scholarly journals Variations in the Visual Probe Paradigms for Attention Bias Modification for Substance Use Disorders

2019 ◽  
Vol 16 (18) ◽  
pp. 3389 ◽  
Author(s):  
Melvyn Zhang ◽  
Daniel S. S. Fung ◽  
Helen Smith
Keyword(s):  
Substance Use ◽  
Substance Use Disorders ◽  
Stimulus Onset ◽  
Cannabis Use ◽  
Future Research ◽  
Opioid Use ◽  
Attention Bias Modification ◽  
Stimulant Use ◽  
Probe Task ◽  
Visual Probe

Advances in experimental psychology have provided evidence for the presence of attentional and approach biases in individuals with substance use disorders. Traditionally, reaction time tasks, such as the Stroop or the Visual Probe Task, are commonly used in the assessment of attention biases. The Visual Probe Task has been criticized for its poor reliability, and other research has highlighted that variations remain in the paradigms adopted. However, a gap remains in the published literature, as there have not been any prior studies that have reviewed stimulus timings for different substance use disorders. Such a review is pertinent, as the nature of the task might affect its effectiveness. The aim of this paper was in comparing the different methods used in the Visual Probe Task, by focusing on tasks that have been used for the most highly prevalent substance disorders—that of opiate use, cannabis use and stimulant use disorders. A total of eight published articles were identified for opioid use disorders, three for cannabis use disorders and four for stimulant use disorders. As evident from the synthesis, there is great variability in the paradigm adopted, with most articles including only information about the nature of the stimulus, the number of trials, the timings for the fixation cross and the timings for the stimulus set. Future research examining attentional biases among individuals with substance use disorders should take into consideration the paradigms that are commonly used and evaluate the optimal stimulus and stimulus-onset asynchrony timings.

scholarly journals 347 - Canadian Guidelines on Alcohol & Cannabis Use Disorders Substance Use Disorders in Older Adults

2020 ◽  
Vol 32 (S1) ◽  
pp. 109-109
Keyword(s):  
Older Adults ◽  
Health Care ◽  
Substance Use ◽  
Substance Use Disorders ◽  
Health Care Professionals ◽  
Care Delivery ◽  
Cannabis Use ◽  
World Population ◽  
Opioid Use ◽  
Cannabis Use Disorders

The United Nations 20171 report on World Population Aging predicts that the number of persons over age 60 years will reach nearly 2.1 billion by the year 2050, representing 22% of the overall population. Despite this predicted demographic surge there is a vast lack of awareness of substance use disorders (SUDs) in older adults, a phenomenon that has been called “an invisible epidemic” by the Royal College of Psychiatrists2. Older adults, principally baby boomers, face the highest risk for SUDs3, but often go underrecognized, undertreated and underrepresented in clinical trials.Vaccarino et al in 20184 has put out a Call to Action to better serve the unmet needs of this population. There is an urgent need for raising awareness and improving education regarding SUDs, especially among older adults. There is also a great need for better training of health care professionals to improve their skills, knowledge, and attitudes towards treating SUDs in older adults. Policy and decision makers regarding health care delivery systems need to be better informed to make wiser decisions in order to improve access and availability of age-specific SUD treatments in older adults. To this end, The Canadian Coalition for Seniors’ Mental Health (CCSMH)5, with a grant from the Substance Use and Addictions Program (SUAP) of Health Canada, has recently created and published an introductory paper 6 and a set of four guidelines on the prevention, assessment, and treatment of alcohol7, benzodiazepine8, cannabis9, and opioid10 use disorders among older adults.This is Part 2 of a two-part presentation of CCSMH’s SUD guidelines highlighting the alcohol and cannabis use disorders in older adults; the second presentation will highlight benzodiazepines and opioid use disorder in older adults.

scholarly journals A narrative review of the pharmacological, cultural and psychological literature on ibogaine

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Martie S. Underwood ◽  
Stephen J. Bright ◽  
B. Les Lancaster
Keyword(s):  
Substance Use ◽  
Substance Use Disorders ◽  
Rem Sleep ◽  
Nmda Antagonist ◽  
Preliminary Evidence ◽  
Opioid Use Disorder ◽  
Narrative Review ◽  
Future Research ◽  
Opioid Use ◽  
Cultural Aspects

AbstractIbogaine is a psychoactive alkaloid contained in the West African plant Tabernanthe iboga. Although preliminary, evidence suggests that ibogaine could be effective in the treatment of certain substance use disorders, specifically opioid use disorder. This narrative review concentrated on the pharmacological, cultural and psychological aspects of ibogaine that contribute to its reputed effectiveness with a specific focus on the ibogaine state of consciousness. Although the exact pharmacological mechanisms for ibogaine are still speculative, the literature highlighted its role as an NMDA antagonist in the effective treatment of substance use disorders. The cultural aspects associated with the use of ibogaine pose questions around the worldview of participants as experienced in the traditional and western contexts, which future research should clarify. From a psychological perspective, the theory that the ibogaine state of consciousness resembles REM sleep is questionable due to evidence that indicated ibogaine supressed REM sleep, and contradictory evidence in relation to learning and memory. The suggested classification of the ibogaine experience as oneirophrenic also seems inadequate as it only describes the first phase of the ibogaine experience. The ibogaine experience does however present characteristics consistent with holotropic states of consciousness, and future research could focus on exploring and potentially classifying the state of consciousness induced by ibogaine as holotropic.

scholarly journals A genetically-informed study disentangling the relationships between tobacco smoking, cannabis use, alcohol consumption, substance use disorders and respiratory infections, including COVID-19

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Daniel B. Rosoff ◽  
Joyce Yoo ◽  
Falk W. Lohoff
Keyword(s):  
Substance Use ◽  
Alcohol Consumption ◽  
Substance Use Disorders ◽  
Genome Wide Association Study ◽  
Respiratory Infections ◽  
Study Data ◽  
Cannabis Use ◽  
European Ancestry ◽  
Future Research ◽  
Increased Risk

ABSTRACTBackgroundObservational studies suggest smoking, cannabis use, alcohol consumption, cannabis use, and substance use disorders (SUDs) may play a role in the susceptibility for respiratory infections and disease, including coronavirus 2019 (COVID-2019). However, causal inference is challenging due to comorbid substance use.MethodsUsing genome-wide association study data of European ancestry (data from >1.7 million individuals), we performed single-variable and multivariable Mendelian randomization to evaluate relationships between smoking, cannabis use, alcohol consumption, SUDs, and respiratory infections.ResultsGenetically predicted lifetime smoking was found to be associated with increased risk for hospitalized COVID-19 (odds ratio (OR)=4.039, 95% CI 2.335-6.985, P-value=5.93×10−7) and very severe hospitalized COVID-19 (OR=3.091, 95% CI, 1.883-5.092, P-value=8.40×10−6). Genetically predicted lifetime smoking was also associated with increased risk pneumoniae (OR=1.589, 95% CI, 1.214-2.078, P-value=7.33×10−4), lower respiratory infections (OR=2.303, 95% CI, 1.713-3.097, P-value=3.40×10−8), and several others. Genetically predicted cannabis use disorder (CUD) was associated with increased bronchitis risk (OR=1.078, 95% CI, 1.020-1.128, P-value=0.007).ConclusionsWe provide strong genetic evidence showing smoking increases the risk for respiratory infections and diseases even after accounting for other substance use and abuse. Additionally, we provide find CUD may increase the risk for bronchitis, which taken together, may guide future research SUDs and respiratory outcomes.

Identification of Distinct Etiologies across Prescription Misuse and Illicit Drug Use: Opioids and Stimulants Compared

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Genevieve Fullerton Dash ◽  
Nicholas G. Martin ◽  
Arpana Agrawal ◽  
Michael Lynskey ◽  
Wendy S. Slutske
Keyword(s):  
Illicit Drugs ◽  
Genetic Influence ◽  
Prescription Opioid ◽  
Future Research ◽  
Opioid Use ◽  
Stimulant Use ◽  
Drug Classes ◽  
Illicit Use ◽  
Prescription Opioid Misuse ◽  
Illicit Opioid Use

Background. Drug classes are grouped based on their chemical and pharmacological properties, but prescription and illicit drugs differ in other important ways. Opioid and stimulant classes contain prescription and illicit forms differentially associated with salient risk factors (common route of administration, legality), making them useful comparators for examining the potential differences in the etiological influences on (mis)use of prescription and illicit drugs. Methods. 2,410 individual Australian twins (Mage=31.77 [SD=2.48]; 67% women) were interviewed about prescription misuse and illicit use of opioids and stimulants. Univariate and bivariate biometric models partitioned variances and covariances into additive genetic, shared environmental, and unique environmental influences across drug types. Results. Variation in the propensity to misuse prescription opioids was primarily attributable to genes (37%) and unique environment (59%). Illicit opioid use was attributable to shared (71%) and unique (29%) environment. Prescription stimulant misuse was primarily attributable to genes (78%) and unique environment (21%). Illicit stimulant use was influenced by genes (48%), and shared (29%) and unique environment (23%). There was evidence for genetic influence common to both stimulant types, but limited evidence for genetic influence common to both opioid types. Conclusions. Prescription opioid misuse may share little genetic influence with illicit opioid use. Future research may consider avoiding unitary drug classifications, particularly when examining genetic influences.

Are prescription misuse and illicit drug use etiologically distinct? A genetically-informed analysis of opioids and stimulants

2021 ◽  
pp. 1-8
Author(s):  
Genevieve F. Dash ◽  
Nicholas G. Martin ◽  
Arpana Agrawal ◽  
Michael T. Lynskey ◽  
Wendy S. Slutske
Keyword(s):  
Illicit Drugs ◽  
Environmental Influences ◽  
Genetic Influence ◽  
Prescription Opioid ◽  
Future Research ◽  
Shared Environment ◽  
Opioid Use ◽  
Stimulant Use ◽  
Prescription Opioid Misuse ◽  
Illicit Opioid Use

Abstract Background Drug classes are grouped based on their chemical and pharmacological properties, but prescription and illicit drugs differ in other important ways. Potential differences in genetic and environmental influences on the (mis)use of prescription and illicit drugs that are subsumed under the same class should be examined. Opioid and stimulant classes contain prescription and illicit forms differentially associated with salient risk factors (common route of administration, legality), making them useful comparators for addressing this etiological issue. Methods A total of 2410 individual Australian twins [Mage = 31.77 (s.d. = 2.48); 67% women] were interviewed about prescription misuse and illicit use of opioids and stimulants. Univariate and bivariate biometric models partitioned variances and covariances into additive genetic, shared environmental, and unique environmental influences across drug types. Results Variation in the propensity to misuse prescription opioids was attributable to genes (41%) and unique environment (59%). Illicit opioid use was attributable to shared (71%) and unique (29%) environment. Prescription stimulant misuse was attributable to genes (79%) and unique environment (21%). Illicit stimulant use was attributable to genes (48%), shared environment (29%), and unique environment (23%). There was evidence for genetic influence common to both stimulant types, but limited evidence for genetic influence common to both opioid types. Bivariate correlations suggested that prescription opioid use may be more genetically similar to prescription stimulant use than to illicit opioid use. Conclusions Prescription opioid misuse may share little genetic influence with illicit opioid use. Future research may consider avoiding unitary drug classifications, particularly when examining genetic influences.

Adverse events among adult Medicaid enrollees with opioid use disorder and co-occurring substance use disorders

2021 ◽  
Vol 221 ◽  
pp. 108555
Author(s):  
Peggy O’Brien ◽  
Rachel Mosher Henke ◽  
Mary Beth Schaefer ◽  
Janice Lin ◽  
Timothy B. Creedon
Keyword(s):  
Substance Use ◽  
Adverse Events ◽  
Substance Use Disorders ◽  
Opioid Use Disorder ◽  
Opioid Use

Abstract 228: National Prevalence of Substance Use Disorders Among Hospitalized Heart Failure Patients

2018 ◽  
Vol 11 (suppl_1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Sarah C Snow ◽  
Gregg C Fonarow ◽  
Joseph A Ladapo ◽  
Donna L Washington ◽  
Katherine Hoggatt ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Heart Failure ◽  
Substance Use ◽  
Native American ◽  
Drug Use ◽  
Substance Use Disorders ◽  
Age Groups ◽  
Opioid Use ◽  
Drug Use Disorders ◽  
Increased Risk ◽  
Drug Use Disorder

Background: Several cardiotoxic substances contribute to the development of heart failure (HF). The burden of comorbid substance use disorders (SUD) among patients with HF is under-characterized. Objectives: To describe the national burden of comorbid SUD (tobacco, alcohol, or drug use disorders) among hospitalized HF patients in the U.S. Methods: We used data from the 2014 National Inpatient Sample to calculate the proportion of hospitalizations for a primary HF admission with tobacco, alcohol, or drug use disorder diagnoses, accounting for demographic factors. Drug use disorder analysis was further sub-divided into specific illicit substance categories. Results: There were a total of 989,080 HF hospitalizations of which 35.3% (n=348,995) had a documented SUD. Tobacco use disorder (TUD) was most common (n= 327,220, 33.1%) followed by drug use disorder (DUD) (n=34,600, 3.5%) and alcohol use disorder (AUD) (n=34,285, 3.5%). Female sex was associated with less TUD (OR 0.59; 95% CI, 0.58-0.60), AUD (OR 0.23; 95% CI, 0.22-0.25) or DUD (OR 0.58; 95% CI 0.55-0.62). Tobacco, alcohol, cocaine, and opioid use disorders were highest among HF patients age 45 to 55, while cannabis and amphetamine use was highest in those <45 years. Native American race (versus White) was associated with increased risk of AUD (OR 1.67; 95% CI 1.27-2.20). Black race was associated with increased risk of AUD (OR 1.09; 95% CI 1.02-1.16) or DUD (OR 1.63; 95% CI 1.53-1.74). Medicaid insurance (versus Medicare) was associated with greater TUD (OR 1.27; 95% CI 1.23-1.32), AUD (OR 1.74; 95% CI 1.62-1.87), and DUD (OR 2.15; 95% CI 2.01-2.30). Decreasing quartiles of median household income were associated with increasing SUD. Conclusions: Comorbid SUD disproportionately affects certain HF populations, including men, younger age groups, lower SES patients, and race/ethnic minorities. Further research on interventions to improve prevention and treatment of SUD among hospitalized HF patients are needed given the high rates of SUD in this population. Systematically screening hospitalized HF patients for SUD may reveal opportunities for treatment and secondary prevention.

Risk classes of patients diagnosed with substance use disorders in Dutch forensic psychiatric centers

2021 ◽  
Vol 23 (1) ◽  
pp. 39-52
Author(s):  
Michele Schmitter ◽  
Jeroen Vermunt ◽  
Eric Blaauw ◽  
Stefan Bogaerts
Keyword(s):  
Substance Use ◽  
Substance Use Disorders ◽  
Latent Class ◽  
Mental Health Problems ◽  
Treatment Approach ◽  
Future Research ◽  
Content Type ◽  
Forensic Patients ◽  
Axis I ◽  
Forensic Psychiatric

Purpose Given the complex association between substance use disorders (SUD), comorbid mental health problems and criminal recidivism in forensic patients, homogenous patient classes can contribute to a refined treatment. This paper aims to construct those classes in forensic patients (N = 286) diagnosed with SUD, unconditionally released between 2004 and 2013 of one of ten Dutch forensic psychiatric centers. Design/methodology/approach Retrospective data were derived from electronic patient files. Classes were based on the Dutch risk assessment tool, the Historisch Klinisch Toekomst-Revisie (Historical Clinical Future–Revised [HKT-R]) and identified by means of explorative Latent Class Analysis in Latent Gold version 5.1. In a three-step approach, posterior class memberships were related to external variables (i.e. diagnoses, type of drug and type of offence). Findings Four classes were identified that differ in the risk of recidivism, as well as Axis I and II diagnoses and type of drug consumption. Practical implications This study informed on the heterogeneity of forensic patients with SUD and identified four homogenous classes that differ in important variables for the treatment approach. Based on these classes, a more refined treatment approach can be developed. Possible treatment approaches are discussed, but future research is needed to provide evidence. Originality/value This study is the first to identify classes within forensic patients with SUD and, therefore, sets the first step to develop a tailored treatment approach based on characteristics informative for treatment.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document