Variability in the prevalence of adult ADHD in treatment seeking substance use disorder patients: results from an international multi-center study exploring DSM-IV and DSM-5 criteria

Background: Available studies vary in their estimated prevalence of attention deficit/hyperactivity disor-der (ADHD) in substance use disorder (SUD) patients, ranging from 2 to 83%. A better understanding ofthe possible reasons for this variability and the effect of the change from DSM-IV to DSM-5 is needed.Methods: A two stage international multi-center, cross-sectional study in 10 countries, among patientsform inpatient and outpatient addiction treatment centers for alcohol and/or drug use disorder patients. Atotal of 3558 treatment seeking SUD patients were screened for adult ADHD. A subsample of 1276 subjects,both screen positive and screen negative patients, participated in a structured diagnostic interview. 5AdultsResults: Prevalence of DSM-IV and DSM-5 adult ADHD varied for DSM-IV from 5.4% (CI 95%: 2.4–8.3) forHungary to 31.3% (CI 95%:25.2–37.5) for Norway and for DSM-5 from 7.6% (CI 95%: 4.1–11.1) for Hungary to32.6% (CI 95%: 26.4–38.8) for Norway. Using the same assessment procedures in all countries and centersresulted in substantial reduction of the variability in the prevalence of adult ADHD reported in previousstudies among SUD patients (2–83% → 5.4–31.3%). The remaining variability was partly explained byprimary substance of abuse and by country (Nordic versus non-Nordic countries). Prevalence estimatesfor DSM-5 were slightly higher than for DSM-IV.Conclusions: Given the generally high prevalence of adult ADHD, all treatment seeking SUD patientsshould be screened and, after a confirmed diagnosis, treated for ADHD since the literature indicates poorprognoses of SUD in treatment seeking SUD patients with ADHD.

Patients with substance use and personality disorders: a comparison of patient characteristics, treatment process, and outcomes in Swiss and U.S. substance use disorder programs

Cross-cultural comparisons may increase our understanding of different models of substance use treatment and help identify consistent associations between patients' characteristics, treatment conditions, and outcomes.

Treatment outcomes of an integrated residential programme for patients with schizophrenia and substance use disorder

About half of all schizophrenic patients have a co-occurring substance use disorder, leading to poorer social and functional outcomes than obtained in non-abusing patients. To improve outcomes, integrated treatments have been designed that address the two conditions simultaneously. Results are, however, conflicting because the available effect studies are hampered by various methodological issues, among which are heterogeneous patient samples.

Predictors of substance use reduction in an epidemiological first-episode psychosis cohort

Aim To assess the predictors of a significant decrease or cessation of substance use (SU) in a treated epidemiological cohort of first-episode psychosis (FEP) patients. Method Participants were FEP patients of the Early Psychosis Prevention and Intervention Centre in Australia. Patients' medical files were reviewed using a standardized file audit. Data on 432 patients with FEP and baseline co-morbid substance use disorder (SUD) were available for analysis. Predictors of reduction/cessation of SU at follow up were examined using logistic regression analyses. Results In univariate analyses, a reduction/cessation of SU was predicted by baseline measures reflecting higher education, employment, accommodation with others, cannabis use disorder (CUD) only (rather than poly-SUDs), better global functioning and better premorbid social and occupational functioning, later age at onset of psychosis, and a diagnosis of non-affective psychosis. In multivariate analysis, CUD alone and better premorbid social and occupational functioning remained significant predictors. Conclusions Addressing SUDs and social and occupational goals in people with FEP may offer opportunities to prevent SUDs becoming more severe or entrenched. Further longitudinal research on recovery from SU and FEP is needed to disentangle directions of influence and identify key targets for intervention.

Substance use disorder treatment programs in Switzerland and the USA: Program characteristics and 1-year outcomes

AIM: This study compared matched samples of substance use disorder (SUD) patients in Swiss and United States (US) residential treatment programs and examined the relationship of program characteristics to patients' substance use and psychosocial functioning at a 1-year follow-up. DESIGN AND SETTING: The study used a prospective, naturalistic design and a sample of 10 public programs in the German-speaking part of Switzerland and 15 US public treatment programs. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 358 male patients in Swiss programs were matched on age, marital status and education with 358 male patients in US programs. A total of 160 Swiss and 329 US patient care staff members also participated. MEASUREMENT: Patients completed comparable inventories at admission, discharge and 1-year follow-up to assess their substance use and psychological functioning and receipt of continuing care. Staff members reported on program characteristics and their beliefs about substance use. FINDINGS: Compared to Swiss patients, US patients had more severe substance use and psychological problems at intake and although they did not differ on abstinence and remission at follow-up, had somewhat poorer outcomes in other areas of functioning. Swiss programs were longer and included more individual treatment sessions; US programs included more group sessions and were more oriented toward a disease model of treatment. Overall, length of program, treatment intensity and 12-step orientation were associated with better 1-year outcomes for patients in both Swiss and US programs. CONCLUSIONS: The sample of Swiss and US programs studied here differed in patient and treatment characteristics; however, in general, there were comparable associations between program characteristics and patients' 1-year outcomes. These findings suggest that associations between treatment processes and patients' outcomes may generalize from one cultural context to another.

Psychiatric comorbidity in treatment-seeking substance use disorder patients with and without attention deficit hyperactivity disorder: results of the IASP study

Aims To determine comorbidity patterns in treatment-seeking substance use disorder (SUD) patients with and without adult attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), with an emphasis on subgroups defined by ADHD subtype, taking into account differences related to gender and primary substance of abuse. Design Data were obtained from the cross-sectional International ADHD in Substance use disorder Prevalence (IASP) study. Setting Forty-seven centres of SUD treatment in 10 countries. Participants A total of 1205 treatment-seeking SUD patients. Measurements Structured diagnostic assessments were used for all disorders: presence of ADHD was assessed with the Conners' Adult ADHD Diagnostic Interview for DSM-IV (CAADID), the presence of antisocial personality disorder (ASPD), major depression (MD) and (hypo)manic episode (HME) was assessed with the Mini International Neuropsychiatric Interview-Plus (MINI Plus), and the presence of borderline personality disorder (BPD) was assessed with the Structured Clinical Interview for DSM-IV Axis II (SCID II). Findings The prevalence of DSM-IV adult ADHD in this SUD sample was 13.9%. ASPD [odds ratio (OR) = 2.8, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 1.8–4.2], BPD (OR = 7.0, 95% CI = 3.1–15.6 for alcohol; OR = 3.4, 95% CI = 1.8–6.4 for drugs), MD in patients with alcohol as primary substance of abuse (OR = 4.1, 95% CI = 2.1–7.8) and HME (OR = 4.3, 95% CI = 2.1–8.7) were all more prevalent in ADHD+ compared with ADHD− patients (P < 0.001). These results also indicate increased levels of BPD and MD for alcohol compared with drugs as primary substance of abuse. Comorbidity patterns differed between ADHD subtypes with increased MD in the inattentive and combined subtype (P < 0.01), increased HME and ASPD in the hyperactive/impulsive (P < 0.01) and combined subtypes (P < 0.001) and increased BPD in all subtypes (P < 0.001) compared with SUD patients without ADHD. Seventy-five per cent of ADHD patients had at least one additional comorbid disorder compared with 37% of SUD patients without ADHD. Conclusions Treatment-seeking substance use disorder patients with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder are at a very high risk for additional externalizing disorders.

Validity of the Adult ADHD Self-Report Scale (ASRS) as a screener for adult ADHD in treatment seeking substance use disorder patients

Background: To detect attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) in treatment seeking substance use disorders (SUD) patients, a valid screening instrument is needed. Objectives: To test the performance of the Adult ADHD Self-Report Scale V 1.1(ASRS) for adult ADHD in an international sample of treatment seeking SUD patients for DSM-IV-TR; for the proposed DSM-5 criteria; in different subpopulations, at intake and 1–2 weeks after intake; using different scoring algorithms; and different externalizing disorders as external criterion (including adult ADHD, bipolar disorder, antisocial and borderline personality disorder). Methods: In 1138 treatment seeking SUD subjects, ASRS performance was determined using diagnoses based on Conner's Adult ADHD Diagnostic Interview for DSM-IV (CAADID) as gold standard. Results: The prevalence of adult ADHD was 13.0% (95% CI: 11.0–15.0%). The overall positive predictive value (PPV) of the ASRS was 0.26 (95% CI: 0.22–0.30), the negative predictive value (NPV) was 0.97 (95% CI: 0.96–0.98). The sensitivity (0.84, 95% CI: 0.76–0.88) and specificity (0.66, 95% CI: 0.63–0.69) measured at admission were similar to the sensitivity (0.88, 95% CI: 0.83–0.93) and specificity (0.67, 95% CI: 0.64–0.70) measured 2 weeks after admission. Sensitivity was similar, but specificity was significantly better in patients with alcohol compared to (illicit) drugs as the primary substance of abuse (0.76 vs. 0.56). ASRS was not a good screener for externalizing disorders other than ADHD. Conclusions: The ASRS is a sensitive screener for identifying possible ADHD cases with very few missed cases among those screening negative in this population.

The International ADHD in Substance Use Disorders Prevalence (IASP) study: background, methods and study population

Attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) is an increasingly recognized comorbid condition in subjects with substance use disorders (SUDs). This paper describes the methods and study population of the International ADHD in Substance Use Disorders Prevalence (IASP) study. Objectives of the IASP are to determine the prevalence of ADHD in adult treatment seeking patients with SUD in different countries and SUD populations, determine the reliability and validity of the Adult ADHD Self-report Scale V 1.1 (ASRS) as ADHD screening instrument in SUD populations, investigate the comorbidity profile of SUD patients with and without ADHD, compare risk factors and protective factors in SUD patients with and without a comorbid diagnosis of ADHD, and increase our knowledge about the relationship between ADHD and the onset and course of SUD. In this cross-sectional, multi-centre two stage study, subjects were screened for ADHD with the ASRS, diagnosed with the Conner's Adult ADHD Diagnostic Interview for DSM-IV (CAADID), and evaluated for SUD, major depression, bipolar disorder, anti social personality disorder and borderline personality disorder. Three thousand five hundred and fifty-eight subjects from 10 countries were included. Of these 40.9% screened positive for ADHD. This is the largest international study on this population evaluating ADHD and comorbid disorders.

Treatment for outpatients with comorbid schizophrenia and substance use disorders: a review

Aims: This review provides evidence of which interventions need to be part of effective outpatient integrated treatment for patients with comorbid schizophrenia and substance use disorders. Methods: A total of 14 randomized controlled trials were included. Effect sizes are provided to assess the magnitude of the treatments’ efficacy. Results: Despite the studies’ heterogeneity, we can conclude that certain programs (e.g., Behavioral Treatment for Substance Abuse in Schizophrenia) and specific interventions (e.g., motivational interviewing, family interventions) seem to be effective. Moreover, programs integrating multiple interventions are more likely to be positively related to better outcomes than single interventions. Finally, the lack of difference between effect sizes of assertive community treatment compared to case management suggests that a lower caseload is not necessary for positive treatment outcomes. Conclusion: Integrated treatment seems advantageous, although effect sizes are mostly modest. More homogeneous and qualitative sound studies are needed.

Towards a new model of care: integrating mental health, substance use, and somatic care

Although research and clinical interventions for patients with dual disorders have been described since as early as the 1980s, the day-to-day treatment of these patients remains problematic and challenging in many countries. Throughout this book, many approaches and possible pathways have been outlined. Based upon these experiences, some key points can be extracted in order to guide to future developments. (1) New diagnostic approaches are warranted when dealing with patients who have multiple problems, given the limitations of the current categorical systems. (2) Greater emphasis should be placed on secondary prevention and early intervention for children and adolescents at an increased risk of later-life dual disorders. (3) Mental, addiction, and somatic care systems can be integrated, adopting a patient-focused approach to care delivery. (4) Recovery should be taken into consideration when defining treatment intervention and outcome goals. (5) It is important to reduce societal risk factors, such as poverty and early childhood adversity. (6) More resources are needed to provide adequate mental health care in the various countries. The development of European guidance initiatives would provide benefits in many of these areas, making it possible to ensure a more harmonized standard of care for patients with dual disorders.

Associations between mood, anxiety or substance use disorders and inflammatory markers after adjustment for multiple covariates in a population-based study.

Inflammation is one possible mechanism underlying the associations between mental disorders and cardiovascular diseases (CVD). However, studies on mental disorders and inflammation have yielded inconsistent results and the majority did not adjust for potential confounding factors. We examined the associations of several pro-inflammatory cytokines (IL-1β, IL-6 and TNF-α) and high sensitive C-reactive protein (hsCRP) with lifetime and current mood, anxiety and substance use disorders (SUD), while adjusting for multiple covariates. The sample included 3719 subjects, randomly selected from the general population, who underwent thorough somatic and psychiatric evaluations. Psychiatric diagnoses were made with a semi-structured interview. Major depressive disorder was subtyped into "atypical", "melancholic", "combined atypical-melancholic" and "unspecified". Associations between inflammatory markers and psychiatric diagnoses were assessed using multiple linear and logistic regression models. Lifetime bipolar disorders and atypical depression were associated with increased levels of hsCRP, but not after multivariate adjustment. After multivariate adjustment, SUD remained associated with increased hsCRP levels in men (β = 0.13 (95% CI: 0.03,0.23)) but not in women. After multivariate adjustment, lifetime combined and unspecified depression were associated with decreased levels of IL-6 (β = -0.27 (-0.51,-0.02); β = -0.19 (-0.34,-0.05), respectively) and TNF-α (β = -0.16 (-0.30,-0.01); β = -0.10 (-0.19,-0.02), respectively), whereas current combined and unspecified depression were associated with decreased levels of hsCRP (β = -0.20 (-0.39,-0.02); β = -0.12 (-0.24,-0.01), respectively). Our data suggest that the significant associations between increased hsCRP levels and mood disorders are mainly attributable to the effects of comorbid disorders, medication as well as behavioral and physical CVRFs.

Early developmental, temperamental and educational problems in ‘substance use disorder’ patients with and without ADHD. Does ADHD make a difference?

Introduction: The prevalence of ADHD among patients with substance use disorder (SUD) is substantial. This study addressed the following research questions: Are early developmental, temperamental and educational problems overrepresented among SUD patients with ADHD compared to SUD patients without ADHD? Do this comorbid group receive early help for their ADHD, and are there signs of self-medicating with illicit central stimulants? Method: An international, multi-centre cross-sectional study was carried out involving seven European countries, with 1205 patients in treatment for SUD. The mean age was 40 years and 27% of the sample was female. All par- ticipants were interviewed with the Mini International Neuropsychiatric Interview Plus and the Conners' Adult ADHD Diagnostic Interview for DSM-IV. Results: SUD patients with ADHD (n = 196; 16.3% of the total sample) had a significantly slower infant develop- ment than SUD patients without ADHD (n = 1,009; 83.4%), had greater problems controlling their temperament, and had lower educational attainment. Only 24 (12%) of the current ADHD positive patients had been diagnosed and treated during childhood and/or adolescence. Finally, SUD patients with ADHD were more likely to have central stimulants or cannabis as their primary substance of abuse, whereas alcohol use was more likely to be the primary substance of abuse in SUD patients without ADHD. Conclusion: The results emphasize the importance of early identification of ADHD and targeted interventions in the health and school system, as well as in the addiction field.

Risk factors for borderline personality disorder in treatment seeking patients with a substance use disorder: an international multicenter study

Borderline personality disorder (BPD) and substance use disorders (SUDs) often co-occur, partly because they share risk factors. In this international multicenter study, risk factors for BPD were examined for SUD patients. In total, 1,205 patients were comprehensively examined by standardized interviews and questionnaires on psychiatric diagnosis and risk factors, and it was found that 1,033 (85.7%) had SUDs without BPD (SUD) and 172 (14.3%) had SUD with BPD (SUD + BPD). SUD + BPD patients were significantly younger, more often females and more often diagnosed with comorbid adult attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder. SUD + BPD patients did not differ from SUD patients on most risk factors typical for SUD such as maternal use of drugs during pregnancy or parents having any SUD. However, SUD + BPD patients did have a higher risk of having experienced emotional and physical abuse, neglect, or family violence in childhood compared to SUD patients, suggesting that child abuse and family violence are BPD-specific risk factors in patients with SUDs. © 2015 S. Karger AG, Basel.

High-Dose Benzodiazepine Dependence: A Qualitative Study of Patients' Perceptions on Initiation, Reasons for Use, and Obtainment

BACKGROUND High-dose benzodiazepine (BZD) dependence is associated with a wide variety of negative health consequences. Affected individuals are reported to suffer from severe mental disorders and are often unable to achieve long-term abstinence via recommended discontinuation strategies. Although it is increasingly understood that treatment interventions should take subjective experiences and beliefs into account, the perceptions of this group of individuals remain under-investigated. METHODS We conducted an exploratory qualitative study with 41 adult subjects meeting criteria for (high-dose) BZD-dependence, as defined by ICD-10. One-on-one in-depth interviews allowed for an exploration of this group's views on the reasons behind their initial and then continued use of BZDs, as well as their procurement strategies. Mayring's qualitative content analysis was used to evaluate our data. RESULTS In this sample, all participants had developed explanatory models for why they began using BZDs. We identified a multitude of reasons that we grouped into four broad categories, as explaining continued BZD use: (1) to cope with symptoms of psychological distress or mental disorder other than substance use, (2) to manage symptoms of physical or psychological discomfort associated with somatic disorder, (3) to alleviate symptoms of substance-related disorders, and (4) for recreational purposes, that is, sensation-seeking and other social reasons. Subjects often considered BZDs less dangerous than other substances and associated their use more often with harm reduction than as recreational. Specific obtainment strategies varied widely: the majority of participants oscillated between legal and illegal methods, often relying on the black market when faced with treatment termination. CONCLUSIONS Irrespective of comorbidity, participants expressed a clear preference for medically related explanatory models for their BZD use. We therefore suggest that clinicians consider patients' motives for long-term, high-dose BZD use when formulating treatment plans for this patient group, especially since it is known that individuals are more compliant with approaches they perceive to be manageable, tolerable, and effective.