PMCCPMCCPMCC

Search tips
Search criteria 

Advanced

 
Logo of nihpaAbout Author manuscriptsSubmit a manuscriptNIH Public Access; Author Manuscript; Accepted for publication in peer reviewed journal;
 
Psychopharmacology (Berl). Author manuscript; available in PMC Oct 5, 2005.
Published in final edited form as:
PMCID: PMC1242108
NIHMSID: NIHMS2066
The reinstatement model and relapse prevention: a clinical perspective
David H Epsteincorresponding author and Kenzie L Preston
NIDA/IRP Treatment Section, Intramural Research Program, National Institute on Drug Abuse, 5500 Nathan Shock Drive, Baltimore, MD 21224, USA e-mail: depstein/at/intra.nida.nih.gov Tel.: +1-410-5501435 Fax: +1-410-5501528
corresponding authorCorresponding author.
Objectives
This commentary assesses the degree to which the reinstatement model is homologous to the human experience of relapse.
Results
A review of the literature suggests that the relationship is less clear than is often assumed, largely due to a lack of prospective data on the precipitants and process of relapse (especially relapse to heroin or cocaine abuse). However, reinstatement does not need to resemble relapse to have immediate clinical value; predictive validity as a medication screen would be sufficient. Whether the model has predictive validity is unknown, because, to date, very few clinical trials have tested medications that are effective in the reinstatement model, and even fewer have used designs comparable to those of reinstatement experiments. A clinical trial comparable to a reinstatement experiment would enroll participants who are already abstinent, and its main outcome measure would be propensity to undergo a specific type of relapse (e.g., relapse induced by stress or cues).
Conclusions
Until clinical and preclinical work are more comparable, criticisms of the reinstatement model’s presumed shortcomings are premature.
The reinstatement model has generated a body of preclinical data that grows increasingly substantial and impressive (Shaham et al. 2003). Yet opinions remain divided about its relation to clinical realities (Marlatt 1996; Bergman and Katz 1998). In this commentary, we address the issues of whether reinstatement resembles relapse, whether it can be useful without resembling relapse, and why neither of those questions can yet be answered satisfactorily. We have drawn on clinical literature and on our own experiences working with substance abusers.
In most published discussions of the reinstatement model, attention is drawn to the fact that the most widely studied precipitants of reinstatement in rats (drug priming, drug-associated cues, and stress) are provocatively similar to the precipitants of relapse in humans. This is typically taken as a point of commonality between the reinstatement model and the real-life experiences of recovered addicts. It is tempting to agree without further consideration; the assertion that priming, cues, and stress precipitate relapse is intuitively appealing and seems to accord with clinical experience. But how strong is the evidence that most relapses are precipitated by any of those three factors?
No definitive answer can be found in the clinical literature. Relapse is usually described retrospectively, with weeks or months intervening between the event and its recollection. This leaves ample time for the introduction of recall bias and the formation of post hoc explanations for the reporter’s behavior. As an only slightly tangential illustration of the problem, consider the intuitively plausible prediction that abused children are at increased risk for later addiction. The prediction is confirmed when adult addicts are asked retrospectively about their childhoods—but not when abused and nonabused children are followed prospectively for incidence of addiction (Widom et al. 1999). This paradox may reflect a human tendency to ascribe one’s behavior to something that seems, in hindsight, to make sense. In the case of relapse, the constructs that make sense to investigators (such as “stress-induced relapse”) may be the same constructs that make sense to addicts as they try to piece together reasons for having relapsed.
The problems inherent in recall of relapses are surmountable by appropriate design and methodology. In studies of tobacco smokers, a technique called Ecological Momentary Assessment (EMA) has been used to enable outpatients to report their activities and moods before a lapse or relapse,1 prospectively and in real time, using handheld data-collection devices (Shiffman et al. 1996). When EMA data are compared with retrospective reports gathered 12 weeks later from the same patients, large discrepancies emerge in reported triggers, activities, and moods during lapses (Shiffman et al. 1997). These discrepancies cannot be reliably correlated with patient characteristics, episode characteristics, or degree of confidence in recall accuracy (Shiffman et al. 1997). Reassuringly, EMA data in smokers tend to confirm that lapses and relapses are associated with smoking-associated cues and with negative mood (Shiffman et al. 1996), supporting assertions often made in support of the reinstatement model (if negative mood can be considered roughly homologous to stress). Similar, though less direct, findings were reported in an EMA study of alcoholics: negative mood predicted urge to drink, which, in turn, predicted drinking (Litt et al. 2000).
Will the same be true for heroin and cocaine? In the absence of real-time data, we are forced to rely on a small body of prospective studies whose time frames were not sensitive to episodes of acute stress. The general finding has been that prospective measures of stress predict lapse or relapse only when aggregated over time frames of 3 to 12 months, not (for example) week by week (Hall et al. 1991; McMahon 2001; Wasserman et al. 1998). Clearer evidence for acute-stress-induced (or cue-induced) relapse seems likely to emerge with real-time monitoring, but the issue has yet to be resolved empirically.
The questions raised in Sect. 1 concern the model’s face and construct validity, and although these questions are important, they may not be the first priority from a clinical point of view. More urgent is the question of predictive validity—whether the model can screen treatment medications. As scientists, of course, we are also interested in models with sufficient construct validity to help elucidate the pathophysiology of relapse. But as clinicians, we want treatments that work, and we do not immediately insist upon the relative luxury of knowing why they work.
Sarter and Bruno (2002) have argued that this approach is too myopic—that if a model has predictive validity without construct validity, it will find some of the right medications “for the wrong reasons” and miss other medications with novel mechanisms of action. The example cited was buspirone, an anxiolytic whose clinical efficacy was not predicted in traditional animal models of anxiety. In response, we would point out that anxiety disorders have long been pharmacologically treatable, while addiction relapse is not. Because no medication is available for relapse prevention, the field would be significantly advanced by a model that finds even one.
At what point, then, should a model of relapse be decreed inadequate? Reasonable guidance is available in an earlier review by Sarter et al. (1992) on animal models of amnesia as behavioral screens for cognitive enhancers. The review showed that the models were amassing an “overwhelming number” of false positives—medications that appeared promising when screened, but which failed clinical trials. An accumulation of false positives is a clear sign that a model needs refinement or abandonment, at least in its role as a screen for medications. From the point of view of treatment providers, this is the ground on which the reinstatement model will stand or fall.
The reinstatement model has generated a large body of data on pharmacological interventions that prevent reinstatement; some of these data are summarized in Table 1. How do they compare with homologous data from clinical trials?
Table 1
Table 1
Preclinical studies of reinstatement in rats
Currently, almost no such comparisons are possible. A clinical trial homologous to the reinstatement model would enroll former users who are currently abstinent (we leave aside, for now, the question of how abstinence is achieved) and would assess propensity to lapse or relapse. Clinical trials answering to the above description are startlingly rare, and the few that do exist have usually tested medications never tested in the reinstatement model. The lack of overlap can be seen by comparing Table 1 and Table 2. (Space limitations preclude a full discussion of the material in the tables, but the main purpose of the tables is illustrative.)
Table 2
Table 2
Clinical studies of relapse
The closest points of overlap between preclinical and clinical work can be found in the alcohol literature. The findings appear, at first, to be mixed. Naltrexone, which blocks reinstatement (Lê et al. 1999; Ciccocioppo et al. 2002), has also been shown to prevent relapse in alcoholics (Streeton and Whelan 2001; Latt et al. 2002)—a finding that seems encouraging, except that the effect size is modest. Fluoxetine, which also blocks reinstatement (Lê et al. 1999), fails to prevent relapse in alcoholics (Kranzler et al. 1995). A reasonable explanation for the negative finding with fluoxetine, and for the modesty of the findings with naltrexone, is that each medication blocks only particular subtypes of reinstatement. As shown in Table 1, fluoxetine blocks reinstatement when the precipitant is footshock stress, but not when the precipitant is a priming dose of alcohol (Lê et al. 1999); naltrexone blocks reinstatement when the precipitant is a priming dose of alcohol (Lê et al. 1999) or an alcohol-associated cue (Ciccocioppo et al. 2002), but not when the precipitant is footshock stress (Lê et al. 1999). In the clinical trials cited here, the hypotheses were not precipitant-specific, and the trials were designed, powered, and analyzed accordingly (with no attempt, for example, to separate subtypes of relapse using EMA).2
In the literature on nicotine, cocaine, and heroin, we found no clinical trials assessing the relapse-prevention efficacy of medications that have been shown to block reinstatement.
If the search criteria are broadened to include clinical trials that did not literally examine relapse prevention, there emerges another modestly encouraging overlap between preclinical and clinical data: baclofen, which blocks priming-induced reinstatement of cocaine seeking in rats (Campbell et al. 1999), has also been shown to decrease cocaine craving and use in outpatients (though this was in an open-label pilot with only ten participants) (Ling et al. 1998). A more ambiguous case is that of buprenorphine, which appears to block priming-induced reinstatement of cocaine seeking in rats (Comer et al. 1993), but may not reduce cocaine use in humans (Compton et al. 1995; Schottenfeld et al. 1997). This apparent false positive may be explicable in terms of buprenorphine-induced motor deficits in the rats (Y. Shaham, personal communication), or it may turn out not to have been false: data from our clinic support the possibility that buprenorphine slightly reduces cocaine use in methadone-maintained polydrug abusers (Montoya et al. 1996), and that this effect is statistically dissociable from its effect on heroin use (I.D. Montoya et al. submitted). The baclofen and buprenorphine findings do not strongly support the predictive validity of the reinstatement model, but neither do they constitute the “overwhelming number” of clear predictive failures for which Sarter et al. (1992) criticized other animal models.
In other clinical trials that did not literally assess relapse prevention, there is possible evidence that the reinstatement model has produced true negatives. For example, bromocriptine reinstates cocaine seeking in rats (Wise et al. 1990), and is not effective against cocaine abuse in clinical trials (Handelsman et al. 1997; Montoya et al. 2002). Similarly, the corticosteroid-synthesis inhibitor metyrapone reinstates heroin seeking in rats (Shaham et al. 1997), and the corticosteroid-synthesis inhibitor ketoconazole is not effective against cocaine or heroin abuse, perhaps even exacerbating them (Kosten et al. 2002). The detection of true negatives could support the specificity of the reinstatement model as a medication screen, but the homology between the preclinical and clinical data is incomplete: the clinical trials comprised patients who had not yet become abstinent, and thus they assessed the real-life homolog of self-administration rather than that of reinstatement. In rats, a drug that has no effect on the former may nonetheless block the latter (Shalev et al. 2002); the same may be true in humans. Therefore, even these negative findings are far from definitive.
If the search criteria are further broadened to include human laboratory studies, there are some additional points of overlap between the reinstatement literature and the human literature, but new complications arise. For example, reinstatement of cocaine seeking in rats is blocked by either ABT-431 (Self et al. 2000) or SCH 39166 (ecopipam) (Khroyan et al. 2000; Ciccocioppo et al. 2001),3 and each of these has been tested in human laboratory studies. However, as shown in Table 3, cross-species comparison is impeded by differing administration schedules. For example, ABT-431 blocks reinstatement more effectively after chronic administration (Self et al. 2000), but the one published human laboratory study used acute administration only, leaving open the possibility that chronic administration would be more effective (Haney et al. 1999). Conversely, for ecopipam, human chronic-administration data are available (Haney 2001), but there are no chronic-administration reinstatement data with which they can be compared.
Table 3
Table 3
Medication tested in the reinstatement model and in human laboratory studies of cocaine effects
The tendency among preclinical investigators to screen medications with acute administration may be problematic, because in a clinical situation, those medications would be administered chronically. But there is a broader barrier to interpretation of the findings shown in Table 3, a barrier that would stand even if all the studies had used comparable schedules of administration. The human laboratory studies rely on surrogate endpoints that have sometimes turned out not to predict human behavior in daily life (Teoh et al. 1994; Weiss et al. 1995) or to predict it only weakly (Litt et al. 2000). Humans are aware that what happens in the laboratory is only a simulation of daily life, and that daily life will continue unchanged when the experiment ends. For a laboratory animal, the laboratory is the whole of life; the choices the animal makes within the context of a model are choices about its own survival. In that sense, a good animal model may be less far removed from day-to-day human life than a human psychopharmacological experiment is. None of this should be taken to deny the unique advantages of the latter (such as the experimenter’s ability to give verbal instructions and collect verbal responses). But either approach requires a validity check against the gold standard of prospectively monitored day-to-day human behavior.
As the preceding section shows, there is a remarkable paucity of overlap between the approaches used in reinstatement research and in clinical research on relapse prevention. Clinical and preclinical investigators can each help to narrow the gap.
Preclinical investigators could direct more of their efforts toward medication screening. Much of the research on the reinstatement model involves characterization of the mechanisms of reinstatement, such as the brain regions involved. This work is inherently interesting, but it is unlikely to help validate reinstatement as a model of relapse, because most of it cannot be done in humans. (Of course, it might be useful insofar as it suggests new medications to be tested in the model, and thereafter in the clinic.) Preclinical investigators should also keep an eye toward the ecological validity of their screening. For example, does the medication block reinstatement at a dosage whose interspecies-scaled equivalent is likely to be tolerated in humans? Does it continue to block reinstatement when administered chronically, as it would be administered in clinical practice?
Clinicians, meanwhile, should let the results of such screening guide their future clinical trials—in terms of participant selection, study design, choice of medication, and specificity of outcome measures. Participants should be abstinent former users; studies should center on real-time prospective evaluation of propensity to lapse and relapse. As for the choice of medication, Table 1 shows a large menu of potential medications suggested by preclinical studies. As mentioned earlier, most medications block only subtypes of reinstatement; thus, their specificity needs to be accounted for through a priori decisions about how relapse precipitants will be measured and classified, and studies need to be powered accordingly.
The multifactorial nature of relapse and the specificity of reinstatement-blocking medications suggest that treatment may require polypharmacy. Therefore, clinicians and preclinical investigators should focus on medications without known propensities for adverse interactions with other medications.
From both ends—preclinical and clinical—the homology between drug-seeking behavior in rodents and in humans needs continued elucidation. One obstacle to that elucidation is the point of view wherein terms such as descriptive are used pejoratively. Science begins with good descriptions (Sidman 1960), and for relapse, there is much more describing to be done. The most obvious gap is the absence of real-time data on relapse in heroin and cocaine addicts. Collection of EMA data with handheld electronic devices has its drawbacks, but most of those drawbacks can be overcome (Litt et al. 1998); investigators who are reluctant to issue expensive EMA equipment to illicit-drug abusers should note that this has been done successfully with Ecstasy users (Lukas et al. 2002) and homeless crack cocaine users (Freedman et al. 2002).4 Large-scale longitudinal EMA studies may help resolve issues of face and construct validity in the reinstatement model.
One such issue is that cessation of drug intake in the reinstatement model is the result of an extinction procedure rather than the result of choices made in a multioperant environment (which, for humans, would include entering treatment). This should matter only if the degree of choice involved in initial abstinence alters the precipitants or process of subsequent relapse. Perhaps insight could be gained through prospective assessment of relapse in addicts whose abstinence was initiated under different circumstances, such as self-initiated quitting, psychosocial treatment, depot-naltrexone injection, or involuntary inpatient (or in-prison) detoxification. (To our knowledge, relapse in former prisoners has been assessed only retrospectively, with emphasis on baseline predictors rather than on acute precipitants; Hiller 1996.) If the circumstances of abstinence initiation do make a difference, perhaps the reinstatement model could be refined so that it does not rely on extinction. For example, robust self-administration of drug might be reducible with the introduction of a high-magnitude nondrug reinforcer (as shown in rhesus monkeys by Nader and Woolverton 1991); preference for drug might then be reinstateable by a stressor. Potential relapse-prevention medications could then be screened for their ability to block the effect of the stressor.5
Another issue addressable by good descriptive data is whether humans show “incubation” of the propensity to relapse. In a procedure similar to that used in the reinstatement model, rats withdrawn from cocaine show a progressive increase in cue-induced responding for cocaine (in the absence of actual delivery of cocaine) over the course of 60 days. The clinical implications of this finding seem less dispiriting in light of the observation that responding returns to its initial low levels within 180 days (Y. Shaham, unpublished data). But the clinical occurrence of the phenomenon has yet to be demonstrated at all. One difficulty inherent in trying to demonstrate it is that each outpatient can have only one relapse per period of abstinence, leaving no way to know whether craving would have grown stronger beyond the point when the relapse occurred. It might be possible to study incubation in addicts released from settings in which they have undergone involuntary abstinence; if incubation occurs, latency to relapse should follow an inverted-U-shaped distribution as a function of the length of involuntary abstinence.
Finally, it might also be reassuring to extend the reinstatement/relapse homology to purely behavioral interventions. For example, relapse to heroin use in humans can be delayed or prevented with alternative reinforcers (Gruber et al. 2000). Can alternative reinforcers also block reinstatement? In one study, priming-induced reinstatement of cocaine seeking was not blocked by the presence of sucrose in the cage (Gosnell 2000). But in pilot work with a single rat, food-deprivation-stress-induced reinstatement (and responding during extinction) was blocked by access to toys (Y. Shaham, unpublished data). This line of research may not look especially alluring to most preclinical investigators, but its clinical relevance seems clear.
Most of the questions and issues raised in this commentary could be resolved by increased “crosstalk” between clinical and preclinical researchers. At an institutional level, there are instances of support for bench-to-bedside research. For example, in the US, the National Institute on Drug Abuse has established a funding mechanism called SPIRCAP (Strategic Program for Innovative Research on Cocaine Addiction Pharmacotherapy), and the National Institutes of Health have an intramural initiative called, fittingly, Bench to Bedside. However, recent Bench to Bedside awards do not appear to include any studies of addiction (Gallin et al. 2003). A brief search of the CRISP database of federally funded biomedical research projects (CRISP 2003) revealed no relapse studies of the kind we have suggested here, except for some studies of the natural history of cocaine dependence and predictors of relapse (which do not appear to include EMA) and some clinical trials of bupropion or nicotine replacement for prevention of smoking relapse in postpartum women. Although there is justification for testing those agents for smoking relapse, that justification does not come from the reinstatement model, where neither agent has apparently been tested.
In pointing out the gap between bench and bedside, we intend no criticism of investigators on either side. Translational research faces a daunting barrier in information overload, and as journals and scientific organizations respond to the overload by becoming more specialized, the barrier only grows greater. It is understandable that preclinical investigators are not fully familiar with the patients and settings to which their work is meant to generalize; it is equally understandable that clinical investigators are not fully familiar with the ways in which preclinical work is conceptualized and carried out. But this shared lack of familiarity is now a rate-limiting step in validation of the reinstatement model. Until it is overcome, conclusions about the model’s value to patients, or about its lack thereof, are premature.
Acknowledgments
We thank David Gorelick, M.D., for helpful comments on the manuscript.
Footnotes
1In this commentary, lapse indicates any use of a drug by an individual who has been abstaining from that drug; relapse indicates a return to compulsive or harmful patterns of use. Operational definitions of these terms vary across studies
2The alcohol literature also includes at least two relapse-prevention trials using acamprosate (Sass et al. 1996; Tempesta et al. 2000), which has been screened (with positive results) in the alcohol-deprivation model (Spanagel et al. 1996; Holter et al. 1997; Heyser et al. 1998). The alcohol-deprivation model differs from the reinstatement model in that there is no operant extinction procedure and alcohol is available again during the postdeprivation session (Lê and Shaham 2002)
3ABT-431 and ecopipam are, respectively, an agonist and an antagonist at D1 receptors. The seeming paradox of their common effectiveness is discussed by Alleweireldt et al. (2002)
4The EMA study by Freedman et al. (2002) focused on the feasibility of issuing and recovering equipment; no data on the process of relapse were reported
5This suggested model is admittedly unsatisfying in several respects. The most obvious is that most animals would continue to self-administer some amount of drug throughout the experiment, thus sacrificing one of the major strengths of the reinstatement model: its ability to separate drug-seeking behavior from the pharmacological effects of the drug. The suggested model would also be unsuitable for assessment of priming-induced reinstatement. Still, this line of research could be useful for determining whether reinstatement in laboratory animals differs depending on the circumstances of cessation
  • Alleweireldt AT, Weber SM, Kirschner KF, Bullock B, Neisewander JL. Blockade or stimulation of D1 dopamine receptors attenuates cue reinstatement of cocaine-seeking behavior in rats. Psychopharmacology. 2002;159:284–293. [PubMed]
  • Baker DA, Tran-Nguyen TL, Fuchs RA, Neisewander JL. Influence of individual differences and chronic fluoxetine treatment on cocaine-seeking behavior in rats. Psychopharmacology. 2001;155:18–26. [PubMed]
  • Bergman J, Katz JL (1998) Behavioral pharmacology of cocaine and the determinants of abuse liability. In: Higgins ST, Katz JL (eds) Cocaine abuse: Behavior, pharmacology, and clinical applications. Academic Press, San Diego, pp 51–79.
  • Bespalov AY, Zvartau EE, Balster RL, Beardsley PM. Effects of N-methyl-D-aspartate receptor antagonists on reinstatement of cocaine-seeking behavior by priming injections of cocaine or exposures to cocaine-associated cues in rats. Behav Pharmacol. 2000;11:37–44. [PubMed]
  • Brady KT, Myrick H, Henderson S, Coffey SF. The use of divalproex in alcohol relapse prevention: a pilot study. Drug Alcohol Depend. 2002;67:323–330. [PubMed]
  • Campbell UC, Lac ST, Carroll ME. Effects of baclofen on maintenance and reinstatement of intravenous cocaine self-administration in rats. Psychopharmacology. 1999;143:209–214. [PubMed]
  • Ciccocioppo R, Sanna PP, Weiss F. Cocaine-predictive stimulus induces drug-seeking behavior and neural activation in limbic brain regions after multiple months of abstinence: reversal by D(1) antagonists. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2001;98:1976–1981. [PubMed]
  • Ciccocioppo R, Martin-Fardon R, Weiss F. Effect of selective blockade of μ1 δ opioid receptors on reinstatement of alcohol-seeking behavior by drug-associated stimuli in rats. Neuropsychopharmacology. 2002;27:391–399. [PubMed]
  • Comer SD, Lac ST, Curtis LK, Carroll ME. Effects of buprenorphine and naltrexone on reinstatement of cocaine-reinforced behavior. J Pharmacol Exp Ther. 1993;267:1470–1477. [PubMed]
  • Compton PA, Ling W, Charuvastra VC, Wesson DR. Buprenorphine as a pharmacotherapy for cocaine abuse: a review of the evidence. J Addict Dis. 1995;14:97–114. [PubMed]
  • CRISP Database Of Federally Funded Biomedical Research Projects (2003) http://crisp.cit.nih.gov Cited 13 Feb 2003.
  • Crombag H, Grimm JW, Shaham Y. Effect of dopamine receptor antagonists on renewal of cocaine seeking by re-exposure to drug-associated contextual cues. Neuropsycho-pharmacology. 2002;27:1006–1015. [PubMed]
  • De Vries TJ, Shaham Y, Homberg JR, Crombag H, Schuurman K, Dieben J, Vanderschuren LJ, Schoffelmeer AN. A cannabinoid mechanism in relapse to cocaine seeking. Nat Med. 2001;7:1151–1154. [PubMed]
  • Erb S, Shaham Y, Stewart J. The role of corticotropin-releasing factor and corticosterone in stress- and cocaine-induced relapse to cocaine seeking in rats. J Neurosci. 1998;18:5529–5536. [PubMed]
  • Erb S, Hitchcott PK, Rajabi H, Mueller D, Shaham Y, Stewart J. Alpha-2 adrenergic agonists block stress-induced reinstatement of cocaine seeking. Neuropsychopharmacology. 2000;23:138–150. [PubMed]
  • Ettenberg A, MacConell LA, Geist TD. Effects of haloperidol in a response-reinstatement model of heroin relapse. Psychopharmacology. 1996;124:205–210. [PubMed]
  • Freedman M, Pulley L, Abdolrussa B, McNamara C, Milby J, Schumacher J (2002) Ecological momentary assessment of crack cocaine relapse risk. In: 64th annual scientific meeting of the college on problems of drug dependence, San Juan, Puerto Rico. http://biopsych.com:81/cpdd02_web Cited 13 Feb 2003.
  • Gallin JI, Gottesman MM (2003) Bench-to-bedside awards. National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD. http://www.cc.nih.gov/ccc/btb/awards.html Cited 10 March 2003.
  • Gosnell BA (2000) The effects of sucrose availability on the reinstatement of cocaine-seeking. Soc Neurosci Abstr 485.16.
  • Gottlieb LD, Horwitz RI, Kraus ML, Viscoli CM. Randomized controlled trial in alcohol relapse prevention: role of atenolol, alcohol craving, and treatment adherence. J Subst Abuse Treat. 1994;11:253–258. [PubMed]
  • Grimm JW, Hope BT, Wise RA, Shaham Y. Neuroadaptation: incubation of cocaine craving after withdrawal. Nature. 2001;412:141–142. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  • Grottick AJ, Fletcher PJ, Higgins GA. Studies to investigate the role of 5-HT2C receptors on cocaine and food maintained behaviour. J Pharmacol Exp Ther. 2000;295:1183–1191. [PubMed]
  • Gruber K, Chutuape MA, Stitzer ML. Reinforcement-based intensive outpatient treatment for inner city opiate abusers: a short-term evaluation. Drug Alcohol Depend. 2000;57:211–223. [PubMed]
  • Hall SM, Havassy BE, Wasserman DA. Effects of commitment to abstinence, positive moods, stress, and coping on relapse to cocaine use. J Cons Clin Psychol. 1991;59:526–532. [PubMed]
  • Handelsman L, Rosenblum A, Palij M, Magura S, Foote J, Lovejoy M, Stimmel B. Bromocriptine for cocaine dependence: a controlled clinical trial. Am J Addict. 1997;6:54–64. [PubMed]
  • Haney M, Collins ED, Ward AS, Foltin RW, Fischman MW. Effect of a selective dopamine D1 agonist (ABT-431) on smoked cocaine self-administration in humans. Psychopharmacology. 1999;143:102–110. [PubMed]
  • Haney M, Ward AS, Foltin RW, Fischman MW. Effects of ecopipam, a selective dopamine D1 antagonist, on smoked cocaine self-administration by humans. Psychopharmacology. 2001;155:330–337. [PubMed]
  • Hays JT, Hurt RD, Rigotti NA, Niaura R, Gonzales D, Durcan MJ, Sachs DPL, Wolter TD, Buist AS, Johnston JA, White JD. Sustained-release bupropion for pharmacologic relapse prevention after smoking cessation: a randomized, controlled trial. Ann Intern Med. 2001;135:423–433. [PubMed]
  • Heyser CJ, Schulteis G, Durbin P, Koob GF. Chronic acamprosate eliminates the alcohol deprivation effect while having limited effects on baseline responding for ethanol in rats. Neuropsychopharmacology. 1998;18:125–133. [PubMed]
  • Highfield D, Yap J, Grimm J, Shalev U, Shaham Y. Repeated lofexidine treatment attenuates stress-induced, but not drug cues-induced reinstatement of a heroin-cocaine mixture (speedball) seeking in rats. Neuropsychopharmacology. 2001;25:320–331. [PubMed]
  • Hiller ML (1996) Correlates of recidivism and relapse for parolees who received in-prison substance abuse treatment in Texas. In: Dissertation abstracts international: Section b: The sciences and engineering, vol 57(4-B):2866 Univ Microfilms International, USA.
  • Holter SM, Landgraf R, Zieglgansberger W, Spanagel R. Time course of acamprosate action on operant ethanol self-administration after ethanol deprivation. Alcohol Clin Exp Res. 1997;21:862–868. [PubMed]
  • Khroyan TV, Barrett-Larimore RL, Rowlett JK, Spealman RD. Dopamine D1- and D2-like receptor mechanisms in relapse to cocaine-seeking behavior: effects of selective antagonists and agonists. J Pharmacol Exp Ther. 2000;294:680–687. [PubMed]
  • Kosten TS, Oliveto A, Sevarino KA, Gonsai K, Feingold A. Ketoconazole increases cocaine and opioid use in methadone maintained patients. Drug Alcohol Depend. 2002;66:173–180. [PubMed]
  • Kranzler HR, Burleson JA, Korner P, Del Boca FK, Bohn MJ, Brown J, Liebowitz N. Placebo-controlled trial of fluoxetine as an adjunct to relapse prevention in alcoholics. Am J Psychiatry. 1995;152:391–397. [PubMed]
  • Lando HA, Valanis BG, Lichtenstein E, Curry SJ, McBride CM, Pirie PL, Grothaus LC. Promoting smoking abstinence in pregnant and postpartum patients: a comparison of 2 approaches. Am J Manag Care. 2001;7:685–693. [PubMed]
  • Latt NC, Jurd S, Houseman J, Wutzke SE. Naltrexone in alcohol dependence: a randomised controlled trial of effectiveness in a standard clinical setting. Med J Australia. 2002;176:530–534. [PubMed]
  • Lê AD, Poulos CX, Harding S, Watchus J, Juzytsch W, Shaham Y. Effects of naltrexone and fluoxetine on alcohol self-administration and reinstatement of alcohol seeking induced by priming injections of alcohol and exposure to stress. Neuropsychopharmacology. 1999;21:435–444. [PubMed]
  • Lê AD, Shaham Y. Neurobiology of relapse to alcohol in rats. Pharmacol Therapeut. 2002;94:137–156. [PubMed]
  • Lindblom N, De Villiers SH, Kalayanov G, Gordon S, Johansson AM, Svensson TH. Active immunization against nicotine prevents reinstatement of nicotine-seeking behavior in rats. Respiration. 2002;69:254–260. [PubMed]
  • Ling W, Shoptaw S, Majewska D. Baclofen as a cocaine anti-craving medication: a preliminary clinical study. Neuropsychopharmacology. 1998;18:403–404. [PubMed]
  • Litt MD, Cooney NL, Morse P. Ecological Momentary Assessment (EMA) with treated alcoholics: methodological problems and potential solutions. Health Psychol. 1998;17:48–52. [PubMed]
  • Litt MD, Cooney NL, Morse P. Reactivity to alcohol-related stimuli in the laboratory and in the field: predictors of craving in treated alcoholics. Addiction. 2000;95:889–900. [PubMed]
  • Liu X, Weiss F. Reversal of ethanol-seeking behavior by D1 and D2 antagonists in an animal model of relapse: differences in antagonist potency in previously ethanol-dependent versus nondependent rats. J Pharmacol Exp Ther. 2002a;300:882–889. [PubMed]
  • Liu X, Weiss F. Additive effect of stress and drug cues on reinstatement of ethanol seeking: exacerbation by history of dependence and role of concurrent activation of corticotropin-releasing factor and opioid mechanisms. J Neurosci. 2002b;22:7856–7861. [PubMed]
  • Longo LP. Olanzapine for cocaine craving and relapse prevention in 2 patients. J Clin Psychiatry. 2002;63:595–596. [PubMed]
  • Longo LP, Campbell T, Hubatch S. Divalproex sodium (Depakote) for alcohol withdrawal and relapse prevention. J Addictive Diseases. 2002;21:55–64. [PubMed]
  • Lukas SE, Stull M, Cowan RL. Polydrug abuse patterns with MDMA (Ecstasy) among young adults. Drug Alcohol Depend. 2002;66(suppl 1):S107.
  • Mantsch JR, Goeders NE. Ketoconazole does not block cocaine discrimination or the cocaine-induced reinstatement of cocaine-seeking behavior. Pharmacol Biochem Behav. 1999a;64:65–73. [PubMed]
  • Mantsch JR, Goeders NE. Ketoconazole blocks the stress-induced reinstatement of cocaine-seeking behavior in rats: relationship to the discriminative stimulus effects of cocaine. Psychopharmacology. 1999b;142:399–407. [PubMed]
  • Margolin A, Avants SK, Kosten TR. Mazindol for relapse prevention to cocaine abuse in methadone-maintained patients. Am J Drug Alcohol Abuse. 1995;21:469–481. [PubMed]
  • Marlatt AG. Models of relapse and relapse prevention: a commentary. Exp Clin Psychopharmacol. 1996;4:55–60.
  • Martin-Fardon R, Ciccocioppo R, Massi M, Weiss F. Nociceptin prevents stress-induced ethanol, but not cocaine-seeking behavior in rats. Neuroreport. 2000;11:1939–1943. [PubMed]
  • McBride CM, Curry SJ, Lando HA, Pirie PL, Grothaus LC, Nelson JC. Prevention of relapse in women who quit smoking during pregnancy. Am J Public Health. 1999;89:706–711. [PubMed]
  • McCrady BS, Epstein EE, Hirsch LS. Maintaining change after conjoint behavioral alcohol treatment for men: outcomes at 6 months. Addiction. 1999;94:1381–1396. [PubMed]
  • McElroy SL, Weiss RD, Mendelson JH, Teoh SK, McAfee B, Mello NK (1989) NIDA Research Monograph 95:57–63. [PubMed]
  • McKay JR, Alterman AI, Cacciola JS, Rutherford MJ, O’Brien CP, Koppenhaver J. Group counseling versus individualized relapse prevention aftercare following intensive outpatient treatment for cocaine dependence: initial results. J Cons Clin Psychol. 1997;65:778–788. [PubMed]
  • McMahon RC. Personality, stress, and social support in cocaine relapse prediction. J Subst Abuse Treat. 2001;21:77–87. [PubMed]
  • Montoya ID, Gorelick DA, Preston KL, Umbricht A, Cheskin L, Contoreggi C, Johnson RE, Fudala PJ. Buprenorphine for treatment of dually-dependent (opiate and cocaine) individuals. NIDA Research Monograph. 1996;162:178.
  • Montoya ID, Preston KL, Rothman R, Gorelick DA. Open-label pilot study of bupropion plus bromocriptine for treatment of cocaine dependence. Am J Drug Alc Abuse. 2002;28:189–196. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  • Nader MA, Woolverton WL. Effects of increasing the magnitude of an alternative reinforcer on drug choice in a discrete-trials choice procedure. Psychopharmacology. 1991;105:169–174. [PubMed]
  • Niaura R, Abrams DR, Shadel WG, Rohsenow DJ, Monti PM, Sirota AD (1999) Addiction 94:685–695. [PubMed]
  • Norman AB, Norman MK, Hall JF, Tsibulsky VL. Priming threshold: a novel quantitative measure of the reinstatement of cocaine self-administration. Brain Res. 1999;831:165–174. [PubMed]
  • Romach MK, Glue P, Kampman K, Kaplan HL, Somer GR, Poole S, Clarke L, Coffin V, Cornish J, O’Brien CP, Sellers EM. Attenuation of the euphoric effects of cocaine by the dopamine D1/D5 antagonist ecopipam (SCH 39166) Arch Gen Psychiat. 1999;56:1101–1106. [PubMed]
  • Sarter M, Hagan J, Dudchenko P. Behavioral screening for cognition enhancers: from indiscriminate to valid testing: part 1. Psychopharmacology. 1992;107:144–159. [PubMed]
  • Sarter M, Bruno JP (2002) Animal models in biological psychiatry. In: D’haenen H, den Boer JA, Willner P (eds) Biological psychiatry. Wiley, New York, pp 37–44.
  • Sass H, Soyka M, Mann K, Zieglgansberger W. Relapse prevention by acamprosate: results from a placebo-controlled study on alcohol dependence. Arch Gen Psychiat. 1996;53:673–680. [PubMed]
  • Schenk S. Effects of the serotonin 5-HT(2) antagonist, ritanserin, and the serotonin 5-HT(1A) antagonist, WAY 100635, on cocaine-seeking in rats. Pharmacol Biochem Behav. 2000;67:363–369. [PubMed]
  • Schenk S, Partridge B, Shippenberg TS. U69593, a kappa-opioid agonist, decreases cocaine self-administration and decreases cocaine-produced drug-seeking. Psychopharmacology. 1999;144:339–346. [PubMed]
  • Schottenfeld RS, Pakes JR, Oliveto A, Ziedonis D, Kosten TR. Buprenorphine vs methadone maintenance treatment for concurrent opioid dependence and cocaine abuse. Arch Gen Psychiat. 1997;54:713–720. [PubMed]
  • Schmidt LG, Kuhn S, Smolka M, Schmidt K, Rommelspacher H. Lisuride, a dopamine D2 receptor agonist, and anti-craving drug expectancy as modifiers of relapse in alcohol dependence. Prog Neuro-Psychopharmacol Biol Psych. 2002;26:209–217. [PubMed]
  • Schmitz JM, Stotts AL, Rhoades HM, Grabowski J. Naltrexone and relapse prevention treatment for cocaine-dependent patients. Addict Behav. 2001;26:167–180. [PubMed]
  • See RE, Kruzich PJ, Grimm JW. Dopamine, but not glutamate, receptor blockade in the basolateral amygdala attenuates conditioned reward in a rat model of relapse to cocaine-seeking behavior. Psychopharmacology. 2001;154:301–310. [PubMed]
  • Self DW, Barnhart WJ, Lehman DA, Nestler EJ. Opposite modulation of cocaine-seeking behavior by D1- and D2-like dopamine receptor agonists. Science. 1996;271:1586–1589. [PubMed]
  • Self DW, Karanian DA, Spencer JJ. Effects of the novel D1 dopamine receptor agonist ABT-431 on cocaine self-administration and reinstatement. Ann NY Acad Sci. 2000;909:133–144. [PubMed]
  • Shaham Y, Stewart J. Effects of opioid and dopamine receptor antagonists on relapse induced by stress and re-exposure to heroin in rats. Psychopharmacology. 1996;125:385–391. [PubMed]
  • Shaham Y, Funk D, Erb S, Brown TJ, Walker CD, Stewart J. Corticotropin-releasing factor, but not corticosterone, is involved in stress-induced relapse to heroin-seeking in rats. J Neurosci. 1997;17:2605–2614. [PubMed]
  • Shaham Y, Erb S, Leung S, Buczek Y, Stewart J. CP-154,526, a selective, non peptide antagonist of the corticotropin-releasing factor type 1 receptor attenuates stress-induced relapse to drug seeking in cocaine-and heroin-trained rats. Psychopharmacology. 1998;137:184–190. [PubMed]
  • Shaham Y, Highfield D, Delfs JM, Leung S, Stewart J. Clonidine blocks stress-induced reinstatement of heroin seeking in rats: an effect independent of the locus coeruleus noradrenergic neurons. Eur J Neurosci. 2000;12:292–302. [PubMed]
  • Shaham Y, Shalev U, Lu L, de Wit H, Stewart J (2003) The reinstatement model of drug relapse: history, methodology and major findings. Psychopharmacology DOI 10.1007/s00213-002-1224-x. [PubMed]
  • Shalev U, Yap J, Shaham Y. Leptin attenuates food deprivation-induced relapse to heroin seeking. J Neurosci. 2001;21:RC129. [PubMed]
  • Shalev U, Grimm JW, Shaham Y. Neurobiology of relapse to heroin and cocaine: a review. Pharmacol Rev. 2002;54:1–42. [PubMed]
  • Shiffman S, Paty JA, Gnys M, Kassel JD, Hickcox M. First lapses to smoking: within-subjects analysis of real-time reports. J Cons Clin Psychol. 1996;64:366–379. [PubMed]
  • Shiffman S, Hufford M, Hickcox M, Paty JA, Gnys M, Kassel JD. Remember that? a comparison of real-time versus retrospective recall of smoking lapses. J Cons Clin Psychol. 1997;65:292–300. [PubMed]
  • Sidman M (1960) Tactics of scientific research: evaluating experimental data in psychology. Basic Books, New York.
  • Spanagel R, Holter SM, Allingham K, Landgraf R. Acamprosate and alcohol: 1. effects on alcohol intake following alcohol deprivation in the rat. . Eur J Pharmacol. 1996;305:39–44. [PubMed]
  • Spanagel R, Sillaber A, Zieglgansberger W, Corrigall WA, Stewart J, Shaham Y. Acamprosate suppresses the expression of morphine-induced sensitization in rats but does not affect heroin self-administration or relapse. Psychopharmacology. 1998;139:391–401. [PubMed]
  • Streeton C, Whelan G. Naltrexone, a relapse prevention maintenance treatment of alcohol dependence: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Alcohol Alcoholism. 2001;36:544–552. [PubMed]
  • Tempesta E, Janiri L, Bignamini A, Chabac S, Potgieter A. Acamprosate and relapse prevention in the treatment of alcohol dependence: a placebo-controlled study. Alcohol Alcoholism. 2000;35:202–209. [PubMed]
  • Teoh SK, Mello NK, Mendelson JH, Kuehnle J, Gastfriend DR, Rhoades E, Sholar W. Buprenorphine effects on morphine- and cocaine-induced subjective responses by drug-dependent men. J Clin Psychopharmacol. 1994;14:15–27. [PubMed]
  • Wasserman DA, Weinstein MG, Havassy BE, Hall SM. Factors associated with lapses to heroin use during methadone maintenance. Drug Alcohol Depend. 1998;52:183–192. [PubMed]
  • Weiss RD, Griffin ML, Hufford C. Craving in hospitalized cocaine abusers as a predictor of outcome. Am J Drug Alc Abuse. 1995;21:289–301. [PubMed]
  • Widom CS, Weiler BL, Cottler LB. Childhood victimization and drug abuse: a comparison of prospective and retrospective findings. J Cons Clin Psychol. 1999;67:867–880. [PubMed]
  • Wiesbeck GA, Weijers HG, Chick J, Naranjo CA, Boening J. Ritanserin in relapse prevention in abstinent alcoholics: results from a placebo-controlled double-blind international multicenter trial. Alcohol Clin Exp Res. 1999;23:230–235. [PubMed]
  • Wiesbeck GA, Weijers HG, Lesch OM, Glaser T, Toennes PJ, Boening J. Flupenthixol decanoate and relapse prevention in alcoholics: results from a placebo-controlled study. Alcohol Alcoholism. 2001;36:329–334. [PubMed]
  • Wise RA, Murray A, Bozarth MA. Bromocriptine self-administration and bromocriptine-reinstatement of cocaine-trained and heroin-trained lever pressing in rats. Psychopharmacology. 1990;100:355–360. [PubMed]