Limitations and Future Directions in Pharmacological Treatment for Amphetamine-Type Stimulant Use Disorder

Plain Language Summary

Why Current Treatments for Stimulant Addiction Often Fall Short: Insights and Future Directions Stimulant addiction, such as addiction to drugs like amphetamines, is a growing public health concern, but there are very few effective medications to treat it. A recent study reviewed a drug called modafinil and found it didn't help reduce drug use, cravings, or improve treatment outcomes. This article discusses why treatments that work for other addictions, like opioids, are less effective for stimulants. It also highlights the challenges researchers face, such as differences in study methods and overlooking common issues like mental health problems or using multiple substances. The focus on complete abstinence as a treatment goal is another issue. Harm reduction, which involves reducing drug use and improving health and social well-being, could be more realistic and beneficial for many people. Finally, while therapy remains the most effective treatment, it's not always accessible. This article calls for new, innovative approaches that prioritize harm reduction, safety, and long-term recovery.

The recent systematic review and meta-analysis by Elkrief et al. (2024) evaluating modafinil for amphetamine-type stimulant use disorder (ATSUD) underscores significant challenges in the pharmacological treatment of stimulant use disorders. ¹ The findings, which show no significant effects of modafinil on stimulant use, treatment retention, or craving, highlight persistent limitations in current research and treatment approaches for ATSUD. ²

A fundamental issue is the extrapolation of the agonist model, proven effective in opioid use disorder (OUD), to stimulant addiction. Unlike opioid agonist treatments, which target the specific neurobiology of OUD, stimulants lack a comparable pharmacological target. Meta-analyses of prescription psychostimulants, including methylphenidate and amphetamines, reveal inconsistent or modest efficacy in reducing stimulant use, further emphasizing the limitations of this approach. ³

Elkrief et al.'s findings also reflect significant heterogeneity across studies in stimulant types, dosing regimens, psychosocial interventions, and outcome measures. For example, definitions of abstinence vary widely, with some studies prioritizing urine drug tests and others relying on self-reported reductions or treatment retention. This inconsistency complicates efforts to generalize findings and develop robust treatment guidelines. Furthermore, the high prevalence of psychiatric comorbidities and polysubstance use among ATSUD populations is often inadequately addressed, despite their potential impact on treatment outcomes. Individuals with ATSUD frequently present with psychiatric comorbidities, including mood disorders, psychosis, and polysubstance use, which can influence treatment outcomes. Methamphetamine use, for example, has been associated with greater severity of psychotic symptoms compared to other stimulants like cocaine. ⁴ Without systematically addressing these factors, the generalizability and clinical relevance of findings remain limited.

Moreover, the predominant focus on abstinence as the primary outcome neglects the potential value of harm reduction approaches. While abstinence may be the ultimate goal for some individuals, reductions in stimulant use are associated with meaningful improvements in health and social functioning. Emerging evidence suggests that harm reduction strategies, which prioritize quality of life and functional recovery, could provide a more pragmatic framework for addressing ATSUD, as highlighted by Farrell et al. (2019) in their global analysis of stimulant use. ⁵

Safety concerns regarding modafinil, particularly at higher doses, further limit its clinical applicability. Elkrief et al.'s report of increased serious adverse events aligns with earlier findings that highlight the importance of caution in pharmacotherapy for this population. ² These safety risks underscore the need for innovative treatments targeting the unique neurobiology of ATSUD, such as agents modulating dopamine transport or glutamate pathways.

While psychosocial interventions, particularly contingency management, remain the gold standard for ATSUD, they are resource-intensive and not widely accessible. The findings of Elkrief et al. emphasize the urgent need for novel, evidence-based pharmacological approaches tailored to the clinical and neurobiological complexities of ATSUD populations. Future research should prioritize harm reduction, functional recovery, and long-term safety to advance effective treatments.

Elkrief et al.'s study contributes valuable insights, but also highlights significant gaps in the field. Addressing these challenges will require rigorous, methodologically consistent trials and a shift toward outcomes that reflect the realities of ATSUD treatment.