Recovery of neuropsychological function following abstinence from alcohol in adults diagnosed with an alcohol use disorder: Systematic review of longitudinal studies.

BackgroundAlcohol use disorders (AUD) associate with structural and functional brain differences, including impairments in neuropsychological function; however, reviews (mostly cross-sectional) are inconsistent with regards to recovery of such functions following abstinence. Recovery is important, as these impairments associate with treatment outcomes and quality of life.Objective(s)To assess neuropsychological function recovery following abstinence in individuals with a clinical AUD diagnosis. The secondary objective was to assess predictors of neuropsychological recovery in AUD.MethodsFollowing the preregistered protocol (PROSPERO: CRD42022308686), APA PsycInfo, EBSCO MEDLINE, CINAHL, and Web of Science Core Collection were searched between 1999-2022. Study reporting follows the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) Manual for Evidence Synthesis, study quality was assessed using the JBI Checklist for Cohort Studies. Eligible studies were those with a longitudinal design that assessed neuropsychological recovery following abstinence from alcohol in adults with a clinical diagnosis of AUD. Studies were excluded if participant group was defined by another or co-morbid condition/injury, or by relapse. Recovery was defined as function reaching 'normal' performance.ResultsSixteen studies (AUD n = 783, controls n = 390) were selected for narrative synthesis. Most functions demonstrated recovery within 6-12 months, including sub-domains within attention, executive function, perception, and memory, though basic processing speed and working memory updating/tracking recovered earlier. Additionally, verbal fluency was not impaired at baseline (while verbal function was not assessed compared to normal levels), and concept formation and reasoning recovery was inconsistent.ConclusionsThese results provide evidence that recovery of most functions is possible. While overall robustness of results was good, methodological limitations included lack of control groups, additional methods to self-report to confirm abstinence, description/control for attrition, statistical control of confounds, and of long enough study durations to capture change.