Testing pharmacotherapies for alcohol use disorder with cue exposure paradigms: A systematic review and quantitative synthesis of human laboratory trial methodology

Abstract

AbstractAlcohol cue exposure is a widely used experimental paradigm for screening pharmacotherapies for alcohol use disorder (AUD). Medication‐related reductions in cue‐reactivity signal early efficacy and inform medications development. Yet, across trials, the design of cue exposure, parameter testing, and outcome reporting is heterogeneous. This systematic review is a quantitative synthesis of trial methodologies and effect size estimation for AUD medication‐related craving and psychophysiological outcomes under the cue exposure paradigm. A PubMed search was conducted on January 3, 2022 based on identified pharmacotherapies for peer‐reviewed articles reported in English. Study‐level characteristics, including sample descriptors, paradigm design, analytic approach, and Cochrane Risk of Bias, along with descriptive statistics for cue‐exposure outcomes, were coded by two independent raters. Study‐level effect sizes were estimated for craving and psychophysiological outcomes separately and sample‐level effect sizes were calculated for each medication. Thirty‐six trials, comprising 1640 participants and testing 19 different medications satisfied eligibility criteria. All studies reported on biological sex (71% male participants on average). The exposure paradigms implemented used in vivo (n = 26), visual (n = 8), and audio script (n = 2) cues. Some trials included means for craving by medication condition in text (k = 7) or figures (k = 18). The quantitative synthesis included 63 effect sizes (craving kes = 47; psychophysiological kes = 16) from 28 unique randomized trials testing 15 medications for effects on cue reactivity. For cue‐induced craving, eight medications (kes range: 1–12) demonstrated small‐to‐medium effects (Cohen's d range: |0.24–0.64|) compared to placebo, with individuals randomized to receive medication reporting lower craving following cue exposure. Recommendations are provided to promote further consilience, so that the utility of cue exposure paradigms can be maximized in the development of effective AUD pharmacotherapies. Future work should explore the predictive utility of medication‐related reductions in cue‐reactivity on clinical outcomes.