Detection and diagnosis of psychiatric disorders in primary medical care settings.

Research efforts accelerated in the 1990s to define the presentation of common psychiatric disorders in primary care settings. Two diagnostic instruments, the DSM-IV-PC and the PRIME-MD, were introduced in 1994, and a self-report form of the PRIME-MD, the PHQ, was published in 1999. These tools have streamlined the larger, often cumbersome psychiatric nomenclature of the DSM-III and DSM-IV and appear to be more useful in general medical settings. It still is not practical to use either instrument in its entirety for all patients in a busy primary care practice. Studies have suggested an efficient and effective, two-step method of screening primary care patients for psychiatric disorders, however. In this approach, a limited number of probing questions extracted from the PRIME-MD or PHQ (or DSM-IV-PC) are posed to patients, either in person or by a written self-report (i.e., a general health update or review of systems). Then a follow-up evaluation is done to confirm or refute positive screening results. Short, simple questionnaires that address specific topics (e.g., CAGE for alcohol screening or the GDS for mood disorders in older adults) complete and complement this approach. This method has the advantage of being easy to incorporate into routine office practice using minimal physician or office staff time, while showing acceptable sensitivity and specificity in studies to date. More research, particularly prospective studies, is needed to confirm the effectiveness of this approach and expand it beyond the few available studies that have focused mostly on depressive disorders.

Persistent cognitive deficits attributed to substance abuse.

This article exemplifies the major difficulties inherent in carrying out and interpreting human drug research. The information available about the long-term consequences of opiate use remains unclear. In fact, an overall summary of the persistent cognitive effects of long term drug use yields vague and tentative information (Table 2). An explanation of some of the methodologic constructs that have led to the majority of unclear conclusions may be helpful. 1. Baseline. One such important factor in providing an accurate assessment of the possible effects of long-term drug use is to have knowledge of the user's cognitive capacity before exposure to drugs. Such baseline information might be available from school records. 2. Repeated testing. Additionally, it is essential to have control groups and conditions, whereby the groups receive nearly identical testing on repeated occasions to assess whether findings remain consistent. 3. Observed Subjects. In choosing the subjects, polysubstance users are probably the most convenient group of individuals to study because of ease of availability, but very little about the effects of one specific drug class compared to another will be learned. Users do have decided drug preferences and ideally researchers should observe a user over a period of time with repeated urine testing to determine the pattern of use and as much information as possible about the dose. An adequate age range in both drug users and control subjects is helpful. 4. Age Range. One must control for the effects of aging, but if all of the subjects are very young, subtle cognitive deficits may be missed. If, however, subjects are too old, acute or chronic physical conditions that cause cognitive deficits may be impossible to differentiate from long-term drug effects. 5. Choice of Test. It is essential to match the appropriate test to the dependent variables being assessed. 6. Length of abstinence. For valid testing, subjects should be drug free confirmed by toxicology. The best studies have the longest periods of abstinence in a protected environment where drugs are not available. Recovery of function may occur weeks or months after last exposure to drugs. These standards are difficult to achieve, but many studies that have failed to attend to these issues have involved large expenditures of effort with little or no new knowledge as the outcome.

Cocaine withdrawal symptoms and initial urine toxicology results predict treatment attrition in outpatient cocaine dependence treatment.

This study evaluated the ability of cocaine withdrawal symptoms, measured by the Cocaine Selective Severity Assessment (CSSA) and initial urine toxicology results, to predict treatment attrition among 128 cocaine dependent veterans participating in a 4-week day hospital treatment program. The CSSA was administered and a urine toxicology screen was obtained at intake and at the start of the day hospital (about 1 week later). The combination of a positive urine toxicology screen and a high CSSA score at intake predicted failure to complete treatment. Urine toxicology results at the start of the day hospital, but not at intake, predicted failure to complete treatment. Among participants without other psychiatric illness, high CSSA scores at intake predicted failure to complete treatment. The presence of cocaine withdrawal symptoms and a positive urine toxicology screen are clinically useful predictors of treatment attrition.

Reliability and validity of the Cocaine Selective Severity Assessment.

This article assesses the reliability and validity of the Cocaine Selective Severity Assessment (CSSA), a measure of cocaine abstinence signs and symptoms. Interrater reliability and scale internal consistency were high. Initial CSSA scores were significantly higher in cocaine-dependent subjects than in alcohol-dependent subjects. Initial CSSA scores were highly correlated with recent cocaine use and with severity measures from the Addiction Severity Index (ASI) including the interviewer severity rating and composite score in the drug section. Among cocaine-dependent subjects, initial CSSA scores were higher for those who failed to achieve abstinence or who subsequently dropped out of treatment. Further, CSSA scores showed consistent and marked declines over time for subjects who continued in treatment and remained abstinent. The CSSA appears to be a reliable and valid measure of cocaine abstinence symptoms and a useful predictor of negative outcomes in cocaine dependence treatment.

Drinking behavior and motivation for treatment among alcohol-dependent liver transplant candidates.

Alcohol misuse is the second most common indication for liver transplantation in the United States. Our post-transplant alcoholism treatment trial suggested that current interventions might not be transferable to liver transplantees. We sought to identify differences between patients awaiting liver transplantation and alcoholics entering treatment without severe liver disease. Thirty transplant patients were compared to thirty naltrexone study patients on medical status, alcohol and drug use, alcohol craving, motivation for treatment, psychiatric symptoms, and psychosocial problems. Lifetime alcohol consumption was greater for transplant patients compared to naltrexone patients. In contrast to the naltrexone group, transplant patients denied craving for alcohol and showed little motivation for alcoholism treatment. Groups did not differ on other psychosocial measures. Liver transplant patients differ from patients in alcoholism treatment trials on measures of alcohol consumption, alcohol craving and motivation for treatment. Alcoholism interventions should accommodate their medical condition and boost motivation for continued abstinence.

Alcohol and substance abuse.

Alcoholic liver disease is an important cause of cirrhosis, liver-associated death, and need for liver transplant. Up to 50% of recipients use some alcohol, and perhaps 10% drink addictively. Careful evaluation by an addiction medicine specialist is the best predictive instrument before transplant surgery, whereas the 6-month rule lacks sensitivity and specificity. Addictive drinking, but not minor slips, is associated with increased mortality. There is no standard therapy for alcoholism in alcoholics waiting for a transplant or for those who have undergone a transplant. Stably abstinent, methadone-maintained opiate-dependent patients should continue methadone; are generally good candidates for liver transplant; and show low relapse rates. Pre- and post-transplant smoking rates are high and cause significant morbidity and mortality. Transplant teams should encourage smoking cessation treatments. Marijuana use in liver transplant recipients is common, although risks associated with this practice are unknown.

Naltrexone in the treatment of alcoholism.

Alcoholism affects nearly 12.5 million Americans and is responsible for annual costs of over $130 billion from loss of job productivity, deleterious health effects, and direct treatment expenses. Research on treating alcoholism from the standpoint of relapse prevention using psychosocial interventions alone has produced only modest results. Studies on the efficacy of adjunctive medications using multiple medications in placebo-controlled and open trials combined with psychosocial interventions have shown mixed results. Recently, a safe and well-tolerated opiate antagonist, naltrexone, was approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for the adjunctive treatment of alcoholism. This review describes the pertinent preclinical and clinical research that led to the FDA's approval. Details are provided describing the subjects, methods, and results of the two pivotal human studies that led to the FDA review for this indication. Clinical therapeutic guidelines, appropriate patient selection, and future directions are also elucidated.

Interpreting the significance of drinking by alcohol-dependent liver transplant patients: fostering candor is the key to recovery.

Few studies have examined the value of treating alcohol addiction either before or after liver transplantation. Nevertheless, most liver transplant programs and many insurance companies require 6 months to 1 year of abstinence from alcohol as a condition of eligibility for liver transplantation (the 6-month rule). We believe there are potentially harsh clinical consequences to the implementation of this rule. For example, the natural history of alcohol use disorders often involves brief fallbacks to drinking ("slips"), but when alcoholic liver transplant candidates slip, most are removed from consideration for transplantation or are required to accrue another 6 months of sobriety. Because there is no alternative treatment to liver transplantation for most patients with end-stage liver disease, the 6-month rule could be lethal in some circumstances. In this review, we survey the literature concerning the ability of the 6-month rule to predict drinking by alcoholic patients who undergo liver transplantation and examine its impact on the health consequences of drinking before and after liver transplantation. We believe that fostering candor between the alcoholic patient and the transplant team is the key to recovery from alcoholism. We conclude that it is unethical to force alcoholic liver patients who have resumed alcohol use while waiting for or after transplantation to choose between hiding their drinking to remain suitable candidates for transplantation or risk death by asking for treatment of alcoholism. Consequently, we advocate a flexible approach to clinical decision making for the transplant professional caring for an alcoholic patient who has resumed drinking and provide specific guidelines for patient management.

Alcoholism treatment after liver transplantation: lessons learned from a clinical trial that failed.

Alcoholic liver disease is the second most common indication for liver transplantation in the United States. The lack of alcoholism treatment studies led us to study motivational enhancement therapy (MET) plus naltrexone after transplant. The authors could not complete this study. Sixty alcoholic patients were to receive MET plus naltrexone or placebo for 6 months. Fifty men and 5 women were screened. Nine died and 15 were not approached. Of 31 approached, 20 were ineligible, 11 refused, and 5 entered but dropped out before completion. Barriers to posttransplant alcoholism included infirmity, intensive medical management, and denial for alcoholism treatment. Because 30%-50% of alcoholic patients drink after transplant, the authors suggest using MET alone pretransplant.