Search

Abstract Aim: This detailed cross-sectional analysis, obtained from a sample of alcohol-dependent patients, attempts to compare multiple methods that have been created to classify or subtype alcoholics. Methods: The sample comprised 318 alcohol-dependent patients recruited from the alcoholism unit (NETER) of the Psychiatric Service of Santa Maria University Hospital in Lisbon (Portugal). All subjects were evaluated during the outpatient therapeutical programme for operationalized criteria, reported by each alcoholism typology. Results: Regarding concordance agreement (kappa values) for the three type 1/Il classifications, von Knorring versus Sullivan yielded the higher rate of agreement, followed by von Knomng versus Gilligan and Gilligan versus Sullivan criteria. Chi-square comparisons showed a significant overlap between Babor type A and Cloninger type I of von Knorring and Sullivan. Over-two-type classifications showed the following significant positive relations: Lesch type I versus NETER heredopathic subtype; Lesch type II versus NETER anxiopathic subtype and Babor type A; Lesch type III versus NETER tymopathic subtype; Lesch type IV versus Cloninger type H of von Knorring and Sullivan criteria; and NETER adictopathic subtype versus Cloninger type II of von Knomng, Sullivan and Gilligan criteria. Conclusions: There is a significant overlap across many of the multivariate alcoholic subtypes purposed, in which much of the concordance is a function of common characteristics in subtype operationalization. Commonalities among these different subtyping classification systems offers the possibility of identifying important dimensions that better differentiate individuals among problem drinker's populations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article represents the proceedings of a symposium presented at the 12th Congress of the International Society for Biomedical Research on Alcoholism held in Heidelberg/Mannheim, Germany, on October 1, 2004. The organizers and cochairs were Nassima Ait-Daoud, MD, and Gerhard A. Wiesbeck, MD. The presentations included the following:L (1) The Role of Nicotinic Acetylcholine Receptors in Alcohol-Seeking Behavior, by Przemyslaw Bienkowski, MD, PhD; (2) Utilization of Linkage Analysis Combined with Microarray Technology to Identify Genes and Mechanisms Underlying Nicotine and Alcohol Use and Abuse in Humans and Rodents, by Ming D. Li, PhD; (3) Smoking and Alcoholic Chronic Pancreatitis: The Underestimated Risk?, by Roland H. Pfützer, MD; (4) Anticraving Medication in Alcohol and Nicotine Dependence, by Otto M. Lesch, MD, PhD; and (5) Pharmacotherapy for Promotion of Abstinence from Nicotine Among Alcohol-Dependent Individuals, by Bankole A. Johnson, DSc, MD, PhD. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article represents the proceedings of a symposium presented at the 12th Congress of the International Society for Biomedical Research on Alcoholism held in Heidelberg/Mannheim, Germany, on September 30, 2004. The organizers and cochairs were Bankole A. Johnson, DSc, MD, PhD, and Karl Mann, MD. The presentations included the following: (1) A Perspective from Academia, by Bankole A. Johnson, DSc, MD, PhD; (2) A Perspective from NIAAA, by Mark L. Willenbring, MD; (3) A Perspective from US Clinical Practice, by Robert M. Swift, MD, PhD; (4) A European Perspective on Medications Development, by Otto M. Lesch, MD, PhD, and (5) A Scandinavian Perspective on Evidence-Based Addiction Treatment, by Mats Berglund, MD. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: About 50% of alcoholic patients relapse within 3 months of treatment. Previous studies have suggested that acamprosate may help to prevent such relapse. The aim of our study was to assess the efficacy and safety of long-term acamprosate treatment in alcohol dependence.Methods: In this multicentre, double-blind, placebo-controlled study, we recruited 455 patients, aged 18-65 years, with chronic or episodic alcohol dependence. Patients were randomly allocated treatment with acamprosate (1998 mg daily for bodyweight > 60 kg; 1332 mg daily for < or = kg) or placebo for 360 days. Patients were assessed on the day treatment started and on days 30, 90, 180, 270, and 360 by interview, self-report, questionnaire, and laboratory screening. Patients were classified as abstinent, relapsing, or non-attending. Time to first treatment failure (relapse or non-attendance) was the primary outcome measure.Findings: Seven patients were excluded from the intention-to-treat analysis because they did not attend on the first treatment day and therefore received no medication. The acamprosate (n = 224) and placebo (n = 224) groups were well matched in terms of baseline demographic and alcohol-related variables. 94 acamprosate-treated and 85 placebo-treated patients completed the treatment phase: of those withdrawn, 104 (52 in each group) relapsed, 69 (33 vs 36, respectively) were lost to follow-up, 63 (31 vs 32) refused to continue treatment, 16 (15 vs 11) had concurrent illness, three (two vs one) died, ten (six vs four) had adverse side-effects, one (acamprosate treated) received the wrong medication, and three (placebo treated) were non-compliant. The proportion without treatment failure was higher in the acamprosate than in the placebo group throughout the treatment period (p < 0.001, Mantel-Cox). At the end of treatment, 41 (18.3%) acamprosate-treated and 16 (7.1%) placebo-treated patients had been continuously abstinent (p = 0.007). Mean cumulative abstinence duration was significantly greater in the acamprosate group than in the placebo group (138.8 [SD 137.5] vs 103.8 [119.0] days; p = 0.012). 148 patients (79 acamprosate, 69 placebo) completed 27 months follow-up: 27 (11.9%) acamprosate-treated and 11 (4.9%) placebo-treated patients remained continuously abstinent, and the mean cumulative abstinence duration was 230.8 days (259.1) and 183.0 days (235.2), respectively. Apart from occasional diarrhoea, there was no difference in side-effects between groups.Interpretation: Acamprosate is an effective and well-tolerated pharmacological adjunct to psychosocial and behavioural treatment programmes for treatment of alcohol-dependent patients. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]