Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder and substance use disorders: is there a causal link?

Attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), characterized by restless, inattentive and hyperactive behaviours, is a relatively common childhood disorder that affects approximately 5% of the general population. There has been controversy about whether ADHD increases risks of developing substance use disorders. The available evidence suggests that, in the absence of conduct disorder, ADHD is not associated with an increased risk of substance use problems in males. There is only limited evidence on the role of ADHD in the aetiology of substance use disorders among females. While ADHD has traditionally been considered as a childhood disorder, it may also occur in adults; research needs to examine the extent to which ADHD in adulthood increases the risk of substance use disorders.

Public policy and the prevention of substance-use disorders

Drug prevention has traditionally focused on influencing individual attitudes and behaviours. In particular, efforts have been directed towards adolescents in the school setting. However, evaluations of school-based drug education have identified limited success. There is increasing recognition that drug abuse is one of a number of risk behaviours, including truancy, delinquency and mental health problems, which share common antecedents that begin in the early years of childhood. Furthermore, these behaviours are shaped by macroenvironmental influences including the economic, social, cultural, and physical environment. Drug prevention needs to adopt a broader perspective: with greater collaboration in related programmes such as crime prevention and suicide prevention; with greater attention to the macroenvironmental influences on problem behaviours; and with greater attention to healthy development in the first years of childhood. (C) 2002 Lippincott Williams Wilkins.

Inter-informant agreement and prevalence estimates for substance use disorders: direct interview versus family history method.

OBJECTIVES: Family studies typically use multiple sources of information on each individual including direct interviews and family history information. The aims of the present study were to: (1) assess agreement for diagnoses of specific substance use disorders between direct interviews and the family history method; (2) compare prevalence estimates according to the two methods; (3) test strategies to approximate prevalence estimates according to family history reports to those based on direct interviews; (4) determine covariates of inter-informant agreement; and (5) identify covariates that affect the likelihood of reporting disorders by informants. METHODS: Analyses were based on family study data which included 1621 distinct informant (first-degree relatives and spouses) - index subject pairs. RESULTS: Our main findings were: (1) inter-informant agreement was fair to good for all substance disorders, except for alcohol abuse; (2) the family history method underestimated the prevalence of drug but not alcohol use disorders; (3) lowering diagnostic thresholds for drug disorders and combining multiple family histories increased the accuracy of prevalence estimates for these disorders according to the family history method; (4) female sex of index subjects was associated with higher agreement for nearly all disorders; and (5) informants who themselves had a history of the same substance use disorder were more likely to report this disorder in their relatives, which entails the risk of overestimation of the size of familial aggregation. CONCLUSION: Our findings have important implications for the best-estimate procedure applied in family studies.

Frequent users of emergency departments present very high prevalence of mental health and substance use disorders, which are largely underdiagnosed by clinicians

Background: The objective of this study was to determine if mental health and substance use diagnoses were equally detected in frequent users (FUs) compared to infrequent users (IUs) of emergency departments (EDs). Methods: In a sample of 399 adult patients (>= 18 years old) admitted to a teaching hospital ED, we compared the mental health and substance use disorders diagnoses established clinically and consigned in the medical files by the ED physicians to data obtained in face-to-face research interviews using the Primary Care Evaluation of Mental Disorders (PRIME-MD) and the Alcohol, Smoking and Involvement Screening Test (ASSIST). Between November 2009 and June 2010, 226 FUs (>4 visits within a year) who attended the ED were included, and 173 IUs (<= 4 visits within a year) were randomly selected from a pool of identified patients to comprise the comparison group. Results: For mental health disorders identified by the PRIME-MD, FUs were more likely than IUs to have an anxiety (34 vs. 16%, Chi2(1) = 16.74, p <0.001), depressive (47 vs. 25%, Chi2(1) = 19.11, p <0.001) or posttraumatic stress (PTSD) disorder (11 vs. 5%, Chi2(1) = 4.87, p = 0.027). Only 3/76 FUs (4%) with an anxiety disorder, 16/104 FUs (15%) with a depressive disorder and none of the 24 FUs with PTSD were detected by the ED medical staff. None of the 27 IUs with an anxiety disorder, 6/43 IUs (14%) with a depressive disorder and none of the 8 IUs with PTSD were detected. For substance use disorders identified by the ASSIST, FUs were more at risk than IUs for alcohol (24 vs. 7%, Chi2(1) = 21.12, p <0.001) and drug abuse/dependence (36 vs. 25%, Chi2(1) = 5.52, p = 0.019). Of the FUs, 14/54 (26%) using alcohol and 8/81 (10%) using drugs were detected by the ED physicians. Of the IUs, 5/12 (41%) using alcohol and none of the 43 using drugs were detected. Overall, there was no significant difference in the rate of detection of mental health and substance use disorders between FUs and IUs (Fisher's Exact Test: anxiety, p = 0.567; depression, p = 1.000; PTSD, p = 1.000; alcohol, p = 0.517; and drugs, p = 0.053). Conclusions: While the prevalence of mental health and substance use disorders was higher among FUs, the rates of detection were not significantly different for FUs vs. IUs. However, it may be that drug disorders among FUs were more likely to be detected.

The tangible common denominator of substance use disorders: a reply to commentaries to Rehm et al. (2013a).

In response to our suggestion to define substance use disorders via 'heavy use over time', theoretical and conceptual issues, measurement problems and implications for stigma and clinical practice were raised. With respect to theoretical and conceptual issues, no other criterion has been shown, which would improve the definition. Moreover, heavy use over time is shown to be highly correlated with number of criteria in current DSM-5. Measurement of heavy use over time is simple and while there will be some underestimation or misrepresentation of actual levels in clinical practice, this is not different from the status quo and measurement of current criteria. As regards to stigma, research has shown that a truly dimensional concept can help reduce stigma. In conclusion, 'heavy use over time' as a tangible common denominator should be seriously considered as definition for substance use disorder.

International ADHD in substance use disorders prevalence study.

Dr Van Hout has been invited by the ICASA network and IASP research team [Drs Geurt van de Glind; Trimbos Institute, The Netherlands; Dr Pieter-Jan Carpentier, ICASA; Josep Antoni Ramos-Quiroga, University of Barcelona, Spain, Professor Dr Frances Levin, University of Columbia, New York, USA and Professor Dr. Wim van den Brink, University of Amsterdam, The Netherlands] to undertake the research protocol for Ireland as part of this European study of the prevalence of ADHD in adult patients referred for treatment of addiction problems. The research team at Waterford Institute of Technology, School of Health Sciences will undertake this national study as part of the International Collaboration on ADHD and Substance Abuse [ICASA] â?~International ADHD in Substance Use Disorders Prevalence Studyâ?T [IASP study]. The International Collaboration on ADHD and Substance Abuse [ICASA] will provide Dr Van Hout and her team with full support from ICASA of the measurement instruments available and a central database at the University of Amsterdam, and will undergo training for procedures for data capture from Dr van de Glind, Trimbos Institute, The Netherlands. Eight European countries (Norway, Sweden, the Netherlands, Belgium, France, Spain, Switzerland and Hungary) USA and Australia have already participated in the first phase of the IASP study, which will close in September 2011. Over 2500 Substance Use Disorder [SUD] patients were sampled with approximately 38% scoring positive on the ADHD screener (ASRS). Of these 2500 patients over 1000 patients were evaluated on ADHD, Depression, Bipolar Disorder, Anti-Social Personality and Borderline Personality Disorder. A preliminary estimate of the prevalence of ADHD in SUD treatment seeking patients was recorded at 20 %. The second phase of study [IASP 2011] will commence in September 2011 for countries including Ireland, South Africa, Egypt and Brazil. Dr Van Hout has also been invited to partake in a systematic review paper on the risk factors for development of SUD in children/adolescents with ADHD in collaboration with the ICASA foundation.This resource was contributed by The National Documentation Centre on Drug Use.

Frequent users of emergency departments present very high prevalence of mental health and substance use disorders, which are largery underdiagnosed by clinicians.

Background: The objective of this study was to determine if mental health and substance use diagnoses were equally detected in frequent users (FUs) compared to infrequent users (IUs) of emergency departments (EDs). Methods: In a sample of 399 adult patients (>= 18 years old) admitted to a teaching hospital ED, we compared the mental health and substance use disorders diagnoses established clinically and consigned in the medical files by the ED physicians to data obtained in face-to-face research interviews using the Primary Care Evaluation of Mental Disorders (PRIME-MD) and the Alcohol, Smoking and Involvement Screening Test (ASSIST). Between November 2009 and June 2010, 226 FUs (>4 visits within a year) who attended the ED were included, and 173 IUs (<= 4 visits within a year) were randomly selected from a pool of identified patients to comprise the comparison group. Results: For mental health disorders identified by the PRIME-MD, FUs were more likely than IUs to have an anxiety (34 vs. 16%, Chi2(1) = 16.74, p <0.001), depressive (47 vs. 25%, Chi2(1) = 19.11, p <0.001) or posttraumatic stress (PTSD) disorder (11 vs. 5%, Chi2(1) = 4.87, p = 0.027). Only 3/76 FUs (4%) with an anxiety disorder, 16/104 FUs (15%) with a depressive disorder and none of the 24 FUs with PTSD were detected by the ED medical staff. None of the 27 IUs with an anxiety disorder, 6/43 IUs (14%) with a depressive disorder and none of the 8 IUs with PTSD were detected. For substance use disorders identified by the ASSIST, FUs were more at risk than IUs for alcohol (24 vs. 7%, Chi2(1) = 21.12, p <0.001) and drug abuse/dependence (36 vs. 25%, Chi2(1) = 5.52, p = 0.019). Of the FUs, 14/54 (26%) using alcohol and 8/81 (10%) using drugs were detected by the ED physicians. Of the IUs, 5/12 (41%) using alcohol and none of the 43 using drugs were detected. Overall, there was no significant difference in the rate of detection of mental health and substance use disorders between FUs and IUs (Fisher's Exact Test: anxiety, p = 0.567; depression, p = 1.000; PTSD, p = 1.000; alcohol, p = 0.517; and drugs, p = 0.053). Conclusions: While the prevalence of mental health and substance use disorders was higher among FUs, the rates of detection were not significantly different for FUs vs. IUs. However, it may be that drug disorders among FUs were more likely to be detected.

Defining substance use disorders: do we really need more than heavy use?

AIMS: The aim of the study was to explore whether the concept of heavy substance use over time can be used as definition of substance use disorder. METHODS: Narrative review. RESULTS: Heavy use over time clearly underlies the neurobiological changes associated with current thinking of substance use disorders. In addition, there is evidence that heavy use over time can explain the majority of social problems and of burden of disease (morbidity and mortality). A definition of substance use disorders via heavy use over time would avoid some of the problems of current conceptualizations, for instance the cultural specificity of concepts such as loss of control. Finally, stressing the continuum of use may avoid the high level of stigmatization currently associated with substance use disorders. CONCLUSION: 'Heavy substance use over time' seems to be a definition of substance use disorders in line with results of basic research and epidemiology. Additionally, it reduces stigmatization. This approach should thus be further explored.

Constructive thinking skills and impulsivity dimensions in conduct and substance use disorders: differences and relationships in an adolescents' sample.

Impact of conduct disorder (CD) and substance use disorder (SUD) on constructive thinking skills and impulsivity was explored. 71 offending adolescents were assessed for CD and SUD. Furthermore, the constructive thinking inventory, the immediate and delayed memory tasks and the UPPS impulsive behaviour scale were administered. Results showed that youths with CD, independently from SUD, presented higher personality impulsivity (urgency) and altered constructive thinking skills (categorical thinking and personal superstitious thinking). Furthermore, trait-impulsivity explained variation in constructive thinking skills. The implications of these results were discussed.

L'entretien motivationnel, une nouvelle "panacée" dans la prise en charge de patients toxicodépendants ? Une revue de littérature [Motivational interviewing, the new "panacea" for treatment of substance use disorders ? A review of literature]

Cet article aborde l'entretien motivationnel (EM), considéré comme un style thérapeutique centré sur le client et directif, visant à développer la motivation au changement par l'exploration et la résolution de l'ambivalence (Miller, W.R., Rollnick, S., 2002. Motivational interviewing: preparing people for change. The Guilford Press, New York, p. 25). Après une brève présentation théorique de ce style thérapeutique, nous présentons un survol des principaux résultats empiriques relatifs à la question de son efficacité dans la prise en charge des troubles liés à l'utilisation de substances psychoactives. Malgré un corpus important de travaux qui mettent en évidence les effets de l'EM, la question des « ingrédients actifs » reste encore relativement peu explorée. Quelques hypothèses permettant de mieux comprendre le succès de l'EM sont évoquées.