Are the Effects of Gambling Treatment Overestimated?

"I was Treated by the Program, the Therapist, and Myself": Feasibility of an Internet-Based Treatment Program for Gambling Disorder

The majority of people with problematic gambling behavior never seek or receive professional help. Internet-based treatment approaches have been shown to help patients overcome practical and psychological barriers associated with face-to-face therapy. In this uncontrolled pilot study, we explored the feasibility of the eight-module therapist-guided internet-based treatment program SpilleFri ("Free from Gambling") for patients with gambling disorder (GD). We included 24 patients seeking treatment at a Danish hospital-based treatment clinic. The focus of the feasibility study was evaluation of recruitment and retention rates, data completion rates, treatment response, satisfaction, and program utility. In addition, a series of semi-structured interviews were conducted to explore patient-perceived acceptability and potential barriers to treatment completion and positive outcome. Treatment acceptability among therapists was examined in a focus group interview. Sixteen of the included patients completed the program, yielding an acceptable treatment dropout rate (29.17%), and 82.35% of treatment completers provided full data at all assessment points. Overall, patients were satisfied with the treatment received, and patient interviews highlighted multiple psychological as well as practical benefits associated with the treatment form and content. Patients with more severe gambling symptoms at baseline might be more likely to drop out before treatment completion than patients with less severe symptoms. The results suggest that SpilleFri may be a feasible alternative to face-to-face treatment for GD. However, the uncontrolled design and small sample size of the study limit the robustness of the findings. In the future, the effect of SpilleFri treatment should be examined in a randomized controlled trial.Clinical trial registrations: The study protocol was prospectively registered at clinicaltrials.gov (TRN: NCT05051085; registration date: September 21, 2021).

Pharmacological interventions for the treatment of disordered and problem gambling

BACKGROUND

Pharmacological interventions for disordered and problem gambling have been employed in clinical practice. Despite the availability of several reviews of the efficacy of pharmacological interventions for disordered or problem gambling, few have employed systematic search strategies or compared different categories of pharmacological interventions. Systematic reviews of high-quality evidence are therefore essential to provide guidance regarding the efficacy of different pharmacological interventions for disordered or problem gambling.

OBJECTIVES

The primary aims of the review were to: (1) examine the efficacy of major categories of pharmacological-only interventions (antidepressants, opioid antagonists, mood stabilisers, atypical antipsychotics) for disordered or problem gambling, relative to placebo control conditions; and (2) examine the efficacy of these major categories relative to each other.  SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Common Mental Disorders Specialised Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), Ovid MEDLINE, Embase, and PsycINFO (all years to 11 January 2022).

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised trials evaluating a pharmacological intervention for the treatment of disordered or problem gambling. Eligible control conditions included placebo control groups or comparisons with another category of pharmacological intervention.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard methodological procedures, including systematic extraction of included study characteristics and results and risk of bias assessment. Our primary outcome was reduction in gambling symptom severity. Our secondary outcomes were reduction in gambling expenditure, gambling frequency, time spent gambling, depressive symptoms, anxiety symptoms, and functional impairment; and responder status. We evaluated treatment effects for continuous and dichotomous outcomes using standardised mean difference (SMD) and risk ratios (RR), respectively, employing random-effects meta-analyses. A minimum of two independent treatment effects were required for a meta-analysis to be conducted (with only meta-analytic findings reported in this abstract).

MAIN RESULTS

We included 17 studies in the review (n = 1193 randomised) that reported outcome data scheduled for end of treatment. Length of treatment ranged from 7 to 96 weeks.  Antidepressants: Six studies (n = 268) evaluated antidepressants, with very low to low certainty evidence suggesting that antidepressants were no more effective than placebo at post-treatment: gambling symptom severity (SMD -0.32, 95% CI -0.74 to 0.09, n = 225), gambling expenditure (SMD -0.27, 95% CI -0.60 to 0.06, n = 144), depressive symptoms (SMD -0.19, 95% CI -0.60 to 0.23, n = 90), functional impairment (SMD -0.15, 95% CI -0.53 to 0.22, n = 110), and responder status (RR 1.24, 95% CI 0.93 to 1.66, n = 268). Opioid antagonists: Four studies (n = 562) evaluated opioid antagonists, with very low to low certainty evidence showing a medium beneficial effect of treatment on gambling symptom severity relative to placebo at post-treatment (SMD -0.46, 95% CI -0.74 to -0.19, n = 259), but no difference between groups in responder status (RR 1.65, 95% CI 0.86 to 3.14, n = 562). Mood stabilisers: Two studies (n = 71) evaluated mood stabilisers (including anticonvulsants), with very low certainty evidence suggesting that mood stabilisers were no more effective than placebo at post-treatment: gambling symptom severity (SMD -0.92, 95% CI -2.24 to 0.39, n = 71), depressive symptoms (SMD -0.15, 95% CI -1.14 to 0.83, n = 71), and anxiety symptoms (SMD -0.17, 95% CI -0.64 to 0.30, n = 71). Atypical antipsychotics:Two studies (n = 63) evaluated the atypical antipsychotic olanzapine, with very low certainty evidence showing a medium beneficial effect of treatment on gambling symptom severity relative to placebo at post-treatment (SMD -0.59, 95% CI -1.10 to -0.08, n = 63). Comparative effectiveness: Two studies (n = 62) compared antidepressants with opioid antagonists, with very low certainty evidence indicating that antidepressants were no more effective than opioid antagonists on depressive symptoms (SMD 0.22, 95% CI -0.29 to 0.72, n = 62) or anxiety symptoms (SMD 0.21, 95% CI -0.29 to 0.72, n = 62) at post-treatment. Two studies (n = 58) compared antidepressants with mood stabilisers (including anticonvulsants), with very low certainty evidence indicating that antidepressants were no more effective than mood stabilisers on depressive symptoms (SMD 0.02, 95% CI -0.53 to 0.56, n = 58) or anxiety symptoms (SMD 0.16, 95% CI -0.39 to 0.70, n = 58) at post-treatment. Tolerability and adverse events: Several common adverse effects were reported by participants receiving antidepressants (e.g. headaches, nausea, diarrhoea/gastrointestinal issues) and opioid antagonists (e.g. nausea, dry mouth, constipation). There was little consistency in the types of adverse effects experienced by participants receiving mood stabilisers (e.g. tiredness, headaches, concentration difficulties) or atypical antipsychotics (e.g. pneumonia, sedation, increased hypomania). Discontinuation of treatment due to these adverse events was highest for opioid antagonists (10% to 32%), followed by antidepressants (4% to 31%), atypical antipsychotics (14%), and mood stabilisers (13%).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

This review provides preliminary support for the use of opioid antagonists (naltrexone, nalmefene) and atypical antipsychotics (olanzapine) to produce short-term improvements in gambling symptom severity, although a lack of available evidence precludes a conclusion regarding the degree to which these pharmacological agents can improve other gambling or psychological functioning indices. In contrast, the findings are inconclusive with regard to the effects of mood stabilisers (including anticonvulsants) in the treatment of disordered or problem gambling, and there is limited evidence to support the efficacy of antidepressants. However, these conclusions are based on very low to low certainty evidence characterised by a small number of included studies, high risk of bias, modest pooled sample sizes, imprecise estimates, moderate between-study heterogeneity, and exclusion of participants with psychiatric comorbidities. Moreover, there were insufficient studies to conduct meta-analyses on many outcome measures; to compare efficacy across and within major categories of interventions; to explore dosage effects; or to examine effects beyond post-treatment. These limitations suggest that, despite recommendations related to the administration of opioid antagonists in the treatment of disordered or problem gambling, pharmacological interventions should be administered with caution and with careful consideration of patient needs. A larger and more methodologically rigorous evidence base with longer-term evaluation periods is required before definitive conclusions can be drawn about the effectiveness and durability of pharmacological treatments for disordered or problem gambling.

Longitudinal Assessment of a Manualized Group Treatment Program for Gambling Disorder: The Ohio Problem Gambling Treatment Model for Adults with Co-Occurring Disorders

Individuals with gambling disorder (GD) experience a host of negative psychosocial and physical health outcomes, yet few seek treatment. Of particular concern are individuals with co-occurring mental and behavioral health disorders, a group at higher risk for GD in the state of Ohio. To better serve this population, the Ohio Department of Mental Health and Addiction Services developed a group-based GD treatment manual for adults with co-occurring disorders. Over the course of 5 years, 353 individuals engaged in at least some of the manual's 12 weekly modules, and more than one-third (n = 122) completed the entire curriculum. Participants who completed all 12 modules completed pre-and post-tests, and after controlling for covariates, participants significantly decreased their GD symptom severity, though changes in self-esteem and gambling urges were non-significant. These findings suggest the treatment manual holds promise at reducing gambling behaviors for individuals with co-occurring disorders, but further research is warranted to explore best practices on how to intervene on the psychological antecedents to gambling in this population.

Reasons for dropping out of internet-based problem gambling treatment, and the process of recovery – a qualitative assessment

Problem gambling (PG) is a condition affecting the economy, mental health, and relationships of both the individuals with gambling problems, and concerned significant others (CSOs). While PG is treatable, few individuals with gambling problems seek treatment, and many drop out of treatment. This qualitative study aims to investigate a) the reasons for individuals with gambling problems to drop-out from Internet-based PG treatment, and b) what individuals with gambling problems and CSOs find helpful and unhelpful processes in PG recovery. A total of 16 participants (8 individuals with gambling problems and 8 CSOs) who had participated in an Internet-based PG treatment were interviewed over the telephone in a semi-structured interview. The interviews were analyzed using thematic analysis. Drop-out from treatment was one aspect of an overarching theme identified as unstable path to recovery, where alternating periods of progress and setbacks delineate several aspects of PG. Relapses, negative emotions, and changing life circumstances were identified to separately, and in combination, contribute to drop-out. Drop-outs were also explained by participants’ experiences of a reduced need for treatment. Openness and a support from CSOs and peers were identified as themes important for recovery. The results suggest that PG treatments should consider the emotional state, and comorbidities of the patients, in order to reduce drop-out and improve chances of recovery.

Psychological therapies for pathological and problem gambling

BACKGROUND

Various psychological therapies for pathological and problem gambling have been evaluated in randomised trials. A synthesis of best-quality evidence is required.

OBJECTIVES

The objective was to synthesise evidence from randomised trials of psychological therapies for pathological and problem gambling (cognitive-behaviour therapy (CBT), motivational interviewing therapy, integrative therapy, other psychological therapy), in order to indicate the efficacy of therapies and durability of therapy effects, relative to control conditions.

SEARCH METHODS

We conducted a search of the Cochrane Depression, Anxiety and Neurosis Review Group's Specialised Register (CCDANCTR), which includes relevant randomised controlled trials from the following bibliographic databases: CENTRAL (The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials) (all years), EMBASE (1974 -), MEDLINE (1950 -) and PsycINFO (1967 -). We also carried out complementary searches of MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, LILACS and CENTRAL for studies published between January 1980 and October 2011. We examined the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform and ClinicalTrials.gov and also conducted manual searches of selected journals and reference lists of included studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Included studies were clinical trials using random allocation to groups, considering pathological or problem gamblers, and evaluating a psychological therapy for pathological or problem gambling. Control conditions included 'no treatment' controls, referral to Gamblers Anonymous and non-specific treatment component controls.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We systematically extracted data on the characteristics and results of studies. Primary outcomes were measures of gambling symptom severity, financial loss from gambling and frequency of gambling. Secondary outcomes were occurrence of pathological gambling diagnoses and depression and anxiety symptoms. Treatment effects were defined by comparisons between therapy and control conditions at post-treatment assessments (conducted from 0 to 3 months following completion of treatment) and follow-up assessments (conducted from 9 to 12 months following completion of treatment), respectively, using the standardised mean difference (SMD) or risk ratio (RR). We synthesised results through random-effects meta-analysis.

MAIN RESULTS

Fourteen studies (n = 1245) met the inclusion criteria. Eleven studies compared CBT with control and comparisons at 0 to 3 months post-treatment showed beneficial effects of therapy that ranged from medium (when defined by financial loss from gambling: SMD -0.52; 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.71 to -0.33, n = 505) to very large (for gambling symptom severity: SMD -1.82; 95% CI -2.61 to -1.02, n = 402). Only one study (n = 147) compared groups at 9 to 12 months follow-up and produced smaller effects that were not significant. Four studies of motivational interviewing therapy were identified and mainly considered samples demonstrating less severe gambling (relative to studies of pathological gamblers). Data suggested reduced financial loss from gambling following motivational interviewing therapy at 0 to 3 months post-treatment (SMD -0.41; 95% CI -0.75 to -0.07, n = 244), although comparisons on other outcomes were not significant. The effect approached zero when defined by gambling symptom severity (SMD -0.03; 95% CI -0.55 to 0.50, n = 163). Studies compared groups at 9 to 12 months follow-up and found a significant effect of motivational interviewing therapy in terms of frequency of gambling (SMD -0.53; 95% CI -1.04 to -0.02, n = 62), with comparisons on other outcomes that were not significant. Two studies of integrative therapies also considered samples demonstrating overall low gambling severity, and found no significant effects of therapy at 0 to 3 months post-treatment. Comparisons at 9 to 12 months follow-up suggested a medium effect from therapy in terms of gambling symptom severity, with no significant differences for other outcomes. One study (n = 18) considered another psychological therapy (i.e.Twelve-Step Facilitated Group Therapy) and suggested beneficial effects in terms of most outcomes at 0 to 3 months post-treatment. The evidence supporting these various classes of therapy ranged from very low to low quality.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

This review supports the efficacy of CBT in reducing gambling behaviour and other symptoms of pathological and problem gambling immediately following therapy. However, the durability of therapeutic gain is unknown. There is preliminary evidence for some benefits from motivational interviewing therapy in terms of reduced gambling behaviour, although not necessarily other symptoms of pathological and problem gambling. However, the findings are based on few studies and additional research is needed to inform conclusions. There is also evidence suggestive of some possible benefit from integrative therapies, and other psychological therapies for pathological and problem gambling. However, there are too few studies and evidence is insufficient to evaluate these therapies. The majority of studies in this review varied in risk of bias, and much of the evidence comes from studies with multiple limitations. The current data may thus reflect overestimates of treatment efficacy.

Pathological gambling: prevalence, diagnosis, comorbidity, and intervention in Germany

BACKGROUND

The number of pathological gamblers seeking treatment has risen continuously till the present, and the trend shows no sign of reversal. Estimates of the number of pathological gamblers in Germany range from 103,000 to 290,000, corresponding to 0.2% to 0.6% of the population. Pathological gambling often accompanies other mental disturbances. Doctors who learn that their patients suffer from such disturbances should ask targeted questions about gambling behavior to increase the chance that this problem will be detected early on.

METHODS

This article is based on an analysis of secondary data obtained from the German Statutory Pension Insurance Scheme and the Federal Statistical Office and on a selective review of the literature on comorbidities and available interventions.

RESULTS

The rate of inpatient treatment for pathological gambling tripled from 2000 to 2010. Most pathological gamblers are men (70%-80%). More than 90% of the patients suffer from more than one mental disturbance; 40% of them carry five different psychiatric diagnoses. Simple screening instruments for pathological gambling are easy to use in routine practice and facilitate the diagnosis.

CONCLUSION

As with alcoholics, only a small fraction of pathological gamblers receives the appropriate support and treatment. Educational seminars to raise awareness among physicians and targeted measures for early detection might result in more of the affected persons getting suitable help.