Improving Estimates of Alcohol-Attributable Deaths in the United States: Impact of Adjusting for the Underreporting of Alcohol Consumption.

OBJECTIVE: Self-reported alcohol consumption in U.S. public health surveys covers only 30%-60% of per capita alcohol sales, based on tax and shipment data. To estimate alcohol-attributable harms using alcohol-attributable fractions, accurate measures of total population consumption and the distribution of this drinking are needed. This study compared methodological approaches of adjusting self-reported survey data on alcohol consumption to better reflect sales and assessed the impact of these adjustments on the distribution of average daily consumption (ADC) levels and the number of alcohol-attributable deaths. METHOD: Prevalence estimates of ADC levels (i.e., low, medium, and high) among U.S. adults who responded to the 2011-2015 Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System (BRFSS; N = 2,198,089) were estimated using six methods. BRFSS ADC estimates were adjusted using the National Alcohol Survey, per capita alcohol sales data (from the Alcohol Epidemiologic Data System), or both. Prevalence estimates for the six methods were used to estimate average annual alcohol-attributable deaths, using a population-attributable fraction approach. RESULTS: Self-reported ADC in the BRFSS accounted for 31.3% coverage of per capita alcohol sales without adjustments, 36.1% using indexed-BRFSS data, and 44.3% with National Alcohol Survey adjustments. Per capita sales adjustments decreased low ADC prevalence estimates and increased medium and high ADC prevalence estimates. Estimated alcohol-attributable deaths ranged from approximately 91,200 per year (BRFSS unadjusted; Method 1) to 125,200 per year (100% of per capita sales adjustment; Method 6). CONCLUSIONS: Adjusting ADC to reflect total U.S. alcohol consumption (e.g., adjusting to 73% of per capita sales) has implications for assessing the impact of excessive drinking on health outcomes, including alcohol-attributable death estimates.

Identifying the availability of recovery housing in the U.S.: The NSTARR project.

BACKGROUND: Home is essential to recovery, and recovery housing can play an important role for individuals seeking a supportive environment. The National Study of Treatment and Addiction Recovery Residences (NSTARR) Project constitutes the largest and most diverse study of recovery housing to date. We describe the development of a national sampling frame to study recovery housing, as well as findings on availability and distribution of recovery housing across the U.S. METHODS: Data from publicly available sources and lists maintained by entities tracking recovery housing were compiled. Residences for which locating information was available were geocoded and linked with U.S. Census data and drug and alcohol mortality data. We used hot spot analysis and multilevel models to describe the geographic distribution of recovery residences and assess whether residences are located in areas of high need. RESULTS: The NSTARR database contains information on 10,358 residences operated by 3628 providers in all 50 states. Residences were more likely (p < 0.05) to be in urban areas and in counties with higher substance use mortality; they were less likely to be in economically disadvantaged areas. Recovery housing density also was greater in urban areas and areas with a greater proportion of non-White residents, but lower in economically disadvantaged areas. CONCLUSIONS: Despite a wealth of research on some types of recovery housing, critical gaps in the field's understanding about the nature of recovery housing remain. The NSTARR Project represents an important first step to expand research on recovery housing across the country.

Does cannabis complement or substitute alcohol consumption? A systematic review of human and animal studies.

BACKGROUND: Whether alcohol and cannabis complement or substitute each other has been studied for over two decades. In the changing cannabis policy landscape, debates are moving rapidly and spill-over effects on other substances are of interest. AIMS: update and extend a previous systematic review, by: (a) identifying new human behavioural studies reporting on substitution and/or complementarity of alcohol and cannabis, and (b) additionally including animal studies. METHODS: We replicated the search strategy of an earlier systematic review, supplemented with a new search for animal studies. Search results were crossed checked against the earlier review and reference lists were hand searched. Findings were synthesised using a narrative synthesis. RESULTS: Sixty-five articles were included (64 in humans, one in animals). We synthesised findings into categories: patterns of use, substitution practices, economic relationship, substance use disorders, policy evaluation, others and animal studies. Overall, 30 studies found evidence for substitution, 17 for complementarity, 14 did not find evidence for either, and four found evidence for both. CONCLUSIONS: Overall, the evidence regarding complementarity and substitution of cannabis and alcohol is mixed. We identified stronger support for substitution than complementarity, though evidence indicates different effects in different populations and to some extent across different study designs. The quality of studies varied and few were designed specifically to address this question. Dedicated high-quality research is warranted.

Changes in Marijuana Use Across the 2012 Washington State Recreational Legalization: Is Retrospective Assessment of Use Before Legalization More Accurate?

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to evaluate changes in marijuana use prevalence and user characteristics across the 2012 recreational legalization in Washington State. Differences in change estimates between retrospective and contemporaneous pre-legalization measures are compared and considered in relation to potential social acceptability and illegality effects on reporting. METHOD: Four representative surveys of the Washington State population 18 years and older were conducted by telephone, two in 2014 and two in 2015, which are combined by year for analyses (N = 3,451). Respondents reported their current past-year use frequency and retrospective frequency of use in 2012 before the election in which legalization was passed. They also provided demographic information and details of alcohol use, including simultaneous use with marijuana. RESULTS: A small and not statistically significant increase of 1.2 percentage points in past-year use prevalence, from 24.3% (22.3-26.5) to 25.6% (23.6-27.6), was found when combining the surveys. No statistically significant change was found in the prevalence of simultaneous use with alcohol, which decreased from 12.9% (11.3-14.7) to 12.6% (11.0-14.4). In contrast, estimates from the National Survey on Drug Use and Health (NSDUH) indicate substantially increased prevalence, from 15.5% (13.8-17.3) in 2010-2012 to 19.1% (16.9-21.4) in 2013-2014, although this change is not statistically significant. Other findings of interest from the Washington State surveys include new users after legalization tending to be older, White, and moderate drinkers who do not use marijuana simultaneously with alcohol. CONCLUSIONS: A retrospective pre-legalization measure showed only a small increase in marijuana use prevalence in contrast to larger changes found in prospectively assessed use in the NSDUH. Changes in the social acceptability and legal status of marijuana after legalization may have increased reporting of pre-legalization use compared with concurrent assessments.

Survey Estimates of Changes in Alcohol Use Patterns Following the 2012 Privatization of the Washington Liquor Monopoly.

AIMS: The US state of Washington's 333 state-run liquor stores were privatized on 1 June 2012 and purchases began in ~1500 licensed stores of a variety of types. A regime of taxes and fees was implemented to replace the revenues generated by the state stores and, 1 year later, the beer tax was reduced by two thirds. This study evaluates the impact of these changes on total alcohol and spirits consumption in a retrospective pre-test design. METHODS: The study sample consists of 2289 adults recruited in three cross-sectional surveys during 2014 and 2015. Retrospective typical past month quantity-frequency measures for before privatization drinking and current past month quantity-frequency measures were compared within subjects, for all alcohol and for spirits only. RESULTS: No change in alcohol volume was seen across privatization while spirits volume was found to decrease, suggesting a shift from spirits to beer. This decline in spirits volume came from a reduction in drinking days while overall drinking days were found to increase. This was offset by a reduction in drinks per drinking day and in heavy occasions. CONCLUSIONS: These findings accurately mirror the overall flat trend in per capita alcohol sales but seem to exaggerate the very small shift towards beer seen in sales data. Effects of increased spirits availability appear to have been countered by increased spirits prices and a decreased beer tax, leading to a shift to beer consumption. SHORT SUMMARY: Survey-based analyses of alcohol use across Washington's spirits privatization, beer tax reduction and marijuana legalization found no change in alcohol volume, a reduction in spirits volume and a shift to more moderate drinking patterns. Reductions in drinking occurred among marijuana users and those with lower educational attainment reduced spirits volume.

Support for marijuana legalization in the US state of Washington has continued to increase through 2016.

BACKGROUND: Support for the legalization of recreational marijuana continues to increase across the United States and globally. In 2016, recreational marijuana was legalized in the most populous US state of California, as well as three other states. The primary aim of this study was to examine trends in support for recreational marijuana legalization in Washington, a state which has had legal recreational marijuana for almost four years, using data collected over the four years post-legalization. A secondary aim was to examine trends in support for the cultivation of marijuana for personal use. METHODS: Data come from geographically representative general population samples of adult (aged 18 and over) Washington residents collected over five timepoints (every six months) between January 2014 and April 2016 (N=4101). Random Digit Dial was used for recruitment. Statistical analyses involved bivariate comparisons of proportions across timepoints and subgroups (defined by age, gender, and marijuana user status), and multivariable logistic regression controlling for timepoint (time) to formally test for trend while controlling for demographic and substance use covariates. All analyses adjusted for probability of selection. RESULTS: Support for legalization in Washington has significantly increased: support was 64.0% (95% CI: 61.2%-67.8%) at timepoint 1 and 77.9% (95% CI: 73.2%-81.9%) at timepoint 5. With each six months' passing, support increased 19% on average. We found no statistically significant change in support for home-growing. CONCLUSIONS: Support for marijuana legalization has continued to significantly increase in a state that has experienced the policy change for almost four years.

Cannabis use during treatment for alcohol use disorders predicts alcohol treatment outcomes.

AIMS: To compare post-treatment alcohol use between those who use cannabis and those who abstain during treatment for alcohol use disorders (AUD); and to examine potential cannabis use thresholds by comparing post-treatment alcohol use between four frequency groups of cannabis users relative to abstainers. DESIGN: Secondary analyses of the Combined Pharmacotherapies and Behavioral Interventions (COMBINE) Study, a randomized control trial of AUD treatments. The current study compares longitudinal drinking data between those who used cannabis versus those who abstained during COMBINE treatment. SETTING: The COMBINE Study treatments were delivered on an out-patient basis for 16 weeks. The current analyses include 206 cannabis users and 999 cannabis abstainers. PARTICIPANTS: All participants met diagnosis of primary alcohol dependence (n = 1383). MEASUREMENTS: Primary exposures were any cannabis use and quartiles of cannabis use (Q1: 1-4 use days during treatment, Q2: 5-9 days, Q3: 10-44 days, Q4: 45-112 days). Outcomes were percentage of days abstinent from alcohol (PDA), drinks per drinking day (DPDD) and percentage of heavy drinking days (PHD), all measured at treatment end and 1 year post-treatment. FINDINGS: Compared with no cannabis use, any cannabis use during treatment was associated with 4.35% [95% confidence interval (CI) = -8.68, -0.02], or approximately 4 fewer alcohol abstinent days at the end of treatment. This association weakened by 1 year post-treatment (95% CI = -9.78, 0.54). Compared with no cannabis use, only those in the second quartile of cannabis use (those who used once or twice per month during treatment) had 8.81% (95% CI = -17.00, -0.63), or approximately 10 fewer days alcohol abstinent at end of treatment, and 11.82% (95% CI = -21.56, -2.07), or approximately 13 fewer alcohol abstinent days 1 year post-treatment. Neither any cannabis use nor quartiles were associated with DPDD or PHD at either time-point. CONCLUSIONS: Among individuals in alcohol treatment, any cannabis use (compared with none) is related to a significantly lower percentage of days abstinent from alcohol post-treatment, although only among those who used cannabis once or twice per month.

Substitution and Complementarity of Alcohol and Cannabis: A Review of the Literature.

BACKGROUND: Whether alcohol and cannabis are used as substitutes or complements remains debated, and findings across various disciplines have not been synthesized to date. OBJECTIVE: This article is a first step towards organizing the interdisciplinary literature on alcohol and cannabis substitution and complementarity. METHOD: Electronic searches were performed using PubMed and ISI Web of Knowledge. Behavioral studies of humans with "alcohol" (or "ethanol") and "cannabis" (or "marijuana") and "complement(*)" (or "substitut(*)") in the title or as a keyword were considered. Studies were organized according to sample characteristics (youth, general population, clinical and community-based). These groups were not set a priori, but were informed by the literature review process. RESULTS: Of the 39 studies reviewed, 16 support substitution, ten support complementarity, 12 support neither and one supports both. Results from studies of youth suggest that youth may reduce alcohol in more liberal cannabis environments (substitute), but reduce cannabis in more stringent alcohol environments (complement). Results from the general population suggest that substitution of cannabis for alcohol may occur under more lenient cannabis policies, though cannabis-related laws may affect alcohol use differently across genders and racial groups. CONCLUSIONS: Alcohol and cannabis act as both substitutes and complements. Policies aimed at one substance may inadvertently affect consumption of other substances. Future studies should collect fine-grained longitudinal, prospective data from the general population and subgroups of interest, especially in locations likely to legalize cannabis.

Prevalence and Trajectories of Psychiatric Symptoms Among Sober Living House Residents.

OBJECTIVE: Sober living houses are alcohol- and drug-free recovery residences that help individuals with substance use disorders maintain long-term abstinence. Given the prevalence of co-occurring mental disorders among individuals entering substance use treatment, it is likely that many such residents are also contending with psychiatric symptoms, and it is unclear how these symptoms may affect their sobriety. This study sought to describe the prevalence and trajectories of different types of symptoms among sober living house residents and examine how these symptoms affect substance use outcomes. METHODS: Data for this study were collected as part of a larger study on outcomes among sober living house residents in Northern California. The current study examined data from 300 residents in two housing groups; residents were interviewed upon entry and re-interviewed at 6-, 12-, and 18-month follow-ups. Psychiatric symptoms were assessed using the Brief Symptom Inventory (BSI). General estimating equations tested changes in BSI global psychological distress and clinical symptom scales over time and examined the relationship between scale scores and substance use in longitudinal models controlling for demographics, length of stay, and psychiatric service utilization. RESULTS: The average age of residents was 38.5 years (SD = 10.1) and they were mostly male (80%) and Caucasian (65%). Retention rates were high, with 90% (n = 269) participating in at least one follow-up interview. Overall psychological distress (Wald χ(2) = 7.99, df = 3, p = .046), symptoms of depression (Wald χ(2) = 13.57, df = 3, p = .004), and phobic anxiety (Wald χ(2) = 7.89, df = 3, p = .048) significantly improved over time. In all models examining the relationship between BSI scale scores and substance use, rates of abstinence and days of use among those who reported using substances also improved over time. Overall distress (OR = 0.48, p < .001) as well as higher scores on the somatization (OR = 0.56, p < .001), depression (OR = 0.53, p < .001), hostility (OR = 0.71, p = .006), and phobic anxiety (OR = 0.74, p = .012) subscales were significantly associated with a decreased likelihood of abstinence. Symptoms of somatization (B = 0.092, SE = 0.029, p = .002) were associated with an increase in the number of days substances were used among those who reported use. CONCLUSIONS: Psychological symptoms among sober living house residents improve over time, but they are risk factors for relapse, suggesting that additional support provided to residents with psychiatric symptoms could improve substance use outcomes.

Marijuana policy opinions in Washington state since legalization: Would voters vote the same way?

BACKGROUND: In 2012, voters in Washington state approved Initiative 502 (I-502) which legalized recreational marijuana use at the state level. This study examines the relationship between demographics, marijuana and alcohol use, and voting outcomes, as well as how these variables relate to (i) whether voters would still vote the same way (a reflection of satisfaction with the new policy) and (ii) the likelihood of using marijuana purchased from legal retail stores. METHODS: The sample consists of 2,007 adult Washington state residents recruited through Random Digit Dial between January and October 2014. Bivariate tests and multivariable regressions were used for analyses. RESULTS: Less than five percent of those who voted for marijuana legalization would change their votes, whereas 14% of those who voted against legalization would change their votes. In multivariable models controlling for demographics, substance use, and marijuana-related opinions, those who voted for legalization had half the odds of changing their votes than those who voted against it. Among past-year non-marijuana users, almost 10% were somewhat/very likely to use marijuana if they could buy it from a legal store. Past marijuana use, the belief that adults should be allowed to grow marijuana for personal use, and the belief that marijuana is not very risky for health were all related to increased likelihood of using marijuana purchased from legal stores. CONCLUSION: Since November 2012, support for marijuana legalization in Washington state has increased; accounting for the proportion of voters who would change their votes suggests that I-502 would pass today with even more votes in favor.

Multi-source recruitment strategies for advancing addiction recovery research beyond treated samples.

BACKGROUND: The lack of established sampling frames makes reaching individuals in recovery from substance problems difficult. Although general population studies are most generalizable, the low prevalence of individuals in recovery makes this strategy costly and inefficient. Though more efficient, treatment samples are biased. AIMS: To describe multi-source recruitment for capturing participants from heterogeneous pathways to recovery; assess which sources produced the most respondents within subgroups; and compare treatment and non-treatment samples to address generalizability. RESULTS: Family/friends, Craigslist, social media and non-12-step groups produced the most respondents from hard-to-reach groups, such as racial minorities and treatment-naïve individuals. Recovery organizations yielded twice as many African-Americans and more rural dwellers, while social media yielded twice as many young people than other sources. Treatment samples had proportionally fewer females and older individuals compared to non-treated samples. CONCLUSIONS: Future research on recovery should utilize previously neglected recruiting strategies to maximize the representativeness of samples.

Mixed methods study of help seekers and self-changers responding to an online recovery survey.

AIMS: To compare self-changers (natural recovery) with help seekers on demographics, pre-recovery problem severity, and recovery beliefs and behaviors; and to augment these quantitative findings with information extracted from the qualitative stories of a subset of self-changers to explore themes in recovery paths as informed by a nascent natural recovery literature. METHODS: Quantitative secondary analyses were conducted with persons who had responded to a US nationwide online survey called 'What Is Recovery' (WIR) and who reported a prior lifetime alcohol problem (n = 5495). Six men and six women (with longer-term recoveries) interviewed later were asked to tell their 'recovery story from the beginning up to now'. These were coded using a narrative approach. RESULTS: Compared with help seekers, self-changers were younger and never married: they did not differ on problem severity, gender, ethnicity or education. Self-changers identified with 'used to have a problem' more than in recovery/recovered, reported fewer years in that status, and reported more current, non-problematic substance use. A new concept of shadow help and shadow obstacles to help-seeking emerged from the qualitative analysis. Though self-changers believed that they had overcome their alcohol problem on their own, change actually occurred within a social context that allowed access to information, normative expectations, relationships, and other opportunities that provided important resources for change. CONCLUSION: Findings imply that the concept of help-seeking needs to be re-conceptualized to include the informal help we found in this study.

Elements that define recovery: the experiential perspective.

OBJECTIVE: Although recovery increasingly guides substance use disorder services and policy, definitions of recovery continue to lack specificity, thereby hindering measure development and research. The goal of this study was to move the substance use disorders field beyond broad definitions by empirically identifying the domains and specific elements of recovery as experienced by persons in recovery from diverse pathways. METHOD: An Internet-based survey was completed by 9,341 individuals (54% female) who self-identified as being in recovery, recovered, in medication-assisted recovery, or as having had a problem with alcohol or drugs (but no longer do). Respondents were recruited via extensive outreach with treatment and recovery organizations, electronic media, and self-help groups. The survey included 47 recovery elements developed through qualitative work followed by an iterative reduction process. Exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses were conducted using split-half samples, followed by sensitivity analyses for key sample groupings. RESULTS: Four recovery domains with 35 recovery elements emerged: abstinence in recovery, essentials of recovery, enriched recovery, and spirituality of recovery. The four-factor structure was robust regardless of length of recovery, 12-step or treatment exposure, and current substance use status. Four uncommon elements did not load on any factor but are presented to indicate the diversity of definitions. CONCLUSIONS: Our empirical findings offer specific items that can be used in evaluating recovery-oriented systems of care. Researchers studying recovery should include measures that extend beyond substance use and encompass elements such as those examined here--e.g., self-care, concern for others, personal growth, and developing ways of being that sustain change in substance use.

What happens when people discontinue taking medications? Lessons from COMBINE.

AIMS: We use intensive longitudinal data methods to illuminate processes affecting patients' drinking in relation to the discontinuation of medications within an alcohol treatment study. Although previous work has focused on broad measures of medication adherence, we focus on dynamic changes in drinking both before and after patients discontinue. DESIGN: We conducted secondary data analyses using the COMBINE (Combined Pharmacotherapies and Behavioral Interventions for Alcohol Dependence) study, focused on participants who discontinued medications prior to the planned end of treatment. Using an interrupted time-series analysis, we analysed drinking in the weeks before and after discontinuation and also studied outcomes at the end of the COMBINE follow-up. SETTING: Unites States of America. PARTICIPANTS: We describe the subsample of COMBINE participants who discontinued medications (n = 450), and compare them with those who were medication-adherent (n = 559) and with those who discontinued but had substantial missing data (n = 217). MEASUREMENTS: The primary outcomes were percentage of days abstinent (PDA) and percentage of heavy drinking days (PHDD). Medication adherence data were used to approximate the date of discontinuation. FINDINGS: For many patients, an increase in drinking began weeks before discontinuation (PDA: F(1,4803) = 19.07, P < 0.001; PHDD: F(1,4804) = 8.58, P = 0.003) then escalated at discontinuation (PDA: F(1,446) = 5.05, P = 0.025; PHDD: F(1,446) = 4.52, P = 0.034). Among other effects, the amount of change was moderated by the reason for discontinuation (e.g. adverse event; PDA: F(2,4803) = 3.85, P = 0.021; PHDD: F(2,4804) = 5.36, P = 0.005) and also whether it occurred in the first or second half of treatment (PDA: F(1,4803) = 5.23, P = 0.022; PHDD: F(1,4804) = 8.79, P = 0.003). CONCLUSIONS: A patient's decision to stop taking medications during alcohol treatment appears to take place during a weeks-long process of disengagement from treatment. Patients who discontinue medications early in treatment or without medical consultation appear to drink more frequently and more heavily.

Differences between abstinent and non-abstinent individuals in recovery from alcohol use disorders.

OBJECTIVE: Non-abstinent goals can improve quality of life (QOL) among individuals with alcohol use disorders (AUDs). However, prior studies have defined "recovery" based on DSM criteria, and thus may have excluded individuals using non-abstinent techniques that do not involve reduced drinking. Furthermore, no prior study has considered length of time in recovery when comparing QOL between abstinent and non-abstinent individuals. The current aims are to identify correlates of non-abstinent recovery and examine differences in QOL between abstainers and non-abstainers accounting for length of time in recovery. SAMPLE: A large (N=5380) national sample of individuals who self-describe as "in recovery" from alcohol problems recruited in the context of the What Is Recovery? (WIR) study. METHOD: Multivariate stepwise regressions estimating the probability of non-abstinent recovery and average quality of life. RESULTS: Younger age (OR=0.72), no prior treatment (OR=0.63) or AA (OR=0.32), fewer dependence symptoms (OR=0.17) and less time in recovery all significantly (P<0.05) related to non-abstinent recovery. Abstainers reported significantly (P<0.05) higher QOL than non-abstainers (B=0.39 for abstinence vs. non-abstinence), and abstinence was one of the strongest correlates of QOL, even beyond sociodemographic variables like education. CONCLUSIONS: Non-abstainers are younger with less time in recovery and less problem severity but worse QOL than abstainers. Clinically, individuals considering non-abstinent goals should be aware that abstinence may be best for optimal QOL in the long run. Furthermore, time in recovery should be accounted for when examining correlates of recovery.

Can cannabis be considered a substitute medication for alcohol?

AIMS: Substituting cannabis for alcohol may reduce drinking and related problems among alcohol-dependent individuals. Some even recommend prescribing medical cannabis to individuals attempting to reduce drinking. The primary aim of this review is to assess whether cannabis satisfies the seven previously published criteria for substitute medications for alcohol [e.g. 'reduces alcohol-related harms'; 'is safer in overdose than alcohol'; 'should offer significant health economic benefits'; see Chick and Nutt ((2012) Substitution therapy for alcoholism: time for a reappraisal? J Psychopharmacol 26:205-12)]. METHODS: Literature review. RESULTS: All criteria appear either satisfied or partially satisfied, though studies relying on medical cannabis patients may be limited by selection bias and/or retrospective designs. Individual-level factors, such as severity of alcohol problems, may also moderate substitution. CONCLUSIONS: There is no clear pattern of outcomes related to cannabis substitution. Most importantly, the recommendation to prescribe alcohol-dependent individuals cannabis to help reduce drinking is premature. Future studies should use longitudinal data to better understand the consequences of cannabis substitution.

Cravings as a mediator and moderator of drinking outcomes in the COMBINE study.

AIMS: Investigators of the COMBINE (Combining Medications and Behavioral Interventions for Alcoholism) study examined whether combining medications with a behavioral intervention would improve outcomes over monotherapies. Unexpectedly, the combination did not offer any advantage over either treatment alone. This study aimed to explain the lack of incremental benefit offered by the combination over either monotherapy by assessing the role of cravings as a treatment mediator and moderator. DESIGN: Secondary mediation and moderation analyses of COMBINE study data. SETTING: Eleven United States academic sites. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 863 patients randomized to one of four treatment groups: naltrexone (100 mg/day; n = 209), the combined behavioral intervention (CBI, n = 236), naltrexone and CBI combined (n = 213) and placebo naltrexone (n = 205). MEASUREMENTS: Percentage of days abstinent (PDA) measured between 13 and 16 weeks post-baseline. Cravings, the potential mediator/moderator, were measured at baseline, weeks 4 and 12 using the Obsessive-Compulsive Drinking Scale. FINDINGS: Compared with placebo, naltrexone, CBI and the combination all increased PDA by an additional 6-10 percentage points for those with high cravings (P < 0.05 for all three treatment groups). None had significant effects on PDA for those with low cravings. The effects of all three treatments were mediated at least partially by cravings; craving reduction explained 48-53% of treatment effects (P < 0.05 for all three treatment groups). Furthermore, naltrexone appeared to reduce cravings at 4 weeks, while CBI did not reduce cravings until 12 weeks. CONCLUSIONS: The Combining Medications and Behavioral Interventions for Alcoholism (COMBINE) naltrexone + CBI combination may not be more beneficial than either monotherapy because craving reduction is a common mechanism of both.

Social support and comfort in AA as mediators of "Making AA easier" (MAAEZ), a 12-step facilitation intervention.

A trial of "Making Alcoholics Anonymous Easier" (MAAEZ), a group-format 12-step facilitation program, showed significantly higher odds of past 30-day abstinence after 12 months among those who had been treated in MAAEZ compared to usual care, especially for clients with high prior AA/NA/CA meeting attendance (>90 prior meetings; OR = 2.94, p = .02). We examined whether MAAEZ effects for this group were mediated by social support for sobriety and comfort with the 12-step fellowship. Among those with high prior AA/NA/CA attendance, we performed tests of multiple mediation to estimate MAAEZ effects attributable to the combined effect of social network support for sobriety, comfort being at AA/NA/CA meetings, and comfort speaking at AA/NA/CA meetings. To gain some understanding of sustaining these behaviors, we also examined each potential mediating variable measured both prior to, and concurrent with, 12-month outcomes. Having support for sobriety at 6 months emerged as a mediator of 12-month MAAEZ effects, when controlling for comfort being and speaking at AA/NA/CA meetings at 6 months. The effect remained when controlling for mediator values at 12 months, and explained 44% of the MAAEZ effect. Results highlight the value of studying specific, modifiable 12-step activities, and demonstrate the importance of exploring subgroups to determine behaviors and attitudes to target for optimal treatment. For example, increasing support for sobriety among those with high prior AA/NA/CA attendance may be especially pertinent.