Circuits Regulating Pleasure and Happiness: A Focus on Addiction, Beyond the Ventral Striatum

A recently developed anatomical model describes how the intensity of reward-seeking and misery-fleeing behaviours is regulated. The first type of behaviours is regulated within an extrapyramidal cortical–subcortical circuit containing as first relay stations, the caudate nucleus, putamen and core of the accumbens nucleus. The second type of behaviours is controlled by a limbic cortical–subcortical circuit with as first stations, the centromedial amygdala, extended amygdala, bed nucleus of the stria terminalis and shell of the accumbens nucleus. We hypothesize that sudden cessation of hyperactivity of the first circuit results in feelings of pleasure and of the second circuit in feelings of happiness. The insular cortex has probably an essential role in the perception of these and other emotions. Motivation to show these behaviours is regulated by monoaminergic neurons projecting to the accumbens from the midbrain: dopaminergic ventral tegmental nuclei, adrenergic locus coeruleus and serotonergic upper raphe nuclei. The activity of these monoaminergic nuclei is in turn regulated through a ventral pathway by the prefrontal cortex and through a dorsal pathway by the medial and lateral habenula. The habenula has this role since the first vertebrate human ancestors with a brain comparable to that of modern lampreys. The lateral habenula promotes or inhibits reward-seeking behaviours depending upon the gained reward being larger or smaller than expected. It is suggested that the ventral pathway is essential for maintaining addiction based on the observation of specific cues, while the dorsal pathway is essential for becoming addicted and relapsing during periods of abstinence

Evaluating the Effectiveness of Take it Personal!+ in People With Mild Intellectual Disability or Borderline Intellectual Functioning and Substance Use Disorder:A Multiple Baseline Single-Case Experimental Study

Individuals with mild intellectual disabilities or borderline intellectual functioning are at increased risk to develop a substance use disorder—however, effective treatment programs adapted to this target group are scarce. This study evaluated the effectiveness of Take it Personal!+ in individuals with mild intellectual disabilities or borderline intellectual functioning and substance use disorder. Take it Personal!+ is a personalized treatment based on motivational interviewing and cognitive-behavioral therapy supported by an mHealth application. Data were collected in a nonconcurrent multiple baseline single-case experimental design across individuals with four phases (i.e., baseline, treatment, posttreatment, and follow-up). Twelve participants were randomly allocated to baseline lengths varying between 7 and 11 days. Substance use quantity was assessed during baseline, treatment, and posttreatment with a daily survey using a mobile application. Visual analysis was supported with statistical analysis of the daily surveys by calculating three effect size measures in 10 participants (two participants were excluded from this analysis due to a compliance rate below 50%). Secondary, substance use severity was assessed with standardized questionnaires at baseline, posttreatment, and follow-up and analyzed by calculating the Reliable Change Index. Based on visual analysis of the daily surveys, 10 out of 12 participants showed a decrease in mean substance use quantity from baseline to treatment and, if posttreatment data were available, to posttreatment. Statistical analysis showed an effect of Take it Personal!+ in terms of a decrease in daily substance use in 8 of 10 participants from baseline to treatment and if posttreatment data were available, also to posttreatment. In addition, data of the standardized questionnaires showed a decrease in substance use severity in 8 of 12 participants. These results support the effectiveness of Take it Personal!+ in decreasing substance use in individuals with mild intellectual disabilities or borderline intellectual functioning.</p

Substance use and nicotine dependence in persistent, remittent, and late-onset ADHD:a 10-year longitudinal study from childhood to young adulthood

BACKGROUND: Attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) is associated with substance use disorders (SUD; alcohol and/or drug dependence) and nicotine dependence. This study aims to advance our knowledge about the association between SUD, nicotine dependence, and the course of ADHD (persistent versus remittent ADHD and late-onset ADHD).METHODS: ADHD, SUD, and nicotine dependence were longitudinally assessed (mean age at study entry 11.3 years, mean age at follow-up 21.1 years) using structured psychiatric interviews and multi-informant questionnaires in a subsample of the Dutch part of the International Multicenter ADHD Genetics study. Individuals with persistent ADHD (n = 62), remittent ADHD (n = 12), late-onset ADHD (n = 18; age of onset after 12 years), unaffected siblings (n = 50), and healthy controls (n = 47) were assessed. Hazard ratios (HR) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were estimated by Cox regression and adjusted for clustered family data, gender, follow-up length, and current age.RESULTS: Individuals with persistent ADHD were at significantly higher risk of development of SUD relative to healthy controls (HR = 4.56, CI 1.17-17.81). In contrast, levels of SUD in those with remittent ADHD were not different from healthy controls (HR = 1.00, CI .07-13.02). ADHD persisters had also higher prevalence rates of nicotine dependence (24.2%) than ADHD remitters (16.7%) and healthy controls (4.3%). A similar pattern was found in initially unaffected siblings who met ADHD criteria at follow-up ("late-onset" ADHD); they had also a higher prevalence of SUD (33%) compared to stable unaffected siblings (20%) and were at significantly increased risk of development of nicotine dependence compared to healthy controls (HR = 13.04, CI 2.08-81.83).CONCLUSIONS: SUD and nicotine dependence are associated with a negative ADHD outcome. Results further emphasize the need for clinicians to comprehensively assess substance use when diagnosing ADHD in adolescents and adults.</p

Psychiatric risk factors for chronic high-dose opioid prescribing: register-based cohort study

Background Chronic high-dose (CHD) prescription opioid use is a major public health concern. Although CHD opioid use has been associated with psychiatric disorders, the causality could go both ways. Some studies have already linked psychiatric disorders to an increased risk of transitioning to chronic opioid use, and longitudinal data identifying psychiatric disorders as predictors of CHD opioid use could shed further light on this issue. Aims To prospectively examine the relationship between the presence of a psychiatric disorder and subsequent development of CHD opioid use in primary care patients newly receiving opioids. Method Data were included from 137 778 primary care patients in The Netherlands. Cox regression modelling was used to examine the association between psychiatric disorders prior to a new opioid prescription and subsequent CHD opioid use (≥90 days; ≥50 mg/day oral morphine equivalents) in the subsequent 2 years. Results Of all patients receiving a new opioid prescription, 2.0% developed CHD opioid use. A psychiatric disorder before the start of an opioid prescription increased the risk of CHD opioid use (adjusted hazard ratio HR = 1.74; 95% CI 1.62–1.88), specifically psychotic disorders, substance use disorders, neurocognitive disorders and multiple co-occurring psychiatric episodes. Similarly, pharmacotherapy for psychosis, substance use disorders and mood and/or anxiety disorders increased the risk of CHD opioid use. Psychiatric polypharmacy conferred the greatest risk of developing CHD opioid use. Conclusions Psychiatric disorders increase the risk of developing CHD opioid use in patients newly receiving prescription opioids. To reduce the public health burden of CHD opioid use, careful monitoring and optimal treatment of psychiatric conditions are advised when opioid therapy is initiated

The Relationship of Early Sleep Improvement With Response to Pharmacotherapy in Unipolar Psychotic Depression

BACKGROUND: Since insomnia and depression are interrelated, improved sleep early in antidepressant pharmacotherapy may predict a positive treatment outcome. We investigated whether early insomnia improvement (EII) predicted treatment outcome in psychotic depression (PD) and examined if there was an interaction effect between EII and treatment type to assess if findings were treatment-specific. METHODS: This study is a secondary analysis of a randomized trial comparing 7 weeks treatment with the antidepressants venlafaxine, imipramine and venlafaxine plus the antipsychotic quetiapine in PD ( n = 114). Early insomnia improvement, defined as ≥20% reduced insomnia after 2 weeks, was assessed by the Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression (HAM-D-17). Associations between EII and treatment outcome were examined using logistic regressions. Subsequently, we added interaction terms between EII and treatment type to assess interaction effects. The predictive value of EII was compared with early response on overall depression (≥20% reduced HAM-D-17 score after 2 weeks). RESULTS: EII was associated with response (odds ratio [OR], 7.9; 95% confidence interval [CI], 2.7-23.4; P = &lt;0.001), remission of depression (OR, 6.1; 95% CI, 1.6-22.3; P = 0.009), and remission of psychosis (OR, 4.1; 95% CI, 1.6-10.9; P = 0.004). We found no interaction effects between EII and treatment type on depression outcome. Early insomnia improvement and early response on overall depression had a comparable predictive ability for treatment outcome. CONCLUSIONS: Early insomnia improvement was associated with a positive outcome in pharmacotherapy of PD, regardless of the medication type. Future studies are needed to confirm our findings and to examine the generalizability of EII as predictor in treatment of depression.</p

Internationale Konsenserklärung zu Screening, Diagnostik und Behandlung von Jugendlichen und Heranwachsenden mit Aufmerksamkeitsdefizit-/Hyperaktivitätsstörung und gleichzeitigen Störungen durch Substanzgebrauch

International Consensus Statement for the Screening, Diagnosis, and Treatment of Adolescents with Concurrent Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder and Substance Use Disorder Abstract.Background: Childhood attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) is a risk factor for substance misuse and substance use disorder (SUD) in adolescence and (early) adulthood. ADHD and SUD also frequently co-occur in treatment-seeking adolescents, which complicates diagnosis and treatment and is associated with poor treatment outcomes. Research on the effect of treatment of childhood ADHD on the prevention of adolescent SUD is inconclusive, and studies on the diagnosis and treatment of adolescents with ADHD and SUD are scarce. Thus, the available evidence is generally not sufficient to justify robust treatment recommendations. Objective: The aim of the study was to obtain a consensus statement based on a combination of scientific data and clinical experience. Method: A modified Delphi study to reach consensus based upon the combination of scientific data and clinical experience with a multidisciplinary group of 55 experts from 17 countries. The experts were asked to rate a set of statements on the effect of treatment of childhood ADHD on adolescent SUD and on the screening, diagnosis, and treatment of adolescents with comorbid ADHD and SUD. Results: After 3 iterative rounds of rating and adapting 37 statements, consensus was reached on 36 of these statements representing 6 domains: general (n = 4), risk of developing SUD (n = 3), screening and diagnosis (n = 7), psychosocial treatment (n = 5), pharmacological treatment (n = 11), and complementary treatments (n = 7). Routine screening is recommended for ADHD in adolescent patients in substance abuse treatment and for SUD in adolescent patients with ADHD in mental healthcare settings. Long-acting stimulants are recommended as the first-line treatment of ADHD in adolescents with concurrent ADHD and SUD, and pharmacotherapy should preferably be embedded in psychosocial treatment. The only remaining no-consensus statement concerned the requirement of abstinence before starting pharmacological treatment in adolescents with ADHD and concurrent SUD. In contrast to the majority, some experts required full abstinence before starting any pharmacological treatment, some were against the use of stimulants in the treatment of these patients (independent of abstinence), while some were against the alternative use of bupropion. Conclusion: This international consensus statement can be used by clinicians and patients together in a shared decision-making process to select the best interventions and to reach optimal outcomes in adolescent patients with concurrent ADHD and SUD

Patients' Perspectives on the Development of Prescription Opioid Use Disorder in Patients with Chronic Non-Cancer Pain

INTRODUCTION: In the past decade, prescription opioid use increased exponentially and concomitantly opioid use disorders (OUD) are becoming more common. Several risk factors for developing OUD have been identified, but little is known regarding the patients' perspective on developing a prescription OUD. METHODS: We recruited 25 adults undergoing treatment for prescription OUD. In-depth, semi-structured interviews focussed on experiences with long-term opioid use, knowledge and attitudes regarding opioids, and access to opioids. A directed content analysis was conducted on the transcribed interviews using NVivo. RESULTS: Participants showed that the development of an OUD is affected by various factors which could be grouped into three themes: (1) experiences driving initiation, (2) experiences driving continuation, and (3) experiences with prescription OUD. Besides the need for pain management, the dynamics of patient-provider communication, care coordination, provider vigilance, and environmental support all contributed to the way patients used their opioids. CONCLUSION: Patients' experiences illustrate that the first stage of the development of prescription OUD differs from the development of other substance addictions. Negative reinforcement might play a more prominent role in the early phase of prescription opioid use. Patients expressed a lack of guidance, both at the start of use and long-term use, easy access to new prescriptions and a lack of monitoring as main drivers of the development. Poorly controlled pain and subjective stress fuelled continuous opioid use

A genetic risk score to predict treatment nonresponse in psychotic depression

Psychotic depression is a severe and difficult-to-treat subtype of major depressive disorder for which higher rates of treatment-resistant depression were found. Studies have been performed aiming to predict treatment-resistant depression or treatment nonresponse. However, most of these studies excluded patients with psychotic depression. We created a genetic risk score (GRS) based on a large treatment-resistant depression genome-wide association study. We tested whether this GRS was associated with nonresponse, nonremission and the number of prior adequate antidepressant trials in patients with a psychotic depression. Using data from a randomized clinical trial with patients with a psychotic depression (n = 122), we created GRS deciles and calculated positive prediction values (PPV), negative predictive values (NPV) and odds ratios (OR). Nonresponse and nonremission were assessed after 7 weeks of treatment with venlafaxine, imipramine or venlafaxine plus quetiapine. The GRS was negatively correlated with treatment response (r = −0.32, p = 0.0023, n = 88) and remission (r = −0.31, p = 0.0037, n = 88), but was not correlated with the number of prior adequate antidepressant trials. For patients with a GRS in the top 10%, we observed a PPV of 100%, a NPV of 73.7% and an OR of 52.4 (p = 0.00072, n = 88) for nonresponse. For nonremission, a PPV of 100%, a NPV of 51.9% and an OR of 21.3 (p = 0.036, n = 88) was observed for patients with a GRS in the top 10%. Overall, an increased risk for nonresponse and nonremission was seen in patients with GRSs in the top 40%. Our results suggest that a treatment-resistant depression GRS is predictive of treatment nonresponse and nonremission in psychotic depression.</p

A genetic risk score to predict treatment nonresponse in psychotic depression

Psychotic depression is a severe and difficult-to-treat subtype of major depressive disorder for which higher rates of treatment-resistant depression were found. Studies have been performed aiming to predict treatment-resistant depression or treatment nonresponse. However, most of these studies excluded patients with psychotic depression. We created a genetic risk score (GRS) based on a large treatment-resistant depression genome-wide association study. We tested whether this GRS was associated with nonresponse, nonremission and the number of prior adequate antidepressant trials in patients with a psychotic depression. Using data from a randomized clinical trial with patients with a psychotic depression (n = 122), we created GRS deciles and calculated positive prediction values (PPV), negative predictive values (NPV) and odds ratios (OR). Nonresponse and nonremission were assessed after 7 weeks of treatment with venlafaxine, imipramine or venlafaxine plus quetiapine. The GRS was negatively correlated with treatment response (r = −0.32, p = 0.0023, n = 88) and remission (r = −0.31, p = 0.0037, n = 88), but was not correlated with the number of prior adequate antidepressant trials. For patients with a GRS in the top 10%, we observed a PPV of 100%, a NPV of 73.7% and an OR of 52.4 (p = 0.00072, n = 88) for nonresponse. For nonremission, a PPV of 100%, a NPV of 51.9% and an OR of 21.3 (p = 0.036, n = 88) was observed for patients with a GRS in the top 10%. Overall, an increased risk for nonresponse and nonremission was seen in patients with GRSs in the top 40%. Our results suggest that a treatment-resistant depression GRS is predictive of treatment nonresponse and nonremission in psychotic depression.</p