ICD-10 Harmful Use Research Articles

Acceptability of nonabstinent treatment outcome goals among addiction treatment providers in Ukraine.

We examined whether acceptability of nonabstinence treatment outcome goals varied as a function of a patient's severity of diagnosis (ICD-10 harmful use vs. dependence syndrome; World Health Organization, 1992), finality of outcome goal (intermediate vs. final), and type of substance (e.g., tobacco, alcohol, cannabis), among addiction treatment providers in Ukraine. We surveyed 44% of Ukrainian treatment providers (n = 446/1023; Mage = 40.4, SD = 8.6; Male = 67%; MYears Of Experience = 10.2, SD = 7.2). For tobacco use, most respondents (78%-93%) rated nonabstinence as acceptable, regardless of diagnostic severity or finality of outcome goal (i.e., intermediate, final). Most respondents also rated nonabstinence as acceptable as an intermediate or final goal for patients with harmful use of alcohol (70% to 86%) or cannabis (71% to 93%); however, nonabstinence was less commonly indicated by respondents as an intermediate goal for patients with a dependence syndrome (alcohol = 52%; cannabis = 68%). Regarding other drug use, although most rated nonabstinence acceptable as an intermediate goal for patients with harmful use of opioids (68%) or sedatives (64%), fewer rated nonabstinence acceptable as a final goal (26% to 33%), particularly for patients with a dependence syndrome (10% to 27%). Very few providers (5% to 15%) rated nonabstinence acceptable for other substances. Patients in Ukraine who wish to moderate cannabis or tobacco use will find that their provider is typically accepting of this goal; however, providers are mixed regarding whether alcohol and opioid moderation is appropriate, particularly for those with dependence. Findings support education and research efforts to better understand how provider and patient alignment regarding goals impact patient outcomes following substance use treatment in Ukraine. (PsycINFO Database Record

The association between substance misuse and first-episode psychosis in a defined UK geographical area during the 1990s

The aim of this study was to examine the prevalence of all substance use disorders (SUD) and cannabis-specific SUDs reported in two first-episode epidemiological studies, conducted in the same catchment area, 5years apart. The prevalence of schizophrenia in Nottingham and Aetiology and Ethnicity of Schizophrenia and Other Psychoses studies included all people with a first-episode of psychosis between 1992 and 1994 and 1997 and 1999, respectively. Those individuals with a comorbid diagnosis of a SUD (ICD-10 harmful use or dependence) were identified. An upward (but not statistically significant) trend in all SUDs was found for the first-episode study population as a whole, between the two cohorts (11.9-18.2%). When analysed by age, a significant increase in cannabis-specific SUDs was observed for all first-episode cases aged 16-29 between cohorts (3.2-10.6%). When analysed by age and gender, a significant increase in all SUDs was apparent for female first-episode patients aged 16-29 between cohorts (6.1-24.2%), this same increase was not seen in male patients. Illegal drug misuse is common in patients with a first-episode of psychosis. However, most concerning is that when both age and gender are considered, females with a first-episode of psychosis aged 16-29 show a highly significant rise in the prevalence of all SUDs over the 1990s. More recent drug use data from England and Wales shows that the prevalence of drug use in the 21st century is declining; further epidemiological studies are required to determine whether this is also the case in young female first-episode psychosis populations.

The three year course of alcohol use disorders in the general population: DSM‐IV, ICD‐10 and the Craving Withdrawal Model

To determine the course of alcohol use disorders (AUD) in a prospective general population study using three different classification systems: Diagnostic and Statistical Manual version IV (DSM-IV), International Classification of Diseases version 10 (ICD-10) and the craving withdrawal model (CWM). The latter is an alternative classification, which requires craving and withdrawal for alcohol dependence and raises the alcohol abuse threshold to two criteria. Data were derived from the Netherlands Mental Health Survey and Incidence Study (NEMESIS), a large (n=7,076) representative general population study with a baseline and 1- and 3-year follow-up assessments. Diagnostic status according to DSM-IV, ICD-10 and CWM at baseline and at follow-up was established using a structured interview (Composite International Diagnostic Interview: CIDI). DSM-IV abuse, ICD-10 harmful use and CWM abuse all showed a favourable course with remission rates of 81, 89 and 71%, respectively, at 1-year follow-up and 85, 92 and 79% at 3-year follow-up. Dependence according to DSM-IV, ICD-10 and CWM had a somewhat less favourable course, with remission rates (no dependence) of 67, 67 and 57% at 1-year follow-up and 74, 69 and 73% at 3-year follow-up, respectively. Subjects who were remitted at 1-year follow-up showed relapse-rates of 0-14% for dependence and 4-12% for abuse at 3-year follow-up. Although CWM diagnoses tended towards greater diagnostic stability than DSM-IV and ICD-10, most differences were not significant. The conviction that addiction is a chronic relapsing disease may apply to treatment-seeking alcoholics, but our data show a far more favourable course of alcohol use disorders in the general population.

THE CRAVING WITHDRAWAL MODEL FOR ALCOHOLISM: TOWARDS THE DSM-V. IMPROVING THE DISCRIMINANT VALIDITY OF ALCOHOL USE DISORDER DIAGNOSIS

To compare the discriminant validity of the DSM-IV and the ICD-10 classification of alcohol use disorders (AUD) with an alternative classification, the craving withdrawal model (CWM). CWM requires craving and withdrawal for the diagnosis of alcohol dependence and raises the alcohol abuse threshold to two DSM-IV AUD criteria. Data were derived from The Netherlands Mental Health Survey and Incidence Study, a large representative sample of the general Dutch population. In the present study, only non-abstinent subjects were included (n=6041). Three diagnostic systems (DSM-IV, ICD-10, and CWM) were compared using the following discriminant variables: alcohol intake, psychiatric comorbidity, functional status, familial alcohol problems, and treatment sought. The year prevalence of CWM alcohol dependence was lower than the prevalence of ICD-10 and DSM-IV dependence (0.3% vs 1.4% and 1.4%). The year prevalence of abuse was similar for CWM and DSM-IV (4.7 and 4.9%), but lower for ICD-10 harmful use (1.7%). DSM-IV resulted in a poor distinction between normality and abuse and ICD-10 resulted in a poor distinction between harmful use and dependence. In contrast, the CWM distinctions between normality and abuse, and between abuse, and dependence were significant for most of the discriminant variables. This study indicates that CWM improves the discriminant validity of AUD diagnoses. The predictive validity of the CWM for alcohol and other substance use disorders remain to be studied.

Validation of the Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test (AUDIT) in urban community outreach and de-addiction center samples in north India.

The Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test (AUDIT) developed by the World Health Organization for screening disorders related to alcohol use has been shown to have robust psychometric properties. This study compared the performance of AUDIT with that of the Short Michigan Alcoholism Screening Test (SMAST) in a region of North India. A total of 297 consecutive subjects who had used alcohol in the past year were recruited from a de-addiction center (DAC) (n = 97) and a community outreach setting (n = 200) in West Delhi. Using International Classification of Diseases, Tenth Edition (ICD-10) criteria, the relative effectiveness of the AUDIT and the SMAST in identifying alcohol-use-related disorders was assessed and compared. Internal consistency and interscale correlations were evaluated, along with sensitivity, specificity and ROC curve analyses. The AUDIT had very high internal reliability (alpha 0.92) in this Indian sample. There was, in general, good correlation between the total and factor scores of the AUDIT and SMAST (ranging from 0.28 to 0.97), which were higher in the community than in the DAC sample. The AUDIT (area under the curve [AUC] = 0.883) and SMAST (AUC = 0.870) were similar in detecting harmful use of alcohol. The AUDIT optimal cutoff score was 16 (sensitivity 85.3, specificity 89.4) for ICD-10 harmful use and 24 (sensitivity 69.4, specificity 87.5) for ICD-10 alcohol dependence. The AUDIT and SMAST seem to be comparable in their ability to screen subjects with alcohol use disorders. The AUDIT score for screening harmful use in the sample appears to be higher than previously reported. The utility of such high cutoff for screening subjects for intervention is obvious, but it is quite likely that some positive cases might be missed.

Substance Dependence Severity Scale: reliability and validity for ICD-10 substance use disorders.

The Substance Dependence Severity Scale (SDSS) is a semistructured interview that assesses the severity of the DSM-IV diagnoses of dependence and abuse and the ICD-10 diagnoses of substance dependence and harmful use across a wide range of substances. Previous research has demonstrated that the SDSS' DSM-IV dependence scales are reliable and valid indicators of diagnostic severity. However, the ICD-10 scales have not been psychometrically tested. This study investigated the test-retest reliability, internal consistency, diagnostic concordance, and concurrent validity of the SDSS' ICD-10 dependence and harmful use scales in 180 (112 male and 68 female) treated substance users. Test-retest reliabilities for the ICD-10 dependence scales ranged from good to excellent for alcohol, cocaine, heroin, and cannabis. Test-retest reliabilities for the SDSS' ICD-10 harmful use scales were in the good range for alcohol, cocaine, and heroin and the poor to fair range for cannabis. Internal consistency, diagnostic concordance, and concurrent validity results were comparable to the test-retest findings. These results support the use of the SDSS for assessing the severity of the ICD-10 dependence and harmful use diagnoses.

Diagnostic concordance of substance use disorders in DSM-III, DSM-IV and ICD-10

Diagnostic concordance of DSM-III, DSM-IV and ICD-10 was tested in a heterogeneous unrestricted sample of 370 clinical cases drawn from a regional consortium. Agreement for abuse/harmful use, dependence, and the collapsed category of ‘any diagnosis’ was studied across eight drug classes. A probabilistic approach to the cross-classifications based on configurai frequency analysis was applied, permitting the computation of four indices of agreement. In contrast to earlier studies, ICD-10 appeared to be the most inclusive system, and often diagnosed cases that were undiagnosed by both DSMs. Generally satisfactory coherence between the ICD-10 harmful use category and the DSM category of abuse was found, but this agreement was often due to a preponderance of negative or undiagnosed cases; disagreement was common on which cases in particular warrant a mild diagnosis. In general, the greatest diagnostic concordance was observed for sedative/hypnotics, opiates and alcohol, the poorest for amphetamines, cocaine and PCP. The analytic approach produced an array of cross-system relationships that are more complex and conditional than those previously reported, and scientists and clinicians are cautioned to study particular drugs, diagnostic levels and measures of concordance before applying cross-system results to their own data or design needs.

ICD‐10 harmful use of alcohol and the alcohol dependence syndrome: prevalence and implications

Data from a 1988 survey on United States drinking practices and related problems was used to derive the prevalence and population estimates of harmful use of alcohol and the alcohol dependence syndrome as defined in the ICD-10 Clinical Descriptions and Diagnostic Guidelines Version (ICD-10-CDDG). Corresponding estimates were also presented for ICD-10-CDDG diagnoses that incorporated the duration criterion of the ICD-10-Diagnostic Criteria for Research Version (ICD-10-DCR). The prevalence of ICD-10 harmful use and dependence combined, with and without the duration criterion, were 5.2% and 7.1%, respectively. Corresponding harmful use rates were negligible (0.27%). Implications of the extremely low prevalence of harmful use in the US population and the impact of the duration criterion on the rates are discussed in terms of the fundamental nature of alcohol use disorders as syndromes and the viability of the harmful use of alcohol category as originally conceptualized.

Cross system agreement for substance use disorders: DSM‐III‐R, DSM‐IV and ICD‐10

This report presents results of a field trial of Substance Use Disorders as defined by DSM-III-R, DSM-IV (proposed) and ICD-10. Diagnoses based on the three systems were derived from interviews using the Composite International Diagnostic Interview (CIDI) in a heterogeneous sample of 521 adults drawn from clinical and community settings. Two issues are addressed: (1) cross system agreement; and (2) syndrome coherence of proposed criterion sets for Substance Dependence in each of the three systems. Findings were as follows: (1) Cross system agreement for Dependence was generally high, especially between DSM-III-R and DSM-IV. (2) Cross system agreement was lower for DSM-III-R and DSM-IV Abuse and very low for DSM-IV Abuse and ICD-10 Harmful Use. (3) Agreement varied across drug categories with lowest DSM-III-R/DSM-IV agreement for alcohol abuse and DSM-IV/ICD-10 agreement for marijuana use disorders. (4) Overall prevalence differed for the three systems with DSM-IV yielding highest rates followed by DSM-III-R and ICD-10 in that order. (5) Factor analysis of Dependence criteria showed high loadings of all items on a single factor across the three diagnostic systems and for all categories of drugs. Implications for validity of the dependence syndrome construct and for revisions in DSM-IV are discussed.