features of gamma-
hydroxybutyrate and gamma-
butyrolactone toxicity and concomitant
drug and alcohol use.
Drug Alcohol Depend 2006;81:323-6
73. Sumnall HR, Woolfall K, Edwards S,
et al. Use, function, and subjective
experiences of gamma-hydroxybutyrate
(GHB). Drug Alcohol Depend
2008;92:286-90
74. Dyer J. Gamma-hydroxybutyrate:
a health food product producing coma
and seizure-like activity. Am J
Emerg Med 1991;9:321-4
75. Van Amsterdam JG, Brunt TM,
McMaster MT, Niesink RJ. Possible
long-term effects of gamma-
hydroxybutyric acid (GHB) due to
neurotoxicity and overdose.
Neurosci Biobehav Rev 2012;36:1217-27
76. Addolorato G, Caputo F, Capristo E,
et al. A case of gamma-hydroxybutyric
acid withdrawal syndrome during alcohol
addiction treatment: utility of diazepam
administration. Clin Neuropharmacol
1999;22:60-2
77. Dyer JE, Roth B, Hyma BA.
Gamma-hydroxybutyrate withdrawal
syndrome. Ann Emerg Med
2001;37:147-53
78. Nightingale SL. From the Food and
Drug Administration: warning about
GHB. JAMA 1991;265:1802
79. Tunnicliff G, Raess BU.
Gamma-Hydroxybutyrate (orphan
medical). Curr Opin Investig Drugs
2002;3:278-83
80. Wang GY, Swick TJ, Carter LP, et al.
Safety overview of postmarketing and
clinical experience of sodium oxybate
(XYREM�): abuse, misuse, dependence,
and diversion. J Clin Sleep Med
2009;5:4-365-71
. In this article authors reviewed post-
marketing and clinical safety
experience with SMO in the treatment
of cataplexy and narcolepsy, showing
low risk of abuse and misuse of SMO.
81. Beghe F, Carpanini MT. Safety and
tolerability of gamma-hydroxybutyric
acid in the treatment of alcohol-
dependent patients. Alcohol
2000;20:223-5
. In this article authors performed a
retrospective analysis of 732 alcohol-
dependent outpatients having been
treated with SMO in clinical trials,
showing as abuse of SMO is a limited
phenomenon in clinical.
82. Gallimberti L, Spella MR, Soncini CA,
Gessa GL. Gamma-hydroxybutyric acid
in the treatment of alcohol and heroin
dependence. Alcohol 2000;20:257-62
K. Skala et al.
256 Expert Opin. Pharmacother. (2014) 15(2)
83. Addolorato G, Cibin M, Capristo E,
et al. Maintaining abstinence from
alcohol by gamma-hydroxybutyric acid.
Lancet 1998;351:38
.. First evidence on the benefit of greater
dosage fractioning of SMO (50 mg/kg/
day divided into six daily doses) in
non-responder alcoholics to the usual
three administrations per day. No
SMO misuse was found with the
greater fractioning of the drug.
84. Caputo F, Francini S, Stoppo M, et al.
Incidence of craving for and abuse of
gamma-hydroxybutyric acid (GHB) in
different populations of treated
alcoholics: an open comparative study.
J Psychopharmacol 2009;23:883-90
.. In this study risk of SMO misuse and
craving was showed in patient with
previous cocaine or heroin addiction.
85. Caputo F, Francini S, Brambilla R, et al.
Sodium oxybate in maintaining alcohol
abstinence in alcoholic patients with and
without psychiatric comorbidity.
Eur Neuropsychopharmacol
2011;21:450-6
.. In this study risk for SMO misuse and
craving was showed in alcoholic
patients with psychiatric comorbidity.
86. Chick J, Nutt DJ. Substitution therapy
for alcoholism: time for a reappraisal?
J Psychopharmacol 2012;26:205-12
87. Lesch OM, Henriette W, Wetschka C,
et al. Alcohl and tobacco- medical and
sociological aspects of use, abuse and
addiction. Springerverlag Wien; New
York; 2011. p. 134-69
88. Johnson BA, Ait-Daoud N,
Seneviratne C, et al. Pharmacogenetic
approach at the serotonin transporter
gene as a method of reducing the severity
of alcohol drinking. Am J Psychiatry
2011;168:265-75
.. In this study, the authors proposed a
novel pharmacogenetical approach to
treat alcoholic patients.
89. Anton RF, Oroszi G, O’Malley S, et al.
An evaluation of mu-opioid receptor
(OPRM1) as a predictor of naltrexone
response in the treatment of alcohol
dependence: results from the Combined
Pharmacotherapies and Behavioural
Interventions for Alcohol Dependence
(COMBINE) study. Arch Gen Psychiatry
2008;65:135-44
90. Kiefer F, Witt SH, Frank J, et al.
Involvement of the atrial natriuretic
peptide transcription factor GATA4 in
alcohol dependence, relapse risk and
treatment response to acamprosate.
Pharmacogenomics J 2011;11:368-74
91. Mutschler J, Abbruzzese E, Witt SH,
et al. Functional polymorphism of the
dopamine b-hydroxylase gene isassociated with increased risk of
disulfiram-induced adverse effects in
alcohol-dependent patients.
J Clin Psychopharmacol 2012;32:578-80
AffiliationKatrin Skala*1 MD, Fabio Caputo*2,3 MD,
Antonio Mirijello4 MD, Gabriele Vassallo4 MD,
Mariangela Antonelli4 MD,
Anna Ferrulli4 MD, Phd, Henriette Walter1 MD,
Otto Lesch1 MD, Prof &
Giovanni Addolorato†4 MD†Author for correspondence
*Both K Skala and F Caputo have equally
contributed to this work1Medical University of Vienna,
Department of Psychiatry and Psychotherapy,
Vienna, Austria2SS Annunziata Hospital,
Department of Internal Medicine,
Cento (Ferrara), Italy3University of Bologna,
“G. Fontana” Centre for the Study and
Multidisciplinary Treatment of Alcohol
Addiction, Department of Clinical Medicine,
Bologna, Italy4Professor
Catholic University of Rome,
Gemelli Hospital, Department of Internal
Medicine, Alcohol Use Disorders Unit,Largo
Gemelli 8, 00168 Rome, Italy
Tel: +39 06 30154334;
Fax: +39 06 35502775;
E-mail: g.addolorato@rm.unicatt.it
Sodium oxybate
Expert Opin. Pharmacother. (2014) 15(2) 257
top related