EFFICACY OF MEDICATIONS FOR THE TREATMENT OF ALCOHOL USE DISORDER (AUD): A SYSTEMATIC REVIEW AND META-ANALYSIS CONSIDERING BASELINE AUD SEVERITY.

Baseline severity of alcohol use disorder (AUD) is an influencing factor in the response to medications recommended for the treatment of AUD. The scarce efficacy of AUD medications partly justifies their limited uses. We were interested in evaluating the efficacy of approved and recommended AUD medications using generic inverse-variance, an analysis facilitating comparison between medications and placebo both at the end of the study and, concomitantly, to baseline values for the same participants. We conducted a systematic review to include randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing any medication to placebo providing, both at baseline and end of treatment, percent heavy drinking days (%HDD), percent drinking days (%DD), and/or drinks per drinking day (DDD). We searched PubMed, Embase, PMC, and three CT registers from inception to April 2023. A total of 79 RCTs (11,737 AUD participants; 30 different medications) were included: 47 RCTs (8,465 participants) used AUD medications, and 32 RCTs (3,272 participants) used other medications. At baseline, participants consumed on average approximately 12 DDD, and experienced 70% DD, and 61% HDD. Placebo halved or reduced these values to a third. Compared to placebo, AUD medications further reduced these outcomes (moderate to high certainty evidence). Other medications reduced the DDD without modifying other alcohol outcomes. AUD medications increased the risk of developing adverse events (high-certainty evidence). Despite the large placebo effects, our results support the benefits of providing AUD medications to people with AUD, helping them reduce alcohol consumption.

Needs of female outpatients with alcohol use disorder: data from an Italian study.

AIMS: Alcohol use disorder (AUD) is a common mental disorder characterized by sex-gender differences (SGDs). The present study was aimed at evaluating attitudes displayed by Italian AUD treatment services towards investigating the presence of SGDs in their patients and implementing gender-specific treatments for female AUD patients. METHODS: Potential SGDs were initially investigated in a sample of AUD outpatients, subsequently followed by a national survey on the adoption of specific interventions for female AUD outpatients. RESULTS: The presence of SGDs was confirmed in a sample of 525 (332 men; 193 women) AUD outpatients, including a higher prevalence of anxiety and mood disorders, and episodes of violence and trauma among female AUD outpatients compared to males. Despite the presence of these SGDs, only <20% of a total of 217 Italian AUD treatment services reported the implementation of specific strategies for female AUD outpatients. The majority of services (94%) reported investigating episodes of violence and/or trauma, largely resorting to specific procedures only when these issues were detected. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings confirm the presence of SGDs among AUD outpatients, including a higher prevalence of anxiety and mood disorders and episodes of violence and trauma among females compared with males. However, only a small number of services have adopted a gender medicine approach in AUD treatment. These results underline the urgency of investigating the specific needs of female, male, and non-binary AUD patients in order to personalize and enhance the effectiveness and appeal of AUD treatment.

Sex-Gender Differences Are Completely Neglected in Treatments for Neuropathic Pain.

As sex-gender differences have been described in the responses of patients to certain medications, we hypothesized that the responses to medications recommended for neuropathic pain may differ between men and women. We conducted a literature review to identify articles reporting potential sex-gender differences in the efficacy and safety of these medications. Only a limited number of studies investigated potential sex-gender differences. Our results show that women seem to achieve higher blood concentrations than men during treatment with amitriptyline, nortriptyline, duloxetine, venlafaxine, and pregabalin. Compared to men, higher rates of women develop side effects during treatment with gabapentin, lidocaine, and tramadol. Globally, the sex-gender differences would suggest initially administering smaller doses of these medications to women with neuropathic pain compared to those administered to men. However, most of these differences have been revealed by studies focused on the treatment of other diseases (e.g., depression). Studies focused on neuropathic pain have overlooked potential sex-gender differences in patient responses to medications. Despite the fact that up to 60% of patients with neuropathic pain fail to achieve an adequate response to medications, the potential role of sex-gender differences in the efficacy and safety of pharmacotherapy has not adequately been investigated. Targeted studies should be implemented to facilitate personalized treatments for neuropathic pain.

Psychosocial and medication interventions to stop or reduce alcohol consumption during pregnancy.

BACKGROUND: Despite the known harms, alcohol consumption is common in pregnancy. Rates vary between countries, and are estimated to be 10% globally, with up to 25% in Europe. OBJECTIVES: To assess the efficacy of psychosocial interventions and medications to reduce or stop alcohol consumption during pregnancy. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Drugs and Alcohol Group Specialised Register (via CRSLive), Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, Web of Science, and PsycINFO, from inception to 8 January 2024. We also searched for ongoing and unpublished studies via ClinicalTrials.gov and the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP). All searches included non-English language literature. We handsearched references of topic-related systematic reviews and included studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials that compared medications or psychosocial interventions, or both, to placebo, no intervention, usual care, or other medications or psychosocial interventions used to reduce or stop alcohol use during pregnancy. Our primary outcomes of interest were abstinence from alcohol, reduction in alcohol consumption, retention in treatment, and women with any adverse event. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard Cochrane methodological procedures. MAIN RESULTS: We included eight studies (1369 participants) in which pregnant women received an intervention to stop or reduce alcohol use during pregnancy. In one study, almost half of participants had a current diagnosis of alcohol use disorder (AUD); in another study, 40% of participants had a lifetime diagnosis of AUD. Six studies took place in the USA, one in Spain, and one in the Netherlands. All included studies evaluated the efficacy of psychosocial interventions; we did not find any study that evaluated the efficacy of medications for the treatment of AUD during pregnancy. Psychosocial interventions were mainly brief interventions ranging from a single session of 10 to 60 minutes to five sessions of 10 minutes each. Pregnant women received the psychosocial intervention approximately at the end of the first trimester of pregnancy, and the outcome of alcohol use was reassessed 8 to 24 weeks after the psychosocial intervention. Women in the control group received treatment as usual (TAU) or similar treatments such as comprehensive assessment of alcohol use and advice to stop drinking during pregnancy. Globally, we found that, compared to TAU, psychosocial interventions may increase the rate of continuously abstinent participants (risk ratio (RR) 1.34, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.14 to 1.57; I2 =0%; 3 studies; 378 women; low certainty evidence). Psychosocial interventions may have little to no effect on the number of drinks per day, but the evidence is very uncertain (mean difference -0.42, 95% CI -1.13 to 0.28; I2 = 86%; 2 studies; 157 women; very low certainty evidence). Psychosocial interventions probably have little to no effect on the number of women who completed treatment (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.94 to 1.02; I2 = 0%; 7 studies; 1283 women; moderate certainty evidence). None of the included studies assessed adverse events of treatments. We downgraded the certainty of the evidence due to risk of bias and imprecision of the estimates. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Brief psychosocial interventions may increase the rate of continuous abstinence among pregnant women who report alcohol use during pregnancy. Further studies should be conducted to investigate the efficacy and safety of psychosocial interventions and other treatments (e.g. medications) for women with AUD. These studies should provide detailed information on alcohol use before and during pregnancy using consistent measures such as the number of drinks per drinking day. When heterogeneous populations are recruited, more detailed information on alcohol use during pregnancy should be provided to allow future systematic reviews to be conducted. Other important information that would enhance the usefulness of these studies would be the presence of other comorbid conditions such as anxiety, mood disorders, and the use of other psychoactive substances.

Psychosocial interventions for stimulant use disorder.

BACKGROUND: Stimulant use disorder is a continuously growing medical and social burden without approved medications available for its treatment. Psychosocial interventions could be a valid approach to help people reduce or cease stimulant consumption. This is an update of a Cochrane review first published in 2016. OBJECTIVES: To assess the efficacy and safety of psychosocial interventions for stimulant use disorder in adults. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Drugs and Alcohol Group Specialised Register, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, three other databases, and two trials registers in September 2023. All searches included non-English language literature. We handsearched the references of topic-related systematic reviews and the included studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing any psychosocial intervention with no intervention, treatment as usual (TAU), or a different intervention in adults with stimulant use disorder. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used the standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. MAIN RESULTS: We included a total of 64 RCTs (8241 participants). Seventy-three percent of studies included participants with cocaine or crack cocaine use disorder; 3.1% included participants with amphetamine use disorder; 10.9% included participants with methamphetamine use disorder; and 12.5% included participants with any stimulant use disorder. In 18 studies, all participants were in methadone maintenance treatment. In our primary comparison of any psychosocial treatment to no intervention, we included studies which compared a psychosocial intervention plus TAU to TAU alone. In this comparison, 12 studies evaluated cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT), 27 contingency management, three motivational interviewing, one study looked at psychodynamic therapy, and one study evaluated CBT plus contingency management. We also compared any psychosocial intervention to TAU. In this comparison, seven studies evaluated CBT, two contingency management, two motivational interviewing, and one evaluated a combination of CBT plus motivational interviewing. Seven studies compared contingency management reinforcement related to abstinence versus contingency management not related to abstinence. Finally, seven studies compared two different psychosocial approaches. We judged 65.6% of the studies to be at low risk of bias for random sequence generation and 19% at low risk for allocation concealment. Blinding of personnel and participants was not possible for the type of intervention, so we judged all the studies to be at high risk of performance bias for subjective outcomes but at low risk for objective outcomes. We judged 22% of the studies to be at low risk of detection bias for subjective outcomes. We judged most of the studies (69%) to be at low risk of attrition bias. When compared to no intervention, we found that psychosocial treatments: reduce the dropout rate (risk ratio (RR) 0.82, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.74 to 0.91; 30 studies, 4078 participants; high-certainty evidence); make little to no difference to point abstinence at the end of treatment (RR 1.15, 95% CI 0.94 to 1.41; 12 studies, 1293 participants; high-certainty evidence); make little to no difference to point abstinence at the longest follow-up (RR 1.22, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.62; 9 studies, 1187 participants; high-certainty evidence); probably increase continuous abstinence at the end of treatment (RR 1.89, 95% CI 1.20 to 2.97; 12 studies, 1770 participants; moderate-certainty evidence); may make little to no difference in continuous abstinence at the longest follow-up (RR 1.14, 95% CI 0.89 to 1.46; 4 studies, 295 participants; low-certainty evidence); reduce the frequency of drug intake at the end of treatment (standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.35, 95% CI -0.50 to -0.19; 10 studies, 1215 participants; high-certainty evidence); and increase the longest period of abstinence (SMD 0.54, 95% CI 0.41 to 0.68; 17 studies, 2118 participants; high-certainty evidence). When compared to TAU, we found that psychosocial treatments reduce the dropout rate (RR 0.79, 95% CI 0.65 to 0.97; 9 studies, 735 participants; high-certainty evidence) and may make little to no difference in point abstinence at the end of treatment (RR 1.67, 95% CI 0.64 to 4.31; 1 study, 128 participants; low-certainty evidence). We are uncertain whether they make any difference in point abstinence at the longest follow-up (RR 1.31, 95% CI 0.86 to 1.99; 2 studies, 124 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Compared to TAU, psychosocial treatments may make little to no difference in continuous abstinence at the end of treatment (RR 1.18, 95% CI 0.92 to 1.53; 1 study, 128 participants; low-certainty evidence); probably make little to no difference in the frequency of drug intake at the end of treatment (SMD -1.17, 95% CI -2.81 to 0.47, 4 studies, 479 participants, moderate-certainty evidence); and may make little to no difference in the longest period of abstinence (SMD -0.16, 95% CI -0.54 to 0.21; 1 study, 110 participants; low-certainty evidence). None of the studies for this comparison assessed continuous abstinence at the longest follow-up. Only five studies reported harms related to psychosocial interventions; four of them stated that no adverse events occurred. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: This review's findings indicate that psychosocial treatments can help people with stimulant use disorder by reducing dropout rates. This conclusion is based on high-certainty evidence from comparisons of psychosocial interventions with both no treatment and TAU. This is an important finding because many people with stimulant use disorders leave treatment prematurely. Stimulant use disorders are chronic, lifelong, relapsing mental disorders, which require substantial therapeutic efforts to achieve abstinence. For those who are not yet able to achieve complete abstinence, retention in treatment may help to reduce the risks associated with stimulant use. In addition, psychosocial interventions reduce stimulant use compared to no treatment, but they may make little to no difference to stimulant use when compared to TAU. The most studied and promising psychosocial approach is contingency management. Relatively few studies explored the other approaches, so we cannot rule out the possibility that the results were imprecise due to small sample sizes.

Disulfiram for the treatment of cocaine dependence.

BACKGROUND: Cocaine is a psychostimulant used by approximately 0.4% of the general population worldwide. Cocaine dependence is a chronic mental disorder characterised by the inability to control cocaine use and a host of severe medical and psychosocial complications. There is current no approved pharmacological treatment for cocaine dependence. Some researchers have proposed disulfiram, a medication approved to treat alcohol use disorder. This is an update of a Cochrane review first published in 2010. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of disulfiram for the treatment of cocaine dependence. SEARCH METHODS: We updated our searches of the following databases to August 2022: the Cochrane Drugs and Alcohol Group Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, and PsycINFO. We also searched for ongoing and unpublished studies via two trials registries. We handsearched the references of topic-related systematic reviews and included studies. The searches had no language restrictions. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials that evaluated disulfiram alone or associated with psychosocial interventions versus placebo, no intervention, other pharmacological interventions, or any psychosocial intervention for the treatment of cocaine dependence. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. MAIN RESULTS: Thirteen studies (1191 participants) met our inclusion criteria. Disulfiram versus placebo or no treatment Disulfiram compared to placebo may increase the number of people who are abstinent at the end of treatment (point abstinence; risk ratio (RR) 1.58, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.05 to 2.36; 3 datasets, 142 participants; low-certainty evidence). However, compared to placebo or no pharmacological treatment, disulfiram may have little or no effect on frequency of cocaine use (standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.11 standard deviations (SDs), 95% CI -0.39 to 0.17; 13 datasets, 818 participants), amount of cocaine use (SMD -0.00 SDs, 95% CI -0.30 to 0.30; 7 datasets, 376 participants), continuous abstinence (RR 1.23, 95% CI 0.80 to 1.91; 6 datasets, 386 participants), and dropout for any reason (RR 1.20, 95% CI 0.92 to 1.55; 14 datasets, 841 participants). The certainty of the evidence was low for all these outcomes. We are unsure about the effects of disulfiram versus placebo on dropout due to adverse events (RR 12.97, 95% CI 0.77 to 218.37; 1 study, 67 participants) and on the occurrence of adverse events (RR 3.00, 95% CI 0.35 to 25.98), because the certainty of the evidence was very low for these outcomes. Disulfiram versus naltrexone Disulfiram compared with naltrexone may reduce the frequency of cocaine use (mean difference (MD) -1.90 days, 95% CI -3.37 to -0.43; 2 datasets, 123 participants; low-certainty evidence) and may have little or no effect on amount of cocaine use (SMD 0.12 SDs, 95% CI -0.27 to 0.51, 2 datasets, 123 participants; low-certainty evidence). We are unsure about the effect of disulfiram versus naltrexone on dropout for any reason (RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.56 to 1.32, 3 datasets, 131 participants) and dropout due to adverse events (RR 0.50, 95% CI 0.07 to 3.55; 1 dataset, 8 participants), because the certainty of the evidence was very low for these outcomes. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Our results show that disulfiram compared to placebo may increase point abstinence. However, disulfiram compared to placebo or no pharmacological treatment may have little or no effect on frequency of cocaine use, amount of cocaine use, continued abstinence, and dropout for any reason. We are unsure if disulfiram has any adverse effects in this population. Caution is required when transferring our results to clinical practice.

Identifying the most important research, policy and practice questions for substance use, problematic alcohol use and behavioural addictions in autism (SABA-A): A priority setting partnership.

BACKGROUND: Autistic people are more likely to report problematic alcohol and other substance use when compared to the general population. Evidence suggests that up to one in three autistic adults may have an alcohol or other substance use disorder (AUD/SUD), although the evidence base for behavioural addictions is less clear. Autistic people may use substances or engage in potentially addictive behaviours as a means of coping with social anxiety, challenging life problems, or camouflaging in social contexts. Despite the prevalence and detrimental effects of AUD, SUD and behavioural addictions in community samples, literature focusing on the intersection between autism and these conditions is scarce, hindering health policy, research, and clinical practice. METHODS: We aimed to identify the top 10 priorities to build the evidence for research, policy, and clinical practice at this intersection. A priority-setting partnership was used to address this aim, comprising an international steering committee and stakeholders from various backgrounds, including people with declared lived experience of autism and/or addiction. First, an online survey was used to identify what people considered key questions about Substance use, alcohol use, or behavioural addictions in autistic people (SABA-A). These initial questions were reviewed and amended by stakeholders, and then classified and refined to form the final list of top priorities via an online consensus process. OUTCOMES: The top ten priorities were identified: three research, three policy, and four practice questions. Future research suggestions are discussed.

Baclofen for alcohol use disorder.

BACKGROUND: Alcohol use disorder (AUD) is one of the most widespread psychiatric disorders leading to detrimental consequences to people with this disorder and others. Worldwide, the prevalence of heavy episodic drinking (30-day prevalence of at least one occasion of 60 g of pure alcohol intake among current drinkers) is estimated at 20% and the prevalence of AUD at 5% of the adult general population, with highest prevalence in Europe and North America. Therapeutic approaches, including pharmacotherapy, play an important role in treating people with AUD. This is an update of a Cochrane Review first published in 2018. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the benefits and harms of baclofen on achieving and maintaining abstinence or reducing alcohol consumption in people with AUD compared to placebo, no treatment or any other pharmacological relapse prevention treatment. SEARCH METHODS: We used standard, extensive Cochrane search methods. The latest search was 22 November 2021. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of at least four weeks' treatment duration and 12 weeks' overall study duration comparing baclofen for AUD treatment with placebo, no treatment or other treatments. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard Cochrane methods. Our primary outcomes were 1. relapse, 2. frequency of use, 3. amount of use, 4. adverse events, 5. dropouts from treatment and 6. dropouts from treatment due to adverse events. Our secondary outcomes were 7. craving, 8. anxiety, 9. depression and 10. frequency of most relevant adverse events. MAIN RESULTS: We included 17 RCTs (1818 participants) with a diagnosis of alcohol dependence according to the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 4th edition or International Classification of Diseases 10th edition criteria. Mean age was 46.5 years and 70% were men. Ten studies compared baclofen to placebo or another medication; seven compared two baclofen doses to placebo or another medication. Globally, 15 studies compared baclofen to placebo, two baclofen to acamprosate and two baclofen to naltrexone. In 16 studies, participants received psychosocial treatments. We judged most studies at low risk of selection, performance, detection (subjective outcome), attrition and reporting bias. Ten studies detoxified participants before treatment; in seven studies, participants were still drinking at the beginning of treatment. Treatment duration was 12 weeks for 15 RCTs and longer in two studies. Baclofen daily dose was 30 mg to 300 mg: 10 RCTs used low doses (30 mg or less); eight RCTs medium doses (above 30 and 100 mg or less) and four RCTs high doses (above 100 mg). Compared to placebo, moderate-certainty evidence found that baclofen probably decreases the risk to relapse (risk ratio (RR) 0.87, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.77 to 0.99; 12 studies, 1057 participants). This result was confirmed among detoxified participants but not among other subgroups of participants. High-certainty evidence found that baclofen increases the percentage of days abstinent (mean difference (MD) 9.07, 95% CI 3.30 to 14.85; 16 studies, 1273 participants). This result was confirmed among all subgroups of participants except non-detoxified or those who received medium doses. There was no difference between baclofen and placebo in the other primary outcomes: heavy drinking days (standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.18, 95% CI -0.48 to 0.11; 13 studies, 840 participants; moderate-certainty evidence); number of drinks per drinking days (MD -0.45, 95% CI -1.20 to 0.30; 9 studies, 392 participants; moderate-certainty evidence); number of participants with at least one adverse event (RR 1.05, 95% CI 0.99 to 1.11; 10 studies, 738 participants; high-certainty evidence); dropouts (RR 0.88, 95% CI 0.74 to 1.03; 17 studies, 1563 participants; high-certainty evidence); dropouts due to adverse events (RR 1.39, 95% CI 0.89 to 2.18; 16 studies, 1499 participants; high-certainty evidence). These results were confirmed by subgroup analyses except than for the dropouts that resulted lower among participants who received high doses of baclofen and studies longer than 12 weeks. Compared to placebo, there was no difference in craving (SMD -0.16, 95% CI -0.37 to 0.04; 17 studies, 1275 participants), anxiety (MD -0.01, 95% CI -0.14 to 0.11; 15 studies, 1123 participants) and depression (SMD 0.07, 95% CI -0.12 to 0.27; 11 studies, 1029 participants). Concerning the specific adverse events, baclofen increases fatigue, dizziness, somnolence/sedation, dry mouth, paraesthesia and muscle spasms/rigidity. There was no difference in the other adverse events. Compared to acamprosate, one study (60 participants) found no differences in any outcomes but the evidence was very uncertain: relapse (RR 1.25, 95% CI 0.71 to 2.20; very low-certainty evidence); number of participants with at least one adverse event (RR 0.63, 95% CI 0.23 to 1.69; very low-certainty evidence); dropouts (RR 0.56, 95% CI 0.21 to 1.46; very low-certainty evidence); dropouts due to adverse events (RR 0.33, 95% CI 0.01 to 7.87; very low-certainty evidence) and craving (MD 5.80, 95% CI -11.84 to 23.44); and all the adverse events evaluated. Compared to naltrexone, baclofen may increase the risk of relapse (RR 2.50, 95% CI 1.12 to 5.56; 1 study, 60 participants; very low-certainty evidence) and decrease the number of participants with at least one adverse event (RR 0.35, 95% CI 0.15 to 0.80; 2 studies, 80 participants; very low-certainty evidence) but the evidence is very uncertain. One study (60 participants) found no difference between baclofen and naltrexone in the dropouts at the end of treatment (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.32 to 3.10; very low-certainty evidence), craving (MD 2.08, 95% CI -3.71 to 7.87), and all the adverse events evaluated. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Baclofen likely reduces the risk of relapse to any drinking and increases the percentage of abstinent days, mainly among detoxified participants. It does not increase the number of participants with at least one adverse event, those who dropout for any reason or due to adverse events. It probably does not reduce number of heavy drinking days and the number of drinks per drinking days. Current evidence suggests that baclofen may help people with AUD in maintaining abstinence. The results of comparisons of baclofen with acamprosate and naltrexone were mainly based on only one study.

Hazardous drinking and alcohol use disorders.

Alcohol is one of the most widely consumed psychoactive drugs globally. Hazardous drinking, defined by quantity and frequency of consumption, is associated with acute and chronic morbidity. Alcohol use disorders (AUDs) are psychiatric syndromes characterized by impaired control over drinking and other symptoms. Contemporary aetiological perspectives on AUDs apply a biopsychosocial framework that emphasizes the interplay of genetics, neurobiology, psychology, and an individual's social and societal context. There is strong evidence that AUDs are genetically influenced, but with a complex polygenic architecture. Likewise, there is robust evidence for environmental influences, such as adverse childhood exposures and maladaptive developmental trajectories. Well-established biological and psychological determinants of AUDs include neuroadaptive changes following persistent use, differences in brain structure and function, and motivational determinants including overvaluation of alcohol reinforcement, acute effects of environmental triggers and stress, elevations in multiple facets of impulsivity, and lack of alternative reinforcers. Social factors include bidirectional roles of social networks and sociocultural influences, such as public health control strategies and social determinants of health. An array of evidence-based approaches for reducing alcohol harms are available, including screening, pharmacotherapies, psychological interventions and policy strategies, but are substantially underused. Priorities for the field include translating advances in basic biobehavioural research into novel clinical applications and, in turn, promoting widespread implementation of evidence-based clinical approaches in practice and health-care systems.

Exposure to an enriched environment reduces alcohol self-administration in Sardinian alcohol-preferring rats.

Living in an enriched environment (EE) produces a notable impact on several rodent behaviors, including those motivated by drugs of abuse. This picture is somewhat less clear when referring to alcohol-motivated behaviors. With the intent of contributing to this research field with data from one of the few rat lines selectively bred for excessive alcohol consumption, the present study investigated the effect of EE on operant oral alcohol self-administration in Sardinian alcohol-preferring (sP) rats. Starting from Postnatal Day (PND) 21, male sP rats were kept under 3 different housing conditions: impoverished environment (IE; single housing in shoebox-like cages with no environmental enrichment); standard environment (SE; small colony cages with 3 rats and no environmental enrichment); EE (large colony cages with 6 rats and multiple elements of environmental enrichment, including 2 floors, ladders, maze, running wheels, and shelter). From PND 60, rats were exposed to different phases of shaping and training of alcohol self-administration. IE, SE, and EE rats were then compared under (i) fixed ratio (FR) 4 (FR4) schedule of alcohol reinforcement for 20 daily sessions and (ii) progressive ratio (PR) schedule of alcohol reinforcement in a final single session. Acquisition of the lever-responding task (shaping) was slower in EE than IE and SE rats, as the likely consequence of a "devaluation" of the novel stimuli provided by the operant chamber in comparison to those to which EE rats were continuously exposed in their homecage or an alteration, induced by EE, of the rat "emotionality" state when facing the novel environment represented by the operant chamber. Training of alcohol self-administration was slower in EE than IE rats, with SE rats displaying intermediate values. A similar ranking order (IE>SE>EE) was also observed in number of lever-responses for alcohol, amount of self-administered alcohol, and breakpoint for alcohol under FR4 and PR schedules of reinforcement. These data suggest that living in a complex environment reduced the reinforcing and motivational properties of alcohol in sP rats. These results are interpreted in terms of the reinforcing and motivational properties of the main components of EE (i.e., social interactions, physical activities, exploration, novelty) substituting, at least partially, for those of alcohol.

Alcohol-medication interactions: A systematic review and meta-analysis of placebo-controlled trials.

Alcohol and other xenobiotics may limit the therapeutic effects of medications. We aimed at investigating alcohol-medication interactions (AMI) after the exclusion of confounding effects related to other xenobiotics. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of controlled studies comparing the effects induced by alcohol versus placebo on pharmacodynamic and/or pharmacokinetic parameters of approved medications. Certainty in the evidence of AMI was assessed when at least 3 independent studies and at least 200 participants were available. We included 107 articles (3097 participants): for diazepam, cannabis, opioids, and methylphenidate, we found significant AMI and enough data to assign the certainty of evidence. Alcohol consumption significantly increases the peak plasma concentration of diazepam (low certainty; almost 290 participants), cannabis (high certainty; almost 650 participants), opioids (low certainty; 560 participants), and methylphenidate (moderate certainty; 290 participants). For most medications, we found some AMI but not enough data to assign them the certainty grades; for some medications, we found no differences between alcohol and placebo in any outcomes evaluated. Our results add further evidence for interactions between alcohol and certain medications after the exclusion of confounding effects related to other xenobiotics. Physicians should advise patients who use these specific medications to avoid alcohol consumption. Further studies with appropriate control groups, enough female participants to investigate sex differences, and elderly population are needed to expand our knowledge in this field. Short phrases suitable for indexing terms.

Alcohol Consumption Is a Modifiable Risk Factor for Breast Cancer: Are Women Aware of This Relationship?

AIMS: Despite alcohol consumption being a dose-dependent risk factor for breast cancer, a recent study conducted in the UK found <20% of women attending breast screening programmes were aware of this relationship and proposed proper information campaigns need to be conducted. We aimed to investigate the awareness of this relationship among a related sample of Italian women to evaluate whether similar information campaigns should also be conducted in Italy. METHODS: The questionnaire used by the UK study was translated into Italian, slightly modified for the Italian context, validated and submitted to a sample of Italian women. RESULTS: Overall 507 women were interviewed. Among them, 160 were classified as breast cancer screening attenders (SG), 44 as symptomatic breast clinic attenders (CAG) and 303 as non-screening group (NSG). Alcohol was correctly identified as a risk factor for breast cancer by 16.9, 11.4 and 14.9% of participants of SG, CAG and NSG, respectively without differences between the three groups. Despite the methodological differences, the rates of participants who correctly identified alcohol as a risk factor among women attending breast screening programmes were surprisingly similar between the study conducted in UK (15.7%) and the present study (16.9%). CONCLUSION: The results of the present study confirm the limited awareness of the relationship between alcohol consumption and risk of developing breast cancer among women and suggest the urgent need to conduct proper awareness-raising campaigns to counter this in the Italian female population.

Gender Differences among Sardinians with Alcohol Use Disorder.

Sardinia is an Italian island in the Mediterranean characterized by secular isolation and the singular genetic characteristics of its inhabitants. Findings obtained in populations with diverse genetic make-up and cultural background indicate gender differences and/or similarities in drinking characteristics of patients with alcohol use disorder (AUD). Knowledge of these characteristics in AUD patients is useful to improve access to treatments. This paper investigated the drinking characteristics of 66 female and 282 male outpatients with AUD, born from 1937 to 1991, living in Sardinia, and compared their characteristics with those of AUD patients living in other countries. Most Sardinian patients were men, approximately 3 years younger than women; women consumed lower amounts of alcohol than men but did not differ from men in the severity of AUD. Men were more often single than women, while a higher proportion of women reported that their mother or spouse was affected by AUD. Anxiety and depression were more prevalent among women while a higher proportion of men were affected by substance use disorders. Women were older than men at the age of first drink, regular drinking, and onset of AUD, and progressed faster than men from regular use to AUD onset. Women did not differ from men in age at first request for care, and in the lapse from AUD onset to first request for care. Women and men waited for more than 8 and 9 years, respectively, before receiving medical treatment. Gender differences progressively decreased among younger patients. Although the scarce number of women in some cohorts limits the strength of these findings, drinking characteristics of Sardinian patients did not vary significantly from those of AUD patients living in other countries. These results suggest that the number of Sardinian women with AUD is increasing and services for treatment of AUD should (a) consider women's specific needs, and (b) realize effective policies to reduce latency prior to accessing medical treatment for both men and women with AUD.

Alcohol-Related Behaviour in Freshmen University Students in Sardinia, Italy.

This study aims to provide a picture of University of Cagliari students' alcohol-related behaviour and to explore factors associated with it. Data were collected by administering a questionnaire to 992 freshmen university students from different programs consisting of twelve closed questions, including three questions from the Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test for Consumption (AUDIT-C short form). Three subgroups of alcohol-related behaviour were distinguished (risky drinkers, social drinkers and abstainers). In order to explore factors associated with patterns of alcohol consumption, a multivariate logistic regression was performed. The prevalence of risky drinkers was 35%. A binge-drinking behaviour at least once in the last twelve months was declared by 65% (more widespread in men and in students living away from their parents). Risky consumption is significantly associated with age of onset of alcohol use, living away from parents' home, drinking outside meals and attending health courses. Regarding the levels of daily alcohol consumption perceived as a health risk, 66% of men and 88% of women indicate values higher than those recommended. The results underline the need for tailored prevention measures. University could be a promising setting to implement actions according to a health promotion perspective, to empower students to control their alcohol consumption.

The validity of the state-trait anxiety inventory and the brief scale for anxiety in an inpatient sample with alcohol use disorder.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: The Brief Scale for Anxiety (BSA) and the State-Trait Anxiety Inventory Form Y-2 (STAI-Y-2) are self-report scales used to gauge anxiety symptoms in clinical settings. Co-occuring anxiety is common in alcohol use disorder (AUD); however, no studies have assessed the validity of the BSA and STAI-Y-2 compared with a clinical diagnostic tool of anxiety in alcohol treatment programs. We aimed to examine the validity of the BSA and STAI-Y-2 to predict a clinical diagnosis of an anxiety disorder (via the Structured Clinical Interview for DSM [SCID]) in AUD patients. DESIGN: Participants were administered the BSA (n = 1005) on day 2 and the STAI-Y-2 (n = 483) between days 2 and 10 of the detoxification program. SCID-based clinical diagnoses of AUD and anxiety were made approximately on day 10. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: Individuals seeking treatment for AUD admitted to an inpatient unit at the National Institutes of Health (NIH) Clinical Center in Bethesda, MD, USA (n = 1010). MEASUREMENTS: Inclusion criteria included a current diagnosis of alcohol dependence (AD) according to DSM-IV-TR or moderate to severe AUD according to DSM-5-RV, as well as available baseline BSA and/or STAI Y-2 data. Empirical receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves were generated using estimates of sensitivity, 1-specificity and positive and negative predictive values for each cut-point to determine the accuracy of scale outcomes in relation to SCID diagnoses. FINDINGS: The BSA demonstrated low accuracy relative to a clinical diagnosis of anxiety with an area under the curve (AUC) of 0.67 at the optimal cut-point of ≥ 10. The STAI-Y-2 had moderate accuracy relative to a clinical diagnosis of anxiety with an AUC of 0.70 at the optimal cut-point of ≥ 51. The accuracy of the STAI-Y-2 increased (AUC = 0.74) when excluding post-traumatic stress disorder and obsessive-compulsive disorder from anxiety disorder classification. CONCLUSIONS: Use of the Brief Scale for Anxiety (BSA) and/or State-Trait Anxiety Inventory Form Y-2 (STAI-Y-2) does not appear to be a reliable substitute for clinical diagnoses of anxiety disorder among inpatients with alcohol use disorder. The BSA and STAI-Y-2 could serve as a screening tool to reject the presence of anxiety disorders rather than for detecting an anxiety disorder.

The influence of anxiety symptoms on clinical outcomes during baclofen treatment of alcohol use disorder: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Given the high coexistence of anxiety symptoms in people with alcohol use disorder (AUD), we aimed to determine the influence of anxiety symptoms on outcomes in patients with AUD treated with the GABAB receptor agonist baclofen. A meta-analysis of 13 comparisons (published 2010-2020) including baseline and outcome data on alcohol consumption and anxiety after 12 weeks was undertaken. There were significantly higher rates of abstinent days in patients treated with baclofen compared to placebo (p = 0.004; high certainty evidence); specifically in those with higher baseline anxiety levels (p < 0.00001; high certainty evidence) compared to those with lower baseline anxiety levels (p = 0.20; moderate certainty evidence). The change in anxiety ratings over 12 weeks did not differ between those treated with baclofen or placebo (p = 0.84; moderate certainty evidence). This may be due to different anxiety constructs being measured by scales not validated in this patient group, or that anxiety is not a biobehavioral mechanism by which baclofen may reduce alcohol drinking. Given the prevalence of anxiety symptoms in AUD all these factors warrant further research.

Use of Medications for the Treatment of Alcohol Dependence: A Retrospective Study Conducted in 2011-2012.

BACKGROUND: Pharmacotherapy for Alcohol Dependence (AD) is underutilized. Barriers preventing the use of AD medications include high prices, lack of access to prescribing physicians, and a limited number of available medications. OBJECTIVE: The study evaluated the use of AD medications in a sample of Italian outpatients who received these medications free of charge, had access to physicians during office hours, and for whom substitution therapy [gamma-hydroxybutyrate (GHB)] was available. We also evaluated the rate of patients who received a combination of non-pharmacological and pharmacological treatments among participants who were still drinking. METHODS: SCID for AD and questionnaire were filled by to AD outpatients during a face-to-face interview. RESULTS & DISCUSSION: 345 AD outpatients were interviewed: 58.8% were currently receiving at least one AD medication (GHB: 34.3%, disulfiram: 29.6%, acamprosate: 5.9%; naltrexone: 2.5%; more than one medication: 16.7%). Less than 30% of participants who were still drinking, received a combination of non-pharmacological and pharmacological treatments. Nonetheless, we found higher use of AD medications compared to previous studies conducted in other countries. This higher use of AD medications may be due to access to free medications, prescribing physicians' style, and a larger number of available medications. CONCLUSION: Our results confirm the underutilization of AD medications, as less than 60% of AD outpatients received medications, and less than 30% of those who were still drinking, received a combination of non-pharmacological and pharmacological treatments. These findings may be useful in improving our knowledge of the barriers that prevent the use of AD medications in clinical practice.