Depression and/or PTSD Comorbidity Affects Response to Antidepressants in Those With Alcohol Use Disorder

Objective: Depression and post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) highly co-occur with alcohol use disorder (AUD). The comparative effects of noradrenergic vs. serotonergic antidepressants on drinking and depressive outcomes for those with AUD and co-occurring depression and/or PTSD are not well known.Methods: This study was an analysis of a randomized control trial of 128 patients with AUD who had co-occurring depression and/or PTSD. They were randomized to treatment with paroxetine vs. desipramine and naltrexone vs. placebo leading to four groups: paroxetine plus naltrexone, paroxetine plus placebo, desipramine plus naltrexone, and desipramine plus placebo. Outcomes were percent of drinking days, percent heavy drinking days, drinks per drinking day (Time Line Follow-back Method), and depressive symptoms (Hamilton Depression Scale). Groups compared were (1) depression without PTSD (depression group; n = 35), (2) PTSD without depression (PTSD group; n = 33), and (3) both depression and PTSD (comorbid group; n = 60).Results: There were no overall significant differences in drinking outcomes by medication in the entire sample, and no significant interaction when diagnostic groups were not considered. However, when diagnostic groups were included in the model, the interactions between time, diagnostic group, and medication (desipramine vs. paroxetine) were significant for percent drinking days (p = 0.042), and percent heavy drinking days (p = 0.036); paroxetine showed better drinking outcomes within the depression group, whereas desipramine showed better drinking outcomes in the PTSD and comorbid groups. Regarding depressive symptoms, paroxetine was statistically superior to desipramine in the total sample (p = 0.007), but there was no significant interaction of diagnostic group and medication. Naltrexone led to a decrease in craving but no change in drinking outcomes.Conclusions: The results of this study suggest that drinking outcomes may respond differently to desipramine and paroxetine depending on comorbid MDD and/or PTSD.

Cultural variation in the relationship between social motives, drinking, and alcohol-related problems

College students consume alcohol based on different motivations, and past research indicates that these drinking motives can differentially predict alcohol-related consequences. However, little is known about how drinking motives and consequences operate in Latinx individuals and other ethnic minority groups. The present study examined social drinking motives and their links to drinking consequences and problematic drinking in a college sample. Participants were 106 Latinx, Asian/Asian American, and European American undergraduates. Social motives were positively and significantly linked to drinking outcomes, but these main effects were qualified by an interaction between social motives and ethnicity on drinking outcomes, such that greater social motives was significantly linked to problematic drinking and drinking consequences for European Americans, but not for Latinx or Asian/Asian American participants. Implications for theory and intervention are discussed.

Brief Online Negative Affect Focused Functional Imagery Training Improves 2-Week Drinking Outcomes in Hazardous Student Drinkers: a Pilot Randomised Controlled Trial

Background Negative affect plays an important role in motivating problematic alcohol use. Consequently, training imagery-based adaptive responses to negative affect could reduce problematic alcohol use. The current study tested whether personalised online functional imagery training (FIT) to utilise positive mental imagery in response to negative affect would improve drinking outcomes in hazardous negative affect drinking students. Method Participants were 52 hazardous student drinkers who drink to cope with negative affect. Participants in the active group (n = 24) were trained online over 2 weeks to respond to personalised negative drinking triggers by retrieving a personalised adaptive strategy they might use to mitigate negative affect, whereas participants in the control group (n = 28) received standard risk information about binge drinking at university. Measures of daily drinking quantity, drinking motives, self-efficacy and use of protective behavioural strategies were obtained at baseline and 2 weeks follow-up. Results There were three significant interactions between group and time in a per-protocol analysis: the active intervention group showed increased self-efficacy of control over negative affect drinking and control over alcohol consumption and decreased social drinking motives from baseline to 2-week follow-up, relative to the control intervention group. There were no effects on drinking frequency. Conclusion These findings provide initial evidence that online training to respond to negative affect drinking triggers by retrieving mental imagery of adaptive strategies can improve drinking-related outcomes in hazardous, student, negative affect drinkers. The findings support the utility of FIT interventions for substance use.