Compatibility of current DSM-IV and proposed DSM-5 diagnostic criteria for cocaine use disorders

Validation of Two Diagnostic Assessments for Opioid and Stimulant Use Disorder for Use by Non-Clinicians

Objective

The United States is in the fourth wave of the opioid epidemic marked by the increase in fentanyl and co-occurring stimulant use related overdose deaths. Measures are needed to quickly diagnose opioid and stimulant use disorders, yet current traditional diagnostic assessments pose barriers to providing rapid diagnoses.

Methods

This study aimed to (1) validate an updated version of the Rapid Opioid Dependence Screen (RODS) from DSM-IV criteria for opioid dependence to the now DSM-5 moderate-to-severe opioid use disorder, the Rapid Opioid Use Disorder Assessment (ROUDA); and (2) create and validate the Rapid Stimulant Use Disorder Assessment to DSM-5 stimulant use disorder (RSUDA) when compared to the substance use disorder module from the DSM-5 version of the Mini International Neuropsychiatric Interview.

Results

One-hundred and fifty adults completed study assessments, 122 reported opioid misuse and 140 reported stimulant misuse within their lifetime. The ROUDA had a sensitivity of 82.5% (95% confidence interval [CI] 75.7, 89.2), specificity of 100.0% (95% CI: 100, 100), and strong internal consistency α = 0.94. The RSUDA had similarly high sensitivity (83.8%, 95% CI: 77.7, 89.9), specificity (91.4%, 95% CI: 86.8, 96.1), and internal consistency α = 0.87. The ROUDA and RSUDA are efficient and valid measures that can be administered in various settings by non-clinical staff to rapidly diagnose opioid and stimulant use disorders and allow for immediate treatment and harm reduction interventions.

Conclusions

The ROUDA and RSUDA are efficient and valid measures that can be administered by non-clinicians to rapidly diagnose opioid and stimulant use disorders.

Reliability and validity of DSM-IV and DSM-5 methamphetamine use disorder diagnoses using the Chinese Version of the Semi-Structured Assessment for Drug Dependence and Alcoholism (SSADDA)

BACKGROUND

The Semi-structured Assessment for Drug Dependence and Alcoholism (SSADDA) was developed to assess substance-use disorders and other psychiatric traits. We translated the SSADDA into Chinese and evaluated its inter-rater reliability and concurrent validity in diagnosing DSM-IV methamphetamine (MA) dependence and DSM-5 MA-use disorder (MUD).

METHODS

The sample comprised 231 participants who were interviewed using the Chinese SSADDA and the Mini-International Neuropsychiatric Interview (Chinese MINI) for concurrent validation. Of the 231 participants, 191 were interviewed by two different interviewers two weeks apart. We evaluated the inter-rater reliability and concurrent validity of the diagnoses using percent agreement and Cohen's kappa coefficient (κ). Cohen's linear weighted kappa was used to assess the reliability of DSM-5 MUD severity.

RESULTS

It showed good inter-rater reliability and no significant differences among the DSM-5 MUD (κ = 0.71), DSM-IV MA abuse or dependence (κ = 0.72), and the DSM-IV diagnoses of MA dependence (κ = 0.66) and abuse (κ = 0.68) tested separately. The weighted kappa was 0.67 across the three DSM-5 MUD severity levels. The reliability of each individual diagnostic criterion for DSM-5 MUD ranged from fair to excellent (κ = 0.41-0.80), except for "repeated attempts to quit/control use" (κ = 0.38). The concurrent validity based on MINI-derived diagnoses ranged from good to excellent (κ = 0.65-0.78).

CONCLUSIONS

This study shows that the Chinese version of SSADDA has good reliability and validity among Chinese MA users.

Agreement between DSM-5 and DSM-IV measures of substance use disorders in a sample of adult substance users

BACKGROUND

In DSM-5, definitions of substance use disorders (SUD) were changed considerably from DSM-IV, yet little is known about how well DSM-IV and DSM-5 SUD diagnoses agree among substance users. Because data from many studies are based on DSM-IV diagnostic criteria, understanding the agreement between DSM-5 and DSM-IV SUD diagnoses and reasons for discordance between these diagnoses is crucial for comparing results across studies.

MEASUREMENTS

Prevalences and chance-corrected agreement of DSM-5 SUD and DSM-IV substance dependence were evaluated in 588 substance users in a suburban inpatient addiction program and an urban medical center, using a semi-structured interview (PRISM-5). Alcohol, tobacco, cannabis, cocaine, heroin, opioid, sedative, and stimulant use disorders were examined. Cohen's kappa was used to assess agreement between DSM-5 and DSM-IV SUD (abuse or dependence), DSM-5 SUD and DSM-IV dependence, and DSM-5 moderate/severe SUD and DSM-IV dependence.

RESULTS

Agreement between DSM-5 and DSM-IV SUD was excellent for all substances (κ = 0.84-0.99), except for cannabis and tobacco (κ = 0.75; 0.80, respectively). The most common reason for diagnostic discrepancies was a positive DSM-5 SUD diagnosis but no DSM-IV diagnosis, due to the lowered DSM-5 SUD threshold. Agreement between DSM-5 SUD and DSM-IV dependence was excellent for all substances (κ = 0.88-0.94), except for alcohol, tobacco, and cannabis (κ = 0.63-0.75). Agreement between moderate/severe DSM-5 SUD and DSM-IV dependence was excellent across all substances.

CONCLUSION

While care should be used in interpreting results of studies using different methods, studies relying on DSM-IV or DSM-5 SUD diagnostic criteria offer similar information and thus can be compared when accumulating a body of evidence.

Strong associations among PTSD, pain, and alcohol and drug use disorders in VA primary care patients

AIMS

PTSD, pain, and alcohol and drug use disorders (AUD and DUDs) are prevalent, debilitating, and costly. Clinicians benefit from understanding the co-occurrence among these conditions, especially cocaine and opioid use disorders. This is the first study to examine (1) the odds of having one condition in the presence of one of the other conditions, and (2) the extent to which having PTSD, pain, or an AUD raises the odds of having a DUD in VA primary care patients.

METHODS

We used cross-sectional archival data from 1283 primary care patients recruited in VA primary care clinics. Pain was measured by the numeric rating scale. PTSD, AUD, and DUDs (i.e., cannabis, opioid, cocaine, and any drug use disorder) were measured by the Mini International Diagnostic Interview. We conducted logistic regression analyses to examine the odds of having one condition in the presence of other conditions.

RESULTS

A total of 14.9 % of patients had PTSD, 52.8 % of patients had moderate or severe pain, 12.8 % had an AUD, and 10.4 % had any DUD. Patients who had one condition (PTSD, pain, AUD, or DUD) were highly likely to have one or more of the other conditions, with or without controlling for demographic variables.

CONCLUSIONS

VA Patients who had PTSD, moderate or severe pain, or an AUD were highly likely to have an opioid or cocaine use disorder, and therefore should be screened for DUDs in VA primary care.

Screen of drug use: Diagnostic accuracy for stimulant use disorder

AIMS

Stimulant misuse, overdose, and related deaths have increased dramatically. Identifying and referring individuals with stimulant use disorder to treatment may reduce misuse and overdose. This study validated the 2-item Screen of Drug Use (SoDU; Tiet et al., 2015) to screen for stimulant use disorder (and for cocaine and amphetamine use disorders) in a VA primary care setting, and to establish its concurrent diagnostic validity among diverse subgroups of patients, including age, gender, race/ethnicity, marital status, educational level, and PTSD status.

METHODS

Archival data from 1283 VA primary care patients recruited in California were examined. This predominantly male sample matched general VA primary care patient population characteristics. A total of 79 individuals (6.2%) met criteria for a stimulant use disorder. The criterion for having a stimulant use disorder was a DSM-IV cocaine use disorder and/or amphetamine use disorder diagnosis based on the Mini International Diagnostic Interview.

RESULTS

For stimulant use disorder, the 2-item SoDU was 93.67% sensitive (95% confidence interval [CI], 85.84%-97.91%), and 89.12% specific (95% CI, 87.22%-90.82%). When tested in diverse subgroups of patients, the sensitivity ranged from 66.67% to 100% and specificity ranged from 76.81% to 94.17%. When a follow-up question was added, the sensitivity was unchanged and the specificity was 99%, with lower false positive rate.

CONCLUSIONS

The SoDU, especially with a follow-up question, is an appropriate instrument for routine screening of stimulant use disorder in VA primary care settings. It has good concurrent diagnostic validity for diverse groups of patients.

Sexual orientation and gender identity disparities in substance use disorders during young adulthood in a United States longitudinal cohort

BACKGROUND

This study examined associations of sexual orientation and gender identity with prevalence of substance use disorders (SUDs) and co-occurring multiple SUDs in the past 12-months during young adulthood in a United States longitudinal cohort.

METHODS

Questionnaires self-administered in 2010 and 2015 assessed probable past 12-month nicotine dependence, alcohol abuse and dependence, and drug abuse and dependence among 12,428 participants of an ongoing cohort study when they were ages 20-35 years. Binary or multinomial logistic regressions using generalized estimating equations were used to estimate differences by sexual orientation and gender identity in the odds of SUDs and multiple SUDs, stratified by sex assigned at birth.

RESULTS

Compared with completely heterosexuals (CH), sexual minority (SM; i.e., mostly heterosexual, bisexual, lesbian/gay) participants were generally more likely to have a SUD, including multiple SUDs. Among participants assigned female at birth, adjusted odds ratios (AORs) for SUDs comparing SMs to CHs ranged from 1.61 to 6.97 (ps<.05); among participants assigned male at birth, AORs ranged from 1.30 to 3.08, and were statistically significant for 62% of the estimates. Apart from elevated alcohol dependence among gender minority participants assigned male at birth compared with cisgender males (AOR: 2.30; p < .05), gender identity was not associated with prevalence of SUDs.

CONCLUSIONS

Sexual and gender minority (SGM) young adults disproportionately evidence SUDs, as well as co-occurring multiple SUDs. Findings related to gender identity and bisexuals assigned male at birth should be interpreted with caution due to small sample sizes. SUD prevention and treatment efforts should focus on SGM young adults.

Substance use disorders in prisoners: an updated systematic review and meta-regression analysis in recently incarcerated men and women

AIMS

The aims were to (1) estimate the prevalence of alcohol and drug use disorders in prisoners on reception to prison and (2) estimate and test sources of between study heterogeneity.

METHODS

Studies reporting the 12-month prevalence of alcohol and drug use disorders in prisoners on reception to prison from 1 January 1966 to 11 August 2015 were identified from seven bibliographic indexes. Primary studies involving clinical interviews or validated instruments leading to DSM or ICD diagnoses were included; self-report surveys and investigations that assessed individuals more than 3 months after arrival to prison were not. Random-effects meta-analysis and subgroup and meta-regression analyses were conducted. Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines were followed.

RESULTS

In total, 24 studies with a total of 18 388 prisoners across 10 countries were identified. The random-effects pooled prevalence estimate of alcohol use disorder was 24% [95% confidence interval (CI) = 21-27], with very high heterogeneity (I²  = 94%). These ranged from 16 to 51% in male and 10-30% in female prisoners. For drug use disorders, there was evidence of heterogeneity by sex, and the pooled prevalence estimate in male prisoners was 30% (95% CI = 22-38; I²  = 98%; 13 studies; range 10-61%) and, in female prisoners, was 51% (95% CI = 43-58; I²  = 95%; 10 studies; range 30-69%). On meta-regression, sources of heterogeneity included higher prevalence of drug use disorders in women, increasing rates of drug use disorders in recent decades, and participation rate.

CONCLUSIONS

Substance use disorders are highly prevalent in prisoners. Approximately a quarter of newly incarcerated prisoners of both sexes had an alcohol use disorder, and the prevalence of a drug use disorder was at least as high in men, and higher in women.

Patient adherence to multi-component continuing care discharge plans

Intuitively, it is assumed that greater patient adherence to treatment recommendations in substance use disorder (SUD) treatment is associated with favorable outcomes, but surprisingly, there is limited research systematically examining the adherence-outcome relationship in the context of the continuing care phase post-discharge from residential treatment. This study sought to determine the effect of adherence to multi-component continuing care plans on long-term outcomes among patients following the primary treatment episode. Data were abstracted from electronic medical records for 271 patients (59.0% male) discharged from a U.S. residential program between 2013 and 2015. Patients were categorized based on their level of adherence to their individualized continuing care discharge plan, and studied through retrospective record review for 12months post-discharge. 12-month outcomes included past 30-day and continuous abstinence, re-admission, and quality of life. With the exception of re-admission rate, fully adherent patients demonstrated significantly better results on all study outcomes at 12months compared to patients who were partially or non-adherent. Fully adherent patients were 9.46 times (95% CI: 5.07-17.62) more likely to be continuously abstinent through 12months relative to the other adherence groups. Fully adherent patients were 7.53 times (95% CI: 2.41-23.50) more likely to report a positive quality of life at 12months relative to the other adherence groups. The findings support the widely held contention that greater adherence to continuing care discharge plans is associated with favorable long-term outcomes, and provide insight into realistic outcomes expectations for patients who are adherent to their multi-component continuing care discharge plans.

Greater Prevalence of Proposed ICD-11 Alcohol and Cannabis Dependence Compared to ICD-10, DSM-IV, and DSM-5 in Treated Adolescents

BACKGROUND

Proposed International Classification of Diseases, 11th edition (ICD-11), criteria for substance use disorder (SUD) radically simplify the algorithm used to diagnose substance dependence. Major differences in case identification across DSM and ICD impact determinations of treatment need and conceptualizations of substance dependence. This study compared the draft algorithm for ICD-11 SUD against DSM-IV, DSM-5, and ICD-10, for alcohol and cannabis.

METHODS

Adolescents (n = 339, ages 14 to 18) admitted to intensive outpatient addictions treatment completed, as part of a research study, a Structured Clinical Interview for DSM SUDs adapted for use with adolescents and which has been used to assess DSM and ICD SUD diagnoses. Analyses examined prevalence across classification systems, diagnostic concordance, and sources of diagnostic disagreement.

RESULTS

Prevalence of any past-year proposed ICD-11 alcohol or cannabis use disorder was significantly lower compared to DSM-IV and DSM-5 (ps < 0.01). However, prevalence of proposed ICD-11 alcohol and cannabis dependence diagnoses was significantly higher compared to DSM-IV, DSM-5, and ICD-10 (ps < 0.01). ICD-11 and DSM-5 SUD diagnoses showed only moderate concordance. For both alcohol and cannabis, youth typically met criteria for an ICD-11 dependence diagnosis by reporting tolerance and much time spent using or recovering from the substance, rather than symptoms indicating impaired control over use.

CONCLUSIONS

The proposed ICD-11 dependence algorithm appears to "overdiagnose" dependence on alcohol and cannabis relative to DSM-IV and ICD-10 dependence, and DSM-5 moderate/severe use disorder, generating potential "false-positive" cases of dependence. Among youth who met criteria for proposed ICD-11 dependence, few reported impaired control over substance use, highlighting ongoing issues in the conceptualization and diagnosis of SUD.

Diagnostic Concordance between DSM-5 and ICD-10 Cannabis Use Disorders

OBJECTIVES

With the recent federal mandate that all U.S. health care settings transition to ICD-10 billing codes, empirical evidence is necessary to determine if the DSM-5 designations map to their respective ICD-10 diagnostic categories/billing codes. The present study examined the concordance between DSM-5 and ICD-10 cannabis use disorder diagnoses.

METHOD

Data were derived from routine clinical assessments of 6871 male and 801 female inmates recently admitted to a state prison system from 2000 to 2003. DSM-5 and ICD-10 diagnostic determinations were made from algorithms corresponding to the respective diagnostic formulations.

RESULTS

Past 12-month prevalence rates of cannabis use disorders were comparable across classification systems. The vast majority of inmates with no DSM-5 diagnosis continued to have no diagnosis per the ICD-10, and a similar proportion with a DSM-5 severe diagnosis received an ICD-10 dependence diagnosis. Most of the variation in diagnostic classifications was accounted for by those with a DSM-5 moderate diagnosis in that approximately half of these cases received an ICD-10 dependence diagnosis while the remaining cases received a harmful use diagnosis.

CONCLUSIONS

Although there appears to be a generally high level of agreement between diagnostic classification systems for those with no diagnosis or those evincing symptoms of a more severe condition, concordance between DSM-5 moderate and ICD-10 dependence diagnoses was poor. Additional research is warranted to determine the appropriateness and implications of the current DSM-5 coding guidelines regarding the assignment of an ICD-10 dependence code for those with a DSM-5 moderate diagnosis.

Inter-observer reliability of DSM-5 substance use disorders

AIMS

Although studies have examined the impact of changes made in DSM-5 on the estimated prevalence of substance use disorder (SUD) diagnoses, there is limited evidence concerning the reliability of DSM-5 SUDs. We evaluated the inter-observer reliability of four DSM-5 SUDs in a sample in which we had previously evaluated the reliability of DSM-IV diagnoses, allowing us to compare the two systems.

METHODS

Two different interviewers each assessed 173 subjects over a 2-week period using the Semi-Structured Assessment for Drug Dependence and Alcoholism (SSADDA). Using the percent agreement and kappa (κ) coefficient, we examined the reliability of DSM-5 lifetime alcohol, opioid, cocaine, and cannabis use disorders, which we compared to that of SSADDA-derived DSM-IV SUD diagnoses. We also assessed the effect of additional lifetime SUD and lifetime mood or anxiety disorder diagnoses on the reliability of the DSM-5 SUD diagnoses.

RESULTS

Reliability was good to excellent for the four disorders, with κ values ranging from 0.65 to 0.94. Agreement was consistently lower for SUDs of mild severity than for moderate or severe disorders. DSM-5 SUD diagnoses showed greater reliability than DSM-IV diagnoses of abuse or dependence or dependence only. Co-occurring SUD and lifetime mood or anxiety disorders exerted a modest effect on the reliability of the DSM-5 SUD diagnoses.

CONCLUSIONS

For alcohol, opioid, cocaine and cannabis use disorders, DSM-5 criteria and diagnoses are at least as reliable as those of DSM-IV.

DSM-5 reviewed from different angles: goal attainment, rationality, use of evidence, consequences—part 2: bipolar disorders, schizophrenia spectrum disorders, anxiety disorders, obsessive-compulsive disorders, trauma- and stressor-related disorders, personality disorders, substance-related and addictive disorders, neurocognitive disorders

Part 1 of this paper discussed several more general aspects of Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5) and offered a detailed, paradigmatic analysis of changes made to the chapter on depressive disorders. This second part focusses on several other disorders, including bipolar and schizophrenia spectrum disorders. The respective changes and their possible consequences are discussed under consideration of traditional psychiatric classification, particularly from the perspective of European traditions and on the basis of a PubMed search and review papers. The general conclusion is that even seemingly small changes such as the introduction of the mixed feature specifier can have far-reaching consequences. Contrary to the original plans, DSM-5 has not radically changed to become a primarily dimensional diagnostic system but has preserved the categorical system for most disorders. The ambivalence of the respective decision-making becomes apparent from the last minute decision to change the classification of personality disorders from dimensional back to categorical. The advantages and disadvantages of the different approaches are discussed in this context. In DSM-5, only the chapter on addictive disorders has a somewhat dimensional structure. Also in contrast to the original intentions, DSM-5 has not used a more neurobiological approach to disorders by including biological markers to increase the objectivity of psychiatric diagnoses. Even in the most advanced field in terms of biomarkers, the neurocognitive disorders, the primarily symptom-based, descriptive approach has been preserved and the well-known amyloid-related and other biomarkers are not included. This is because, even after so many years of biomarker research, the results are still not considered to be robust enough to use in clinical practice.

From DSM-IV to DSM-5 alcohol use disorder: an overview of epidemiological data

INTRODUCTION

The fifth edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5) has made several changes to criteria for alcohol use disorder (AUD). The objective of this systematic review is to assess if new DSM-5 diagnostic criteria will increase the prevalence rates of AUD in clinical and non-clinical samples as compared with DSM-IV criteria.

METHODS

We searched PubMed, Scopus, and PsycINFO (via ProQuest) electronic databases, with no language restrictions. We included studies with data available on both DSM-IV (and DSM-IV-TR) and DSM-5 AUD in samples of adults, estimating from each study an expected increase in prevalence rates with relevant 95% confidence intervals (CIs).

RESULTS

Twelve studies were included in this review. Seven studies showed an increase, two no substantial difference, and three a decrease in AUD prevalence according to DSM-5 diagnostic criteria, with differences in rates (95% CIs) varying between -12.4% (-27.4 to +5.6%) and +61.3% (+46.7 to +77.3%). Additional analyses provided confirmatory results.

CONCLUSIONS

DSM-5 diagnostic criteria seem to inflate prevalence rates of AUD as compared with DSM-IV. The increasing likelihood of a DSM-5 AUD diagnosis may be explained by the amount of DSM-IV 'diagnostic orphans' which are more prevalent than DSM-IV single-criterion alcohol abuse individuals. Further research should be aimed to study if similar trends are detectable also for other substance use disorders that experienced similar changes in DSM-5 diagnostic criteria.

The Impact of the Proposed Changes for the DSM-5 on Diagnoses of First-time DUI/DWI Offenders

Driving while impaired (DWI) is a frequently committed crime with enormous individual and social costs. The type of disposition and/or treatment appropriate for an individual offender is often determined, in part, by diagnostic criteria based on the American Psychiatric Association's Diagnostic and Statistics Manual. The DSM-5 significantly modified these criteria by eliminating legal problems as a criterion and dropping the categories of abuse and dependence. A brief substance abuse focused interview was conducted with 658 consecutive first-time DUI offenders who were arrested for driving under the influence of alcohol. Most were white, well-educated males. Contingency analyses were utilized to compare the current with the new diagnostic criteria based on algorithms for both diagnostic formulations. The major change observed when moving from DSM-IV-TR to DSM-5 criteria was that, approximately 54% of first-time DUI/DWI offenders would no longer meet diagnostic criteria based on the DSM-5. Of the nearly 17% who met dependence criteria, the majority were in the severe designation of the DSM-5.

Latent class analysis of DSM-5 criteria for opioid use disorders: results from the Iranian National Survey on Mental Health

BACKGROUND

Assessments of DSM-IV and DSM-5 criteria with sample populations of opioid users are limited. This study aimed to determine the number of latent classes in opioid users and assessment of the proposed revisions to the DSM-5 opioid use disorder (OUD) criteria.

METHODS

Data came from the 2011 Iranian National Mental Health Survey (IranMHS) on 7,886 participants aged 15-64 years living in Iran. We used the Composite International Diagnostic Interview (CIDI) version 2.1 in all respondents who indicated using opioids at least 5 times in the previous 12 months (n = 236).

RESULTS

A three-class model provided the best fit of all the models tested. Classes showed a spectrum of severity that was compatible with the DSM-5 classification. 'Legal problems' and 'desire to cut down' showed poor discrimination between classes. The weighted prevalence of OUD using DSM-5 was 20.7% higher than with DSM-IV.

CONCLUSIONS

RESULTS support the grouping based on severity of symptoms, combining abuse and dependence into a single diagnosis, omitting legal problems, and addition of craving as a new criterion.

Alcohol use disorder diagnoses in the criminal justice system: an analysis of the compatibility of current DSM-IV, proposed DSM-5.0, and DSM-5.1 diagnostic criteria in a correctional sample

This study explored the compatibility between the current Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (4th ed., text rev.; DSM-IV-TR) diagnostic criteria for alcohol abuse and dependence with the initial (DSM-5.0) and most recent (DSM-5.1) proposed diagnostic criteria. Data drawn from a structured clinical interview used in the assessment of 6,871 male and 801 female state prison inmates were analyzed according to the existing and proposed diagnostic formulations. The greatest congruence was observed in cases that received no diagnosis according to the DSM-IV-TR because these also received no diagnosis in the DSM-5.1. Most cases with a current dependence diagnosis received a severe designation according to the proposed criteria. However, those with an abuse diagnosis were divided across various DSM-5.1 severity levels. Some diagnostic criteria were nearly universally endorsed among those classified with the highest severity levels, which indicated that some criteria may serve as cardinal indicators of a severe alcohol use disorder (SAUD). Additional diagnostic criteria not yet suggested for inclusion in the DSM (i.e., preoccupation with alcohol use and alcohol use to relieve emotional distress) were also evaluated. Evidence demonstrated these two criteria served as functional indicators of alcohol use disorder (AUD). This assessment approach can be used to establish appropriate treatment objectives based on the severity of diagnosed AUDs. Meeting these treatment objectives, especially in a correctional population, may have important implications for future offending. Recommendations are made for prospective research in this area.

Prevalence of DSM-IV and DSM-5 alcohol, cocaine, opioid, and cannabis use disorders in a largely substance dependent sample

BACKGROUND

The fifth edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5) will soon replace the DSM-IV, which has existed for nearly two decades. The changes in diagnostic criteria have important implications for research and for the clinical care of individuals with Substance Use Disorders (SUDs).

METHODS

We used the Semi-Structured Assessment for Drug Dependence and Alcoholism to evaluate the lifetime presence of DSM-IV abuse and dependence diagnoses and DSM-5 mild, moderate, or severe SUDs for alcohol, cocaine, opioids, and cannabis in a sample of 7,543 individuals recruited to participate in genetic studies of substance dependence.

RESULTS

Switches between diagnostic systems consistently resulted in a modestly greater prevalence for DSM-5 SUDs, based largely on the assignment of DSM-5 diagnoses to DSM-IV "diagnostic orphans" (i.e., individuals meeting one or two criteria for dependence and none for abuse, and thus not receiving a DSM-IV SUD diagnosis). The vast majority of these diagnostic switches were attributable to the requirement that only two of 11 criteria be met for a DSM-5 SUD diagnosis. We found evidence to support the omission from DSM-5 of the legal criterion due to its limited diagnostic utility. The addition of craving as a criterion in DSM-5 did not substantially affect the likelihood of an SUD diagnosis.

CONCLUSION

The greatest advantage of DSM-5 for the diagnosis of SUDs appears to be its ability to capture diagnostic orphans. In this sample, changes reflected in DSM-5 had a minimal impact on the prevalence of SUD diagnoses.