DSM-5 Alcohol Use Research Articles

Predicting persistency of DSM-5 alcohol use disorder and examining drinking patterns of recently remitted individuals: a prospective general population study

To establish the 3-year persistency rate of alcohol use disorder (AUD) and its predictors, and to examine drinking patterns of recently remitted individuals. The Netherlands Mental Health Survey and Incidence Study-2 (NEMESIS-2) surveyed a nationally representative sample of adults (aged 18-64 years) at baseline (response = 65.1%) and 3-year follow-up (response = 80.4%). People with AUD at baseline, as defined by DSM-5 (n = 198). AUD, drinking patterns and mental disorders were assessed using the Composite International Diagnostic Interview 3.0. Other predictors were assessed with an additional questionnaire. Predictors of persistency were examined with univariable and multivariable logistic regression analyses. The AUD persistency rate was 29.5% [95% confidence intervals (CI) = 20.0-39.0]. In the multivariable model, the older (25-34 and 35-44) age groups had lower AUD persistency [odds ratio (OR) = 0.05; 95% CI = 0.00-0.49 and OR = 0.14; 95% CI = 0.02-0.79, respectively] than the youngest age group (18-24). A higher number of weekly drinks and a comorbid anxiety disorder predicted AUD persistency (OR = 1.03; 95% CI = 1.00-1.07 and OR = 4.56; 95% CI = 1.04-20.06, respectively). Furthermore, remission was associated with a reduction of six drinks per week between T0 and T1 . It should be noted, however, that 35.8% (95% CI = 22.4-49.2) of people in diagnostic remission still drank more than the recommended maximum (more than seven/14 drinks weekly for women/men). Only a minority of people in the Netherlands with alcohol use disorder as defined by DSM-5 still have the disorder 3 years later. Factors that help to identify people at risk of alcohol use disorder persistence are: younger age, a higher number of weekly drinks and a comorbid anxiety disorder. A substantial number of people recently in diagnostic remission still drink above the maximum recommended level.

Crosswalk between DSM-IV dependence and DSM-5 substance use disorders for opioids, cannabis, cocaine and alcohol

BackgroundAscertaining agreement between DSM-IV and DSM-5 is important to determine the applicability of treatments for DSM-IV conditions to persons diagnosed according to the proposed DSM-5. MethodsData from a nationally representative sample of US adults were used to compare concordance of past-year DSM-IV opioid, cannabis, cocaine and alcohol dependence with past-year DSM-5 disorders at thresholds of 3+, 4+, 5+ and 6+ positive DSM-5 criteria among past-year users of opioids (n=264), cannabis (n=1622), cocaine (n=271) and alcohol (n=23,013). Substance-specific 2×2 tables yielded overall concordance (kappa), sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive values (PPV) and negative predictive values (NPV). ResultsFor DSM-IV alcohol, cocaine and opioid dependence, optimal concordance occurred when 4+ DSM-5 criteria were endorsed, corresponding to the threshold for moderate DSM-5 alcohol, cocaine and opioid use disorders. Maximal concordance of DSM-IV cannabis dependence and DSM-5 cannabis use disorder occurred when 6+ criteria were endorsed, corresponding to the threshold for severe DSM-5 cannabis use disorder. At these optimal thresholds, sensitivity, specificity, PPV and NPV generally exceeded 85% (>75% for cannabis). ConclusionsOverall, excellent correspondence of DSM-IV dependence with DSM-5 substance use disorders was documented in this general population sample of alcohol, cannabis, cocaine and opioid users. Applicability of treatments tested for DSM-IV dependence is supported by these results for those with a DSM-5 alcohol, cocaine or opioid use disorder of at least moderate severity or severe cannabis use disorder. Further research is needed to provide evidence for applicability of treatments for persons with milder substance use disorders.

Taxometric analysis of DSM-IV and DSM-5 alcohol use disorders

BackgroundWith preparations currently being made for the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders-5th Edition (DSM-5), one prominent issue to resolve is whether alcohol use disorders are better represented as discrete categorical entities or as a dimensional construct. The purpose of this study was to investigate the latent structure of DSM-4th edition (DSM-IV) and proposed DSM-5 alcohol use disorders. MethodsThe study used the Wave 2 National Epidemiologic Survey on Alcohol and Related Conditions (NESARC) to conduct taxometric analyses of DSM-IV and DSM-5 alcohol use disorders defined by different thresholds to determine the taxonic or dimensional structure underlying the disorders. ResultsDSM-IV and DSM-5 alcohol abuse and dependence criteria with 3+ thresholds demonstrated a dimensional structure. Corresponding thresholds with 4+ criteria were clearly taxonic, as were thresholds defined by cut-offs of 5+ and 6+ criteria. ConclusionsDSM-IV and DSM-5 alcohol use disorders demonstrated a hybrid taxonic-dimensional structure. That is, DSM-IV and DSM-5 alcohol use disorders may be taxonically distinct compared to no disorder if defined by a threshold of 4 or more criteria. However, there may be dimensional variation remaining among non-problematic to subclinical cases. A careful and systematic program of structural research using taxometric and psychometric procedures is warranted.

Prevalence of DSM-IV and DSM-5 alcohol, cocaine, opioid, and cannabis use disorders in a largely substance dependent sample

BackgroundThe fifth edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5) will soon replace the DSM-IV, which has existed for nearly two decades. The changes in diagnostic criteria have important implications for research and for the clinical care of individuals with Substance Use Disorders (SUDs). MethodsWe used the Semi-Structured Assessment for Drug Dependence and Alcoholism to evaluate the lifetime presence of DSM-IV abuse and dependence diagnoses and DSM-5 mild, moderate, or severe SUDs for alcohol, cocaine, opioids, and cannabis in a sample of 7,543 individuals recruited to participate in genetic studies of substance dependence. ResultsSwitches between diagnostic systems consistently resulted in a modestly greater prevalence for DSM-5 SUDs, based largely on the assignment of DSM-5 diagnoses to DSM-IV “diagnostic orphans” (i.e., individuals meeting one or two criteria for dependence and none for abuse, and thus not receiving a DSM-IV SUD diagnosis). The vast majority of these diagnostic switches were attributable to the requirement that only two of 11 criteria be met for a DSM-5 SUD diagnosis. We found evidence to support the omission from DSM-5 of the legal criterion due to its limited diagnostic utility. The addition of craving as a criterion in DSM-5 did not substantially affect the likelihood of an SUD diagnosis. ConclusionThe greatest advantage of DSM-5 for the diagnosis of SUDs appears to be its ability to capture diagnostic orphans. In this sample, changes reflected in DSM-5 had a minimal impact on the prevalence of SUD diagnoses.

Comparative performance of the AUDIT-C in screening for DSM-IV and DSM-5 alcohol use disorders

ObjectiveUnder the proposed DSM-5 revision to the criteria for alcohol use disorder (AUD), a substantial proportion of DSM-IV AUD cases will be lost or shifted in terms of severity, with some new cases added. Accordingly, the performance of the AUDIT-C in screening for DSM-IV AUD cannot be assumed to extend to DSM-5 AUD. The objective of this paper is to compare the AUDIT-C in screening for DSM-IV and DSM-5 AUD. MethodsUsing a broad range of performance metrics, the AUDIT-C was tested and contrasted as a screener for DSM-IV AUD (any AUD, abuse and dependence) and DSM-5 AUD (any AUD, moderate AUD and severe AUD) in a representative sample of U.S. adults aged 21 and older and among past-year drinkers. ResultsOptimal AUDIT-C cutpoints were identical for DSM-IV and DSM-5 AUD: ≥4 for any AUD, ≥3 or ≥4 for abuse/moderate AUD and ≥4 or ≥5 for dependence/severe AUD. Screening performance was slightly better for DSM-5 severe AUD than DSM-IV dependence but did not differ for other diagnoses. At optimal screening cutpoints, positive predictive values were slightly higher for DSM-5 overall AUD and moderate AUD than for their DSM-IV counterparts. Sensitivities were slightly higher for DSM-5 severe AUD than DSM-IV dependence. Optimal screening cutpoints shifted upwards for past-year drinkers but continued to be identical for DSM-IV and DSM-5 disorders. ConclusionsClinicians should not face any major overhaul of their current screening procedures as a result of the DSM-5 revision and should benefit from fewer false positive screening results.

Scaling Properties of the Combined ICD-10 Dependence and Harms Criteria and Comparisons With DSM-5 Alcohol Use Disorder Criteria Among Patients in the Emergency Department

The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 4th Edition (DSM-IV), and the International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems, 10th Edition (ICD-10), alcohol use disorders (AUDs) classifications offer competing and somewhat overlapping diagnostic tools for assessing alcohol dependence and harms/abuse. Both systems are in active stages of development in anticipation of their next respective iterations. Although much psychometric work has been done studying DSM-IV criteria, efforts toward the ICD-11 have been less prevalent. Data from 3,191 drinkers in seven emergency department sites in four countries (United States, Mexico, Argentina, and Poland) were used to study the psychometric properties of the combined ICD-10 dependence and harms criteria. Comparisons with the proposed set of DSM-5 criteria and diagnostic thresholds are also included. Item response theory analyses of the combined ICD-10 dependence and harms criteria suggested a single underlying factor, both overall and for each site separately, with only moderate differential item functioning across sites. Overall agreement between the summative combined ICD-10 dependence and harms criteria and the proposed 11-criteria DSM-5 scale was very high (r = .97), as was agreement between proposed diagnostic threshold levels of 0-1 (negative AUD), 2-3 (moderate AUD), and 4 or more (severe AUD) criteria endorsed (κ = .84). Although disagreement between the two three-level diagnoses was only 5.5% of the sample, a majority of these were because of differences between endorsement rates of abuse versus harms criteria. Although there is support for efforts to align the two schemes, results are consistent with other studies finding the largest differences between the two systems emanating from differences between the abuse and harms domains. More research is needed before differences between the two systems can be reconciled.

DSM-IV to DSM-5: the impact of proposed revisions on diagnosis of alcohol use disorders.

To determine the prevalence of past 12-month DSM-5 alcohol use disorders (AUDs), to quantify and characterize individuals who remain stably unaffected or affected and those who 'switch' diagnostically between DSM-IV and DSM-5 classifications. Data from the nationally representative wave 2 of the National Epidemiological Survey of Alcohol and Related Conditions (NESARC) collected in 2004-05. General population survey. All surveyed participants (n=34,653, aged 21 years and older) and 29,993 individuals reporting life-time alcohol use across both waves of NESARC. DSM-IV and DSM-5 criteria were coded using proposed guidelines. The prevalence of DSM-5 AUDs was 10.8% with the corresponding prevalence of DSM-IV abuse/dependence being 9.7%, implying a modest 11.3% increase. Those who switched diagnostically from affected to unaffected (19.6% of DSM-IV affected) were most likely to have endorsed hazardous use, due particularly to drinking and driving, while those who transitioned from unaffected to affected (3.3% of DSM-IV unaffected) were primarily DSM-IV diagnostic orphans reporting larger/longer and quit/cut-back. Dropping the legal criterion did not affect the prevalence significantly, while the addition of craving also had a relatively modest impact on prevalence. The proposed DSM-5 revisions eliminate successfully individuals diagnosed previously with DSM-IV alcohol abuse due primarily to hazardous use alone and incorporate diagnostic orphans into the diagnostic realm. Definitions of craving and importantly, hazardous use require considerable attention as it is likely that they will contribute to variations in reports of increased prevalence of alcohol use disorders between DSM-IV to DSM-5.

DSM‐5: EVIDENCE TRANSLATING TO CHANGE IS IMPRESSIVE

DSM‐5: EVIDENCE TRANSLATING TO CHANGE IS IMPRESSIVE