Six-month outcome in bipolar spectrum alcoholics treated with acamprosate after detoxification: a retrospective study

Characteristics of Stress Sensitivity in Heroin Use Disorder Patients during Their Opioid Agonist Treatment

In the present study, performed on a sample of Heroin Use Disorder (HUD) patients undergoing Opioid Agonist Treatment (OAT), we attempted to explore the relationships between stress sensitivity and heroin addiction-related clinical aspects. HUD patients' stress sensitivity was evaluated with the Heroin/PTSD-Spectrum questionnaire (H/PSTD-S). The Drug Addiction History Questionnaire (DAH-Q), the Symptomatological Check List-90 (SCL-90), and The Behavioural Covariate of Heroin Craving inventory (CRAV-HERO) were all used, as were the Deltito Subjective Wellness Scale (D-SWS), a self-report scale evaluating subjective well-being; the Cocaine Problem Severity Index (CPSI), a questionnaire determining the extent of a cocaine problem; and the Marijuana Craving Questionnaire (MC-Q), an instrument assessing craving for cannabinoids. We checked correlations between stress sensitivity and the extent of HUD clinical features and compared patients with and without problematic stress sensitivity. H/PTSD-S was positively correlated with patients' income, altered mental status, legal problems, the lifetime different treatments index, the current treatment load index, and all SCL-90 indexes and factors. Regarding subjective well-being, stress sensitivity negatively correlated with the contrast best week (last five years) index. Patients with high-stress sensitivity were females with a low income. They exhibited a more severe mental status at treatment entry, greater difficulty in working adaptation, and legal problems during treatment. Additionally, these patients showed a higher level of psychopathology, more impairment in well-being, and more risky behaviours during treatment. Stress sensitivity, as H/PTSD-S, must be considered an outcome of HUD. HUD's addiction history and clinical features are significant risk factors for H/PTSD-S. Therefore, social and behavioural impairment in HUD patients could be considered the clinical expression of the H/PTSD spectrum. In summary, the long-term outcome of HUD is not represented by drug-taking behaviours. Rather, the inability to cope with the contingent environmental conditions is the key feature of such a disorder. H/PTSD-S, therefore, should be seen as a syndrome caused by an acquired inability (increased salience) concerning regular (daily) life events.

Is the relapse concept in studies of substance use disorders a 'one size fits all' concept? A systematic review of relapse operationalisations

ISSUES

Relapse is a theoretical construct and empirical object of inquiry. It is unclear how relapse is operationalised with regard to the various phases in substance use disorders (SUD). The aim was to investigate relapse operationalisations in SUDs studies after short- and long-term abstinence and remission, recovery and slip/lapse.

APPROACH

Systematic review using the following databases: Epistemonikos, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL and DARE), MEDLINE, EMBASE, Google Scholar, CINAHL, Web of Science and PsycINFO. Search returned 3426 articles, with 276 meeting the following inclusion criteria: empirical study published in English in a peer-reviewed journal; samples meet diagnostic criteria for dependence syndrome or moderate-severe drug use disorder or alcohol use disorder; reports relapse, abstinence, recovery, remission, slip or lapse. Review protocol registration: PROSPERO (CRD42020154062).

KEY FINDINGS

Thirty-two percent of the studies had no definition of 'relapse'. Most relapse operationalisations were defined according to measure (26%), time (17%), use (26%) and amount and frequency (27%). Of the 16 studies with a follow-up duration of up to 2 years, one (6%) contained a definition of 'long-term abstinence'. Of the 64 studies with a follow-up duration of more than 2 years, four (6%) contained a definition of 'long-term abstinence'. Of those, one (2%) mentioned 'early relapse' and one (2%) mentioned 'late relapse'.

IMPLICATIONS

Future research is needed to explore the possible difference between early and late relapse. Moreover, working to increase consensus on relapse operationalisations in SUD research is warranted.

CONCLUSIONS

We identified no consensus on relapse operationalisations nor agreement on the differentiation between early and late relapse. The clinical utility of current relapse operationalisations seems low and may compromise knowledge accumulation about relapse and implementation of research into treatment.

Interventions to Improve Post-Detoxification Treatment Engagement and Alcohol Recovery: Systematic Review of Intervention Types and Effectiveness

AIMS

Most inpatient alcohol detoxification patients do not seek treatment post-discharge, which increases the risk of relapse and re-hospitalization. To date, there have been no efforts to synthesize the evidence supporting the broad range of available interventions for this critical transition. The current study is a systematic review and evaluation of interventions designed to promote treatment engagement and recovery following alcohol detoxification.

METHODS

The initial literature search yielded 6419 articles, published since 1999, from PubMed, CINAHL, PsycINFO, Psychology & Behavioral Sciences Collection and PsycARTICLES databases, 49 of which were eligible for full review. Data extraction included in-depth evaluation of intervention types, study and research design features, reported outcomes and study quality/bias indicators. All articles were coded by independent raters and final results were obtained through consensus.

RESULTS

Interventions included medical/medication, psychological/psychosocial, technological, mutual-help and combined approaches. On average, medical/medication interventions were less, and psychological/psychosocial and technological interventions were more likely to demonstrate efficacy with respect to treatment engagement and recovery. There was significant variability in study quality/bias but no significant differences across intervention types. Studies differed considerably across measured outcomes, internal and external validity, in/exclusion criteria and documentation of co-occurring psychiatric disorders.

CONCLUSION

Over half of studies reviewed reported empirical support for the intervention(s) evaluated. Although findings slightly favor non-medical interventions, the variability in study design and quality/bias requires more rigorous follow-up research. Recommendations from this review may guide future implementation and intervention development, which are critically needed to improve post-detoxification care and outcomes for patients with alcohol use disorder.

Pharmacological Treatment of Bipolar Disorder with Comorbid Alcohol Use Disorder

Bipolar disorder (BD) spectrum and alcohol use disorders (AUDs) commonly occur together. Comorbidity between the two conditions predisposes patients to elevated risks of adverse outcomes, including hospitalization and suicide, compared with either condition alone. Despite the consistent relationship observed between BD and AUD, the underlying cause remains incompletely characterized. Few trials conducted have been able to identify promising interventions for patients with these disease states. The antipsychotic quetiapine has been evaluated most commonly as a therapeutic agent for patients with BD and AUD followed by naltrexone and acamprosate. Randomized controlled trials of quetiapine have consistently reported a lack of efficacy for the treatment of patients with BD and AUD. Trials of acamprosate have also been negative but small in size. Results of the sole randomized controlled trial of naltrexone have found large treatment effect sizes, but no statistically significant difference between treatment groups. Other agents including the antipsychotic aripiprazole, mood stabilizing agents including lamotrigine, lithium, and divalproex, and the antiepileptic agent topiramate have also been evaluated for the treatment of BD and AUD with mixed findings. The lone statistically significant treatment effect was observed in a randomized, placebo-controlled trial of divalproex added on to lithium which demonstrated a reduction in alcohol use. This review summarizes the available clinical evidence and current guideline recommendations for the treatment of comorbid BD and AUD, and provides discussion and recommendations based on the current literature.

Nalmefene in Alcohol Use Disorder Subjects with Psychiatric Comorbidity: A Naturalistic Study

INTRODUCTION

Nalmefene is the first drug to be approved for reducing alcohol consumption in alcohol use disorder (AUD) patients at high drinking risk. In real-world settings, there is a high prevalence of concurrent psychiatric disorders in AUD subjects, with associated increased morbidity and worse prognosis. This study evaluated the use of nalmefene in AUD patients with stabilized psychiatric comorbidity previously treated unsuccessfully for alcohol dependence, and assessed craving reduction and safety.

METHODS

Sixty-five AUD outpatients treated with as-needed 18 mg nalmefene for 24 weeks were included. Primary outcome measures were: changes in heavy drinking days (HDDs) and total alcohol consumption (TAC, g/day). Secondary outcome measures were: changes in drinking risk level and craving (obsessive-compulsive drinking scale and visual analogue scale for craving).

RESULTS

Forty-two AUD subjects (64.6%) had one or more stabilized psychiatric comorbidity. There was a significant reduction in HDDs, TAC and craving measures (p < 0.001), with no differences between subjects with and without psychiatric comorbidity. Nalmefene was safe and well tolerated in all patients.

CONCLUSION

As-needed nalmefene reduced drinking and craving in AUD subjects with and without psychiatric comorbidity. These findings suggest that nalmefene is a valid therapeutic option in real-world clinical settings, where comorbid conditions are common, and has the potential to engage AUD patients who may otherwise not have sought help.

FUNDING

Lundbeck Italia S.P.A.