Can Individuals With Alcohol Use Disorder Sustain Non-abstinent Recovery? Non-abstinent Outcomes 10 Years After Alcohol Use Disorder Treatment.

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.

Reconsidering alcohol treatment non-responders: psychosocial functioning among heavy drinkers 3 years following treatment.

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.

Can Alcohol Use Disorder Recovery Include Some Heavy Drinking? A Replication and Extension up to 9 Years Following Treatment.

BACKGROUND: Recent research indicates some individuals who engage in heavy drinking following treatment for alcohol use disorder fare as well as those who abstain with respect to psychosocial functioning, employment, life satisfaction, and mental health. The current study evaluated whether these findings replicated in an independent sample and examined associations between recovery profiles and functioning up to 6 years later. METHODS: Data were from the 3-year and 7- to 9-year follow-ups of subsamples initially recruited for the COMBINE study (3-year follow-up: n = 694; 30.1% female, 21.0% non-White; 7- to 9-year follow-up: n = 127; 38.9% female, 27.8% non-White). Recovery at 3 years was defined by latent profile analyses including measures of health functioning, quality of life, employment, alcohol consumption, and cannabis and other drug use. Functioning at the 7- to 9-year follow-up was assessed using single items of self-rated general health, hospitalizations, and alcohol consumption. RESULTS: We identified 4 profiles at the 3-year follow-up: (i) low-functioning frequent heavy drinkers (13.9%), (ii) low-functioning infrequent heavy drinkers (15.8%), (iii) high-functioning heavy drinkers (19.4%), and (iv) high-functioning infrequent drinkers (50.9%). At the 7- to 9-year follow-up, the 2 high-functioning profiles had the best self-rated health, and the high-functioning heavy drinking profile had significantly fewer hospitalizations than the low-functioning frequent heavy drinking profile. CONCLUSIONS: Previous findings showing heterogeneity in recovery outcomes were replicated. Most treatment recipients functioned well for years after treatment, and a subset who achieved stable recovery engaged in heavy drinking and reported good health outcomes up to 9 years after treatment. Results question the long-standing emphasis on drinking practices as a primary outcome, as well as abstinence as a recovery criterion in epidemiologic and treatment outcome research and among stakeholder groups and funding/regulatory agencies. Findings support an expanded recovery research agenda that considers drinking patterns, health, life satisfaction, and functioning.

Decreases in the Late Positive Potential to Alcohol Images Among Alcohol Treatment Seekers Following Mindfulness-Based Relapse Prevention.

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.

Mindfulness-Based Relapse Prevention and Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation to Reduce Heavy Drinking: A Double-Blind Sham-Controlled Randomized Trial.

BACKGROUND: Mindfulness-based relapse prevention (MBRP) and transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) have independently shown benefits for treating alcohol use disorder (AUD). Recent work suggests tDCS may enhance mindfulness. The combination of MBRP and tDCS may provide synergistic benefits and may target both behavioral and neurobiological dysfunctions in AUD. The goal of this double-blind sham-controlled randomized trial was to examine the efficacy of a rolling group MBRP treatment combined with tDCS among individuals interested in reducing their drinking. METHODS: Individuals who were interested in reducing their alcohol use (n = 84; 40.5% female; mean age = 52.3; 98.9% with current AUD) were randomized to receive active (2.0 milliamps) or sham (0.0 milliamps) anodal tDCS (5 cm × 3 cm electrode) of the right inferior frontal gyrus with the 5 cm × 3 cm cathodal electrode applied to the left upper arm, combined with 8 weeks of outpatient MBRP rolling group treatment. Assessments were conducted at baseline, posttreatment, and 2 months following treatment. The primary outcome was drinks per drinking day, and secondary outcomes were percent heavy drinking days, self-reported craving, alcohol cue reactivity in an alcohol cue task, and response inhibition in a stop signal reaction time task. RESULTS: Results indicated significant reductions in drinks per drinking day over time, B(SE) = -0.535 (0.16), p = 0.001, and a significant dose effect for number of groups attended, B(SE) = -0.259 (0.11), p = 0.01. There were also significant effects of time and dose for number of groups attended on secondary outcomes of percent heavy drinking days and alcohol cue reactivity. There were no effects of active versus sham tDCS on primary or secondary outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: Findings from the current study provide initial support for the effectiveness of rolling group MBRP as an outpatient treatment for drinking reduction. The current study did not find additive effects of this tDCS protocol in enhancing MBRP among individuals with drinking reduction goals.

Consumption outcomes in clinical trials of alcohol use disorder treatment: Consideration of standard drink misestimation.

Background. The Food and Drug Administration recently added a new clinical endpoint for evaluating the efficacy of alcohol use disorder (AUD) treatment that is more inclusive of treatment goals besides abstinence: no heavy drinking days (NHDD). However, numerous critiques have been noted for such binary models of treatment outcome. Further, there is mounting evidence that participants inaccurately estimate the quantities of alcohol they consume during drinking episodes (i.e., drink size misestimation), which may be particularly problematic when using a binary criterion (NHDD) compared to a similar, continuous alternative outcome variable: percent heavy drinking days (PHDD). Yet, the impact of drinking misestimation on binary (e.g., NHDD) versus continuous outcome variables (e.g., PHDD) has not been studied. Objectives. Using simulation methods, the present study examined the potential impact of drink size misestimation on NHDD and PHDD. Methods. Data simulations were based on previously published findings of the amount of error in how much alcohol is actually poured when estimating standard drinks. We started with self-reported daily drinking data from COMBINE study participants with complete data (N = 888; 68.1% male), then simulated inaccuracy in those estimations based on literature on standard drink size misestimation. Results. Clinical trial effect sizes were consistently lower for NHDD than for PHDD. Drink size misestimation further lowered effect sizes for NHDD and PHDD. Conclusions. Drink size misestimation may lead to inaccurate conclusions about drinking outcomes and the comparative effectiveness of AUD treatments, including inflated type-II error rates, particularly when treatment "success" is defined by binary outcomes such as NHDD.

Non-invasive brain stimulation in substance use disorders: implications for dissemination to clinical settings.

With expanding knowledge of how neural circuitry is disrupted in substance use disorders (SUD), non-invasive brain stimulation (NIBS) techniques have emerged as potential strategies to directly modulate those neural circuits. There is some evidence supporting the two most common forms of NIBS, transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) and transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS), in the treatment of SUD. Yet results of recent studies have been mixed and critical methodological issues must be addressed before strong conclusions can be drawn. This review highlights recent evidence of NIBS for SUD, addressing the impact of stimulation on relevant clinical and cognitive outcomes in substance-using populations. Additionally, we aim to bring a clinical perspective to the opportunities and challenges of implementing neuromodulation in SUD treatment.

Profiles of recovery from alcohol use disorder at three years following treatment: can the definition of recovery be extended to include high functioning heavy drinkers?

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.

Abstinence and low risk drinking during treatment: Association with psychosocial functioning, alcohol use, and alcohol problems 3 years following treatment.

Abstinence from alcohol is often considered a critical element of recovery from alcohol use disorder. Yet, low risk drinking may be more desirable for some patients. There is mixed literature on whether low risk drinking is achievable and stable. Low risk drinking outcomes during treatment and outcomes 3 years after treatment were examined using data from the outpatient arm in Project MATCH (n = 877). Drinking outcomes were defined by repeated measures latent class analysis of weekly abstinence, low risk drinking days (<4/5 drinks for women/men), and heavy drinking days (≥4/5 drinks for women/men) during 12 weeks of treatment. Functioning outcome measures included psychosocial functioning, alcohol use, and alcohol-related consequences. Mixture modeling was used to examine the association between drinking classes and functioning outcomes. We identified 7 classes based on drinking during treatment: persistent heavy drinking, abstinence to heavy drinking, abstinence and heavy drinking, heavy drinking to mostly abstinent, low risk and heavy drinking, abstinence and low risk drinking, and abstinence. As compared with heavier drinkers, individuals who achieved mostly abstinence or low risk drinking, even with some heavy drinking episodes during treatment, had significant improvements in alcohol use, alcohol-related consequences, and psychosocial functioning 3 years after treatment. Those who were mostly abstinent or engaged in low risk drinking during treatment did not differ on any outcomes at 3 years after treatment. Findings indicate that low risk drinking is achievable for some individuals during treatment and that improvement in functioning among low risk drinkers can be observed at 3 years after treatment. (PsycINFO Database Record

Advancing Analytic Approaches to Address Key Questions in Mechanisms of Behavior Change Research.

OBJECTIVE: Interest in studying mechanisms of behavior change (MOBCs) in substance use disorder (SUD) treatments has grown considerably in the past two decades. Much of this work has focused on identifying which variables statistically mediate the effect of SUD treatments on clinical outcomes. However, a fuller conceptualization of MOBCs will require greater understanding of questions that extend beyond traditional mediation analysis, including better understanding of when MOBCs change during treatment, when they are most critical to aiding the initiation or maintenance of change, and how MOBCs themselves arise as a function of treatment processes. METHOD: In the present study, we review why these MOBC-related questions are often minimally addressed in empirical research and provide examples of data analytic methods that may address these issues. We highlight several recent studies that have used such methods and discuss how these methods can provide unique theoretical insights and actionable clinical information. RESULTS: Several statistical approaches can enhance the field's understanding of the timing and development of MOBCs, including growth-curve modeling, time-varying effect modeling, moderated mediation analysis, dynamic systems modeling, and simulation methods. CONCLUSIONS: Adopting greater diversity in methods for modeling MOBCs will help researchers better understand the timing and development of key change variables and will expand the theoretical precision and clinical impact of MOBC research. Advances in research design, measurement, and technology are key to supporting these advances.

When Traits Match States: Examining the Associations between Self-Report Trait and State Mindfulness following a State Mindfulness Induction.

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.

Mindfulness-based interventions for addictive behaviors: Implementation issues on the road ahead.

Over the past 35 years, mindfulness meditation practices have increasingly been integrated into Western medical settings. Research into the benefits of mindfulness-based interventions (MBIs) continues to expand, such that there are currently more than a dozen different protocolled MBIs for patients suffering from a variety of physical and psychological disorders. In the last decade, a number of MBIs specifically designed to treat addictive behaviors have been developed and tested. This review first provides a brief overview of the current state of the science with respect to the efficacy of MBIs for addictive behaviors, and some of the proposed mechanisms underlying the efficacy of MBIs. Second, the review highlights unresolved implementation issues and provides suggestions for how future research can address the implementation challenges to advance the delivery of MBIs. Specifically, this review focuses on the lack of clear empirical guidelines in the following areas: (a) effective training for MBI treatment providers; (b) adaptations of the traditional 2-hr closed-cohort group format; (c) delivery of MBIs in 1-on-1 treatment contexts; (d) delivery of MBIs at different points in the change process; (e) delivery of MBIs via technology-based platforms; and (f) facilitation of precision medicine in the delivery of MBIs. Specific research directions are suggested with an eye toward a meaningful increase in access to MBIs for front-line clinicians and clients. (PsycINFO Database Record

Who achieves low risk drinking during alcohol treatment? An analysis of patients in three alcohol clinical trials.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: There is evidence that low-risk drinking is possible during the course of alcohol treatment and can be maintained following treatment. Our aim was to identify characteristics associated with low-risk drinking during treatment in a large sample of individuals as they received treatment for alcohol dependence. DESIGN: Integrated analysis of data from the Combined Pharmacotherapies and Behavioral Intervention (COMBINE) study, Project MATCH (Matching Alcoholism Treatments to Client Heterogeneity) and the United Kingdom Alcohol Treatment Trial (UKATT) using repeated-measures latent class analysis to identify patterns of drinking and predictors of low-risk drinking patterns during treatment. SETTING: United States and United Kingdom. PARTICIPANTS: Patients (n = 3589) with alcohol dependence receiving treatment in an alcohol clinical trial were primarily male (73.0%), white (82.0%) and non-married (41.7%), with an average age of 42.0 (standard deviation = 10.7). MEASUREMENTS: Self-reported weekly alcohol consumption during treatment was assessed using the Form-90 and validated with biological verification or collateral informants. FINDINGS: Seven patterns of drinking during treatment were identified: persistent heavy drinking (18.7% of the sample), increasing heavy drinking (9.6%), heavy and low-risk drinking (6.7%), heavy drinking alternating with abstinence (7.9%), low-risk drinking (6.8%), increasing low-risk drinking (10.5%) and abstinence (39.8%). Lower alcohol dependence severity and fewer drinks per day at baseline significantly predicted low-risk drinking patterns [e.g. each additional drink prior to baseline predicted a 27% increase in the odds of expected classification in heavy drinking versus low-risk drinking patterns; odds ratio = 1.27 (95% confidence interval (CI) = 1.10, 1.47, P = 0.002]. Greater negative mood and more heavy drinkers in the social network were significant predictors of expected membership in heavier drinking patterns. CONCLUSIONS: Low-risk drinking is achievable for some individuals as they undergo treatment for alcohol dependence. Individuals with lower dependence severity, less baseline drinking, fewer negative mood symptoms and fewer heavy drinkers in their social networks have a higher probability of achieving low-risk drinking during treatment.

Temporal Stability of Heavy Drinking Days and Drinking Reductions Among Heavy Drinkers in the COMBINE Study.

BACKGROUND: Recently, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) proposed to expand the options for primary end points in the development of medications for alcohol use disorder to include either abstinence from alcohol or a nonabstinent outcome: no heavy drinking days (with a heavy drinking day defined as more than 3 drinks per day for women and more than 4 drinks per day for men [>3/>4 cutoff]). The FDA also suggested that 6 months would be the most appropriate length for a clinical trial to demonstrate the stability of this nonabstinent drinking outcome. However, few alcohol clinical trials have examined the stability of nonheavy drinking during and after treatment. METHODS: In a secondary analysis of the COMBINE study data (n = 1,383), we examined transitions in heavy drinking days during the course of treatment (months 1 through 4), during the transition out of treatment (months 4 through 7), and up to 12 months afterward (months 13 through 16) using latent variable mixture models. RESULTS: Heavy drinking and nonheavy drinking were relatively stable in consecutive months (minimum agreement [kappa] = 0.64 for months 1 to 2). Most individuals were stable low-risk drinkers/abstainers or heavy drinkers by the end of treatment, as characterized by a 10% probability (or less) of transitioning out of either a no heavy drinking state or a heavy drinking state. More than two-thirds of the heavy drinkers who exceeded the heavy drinking threshold during treatment reported, on average, a 64% reduction in drinking frequency and a 38% reduction in drinking intensity from pretreatment drinking levels. CONCLUSIONS: The results show stability of no heavy drinking as an outcome within the first 4 months of treatment and that the >3/>4 drink cutoff may mask substantial reductions in alcohol consumption among some patients. Future studies should explore the clinical utility of reduction end points.

How Much Is Too Much? Patterns of Drinking During Alcohol Treatment and Associations With Post-Treatment Outcomes Across Three Alcohol Clinical Trials.

OBJECTIVE: This secondary data analysis examined patterns of drinking during alcohol treatment and associated drinking outcomes during the first year following treatment. The goal was to provide clinicians with guidance on which patients may be most at risk for negative long-term outcomes based on drinking patterns during treatment. METHOD: This study was an analysis of existing data (N = 3,851) from three randomized clinical trials for alcohol use disorder: the COMBINE Study (n = 1,383), Project MATCH (n = 1,726), and the United Kingdom Alcohol Treatment Trial (n = 742). Indicators of abstinence, non-heavy drinking, and heavy drinking (defined as 4/5 or more drinks per day for women/men) were examined during each week of treatment using repeated-measures latent class analysis. Associations between drinking patterns during treatment and drinking intensity, drinking consequences, and physical and mental health 12 months following intake were examined. RESULTS: Seven drinking patterns were identified. Patients who engaged in persistent heavy drinking throughout treatment and those who returned to persistent heavy drinking during treatment had the worst long-term outcomes. Patients who engaged in some heavy drinking during treatment had better long-term outcomes than persistent heavy drinkers. Patients who reported low-risk drinking or abstinence had the best long-term outcomes. There were no differences in outcomes between low-risk drinkers and abstainers. CONCLUSIONS: Abstinence, low-risk drinking, or even some heavy drinking during treatment are associated with the best long-term outcomes. Patients who are engaging in persistent heavy drinking are likely to have the worst outcomes and may require a higher level of care.

Is the Construct of Relapse Heuristic, and Does It Advance Alcohol Use Disorder Clinical Practice?

OBJECTIVE: Alcohol use disorder (AUD) relapse is a construct that has been of major clinical and research interest but has been inconsistently defined. The purpose of this study was to review the definitions of AUD relapse that have been used in clinical research as a basis for drawing conclusions about its heuristic value. METHOD: A systematic review of the literature was conducted on empirical studies that (a) were published in peer-reviewed journals, (b) were published between 2010 and 2015, (c) were written in English, and (d) provided a definition of alcohol relapse (or lapse) that was used in the study. RESULTS: The review yielded 139 individual studies that met inclusion criteria. The studies showed wide variability in how relapse was defined and interpreted in the literature, and there was little direct empirical or theoretical rationale provided for the definitions of relapse that were chosen. Furthermore, the concept of AUD relapse as a discrete state is not consistent with the empirical literature on the clinical course of alcohol consumption. CONCLUSIONS: We conclude that the heuristic value of AUD relapse as currently studied is low. An alternative approach that embeds the construct in theory and data on the clinical course of alcohol consumption and aligns with current trends in healthcare would seem to have a better chance of improving AUD clinical decision-making and knowledge about AUD in general.

Do Alcohol Relapse Episodes During Treatment Predict Long-Term Outcomes? Investigating the Validity of Existing Definitions of Alcohol Use Disorder Relapse.

BACKGROUND: The construct of relapse is used widely in clinical research and practice of alcohol use disorder (AUD) treatment. The purpose of this study was to test the predictive validity of commonly appearing definitions of AUD relapse in the empirical literature. METHODS: Secondary analyses of data from Project MATCH and COMBINE were conducted using 7 definitions of "relapse" based on drinking quantity within a single drinking episode: any drinking; at least 4/5 drinks for women/men; at least 4.3/7.1 drinks for women/men; at least 6/7 drinks for women/men; at least 6 drinks; at least 7/9 drinks for women/men; and at least 8/10 drinks for women/men. Relapse was used to predict alcohol consumption, related consequences, and nonconsumption outcomes (quality of life, psychosocial functioning) at the end of treatment and up to 1 year posttreatment. RESULTS: Regression analyses indicated within-treatment relapse definitions significantly predicted end-of-treatment alcohol consumption and alcohol-related consequences. Heavy drinking definitions were generally more predictive than the any drinking definition, but no single heavy drinking definition was consistently a better predictor of outcomes. Relapse definitions were less predictive of longer-term alcohol-related outcomes and both shorter- and longer-term nonconsumption outcomes, including health and psychosocial functioning. CONCLUSIONS: One particular definition of relapse did not consistently stand out as the best predictor. Advances in AUD research may require reconceptualization of relapse as a multifaceted dynamic process and may consider a wider range of relevant behaviors (e.g., health and psychosocial functioning) when examining the change process in individuals with AUD.

Finding success in failure: using latent profile analysis to examine heterogeneity in psychosocial functioning among heavy drinkers following treatment.

AIMS: To estimate differences in post-treatment psychosocial functioning among treatment 'failures' (i.e. heavy drinkers, defined as 4+/5+ drinks for women/men) from two large multi-site clinical trials and to compare these levels of functioning to those of the purported treatment 'successes' (i.e. non-heavy drinkers). DESIGN: Separate latent profile analyses of data from two of the largest alcohol clinical trials conducted in the United States, COMBINE (Combined Pharmacotherapies and Behavioral Interventions) and Project MATCH (Matching Alcoholism Treatments to Client Heterogeneity), comparing psychosocial outcomes across derived classes of heterogeneous treatment responders. SETTING: Eleven US academic sites in COMBINE, 27 US treatment sites local to nine research sites in Project MATCH. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 962 individuals in COMBINE (69% male, 77% white, mean age: 44 years) treated January 2001 to January 2004 and 1528 individuals in Project MATCH (75% male, 80% white, mean age: 40 years) treated April 1991 to September 1994. MEASUREMENTS: In COMBINE, we analyzed health, quality of life, mental health symptoms and alcohol consequences 12 months post-baseline. In Project MATCH, we examined social functioning, mental health symptoms and alcohol consequences 15 months post-baseline. FINDINGS: Latent profile analysis of measures of functioning in both samples supported a three-profile solution for the group of treatment 'failures', characterized by high-, average- and low-functioning individuals. The high-functioning treatment 'failures' generally performed better across measures of psychosocial functioning at follow-up than participants designated treatment 'successes' by virtue of being abstainers or light drinkers. CONCLUSIONS: Current United States Food and Drug Administration guidance to use heavy drinking as indicative of treatment 'failure' fails to take into account substantial psychosocial improvements made by individuals who continue occasionally to drink heavily post-treatment.

Alcohol-Focused Behavioral Couple Therapy.

Alcohol Behavioral Couple Therapy (ABCT) has emerged over the last 30 years as a highly efficacious treatment for those with alcohol use disorders. This review highlights the historical and conceptual underpinnings of ABCT, as well as the specific treatment elements and structure. Proposed active ingredients, moderators, and mediators of treatment outcome are discussed. Efficacy is evaluated for reductions in identified patient drinking, improved relationship functioning, and reductions in intimate partner violence. Adaptations of ABCT for substances other than alcohol are described. Other adaptations, including brief interventions, interventions addressing PTSD and TBI along with alcohol use, and interventions deliverable via technology platforms are described. Additional cost-benefit and cost-effectiveness findings supporting the economic value of ABCT are noted. Future directions for research in this area include possible adaptations for female identified patients, nontraditional couples, LGBT partners and dyads involving nonintimate partner relationships. The development of more flexible models and enhanced dissemination strategies may improve clinical uptake and utility as well as increasing the feasibility of this treatment for integrated healthcare settings.