Resource Center

Go back to Resource Center

Multisite, Randomized, Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled Pilot Clinical Trial to Evaluate the Efficacy of Buspirone as a Relapse-Prevention Treatment for Cocaine Dependence


Journal Article

Winhusen, T.M.; Kropp, F.; Lindblad, R.; Douaihy, A.; Haynes, L.; Hodgkins, C.; Chartier, K.; Kampman, K.M.; Sharma, G.; Lewis, D.F.; VanVeldhuisen, P.; Theobald, J.; May, J.; Brigham, G.S.

J Clin Psychiatry




Anti-Anxiety Agents; Buspirone; Cocaine-Related Disorders; Female; Humans; Male; Middle Aged; Secondary Prevention; Treatment Outcomes

{OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the potential efficacy of buspirone as a relapse-prevention treatment for cocaine dependence. METHOD: A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, 16-week pilot trial was conducted at 6 clinical sites between August 2012 and June 2013. Adult crack cocaine users meeting DSM-IV-TR criteria for current cocaine dependence who were scheduled to be in inpatient/residential substance use disorder (SUD) treatment for 12-19 days when randomized and planning to enroll in local outpatient treatment through the end of the active treatment phase were randomized to buspirone titrated to 60 mg/d (n = 35) or placebo (n = 27). All participants received psychosocial treatment as usually provided by the SUD treatment programs in which they were enrolled. Outcome measures included maximum days of continuous cocaine abstinence (primary), proportion of cocaine use days, and days to first cocaine use during the outpatient treatment phase (study weeks 4-15) as assessed by self-report and urine drug screens. RESULTS: There were no significant treatment effects on maximum continuous days of cocaine abstinence or days to first cocaine use. In the female participants (n = 23), there was a significant treatment-by-time interaction effect (chi(2)(1) = 15.26, P < .0001), reflecting an increase in cocaine use by those receiving buspirone, relative to placebo, early in the outpatient treatment phase. A similar effect was not detected in the male participants (n = 39; chi(2)(1) = 0.14

Go back to Resource Center