Search

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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background and aims: Psychosocial functioning among individuals who exceed low‐risk drinking limits (exceed three to four standard drinks for women/men) is heterogeneous. Among those who receive treatment for alcohol use disorder (AUD), recent research found that more than one‐half of those who exceeded low‐risk limits (i.e. treatment non‐responders) reported good psychosocial functioning, commensurate with those who were abstinent or low‐risk drinkers (i.e. treatment responders) up to 1 year following treatment. This study aimed to determine if good levels of psychosocial functioning are maintained beyond 1 year. Design Secondary analysis of 3‐year follow‐up data from Project MATCH (Matching Alcoholism Treatment to Client Heterogeneity) and the Combined Pharmacotherapies and Behavioral Interventions study (COMBINE), multi‐site alcohol clinical trials conducted in the United States. Setting: Eleven sites in COMBINE and nine sites in Project MATCH. Participants: Individuals with AUD from COMBINE and Project MATCH (n = 1383 and n = 1726) characterized in terms of drinking/functioning at 1‐year follow‐up and retained at 3‐year (n = 641 and n = 790) post‐treatment follow‐ups. Measurements Alcohol consumption measured by Form‐90 and psychosocial functioning assessed by various instruments at 3 years post‐treatment Findings High‐functioning non‐responders at 1 year post‐treatment maintained a high level of functioning 2 years later and were not significantly different from the abstainers/low‐risk drinkers on any functional outcomes (e.g. SF12 Mental Health Mean difference: –1.38 [95% confidence interval (CI) = −4.34, 1.57), SF12 Physical Health Mean difference: –0.43 (95% CI = −2.28, 3.13)]. Conclusions: Approximately one‐half of those who engage in some heavy drinking in the year following treatment for alcohol use disorder appear to maintain high levels of psychosocial functioning up to 3 years following treatment. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aim Heightened craving among individuals with alcohol use disorder (AUD) has been attributed to a hypersensitivity to alcohol cues in attentional brain networks. Active mindfulness training has been shown to help improve attentional control. Here, we examined alcohol cue-related hypersensitivity among individuals with AUD who received rolling group mindfulness-based relapse prevention (MBRP) in combination with transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS), over right inferior frontal gyrus. Methods Participants (n  = 68) viewed a series of emotionally negative, emotionally neutral and alcohol-related images. Following image presentation, participants were asked to rate their level of craving for the alcohol cues, and their level of negative affect evoked by neutral and negative cues. During the task, electroencephalogram (EEG) was recorded to capture an event-related component shown to relate to emotionally salient stimuli: the late positive potential (LPP). Participants who completed a follow-up EEG (n  = 37) performed the task a second time after up to eight sessions of MBRP coupled with active or sham tDCS. Results We found that both craving ratings and the LPP significantly decreased in response to alcohol cues from pre- to post-treatment, but not for other image cues. The magnitude of alcohol image craving reductions was associated with the number of MBRP group sessions attended. Active tDCS was not associated with craving ratings, but it was associated with greater LPP amplitudes across image types. Conclusions Taken together, these results suggest that disruption of alcohol-cue hypersensitivity in people with AUD may be a target mechanism of MBRP. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Previous research has found inconsistent relationships between trait mindfulness and state mindfulness. To extend previous research, we sought to examine the unique associations between self-report trait mindfulness and state mindfulness by levels of meditation experience (meditation-naïve vs. meditation-experienced) and by mindfulness induction (experimentally induced mindful state vs. control group). We recruited 299 college students (93 with previous mindfulness meditation experience) to participate in an experiment that involved the assessment of five facets of trait mindfulness (among other constructs), followed by a mindfulness induction (vs. control), followed by the assessment of state mindfulness of body and mind. Correlational analyses revealed limited associations between trait mindfulness facets and facets of state mindfulness, and demonstrated that a brief mindfulness exercise focused on bodily sensations and the breath elicited higher state mindfulness of body but not state mindfulness of mind. We found significant interactions such that individuals with previous meditation experience and higher scores on the observing facet of trait mindfulness had the highest levels of state mindfulness of body and mind. Among individuals with meditation experience, the strengths of the associations between observing trait mindfulness and the state mindfulness facets increased with frequency of meditation practice. Some other interactions ran counter to expectations. Overall, the relatively weak associations between trait and state mindfulness demonstrates the need to improve our operationalizations of mindfulness, advance our understanding of how to best cultivate mindfulness, and reappraise the ways in which mindfulness can manifest as a state and as a trait.