Search

Objective: The Alcohol Addiction Research Domain Criteria (AARDoC) is an organizational framework for assessing heterogeneity in addictive disorders organized across the addiction cycle domains of incentive salience, negative emotionality, and executive functioning and may have benefits for precision medicine. Recent work found pretreatment self-report items mapped onto the addiction cycle domains and predicted 1- and 3-year alcohol use disorder treatment outcomes. Given the potential utility of the addiction cycle domains for predicting relevant treatment outcomes, this study sought to evaluate the longitudinal measurement invariance of the domains., Method: We conducted a secondary analysis of individuals with alcohol use disorder ( n = 1,383, 30.9% female, 76.8% non-Hispanic White, 11.2% Hispanic) who participated in the COMBINE study. Eleven items assessed at pre- and posttreatment were included in exploratory structural equation modeling (ESEM) and longitudinal invariance analyses., Results: The pre- and posttreatment ESEM models had factor loadings consistent with the three addiction cycle domains and fit the data well. The ESEM factor structure was invariant from pre- to posttreatment (representing configural invariance) and metric invariance (factor loadings) was largely supported, but analyses failed to support scalar invariance (item-level thresholds) of the addiction cycle domains., Conclusions: A three-factor structure representing addiction cycle domains can be modeled using brief self-report measures pre- and posttreatment. Individuals demonstrated a downward shift in the level of item endorsement, indicating improvement with treatment. Although this 11-item measure might be useful at baseline for informing treatment decisions, results indicate the need to exercise caution in comparing the addiction cycle domains pre- to posttreatment within persons. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).

Background: Diagnosis of alcohol use disorder (AUD) in primary care is critical for increasing access to alcohol treatment. However, AUD is underdiagnosed and may be inequitably diagnosed due to societal structures that determine access to resources (e.g., structural racism that limits opportunities for some groups and influences interpersonal interactions in and beyond health care). This study described patterns of provider-documented AUD in primary care across intersections of race, ethnicity, sex, and community-level socioeconomic status (SES)., Methods: This cross-sectional study used EHR data from a regional healthcare system with 35 primary care clinics that included adult patients who completed alcohol screenings between 3/1/2015 and 9/30/2020. The prevalence of provider-documented AUD in primary care based on International Classification of Diseases-9 (ICD-9) and ICD-10 diagnoses was compared across intersections of race, ethnicity, sex, and community-level SES., Results: Among 439,375 patients, 6.6% were Latine, 11.0% Asian, 5.4% Black, 1.3% Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander (NH/PI), 1.5% American Indian/Alaska Native (AI/AN), and 74.2% White, and 58.3% women. The overall prevalence of provider-documented AUD was 1.0% and varied across intersecting identities. Among women, the prevalence was highest for AI/AN women with middle SES, 1.5% (95% CI 1.0-2.3), and lowest for Asian women with middle SES, 0.1% (95% CI 0.1-0.2). Among men, the prevalence was highest for AI/AN men with high and middle SES, 2.0% (95% CI 1.1-3.4) and 2.0% (95% CI 1.2-3.2), respectively, and lowest for Asian men with high SES, 0.5% (95% CI 0.3-0.7). Black and Latine patients tended to have a lower prevalence of AUD than White patients, across all intersections of sex and SES except for Black women with high SES. There were no consistent patterns of the prevalence of AUD diagnosis that emerged across SES., Conclusion: The prevalence of provider-documented AUD in primary care was highest in AI/AN men and women and lowest in Asian men and women. Findings of lower prevalence of provider-documented AUD in Black and Hispanic than White patients across most intersections of sex and SES differed from prior studies. Findings may suggest that differences in access to resources, which vary in effects across these identity characteristics and lived experiences, influence the diagnosis of AUD in clinical care., (© 2024. The Author(s).)

Background: The National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism (NIAAA) recommends the paper-based or computerized Alcohol Symptom Checklist to assess alcohol use disorder (AUD) symptoms in routine care when patients report high-risk drinking. However, it is unknown whether Alcohol Symptom Checklist response characteristics differ when it is administered online (eg, remotely via an online electronic health record [EHR] patient portal before an appointment) versus in clinic (eg, on paper after appointment check-in)., Objective: This study evaluated the psychometric performance of the Alcohol Symptom Checklist when completed online versus in clinic during routine clinical care., Methods: This cross-sectional, psychometric study obtained EHR data from the Alcohol Symptom Checklist completed by adult patients from an integrated health system in Washington state. The sample included patients who had a primary care visit in 2021 at 1 of 32 primary care practices, were due for annual behavioral health screening, and reported high-risk drinking on the behavioral health screen (Alcohol Use Disorder Identification Test-Consumption score ≥7). After screening, patients with high-risk drinking were typically asked to complete the Alcohol Symptom Checklist-an 11-item questionnaire on which patients self-report whether they had experienced each of the 11 AUD criteria listed in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition (DSM-5) over a past-year timeframe. Patients could complete the Alcohol Symptom Checklist online (eg, on a computer, smartphone, or tablet from any location) or in clinic (eg, on paper as part of the rooming process at clinical appointments). We examined sample and measurement characteristics and conducted differential item functioning analyses using item response theory to examine measurement consistency across these 2 assessment modalities., Results: Among 3243 patients meeting eligibility criteria for this secondary analysis (2313/3243, 71% male; 2271/3243, 70% White; and 2014/3243, 62% non-Hispanic), 1640 (51%) completed the Alcohol Symptom Checklist online while 1603 (49%) completed it in clinic. Approximately 46% (752/1640) and 48% (764/1603) reported ≥2 AUD criteria (the threshold for AUD diagnosis) online and in clinic (P=.37), respectively. A small degree of differential item functioning was observed for 4 of 11 items. This differential item functioning produced only minimal impact on total scores used clinically to assess AUD severity, affecting total criteria count by a maximum of 0.13 criteria (on a scale ranging from 0 to 11)., Conclusions: Completing the Alcohol Symptom Checklist online, typically prior to patient check-in, performed similarly to an in-clinic modality typically administered on paper by a medical assistant at the time of the appointment. Findings have implications for using online AUD symptom assessments to streamline workflows, reduce staff burden, reduce stigma, and potentially assess patients who do not receive in-person care. Whether modality of DSM-5 assessment of AUD differentially impacts treatment is unknown., (©Theresa E Matson, Amy K Lee, Malia Oliver, Katharine A Bradley, Kevin A Hallgren. Originally published in the Journal of Medical Internet Research (https://www.jmir.org), 22.07.2024.)

Objectives: This study aimed to evaluate the validity of World Health Organization (WHO) risk drinking level reductions as meaningful endpoints for clinical practice and research. This study examined whether such reductions were associated with a lower likelihood of a current alcohol use disorder (AUD) diagnosis and fewer AUD criteria., Methods: We conducted a secondary data analysis to address these objectives using data from a multisite randomized controlled trial of gabapentin enacarbil extended release in treating moderate to severe AUD among adults (N = 346). Participants received gabapentin enacarbil extended release or placebo for 6 months. The timeline follow-back was used to assess WHO risk drinking level reductions, and the Mini-International Neuropsychiatric Interview was used to assess Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (Fifth Edition) AUD diagnosis and criteria at baseline (past year) and end of treatment (past month)., Results: Most participants (80.1%) achieved at least a 1-level reduction in the WHO risk drinking levels from baseline to end of treatment, and nearly half of participants (49.8%) achieved at least a 2-level reduction. At least a 1-level reduction or at least a 2-level reduction in WHO risk drinking level predicted lower odds of an active AUD diagnosis (1-level: odds ratio, 0.74 [95% confidence interval (CI), 0.66-0.84]; 2-level: odds ratio, 0.71 [95% CI, 0.64-0.79]) and fewer AUD criteria (1-level: B , -1.66 [95% CI, -2.35 to -0.98]; 2-level: B , -1.76 [95% CI, -2.31 to -1.21]) at end of treatment., Conclusions: World Health Organization risk drinking level reductions correlate with Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (Fifth Edition) AUD diagnosis and criteria, providing further evidence for their use as endpoints in alcohol intervention trials, which has potential implications for broadening the base of AUD treatment., (Copyright © 2024 American Society of Addiction Medicine.)

Aims: Among individuals with alcohol use disorder (AUD), sleep disturbances are pervasive and contribute to the etiology and maintenance of AUD. However, despite increased attention toward the relationship between alcohol use and sleep, limited empirical research has systematically examined whether reductions in drinking during treatment for AUD are associated with improvements in sleep problems., Methods: We used data from a multisite, randomized, controlled trial that compared 6 months of treatment with gabapentin enacarbil extended-release with placebo for adults with moderate-to-severe AUD (N = 346). The Timeline Follow-back was used to assess WHO risk drinking level reductions and the Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index was used to assess sleep quality over the prior month at baseline and the end of treatment., Results: Sleep problem scores in the active medication and placebo groups improved equally. Fewer sleep problems were noted among individuals who achieved at least a 1-level reduction (B = -0.99, 95% confidence interval (CI) [-1.77, -0.20], P = .014) or at least a 2-level reduction (B = -0.80, 95% CI [-1.47, -0.14], P = .018) in WHO risk drinking levels at the end of treatment. Reductions in drinking, with abstainers excluded from the analysis, also predicted fewer sleep problems at the end of treatment (1-level: B = -1.01, 95% CI [-1.83, -0.20], P = .015; 2-level: B = -0.90, 95% CI [-1.59, -0.22], P = .010)., Conclusions: Drinking reductions, including those short of abstinence, are associated with improvements in sleep problems during treatment for AUD. Additional assessment of the causal relationships between harm-reduction approaches to AUD and improvements in sleep is warranted., (© The Author(s) 2024. Medical Council on Alcohol and Oxford University Press. All rights reserved. For permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

Objective: The addiction cycle has been proposed as a framework for understanding the progression of alcohol use disorder (AUD) in terms of psychological and biological domains, including reward drinking/incentive salience, relief drinking/negative emotionality, and loss of control/executive functioning impairment. To have utility in clinical practice, self-report measures of these domains that are applicable across sociodemographic groups and associated with clinical outcomes are needed. This study sought to validate domains from self-report measures and to test whether domains are measurement invariant across sociodemographic groups and associated with treatment outcomes., Method: Secondary analysis of individuals with AUD ( n = 3,092) who participated in two alcohol clinical trials, Project Matching Alcohol Treatment to Client Heterogeneity (MATCH) and COMBINE. Factor analytic methods were used to derive addiction cycle domains at baseline. These domains were then examined as predictors of outcomes., Results: Fifteen self-report items were used as indicators of the addiction cycle domains, with sociodemographic differences in measurement by sex, age, race, education, and AUD symptoms. Relief/negative emotionality and reward/incentive salience were significantly associated with outcomes at 1 and 3 years following treatment, and executive functioning also predicted nonabstinent recovery at 3 years., Conclusions: The results support the utility of domains relevant to the addiction cycle in predicting AUD treatment outcomes and recovery among individuals who sought treatment for AUD. The addiction cycle domains were more strongly associated with outcomes than other measures clinicians might use to predict outcomes (e.g., AUD symptoms). Future research should continue to develop and refine the items and test whether the addiction cycle domains can inform treatment planning. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2023 APA, all rights reserved).

Objectives: Among people with opioid use disorder (OUD), having a co-occurring substance use disorder (SUD) is associated with lower likelihood of receiving OUD treatment medications (MOUD). However, it is unclear how distinct co-occurring SUDs are associated with MOUD receipt. This study examined associations of distinct co-occurring SUDs with initiation and continuation of MOUD among patients with OUD in the national Veterans Health Administration (VA)., Methods: Electronic health record data were extracted for outpatients with OUD who received care August 1, 2016, to July 31, 2017. Analyses were conducted separately among patients without and with prior-year MOUD receipt to examine initiation and continuation, respectively. SUDs were measured using diagnostic codes; MOUD receipt was measured using prescription fills/clinic visits. Adjusted regression models estimated likelihood of following-year MOUD receipt for patients with each co-occurring SUD relative to those without., Results: Among 23,990 patients without prior-year MOUD receipt, 12% initiated in the following year. Alcohol use disorder (adjusted incidence rate ratio [aIRR], 0.80; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.72-0.90) and cannabis use disorder (aIRR, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.70-0.87) were negatively associated with initiation. Among 11,854 patients with prior-year MOUD receipt, 83% continued in the following year. Alcohol use disorder (aIRR, 0.94; 95% CI, 0.91-0.97), amphetamine/other stimulant use disorder (aIRR, 0.94; 95% CI, 0.90-0.99), and cannabis use disorder (aIRR, 0.95; 95% CI, 0.93-0.98) were negatively associated with continuation., Conclusions: In this study of national VA outpatients with OUD, those with certain co-occurring SUDs were less likely to initiate or continue MOUD. Further research is needed to identify barriers related to specific co-occurring SUDs., Competing Interests: The authors report no conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2022 American Society of Addiction Medicine.)

Background: Screening for unhealthy alcohol use in primary care may help identify patients at risk for negative health outcomes., Aims: This study examined the associations between 1) screening with the AUDIT-C (alcohol consumption) and 2) an Alcohol Symptom Checklist (symptoms of alcohol use disorder) and subsequent-year hospitalizations., Methods: This retrospective cohort study was conducted in 29 primary care clinics in Washington State. Patients were screened in routine care (10/1/2016-2/1/2019) with the AUDIT-C (0-12) and administered the Alcohol Symptom Checklist (0-11) if they had AUDIT-C score ≥ 7. All-cause hospitalizations were measured within 1 year of the AUDIT-C and Alcohol Symptom Checklist. AUDIT-C and Alcohol Symptom Checklist scores were categorized based on previously used cut-points., Findings: Of 305,376 patients with AUDIT-Cs, 5.3% of patients were hospitalized in the following year. AUDIT-C scores had a J-shaped relationship with hospitalizations, with risk for all-cause hospitalizations higher for patients with the AUDIT-C scores 9-12 (12.1%; 95% CI: 10.6-13.7%, relative to a comparison group of those with AUDIT-C scores 1-2 (female)/1-3 (male) (3.7%; 95% CI: 3.6-3.8%), adjusted for socio-demographics. Patients with AUDIT-C ≥ 7 and Alcohol Symptom Checklist scores reflecting severe AUD were at increased risk of hospitalization (14.6%, 95% CI: 11.9-17.9%) relative to those with lower scores., Conclusions: Higher AUDIT-C scores were associated with higher incidence of hospitalizations except among people with low-level drinking. Among patients with AUDIT-C ≥ 7, the Alcohol Symptom Checklist identified patients at increased risk of hospitalization. This study helps demonstrate the potential clinical utility of the AUDIT-C and Alcohol Symptom Checklist., Competing Interests: Conflict of interest Nothing declared., (Copyright © 2023 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Background: Alcohol use disorder (AUD) treatments, including medications, are increasingly offered via telehealth. Objective: This study characterizes 90-day treatment retention and changes in objectively measured blood alcohol concentration (BAC) in a large cohort receiving AUD telehealth. Methods: Patients received AUD treatment through Ria, a virtual (telehealth) program offering AUD treatment that is tailored to patient goals (e.g. abstinence or controlled drinking). Patients were encouraged to complete breathalyzer readings twice daily for measurement-based care. We characterized rates of 90-day treatment retention (i.e. completing a BAC reading or medical/coaching encounter on the 90 th day or later) and used growth curve analyses to model changes in daily estimated peak BAC over 90 days. Results: Of 4121 patients (51.5% women), 50.1% had 90-day treatment retention ( n = 2066, 52.2% women). Most patients received prescriptions for AUD medications (84.6%) and completed encounters with medical providers (86.7%) and coaches (86.1%). Patients with 90-day retention provided 184,817 BAC readings in the first 90 days. Growth curve analyses revealed significant reductions in daily estimated peak BAC ( p < .001) from a mean of 0.092 (day 1) to 0.038 (day 90). Similar magnitudes of BAC reduction were observed for men and women and for patients with abstinence and controlled drinking goals. Conclusion: Telehealth appears to be a viable approach to delivering AUD treatments in a manner that promotes drinking reductions. Telehealth approaches can yield reductions in objectively measured BAC, including for some patient subgroups that have historically faced greater stigma in AUD treatment settings, such as women and people with non-abstinence drinking goals.

Background: Although alcohol use disorder can complicate depression management, there is no standard process for assessing AUD symptoms (i.e., AUD diagnostic criteria) in primary care for patients who screen positive for depression. This study characterizes the association between depressive symptoms and high-risk drinking reported by primary care patients on screening measures in routine care. Then, using data from a novel clinical program, this study characterizes the association between depressive symptoms and AUD symptoms reported by primary care patients with high-risk drinking via an Alcohol Symptom Checklist., Methods: In this cross-sectional study, electronic health record data were obtained from patients who visited 33 Kaiser Permanente Washington primary care clinics between 03/2018 and 02/2020 and completed depression (PHQ-2) and alcohol consumption (AUDIT-C) screening measures as part of routine care (N = 369,943). Patients who reported high-risk drinking (AUDIT-C scores 7-12) also completed an Alcohol Symptom Checklist where they reported the presence or absence of 11 AUD criteria as defined by the DSM-5 (N = 8,184). Generalized linear models estimated and compared the prevalence of high-risk drinking (AUDIT-C scores 7-12) and probable AUD (2-11 AUD symptoms on Alcohol Symptom Checklists) for patients with and without positive depression screens., Results: Patients who screened positive for depression had a 131% higher prevalence of high-risk drinking than those who screened negative (5.2% vs. 2.2%; p < 0.001). Among patients with high-risk drinking, positive depression screens were associated with a significantly higher prevalence of probable AUD (69.8% vs. 48.0%; p < 0.001), with large differences in the prevalence of probable AUD observed with increasing PHQ-2 scores (e.g., probable AUD prevalence of 37.6%, 55.3% and 65.2%, for PHQ-2 scores of 0, 1, and 2, respectively). Although the overall prevalence of high-risk drinking was higher for male patients, similar patterns of association between depression screens, high-risk drinking, and AUD symptoms were observed for male and female patients., Conclusions: Patients with positive depression screens are more likely to have high-risk drinking. Large percentages of patients with positive depression screens and high-risk drinking report symptoms consistent with AUD to healthcare providers when given the opportunity to do so using an Alcohol Symptom Checklist., (© 2022. The Author(s).)

Background: Alcohol use disorder (AUD) is underdiagnosed and undertreated in medical settings, in part due to a lack of AUD assessment instruments that are reliable and practical for use in routine care. This study evaluates the test-retest reliability of a patient-report Alcohol Symptom Checklist questionnaire when it is used in routine care, including primary care and mental health specialty settings., Methods: We performed a pragmatic test-retest reliability study using electronic health record (EHR) data from Kaiser Permanente Washington, an integrated health system in Washington state. The sample included 454 patients who reported high-risk drinking on a behavioral health screen and completed two Alcohol Symptom Checklists 1 to 21 days apart. Subgroups of these patients who completed both checklists in primary care (n = 271) or mental health settings (n = 79) were also examined. The primary measure was an Alcohol Symptom Checklist on which patients self-reported whether they experienced each of the 11 AUD criteria within the past year, as defined by the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders-5 th edition (DSM-5)., Results: Alcohol Symptom Checklists completed in routine care and documented in EHRs had excellent test-retest reliability for measuring AUD criterion counts (ICC = 0.79, 95% CI: 0.76 to 0.82). Test-retest reliability estimates were also high and not significantly different for the subsamples of patients who completed both checklists in primary care (ICC = 0.82, 95% CI: 0.77 to 0.85) or mental health settings (ICC = 0.74, 95% CI: 0.62 to 0.83). Test-retest reliability was not moderated by having a past two-year AUD diagnosis, nor by the age or sex of the patient completing it., Conclusions: Alcohol Symptom Checklists can reliably and pragmatically assess AUD criteria in routine care among patients who screen positive for high-risk drinking. The Alcohol Symptom Checklist may be a valuable tool in supporting AUD-related care and monitoring AUD criteria longitudinally in routine primary care and mental health settings., (© 2022 by the Research Society on Alcoholism.)

Background: Self-report measures of alcohol problems are commonly included in studies evaluating treatment and recovery from alcohol use disorder (AUD), but no prior study has examined the replicability of the measurement of alcohol problems across studies with various measures and diverse samples. Further, it is unclear which items may be better indicators of alcohol problems for patient subgroups. In the present study, we integrated data from four large alcohol treatment studies to develop a commensurate measure of alcohol problems using moderated nonlinear factor analysis (MNLFA)., Methods: Data were from the COMBINE study, Project MATCH, the Relapse Replication and Extension Project (RREP), and the United Kingdom Alcohol Treatment Trial (UKATT), yielding a total sample size of 4414. MNLFA was carried out on the Drinker Inventory of Consequences (COMBINE, MATCH, RREP) and Alcohol Problems Questionnaire (UKATT)., Results: We successfully created a 78-item commensurate measure of alcohol problems and examined differential item functioning (DIF) by study membership, time, and socio-demographic characteristics. Sixty-two items demonstrated intercept DIF, suggesting differences in rates of item endorsement for clients with the same underlying levels of alcohol problems across patient subgroups. Six items demonstrated loading DIF, suggesting differences in the extent to which the items were indicative of alcohol problems across patient subgroups., Conclusions: The self-reported measurement of alcohol problems replicates across measures and diverse samples. Items with DIF have clinical implications for the treatment of AUD. Finally, MNLFA scores can be used to test substantive research questions across these studies., (Copyright © 2021 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Objectives: The purpose of this study was to examine associations between psychotherapy session attendance, alcohol treatment outcomes, and Alcoholics Anonymous (AA) attendance., Method: Using data from Project MATCH, repeated measures latent class analyses of psychotherapy session attendance were conducted among participants in the outpatient arm who were randomly assigned to complete 12-session cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT; n = 301), 12-session twelve-step facilitation (TSF; n = 335), or 4-session motivational enhancement therapy (MET; n = 316). Associations between psychotherapy attendance classes, heavy drinking, alcohol-related consequences, psychosocial functioning, and AA attendance were examined at posttreatment (97% retention), 1-year posttreatment (92% retention), and 3-years posttreatment (85% retention)., Results: In general, participants who attended all 12 CBT/TSF sessions had significantly fewer heavy drinking days and alcohol-related consequences at all posttreatment time points than participants who attended 0-2 CBT/TSF sessions. Participants who attended all four MET sessions generally had significantly fewer heavy drinking days and alcohol-related consequences at posttreatment and 1-year posttreatment than participants who attended 0-1 MET sessions. Participants who attended more TSF and MET sessions generally attended more AA meetings, and participants who attended less CBT sessions generally attended fewer AA meetings., Conclusions: With some exceptions, attending all sessions in CBT, TSF, and MET was related to the most favorable heavy drinking and alcohol-related consequences outcomes. Alcoholics' Anonymous and other mutual help groups may be attended differently based on the form and dose of psychotherapy (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2022 APA, all rights reserved).

Objectives: The purpose of this study was to examine whether changes in heavy drinking occurring within alcohol treatment predict long-term functioning., Method: Latent profile analyses were conducted using data from Project MATCH and COMBINE. Observed changes in heavy and nonheavy drinking within consecutive 2-week periods over the respective treatment durations were characterized for each participant and were used to identify latent profiles., Results: Both data sets revealed 6 profiles: (1) continuous "remission" (nonheavy drinking); (2) transition from heavy drinking ("relapse") to remission; (3) mostly remission, limited relapse; (4) numerous short transitions between relapse and remission; (5) transition to relapse; and (6) continuous relapse. Profiles 1 and 2 had the best long-term outcomes, Profiles 5 and 6 had the worst, and Profiles 3 and 4 fell between these groups. Within-treatment patterns of heavy drinking and nonheavy drinking were also associated with post-treatment patterns of relapse and remission., Conclusions: Patterns of transition between episodes that respectively include heavy and nonheavy drinking predict long-term alcohol use and psychosocial outcomes and seem essential for clinicians to discuss with their patients. Relapses during outpatient treatment do not necessarily indicate treatment failure, provided they are relatively brief and/or infrequent. In addition, some individuals can and do change from transition patterns of heavy drinking within treatment that are predictive of poorer long-term functioning to transition patterns that predict better functioning within the first year post-treatment., (Copyright © 2021. Published by Elsevier B.V.)

Objective: Four decades ago, the "controlled drinking" controversy roiled the alcohol field. Data have subsequently accumulated indicating that nonabstinent alcohol use disorder (AUD) recovery is achievable, but questions remain whether it is sustainable long-term. This study examined whether nonabstinent recovery at 3 years after AUD treatment is associated with better functioning at 10 years after treatment., Methods: Data were from the 10-year follow-up of Project MATCH (New Mexico site only, n  = 146; 30.1% female, 58.6% non-White). Recovery was defined by latent profile analyses based on psychosocial functioning and alcohol consumption 3 years after treatment. Drinking practices and consequences, depression, purpose in life, and anger were assessed 10 years after treatment. Distal outcome analyses examined differences in drinking and functional outcomes at 10 years as a function of the 3-year latent profiles. Analyses were preregistered at https://osf.io/3hbxr., Results: Four latent profiles identified at 3 years after treatment (ie, low functioning frequent heavy drinkers, low functioning infrequent heavy drinkers, high functioning heavy drinkers, and high functioning infrequent nonheavy drinkers) were significantly associated with outcomes 10 years after treatment. The 2 high functioning profiles at 3 years had the highest level of psychological functioning at 10 years posttreatment, regardless of alcohol consumption level. Abstinence at 3 years did not predict better psychological functioning at 10 years., Conclusions: Nonabstinent AUD recovery is possible and is sustainable for up to 10 years after treatment. The current findings align with recent proposals to move beyond relying on alcohol consumption as a central defining feature of AUD recovery., Competing Interests: The authors have no conflicts of interests to disclose., (Copyright © 2020 American Society of Addiction Medicine.)

Objective: Clients who receive alcohol use disorder (AUD) treatment experience variable outcomes. Measuring clinical progress during treatment using standardized measures (i.e., measurement-based care) can help indicate whether clinical improvements are occurring. Measures of mechanisms of behavioral change (MOBCs) may be particularly well-suited for measurement-based care; however, measuring MOBCs would be more feasible and informative if measures were briefer and if their ability to detect reliable change with individual clients was better articulated., Method: Three abbreviated measures of hypothesized MOBCs (abstinence self-efficacy, coping strategies, anxiety) and a fourth full-length measure (depression) were administered weekly during a 12-week randomized trial of cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT) for women with AUD. Psychometric analyses estimated how reliably each measure distinguished within-person change from between-person differences and measurement error. Reliability coefficients were estimated for simulated briefer versions of each instrument (i.e., instruments with fewer items than the already-abbreviated instruments) and rates of reliable improvement and reliable worsening were estimated for each measure., Results: All four measures had good reliability (.86-.90) for detecting within-person change. Many participants (41.4%-62.5%) reliably improved on MOBCs from first to last treatment session. Reliable improvement on MOBCs was associated with reductions in percentage of drinking days (PDD) at 3, 9, and 15-month follow-ups. Simulated briefer versions of each instrument retained good reliability for detecting change with only 3 (self-efficacy), 11 (coping strategies), 5 (anxiety), or 10 items (depression)., Conclusions: Brief MOBC measures can detect reliable change for individuals in AUD treatment. Routinely measuring MOBCs may help with monitoring clinical progress. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2021 APA, all rights reserved).

Background: The World Health Organization (WHO) categorizes alcohol consumption according to grams consumed into low-, medium-, high-, and very-high-risk drinking levels (RDLs). Although abstinence has been considered the ideal outcome of alcohol treatment, reductions in WHO RDLs have been proposed as primary outcomes for alcohol use disorder (AUD) trials., Objective: The current study examines the stability of WHO RDL reductions and the association between RDL reductions and long-term functioning for up to 3 years following treatment., Design and Participants: Secondary data analysis of patients with AUD enrolled in the COMBINE Study and Project MATCH, two multi-site, randomized AUD clinical trials, who were followed for up to 3 years post-treatment (COMBINE: n = 694; MATCH: n = 806)., Measures: Alcohol use was measured via calendar-based methods. We estimated all models in the total sample and among participants who did not achieve abstinence during treatment., Key Results: One-level RDL reductions were achieved by 84% of patients at the end of treatment, with 84.9% of those individuals maintaining that reduction at a 3-year follow-up. Two-level RDL reductions were achieved by 68% of patients at the end of treatment, with 77.7% of those individuals maintaining that reduction at a 3-year follow-up. One- and two-level RDL reductions at the end of treatment were associated with significantly better mental health, quality of life (including physical quality of life), and fewer drinking consequences 3 years after treatment (p < 0.05), as compared to no change or increased drinking., Conclusion: AUD patients can maintain WHO RDL reductions for up to 3 years after treatment. Patients who had WHO RDL reductions functioned significantly better than those who did not reduce their drinking. These findings are consistent with prior reports suggesting that drinking reductions, short of abstinence, yield meaningful improvements in patient health, well-being, and functioning.

Objectives: Studying clinical course after alcohol use disorder (AUD) treatment is central to understanding longer-term recovery. This study's two main objectives were to (a) replicate a recent study that identified heterogeneity in patterns of remission from/relapse to heavy drinking during the first year after outpatient treatment in an independent data set and (b) extend these recent findings by testing associations between patterns of remission/relapse and long-term alcohol-related and functioning outcomes., Method: Latent profile analyses were conducted using data from Project MATCH (N = 952; M age = 38.9; 72.3% female) and COMBINE (N = 1,383; M age = 44.4; 69.1% male). Transitions between heavy and nonheavy drinking within consecutive 2-week periods over a 1-year posttreatment period were characterized for each participant. From this, latent profiles were identified based on participants' initial 2-week heavy drinking status, the number of observed transitions between 2-week periods of relapse and remission, and the average duration of observed remission/relapse episodes., Results: In both MATCH and COMBINE, we identified six profiles: (a) "continuous remission," 25.3% of COMBINE sample/25.3% of MATCH sample; (b) "transition to remission," 19.6%/9.6%; (c) "few long transitions," 15.9%/33.7%; (d) "many short transitions," 13.2%/13.6%; (e) "transition to relapse," 7.2%/7.1%; and (f) "continuous relapse," 18.8%/10.5%. Profiles 1 and 2 had the best long-term outcomes, Profiles 5 and 6 had the worst, and Profiles 3 and 4 fell between these groups., Conclusions: That many individuals can remit from heavy drinking following one or more relapses to heavy drinking may be of direct interest to individuals in recovery from AUD. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2020 APA, all rights reserved).

Background: Recent research indicates some individuals who engage in heavy drinking following treatment for alcohol use disorder fare as well as those who abstain with respect to psychosocial functioning, employment, life satisfaction, and mental health. The current study evaluated whether these findings replicated in an independent sample and examined associations between recovery profiles and functioning up to 6 years later., Methods: Data were from the 3-year and 7- to 9-year follow-ups of subsamples initially recruited for the COMBINE study (3-year follow-up: n = 694; 30.1% female, 21.0% non-White; 7- to 9-year follow-up: n = 127; 38.9% female, 27.8% non-White). Recovery at 3 years was defined by latent profile analyses including measures of health functioning, quality of life, employment, alcohol consumption, and cannabis and other drug use. Functioning at the 7- to 9-year follow-up was assessed using single items of self-rated general health, hospitalizations, and alcohol consumption., Results: We identified 4 profiles at the 3-year follow-up: (i) low-functioning frequent heavy drinkers (13.9%), (ii) low-functioning infrequent heavy drinkers (15.8%), (iii) high-functioning heavy drinkers (19.4%), and (iv) high-functioning infrequent drinkers (50.9%). At the 7- to 9-year follow-up, the 2 high-functioning profiles had the best self-rated health, and the high-functioning heavy drinking profile had significantly fewer hospitalizations than the low-functioning frequent heavy drinking profile., Conclusions: Previous findings showing heterogeneity in recovery outcomes were replicated. Most treatment recipients functioned well for years after treatment, and a subset who achieved stable recovery engaged in heavy drinking and reported good health outcomes up to 9 years after treatment. Results question the long-standing emphasis on drinking practices as a primary outcome, as well as abstinence as a recovery criterion in epidemiologic and treatment outcome research and among stakeholder groups and funding/regulatory agencies. Findings support an expanded recovery research agenda that considers drinking patterns, health, life satisfaction, and functioning., (© 2020 The Authors. Alcoholism: Clinical & Experimental Research published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of Research Society on Alcoholism.)

Objective: In a randomized trial for women with alcohol use disorders (AUD), the efficacy of Female-Specific Cognitive Behavioral Therapy (FS-CBT) was compared with Gender-Neutral CBT (GN-CBT; Epstein et al., 2018). The current study examined whether putative mechanisms of change differed between treatment conditions, using a novel statistical approach. Both treatments were hypothesized to work by increasing use of alcohol-related coping skills (coping) and confidence to abstain from drinking (confidence), but FS-CBT additionally targeted female-salient mechanisms: anxiety, depression, sociotropy (i.e., overinvestment in others' opinion of oneself), autonomy, and social networks supportive of abstinence., Method: Ninety-nine women with AUD (55 in GN-CBT, 44 in FS-CBT) completed self-report assessments at baseline and 0, 6, and 12 months posttreatment. Multilevel vector autoregression estimation was used to analyze associations between putative mechanisms of change, and network models of those associations were generated using network analysis., Results: Across conditions, higher confidence and coping were directly associated with less drinking; autonomy was directly and indirectly associated with drinking. Additionally, network analysis indicated that although variation in depression was associated with change in other variables specifically for GN-CBT, sociotropy was associated with change specifically in FS-CBT., Conclusions: Women receiving CBT-AUD changed their drinking through increased confidence to abstain and greater use of coping skills. Autonomy played a central role in behavior change across treatment conditions. Participants receiving treatment tailored to women also changed through decreases in sociotropy and increases in social support for abstinence. For women who received standard CBT, changes in depression were important to clinical improvement. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2020 APA, all rights reserved).

Abstinence self-efficacy, coping skills, and therapeutic alliance are hypothesized mechanisms of behavioral change (MOBCs) in cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT) for alcohol use disorder (AUD). However, little is known about when these hypothesized MOBCs change during treatment or in relation to the initiation of abstinence from alcohol, which the current study investigated. Patient-reported abstinence self-efficacy, drinking-related coping skills, and therapeutic alliance were measured at every session throughout a 12-session clinical trial that previously showed equivalent drinking reductions in female-specific individual- and group-based CBT for AUD. Participants (N = 121 women) were classified into subgroups based on whether and when they first initiated 14 days of continuous abstinence from alcohol during treatment. Interrupted time-series analyses evaluated the magnitude and timing of change in MOBC variables in relation to the initiation of abstinence. All three MOBC measures showed gradual improvements throughout treatment (within-subjects d = 0.03 to 0.09 change per week). Participants who initiated abstinence during treatment experienced additional sudden improvements in abstinence self-efficacy (d = 0.47) and coping skills (d = 0.27), but not therapeutic alliance (d = -0.02), the same week they initiated abstinence. Participants who were already abstinent when treatment started maintained higher abstinence self-efficacy and coping skills, but not therapeutic alliance, throughout treatment compared to participants who never initiated abstinence. Initiating abstinence may help facilitate improvements in abstinence self-efficacy and drinking-related coping skills. Clinicians may help patients anticipate when and how much these variables are expected to improve during treatment and encourage initiation of abstinence to potentially help facilitate improvements in abstinence self-efficacy and coping skills., (Copyright © 2019. Published by Elsevier Ltd.)

Objective: Alcohol Behavioral Couple Therapy (ABCT) is an efficacious alcohol treatment. The purpose of the study was to describe patient and partner language and therapist behavior during therapy sessions and test a proposed causal model linking active ingredients of ABCT as measured by therapist behaviors, hypothesized mechanisms of behavior change as measured by in-session patient and partner language, and alcohol use outcomes., Method: Data came from couples in four ABCT clinical trials (N = 188; 86 males, 102 females, and their partners). Patient and partner verbal behaviors in session one and a mid-treatment session were coded using the System for Coding Couples' Interactions in Therapy-Alcohol. Therapist behavior was coded using the Couples Treatment Integrity Rating System. Percent days abstinent was calculated from daily drinking data for the first and second half of treatment and six months post-treatment., Results: Therapists delivered an adequate level of the ABCT interventions during treatment. During treatment, couples increased positive behaviors, talked less about drinking, and decreased their amount of motivational language. Therapist behaviors did not predict patient or partner behaviors during treatment or drinking outcomes. Partner advice in the first session predicted poorer drinking outcomes. At mid-treatment, patient behaviors as a block, and specific behaviors of contemptuousness toward their partner and sustain talk, predicted poorer drinking outcomes., Conclusions: During ABCT, patients decrease their drinking, and patient and partner behaviors change in predicted ways. Partner advice, patient contemptuousness, and patient sustain talk predicted poorer outcomes. Analyses of within-session verbal behavior did not support the hypothesized mechanisms for change for ABCT., (Copyright © 2019 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background and Aims: Recovery from alcohol use disorder (AUD) is often narrowly defined by abstinence from alcohol and improvements in functioning (e.g. mental health, social functioning, employment). This study used latent profile analysis to examine variability in recovery outcomes, defined by alcohol use, alcohol-related problems and psychosocial functioning at 3 years following treatment. Secondary analysis investigated pre-treatment, post-treatment and 1- and 3-year post-treatment covariate predictors of the latent profiles., Design: Secondary analysis of data from a randomized clinical trial., Setting: United States., Participants: We used data from the out-patient arm of Project MATCH (n = 806; 29.7% female, 22.2% non-white)., Measurements: Recovery was defined by latent profile analyses including measures of psychosocial functioning and life satisfaction (Psychosocial Functioning Inventory), unemployment and mental health (Addiction Severity Index), alcohol and other drug use (Form 90) and alcohol-related consequences (Drinker Inventory of Consequences) 3 years following treatment. Mixture modeling was used to examine correlates of profiles., Findings: We identified four profiles at 3 years following treatment: (1) poor functioning frequent heavy drinkers, (2) poor functioning infrequent heavy drinkers, (3) high functioning occasional heavy drinkers and (4) high-functioning infrequent non-heavy drinkers. There were relatively few differences on indicators of functioning and treatment-related variables between the high functioning infrequent non-heavy drinkers and the high-functioning occasional heavy drinkers, other than high-functioning occasional heavy drinkers having lower alcohol dependence severity [odds ratio (OR) = 0.94, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 0.90, 0.98], fewer post-treatment coping skills (OR = 0.54, 95% CI = 0.32, 0.90) and lower 3-year post-treatment abstinence self-efficacy (OR = 0.37, 95% CI = 0.28, 0.49) and Alcoholics Anonymous (AA) involvement (OR = 0.87, 95% CI = 0.85, 0.99). The two high-functioning profiles showed the greatest improvements in functioning from baseline through the 3-year follow-up, whereas the low-functioning profiles showed the least amount of improvement. High-functioning occasional heavy drinkers had higher purpose in life than the poor-functioning profiles., Conclusions: Some individuals who engage in heavy drinking following treatment for alcohol use disorder may function as well as those who are mostly abstinent with respect to psychosocial functioning, employment, life satisfaction and mental health., (© 2018 Society for the Study of Addiction.)

Background . The Food and Drug Administration recently added a new clinical endpoint for evaluating the efficacy of alcohol use disorder (AUD) treatment that is more inclusive of treatment goals besides abstinence: no heavy drinking days (NHDD). However, numerous critiques have been noted for such binary models of treatment outcome. Further, there is mounting evidence that participants inaccurately estimate the quantities of alcohol they consume during drinking episodes (i.e., drink size misestimation), which may be particularly problematic when using a binary criterion (NHDD) compared to a similar, continuous alternative outcome variable: percent heavy drinking days (PHDD). Yet, the impact of drinking misestimation on binary (e.g., NHDD) versus continuous outcome variables (e.g., PHDD) has not been studied. Objectives . Using simulation methods, the present study examined the potential impact of drink size misestimation on NHDD and PHDD. Methods . Data simulations were based on previously published findings of the amount of error in how much alcohol is actually poured when estimating standard drinks. We started with self-reported daily drinking data from COMBINE study participants with complete data ( N = 888; 68.1% male), then simulated inaccuracy in those estimations based on literature on standard drink size misestimation. Results . Clinical trial effect sizes were consistently lower for NHDD than for PHDD. Drink size misestimation further lowered effect sizes for NHDD and PHDD. Conclusions . Drink size misestimation may lead to inaccurate conclusions about drinking outcomes and the comparative effectiveness of AUD treatments, including inflated type-II error rates, particularly when treatment "success" is defined by binary outcomes such as NHDD.

Background: Abstinence and no heavy drinking days are currently the only Food and Drug Administration-approved end points in clinical trials for alcohol use disorder (AUD). Many individuals who fail to meet these criteria may substantially reduce their drinking during treatment, and most individuals with AUD prefer drinking reduction goals. One- and two-level reductions in World Health Organization (WHO) drinking risk levels have been proposed as alternative end points that reflect reduced drinking and are associated with reductions in drinking consequences, improvements in mental health, and reduced risk of developing alcohol dependence. The current study examined the association between WHO drinking risk level reductions and improvements in physical health and quality of life in a sample of individuals with alcohol dependence., Methods: Secondary data analysis of individuals with alcohol dependence (n = 1,142) enrolled in the longitudinal, prospective COMBINE study, a multi site randomized placebo-controlled clinical trial, examining the association between reductions in WHO drinking risk levels and change in blood pressure, liver enzyme levels, and self-reported quality of life following treatment for alcohol dependence., Results: One- and two-level reductions in WHO drinking risk level during treatment were associated with significant reductions in systolic blood pressure (p < 0.001), improvements in liver enzyme levels (all p < 0.01), and significantly better quality of life (p < 0.001)., Conclusions: One- and two-level reductions in WHO drinking risk levels predicted significant improvements in markers of physical health and quality of life, suggesting that the WHO drinking risk level reduction could be a meaningful surrogate marker of improvements in how a person "feels and functions" following treatment for alcohol dependence. The WHO drinking risk levels could be useful in medical practice for identifying drinking reduction targets that correspond with clinically significant improvements in health and quality of life., (© 2018 by the Research Society on Alcoholism.)

Abstinence from alcohol is often considered a critical element of recovery from alcohol use disorder. Yet, low risk drinking may be more desirable for some patients. There is mixed literature on whether low risk drinking is achievable and stable. Low risk drinking outcomes during treatment and outcomes 3 years after treatment were examined using data from the outpatient arm in Project MATCH (n = 877). Drinking outcomes were defined by repeated measures latent class analysis of weekly abstinence, low risk drinking days (<4/5 drinks for women/men), and heavy drinking days (≥4/5 drinks for women/men) during 12 weeks of treatment. Functioning outcome measures included psychosocial functioning, alcohol use, and alcohol-related consequences. Mixture modeling was used to examine the association between drinking classes and functioning outcomes. We identified 7 classes based on drinking during treatment: persistent heavy drinking, abstinence to heavy drinking, abstinence and heavy drinking, heavy drinking to mostly abstinent, low risk and heavy drinking, abstinence and low risk drinking, and abstinence. As compared with heavier drinkers, individuals who achieved mostly abstinence or low risk drinking, even with some heavy drinking episodes during treatment, had significant improvements in alcohol use, alcohol-related consequences, and psychosocial functioning 3 years after treatment. Those who were mostly abstinent or engaged in low risk drinking during treatment did not differ on any outcomes at 3 years after treatment. Findings indicate that low risk drinking is achievable for some individuals during treatment and that improvement in functioning among low risk drinkers can be observed at 3 years after treatment. (PsycINFO Database Record, ((c) 2018 APA, all rights reserved).)

Background: We sought to understand alcohol behavior change as a process over time by identifying patterns of relapse and remission after outpatient treatment and evaluating how these patterns predict longer-term clinical outcomes., Method: We conducted latent profile analyses using data from the outpatient arm in Project MATCH. Relapse and remission episodes were defined by the number of consecutive 14-day periods that included any heavy drinking days and no heavy drinking days. Indicators of each profile were: initial 2-week post-treatment remission/relapse status, number of remission/relapse transitions in the first year after treatment, duration of remission episodes, and duration of relapse episodes., Results: We identified 6 profiles: 1) "remission," 2) "transition to remission", 3) "few long transitions," 4) "many short transitions," 5) "transition to relapse," and 6) "relapse." Profile 1 had the best long-term outcomes. Long-term outcomes were not uniform among individuals with at least some heavy drinking (profiles 2 through 6; ∼75% of the sample). Individuals who transitioned back to and sustained periods of remission (profiles 2-4) had better long-term outcomes than those who failed to transition out of relapse (profiles 5-6) following treatment., Conclusions: Post-treatment change in alcohol use is a process in which individuals variably transition in and out of "relapse" and "remission" statuses. "Any heavy drinking" following treatment is not necessarily a sign of treatment failure. A more nuanced look at the process of AUD change by considering whether individuals are able to transition to and sustain periods of remission seems warranted., (Copyright © 2018 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Objectives: To test group-based Female-Specific Cognitive Behavioral Therapy (G-FS-CBT) for women with Alcohol Use Disorder (AUD) against an individual Female-Specific Cognitive Behavioral Therapy (I-FS-CBT). This aims of this paper are to describe G-FS-CBT development, content, feasibility, acceptability, group process, engagement in treatment, and within- and post-treatment outcomes., Methods: Women with AUD (n=155) were randomly assigned to 12 manual-guided sessions of G-FS-CBT or I-FS-CBT; 138 women attended at least one treatment session., Results: Women in G-FS-CBT attended fewer sessions (M=7.6) than women in I-FS-CBT (M=9.7; p<.001). Women in both conditions reported high satisfaction with the treatments. Independent coders rated high fidelity of delivery of both G-FS-CBT and I-FS-CBT. Therapeutic alliance with the therapist was high in both conditions, with I-FS-CBT being slightly but significantly higher than G-FS-CBT. In the first six weeks of treatment, women in both treatment conditions significantly reduced their percent drinking days (PDD) and percent heavy days drinking (PHD) by equivalent amounts, maintained through the rest of treatment and the 12month follow up with no treatment condition effects. Women reported significant improvement in all but one of the secondary outcomes during treatment; gains made during treatment in depression, anxiety, autonomy, and interpersonal problems were maintained during the follow-up period, while gains made during treatment in use of coping skills, self-efficacy for abstinence, self-care, and sociotropy deteriorated over follow up but remained improved compared to baseline., Conclusions: Findings support the feasibility, acceptability, and efficacy of a group format for female-specific CBT for AUD, a new 12-session, single gender, community friendly, group therapy with programming specifically for women. Similar, positive outcomes for individual and group treatment formats were found for drinking, mood, coping skills, self-confidence, interpersonal functioning, and self-care., (Copyright © 2018. Published by Elsevier Inc.)

Background: Craving and negative affect are distressing and commonly experienced during alcohol use disorder (AUD) treatment. Patients may assume that initiating abstinence will intensify their cravings and negative affect despite limited empirical data to support this assumption. This study extends and replicates, under improved methodological conditions, previous work that found reductions in daily craving associated with initiating abstinence., Methods: Seventy-eight adults (80.8% male, 57.1% Caucasian) in a clinical trial testing prazosin for AUD provided daily reports of drinking, craving, and negative affect for up to 12 weeks (mean = 64.77 daily reports). Participants were classified into 3 subgroups based on whether and when they initiated 14 days of continuous abstinence, including (i) "abstinence initiators" who quit drinking during treatment (n = 17), (ii) "already abstainers" who were abstinent at the start of treatment (n = 20), and (iii) "continued drinkers" who never initiated abstinence (n = 41). The timing and degree of change in craving and negative affect were compared across these groups using multivariate growth curve modeling., Results: All participant subgroups reported gradual reductions in craving over the course of treatment, with "abstinence initiators" reporting additional sudden reductions in craving upon initiating abstinence from alcohol. "Continued drinkers" reported higher levels of craving than "already abstainers" throughout the full course of treatment. Negative affect followed a different pattern of change, with "abstinence initiators" experiencing gradual reductions in negative affect after initiating abstinence but no changes prior to or immediately upon initiating abstinence, and with "already abstainers" and "continued drinkers" experiencing no changes in negative affect over time., Conclusions: Initiating abstinence is associated with immediate reductions in craving, followed by gradual reductions in both craving and negative affect. Results provide insight into the timing and magnitude of changes in theoretically and clinically important variables and may help patients anticipate when to expect improvement in craving and negative effect., (Copyright © 2017 by the Research Society on Alcoholism.)

This study compared Female-Specific Cognitive Behavioral Therapy (FS-CBT) to evidence-based, gender-neutral CBT (GN-CBT; Epstein & McCrady, 2009) for women with alcohol use disorder (AUD). Women (N = 99) with AUD, mean age 48, were randomly assigned to 12 outpatient manual-guided sessions of FS-CBT (n = 44) or GN-CBT (n = 55). Women were assessed at baseline and 3, 9 and 15 months after baseline for drinking and for specific issues common among women with AUD. A FS-CBT protocol was developed that was discriminable on treatment integrity ratings from GN-CBT. No treatment condition differences were found in treatment engagement, changes in drinking, alcohol-related coping, abstinence self-efficacy, motivation to change, or constructs directly targeted in FS-CBT (sociotropy, autonomy, depression, anxiety). Women in both conditions were highly engaged and satisfied with treatment, and reported significant reductions in drinking and changes in desired directions for all other variables except social support for abstinence. In the year following treatment, women in the FS-CBT but not in the CBT condition reported an increase in percentage of abstainers in their social networks (0.69% per month, SE = 0.21, p = .002). The value and appeal of female-specific programming in AUD treatment has been established in the wider literature (Epstein & Menges, 2013), and the current study provides support for the use of the Female-Specific Cognitive Behavioral Therapy (FS-CBT) manual as an option that may yield outcomes similar to standard gender-neutral CBT for women with AUD. Future research should examine whether FS-CBT enhances treatment utilization for women. (PsycINFO Database Record, ((c) 2018 APA, all rights reserved).)

Background and Aims: There is evidence that low-risk drinking is possible during the course of alcohol treatment and can be maintained following treatment. Our aim was to identify characteristics associated with low-risk drinking during treatment in a large sample of individuals as they received treatment for alcohol dependence., Design: Integrated analysis of data from the Combined Pharmacotherapies and Behavioral Intervention (COMBINE) study, Project MATCH (Matching Alcoholism Treatments to Client Heterogeneity) and the United Kingdom Alcohol Treatment Trial (UKATT) using repeated-measures latent class analysis to identify patterns of drinking and predictors of low-risk drinking patterns during treatment., Setting: United States and United Kingdom., Participants: Patients (n = 3589) with alcohol dependence receiving treatment in an alcohol clinical trial were primarily male (73.0%), white (82.0%) and non-married (41.7%), with an average age of 42.0 (standard deviation = 10.7)., Measurements: Self-reported weekly alcohol consumption during treatment was assessed using the Form-90 and validated with biological verification or collateral informants., Findings: Seven patterns of drinking during treatment were identified: persistent heavy drinking (18.7% of the sample), increasing heavy drinking (9.6%), heavy and low-risk drinking (6.7%), heavy drinking alternating with abstinence (7.9%), low-risk drinking (6.8%), increasing low-risk drinking (10.5%) and abstinence (39.8%). Lower alcohol dependence severity and fewer drinks per day at baseline significantly predicted low-risk drinking patterns [e.g. each additional drink prior to baseline predicted a 27% increase in the odds of expected classification in heavy drinking versus low-risk drinking patterns; odds ratio = 1.27 (95% confidence interval (CI) = 1.10, 1.47, P = 0.002]. Greater negative mood and more heavy drinkers in the social network were significant predictors of expected membership in heavier drinking patterns., Conclusions: Low-risk drinking is achievable for some individuals as they undergo treatment for alcohol dependence. Individuals with lower dependence severity, less baseline drinking, fewer negative mood symptoms and fewer heavy drinkers in their social networks have a higher probability of achieving low-risk drinking during treatment., (© 2017 Society for the Study of Addiction.)

Background: Alcohol use disorder (AUD) is a highly prevalent public health problem associated with considerable individual and societal costs. Abstinence from alcohol is the most widely accepted target of treatment for AUD, but it severely limits treatment options and could deter individuals who prefer to reduce their drinking from seeking treatment. Clinical validation of reduced alcohol consumption as the primary outcome of alcohol clinical trials is critical for expanding treatment options. One potentially useful measure of alcohol treatment outcome is a reduction in the World Health Organization (WHO, International Guide for Monitoring Alcohol Consumption and Related Harm. Geneva, Switzerland, 2000) risk levels of alcohol use (very high risk, high risk, moderate risk, and low risk). For example, a 2-shift reduction in WHO risk levels (e.g., high risk to low risk) has been used by the European Medicines Agency (2010, Guideline on the Development of Medicinal Products for the Treatment of Alcohol Dependence. UK) to evaluate nalmefene as a treatment for alcohol dependence (AD; Mann et al. 2013, Biol Psychiatry 73, 706-13)., Methods: The current study was a secondary data analysis of the COMBINE study (n = 1,383; Anton et al., ) to examine the association between reductions in WHO risk levels and reductions in alcohol-related consequences and mental health symptoms during and following treatment in patients with AD., Results: Any reduction in WHO risk drinking level during treatment was associated with significantly fewer alcohol-related consequences and improved mental health at the end of treatment and for up to 1 year posttreatment. A greater reduction in WHO risk drinking level predicted a greater reduction in consequences and greater improvements in mental health., Conclusions: Changes in WHO risk levels appear to be a valid end point for alcohol clinical trials. Based on the current findings, reductions in WHO risk drinking levels during treatment reflect meaningful reductions in alcohol-related consequences and improved functioning., (Copyright © 2016 by the Research Society on Alcoholism.)

Objective: This secondary data analysis examined patterns of drinking during alcohol treatment and associated drinking outcomes during the first year following treatment. The goal was to provide clinicians with guidance on which patients may be most at risk for negative long-term outcomes based on drinking patterns during treatment., Method: This study was an analysis of existing data (N = 3,851) from three randomized clinical trials for alcohol use disorder: the COMBINE Study (n = 1,383), Project MATCH (n = 1,726), and the United Kingdom Alcohol Treatment Trial (n = 742). Indicators of abstinence, non-heavy drinking, and heavy drinking (defined as 4/5 or more drinks per day for women/men) were examined during each week of treatment using repeated-measures latent class analysis. Associations between drinking patterns during treatment and drinking intensity, drinking consequences, and physical and mental health 12 months following intake were examined., Results: Seven drinking patterns were identified. Patients who engaged in persistent heavy drinking throughout treatment and those who returned to persistent heavy drinking during treatment had the worst long-term outcomes. Patients who engaged in some heavy drinking during treatment had better long-term outcomes than persistent heavy drinkers. Patients who reported low-risk drinking or abstinence had the best long-term outcomes. There were no differences in outcomes between low-risk drinkers and abstainers., Conclusions: Abstinence, low-risk drinking, or even some heavy drinking during treatment are associated with the best long-term outcomes. Patients who are engaging in persistent heavy drinking are likely to have the worst outcomes and may require a higher level of care.

Background: The construct of relapse is used widely in clinical research and practice of alcohol use disorder (AUD) treatment. The purpose of this study was to test the predictive validity of commonly appearing definitions of AUD relapse in the empirical literature., Methods: Secondary analyses of data from Project MATCH and COMBINE were conducted using 7 definitions of "relapse" based on drinking quantity within a single drinking episode: any drinking; at least 4/5 drinks for women/men; at least 4.3/7.1 drinks for women/men; at least 6/7 drinks for women/men; at least 6 drinks; at least 7/9 drinks for women/men; and at least 8/10 drinks for women/men. Relapse was used to predict alcohol consumption, related consequences, and nonconsumption outcomes (quality of life, psychosocial functioning) at the end of treatment and up to 1 year posttreatment., Results: Regression analyses indicated within-treatment relapse definitions significantly predicted end-of-treatment alcohol consumption and alcohol-related consequences. Heavy drinking definitions were generally more predictive than the any drinking definition, but no single heavy drinking definition was consistently a better predictor of outcomes. Relapse definitions were less predictive of longer-term alcohol-related outcomes and both shorter- and longer-term nonconsumption outcomes, including health and psychosocial functioning., Conclusions: One particular definition of relapse did not consistently stand out as the best predictor. Advances in AUD research may require reconceptualization of relapse as a multifaceted dynamic process and may consider a wider range of relevant behaviors (e.g., health and psychosocial functioning) when examining the change process in individuals with AUD., (Copyright © 2016 by the Research Society on Alcoholism.)

Background: The validity of the alcohol dependence syndrome has been supported. The question of whether different measures of the construct are comparable across studies and patient subgroups has not been examined. This study examined the alcohol dependence construct across four diverse large-scale treatment samples using integrative data analysis (IDA)., Method: We utilized existing data (n=4393) from the COMBINE Study, Project MATCH, the Relapse Replication and Extension Project (RREP), and the United Kingdom Alcohol Treatment Trial (UKATT). We focused on four measures of alcohol dependence: the Alcohol Dependence Scale (COMBINE and RREP), Alcohol Use Inventory (MATCH), the Leeds Dependence Questionnaire (UKATT), and the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (COMBINE and MATCH). Moderated nonlinear factor analysis was used to create a measure of alcohol dependence severity that was moderated by study membership, gender, age, and marital status., Results: A commensurate measure of alcohol dependence severity was successfully created using 20 items available in four studies. We identified differential item functioning by study membership, age, gender, and/or marital status for 12 of the 20 items, indicating specific patient subgroups who responded differently to items based on their underlying dependence severity., Conclusions: Alcohol dependence severity is a single unidimensional construct that is comparable across studies. The use of IDA provided a strong test of the validity of the alcohol dependence syndrome and clues as to how some items used to measure dependence severity may be more or less central to the construct for some patients., (Copyright © 2015 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: Attrition is common in alcohol clinical trials and the resultant loss of data represents an important methodological problem. In the absence of a simulation study, the drinking outcomes among those who are lost to follow-up are not known. Individuals who drop out of treatment and continue to provide drinking data, however, may be a reasonable proxy group for making inferences about the drinking outcomes of those lost to follow-up., Methods: We used data from the COMBINE study, a multisite, randomized clinical trial, to examine drinking during the 4 months of treatment among individuals who dropped out of treatment but continued to provide drinking data (i.e., "treatment dropouts;" n = 185). First, we estimated the observed treatment effect size for naltrexone versus placebo in a sample that included both treatment completers (n = 961) and treatment dropouts (n = 185; total N = 1,146), as well as the observed treatment effect size among just those who dropped out of treatment (n = 185). In both the total sample (N = 1,146) and the dropout sample (n = 185), we then deleted the drinking data after treatment dropout from those 185 individuals to simulate missing data. Using the deleted data sets, we then estimated the effect of naltrexone on the continuous outcome percent heavy drinking days using 6 methods to handle missing data (last observation carried forward, baseline observation carried forward, placebo mean imputation, missing = heavy drinking days, multiple imputation (MI), and full information maximum likelihood [FIML])., Results: MI and FIML produced effect size estimates that were most similar to the true effects observed in the full data set in all analyses, while missing = heavy drinking days performed the worst., Conclusions: Although missing drinking data should be avoided whenever possible, MI and FIML yield the best estimates of the treatment effect for a continuous outcome measure of heavy drinking when there is dropout in an alcohol clinical trial., (Copyright © 2014 by the Research Society on Alcoholism.)

Aims: Client language reflecting motivation for changing substance use (i.e. change talk) has been shown to predict outcomes in motivational interviewing. While previous work has shown that change talk may be elicited by clinician behaviors, little is known about intrapersonal factors that may elicit change talk, including clients' baseline motivation for change. The present study tested whether in-session change talk differs between clients based on their readiness for change., Design and Setting: First-session audio recordings from Project MATCH, a large multi-site clinical trial of alcohol treatments., Participants: Project MATCH out-patients (n = 69) and aftercare patients (n = 48) receiving motivational enhancement therapy (MET)., Measurements: Client language from first-session MET was coded using the Sequential Code for Observing Process Exchanges. Readiness and stages of change were assessed using both categorical and dimensional variables derived from the University of Rhode Island Change Assessment and the Stages of Change Readiness and Treatment Eagerness Scale, administered prior to first treatment sessions., Findings: Stage of change scales followed some of the expected correspondence with change talk, although the associations were generally small in magnitude and inconsistent across measures and treatment arms. Higher overall readiness did not predict more overall change talk, contemplation had mixed associations with preparatory change talk, and preparation/action did not predict commitment language., Conclusions: Motivational language used in initial sessions by people receiving counselling for excessive alcohol consumption does not appear to be associated with readiness to change as construed by the Transtheoretical Model., (© 2011 The Authors, Addiction © 2011 Society for the Study of Addiction.)

This manuscript aims to contribute to the next phase of mechanisms of behavior change (MOBC) science on alcohol or other drug use. Specifically, we encourage the transition from a basic science orientation (i.e., knowledge generation) to a translational science orientation (i.e., knowledge application or Translational MOBC Science). To inform that transition, we examine MOBC science and implementation science and consider how these two research areas can intersect to capitalize on the goals, strengths, and key methodologies of each. First, we define MOBC science and implementation science and offer a brief historical rationale for these two areas of clinical research. Second, we summarize similarities in rationale and discuss two scenarios where one draws from the other—MOBC science on implementation strategy outcomes and implementation science on MOBC. We then focus on the latter scenario, and briefly review the MOBC knowledge base to consider its readiness for knowledge translation. Finally, we provide a series of research recommendations to facilitate the translation of MOBC science. These recommendations include: (1) identifying and targeting MOBC that are well suited for implementation, (2) use of MOBC research results to inform broader health behavior change theory, and (3) triangulation of a more diverse set of research methodologies to build a translational MOBC knowledge base. Ultimately, it is important for gains borne from MOBC science to affect direct patient care, while basic MOBC research continues to be developed and refined over time. Potential implications of these developments include greater clinical significance for MOBC science, an efficient feedback loop between clinical research methodologies, a multi‐level approach to understanding behavioral change, and reduced or eliminated siloes between MOBC science and implementation science. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The World Health Organization (WHO) categorizes alcohol consumption according to grams consumed into low-, medium-, high-, and very-high-risk drinking levels (RDLs). Although abstinence has been considered the ideal outcome of alcohol treatment, reductions in WHO RDLs have been proposed as primary outcomes for alcohol use disorder (AUD) trials.Objective: The current study examines the stability of WHO RDL reductions and the association between RDL reductions and long-term functioning for up to 3 years following treatment.Design and Participants: Secondary data analysis of patients with AUD enrolled in the COMBINE Study and Project MATCH, two multi-site, randomized AUD clinical trials, who were followed for up to 3 years post-treatment (COMBINE: n = 694; MATCH: n = 806).Measures: Alcohol use was measured via calendar-based methods. We estimated all models in the total sample and among participants who did not achieve abstinence during treatment.Key Results: One-level RDL reductions were achieved by 84% of patients at the end of treatment, with 84.9% of those individuals maintaining that reduction at a 3-year follow-up. Two-level RDL reductions were achieved by 68% of patients at the end of treatment, with 77.7% of those individuals maintaining that reduction at a 3-year follow-up. One- and two-level RDL reductions at the end of treatment were associated with significantly better mental health, quality of life (including physical quality of life), and fewer drinking consequences 3 years after treatment (p < 0.05), as compared to no change or increased drinking.Conclusion: AUD patients can maintain WHO RDL reductions for up to 3 years after treatment. Patients who had WHO RDL reductions functioned significantly better than those who did not reduce their drinking. These findings are consistent with prior reports suggesting that drinking reductions, short of abstinence, yield meaningful improvements in patient health, well-being, and functioning. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Most people with alcohol or opioid use disorders (AUD or OUD) are not diagnosed or treated for these conditions in primary care. This study takes a critical step toward quantifying service gaps and directing improvement efforts for AUD and OUD by using electronic health record (EHR) data from diverse primary care organizations to quantify the extent to which AUD and OUD are underdiagnosed and undertreated in primary care practices.Methods: We extracted and integrated diagnosis, medication, and behavioral health visit data from the EHRs of 21 primary care clinics within four independent healthcare organizations representing community health centers and rural hospital-associated clinics in the Pacific Northwest United States. Rates of documented AUD and OUD diagnoses, pharmacological treatments, and behavioral health visits were evaluated over a two-year period (2015-2016).Results: Out of 47,502 adult primary care patients, 1476 (3.1%) had documented AUD; of these, 115 (7.8%) had orders for AUD medications and 271 (18.4%) had at least one documented visit with a non-physician behavioral health specialist. Only 402 (0.8%) patients had documented OUD, and of these, 107 (26.6%) received OUD medications and 119 (29.6%) had at least one documented visit with a non-physician behavioral health specialist. Rates of AUD diagnosis and AUD and OUD medications were higher in clinics that had co-located non-physician behavioral health specialists.Conclusions: AUD and OUD are underdiagnosed and undertreated within a sample of independent primary care organizations serving mostly rural patients. Primary care organizations likely need service models, technologies, and workforces, including non-physician behavioral health specialists, to improve capacities to diagnose and treat AUD and OUD. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Missing data are common in alcohol clinical trials for both continuous and binary end points. Approaches to handle missing data have been explored for continuous outcomes, yet no studies have compared missing data approaches for binary outcomes (e.g., abstinence, no heavy drinking days). This study compares approaches to modeling binary outcomes with missing data in the COMBINE study. Methods: We included participants in the COMBINE study who had complete drinking data during treatment and who were assigned to active medication or placebo conditions (N = 1,146). Using simulation methods, missing data were introduced under common scenarios with varying sample sizes and amounts of missing data. Logistic regression was used to estimate the effect of naltrexone (vs. placebo) in predicting any drinking and any heavy drinking outcomes at the end of treatment using 4 analytic approaches: complete case analysis (CCA), last observation carried forward (LOCF), the worst case scenario (WCS) of missing equals any drinking or heavy drinking, and multiple imputation (MI). In separate analyses, these approaches were compared when drinking data were manually deleted for those participants who discontinued treatment but continued to provide drinking data. Results: WCS produced the greatest amount of bias in treatment effect estimates. MI usually yielded less biased estimates than WCS and CCA in the simulated data and performed considerably better than LOCF when estimating treatment effects among individuals who discontinued treatment. Conclusions: Missing data can introduce bias in treatment effect estimates in alcohol clinical trials. Researchers should utilize modern missing data methods, including MI, and avoid WCS and CCA when analyzing binary alcohol clinical trial outcomes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background The rate of participant attrition in alcohol clinical trials is often substantial and can cause significant issues with regard to the handling of missing data in statistical analyses of treatment effects. It is common for researchers to assume that missing data is indicative of participant relapse, and under that assumption, many researchers have relied on setting all missing values to the worst-case scenario for the outcome (e.g., missing = heavy drinking). This sort of single-imputation method has been criticized for producing biased results in other areas of clinical research, but has not been evaluated within the context of alcohol clinical trials, and many alcohol researchers continue to use the missing = heavy drinking assumption. Methods Data from the COMBINE study, a multisite randomized clinical trial, were used to generate simulated situations of missing data under a variety of conditions and assumptions. We manipulated the sample size ( n = 200, 500, and 1,000) and dropout rate (5, 10, 25, 30%) under 3 missing data assumptions (missing completely at random, missing at random, and missing not at random). We then examined the association between receiving naltrexone and heavy drinking during the first 10 weeks following treatment using 5 methods for treating missing data (complete case analysis [CCA], last observation carried forward [LOCF], missing = heavy drinking, multiple imputation [MI], and full information maximum likelihood [FIML]). Results CCA, LOCF, and missing = heavy drinking produced the most biased naltrexone effect estimates and standard errors under conditions that are likely to exist in randomized clinical trials. MI and FIML produced the least biased naltrexone effect estimates and standard errors. Conclusions Assuming that missing = heavy drinking produces biased results of the treatment effect and should not be used to evaluate treatment effects in alcohol clinical trials. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

American Indian communities in Minnesota have been disproportionately impacted by the opioid use disorder (OUD) epidemic, which tribal communities have taken numerous steps to address. The Cascade of Care is a public health framework for measuring population-level OUD risk, treatment engagement, treatment retention, and recovery outcomes, which can help communities monitor the impact of responses to the OUD epidemic and identify where treatment- and recovery-related barriers and facilitators may exist. However, no studies have quantified the Cascade of Care stages within tribal communities and the extent to which these stages can be quantified using existing data sources is unknown. We utilized data from the Minnesota Drug and Alcohol Abuse Normative Evaluation System (DAANES) to quantify OUD Cascade of Care stages for an American Indian tribal nation in Minnesota and for the entire state. DAANES data indicated 269 individuals in the tribal community received treatment for opioid-related problems in 2018. Among them, an estimated 65-99 % initiated medications for OUD and an estimated 13-41 % were retained in treatment for at least 180 days. Existing state-level data can provide information about Cascade of Care stages for American Indian communities, particularly with regard to treatment admission, initiation of medications for OUD, and treatment retention. Additional data sources are needed to measure population-level OUD risk, recovery, and cultural and contextual factors that may impact treatment and recovery. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]