NIDA’s Volkow Defends New Medications for Addiction

On Big Data, Big Vaccines, and a Big New Agency.

In her Director’s Report to the 2011 meeting of the College on Problems of Drug Dependence in San Diego last week, Dr. Nora Volkow, director of the National Institute on Drug Abuse, sought to refute allegations that NIDA lately has been too focused on pharmacological approaches to treating addiction—“magic bullets” in the form of pills or vaccines. Dr. Volkow presented figures showing, as the CPDD Community Website reported, that “NIDA funding allocation for new medication development has remained stable at about 12% for some time, despite concerns expressed by some researchers that funding in other areas is being sacrificed to support the medication development portfolio.” Basic and clinical neuroscience research accounts for 45% of expenditures, she said.

In other news, Volkow expressed her avid interest in the possibilities presented by so-called “big dataset science”—the act of pooling together huge amounts of data in order to generate greater statistical power. She traced a set of disciplines—genetics, epigenetics, proteomics, brain imaging, clinical data, and systems biology—and said that the NIH’s Working Group on Data and Informatics  was seeking systematic ways of integrating and analyzing large biomedical datasets in these crucial areas.

As for treatment, the current emphasis is on stimulants. Volkow said that work continues on finding reliable antagonist drugs to combat the dopamine disruptions promoted by active drug abuse. She suggested that work on buspirone, the D3 receptor antagonist and partial serotonin 5HT agonist used to treat generalized anxiety disorder, has shown that it may reduce cocaine self-administration in rhesus monkeys. This would be of considerable clinical interest, since addiction medicine presently has no effective drug treatments to offer for stimulants like cocaine and methamphetamine. A large clinical study now underway is showing that buspirone blocked D3 receptors in monkey brains in a way that reduced their interest in cocaine.

And she referred to the failed promise of NicVax, the short-lived vaccine for cigarette addiction. The treatment “failed to meet the primary endpoint in Phase II trials.” In other words, it flunked out. Only 30% of addicted smokers developed sufficient antibodies from NicVax to do them any good. But she cited new research on an alternative approach to vaccines, including a new cocaine vaccine (dAd5GNE) shown to be effective in reducing cocaine addiction-related behaviors in rats through the long-term blockade of dopamine transporters.

In a related approach to producing a reliable anti-cocaine antibody, researchers in the Department of Genetic Medicine at Weill Cornell Medical College went to work on “an adeno-associated virus (AAV) gene transfer vector as the delivery vehicle to persistently express an anti-cocaine monoclonal antibody in vivo, which would sequester cocaine in the blood, preventing access to cognate receptors in the brain.” An AAV is a small virus that is infectious but not pathogenic in humans. You might have it right now, but wouldn’t know it, since AAV doesn’t cause disease. So, the researchers used an AAV to build a transporter mechanism for their monoclonal antibody, GNC92H2. In mice, the result was “persistent serum levels of high-affinity, cocaine-specific antibodies that sequestered intravenously administered cocaine in the blood.”

And finally, while the name is still up in the air, a new national institute combining the study of alcohol and the study of all other addictive drugs will follow after final recommendations submitted to NIH Director by year’s end. Volkow briefly laid out the timeline of the merger for the assembled scientists. Call it the Institute for Substance Use Disorders, or the Institute for Addiction Disorders, or the National Institute of Substance Abuse, but whatever the eventual name, it will be fully operational by late 2013, or at least that’s the plan—and Nora Volkow, the current director of the NIDA, which will merge with, or rather absorb, the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism (NIAAA), won’t be its director (See "NIH Turf Wars"). Whether that’s good or bad is the subject of much debate, but the project marches on, and seems sensible in the end.

End of the Line for Prometa?

Controversial meth treatment program fails in major study.

Prometa—the drug cocktail designed to combat addiction to cocaine and methamphetamine—has fallen flat on its face in a double-blind, placebo-controlled 108-day study just published in the journal Addiction. Dogged all along by a lack of published clinical data as well as major doubts about its success rates, Prometa has been a controversial treatment right from the start. In 2006, marketed heavily by anecdote and personal testimonials, the Prometa campaign included ads featuring the late comedian Chris Farley, who died of a drug overdose.

Hythiam,  the company that markets Prometa, had touted reports that 80% or more of Prometa users experienced “significant clinical benefit.” But MSNBC reported in 2008 that accountants in Pierce County, Washington froze the funding for an $800,000 pilot program, citing irregularities in testing. Investors in Hythiam, which is publicly traded, had been counting on the Pierce program after similar programs in Fulton County, Georgia, and in Idaho had failed to get off the ground. Things only got worse when the Tacoma News Tribune revealed that several county officials who had gotten behind the program also owned Hythiam stock.

Small rural communities that have felt the impact of meth sales and production in their communities are looking for help, and represent a significant market for an anti-addiction medication. However, in the case of Prometa, “The marketing is way ahead of the science,” said Lori Karan of the Drug Dependence Research Laboratory at the University of California-San Francisco. At the same time, Hythiam Executive Vice President Richard Anderson voiced strong objections to the Pierce County decision: “The people who are using it,” he said, “the doctors, patients, administrators, and drug court judges—are seeing an impact with it, so I think the treatment will carry it at the end of the day.”

But the day has ended, and the treatment did not carry it. The study in Addiction by a team of researchers at UCLA found no difference between Prometa and placebo in a group of 120 methamphetamine-addicted adults. The Prometa regimen, which can cost as much as $12,000 to $15,000 a month, “appears to be no more effective than placebo in reducing methamphetamine use, retaining patients in treatment or reducing methamphetamine craving,” the investigators conclude.

Ironically, the study was funded by Hythiam, as a response to complaints from the scientific community about a lack of rigorous testing. When it first launched the treatment, Hythiam was able to skim past the pesky drug approval process by exploiting a loophole in the FDA’s regulatory system that allows combinations of previously approved drugs to be marketed without formal review. Prometa was a blend of three existing medications: Neurontin (gabapentin) for epilepsy, Vistaril (hydrozyzine) for allergies, and Romazicon (flumazenil) for reversing benzodiazepine overdoses.

Ling, W., Shoptaw, S., Hillhouse, M., Bholat, M., Charuvastra, C., Heinzerling, K., Chim, D., Annon, J., Dowling, P., & Doraimani, G. (2011). Double-blind placebo-controlled evaluation of the PROMETA™ protocol for methamphetamine dependence Addiction DOI: 10.1111/j.1360-0443.2011.03619.x

Rehab as Punishment

Why Cambodians, Chinese, and Vietnamese shun treatment—if they can.

The term “drug rehab” usually means one of two things to Americans: Either a genuine, if not always effective, clinic for drug withdrawal, counseling, and follow-up; or else a touchy-feely form of group therapy and 12-step religiosity. What we don’t expect drug rehab to mean is beatings, forced labor, detention without appropriate treatment, or electric batons.

Start with China. A New York Times report by Andrew Jacobs documented the fate of as many as 500,000 Chinese citizens held at government-run drug rehabilitation centers. “Detentions are meted out by the police without trials, judges or appeals,” Jacobs wrote. “Created in 2008 as part of a reform effort to grapple with the country’s growing narcotics problem, the centers, lawyers and drug experts say, have become de facto penal colonies where inmates are sent to factories and farms, fed substandard food and denied basic medical care.”

It has been a long-standing tradition in China and Russia to send addicts to labor camps, along with political dissidents. Change has been promised in China, but thus far there is no evidence of the new community-based rehabilitation the government has proposed. “In China,” said one addict, “to be a drug addict is to be an enemy of the government.”

In Cambodia, according to a report in The Nation by Joseph Amon, the director of health and human rights for Human Rights Watch, police have rounded up men, women, and children in “street sweeps” and placed them in detention facilities without legal consultation. As in China, writes Amon, treatment in Cambodian rehab facilities “consists of military drills, hard labor and forced exercise. Detainees are forced to work and exercise to the point of collapse, even when they are sick and malnourished. These centers offer no medically appropriate treatment such as cognitive behavioral therapy, psycho-social support (counseling, for example) or opiate substitution therapy. As one former detainee explained, his centre was ‘not a rehab centre but a torture centre.’”

The government of Cambodia routinely denies the charges. As Amon argues, “Individuals who use drugs do not forfeit their human rights, and the Cambodian government should not create detention centers that are exempt from the protections afforded to all. “

In Vietnam, 600 addicts broke out of a state-run rehabilitation center in Haiphong and made a run for it. According to Foreign Policy magazine, they were fleeing a similar collection of “treatment” options such as beatings and years of illegal detention in the government’s 100 drug facilities. Along with Malaysia and Thailand, and Laos, Vietnam has opted for “get-tough” policies over evidence-based treatment. Even worse, the policies themselves resemble the practices inflicted on southern chain gangs in early 20th Century American prison farms.

The irony of the great Vietnamese rehab escape is that the patients may have much better luck on the outside. Amon of Human Rights Watch reports that Haiphong “is one of three [cities] in Vietnam that is piloting the use of methadone to manage opiate addiction, the preferred approach in most developed countries.”

Photo Credit: http://www.hrw.org/