Search

Objectives: The use of extended-release naltrexone (XR-NTX) as treatment for alcohol use disorder (AUD) has been limited by a prior black box warning for hepatotoxicity. We performed a secondary analysis of data from a randomized clinical trial to compare serum liver enzyme levels for those randomized to XR-NTX versus placebo., Methods: The parent study aimed to test the efficacy of combined pharmacobehavioral harm-reduction treatment in improving alcohol and quality-of-life outcomes for adults experiencing homelessness and AUD. We compared the 2 arms that received intramuscular injections of either 380 mg XR-NTX (n = 74) or placebo (n = 77). Outcomes included ( a ) liver enzyme levels and ( b ) liver enzyme values categorized as normal (<1× upper limit of normal [ULN]), elevated (1-3× ULN), or high (>3× ULN). We performed multinomial logistic regression and negative binomial generalized estimating equations modeling to assess the effects of treatment group and the time × treatment group interaction on liver enzyme outcomes., Results: The mean age was 47.9 ± 9.9 years, and the mean baseline alcohol consumption was 23.2 ± 14.0 drinks per day. There were no significant differences in the development of liver enzyme elevations 1 to 3× ULN or more than 3× ULN (all P s > 0.25) or in the change in liver enzyme values (all P s > 0.41) between the placebo and the XR-NTX groups over the treatment course., Conclusions: In our study of adults experiencing homelessness and AUD, receipt of XR-NTX was not associated with hepatotoxicity. These findings support the use of XR-NTX to treat AUD even in patients who are drinking heavily and physiologically dependent on alcohol., Competing Interests: The authors report conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2023 American Society of Addiction Medicine.)

Background: The rate of alcohol-related mortality in people experiencing homelessness and alcohol use disorder is high and necessitates accessible and effective treatment for alcohol use disorder. However, typical abstinence-based treatments do not optimally engage this population. Recent studies have shown that harm-reduction treatment, which does not require abstinence, but instead aims to incrementally reduce alcohol-related harm and improve health-related quality of life, is acceptable to and effective for this population. The aim of this study was to test the efficacy of combined pharmacological and behavioural harm-reduction treatment for alcohol use disorder (HaRT-A) in people experiencing homelessness and alcohol use disorder., Methods: This randomised clinical trial was done at three community-based service sites (low-barrier shelters and housing programmes) in Seattle (WA, USA). Eligible participants were adults (aged 21-65 years) who met the DSM-IV-TR criteria for alcohol use disorder and who experienced homelessness in the past year. Participants were randomly assigned (1:1:1:1) by permuted block randomisation, stratified by site, to receive either HaRT-A plus intramuscular injections of 380 mg extended-release naltrexone (XR-NTX; HaRT-A plus XR-NTX group); HaRT-A plus placebo injection (HaRT-A plus placebo group); HaRT-A alone (HaRT-A alone group); or community-based supportive services as usual (services-as-usual control group). Patients assigned to receive HaRT-A attended sessions at baseline (week 0) and in weeks 1, 4, 8, and 12. XR-NTX and placebo injections were administered in weeks 0, 4, and 8. During the study, participants, interventionists, and investigators were masked to group assignment in the two injection arms. All participants were invited to follow-up assessments at weeks 4, 8, 12, 24, and 36. The primary outcomes were self-reported alcohol use quantity (ie, alcohol quantity consumed on peak drinking occasion, as measured with the Alcohol Quantity Use Assessment questionnaire) and frequency (measured with the Addiction Severity Index), alcohol-related harm (measured with the Short Inventory of Problems-2R questionnaire), and physical and mental health-related quality of life (measured with the Short Form-12 survey). Using piecewise growth modelling and an intention-to-treat model, we compared the effects of the three active treatment groups with the services-as-usual control group, and the HaRT-A plus XR-NTX group with the HaRT-A plus placebo group, over the 12-week treatment course and during the 24 weeks following treatment withdrawal. Safety analyses were done on an intention-to-treat basis. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT01932801., Findings: Between Oct 14, 2013, and Nov 30, 2017, 417 individuals experiencing homelessness and alcohol use disorder were screened, of whom 308 were eligible and randomly assigned to the HaRT-A plus XR-NTX group (n=74), the HaRT-A plus placebo group (n=78), the HaRT-A alone group (n=79), or the services-as-usual control group (n=77). Compared with the services-as-usual control group, the HaRT-A plus XR-NTX group showed significant improvements from baseline to 12 weeks post-treatment across four of the five primary outcomes: peak alcohol quantity (linear B -0·48 [95% CI -0·79 to -0·18] p=0·010; full model Cohen's d=-0·68), alcohol frequency (linear B -4·42 [-8·09 to -0·76], p=0·047; full model Cohen's d=-0·16), alcohol-related harm (linear B -2·22 [-3·39 to -1·06], p=0·002; full model Cohen's d=-0·56), and physical health-related quality of life (linear B 0·66 [0·23 to 1·10], p=0·012; full model Cohen's d=0·43). Compared with the services-as-usual control group, the HaRT-A plus placebo group showed significant improvements in three of the five primary outcomes: peak alcohol quantity (linear B -0·41 [95% CI -0·67 to -0·15] p=0·010; full model Cohen's d=-0·23), alcohol frequency (linear B -5·95 [-9·72 to -2·19], p=0·009; full model Cohen's d=-0·13), and physical health-related quality of life (linear B 0·53 [0·09 to 0·98], p=0·050; full model Cohen's d=0·35). Compared with the services-as-usual control group, the HaRT-A alone group showed significant improvements in two of the five primary outcomes: alcohol-related harm (linear B -1·58 [95% CI -2·73 to -0·42] p=0·025; full model Cohen's d=-0·40) and physical health-related quality of life (linear B 0·63 [0·18 to 1·07], p=0·020; full model Cohen's d=0·41). After treatment discontinuation at 12 weeks, the active treatment groups plateaued, whereas the services-as-usual group showed improvements. Thus, during the post-treatment period (weeks 12 to 36), the services-as-usual control group showed greater reductions in alcohol-related harm compared with both the HaRT-A plus XR-NTX group (linear B 0·96 [0·24 to 1·67], p=0·028; full model Cohen's d=0·24) and the HaRT-A alone group (linear B 1·02 [0·35 to 1·70], p=0·013; full model Cohen's d=0·26). During the post-treatment period, the services-as-usual control group significantly improved on mental health-related quality of life compared with the HaRT-A alone group (linear B -0·46 [-0·79 to -0·12], p=0·024; full model Cohen's d=-0·28), and on physical health-related quality of life compared with the HaRT-A plus XR-NTX group (linear B -0·42 [-0·67 to -0·17], p=0·006; full model Cohen's d=-0·27), the HaRT-A plus placebo group (linear B -0·42 [-0·69 to -0·15], p=0·009; full model Cohen's d=-0·27), and the HaRT-A alone group (linear B -0·47 [-0·72 to -0·22], p=0·002; full model Cohen's d=-0·31). For all other primary outcomes, there were no significant linear differences between the services-as-usual and active treatment groups. When comparing the HaRT-A plus placebo group with the HaRT-A plus XR-NTX group, there were no significant differences for any of the primary outcomes. Missing data analysis indicated that participants were more likely to drop out in the services-as-usual control group than in the active treatment groups; however, primary outcome findings were found to be robust to attrition. Participants in the HaRT-A plus XR-NTX, HaRT-A plus placebo, and HaRT-A alone groups were not more likely to experience adverse events than those in the services-as-usual control group., Interpretation: Compared with existing services, combined pharmacological and behavioural harm-reduction treatment resulted in decreased alcohol use and alcohol-related harm and improved physical health-related quality of life during the 12-week treatment period for people experiencing homelessness and alcohol use disorder. Although not as consistent, there were also positive findings for behavioural harm-reduction treatment alone. Considering the non-significant differences between participants receiving HaRT-A plus placebo and HaRT-A plus XR-NTX, the combined pharmacological and behavioural treatment effect cannot be attributed to XR-NTX alone. Future studies are needed to further investigate the relative contributions of the pharmacological and behavioural components of harm-reduction treatment for alcohol use disorder, and to ascertain whether a maintenance treatment approach could extend these positive outcome trajectories., Funding: National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism., (Copyright © 2021 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Importance: Experts recommend that alcohol use disorders (AUDs) be managed in primary care, but effective approaches are unclear., Objective: To test whether 12 months of alcohol care management, compared with usual care, improved drinking outcomes among patients with or at high risk for AUDs., Design, Setting, and Participants: This randomized clinical trial was conducted at 3 Veterans Affairs (VA) primary care clinics. Between October 11, 2011, and September 30, 2014, the study enrolled 304 outpatients who reported heavy drinking (≥4 drinks per day for women and ≥5 drinks per day for men)., Interventions: Nurse care managers offered outreach and engagement, repeated brief counseling using motivational interviewing and shared decision making about treatment options, and nurse practitioner-prescribed AUD medications (if desired), supported by an interdisciplinary team (CHOICE intervention). The comparison was usual primary care., Main Outcomes and Measures: Primary outcomes, assessed by blinded telephone interviewers at 12 months, were percentage of heavy drinking days in the prior 28 days measured by timeline follow-back interviews and a binary good drinking outcome, defined as abstinence or drinking below recommended limits in the prior 28 days (according to timeline follow-back interviews) and no alcohol-related symptoms in the past 3 months as measured by the Short Inventory of Problems., Results: Of 304 participants, 275 (90%) were male, 206 (68%) were white, and the mean (SD) age was 51.4 (13.8) years. At baseline, both the CHOICE intervention (n = 150) and usual care (n = 154) groups reported heavy drinking on 61% of days (95% CI, 56%-66%). During the 12-month intervention, 137 of 150 patients in the intervention group (91%) had at least 1 nurse visit, and 77 of 150 (51%) had at least 6 nurse visits. A greater proportion of patients in the intervention group than in the usual care group received alcohol-related care: 42% (95% CI, 35%-49%; 63 of 150 patients) vs 26% (95% CI, 19%-35%; 40 of 154 patients). Alcohol-related care included more AUD medication use: 32% (95% CI, 26%-39%; 48 of 150 patients in the intervention group) vs 8% (95% CI, 5%-13%; 13 of 154 patients in the usual care group). No significant differences in primary outcomes were observed at 12 months between patients in both groups. The percentages of heavy drinking days were 39% (95% CI, 32%-47%) and 35% (95% CI, 28%-42%), and the percentages of patients with a good drinking outcome were 15% (95% CI, 9%-22%; 18 of 124 patients) and 20% (95 % CI, 14%-28%; 27 of 134 patients), in the intervention and usual care groups, respectively (P = .32-.44). Findings at 3 months were similar., Conclusions and Relevance: The CHOICE intervention did not decrease heavy drinking or related problems despite increased engagement in alcohol-related care., Trial Registration: clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT01400581.

Hazardous alcohol use is associated with detrimental health outcomes among persons living with HIV (PLWH). We examined the prevalence and factors associated with hazardous alcohol use in the current era using several hazardous drinking definitions and binge drinking defined as ≥5 drinks for men versus ≥4 for women. We included 8567 PLWH from 7 U.S. sites from 2013 to 2015. Current hazardous alcohol use was reported by 27% and 34% reported binge drinking. In adjusted analyses, current and past cocaine/crack (odd ratio [OR] 4.1:3.3-5.1, p < 0.001 and OR 1.3:1.1-1.5, p < 0.001 respectively), marijuana (OR 2.5:2.2-2.9, p < 0.001 and OR 1.4:1.2-1.6, p < 0.001), and cigarette use (OR 1.4:1.2-1.6, p < 0.001 and OR 1.3:1.2-1.5, p < 0.001) were associated with increased hazardous alcohol use. The prevalence of hazardous alcohol use remains high in the current era, particularly among younger men. Routine screening and targeted interventions for hazardous alcohol use, potentially bundled with interventions for other drugs, remain a key aspect of HIV care.

We examined risk factors for advanced hepatic fibrosis [fibrosis-4 (FIB)-4 >3.25] including both current alcohol use and a diagnosis of alcohol use disorder among HIV-infected patients. Of the 12,849 patients in our study, 2133 (17%) reported current hazardous drinking by AUDIT-C, 2321 (18%) had a diagnosis of alcohol use disorder, 2376 (18%) were co-infected with chronic hepatitis C virus (HCV); 596 (5%) had high FIB-4 scores >3.25 as did 364 (15%) of HIV/HCV coinfected patients. In multivariable analysis, HCV (adjusted odds ratio (aOR) 6.3, 95% confidence interval (CI) 5.2-7.5), chronic hepatitis B (aOR 2.0, 95% CI 1.5-2.8), diabetes (aOR 2.3, 95% CI 1.8-2.9), current CD4 <200 cells/mm 3 (aOR 5.4, 95% CI 4.2-6.9) and HIV RNA >500 copies/mL (aOR 1.3, 95% CI 1.0-1.6) were significantly associated with advanced fibrosis. A diagnosis of an alcohol use disorder (aOR 1.9, 95% CI 1.6-2.3) rather than report of current hazardous alcohol use was associated with high FIB-4. However, among HIV/HCV coinfected patients, both current hazardous drinkers (aOR 1.6, 95% CI 1.1-2.4) and current non-drinkers (aOR 1.6, 95% CI 1.2-2.0) were more likely than non-hazardous drinkers to have high FIB-4, with the latter potentially reflecting the impact of sick abstainers. These findings highlight the importance of using a longitudinal measure of alcohol exposure when evaluating the impact of alcohol on liver disease and associated outcomes.

Background: Most patients with alcohol use disorders (AUDs) never receive alcohol treatment, and experts have recommended management of AUDs in primary care. The Choosing Healthier Drinking Options In primary CarE (CHOICE) trial was a randomized controlled effectiveness trial of a novel intervention for primary care patients at high risk for AUDs. This report describes the conceptual and scientific foundation of the CHOICE model of care, critical elements of the CHOICE trial design consistent with the Template for Intervention Description and Replication (TIDieR), results of recruitment, and baseline characteristics of the enrolled sample., Methods: The CHOICE intervention is a multi-contact, extended counseling intervention, based on the Chronic Care Model, shared decision-making, motivational interviewing, and evidence-based options for managing AUDs, designed to be practical in primary care. Outpatients who received care at 3 Veterans Affairs primary care sites in the Pacific Northwest and reported frequent heavy drinking (≥4 drinks/day for women; ≥5 for men) were recruited (2011-2014) into a trial in which half of the participants would be offered additional alcohol-related care from a nurse. CHOICE nurses offered 12 months of patient-centered care, including proactive outreach and engagement, repeated brief motivational interventions, monitoring with and without alcohol biomarkers, medications for AUDs, and/or specialty alcohol treatment as appropriate and per patient preference. A CHOICE nurse practitioner was available to prescribe medications for AUDs., Results: A total of 304 patients consented to participate in the CHOICE trial. Among consenting participants, 90% were men, the mean age was 51 (range 22-75), and most met DSM-IV criteria for alcohol abuse (14%) or dependence (59%). Many participants also screened positive for tobacco use (44%), depression (45%), anxiety disorders (30-41%) and non-tobacco drug use disorders (19%). At baseline, participants had a median AUDIT score of 18 [Interquartile range (IQR) 14-24] and a median readiness to change drinking score of 5 (IQR 2.75-6.25) on a 1-10 Likert scale., Conclusion: The CHOICE trial tested a patient-centered intervention for AUDs and recruited primary care patients at high risk for AUDs, with a spectrum of severity, co-morbidity, and readiness to change drinking. Trial registration The trial is registered at clinicaltrial.gov (NCT01400581).

Background: At-risk alcohol use is important to identify in clinical settings to facilitate interventions. The Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) Alcohol Use Short Form was developed through an item response theory process, but its utility as a screening instrument in clinical care has not been reported., Objective: To determine the ability of the PROMIS Alcohol Use Short Form to identify people with current or future at-risk alcohol use defined by the Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test consumption (AUDIT-C) instrument., Methods: Observational study of people living with HIV (PLWH) in clinical care at four sites across the US. Patients completed a tablet-based clinical assessment prior to seeing their providers at clinic appointments. We used 3 definitions of clinically-relevant at-risk alcohol use and determined the proportion of PLWH with current or future at-risk drinking identified by the PROMIS instrument., Results: Of 2497 PLWH who endorsed ≥1 drink in the prior 12 months, 1500 PLWH (60%) endorsed "never" for all PROMIS items. In that group, 26% had clinically-relevant at-risk alcohol use defined by one or more AUDIT-C definitions. At follow-up (N=1608), high baseline PROMIS scores had 55% sensitivity for at-risk drinking among those with at-risk drinking at baseline, and 22% sensitivity among those without baseline risk., Conclusions: The PROMIS Alcohol Use Short Form cannot be used alone to identify PLWH with clinically-relevant at-risk alcohol use. Optimal assessment of problem drinking behavior is not clear, but there does not seem to be an important role for the PROMIS instrument in this clinical setting., (Copyright © 2016 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: Interventions requiring abstinence from alcohol are neither preferred by nor shown to be highly effective with many homeless individuals with alcohol dependence. It is therefore important to develop lower-threshold, patient-centered interventions for this multimorbid and high-utilizing population. Harm-reduction counseling requires neither abstinence nor use reduction and pairs a compassionate style with patient-driven goal-setting. Extended-release naltrexone (XR-NTX), a monthly injectable formulation of an opioid receptor antagonist, reduces craving and may support achievement of harm-reduction goals. Together, harm-reduction counseling and XR-NTX may support alcohol harm reduction and quality-of-life improvement., Aims: Study aims include testing: a) the relative efficacy of XR-NTX and harm-reduction counseling compared to a community-based, supportive-services-as-usual control, b) theory-based mediators of treatment effects, and c) treatment effects on publicly funded service costs., Methods: This RCT involves four arms: a) XR-NTX+harm-reduction counseling, b) placebo+harm-reduction counseling, c) harm-reduction counseling only, and d) community-based, supportive-services-as-usual control conditions. Participants are currently/formerly homeless, alcohol dependent individuals (N=300). Outcomes include alcohol variables (i.e., craving, quantity/frequency, problems and biomarkers), health-related quality of life, and publicly funded service utilization and associated costs. Mediators include 10-point motivation rulers and the Penn Alcohol Craving Scale. XR-NTX and harm-reduction counseling are administered every 4weeks over the 12-week treatment course. Follow-up assessments are conducted at weeks 24 and 36., Discussion: If found efficacious, XR-NTX and harm-reduction counseling will be well-positioned to support reductions in alcohol-related harm, decreases in costs associated with publicly funded service utilization, and increases in quality of life among homeless, alcohol-dependent individuals., (Copyright © 2014 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objective: Brief intervention for patients with unhealthy alcohol use is a prevention priority in the United States, but most eligible patients do not receive it. This study evaluated an electronic alcohol-counseling clinical reminder at a single Veterans Affairs general medicine clinic., Method: The systems-level intervention evaluated in this study consisted of making the clinical reminder, which facilitated medical record documentation of brief intervention among patients who screened positive for unhealthy alcohol use, available to providers on one (of two) randomly selected hallways. Secondary electronic data were extracted for all patients who visited the clinic (October 1, 2002, to September 30, 2005). The proportion of patients with clinical-reminder use was evaluated among patients who screened positive for unhealthy drinking and were assigned to intervention hallway providers ("descriptive cohort"). Adjusted logistic regression evaluated the association between the intervention and resolution of unhealthy drinking at follow-up among all screen-positive patients who completed a second Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test Consumption questionnaire 18 months or longer after the first ("outcomes cohort")., Results: Eligible patients (N= 22,863) included 10,392 controls and 12,471 in the intervention group. Fifteen percent (398 of 2,640) of descriptive cohort patients with unhealthy drinking had clinical-reminder use, which varied by severity (14% [n = 302 of 2,165] with mild/moderate and 20% [n = 96 of 475] with severe unhealthy drinking,p = .001). Only 39% (156 of 398) of patients with clinical-reminder use had documented brief intervention; advice to abstain was most common. Access to the clinical reminder was not significantly associated with resolution of unhealthy drinking in 1,358 patients in the outcomes cohort., Conclusions: Availability of a clinical reminder to facilitate brief intervention did not, alone, result in substantial use of the clinical reminder. More active implementation efforts may be needed to get brief interventions onto the agenda of busy primary care providers.

Background: Alcohol misuse is a common and well-documented source of morbidity and mortality. Brief primary care alcohol counseling has been shown to benefit patients with alcohol misuse., Objective: To describe alcohol-related discussions between primary care providers and patients who screened positive for alcohol misuse., Design: An exploratory, qualitative analysis of audiotaped primary care visits containing discussions of alcohol use., Participants: Participants were 29 male outpatients at a Veterans Affairs (VA) General Internal Medicine Clinic who screened positive for alcohol misuse and their 14 primary care providers, all of whom were participating in a larger quality improvement trial., Measurements: Audiotaped visits with any alcohol-related discussion were transcribed and coded using grounded theory and conversation analysis, both qualitative research techniques., Results: Three themes were identified: (1) patients disclosed information regarding their alcohol use, but providers often did not explore these disclosures; (2) advice about alcohol use was typically vague and/or tentative in contrast to smoking-related advice, which was more common and usually more clear and firm; and (3) discomfort on the part of the provider was evident during alcohol-related discussions., Limitations: Generalizability of findings from this single-site VA study is unknown., Conclusion: Findings from this single site study suggest that provider discomfort and avoidance are important barriers to evidence-based brief alcohol counseling. Further investigation into current alcohol counseling practices is needed to determine whether these patterns extend to other primary care settings, and to inform future educational efforts.

Purpose: Readiness to change drinking may influence the content or effectiveness of brief alcohol counseling. This study was designed to assess readiness to change and its relationship to alcohol misuse severity among primary care patients whose screening questionnaire was positive for alcohol misuse., Methods: This study was a cross-sectional analysis of data collected from 2 consecutive mailed questionnaires. Male outpatients at 7 Veterans Affairs (VA) general medicine clinics were eligible if they returned both questionnaires, screened positive for alcohol misuse (augmented CAGE Questionnaire > or =1 point), responded to 3 readiness-to-change questions, and completed the Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test (AUDIT). A validated algorithm based on 3 standardized questions categorized participants into 3 readiness groups (precontemplation, contemplation, action). Measures of alcohol misuse severity included AUDIT, CAGE, and the 3 consumption questions from the AUDIT (AUDIT-C). Analyses were descriptive; linear-by-linear associations between alcohol misuse severity and readiness were tested with chi2 statistics., Results: Response rates to the first and second surveys were 59% and 55%, respectively. Of the 6,419 eligible outpatients who screened positive for alcohol misuse, 4,797 (75%) reported any readiness to change (contemplation 24%, action 51%). Among patients with AUDIT scores >8, more than 90% indicated that they drank more than they should and/or had contemplated drinking less. Greater readiness was significantly associated with greater alcohol misuse severity (P <.001 for all measures)., Conclusions: Most primary care patients who screen positive for alcohol misuse indicate some readiness to change. Contrary to stereotypes of denial, those with greater alcohol misuse severity are more likely to report readiness to change.

Background: Primary care providers need practical methods for managing patients who screen positive for at-risk drinking. We evaluated whether scores on brief alcohol screening questionnaires and patient reports of prior alcohol treatment reflect the severity of recent problems due to drinking., Methods: Veterans Affairs general medicine outpatients who screened positive for at-risk drinking were mailed questionnaires that included the Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test (AUDIT) and a question about prior alcohol treatment or participation in Alcoholics Anonymous ("previously treated"). AUDIT questions 4 through 10 were used to measure past-year problems due to drinking (PYPD). Cross-sectional analyses compared the prevalence of PYPD and mean Past-Year AUDIT Symptom Scores (0-28 points) among at-risk drinkers with varying scores on the CAGE (0-4) and AUDIT-C (0-12) and varying treatment histories., Results: Of 7861 male at-risk drinkers who completed questionnaires, 33.9% reported PYPD. AUDIT-C scores were more strongly associated with Past-Year AUDIT Symptom Scores than the CAGE (p < 0.0005). The prevalence of PYPD increased from 33% to 46% over the range of positive CAGE scores but from 29% to 77% over the range of positive AUDIT-C scores. Among subgroups of at-risk drinkers with the same screening scores, patients who reported prior treatment were more likely than never-treated at-risk drinkers to report PYPD and had higher mean Past-Year AUDIT Symptom Scores (p < 0.0005). We propose a simple method of risk-stratifying patients using AUDIT-C scores and alcohol treatment histories., Conclusions: AUDIT-C scores combined with one question about prior alcohol treatment can help estimate the severity of PYPD among male Veterans Affairs outpatients.