Substance Abuse and Rehabilitation最新文献

The illicit use of the psychostimulant methamphetamine (METH) is a major concern, with overdose deaths increasing substantially since the mid-2010s. One challenge to treating METH use disorder (MUD), as with other psychostimulant use disorders, is that there are no available pharmacotherapies that can reduce cravings and help individuals achieve abstinence. The purpose of the current review is to discuss the molecular targets that have been tested in assays measuring the physiological, the cognitive, and the reinforcing effects of METH in both animals and humans. Several drugs show promise as potential pharmacotherapies for MUD when tested in animals, but fail to produce long-term changes in METH use in dependent individuals (eg, modafinil, antipsychotic medications, baclofen). However, these drugs, plus medications like atomoxetine and varenicline, may be better served as treatments to ameliorate the psychotomimetic effects of METH or to reverse METH-induced cognitive deficits. Preclinical studies show that vesicular monoamine transporter 2 inhibitors, metabotropic glutamate receptor ligands, and trace amine-associated receptor agonists are efficacious in attenuating the reinforcing effects of METH; however, clinical studies are needed to determine if these drugs effectively treat MUD. In addition to screening these compounds in individuals with MUD, potential future directions include increased emphasis on sex differences in preclinical studies and utilization of pharmacogenetic approaches to determine if genetic variances are predictive of treatment outcomes. These future directions can help lead to better interventions for treating MUD.

Background: There is a lack of consensus in the addiction field as to how to refer to alumni of residential treatment who no longer use substances or who reduce their use. In the literature, this label and broader identity are typically discussed in technical (amount and frequency of use) or social terms (environment and social network changes).

Objective: The current paper seeks to simplify the discussion by focusing on personal labels without complex technical or social considerations. Alumni of an inpatient addiction treatment facility were asked how they refer to themselves regarding their sobriety status post-discharge.

Methods: Forty-nine patients were contacted 3 months post-discharge from a residential inpatient addiction treatment (men = 67%; Mage = 47.75 years). The patients completed a post-discharge assessment that was conducted by a trained research assistant over a 20-minute video call. The current study focused on a "sobriety label" measure in which patients indicated what they want to be called. Patients also explained why they chose their answer in an open-ended question.

Results: Most patients identified as in recovery (n = 29; 59.18%) followed by a sober person (n = 7; 14.29%) and four other responses. No alum selected the in remission option, which is notably a common way to refer to patients who no longer use substances.

Conclusion: The current study adds a critical patient/alumni perspective to the existing body of literature and serves as a call to action for researchers to add a similar "sobriety label" measure to future assessments, studies, and batteries in effort to bring consistency to the labels, definitions, and identities that are published. This methodology of understanding how this population identifies will create uniformity in future literature and decrease the stigma surrounding addiction.

Purpose: This study compares substance use, treatment histories, and sociodemographic characteristics of patients presenting to an emergency department (ED) following a heroin overdose or seeking detoxification services for heroin and examines risk factors for a subsequent return to the ED for a substance-related problem.

Methods: A convenience sample of patients presenting for an overdose or detoxification at an urban teaching ED was recruited for this study. During their ED visit, patients were interviewed regarding demographics, substance use experiences, and treatment history. Subsequently, a review of patient records for past and subsequent ED use was performed.

Results: Patients requesting detox and those with an overdose were similar in terms of prior treatment. Both groups had similar extensive polysubstance histories. As a group, however, patients presenting for detox were more likely to report use of each of three substances (benzodiazepines, opioid pain medications, and heroin) more than three times per week, compared to those presenting for overdose. Detox patients had higher scores on the 3-item Alcohol Use Disorder Identification Test-C and the drug problems scale compared to overdose patients. Overall, 28% of the patients returned to the ED within 90 days for a drug-related issue, including 8% that returned for an overdose. Factors predictive of a return ED visit included ED visits for substance use in the previous year and recent frequent heroin use.

Conclusion: Patients requesting detox were similar in most domains to those presenting following an overdose. Notably, overdose patients were less likely to use heroin more than three times per week compared to detox patients. Both groups were equally likely to return for an SUD reason within 3-months, however for both groups, previous ED visits and recent frequent heroin use predicted a return visit.

Addictive behavior and suicidal behavior are serious individual- and public-level health concerns. For those struggling with either or both, self-condemnation is a common experience, especially with respect to shame, guilt, and self-stigma. Self-forgiveness, a construct common to both religiousness/spirituality and positive psychology, may be an effective tool in addressing the self-condemnation inherent to those struggling with addictive behavior and suicidal behavior. In this review paper, we discuss (1) the nature and definition of forgiveness, (2) theoretical modeling developed regarding the general association of forgiveness with health, (3) theoretical modeling developed regarding the specific association of forgiveness with better outcomes related to addictive and/or suicidal behavior, (4) the relevance of shame, guilt, and self-stigma to the development and maintenance of addictive and suicidal behavior, and (5) the role of self-forgiveness in addressing self-condemnation, especially shame, guilt, and self-stigma. Little work explicitly focused on the association of self-forgiveness with shame, guilt, and/or self-stigma has been done. However, empirical evidence is accumulating in support of other associations proposed in the Forgiveness-Addiction-Recovery Association (FARA) Model described herein. As such, it is likely that similar support will be found when the focus is deliberately turned to shame, guilt, and self-stigma.

Purpose: Substance use disorder (SUD) can be a chronic relapsing condition with poor treatment outcomes. Studies exploring factors associated with abstinence or relapse after treatment are often quantitative in nature, applying linear statistical approaches, while abstinence and relapse result from non-linear, complex, dynamic and synergistic processes. This study aims to explore these underlying dynamics using qualitative comparative analysis (QCA) as a mixed methods approach to further our understanding of factors contributing to post-treatment abstinence and relapse.

Patients and methods: In a prospective study, we gathered both qualitative and quantitative data pertaining to post-treatment substance use and the factors linked to substance use outcomes. These factors encompassed psychiatric comorbidity, intellectual disability, social disintegration, post-treatment support, and engagement in activities among patients who had undergone inpatient treatment for severe SUD (n = 58). QCA, a set-theoretic approach that considers the complex interplay of multiple conditions, was applied to discern which factors were necessary or sufficient for the occurrence of either abstinence or relapse.

Results: We found two solutions predicting abstinence, and five for relapse. Post-treatment conditions (support and engagement in activities) were important for retaining abstinence. For relapse, individual baseline characteristics (intellectual disability, social disintegration, psychiatric comorbidity) combined with (post-)treatment factors (post-treatment support, activities) were important.

Conclusion: Although abstinence and relapse represent opposing outcomes, they each exhibit distinct dynamics. To gain a comprehensive understanding of these dynamics, it is advisable to examine them as separate outcomes. For clinical practice, it can be worthwhile to recognize that fostering the conditions conducive to abstinence may differ from preventing the factors that trigger relapse.