RTI uses cookies to offer you the best experience online. By clicking “accept” on this website, you opt in and you agree to the use of cookies. If you would like to know more about how RTI uses cookies and how to manage them please view our Privacy Policy here. You can “opt out” or change your mind by visiting: http://optout.aboutads.info/. Click “accept” to agree.
Modeling cue-exposure therapy for alcohol use disorder in rhesus monkeys
Effects of putative cognitive enhancers
Rahman, M. T., Pareek, T., Overton, J., Nguyen, L., Sharmin, D., Cook, J. M., & Platt, D. M. (2023). Modeling cue-exposure therapy for alcohol use disorder in rhesus monkeys: Effects of putative cognitive enhancers. Drug and Alcohol Dependence, 243, Article 109735. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2022.109735
Background Cue-exposure therapy (CET) is an effective approach for anxiety-related disorders, but its effectiveness for substance use disorders is less clear. One potential means of improving CET outcomes is to include a cognitive-enhancing pharmacotherapy. This study evaluated d-cycloserine (DCS) and RY-023, putative cognitive enhancers targeting glutamate and GABA systems, respectively, in a monkey model of CET for alcohol use disorder.
Methods Male rhesus monkeys (n=4) underwent multiple cycles of the CET procedure. During baseline (Phase 1), monkeys self-administered an ethanol solution under a fixed-ratio schedule and limited access conditions such that every 5th response in a 3-h session resulted in 30-s access to a drinking spout and a change in ethanol-paired cue lights from white to red. Behavior then was extinguished (Phase 2) by omitting the ethanol solution yet retaining the ethanol-paired stimulus lights. Monkeys also received injections of vehicle, DCS (3 mg/kg), a partial agonist at the glycine modulatory site on glutamatergic NMDA receptors, or the α5GABAA receptor-selective inverse agonist RY-023 (0.03 or 0.3 mg/kg). Once responding declined, monkeys underwent a cue reactivity test (Phase 3), and then returned to self-administration the following day to assess reacquisition (Phase 4).
Results Through multiple cycles, self-administration remained stable. Compared to vehicle, DCS facilitated extinction of ethanol seeking (Phase 2) and delayed reacquisition of ethanol self-administration (Phase 4). In contrast, RY-023 facilitated extinction (Phase 2) and reduced cue reactivity (Phase 3).
Conclusions Adjunctive pharmacotherapy can improve CET outcomes, but the choice of pharmacotherapy should be dependent on the outcome of interest.