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.

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.

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.

Identification and quantification of phytochelatins in roots of rice to long-term exposure: evidence of individual role on arsenic accumulation and translocation

Rice has the predilection to take up arsenic in the form of methylated arsenic (o-As) and inorganic arsenic species (i-As). Plants defend themselves using i-As efflux systems and the production of phytochelatins (PCs) to complex i-As. Our study focused on the identification and quantification of phytochelatins by HPLC-ICP-MS/ESI-MS, relating them to the several variables linked to As exposure. GSH, 11 PCs, and As–PC complexes from the roots of six rice cultivars (Italica Carolina, Dom Sofid, 9524, Kitrana 508, YRL-1, and Lemont) exposed to low and high levels of i-As were compared with total, i-As, and o-As in roots, shoots, and grains. Only Dom Sofid, Kitrana 508, and 9524 were found to produce higher levels of PCs even when exposed to low levels of As. PCs were only correlated to i-As in the roots (r=0.884, P <0.001). However, significant negative correlations to As transfer factors (TF) roots–grains (r= –0.739, P <0.05) and shoots–grains (r= –0.541, P <0.05), suggested that these peptides help in trapping i-As but not o-As in the roots, reducing grains’ i-As. Italica Carolina reduced i-As in grains after high exposure, where some specific PCs had a special role in this reduction. In Lemont, exposure to elevated levels of i-As did not result in higher i-As levels in the grains and there were no significant increases in PCs or thiols. Finally, the high production of PCs in Kitrana 508 and Dom Sofid in response to high As treatment did not relate to a reduction of i-As in grains, suggesting that other mechanisms such as As–PC release and transport seems to be important in determining grain As in these cultivars.

Segmentation and Recognition of Multi-Food Meal Images for Carbohydrate Counting

In this paper, we propose novel methodologies for the automatic segmentation and recognition of multi-food images. The proposed methods implement the first modules of a carbohydrate counting and insulin advisory system for type 1 diabetic patients. Initially the plate is segmented using pyramidal mean-shift filtering and a region growing algorithm. Then each of the resulted segments is described by both color and texture features and classified by a support vector machine into one of six different major food classes. Finally, a modified version of the Huang and Dom evaluation index was proposed, addressing the particular needs of the food segmentation problem. The experimental results prove the effectiveness of the proposed method achieving a segmentation accuracy of 88.5% and recognition rate equal to 87%

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.