Suchergebnisse

Abstract

Aims
The goal of this study was to develop a standard measure of AUD severity that includes multiple dimensions and can be used in clinical settings to inform treatment selection.


Methods
A large sample (n = 1939) of moderate to heavy drinkers was amassed from six psychopharmacology studies. The severity factor was comprised of four dimensions: withdrawal, craving, AUD symptoms and alcohol-related consequences. First, a confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was conducted to examine model fit. Next, a comprehensive item list from the four measures (i.e. CIWA, DrinC, PACs and SCID-5 AUD criteria) was reduced through exploratory factor analysis (EFA). Once the final items were merged into a preliminary assessment, an EFA was run to observe the factor structure. Initial validation of the measure was obtained via associations with clinical endpoints.


Results
The chi-square test statistic (${\chi}^2(2)=2.432\ P=0.297$) for a single-factor model of severity demonstrated good fit. Additional goodness-of-fit indices from the CFA revealed similar support for the single-factor model of severity (i.e. SRMSR = 0.011; RMSEA = 0.011; CFI = 0.999). Next, nine items from the individual EFAs were selected based on factor loading. The final EFA conducted on the 9-item scale demonstrated that a single factor model of severity best fit the data. Analysis of the psychometric properties revealed good internal consistency ($\alpha$= 0.79).


Conclusions
The current study extends upon the measurement of severity and supports a brief severity measure. This brief 9-item scale can be leveraged in future studies as a screening instrument and as a tool for personalized medicine.

Abstract

Aims
This study aimed to compare reward, relief, and habit treatment-seeking individuals on recent drinking, alcohol use disorder (AUD) phenomenology, and mood. The second aim of the study was to evaluate the predictive validity of reward, relief, and habit profiles.


Method
Treatment-seeking individuals with an AUD (n = 169) were recruited to participate in a medication trial for AUD (NCT03594435). Reward, relief, and habit drinking groups were assessed using the UCLA Reward Relief Habit Drinking Scale. Group differences at baseline were evaluated using univariate analyses of variance. A subset of participants were enrolled in a 12-week, double-blind, placebo-controlled medication trial (n = 102), and provided longitudinal drinking and phenomenology data. The predictive validity of group membership was assessed using linear regression analyses.


Results
At baseline, individuals who drink primarily for relief had higher craving and negative mood than those who drink for reward and habit. Prospectively, membership in the relief drinking group predicted greater alcohol use, greater heavy drinking, and fewer days abstinent compared to those in the reward drinking group. Membership in the relief drinking group also predicted greater alcohol craving, more alcohol-related consequences, and more anxiety symptoms over 12 weeks compared to those in the reward drinking group.


Conclusions
This study provides support for reward and relief drinking motive profiles in treatment-seeking individuals with an AUD. Membership in the relief drinking motive group was predictive of poorer drinking outcomes and more negative symptomology over 12 weeks, indicating that individuals who drink for relief may be a particularly vulnerable sub-population of individuals with AUD.

Abstract

Aims
The current study examined the association between pain catastrophizing and alcohol cue-elicited brain activation in individuals with alcohol use disorder (AUD).


Methods
Non-treatment seeking heavy drinkers with AUD (n = 45; 28 males) completed self-report measures of pain catastrophizing and alcohol use/problems as part of a clinical trial of the neuroimmune modulator ibudilast. Participants were randomized to either placebo (n = 25) or ibudilast (n = 20) and completed an functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) scan to assess neural activation to alcohol cues 1 week into the medication trial. Multiple linear regression examined whether pain catastrophizing predicted cue-induced activation in a priori regions of interest, namely the dorsal and ventral striatum (VS). An exploratory whole-brain analysis was conducted to assess the relationship between pain catastrophizing and neural alcohol cue reactivity.


Results
Pain catastrophizing predicted greater cue-induced activation in the dorsal (b = 0.006; P = 0.03) but not VS controlling for medication. Pain catastrophizing was positively associated with neural activation to alcohol cues in regions including the bilateral thalamus, left precuneus and left frontal pole.


Conclusion
Greater pain catastrophizing is associated with greater cue-induced neural activation in brain regions sub-serving habits and compulsive alcohol use. These findings provide initial support for a neural mechanism by which pain catastrophizing may drive alcohol craving among individuals with AUD.

AbstractAimsAlcohol use disorder is highly heterogeneous. One approach to understanding this heterogeneity is the identification of drinker subtypes. A candidate classification consists of reward and relief subtypes. The current study examines a novel self-report measure of reward, relief, and habit drinking for its clinical correlates and subjective response (SR) to alcohol administration.MethodsNon-treatment-seeking heavy drinkers (n = 140) completed the brief reward, relief, habit drinking scale (RRHDS). A subset of this sample (n = 67) completed an intravenous alcohol administration. Individuals were classified into drinker subtypes. A crowdsourced sample of heavy drinkers (n = 187) completed the RRHDS and a validated reward relief drinking scale to compare drinking classification results.ResultsThe majority of the sample was classified as reward drinkers (n = 100), with fewer classified as relief (n = 19) and habit (n = 21) drinkers. Relief and habit drinkers reported greater tonic alcohol craving compared to reward drinkers. Reward drinkers endorsed drinking for enhancement, while relief drinkers endorsed drinking for coping. Regarding the alcohol administration, the groups differed in negative mood, such that relief/habit drinkers reported a decrease in negative mood during alcohol administration, compared to reward drinkers. The follow-up crowdsourcing study found a 62% agreement in reward drinker classification between measures and replicated the tonic craving findings.ConclusionsOur findings suggest that reward drinkers are dissociable from relief/habit drinkers using the brief measure. However, relief and habit drinkers were not successfully differentiated, which suggests that these constructs may overlap phenotypically. Notably, measures of dysphoric mood were better at detecting group differences than measures capturing alcohol's rewarding effects.

Abstract

Aims
Natural processes of change have been documented in treatment-seekers who begin to reduce their drinking in anticipation of treatment. The study examined whether non-treatment-seeking problem drinkers would engage in drinking reduction in anticipation of participating in a research study.


Methods
Non-treatment-seeking problem drinkers (n = 935) were culled from five behavioral pharmacology studies. Participants reported on their alcohol use during the past 30 days using the Timeline Followback. Cluster analysis identified distinct groups/clusters based on drinking patterns over the 30-day pre-visit period. The identified clusters were compared on demographic and clinical measures.


Results
Three distinct clusters were identified (a) heavy-decreasing drinking group (n = 255, 27.27%); (b) a moderate-stable drinking group (n = 353, 37.75%) and (c) low-stable drinking group (n = 327, 34.97%). The three clusters differed significantly on a host of measures including pre-visit drinking (age at first drink, drinking days, drinks per week, drinks per drinking day), alcohol use severity, alcohol craving, readiness for change, depression and anxiety levels. These differences were alcohol dose-dependent such that the heavier drinking group reported the highest levels on all constructs, followed by the moderate group, and the low drinking group last.


Conclusions
Baseline drinking patterns of non-treatment-seekers were generally stable and pre-visit reductions were only observed among the heavy drinking group. This generally stable pattern stands in contrast to previous reports for treatment-seeking samples. Nevertheless, the heavier drinking group, which is most similar to treatment-seekers, displayed pre-study drinking reduction. Overall, naturalistic processes of change may pose less of a threat to randomization and testing in this population.