Suchergebnisse

<b><i>Aims:</i></b> There is a scarcity of clinical trials on psychological treatments for concurrent borderline personality disorder (BPD) and substance use disorder (SUD). Mentalization-based treatment (MBT) have shown efficacy in several trials on BPD. The aim of the present study was to examine the feasibility and effectiveness of MBT for concurrent BPD and SUD. <b><i>Methods:</i></b> Patients (<i>n</i> = 46) with concurrent BPD and SUD were randomized either to MBT in combination with SUD treatment (<i>n</i> = 24) or to SUD treatment alone (<i>n</i> = 22). Outcome was measured after 18 months using objective data, as well as interview and self-report measures. <b><i>Results:</i></b> There was no significant difference between the groups on any outcome variable. No suicide attempts occurred in the MBT group in contrast to 4 suicide attempts that occurred in the control group – a difference that did not reach statistical significance (<i>p</i> = 0.06). A majority of the therapists did not show sufficient MBT adherence and quality. <b><i>Conclusion:</i></b> MBT for patients with concurrent BPD and SD does not appear to be harmful; on the other hand, it is possibly helpful in reducing the risk involved in suicide attempts.

<b><i>Introduction:</i></b> Exposure to conditioned cues is a common trigger of relapse in addiction. It has been suggested that such cues can activate motivationally relevant neurocircuitry in individuals with substance use disorders even without being consciously perceived. We aimed to see if this could be replicated in a sample with severe amphetamine use disorder and a control group of healthy subjects. <b><i>Methods:</i></b> We used fMRI to test the hypothesis that individuals with amphetamine use disorder, but not healthy controls, exhibit a specific neural reactivity to subliminally presented pictures related to amphetamine use. Twenty-four amphetamine users and 25 healthy controls were recruited and left data of sufficient quality to be included in the final analysis. All subjects were exposed to drug-related and neutral pictures of short duration (13.3 ms), followed by a backward visual mask image. The contrast of interest was drug versus neutral subliminal pictures. <b><i>Results:</i></b> There were no statistically significant differences in BOLD signal between the drug and neutral cues, neither in the limbic regions of primary interest nor in exploratory whole-brain analyses. The same results were found both in amphetamine users and controls. <b><i>Discussion/Conclusion:</i></b> We found no evidence of neural reactivity to subliminally presented drug cues in this sample of subjects with severe amphetamine dependence. These results are discussed in relation to the earlier literature, and the evidence for subliminal drug cue reactivity in substance use disorders is questioned.

<b><i>Background:</i></b> Alcohol use disorder (AUD) is to a high degree heritable, and in clinical practice it is common to assert presence of alcohol abuse family history (FH) in treatment-seeking AUD patients. Patients with AUD also exhibit cognitive deficits, including elevated impulsivity and impairments in executive functions (EF), but less is known regarding the relation between FH and these cognitive domains. The aim of the current study was to investigate if alcohol abuse FH in AUD patients is associated with a specific cognitive profile. <b><i>Methods:</i></b> Patients with AUD (<i>n</i> = 197) from Sweden (<i>n</i> = 106) and Belgium (<i>n</i> = 91) were recruited. Self-rated impulsivity was assessed by the Barratt Impulsiveness Scale (BIS). EF assessed were response inhibition (stop signal task), attention (rapid visual processing task), and working memory (digit span). A series of linear regression models were run to explore the effect of FH on cognitive outcomes. <b><i>Results:</i></b> A FH of alcohol abuse was associated with elevated score in self-rated impulsivity assessed by the BIS, with the greatest effect on the subscale of nonplanning. There was no statistically significant association between FH and any of the other neuropsychological task outcomes. <b><i>Conclusion:</i></b> Presence of alcohol abuse FH within AUD patients could be a marker of higher impulsivity, which may have clinical implications regarding diagnostic evaluation and treatment.

<b><i>Introduction:</i></b> Attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) with co-occurring substance use disorder (SUD) is associated with poor treatment outcomes. Two randomized controlled trials, utilizing robust doses of stimulants, demonstrated a significant effect on treatment outcomes in patients with ADHD/SUD. This study aimed to investigate differences in executive functioning and explore the dose-dependent effect of OROS-methylphenidate (MPH) in patients with comorbid ADHD and amphetamine use disorder (ADHD+AMPH) and patients with ADHD only. <b><i>Methods:</i></b> Three groups (ADHD+AMPH, ADHD only, and healthy controls) were assessed repeatedly with a neuropsychological test battery. An exploratory within-subject single-blinded design was employed where the ADHD only group received a maximum dose of 72 mg OROS-MPH, the ADHD+AMPH group a maximum dose of 180 mg, whereas the healthy subjects did not receive any study medication. Both ADHD groups received the same dose titration up to 72 mg OROS-MPH. <b><i>Results:</i></b> The ADHD+AMPH group demonstrated a significantly poorer motor inhibition and spatial working memory and reported more severe ADHD symptoms compared to the ADHD only group. 180 mg OROS-MPH was associated with a significant improvement in executive functioning in the dual diagnosis group. However, the exploratory study design and recruitment issues do not allow for any conclusion to be drawn regarding the effect of 180 mg OROS-MPH. <b><i>Conclusion:</i></b> Patients with ADHD+AMPH present with more severe neurocognitive deficits compared to ADHD only. The effect of 180 mg OROS-MPH on cognition in patients with ADHD+AMPH was inconclusive. Future studies should consider recruitment issues and high drop-out rates in this study population.

Adult attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) often co-occurs with substance use disorders (SUD) and is associated with early onset and more severe development of SUD and with reduced treatment effectiveness. Screening tools allow for a good recognition of possible ADHD in adults with SUD and should be used routinely, followed by an ADHD diagnostic process initiated as soon as possible. Simultaneous and integrated treatment of ADHD and SUD, using a combination of pharmaco- and psychotherapy, is recommended. Long-acting methylphenidate, extended-release amphetamines, and atomoxetine with up-titration to higher dosages may be considered in patients unresponsive to standard doses. This paper includes evidence- and consensus-based recommendations developed to provide guidance in the screening, diagnosis and treatment of patients with ADHD-SUD comorbidity.

<b><i>Background:</i></b> The <i>International Collaboration on ADHD and Substance Abuse</i> (ICASA) is a network of 28 centers from 16 countries initiated to investigate the link between attention deficit-hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) and substance use disorder (SUD). In this article, we present the mission, the results of finished studies, and the current and future research projects of ICASA. Methods: During the past 10 years, 3 cross-sectional studies were conducted: two International ADHD in Substance use disorders Prevalence (IASP-1 and IASP-2) studies, directed at the screening, diagnosis, and the prevalence of adult ADHD in treatment-seeking patients with SUD, and the Continuous performance test for ADHD in SUD Patients (CASP) study, testing a novel continuous performance test in SUD patients with and without adult ADHD. Recently, the prospective International Naturalistic Cohort Study of ADHD and Substance Use Disorders (INCAS) was initiated, directed at treatment provision and treatment outcome in SUD patients with adult ADHD. <b><i>Results:</i></b> The IASP studies have shown that approximately 1 in 6 adult treatment-seeking SUD patients also have ADHD. In addition, those SUD patients with adult ADHD compared to SUD patients without ADHD report more childhood trauma exposure, slower infant development, greater problems controlling their temperament, and lower educational attainment. Comorbid patients also reported more risk-taking behavior, and a higher rate of other psychiatric disorders compared to SUD patients without ADHD. Screening, diagnosis, and treatment of this patient group are possible even before abstinence has been achieved. The results of the CASP study are reported separately in this special issue. <b><i>Conclusions:</i></b> The ICASA research to date has demonstrated a high prevalence of comorbid ADHD and SUD, associated with elevated rates of additional comorbidities and risk factors for adverse outcomes. More research is needed to find the best way to treat these patients, which is the main topic of the ongoing INCAS study.

Borderline personality disorder (BPD) and substance use disorders (SUDs) often co-occur, partly because they share risk factors. In this international multicenter study, risk factors for BPD were examined for SUD patients. In total, 1,205 patients were comprehensively examined by standardized interviews and questionnaires on psychiatric diagnosis and risk factors, and it was found that 1,033 (85.7%) had SUDs without BPD (SUD) and 172 (14.3%) had SUD with BPD (SUD + BPD). SUD + BPD patients were significantly younger, more often females and more often diagnosed with comorbid adult attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder. SUD + BPD patients did not differ from SUD patients on most risk factors typical for SUD such as maternal use of drugs during pregnancy or parents having any SUD. However, SUD + BPD patients did have a higher risk of having experienced emotional and physical abuse, neglect, or family violence in childhood compared to SUD patients, suggesting that child abuse and family violence are BPD-specific risk factors in patients with SUDs.

Background: Childhood attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) is a risk factor for substance misuse and substance use disorder (SUD) in adolescence and (early) adulthood. ADHD and SUD also frequently co-occur in treatment-seeking adolescents, which complicates diagnosis and treatment and is associated with poor treatment outcomes. Research on the effect of treatment of childhood ADHD on the prevention of adolescent SUD is inconclusive, and studies on the diagnosis and treatment of adolescents with ADHD and SUD are scarce. Thus, the available evidence is generally not sufficient to justify robust treatment recommendations. Objective: The aim of the study was to obtain a consensus statement based on a combination of scientific data and clinical experience. Method: A modified Delphi study to reach consensus based upon the combination of scientific data and clinical experience with a multidisciplinary group of 55 experts from 17 countries. The experts were asked to rate a set of statements on the effect of treatment of childhood ADHD on adolescent SUD and on the screening, diagnosis, and treatment of adolescents with comorbid ADHD and SUD. Results: After 3 iterative rounds of rating and adapting 37 statements, consensus was reached on 36 of these statements representing 6 domains: general (n = 4), risk of developing SUD (n = 3), screening and diagnosis (n = 7), psychosocial treatment (n = 5), pharmacological treatment (n = 11), and complementary treatments (n = 7). Routine screening is recommended for ADHD in adolescent patients in substance abuse treatment and for SUD in adolescent patients with ADHD in mental healthcare settings. Long-acting stimulants are recommended as the first-line treatment of ADHD in adolescents with concurrent ADHD and SUD, and pharmacotherapy should preferably be embedded in psychosocial treatment. The only remaining no-consensus statement concerned the requirement of abstinence before starting pharmacological treatment in adolescents with ADHD and concurrent SUD. In contrast to the majority, some experts required full abstinence before starting any pharmacological treatment, some were against the use of stimulants in the treatment of these patients (independent of abstinence), while some were against the alternative use of bupropion. Conclusion: This international consensus statement can be used by clinicians and patients together in a shared decision-making process to select the best interventions and to reach optimal outcomes in adolescent patients with concurrent ADHD and SUD.