Cargando…
Low-intensity focused ultrasound targeting the nucleus accumbens as a potential treatment for substance use disorder: safety and feasibility clinical trial
INTRODUCTION: While current treatments for substance use disorder (SUD) are beneficial, success rates remain low and treatment outcomes are complicated by co-occurring SUDs, many of which are without available medication treatments. Research involving neuromodulation for SUD has recently gained mome...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Frontiers Media S.A.
2023
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10540197/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37779628 http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fpsyt.2023.1211566 |
_version_ | 1785113664170229760 |
---|---|
author | Mahoney, James J. Haut, Marc W. Carpenter, Jeffrey Ranjan, Manish Thompson-Lake, Daisy G. Y. Marton, Jennifer L. Zheng, Wanhong Berry, James H. Tirumalai, Padma Mears, Ashley D’Haese, Pierre Finomore, Victor S. Hodder, Sally L. Rezai, Ali R. |
author_facet | Mahoney, James J. Haut, Marc W. Carpenter, Jeffrey Ranjan, Manish Thompson-Lake, Daisy G. Y. Marton, Jennifer L. Zheng, Wanhong Berry, James H. Tirumalai, Padma Mears, Ashley D’Haese, Pierre Finomore, Victor S. Hodder, Sally L. Rezai, Ali R. |
author_sort | Mahoney, James J. |
collection | PubMed |
description | INTRODUCTION: While current treatments for substance use disorder (SUD) are beneficial, success rates remain low and treatment outcomes are complicated by co-occurring SUDs, many of which are without available medication treatments. Research involving neuromodulation for SUD has recently gained momentum. This study evaluated two doses (60 and 90 W) of Low Intensity Focused Ultrasound (LIFU), targeting the bilateral nucleus accumbens (NAc), in individuals with SUD. METHODS: Four participants (three male), who were receiving comprehensive outpatient treatment for opioid use disorder at the time of enrollment and who also had a history of excessive non-opioid substance use, completed this pilot study. After confirming eligibility, these participants received 10 min sham LIFU followed by 20 min active LIFU (10 min to left then right NAc). Outcomes were the safety, tolerability, and feasibility during the LIFU procedure and throughout the 90-day follow-up. Outcomes also included the impact of LIFU on cue-induced substance craving, assessed via Visual Analog Scale (VAS), both acutely (pre-, during and post-procedure) and during the 90-day follow-up. Daily craving ratings (without cues) were also obtained for one-week prior to and one-week following LIFU. RESULTS: Both LIFU doses were safe and well-tolerated based on reported adverse events and MRI scans revealed no structural changes (0 min, 24 h, and 1-week post-procedure). For the two participants receiving “enhanced” (90 W) LIFU, VAS craving ratings revealed active LIFU attenuated craving for participants’ primary substances of choice relative to sham sonication. For these participants, reductions were also noted in daily VAS craving ratings (0 = no craving; 10 = most craving ever) across the week following LIFU relative to pre-LIFU; Participant #3 pre- vs. post-LIFU: opioids (3.6 ± 0.6 vs. 1.9 ± 0.4), heroin (4.2 ± 0.8 vs. 1.9 ± 0.4), methamphetamine (3.2 ± 0.4 vs. 0.0 ± 0.0), cocaine (2.4 ± 0.6 vs. 0.0 ± 0.0), benzodiazepines (2.8 ± 0.5 vs. 0.0 ± 0.0), alcohol (6.0 ± 0.7 vs. 2.7 ± 0.8), and nicotine (5.6 ± 1.5 vs. 3.1 ± 0.7); Participant #4: alcohol (3.5 ± 1.3 vs. 0.0 ± 0.0) and nicotine (5.0 ± 1.8 vs. 1.2 ± 0.8) (all p’s < 0.05). Furthermore, relative to screening, longitudinal reductions in cue-induced craving for several substances persisted during the 90-day post-LIFU follow-up evaluation for all participants. DISCUSSION: In conclusion, LIFU targeting the NAc was safe and acutely reduced substance craving during the LIFU procedure, and potentially had longer-term impact on craving reductions. While early observations are promising, NAc LIFU requires further investigation in a controlled trial to assess the impact on substance craving and ultimately substance use and relapse. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-10540197 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2023 |
publisher | Frontiers Media S.A. |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-105401972023-09-30 Low-intensity focused ultrasound targeting the nucleus accumbens as a potential treatment for substance use disorder: safety and feasibility clinical trial Mahoney, James J. Haut, Marc W. Carpenter, Jeffrey Ranjan, Manish Thompson-Lake, Daisy G. Y. Marton, Jennifer L. Zheng, Wanhong Berry, James H. Tirumalai, Padma Mears, Ashley D’Haese, Pierre Finomore, Victor S. Hodder, Sally L. Rezai, Ali R. Front Psychiatry Psychiatry INTRODUCTION: While current treatments for substance use disorder (SUD) are beneficial, success rates remain low and treatment outcomes are complicated by co-occurring SUDs, many of which are without available medication treatments. Research involving neuromodulation for SUD has recently gained momentum. This study evaluated two doses (60 and 90 W) of Low Intensity Focused Ultrasound (LIFU), targeting the bilateral nucleus accumbens (NAc), in individuals with SUD. METHODS: Four participants (three male), who were receiving comprehensive outpatient treatment for opioid use disorder at the time of enrollment and who also had a history of excessive non-opioid substance use, completed this pilot study. After confirming eligibility, these participants received 10 min sham LIFU followed by 20 min active LIFU (10 min to left then right NAc). Outcomes were the safety, tolerability, and feasibility during the LIFU procedure and throughout the 90-day follow-up. Outcomes also included the impact of LIFU on cue-induced substance craving, assessed via Visual Analog Scale (VAS), both acutely (pre-, during and post-procedure) and during the 90-day follow-up. Daily craving ratings (without cues) were also obtained for one-week prior to and one-week following LIFU. RESULTS: Both LIFU doses were safe and well-tolerated based on reported adverse events and MRI scans revealed no structural changes (0 min, 24 h, and 1-week post-procedure). For the two participants receiving “enhanced” (90 W) LIFU, VAS craving ratings revealed active LIFU attenuated craving for participants’ primary substances of choice relative to sham sonication. For these participants, reductions were also noted in daily VAS craving ratings (0 = no craving; 10 = most craving ever) across the week following LIFU relative to pre-LIFU; Participant #3 pre- vs. post-LIFU: opioids (3.6 ± 0.6 vs. 1.9 ± 0.4), heroin (4.2 ± 0.8 vs. 1.9 ± 0.4), methamphetamine (3.2 ± 0.4 vs. 0.0 ± 0.0), cocaine (2.4 ± 0.6 vs. 0.0 ± 0.0), benzodiazepines (2.8 ± 0.5 vs. 0.0 ± 0.0), alcohol (6.0 ± 0.7 vs. 2.7 ± 0.8), and nicotine (5.6 ± 1.5 vs. 3.1 ± 0.7); Participant #4: alcohol (3.5 ± 1.3 vs. 0.0 ± 0.0) and nicotine (5.0 ± 1.8 vs. 1.2 ± 0.8) (all p’s < 0.05). Furthermore, relative to screening, longitudinal reductions in cue-induced craving for several substances persisted during the 90-day post-LIFU follow-up evaluation for all participants. DISCUSSION: In conclusion, LIFU targeting the NAc was safe and acutely reduced substance craving during the LIFU procedure, and potentially had longer-term impact on craving reductions. While early observations are promising, NAc LIFU requires further investigation in a controlled trial to assess the impact on substance craving and ultimately substance use and relapse. Frontiers Media S.A. 2023-09-15 /pmc/articles/PMC10540197/ /pubmed/37779628 http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fpsyt.2023.1211566 Text en Copyright © 2023 Mahoney, Haut, Carpenter, Ranjan, Thompson-Lake, Marton, Zheng, Berry, Tirumalai, Mears, D’Haese, Finomore, Hodder and Rezai. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms. |
spellingShingle | Psychiatry Mahoney, James J. Haut, Marc W. Carpenter, Jeffrey Ranjan, Manish Thompson-Lake, Daisy G. Y. Marton, Jennifer L. Zheng, Wanhong Berry, James H. Tirumalai, Padma Mears, Ashley D’Haese, Pierre Finomore, Victor S. Hodder, Sally L. Rezai, Ali R. Low-intensity focused ultrasound targeting the nucleus accumbens as a potential treatment for substance use disorder: safety and feasibility clinical trial |
title | Low-intensity focused ultrasound targeting the nucleus accumbens as a potential treatment for substance use disorder: safety and feasibility clinical trial |
title_full | Low-intensity focused ultrasound targeting the nucleus accumbens as a potential treatment for substance use disorder: safety and feasibility clinical trial |
title_fullStr | Low-intensity focused ultrasound targeting the nucleus accumbens as a potential treatment for substance use disorder: safety and feasibility clinical trial |
title_full_unstemmed | Low-intensity focused ultrasound targeting the nucleus accumbens as a potential treatment for substance use disorder: safety and feasibility clinical trial |
title_short | Low-intensity focused ultrasound targeting the nucleus accumbens as a potential treatment for substance use disorder: safety and feasibility clinical trial |
title_sort | low-intensity focused ultrasound targeting the nucleus accumbens as a potential treatment for substance use disorder: safety and feasibility clinical trial |
topic | Psychiatry |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10540197/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37779628 http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fpsyt.2023.1211566 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT mahoneyjamesj lowintensityfocusedultrasoundtargetingthenucleusaccumbensasapotentialtreatmentforsubstanceusedisordersafetyandfeasibilityclinicaltrial AT hautmarcw lowintensityfocusedultrasoundtargetingthenucleusaccumbensasapotentialtreatmentforsubstanceusedisordersafetyandfeasibilityclinicaltrial AT carpenterjeffrey lowintensityfocusedultrasoundtargetingthenucleusaccumbensasapotentialtreatmentforsubstanceusedisordersafetyandfeasibilityclinicaltrial AT ranjanmanish lowintensityfocusedultrasoundtargetingthenucleusaccumbensasapotentialtreatmentforsubstanceusedisordersafetyandfeasibilityclinicaltrial AT thompsonlakedaisygy lowintensityfocusedultrasoundtargetingthenucleusaccumbensasapotentialtreatmentforsubstanceusedisordersafetyandfeasibilityclinicaltrial AT martonjenniferl lowintensityfocusedultrasoundtargetingthenucleusaccumbensasapotentialtreatmentforsubstanceusedisordersafetyandfeasibilityclinicaltrial AT zhengwanhong lowintensityfocusedultrasoundtargetingthenucleusaccumbensasapotentialtreatmentforsubstanceusedisordersafetyandfeasibilityclinicaltrial AT berryjamesh lowintensityfocusedultrasoundtargetingthenucleusaccumbensasapotentialtreatmentforsubstanceusedisordersafetyandfeasibilityclinicaltrial AT tirumalaipadma lowintensityfocusedultrasoundtargetingthenucleusaccumbensasapotentialtreatmentforsubstanceusedisordersafetyandfeasibilityclinicaltrial AT mearsashley lowintensityfocusedultrasoundtargetingthenucleusaccumbensasapotentialtreatmentforsubstanceusedisordersafetyandfeasibilityclinicaltrial AT dhaesepierre lowintensityfocusedultrasoundtargetingthenucleusaccumbensasapotentialtreatmentforsubstanceusedisordersafetyandfeasibilityclinicaltrial AT finomorevictors lowintensityfocusedultrasoundtargetingthenucleusaccumbensasapotentialtreatmentforsubstanceusedisordersafetyandfeasibilityclinicaltrial AT hoddersallyl lowintensityfocusedultrasoundtargetingthenucleusaccumbensasapotentialtreatmentforsubstanceusedisordersafetyandfeasibilityclinicaltrial AT rezaialir lowintensityfocusedultrasoundtargetingthenucleusaccumbensasapotentialtreatmentforsubstanceusedisordersafetyandfeasibilityclinicaltrial |