Alcohol (Hanover, York County, Pa.)最新文献

Background: Cognitive impairments are common in alcohol use disorder (AUD), but only a few studies have investigated the accuracy of the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) in this population. We examined the accuracy and precision of the MoCA in detecting cognitive impairment in a sample of patients with AUD. In addition, we investigated whether the MoCA predicts premature discontinuation from treatment.

Method: A sample of 126 persons with AUD undergoing treatment in specialist health services were administered the MoCA and a battery of 12 neuropsychological tests. Five cognitive domains were derived from the reference tests. A composite total score from these tests was used as a reference criterion for determining correct and incorrect classifications for the MoCA. We analyzed the optimal cut-off score for the MoCA and the accuracy and agreement of classification between the MoCA and the reference tests.

Results: Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analyzes yielded an area under the curve (AUC) of 0.77 (95% CI [0.67, 0.87]). Applying 25 as the cut-off, MoCA sensitivity was 0.77 and specificity 0.62. The PPV was 0.53. The NPV was 0.84. Using a cut-off score of 24 yielded a lower sensitivity 0.60, but specificity was significantly better i.e., 0.79. PPV was 0.68. The NPV was 0.82. Kappa agreement between MoCA and the reference tests was fair to moderate, 0.38 for the cut-off of 25, and 0.44 for the cut-off of 24. MoCA did not predict discontinuation from treatment.

Conclusions: Our findings indicate limitations in the classification accuracy of the MoCA in predicting cognitive impairment in AUD. Achieving the right balance between accurately identifying impaired cases without including too many false positives can be challenging. Further, MoCA does not predict discontinuation from treatment. Overall, the results do not support MoCA as a time-efficient screening instrument.

Background: Prior research has shown that using lifetime abstainers as the reference group to examine the association between alcohol use and health-related consequences has several disadvantages. The aim of the present study was to examine the consistency of self-reported lifetime abstention and never-binge drinking, respectively, using national, longitudinal data collected in 2019 and 2020. Additionally, the prevalence of alcohol-related morbidity among lifetime abstainers was examined by linking survey data to alcohol-related morbidity data in a national patient register.

Methods: Data come from the Danish Health and Wellbeing Survey in 2019 and from a follow-up survey of the same individuals in 2020. A random sample of 14,000 individuals aged 15 years or older was drawn in mid-August 2019. Data were collected between September and December 2019. All those who were invited to the survey in 2019 and who were still alive and living in Denmark were invited to participate in a follow-up survey in 2020. Data in both waves were collected by self-administered questionnaires. Both questionnaires included the standard questions on alcohol consumption from the European Health Interview Survey model questionnaire. Information on alcohol-related morbidity was obtained from the Danish National Patient Register.

Results: In all, 5000 individuals completed the questionnaire in both waves. Approximately half (44.4%) of the individuals who declared that they were lifetime abstainers in 2020 (n = 252) had reported in 2019 to have drunk at some point in their life. Moreover, 39.7% contradicted earlier reported binge drinking. Furthermore, 2.4% of the respondents who defined themselves as lifetime abstainers in 2020 had earlier been diagnosed with an alcohol-related health condition.

Conclusion: The present research reaffirms previous studies which have found self-reported lifetime abstainers to be unreliable as a consistent reference group. Additionally, the results indicated that a non-negligible proportion of lifetime abstainers had been diagnosed with an alcohol-related health condition.

Background: Gene-environment interaction (G × E) is likely an important influence shaping individual differences in alcohol misuse (AM), yet it has not been extensively studied in molecular genetic research. In this study, we use a series of genome-wide gene-environment interaction (GWEIS) and in silico annotation methods with the aim of improving gene identification and biological understanding of AM.

Methods: We carried out GWEIS for four AM phenotypes in the large UK Biobank sample (N = 360,314), with trauma exposure and socioeconomic status (SES) as moderators of the genetic effects. Exploratory analyses compared stratified genome-wide association (GWAS) and GWEIS modeling approaches. We applied functional annotation, gene- and gene-set enrichment, and polygenic score analyses to interpret the GWEIS results.

Results: GWEIS models showed few genetic variants with significant interaction effects across gene-environment pairs. Enrichment analyses identified moderation by SES of the genes NOXA1, DLGAP1, and UBE2L3 on drinking quantity and the gene IFIT1B on drinking frequency. Except for DLGAP1, these genes have not previously been linked to AM. The most robust results (GWEIS interaction p = 4.59e-09) were seen for SES moderating the effects of variants linked to immune-related genes on a pattern of drinking with versus without meals.

Conclusions: Our results highlight several genes and a potential mechanism of immune system functioning behind the moderating effect of SES on the genetic influences on AM. Although GWEIS seems to be a preferred approach over stratified GWAS, modeling G × E effects at the molecular level remains a challenge even in large samples. Understanding these effects will require substantial effort and more in-depth phenotypic measurement.

Background: Bipolar disorder (BD) and alcohol use disorder (AUD) often co-occur, with BD + AUD characterized by higher levels of impulsivity relative to either disorder alone. Emotional facets of impulsivity (e.g., "urgency," measured by the UPPS-P), however, remain underexplored in this population and could have distinct associations with clinical correlates.

Methods: This cross-sectional study used a two-by-two (BDxAD) factorial design, including groups with BD + AD (n = 28), BD (n = 29), AD (n = 28), and healthy controls (HC) (n = 27), to identify between-group differences among the five subscales of the UPPS-P. Associations of UPPS-P subscales with Barratt Impulsiveness Scale (BIS) total scores and clinical variables of interest were also examined.

Results: BD + AD had the highest scores for every UPPS-P subscale but Sensation Seeking, with the Positive and Negative Urgency subscales having the largest main effects for both BD and AD. BIS-11 total scores were most correlated with the urgency subscales of the UPPS-P. Negative Urgency was found to be uniquely relevant to clinical measures in the BD + AD group. Rapid cycling was associated with both urgency subscales and BIS-11 scores, and the Alcohol Dependence Scale was most correlated with the Premeditation subscale.

Limitations: Cross sectional design and predominantly white sample.

Conclusions: Unlike the BIS-11, UPPS-P is able to distinguish emotional from nonemotional facets of impulsivity, something especially relevant to people with co-occurring BD + AD, where fluid emotionality is a key part of symptom presentation. For this reason, the UPPS-P should be utilized in future studies and clinical settings measuring trait impulsivity in this population.

Background: Effective interventions to improve patient outcomes in comorbid alcohol use disorder (AUD) and alcohol-related liver disease (ARLD) remain a clinical unmet need. While the choice of abstinence is the cornerstone for the prevention of disease progression and mortality, evidence suggests a suboptimal engagement with treatment supporting recovery. This qualitative investigation aims to understand barriers and facilitators to treatment as experienced by this clinical population by applying a multidimensional adherence model proposed by the World Health Organization.

Methods: Twenty-four participants with comorbid AUD and ARLD were recruited from an inpatient clinical setting. Data for this study were collected through semistructured, in-depth interviews. Deductive analysis was organized by the Framework method, and theory-driven themes were identified according to the multidimensional adherence model. This included factors across the social and economic, patient, condition, treatment, and healthcare system levels.

Results: The findings in this study indicate systematic challenges in maintaining continuity between primary, secondary, and community care. Aspects related to social and economic context, treatment, and healthcare systems were found to hinder engagement. Identified facilitators to engagement included the participatory role of family, shared lived experience of addiction/recovery, and therapeutic alliance with healthcare providers.

Conclusion: The understanding of these barriers and facilitators from a service user's perspective can bridge the treatment gap for this clinical population. This can provide an opportunity for the implementation of effective interventions and inform the development of policies promoting accessible care. Government and public health bodies have fundamental roles in shifting treatment paradigms in comorbid AUD and ARLD.

Background: Patients with alcohol use disorder (AUD) tend to selectively approach alcohol cues in the environment, demonstrating an alcohol-approach bias. Alcohol-approach-bias modification (Alcohol-ApBM) effectively increases abstinence rates in patients with AUD when added to abstinence-focused treatment, but the evidence for its proposed working mechanism (reduction of the alcohol-approach bias) is limited. Moreover, not all patients benefit from Alcohol-ApBM, and previous research did not identify reliable pretreatment predictors of Alcohol-ApBM effectiveness. Therefore, the current study focused on learning processes during the Alcohol-ApBM training itself. Specifically, we examined whether changes in approach-avoidance tendencies over the course of Alcohol-ApBM would predict abstinence after inpatient treatment.

Methods: The training data of 543 AUD patients in Germany (70% male, M = 47.96, SD = 9.08), receiving Alcohol-ApBM training during inpatient treatment, were used to examine whether various aspects of learning during training predicted abstinence 1 year after treatment discharge, both separately and in interaction with potential sociodemographic and clinical moderators of Alcohol-ApBM effectiveness.

Results: Overall, successful learning across six Alcohol-ApBM training sessions was observed; that is, the approach tendency toward alcoholic stimuli was reduced over time. However, none of the examined learning parameters were predictive of abstinence, neither separately nor in combination with clinical or sociodemographic variables.

Conclusions: Previous studies have shown that Alcohol-ApBM is an effective add-on to abstinence-focused treatment for AUD, and this study showed that learning took place during Alcohol-ApBM training. However, specific learning parameters during training did not predict abstinence 1 year after treatment discharge. Therefore, we cannot specify which patients are most likely to benefit from ApBM with regard to abstinence after 1 year.

Research designed to establish alcohol and other drug (AOD) mechanisms of behavioral change (MOBC) has centered on what variables mediate the relation between AOD treatment and outcomes. The purpose of this paper was to review this research evidence to identify empirically supported mediators of alcohol and other drug use and related outcomes and then to evaluate their potential as being AOD treatment MOBC. The first phase was a systematic review of reviews (2008–2023) to identify the variables with the strongest empirical support as mediators of AOD treatment effects. Eligible reviews focused on AOD treatment modalities, included empirically tested mediators, and targeted adult samples. The second phase was a systematic review of empirical studies (1990–2023) testing the hypothesis that variables identified in phase one were AOD treatment mediators/mechanisms and then evaluating each eligible stage two study according to the Kazdin and Nock (Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 44, 1116) criteria. Eligible articles included empirical studies with adult samples attending AOD treatment and empirically tested one of the three treatment mechanisms as a mediator of an AOD-related outcome. Databases were searched in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses. This systematic review was not preregistered. The first review of 11 eligible review articles identified self-efficacy, social support, and craving as having the strongest empirical support. The second review captured 48 individual studies. An evaluation of each of these studies by the Kazdin and Nock criteria suggested that they likely are MOBC and therefore are ready for implementation. The implementation of self-efficacy, social support, and craving into clinical practice and training is warranted. Six directions for future research to solidify and generalize empirical support for the case that self-efficacy, social support, and craving are MOBC are presented, as are five implications for clinical practice and training.