N-acetylcysteine as a treatment for substance use cravings: A meta-analysis

Emma L. Winterlind, Samantha G. Malone, Michael R. Setzer, Mikela A. Murphy, David Saunders, Joshua C. Gray
doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2024.05.13.24306839

Abstract

N-acetylcysteine (NAC) may serve as a novel pharmacotherapy for substance use and substance craving in individuals with substance use disorders (SUDs), possibly through its potential to regulate glutamate. Though prior meta-analyses generally support NAC’s efficacy in reducing symptoms of craving, individual trials have found mixed results. The aims of the this updated meta-analysis were to (1) examine the efficacy of NAC in treating symptoms of craving in individuals with a SUD and (2) explore subgroup differences, risk of bias, and publication bias across trials. Database searches of PubMed, Cochrane Library, and ClinicalTrials.gov were conducted to identify relevant randomized control trials (RCTs). The meta-analysis consisted of 9 trials which analyzed data from a total of 623 participants. The most targeted substance in the clinical trials was alcohol (3/9; 33.3%), followed by tobacco (2/9; 22.2%) and multiple substances (2/9; 22.2%). Meta-analysis, subgroup analyses, and leave-one-out analyses were conducted to examine treatment effect on craving symptoms and adverse events (AEs). Risk of bias assessments, Egger’s tests, and funnel plot tests were conducted to examine risk of bias and publication bias. NAC did not significantly outperform placebo in reducing symptoms of craving in the meta-analysis (SMD = 0.189, 95% CI = −0.015 - 0.393). Heterogeneity was very high in the meta-analysis (99.26%), indicating that findings may have been influenced by clinical or methodological differences in the study protocols. Additionally, results indicate that there may be publication bias present. There were no between-group differences in risk of AEs. Overall, our findings are contrary to those of prior meta-analyses, suggesting limited impact of NAC on substance craving. However, the high heterogeneity and presence of publication bias identified warrants cautious interpretation of the meta-analytic outcomes.

Introduction

Substance use disorders (SUDs) are one of the most prevalent forms of psychopathology with significant public health disease burden. In 2022 alone, approximately 48.7 million Americans met criteria for any SUD (Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, 2022). Globally, SUDs contribute to multiple measures of public health disease burden, including years of life lost (YLLs), disability-adjusted life years (DALYs), and years of life lived with disability (YLDs). One global study found that approximately 31.8 million DALYs, 16.7 million YPLs, and 15 million YLDs were attributable to drug use in 2016 (Degenhardt et al., 2018). Additionally, the national economic impact of alcohol and illicit drug misuse is estimated to be $249 and $193 billion, respectively (U.S Department of Health and Human Services, 2023). Despite SUDs posing great public health and economic burdens, current treatments show limited efficacy with relapse rates being as high as 40-60% (McLellan et al., 2000). Treatment of drug cravings has been proposed as a potentially effective mechanism of for reducing or eliminating substance use (Kosten, 1992; Tiffany & Wray, 2012; Weiss et al., 2003).

Craving, defined as an “strong desire or urge to use” a substance, is a hallmark symptom of SUD and a potential intervention target (American Psychiatric Association, 2013, p. 491). Craving and cue-induced craving are particularly strong predictors of relapse (Cavicchioli et al., 2020; Serre et al., 2015; Vafaie & Kober, 2022). For example, the systematic review and meta-analysis by Vafaie & Kober (2022) found that a 1-point increase in drug-related cue and craving indicators more than doubled the odds of substance use or relapse at a later timepoint, thus implicating regulation of drug cravings as an important mechanism of successful treatment outcomes.

N-acetylcysteine (NAC)–an over-the-counter (OTC) antioxidant approved for the treatment of acetaminophen overdose–may be an effective pharmacological treatment for craving reduction, primarily due to its effect on glutamate functioning and signaling. The dysregulation of glutamate transmission is one of the most highly researched cellular neuroadaptations associated with chronic substance use (Gass & Olive, 2008; Kalivas, 2009; Roberts-Wolfe & Kalivas, 2015; Scofield et al., 2016). Preclinical models indicate that NAC may reduce drug-seeking behavior by modulating the expression of the glutamate transporter 1 (GLT-1) and cysteine-glutamate antiporter, thereby regulating the release of synaptic glutamate in areas of the brain such as the nucleus accumbens core and prefrontal cortex (Baker et al., 2003a,b; Cornish & Kalivas, 2000; Ducret et al., 2016; Gass et al., 2011; Gipson, 2016; Knackstedt et al., 2010; Knackstedt & Kalivas, 2009; McFarland et al., 2003; Morais-Silva et al., 2016; Moro et al., 2020; Sari et al., 2009; Schneider et al., 2015), leading to reduced reinstatement of drug-seeking behavior. These effects have been shown to be long-lasting (Moro et al., 2020; Zhou & Kalivas, 2008).

While several randomized control trials (RCTs) have examined the efficacy of NAC in SUD treatment, including in mitigating craving, many show mixed results (Greenberg et al., 2022) despite a trend of support in prior systematic reviews and meta-analyses (Asevedo et al., 2014; Chang et al., 2021; Duailibi et al., 2017). The aims of the present study were to conduct an updated meta-analysis to (1) examine the efficacy of NAC in treating symptoms of craving in individuals with a SUD and (2) explore subgroup differences, risk of bias, and publication bias across trials.

Methods

Searching Strategy and Study Selection

One author conducted database and registry searches of PubMed, Cochrane Libraries, and ClinicalTrials.gov (https://clinicaltrials.gov). Database searches were conducted on June 20th and July 17th, 2023. The following search terms were used: “addiction AND N-acetylcysteine,” “abstinence AND N-acetylcysteine,” “cessation AND N-acetylcysteine,” “craving AND N-acetylcysteine,” “dependence AND N-acetylcysteine,” “substance use disorder AND N-acetylcysteine,” “withdrawal AND N-acetylcysteine,” and “addictive disorder AND N-acetylcysteine.” The search terms were drawn from those of Chang et al. (2021), who, to our knowledge, conducted the most recent meta-analysis on NAC’s efficacy in treating symptoms related to SUDs. The “randomized control trial” and “clinical trial” options in PubMed were used to only retrieve randomized control trials (RCTs). The “search word variations” option in Cochrane Libraries was used to broaden the search scope. No language restrictions were applied. All authors reviewed and agreed upon the final trials included in the meta-analysis.

Inclusion and Exclusion Criteria

We used the following inclusion criteria: (a) randomized, placebo-controlled trials with no crossover; (b) standardized assessment(s) of craving using validated measures; (c) no adjuvant pharmacological treatments to NAC included in study protocol; and (d) include only participants who meet DSM-IV, DSM-5, or DSM-5-TR criteria for any SUD. An exception to criterion D was made for tobacco use trials; to be included in our meta-analysis, trials examining the efficacy of NAC as a treatment for tobacco use had to include an eligibility criterion specifying that participants had to smoke ≥10 cigarettes per day. We excluded pre-clinical trials, case reports, systematic reviews or meta-analyses, non-controlled trials, crossover trials, trials with adjuvant pharmacological treatments to NAC, and trials not assessing substance use and craving.

Data Extraction

The primary outcome was craving. Baseline and endpoint craving data were independently extracted and then compared by two authors to ensure accuracy. If a trial reported scores at more than one time-point after baseline we used the scores corresponding to the longest time period for which participants were blinded.

If potentially eligible trials did not include sufficient data or information for inclusion in our meta-analysis, the authors were contacted up to two times to retrieve the data or information. If the authors did not respond after two contact attempts or were unable to provide the data requested, the study was excluded (k = 6). One study (Roten et al., 2013) did not include follow-up data in their publication but provided it upon request. Trial characteristics such as author names, inclusion criteria, demographics, substance treated, measure(s) used, and intervention details were extracted and are presented in Table 1.

View this table:
Table 1. Trial Characteristics

Risk of Bias Assessments

Two authors independently assessed the methodological quality of each study based on the revised Cochrane Risk of Bias (RoB) tool for randomized control trials (Higgins et al., 2011) before coming together to reach consensuses. Another author was assigned as a third reviewer in the case of unresolvable discrepancies between the primary reviewers; however, all discrepancies were able to be resolved through discussion between the two primary reviewers.

Statistical Analysis

The meta-analysis was conducted in accordance with PRISMA guidelines (Page et al., 2021). The meta-analysis was not pre-registered and no study protocol was prepared for publication. The meta-analysis and subgroup analyses were all performed using the metafor package (Viechtbauer, 2010) in R version 4.3.3.

Cohen’s d, a type of standardized mean difference (SMD), was independently calculated for each study by two authors and then compared to ensure accuracy. Several trials reported total scores for more than one measure or only subscale scores, but not total score, for a measure (Back, 2021, 2023; Back et al., 2016; Schulte et al., 2017; Yoon, 2013). Rather than selecting only one measure or subscale to include in our meta-analysis, or treating each measure as an independent study, we calculated an aggregated score using two methods: by aggregating effect sizes in the MAd package in R (Del Re & Hoyt, 2014) and by manually totaling scores and dividing by the number of measures or subscales. Both methods resulted in the same aggregated effect size for all the relevant trials. Logarithmic risk ratios (logRRs) were calculated to compare reports of adverse events (AEs) between placebo and intervention groups. Confidence intervals (CIs) were automatically calculated for SMDs and RRs by the metafor package when trials were fitted to a model. The package also calculates several heterogeneity statistics; we focus on the I2 statistic when reporting the results. The random effects model was chosen to best account for between-study variability and heterogeneity.

In the case of one study (McKetin et al., 2021), Cohen’s d for the craving measure was found to be null and, thus, the standard error (SE) was also found to be null. To account for this, we transformed the SE to a small decimal (0.001) while maintaining the null effect size. To account for any bias this may introduce, we conducted a subgroup analysis which excluded this trial but maintained all other trials included in the meta-analysis. Moreover, we were interested to see whether the substance type treated may impact the treatment effect. Since we did not have the power necessary to explore NAC’s efficacy for all the different substance types individually (e.g., with meta-regression), we conducted a subgroup analysis to examine whether NAC had a greater treatment effect for alcohol, the substance type with the most recent and greatest number of trials (Back, 2023; Morley et al., 2023; Yoon, 2013), than for other substances. Finally, we conducted a subgroup analysis examining group differences in logRRs for AEs. We report on all meta-analytic and subgroup findings.

First, the meta-analysis including all nine trials was conducted, and alongside it, the first subgroup analysis (Figure 2). The second subgroup analysis examining only trials treating alcohol use was then conducted (Figure 3). Finally, the subgroup analysis of risk ratios was conducted to compare risk of AEs between placebo and intervention groups (Figure 4). Leave-one-out-analyses (LOOAs) were conducted to examine the influence of each study on the overall outcomes of the meta-analysis and the first subgroup analysis. Additionally, publication bias was assessed through the use of Begg’s funnel plots and Egger’s tests (Egger et al., 1997).

Figure 1.
Figure 1.

PRISMA flow diagram depicting study selection process

Figure 2.
Figure 2.

Meta-analysis forest plot. The plot depicts a meta-analysis and subgroup analysis examining the overall effect of NAC on the primary outcome, as well as a test for subgroup differences. Note that values above the line of no effect indicate favorability towards the intervention (NAC) group.

Figure 3.
Figure 3.

Alcohol trials subgroup forest plot. The plot depicts a subgroup analysis comparing trials examining alcohol to all other trials. Note that values above the line of no effect indicate favorability towards the intervention (NAC) group.r

Figure 4.
Figure 4.

Log risk ratio forest plot. The plot depicts a subgroup analysis of risk of adverse events. Note that values below the line of no effect indicate lower risk of AEs for the intervention (NAC) group.

Results

Trial Characteristics

Figure 1 displays the literature screening and selection process. The initial search yielded 955 records, 636 of which were excluded for being duplicates, leaving a total of 319 records for title and abstract screening. Another potentially eligible study (Morley et al., 2023) was identified by one of the authors after the initial database searches were completed; the study was added to the review process, thus leaving a total of 320 records for title and abstract screening. After titles and abstracts were screened for relevance, a total of 31 records remained for full-text review. Two trials were excluded for including a pharmacological adjunct to NAC, two for being the wrong article type, 12 for insufficient assessment(s) of craving (e.g., use of unstandardized assessments, no assessments, or assessment only at baseline), and six for having insufficient data following the contact attempts. The trials were published between 2013 and 2023 and had sample sizes ranging from 22 to 153, with a total of 699 participants at baseline. However, due to attrition within the trials, the total number of participants analyzed was 623. Table 1 describes study characteristics in further detail.

Craving Symptoms

Baseline data were reported in all trials. Follow-up data were reported in eight trials; one study did not report follow-up data but provided these data upon request (Roten et al., 2013). We first conducted the meta-analysis and the first subgroup analysis which excluded McKetin et al. (2021). In the meta-analysis, we found that NAC did not significantly outperform placebo in reducing symptoms of craving (SMD = 0.189, 95% CI = −0.015 - 0.393). Very high heterogeneity was observed across trials (I2 = 99.26%). The results of the first subgroup analysis further confirmed the findings of the meta-analysis (SMD = 0.217, 95% CI = −0.012 - 0.446, I2 = 97.33%). A test for group differences (meta-analysis versus subgroup analysis) identified no significant differences between the groups (p = 0.87), indicating little to no impact of including the null effect size study on the overall outcome of the meta-analysis. Figure 2 depicts a forest plot with outcomes of the RE models for the meta-analysis, subgroup analysis, and the test for subgroup differences.

The second subgroup analysis examining only trials which were targeting alcohol use also yielded insignificant results (SMD = 0.074, 95% CI = −0.277 - 0.425, I2 = 97.11%). The test for subgroup differences (alcohol trials versus all other trials) identified no significant differences between the groups (p = 0.43). Figure 3 depicts a forest plot with outcomes of the RE models for the second subgroup analysis and test for subgroup differences.

LOOAs were conducted to examine the influence of each study on the outcomes of the meta-analysis and first subgroup analysis. The LOOAs identified Morley et al. (2023) as a significantly influential study in both the meta-analysis (SMD = 0.235, 95% CI = 0.025 - 0.444, p = 0.03) and the subgroup analysis (SMD = 0.273, 95% CI = 0.040 - 0.506, p = 0.02), indicating that if this study were to be excluded from the meta-analysis or subgroup analysis, it would change the overall results to indicate that NAC did significantly outperform placebo. Moreover, the LOOA on the subgroup analysis also identified Back (2023) (SMD = 0.257, 95% CI = 0.002 - 0.511, p = .049) and Schulte et al. (2017) (SMD = 0.257, 95% CI = 0.006 - 0.508, p = 0.045) as significantly influential trials.

Adverse Events

Eight trials reported on AEs experienced by participants, while one did not (Roten et al., 2013). There were 16 serious adverse effects reported in the experimental groups across trials, only one of which was conservatively estimated to have a possible relation to the intervention (syncopal episode; Back et al., 2016). Gastrointestinal upset (e.g., stomach cramps and discomfort, diarrhea, nausea) and headache were the most commonly reported non-severe AEs. A third subgroup analysis was conducted to examine group differences in RRs for AEs.

Though eight trials reported AEs, one study did not report occurrences of AEs between intervention and control group (Back et al., 2016). Another trial reported a greater number of adverse events than the number of participants for both groups (McKetin et al., 2021) and another reported zero AEs for both groups (Schulte et al., 2017), thereby making the calculation of risk ratios for these trials impossible. Of note, McKetin et al. (2021) appeared to have employed the most thorough assessment of AEs out of all eight trials, coding AEs by Systems Organ Class according to the Medical Dictionary for Regulatory Activities (MedDRA; Jaasu et al., 2018). Only one other study mentioned a standardized assessment of AEs (Back et al., 2016), whereas all other trials either did not report how they collected data on AEs or simply mentioned asking participants if they experienced any side effects. All in all, four trials were excluded from this subgroup analysis (Back et al., 2016; McKetin et al., 2021; Roten et al., 2013; Schulte et al., 2017), leaving a total of five trials to be included. The results indicate no significant differences in risk for AEs by group (logRR = 0.90, 95% CI = 0.68 - 1.19). Figure 4 depicts a forest plot with outcomes of the RE model for the AE subgroup analysis.

Risk of Bias and Publication Bias

The methodological quality (i.e., risk of bias), as assessed by the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool (Higgins et al., 2011), of the included trials are described in Table 2 and Figure 6. Regarding overall bias, seven trials were rated as high risk and two as some concerns. The third domain of the Cochrane RoB tool, missing outcome data, was a consistent source of high bias across trials. Additional sources of bias identified by the reviewers include underpowered trials and lack of pre-specified plans of analysis.

View this table:
Table 2. Risk of Bias Judgments

Two Begg’s funnel plots were created to assess publication bias of the included trials, one for the meta-analysis and one for the subgroup which excluded McKetin et al. (2021). Since the plots looked virtually identical, only the plot which includes all trials is presented (Figure 5). Both funnels exhibited asymmetry, potentially indicating publication bias. Additionally, Egger’s tests (Egger et al., 1997) were conducted on each funnel plot to further assess publication bias. If significant, results of Egger’s tests indicate that publication bias favoring statistically significant or positive trials may be more likely to be present. Both tests indicated statistically significant asymmetry (ps < .05), further indicating publication bias. These findings are contrary to those of a prior meta-analysis on the subject (Duailibi et al., 2017).

Figure 5.
Figure 5.

Begg’s funnel plot. The plot depicts the outcome of a funnel plot including all trials in the meta-analysis.

Figure 6.
Figure 6.

Risk of Bias Bar Plot. The figure depicts overall and domain-specific risk of bias judgments each included study.

Discussion

Our meta-analysis found that NAC was not superior to placebo in reducing cravings in individuals with SUD. These findings contrast with those of Chang et al. (2021) and Duailibi et al. (2017), who both found that NAC was superior to placebo in treating substance use cravings and other symptoms associated with SUD. However, our meta-analysis included several more recent and large trials (Back, 2021, 2023; McKetin et al., 2021; Morley et al., 2023), most of which had smaller treatment effect sizes than those included in the prior meta-analyses (Chang et al., 2021; Duailibi et al., 2017).

Smaller, earlier trials are more prone to inflate treatment effects (i.e., ‘small-study effects), potentially as a result of lesser methodological quality (Dechartres et al., 2013; Ioannidis, 2008). This may increase the likelihood of publication bias, the tendency for trials with statistically significant or positive results to be published over trials with null findings (Dalton et al., 2016; Thornton & Lee, 2000). Indeed, the two trials with the largest effect sizes included in this meta-analysis (Back et al., 2016; Schmaal et al., 2011) also had the smallest sample sizes (n = 27 and 22, respectively). We identified significant asymmetry in the funnel plots, a tool considered to be effective in detecting small-study effects (Egger et al., 2003), though it may be considered unreliable when used in meta-analyses with less than 10 trials (Dalton et al., 2017). While it appears likely that publication bias primarily influenced the asymmetry, it is worth noting that publication bias is only one of many potential reasons for funnel plot asymmetry (e.g., low methodological quality, selection biases, true heterogeneity, data irregularities, artifact; Egger et al., 1997).

The high levels of heterogeneity across trials utilized in the meta-analysis possibly limits conclusions. The nine trials included in this analysis often did not share methodologies or measurements of craving, making it difficult to draw accurate conclusions from the aggregate results regarding the utility of NAC as a treatment for SUD cravings. Additionally, because trials vary in the SUD treated, it is difficult to determine whether NAC serves as a more effective treatment for certain substances over others. Due to the limited number of trials included in the meta-analysis, we had insufficient power to conduct meta-regressions which may have elucidated substance-specific treatment effects. However, the findings from the subgroup analysis examining only alcohol-focused trials support the findings of Chang et al. (2021), who similarly conducted a subgroup analysis of alcohol-focused trials and found a nonsignificant treatment effect of NAC on craving, and Duailibi et al. (2017), who found that the substance type did not moderate treatment effects.

Conversely, it is possible that the I2 estimate for the present meta-analysis was inflated and results were more homogenous than predicted. Evidence suggests that I2 demonstrates considerable bias when there are few trials included in analyses. When there is minimal true heterogeneity, this measure often increases it artificially, but when there is large true heterogeneity, this measure often decreases it artificially (Von Hippel, 2015). Because of this, the I2 heterogeneity statistic should be interpreted cautiously and the real extent to which heterogeneity impacted our results is unclear.

Another important consideration which may have impacted the results is the quality of the NAC product itself. It is possible that there were variations in quality (e.g., purity, potency, preparation) and regulatory status of the NAC products used in the included trials of this meta-analysis. The quality of NAC products was not systematically assessed in the present study or in prior meta-analyses (Duailibi et al., 2017; Chang et al., 2021). Though NAC has undergone a rigorous regulatory process in order to become a FDA-approved medication for the treatment of acetaminophen overdose, it is also a widely available OTC dietary supplement for which the FDA exercises limited enforcement discretion (Food and Drug Administration, 2022). Since OTC supplements are unregulated by the FDA, without guarantee of purity or medication-substance content, the effectiveness of a given supplement may be limited. As such, it is recommended that NAC products are sourced from suppliers which meet United States Pharmacopeia (USP) standards (Tomko et al., 2018).

This meta-analysis corrorobated the findings of prior large RCTs with null results, despite prior meta-analytic evidence indicating that NAC is a promising treatment option for substance craving. Large RCTs will enhance generalizability, reduce potential bias, and amplify study power to detect real effects. Similarly, considering homogeneity in trial design (e.g. trial protocols, outcome measures, and the SUD treated) will enhance the ability of RCTs to evaluate the efficacy of NAC as a SUD treatment more accurately. Additionally, researchers should publish negative findings when applicable to help prevent publication bias. These remediations will improve the ability of future meta-analyses to clarify NAC treatment effects and identify moderators of treatment effect.

Data Availability

The R code used to conduct analyses and create forest and funnel plots can be accessed using this link: https://github.com/ewinterli/NAC-meta-analysis

Footnotes

  • emma.winterlind.ctr{at}usuhs.edu

  • samantha.malone.ctr{at}usuhs.edu

  • Michael.setzer{at}usuhs.edu

  • mmurphy246{at}fordham.edu

  • david.saunders{at}usuhs.edu

  • Joshua.gray{at}usuhs.edu

  • Data availability statement: The R code used to conduct analyses and create forest and funnel plots can be accessed using this link: https://github.com/ewinterli/NAC-meta-analysis

  • Disclosure Statement: The authors have no commercial or financial conflicts of interests to disclose.

  • Funding Source: This work was supported by funding from the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism (R01-AA030041) and the Department of Defense (HU0001-22-2-0066). Disclaimer: The opinions and assertions herein are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the official views of the Henry M. Jackson Foundation for the Advancement of Military Medicine, Inc. Moreover, the opinions and assertions herein do not necessarily reflect the official views of the Department of Defense, Uniformed Services University, the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism, the US Government, and do not imply endorsement by the Federal Government.

References

  1. ↵
    American Psychiatric Association. (2013). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (5th ed.). doi:10.1176/appi.books.9780890425596
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  2. ↵
    Asevedo, E., Mendes, A. C., Berk, M., & Brietzke, E. (2014). Systematic review of N-acetylcysteine in the treatment of addictions. Revista Brasileira de Psiquiatria, 36(2), 168–175. doi:10.1590/1516-4446-2013-1244
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  3. ↵
    Back, S. (2021). NAC for treating comorbid PTSD and SUD. ClinicalTrials. https://classic.clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02911285
  4. ↵
    Back, S. (2023). Clinical trial for alcohol use disorder and post traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). ClinicalTrials. https://classic.clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02966873
  5. ↵
    Back, S. E., McCauley, J. L., Korte, K. J., Gros, D. F., Leavitt, V., Gray, K. M., Hamner, M. B., DeSantis, S. M., Malcolm, R., Brady, K. T., & Kalivas, P. W. (2016). A double-blind, randomized, controlled pilot trial of N-acetylcysteine in veterans with posttraumatic stress disorder and substance use disorders. Journal of Clinical Psychiatry, 77(11), 12406. doi:10.4088/JCP.15m10239
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  6. Baker, D. A., McFarland, K., Lake, R. W., Shen, H., Tang, X. C., Toda, S., & Kalivas, P. W. (2003). Neuroadaptations in cystine-glutamate exchange underlie cocaine relapse. Nature Neuroscience, 6(7), 743–749. doi:10.1038/nn1069
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  7. ↵
    Baker, D. A., McFarland, K., Lake, R. W., Shen, H., Toda, S., & Kalivas, P. W. (2003). N-acetyl cysteine-induced blockade of cocaine-induced reinstatement. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 1003(1). 349–351. doi:10.1196/annals.1300.023
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  8. ↵
    Cavicchioli, M., Vassena, G., Movalli, M., & Maffei, C. (2020). Is craving a risk factor for substance use among treatment-seeking individuals with alcohol and other drugs use disorders? A meta-analytic review. Drug and Alcohol Dependence, 212, 108002. doi:10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2020.108002
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  9. ↵
    Chang, C. T., Hsieh, P. J., Lee, H. C., Lo, C. H., Tam, K. W., & Loh, E. W. (2021). Effectiveness of N-acetylcysteine in treating clinical symptoms of substance abuse and dependence: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Clinical Psychopharmacology and Neuroscience, 19(2), 282. doi:10.9758/cpn.2021.19.2.282
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  10. ↵
    Cornish, J. L., & Kalivas, P. W. (2000). Glutamate transmission in the nucleus accumbens mediates relapse in cocaine addiction. The Journal of Neuroscience: The Official Journal of the Society for Neuroscience, 20(15), RC89. doi:10.1523/jneurosci.20-15-j0006.2000
    OpenUrlFREE Full Text
  11. ↵
    Dalton, J. E., Bolen, S. D., & Mascha, E. J. (2016). Publication Bias: The elephant in the review. Anesthesia and Analgesia, 123(4), 812–813. doi:10.1213/ANE.0000000000001596
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  12. ↵
    Dechartres, A., Trinquart, L., Boutron, I., & Ravaud, P. (2013). Influence of trial sample size on treatment effect estimates: Meta-epidemiological study. BMJ (Online), 346(7908), 346. doi:10.1136/bmj.f2304
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  13. ↵
    Degenhardt, L., Charlson, F., Ferrari, A., Santomauro, D., Erskine, H., Mantilla-Herrara, A., Whiteford, H., Leung, J., Naghavi, M., Griswold, M., Rehm, J., Hall, W., Sartorius, B., Scott, J., Vollset, S. E., Knudsen, A. K., Haro, J. M., Patton, G., Kopec, J., … & Vos, T. (2018). The global burden of disease attributable to alcohol and drug use in 195 countries and territories, 1990–2016: A systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2016. The Lancet Psychiatry, 5(12), 987–1012. doi:10.1016/S2215-0366(18)30337-7
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  14. ↵
    Del Re, A. C., & Hoyt, W. T. (2014). MAd: Meta-Analysis with Mean Differences.
  15. ↵
    Duailibi, M. S., Cordeiro, Q., Brietzke, E., Ribeiro, M., LaRowe, S., Berk, M., & Trevizol, A. P. (2017). N-acetylcysteine in the treatment of craving in substance use disorders: Systematic review and meta-analysis. American Journal on Addictions, 26(7), 660–666. doi:10.1111/ajad.12620
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  16. ↵
    Ducret, E., Puaud, M., Lacoste, J., Belin-Rauscent, A., Fouyssac, M., Dugast, E., Murray, J. E., Everitt, B. J., Houeto, J. L., & Belin, D. (2016). N-acetylcysteine facilitates self-imposed abstinence after escalation of cocaine intake. Biological Psychiatry, 80(3), 226–234. doi:10.1016/j.biopsych.2015.09.019
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  17. ↵
    Egger, M., Jüni, P., Bartlett, C., Holenstein, F., & Sterne, J. (2003). How important are comprehensive literature searches and the assessment of trial quality in systematic reviews? Empirical study. Health Technology Assessment, 7(1), 1–76. doi:10.3310/hta7010
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  18. ↵
    Egger, M., Smith, G. D., Schneider, M., & Minder, C. (1997). Bias in meta-analysis detected by a simple, graphical test. British Medical Journal, 315(7109), 629–634. doi:10.1136/bmj.315.7109.629
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  19. ↵
    Gass, J. T., & Olive, M. F. (2008). Glutamatergic substrates of drug addiction and alcoholism. Biochemical Pharmacology, 75(1), 218–265. doi:10.1016/j.bcp.2007.06.039
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  20. ↵
    Gass, J. T., Sinclair, C. M., Cleva, R. M., Widholm, J. J., & Olive, M. F. (2011). Alcohol-seeking behavior is associated with increased glutamate transmission in basolateral amygdala and nucleus accumbens as measured by glutamate-oxidase-coated biosensors. Addiction Biology, 16(2), 215–228. doi:10.1111/j.1369-1600.2010.00262.x
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  21. ↵
    Gipson, C. D. (2016). Treating addiction: Unraveling the relationship between N-acetylcysteine, glial glutamate transport, and behavior. Biological Psychiatry, 80(3), e11–12. doi:10.1016/j.biopsych.2016.05.007
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  22. ↵
    Greenberg, N.R., Farhadi, F., Kazer, B., Potenza, M., Gustavo., A.A. (2022). Mechanistic effects and use of N-acetylcysteine in substance use disorders. Current Behavioral Neuroscience Reports, 9(4), 124–143. doi:10.1007/s40473-022-00250-3
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  23. ↵
    Higgins, J. P. T., Altman, D. G., Gøtzsche, P. C., Jüni, P., Moher, D., Oxman, A. D., Savović, J., Schulz, K. F., Weeks, L., & Sterne, J. A. C. (2011). The Cochrane Collaboration’s tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials. BMJ (Online), 343(7829). doi:10.1136/bmj.d5928
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  24. ↵
    Ioannidis, J. P. A. (2008). Why most discovered true associations are inflated. Epidemiology, 19(5), 640–648. doi:10.1097/EDE.0b013e31818131e7
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  25. ↵
    Jaasu, N. M., Kamaraj, R., & Seetharaman, R. (2018). MedDRA (medical dictionary for regulatory activities). Research Journal of Pharmacy and Technology, 11(10), 4751–4754. doi:10.5958/0974-360X.2018.00866.1
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  26. ↵
    Kalivas, P. W. (2009). The glutamate homeostasis hypothesis of addiction. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 10(8), 561–572. doi:10.1038/nrn2515
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  27. Knackstedt, L. A., & Kalivas, P. W. (2009). Glutamate and reinstatement. Current Opinion in Pharmacology, 9(1), 59–64. doi:10.1016/j.coph.2008.12.003
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  28. ↵
    Knackstedt, L. A., Moussawi, K., Lalumiere, R., Schwendt, M., Klugmann, M., & Kalivas, P. W. (2010). Extinction training after cocaine self-administration induces glutamatergic plasticity to inhibit cocaine seeking. Journal of Neuroscience, 30(23), 7984–7992. doi:10.1523/JNEUROSCI.1244-10.2010
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  29. ↵
    Kosten, T. R. (1992). Can cocaine craving be a medication development outcome? The American Journal on Addictions, 1(3). 230–239. doi:10.1111/j.1521-0391.1992.tb00029.x
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  30. ↵
    McFarland, K., Lapish, C. C., & Kalivas, P. W. (2003). Prefrontal glutamate release into the core of the nucleus accumbens mediates cocaine-induced reinstatement of drug-seeking behavior. Journal of Neuroscience, 23(8), 3531–3537. doi:10.1523/jneurosci.23-08-03531.2003
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  31. ↵
    McKetin, R., Dean, O. M., Turner, A., Kelly, P. J., Quinn, B., Lubman, D. I., Dietze, P., Carter, G., Higgs, P., Sinclair, B., Reid, D., Baker, A. L., Manning, V., Pas, N., Thomas, T., Bathish, R., Raftery, D. K., Wrobel, A., Saunders, L., … Berk, M. (2021). N-acetylcysteine (NAC) for methamphetamine dependence: A randomised controlled trial. EClinicalMedicine, 38. doi:10.1016/j.eclinm.2021.101005
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  32. ↵
    McLellan, A. T., Lewis, D. C., O’Brien, C. P., & Kleber, H. D. (2000). Drug dependence, a chronic medical illness implications for treatment, insurance, and outcomes evaluation. JAMA, 284(13), 1689–1695. doi:10.1001/jama.284.13.1689
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  33. ↵
    Morais-Silva, G., Alves, G. C., & Marin, M. T. (2016). N-acetylcysteine treatment blocks the development of ethanol-induced behavioural sensitization and related ΔFosB alterations. Neuropharmacology, 110, 135–142. doi:10.1016/j.neuropharm.2016.07.009
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  34. ↵
    Morley, K. C., Peruch, S., Adams, C., Towers, E., Tremonti, C., Watt, J., Jamshidil, N., & Haber, P. S. (2023). N-acetylcysteine in the treatment of alcohol use disorder: A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. Alcohol and Alcoholism, 58(5), 553–560. doi:10.1093/alcalc/agad044
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  35. ↵
    Moro, F., Giannotti, G., Caffino, L., Marzo, C. M., Di Clemente, A., Fumagalli, F., & Cervo, L. (2020). Lasting reduction of nicotine-seeking behavior by chronic N-acetylcysteine during experimental cue-exposure therapy. Addiction Biology, 25(4). doi:10.1111/adb.12771
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  36. ↵
    Page, M. J., McKenzie, J. E., Bossuyt, P. M., Boutron, I., Hoffmann, T. C., Mulrow, C. D., Shamseer, L., Tetzlaff, J. M., Akl, E. A., Brennan, S. E., Chou, R., Glanville, J., Grimshaw, J. M., Hróbjartsson, A., Lalu, M. M., Li, T., Loder, E. W., Mayo-Wilson, E., McDonald, S.,… Moher, D. (2021). The PRISMA 2020 statement: An updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. The BMJ, 372. doi:10.1136/bmj.n71
    OpenUrlFREE Full Text
  37. ↵
    Roberts-Wolfe, D., & Kalivas, P. (2015). Glutamate transporter GLT-1 as a therapeutic target for substance use disorders. CNS & Neurological Disorders - Drug Targets, 14(6), 745–756. doi:10.2174/1871527314666150529144655
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  38. ↵
    Roten, A. T., Baker, N. L., & Gray, K. M. (2013). Marijuana craving trajectories in an adolescent marijuana cessation pharmacotherapy trial. Addictive Behaviors, 38(3), 1788–1791. doi:10.1016/j.addbeh.2012.11.003
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  39. ↵
    Sari, Y., Smith, K. D., Ali, P. K., & Rebec, G. V. (2009). Upregulation of GLT1 attenuates cue-induced reinstatement of cocaine-seeking behavior in rats. Journal of Neuroscience, 29(29), 9239–9243. doi:10.1523/JNEUROSCI.1746-09.2009
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  40. ↵
    Schmaal, L., Berk, L., Hulstijn, K. P., Cousijn, J., Wiers, R. W., & Van Den Brink, W. (2011). Efficacy of N-acetylcysteine in the treatment of nicotine dependence: A double-blind placebo-controlled pilot study. European Addiction Research, 17(4), 211–216. doi:10.1159/000327682
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  41. ↵
    Schneider, R., Santos, C. F., Clarimundo, V., Dalmaz, C., Elisabetsky, E., & Gomez, R. (2015). N-acetylcysteine prevents behavioral and biochemical changes induced by alcohol cessation in rats. Alcohol, 49(3), 259–263. doi:10.1016/j.alcohol.2015.01.009
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  42. ↵
    Schulte, M. H. J., Goudriaan, A. E., Kaag, A. M., Kooi, D. P., Van Den Brink, W., Wiers, R. W., & Schmaal, L. (2017). The effect of N-acetylcysteine on brain glutamate and gamma-aminobutyric acid concentrations and on smoking cessation: A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. Journal of Psychopharmacology, 31(10), 1377–1379. doi:10.1177/0269881117730660
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  43. ↵
    Scofield, M. D., Heinsbroek, J. A., Gipson, C. D., Kupchik, Y. M., Spencer, S., Smith, A. C. W., Roberts-Wolfe, D., & Kalivas, P. W. (2016). The nucleus accumbens: Mechanisms of addiction across drug classes reflect the importance of glutamate homeostasis. Pharmacological Reviews, 68(3), 816–871. doi:10.1124/pr.116.012484
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  44. ↵
    Serre, F., Fatseas, M., Swendsen, J., & Auriacombe, M. (2015). Ecological momentary assessment in the investigation of craving and substance use in daily life: A systematic review. Drug and Alcohol Dependence, 148. doi:10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2014.12.024
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  45. ↵
    Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration. (2022). 2022 National Survey on Drug Use and Health (NSDUH) Releases.
  46. ↵
    Thornton, A., & Lee, P. (2000). Publication bias in meta-analysis: Its causes and consequences. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 53(2), 207–216. doi:10.1016/S0895-4356(99)00161-4
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  47. ↵
    Tiffany, S. T., & Wray, J. M. (2012). The clinical significance of drug craving. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 1248(1) 1–17. doi:10.1111/j.1749-6632.2011.06298.x
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  48. ↵
    Tomko, R. L., Jones, J. L., Gilmore, A. K., Brady, K. T., Back, S. E., & Gray, K. M. (2018). N-acetylcysteine: A potential treatment for substance use disorders. Current Psychiatry, 17(6), 30–55.
    OpenUrl
  49. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. (2022). Policy Regarding N-acetyl-L-cysteine: Guidance for Industry. Food and Drug Administration. https://www.fda.gov/media/157784/download?attachment
  50. U.S Department of Health and Human Services. (2023). Addiction and Substance Misuse Reports and Publications. https://www.hhs.gov/surgeongeneral/reports-and-publications/addiction-and-substance-misuse/index.html
  51. ↵
    Vafaie, N., & Kober, H. (2022). Association of drug cues and craving with drug use and relapse: A systematic review and meta-analysis. JAMA Psychiatry, 79(7), 641–650. doi:10.1001/jamapsychiatry.2022.1240
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  52. ↵
    Viechtbauer, W. (2010). Conducting Meta-analysis in R with the metafor package. Journal of Statistical Software, 36(3), 1–48.
    OpenUrl
  53. ↵
    Von Hippel, P. T. (2015). The heterogeneity statistic I2 can be biased in small meta-analyses. BMC Medical Research Methodology, 15(1), 1–8. doi:10.1186/s12874-015-0024-z
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  54. ↵
    Weiss, R. D., Griffin, M. L., Mazurick, C., Berkman, B., Gastfriend, D. R., Frank, A., Barber, J. P., Blaine, J., Salloum, I., & Moras, K. (2003). The relationship between cocaine craving, psychosocial treatment, and subsequent cocaine use. American Journal of Psychiatry, 160(7), 1320–1325. doi:10.1176/appi.ajp.160.7.1320
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  55. ↵
    Yoon, G. (2013). N-acetylcysteine in alcohol dependence. ClinicalTrials. https://classic.clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT00568087
  56. ↵
    Zhou, W., & Kalivas, P. W. (2008). N-acetylcysteine reduces extinction responding and induces enduring reductions in cue- and heroin-induced drug-seeking. Biological Psychiatry, 63(3), 338–340. doi:10.1016/j.biopsych.2007.06.008
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
Back to top
Posted May 13, 2024.
Download PDF
Data/Code
Email
N-acetylcysteine as a treatment for substance use cravings: A meta-analysis
Emma L. Winterlind, Samantha G. Malone, Michael R. Setzer, Mikela A. Murphy, David Saunders, Joshua C. Gray
medRxiv 2024.05.13.24306839; doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2024.05.13.24306839
Twitter logo Facebook logo LinkedIn logo Mendeley logo
Citation Tools

Subject Area