Background Current and comprehensive information on the epidemiology of DSM-IV 12-month and lifetime drug use disorders in the United States has not been available. Objectives To present detailed information on drug abuse and dependence prevalence, correlates, and comorbidity with other Axis I and II disorders. Design, Setting, and Participants Face-to-face interviews using the Alcohol Use Disorder and Associated Disabilities Interview Schedule of the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism in a large representative sample of US adults (N = 43 093). Main Outcome Measures Twelve-month and lifetime prevalence of drug abuse and dependence and the associated correlates, treatment rates, disability, and comorbidity with other Axis I and II disorders. Results Prevalences of 12-month and lifetime drug abuse (1.4% and 7.7%, respectively) exceeded rates of drug dependence (0.6% and 2.6%, respectively). Rates of abuse and dependence were generally greater among men, Native Americans, respondents aged 18 to 44 years, those of lower socioeconomic status, those residing in the West, and those who were never married or widowed, separated, or divorced (all P Conclusions Most individuals with drug use disorders have never been treated, and treatment disparities exist among those at high risk, despite substantial disability and comorbidity. Comorbidity of drug use disorders with other substance use disorders and antisocial personality disorder, as well as dependence with mood disorders and generalized anxiety disorder, appears to be due in part to unique factors underlying each pair of these disorders studied. The persistence of low treatment rates despite the availability of effective treatments indicates the need for vigorous educational efforts for the public and professionals.

https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamapsychiatry/articlepdf/482282/yoa60081_566_576.pdf

Prevalence, Correlates, Disability, and Comorbidity of DSM-IV Alcohol Abuse and Dependence in the United States: Results From the National Epidemiologic Survey on Alcohol and Related Conditions

Importance National epidemiologic information from recently collected data on the newDSM-5classification of alcohol use disorder (AUD) using a reliable, valid, and uniform data source is needed. Objective To present nationally representative findings on the prevalence, correlates, psychiatric comorbidity, associated disability, and treatment ofDSM-5AUD diagnoses overall and according to severity level (mild, moderate, or severe). Design, Setting, and Participants We conducted face-to-face interviews with a representative US noninstitutionalized civilian adult (≥18 years) sample (N = 36 309) as the 2012-2013 National Epidemiologic Survey on Alcohol and Related Conditions III (NESARC-III). Data were collected from April 2012 through June 2013 and analyzed in October 2014. Main Outcomes and Measures Twelve-month and lifetime prevalences of AUD. Results Twelve-month and lifetime prevalences of AUD were 13.9% and 29.1%, respectively. Prevalence was generally highest for men (17.6% and 36.0%, respectively), white (14.0% and 32.6%, respectively) and Native American (19.2% and 43.4%, respectively), respondents, and younger (26.7% and 37.0%, respectively) and previously married (11.4% and 27.1%, respectively) or never married (25.0% and 35.5%, respectively) adults. Prevalence of 12-month and lifetime severe AUD was greatest among respondents with the lowest income level (1.8% and 1.5%, respectively). Significant disability was associated with 12-month and lifetime AUD and increased with the severity of AUD. Only 19.8% of respondents with lifetime AUD were ever treated. Significant associations were found between 12-month and lifetime AUD and other substance use disorders, major depressive and bipolar I disorders, and antisocial and borderline personality disorders across all levels of AUD severity, with odds ratios ranging from 1.2 (95% CI, 1.08-1.36) to 6.4 (95% CI, 5.76-7.22). Associations between AUD and panic disorder, specific phobia, and generalized anxiety disorder were modest (odds ratios ranged from 1.2 (95% CI, 1.01-1.43) to 1.4 (95% CI, 1.13-1.67) across most levels of AUD severity. Conclusions and Relevance Alcohol use disorder defined byDSM-5criteria is a highly prevalent, highly comorbid, disabling disorder that often goes untreated in the United States. The NESARC-III data indicate an urgent need to educate the public and policy makers about AUD and its treatment alternatives, to destigmatize the disorder, and to encourage those who cannot reduce their alcohol consumption on their own, despite substantial harm to themselves and others, to seek treatment.

/pdf/epidemiology-of-dsm-5-alcohol-use-disorder-results-from-the-d5i9jx0rkx.pdf

Epidemiology of DSM-5 Alcohol Use Disorder: Results From the National Epidemiologic Survey on Alcohol and Related Conditions III

Excessive drinking contributes significantly to social problems, physical and psychological illness, injury and death Hidden effects include increased levels of violence, accidents and suicide Most alcohol-related harm is caused by excessive drinkers whose consumption exceeds recommended drinking levels, not the drinkers with severe alcohol dependency problems One way to reduce consumption levels in a community may be to provide a brief intervention in primary care over one to four sessions This is provided by healthcare workers such as general physicians, nurses or psychologists In general practice, patients are routinely asked about alcohol consumption during registration, general health checks and as part of health screening (using a questionnaire) They tend not to be seeking help for alcohol problems when presenting The intervention they are offered includes feedback on alcohol use and harms, identification of high risk situations for drinking and coping strategies, increased motivation and the development of a personal plan to reduce drinking It takes place within the time-frame of a standard consultation, 5 to 15 minutes for a general physician, longer for a nurseA total of 29 controlled trials from various countries were identified, in general practice (24 trials) or an emergency setting (five trials) Participants drank an average of 306 grams of alcohol (over 30 standard drinks) per week on entry to the trial Over 7000 participants with a mean age of 43 years were randomised to receive a brief intervention or a control intervention, including assessment only After one year or more, people who received the brief intervention drank less alcohol than people in the control group (average difference 38 grams/week, range 23 to 54 grams) For men (some 70% of participants), the benefit of brief intervention was a difference of 57 grams/week, range 25 to 89 grams (six trials) The benefit was not clear for women The benefits of brief intervention were similar in the normal clinical setting and in research settings with greater resources Longer counselling had little additional benefit

/pdf/effectiveness-of-brief-alcohol-interventions-in-primary-care-4v9jy63xfu.pdf

Effectiveness of brief alcohol interventions in primary care populations

Aims: The aim of the study was to assess the cumulative evidence on the effectiveness of brief alcohol interventions in primary healthcare in order to highlight key knowledge gaps for further research. Methods: An overview of systematic reviews and meta-analyses of the effectiveness of brief alcohol intervention in primary healthcare published between 2002 and 2012. Findings: Twenty-four systematic reviews met the eligibility criteria (covering a total of 56 randomized controlled trials reported across 80 papers). Across the included studies, it was consistently reported that brief intervention was effective for addressing hazardous and harmful drinking in primary healthcare, particularly in middle-aged, male drinkers. Evidence gaps included: brief intervention effective- ness in key groups (women, older and younger drinkers, minority ethnic groups, dependent/co-morbid drinkers and those living in tran- sitional and developing countries); and the optimum brief intervention length and frequency to maintain longer-term effectiveness. Conclusion: This overview highlights the large volume of primarily positive evidence supporting brief alcohol intervention effects as well as some unanswered questions with regards to the effectiveness of brief alcohol intervention across different cultural settings and in specific population groups, and in respect of the optimum content of brief interventions that might benefit from further research.

/pdf/the-impact-of-brief-alcohol-interventions-in-primary-tn5v899w9n.pdf

The impact of brief alcohol interventions in primary healthcare: a systematic review of reviews.

Issues: Numerous studies have reported that brief interventions delivered in primary care are effective in reducing excessive drinking. However, much of this work has been criticised for being clinically unrepresentative. This review aimed to assess the effectiveness of brief interventions in primary care and determine if outcomes differ between efficacy and effectiveness trials. Approach: A pre-specified search strategy was used to search all relevant electronic databases up to 2006. We also hand-searched the reference lists of key articles and reviews. We included randomised controlled trials (RCT) involving patients in primary care who were not seeking alcohol treatment and who received brief intervention. Two authors independently abstracted data and assessed trial quality. Random effects meta-analyses, subgroup and sensitivity analyses and meta-regression were conducted. Key Findings: The primary meta-analysis included 22 RCT and evaluated outcomes in over 5800 patients. At 1 year follow up, patients receiving brief intervention had a significant reduction in alcohol consumption compared with controls [mean difference: -38 g week(-1), 95%CI (confidence interval): -54 to -23], although there was substantial heterogeneity between trials (I(2) = 57%). Subgroup analysis confirmed the benefit of brief intervention in men but not in women. Extended intervention was associated with a non-significantly increased reduction in alcohol consumption compared with brief intervention. There was no significant difference in effect sizes for efficacy and effectiveness trials. Conclusions: Brief interventions can reduce alcohol consumption in men, with benefit at a year after intervention, but they are unproven in women for whom there is insufficient research data. Longer counselling has little additional effect over brief intervention. The lack of differences in outcomes between efficacy and effectiveness trials suggests that the current literature is relevant to routine primary care. Language: en

The effectiveness of brief alcohol interventions in primary care settings: A systematic review

Background Numerous trials of the efficacy of brief alcohol intervention have been conducted in various settings among individuals with a wide range of alcohol disorders. Nevertheless, the efficacy of the intervention is likely to be influenced by the context. We evaluated the evidence of efficacy of brief alcohol interventions aimed at reducing long-term alcohol use and related harm in individuals attending primary care facilities but not seeking help for alcohol-related problems. Methods We selected randomized trials reporting at least 1 outcome related to alcohol consumption conducted in outpatients who were actively attending primary care centers or seeing providers. Data sources were the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE, PsycINFO, ISI Web of Science, ETOH database, and bibliographies of retrieved references and previous reviews. Study selection and data abstraction were performed independently and in duplicate. We assessed the validity of the studies and performed a meta-analysis of studies reporting alcohol consumption at 6 or 12 months of follow-up. Results We examined 19 trials that included 5639 individuals. Seventeen trials reported a measure of alcohol consumption, of which 8 reported a significant effect of intervention. The adjusted intention-to-treat analysis showed a mean pooled difference of −38 g of ethanol (approximately 4 drinks) per week (95% confidence interval, −51 to −24g/wk) in favor of the brief alcohol intervention group. Evidence of other outcome measures was inconclusive. Conclusion Focusing on patients in primary care, our systematic review and meta-analysis indicated that brief alcohol intervention is effective in reducing alcohol consumption at 6 and 12 months.

https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamainternalmedicine/articlepdf/1152798/ira40027_986_995.pdf

Vincent Wietlisbach

Papers

Reduction of alcohol consumption by brief alcohol intervention in primary care: systematic review and meta-analysis