Refine
Document Type
- Article (4)
Language
- English (4)
Has Fulltext
- yes (4)
Is part of the Bibliography
- no (4) (remove)
Keywords
- alcohol use disorder (4) (remove)
Institute
Systemic therapy considers the complex dynamics of relational factors and resources contributing to psychological symptoms. Negative maintaining factors have been well researched for people suffering from Alcohol-use Disorders (AUD). However, we know little about the complex dynamics of these negative factors and resources. We interviewed fifty-five participants suffering or fully remitted from Alcohol-use disorders in this cross-sectional study (M = 52 years; 33% female). The interviews focused on relational factors (e.g., social support and social negativity) referring to a Support Social Network and a Craving Social Network (CSN). The CSN included all significant others who were associated with craving situations. We compared the network characteristics of the group suffering from Alcohol-use Disorders (n = 38) to a fully remitted control group (n = 17). The abstinent group with full remission named on average fewer individuals in the CSNs. They had lower social negativity mean scores in the Support Social Network compared to the non-remitted group (d = 0.74). In the CSN, the mean scores of social support were significantly higher than the median for both groups (d = 2.50). These findings reveal the complex interplay of relational patterns contributing to the etiology, maintenance, and recovery from Alcohol-use disorders. A successful recovery can be linked to increased social resources and reduced relations associated with craving. However, craving-associated relations represent an important source of social support. Future research should investigate this ambivalence for the systemic perspective on the explanation and treatment of Alcohol-use disorders.
Rationale: Both attention deficit-/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) and alcohol use disorder (AUD) are accompanied by deficits in response inhibition. Furthermore, the prevalence of comorbidity of ADHD and AUD is high. However, there is a lack of research on whether the same neuronal subprocesses of inhibition (i.e., interference inhibition, action withholding and action cancellation) exhibit deficits in both psychiatric disorders. Methods: We examined these three neural subprocesses of response inhibition in patient groups and healthy controls: non-medicated individuals with ADHD (ADHD; N = 16), recently detoxified and abstinent individuals with alcohol use disorder (AUD; N = 15), and healthy controls (HC; N = 15). A hybrid response inhibition task covering interference inhibition, action withholding, and action cancellation was applied using a 3T functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI). Results: Individuals with ADHD showed an overall stronger hypoactivation in attention related brain areas compared to AUD or HC during action withholding. Further, this hypoactivation was more accentuated during action cancellation. Individuals with AUD recruited a broader network, including the striatum, compared to HC during action withholding. During action cancellation, however, they showed hypoactivation in motor regions. Additionally, specific neural activation profiles regarding group and subprocess became apparent. Conclusions: Even though deficits in response inhibition are related to both ADHD and AUD, neural activation and recruited networks during response inhibition differ regarding both neuronal subprocesses and examined groups. While a replication of this study is needed in a larger sample, the results suggest that tasks have to be carefully selected when examining neural activation patterns of response inhibition either in research on various psychiatric disorders or transdiagnostic questions.
Background: A link between attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) and alcohol use disorder (AUD) has been widely demonstrated. In this study, we used neuroimaging to investigate the connectivity traits that may contribute to the comorbidity of these disorders.
Methods: The study included an AUD group (N = 18), an ADHD group (N = 17), a group with AUD + ADHD comorbidity (N = 12) and a control group (N = 18). We used resting-state functional connectivity in a seed-based approach in the default mode networks, the dorsal attention network, and the salience network.
Results: Within the default mode networks, all affected groups shared greater connectivity toward the temporal gyrus when compared to the control group. Regarding the dorsal attention network, the Brodmann area 6 presented greater connectivity for each affected group in comparison with the control group, displaying the strongest aberrations in the AUD + ADHD group. In the salience network, the prefrontal cortex showed decreased connectivity in each affected group compared to the control group.
Conclusions: Despite the small and unequal sample sizes, our findings show evidence of common neurobiological alterations in AUD and ADHD, supporting the hypothesis that ADHD could be a risk factor for the development of AUD. The results highlight the importance of an early ADHD diagnosis and treatment to reduce the risk of a subsequent AUD.
Background: Recently, RBFOX1, a gene encoding an RNA binding protein, has consistently been associated with aggressive and antisocial behavior. Several loci in the gene have been nominally associated with aggression in genome-wide association studies, the risk alleles being more frequent in the general population. We have hence examined the association of four RBFOX1 single nucleotide polymorphisms, previously found related to aggressive traits, with aggressiveness, personality, and alcohol use disorder in birth cohort representative samples.
Methods: We used both birth cohorts of the Estonian Children Personality Behavior and Health Study (ECPBHS; original n = 1,238). Aggressiveness was assessed using the Buss–Perry Aggression Questionnaire and the Lifetime History of Aggressiveness structured interview at age 25 (younger cohort) or 33 (older cohort). Big Five personality at age 25 was measured with self-reports and the lifetime occurrence of alcohol use disorder assessed with the MINI interview. RBFOX1 polymorphisms rs809682, rs8062784, rs12921846, and rs6500744 were genotyped in all participants. Given the restricted size of the sample, correction for multiple comparisons was not applied.
Results: Aggressiveness was not significantly associated with the RBFOX1 genotype. RBFOX1 rs8062784 was associated with neuroticism and rs809682 with extraversion. Two out of four analyzed RBFOX1 variants, rs8062784 and rs12921846, were associated with the occurrence of alcohol use disorder.
Conclusions: In the birth cohort representative sample of the ECPBHS, no association of RBFOX1 with aggressiveness was found, but RBFOX1 variants affected basic personality traits and the prevalence of alcohol use disorder. Future studies on RBFOX1 should consider the moderating role of personality and alcohol use patterns in aggressiveness.