CB1 Blockade Affected Cue-Triggered and Foot-Shock-Triggered Alcohol Reinstatement Differently
Evidence that CB1 blockade reduced cue-induced alcohol responding did not extend to foot-shock-induced responding in the experiments summarized by a review. The trigger for reinstatement was an essential part of the finding.
Reinstatement tests a specified trigger
Pava and Woodward describe rodent studies in which alcohol-associated cues renewed responding after an interruption. Rimonabant reduced that cue-related responding, supporting cannabinoid-receptor involvement in the tested procedure.
The stress comparison was different
The review reports no effect of rimonabant on foot-shock-induced reinstatement in the cited experiments. A claim of general relapse prevention would therefore exceed the outcomes. Conversely, the null result concerns that stress procedure and does not exclude all endocannabinoid roles in every stress-related behavior.
An animal trigger is not a complete clinical relapse
Reinstatement paradigms isolate aspects of drug seeking. They do not reproduce the full set of psychological and environmental factors involved in a patient’s return to drinking. The anatomical mechanism also remained unresolved in the review. These findings support separating cue-reactivity from the tested stress response, while leaving clinical efficacy and the safety of CB1-directed treatment to direct human evidence.
Related reading: Alcohol–Endocannabinoid Reviews Need to Keep Stages of Dependence Separate.
Research cited
Pava MJ, Woodward JJ. A Review of the Interactions between Alcohol and the Endocannabinoid System: Implications for Alcohol Dependence and Future Directions for Research (2012). The experiments discussed here are described through this supplied review.
