New Access Routes to Undertreated Populations; How Do Problem Substance Users Recruited from an Unemployment Office Differ from Detoxification Treatment Inpatients?

BACKGROUND: Only a minority of subjects with substance use disorders (SUDs) are in addiction-specific treatment (treatment gap). Co-operation between an unemployment office and a psychiatric hospital was established for the assessment and counseling of long-term unemployed clients with SUD. We aim at validating whether such a treatment gap exists in that group, and whether clients from an unemployment office differed from a matched group of inpatient detoxification patients with regard to socio-economic characteristics, substance use and treatment history, and the prevalence of mental disorders Methods: Unemployment office clients (n = 166) with an SUD were assessed using a standardized sociodemographic and clinical interview. They were compared with 83 inpatients from a local detoxification ward, matched for age, sex, and primary addictive disorder (matching ratio 2:1). RESULTS: Most (75.9%) subjects were males, with an average age of 36.7 years. The SUDs mostly related to alcohol (63.9%) and cannabis (27.7%). Although most unemployment office clients had a long SUD history, only half of them had ever been in addiction-specific treatment during their lifetime, and only one in four during the last year. There were no statistically significant differences between the groups regarding age at onset of problematic substance use, the proportion of migrants, and prevalence of comorbid mental disorders. The unemployment office sample showed lower levels of education (p < 0.001), job experience (p = 0.009), and current employment rates (p < 0.001). Conversely, inpatients showed lower rates of imprisonment (p < 0.001), more inpatient detoxification episodes (p < 0.03); and longer abstinence periods (p < 0.005). CONCLUSIONS: There was a lifetime and recent treatment gap in the group of long-term unemployed subjects with alcohol and cannabis dependence. The markedly lower educational attainment, chronic employment problems and higher degree of legal conflicts in the client group, as compared with patients in detoxification treatment, might require specific access and treatment options. The co-operation between the psychiatric unit and the unemployment office facilitated access to that group.

Use of disulfiram for alcohol relapse prevention in patients in opioid maintenance treatment.

OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to assess the effectiveness, tolerability, and safety of alcohol relapse prevention with disulfiram in alcohol-dependent patients in opioid maintenance treatment under routine treatment conditions. METHODS: Twenty-nine opioid maintenance treatment patients were observed from the beginning of outpatient disulfiram treatment for up to 6 months. Patients received disulfiram (mostly 300 mg/d) together with their daily opioid dose. Patients were assessed through urine screens for alcohol (ethyl gluconoride) and other drugs at least twice monthly; blood chemistry analyses after 1, 3, and 6 months; and clinical interviews after 3 and 6 months. RESULTS: Most patients presented with somatic and/or psychiatric comorbidity and/or polydrug use at baseline. Half of the patients completed 6 months of disulfiram treatment. Alcohol use was low during disulfiram treatment. Levels of other drug use did not change. For most patients, 1 or more adverse events were reported, often mild and/or short lived. Three patients experienced severe adverse events attributable to disulfiram. CONCLUSIONS: Disulfiram is a viable treatment option for the high-risk population studied here. A close monitoring of side effects and adverse events is necessary, in particular, in patients with polysubstance use.

The impact of alcohol dependence on social brain function.

The impact of alcoholism (ALC) or alcohol dependence on the neural mechanisms underlying cognitive and affective empathy (i.e. the different routes to understanding other people's minds) in schizophrenic patients and non-schizophrenic subjects is still poorly understood. We therefore aimed at determining the extent to which the ability to infer other people's mental states and underlying neural mechanisms were affected by ALC. We examined 48 men, who suffered either from ALC, schizophrenia, both disorders or none of these disorders, using functional magnetic resonance imaging while performing on a mind reading task that involves both cognitive and affective aspects of empathy. Using voxel-based morphometry, we additionally examined whether between-group differences in functional activity were associated with deficits in brain structural integrity. During mental state attribution, all clinical groups as compared with healthy controls exhibited poor performance as well as reduced right-hemispheric insular function with the highest error rate and insular dysfunction seen in the schizophrenic patients without ALC. Accordingly, both behavioral performance and insular functioning revealed schizophrenia × ALC interaction effects. In addition, schizophrenic patients relative to non-schizophrenic subjects (regardless of ALC) exhibited deficits in structural integrity and task-related recruitment of the left ventrolateral prefrontal cortex (vlPFC). Our data suggest that ALC-related impairment in the ability to infer other people's mental states is limited to insular dysfunction and thus deficits in affective empathy. By contrast, mentalizing in schizophrenia (regardless of ALC) may be associated with insular dysfunction as well as a combination of structural and functional deficits in the left vlPFC.

The effects of combined acamprosate and integrative behaviour therapy in the outpatient treatment of alcohol dependence: a randomized controlled trial.

AIMS: The aim of this randomized, controlled, multisite trial was to evaluate the efficacy of combined treatment with integrative behaviour therapy (IBT) and acamprosate on drinking behaviour in detoxified alcohol-dependent patients. METHODS: A total of 371 patients were randomized to one of the three treatment conditions: IBT plus acamprosate, IBT plus placebo, or supportive counselling ('treatment as usual', TAU) plus acamprosate. The main outcome was success rate, i.e., rate of abstinence plus improvement according to the criteria of Feuerlein and Küfner (1989), at the end of the six-month treatment phase and at the subsequent six-month follow-up. Drinking status was validated by blood parameters (CDT, GGT, and MCV). Data were analyzed by an intent-to-treat model and missing data were classified as relapse. RESULTS: The success rates at the end of treatment under both TAU plus acamprosate (37.7%) and IBT plus placebo (48%) almost reached the levels derived from the literature. However, adding acamprosate to IBT did not result in the expected increase in success rate (IBT plus acamprosate: 47.6%), and success rates did not differ significantly between groups. Similarly, there was no significant difference between treatment success rates at follow-up. CONCLUSION: The results suggest that the combination of acamprosate and IBT is not more effective than treatment with either IBT or acamprosate alone. However, the two acamprosate conditions differed in success rate by about 10%, which might constitute a clinically relevant though statistically non-significant effect.

An open trial of gabapentin in acute alcohol withdrawal using an oral loading protocol.

AIMS: Anticonvulsants are increasingly being advocated for the treatment of acute alcohol withdrawal syndrome (AWS) to avoid the addictive properties of established medications. Because earlier works showed that moderate gabapentin doses were too low to clearly ameliorate severe AWS, we tested a higher gabapentin entry dose. METHODS: Inpatients (n = 37) with severe alcohol withdrawal symptoms (Clinical Institute Withdrawal Assessment for Alcohol revised (CIWA-AR) score > or =15 points) were given gabapentin 800 mg, and if their symptom score reduced within 2 h, they were termed 'early responders' and were then treated for 2 days with 600 mg gabapentin q.i.d. (i.e. a total of 3200 mg in the first 24 h) before beginning a taper. RESULTS: Twenty-seven (73%) were early responders (baseline CIWA-AR improved from 17.3 +/- 2.6 to 8.0 +/- 3.6 points). In the remaining 10 patients, baseline CIWA-AR deteriorated within 2 h (from 20.1 +/- 4.6 to 21.5 +/- 4.65 points). These patients were switched to clomethiazole (n = 4) or clonazepam (n = 6), which is the usual treatment. Three of the 'early responders' worsened in the next 36 h and were then reclassified and treated as 'non-responders'. Among them, two developed an epileptic seizure. CONCLUSION: Oral 800 mg gabapentin (loaded up to 3200 mg in the first 24 h) is helpful only in reducing less severe and less complicated acute AWS.