Alcohol‐specific inhibition training in patients with alcohol use disorder: a multi‐centre, double‐blind randomized clinical trial examining drinking outcome and working mechanisms.
Aims: For the first time, to our knowledge, in a clinical sample with alcohol use disorder (AUD), this study compared the effects of two versions of alcohol‐specific inhibition training (Alc‐IT) on drinking outcomes and on experimental parameters assessing two possible working mechanisms: stimulus d...
| Publicado en: | Addiction Vol. 118; no. 4; pp. 646 - 658 |
|---|---|
| Autores principales: | , , , , , , , , , |
| Formato: | research tables/charts randomized controlled trial Journal Article |
| Publicado: |
Wiley-Blackwell
Apr2023
|
| Acceso en línea: | Ver este registro en EBSCOhost |
| fields | @attributes: recordID: 1 pdfLink: plink: https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ccm&AN=162203285&site=ehost-live header: @attributes: shortDbName: ccm uiTerm: 162203285 longDbName: CINAHL Complete uiTag: AN controlInfo: bkinfo: dissinfo: jinfo: jid: 09652140 AIO jtl: Addiction issn: 09652140 maglogo: Y pubinfo: dt: Apr2023 vid: 118 iid: 4 pid: 480 pub: Wiley-Blackwell place: Malden, Massachusetts artinfo: ui: 162203285 161109574 162203285 162203285 10.1111/add.16104 162203285 ppf: 646 ppct: 12 formats: fmt: – @attributes: type: T – @attributes: type: C – @attributes: type: P tig: atl: Alcohol‐specific inhibition training in patients with alcohol use disorder: a multi‐centre, double‐blind randomized clinical trial examining drinking outcome and working mechanisms. aug: au: Stein, Maria Soravia, Leila M. Tschuemperlin, Raphaela M. Batschelet, Hallie M. Jaeger, Joshua Roesner, Susanne Keller, Anne Gomez Penedo, Juan Martin Wiers, Reinout W. Moggi, Franz affil: University Hospital of Psychiatry and Psychotherapy, Translational Research Center, University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland sug: subj: Alcohol-Related Disorders Therapy Psychotherapy Methods Drinking Behavior Evaluation Treatment Outcomes Evaluation Human Multicenter Studies Randomized Controlled Trials Random Assignment Double-Blind Studies Comparative Studies Switzerland Middle Age Male Female Descriptive Statistics Alcohol Abstinence Confidence Intervals Funding Source Middle Aged: 45-64 years Male Female ab: Aims: For the first time, to our knowledge, in a clinical sample with alcohol use disorder (AUD), this study compared the effects of two versions of alcohol‐specific inhibition training (Alc‐IT) on drinking outcomes and on experimental parameters assessing two possible working mechanisms: stimulus devaluation and inhibitory enhancement. Design: Multi‐centre, double‐blind, three‐arm clinical RCT with 3‐, 6‐ and 12‐month follow‐up comparing standard Alc‐IT, improved Alc‐IT and an active control condition. Setting: Three specialized AUD treatment centres in Switzerland. Participants: A total of 242 detoxified, recently abstinent patients with severe AUD (18–60 years; 29.8% female). Intervention and Comparator: Both interventions [standard Alc‐IT (n = 84) and improved Alc‐IT (n = 79)] and the comparator [unspecific inhibition training (n = 79)] consisted of six sessions of a modified inhibitory task (Go/NoGo task) with alcohol‐related and neutral stimuli. Both versions of Alc‐IT required response inhibition in alcohol‐related trials but differed in Go/NoGo ratios (standard: 50/50; improved: 75/25), with improved Alc‐IT posing higher inhibitory demands. The control condition, an unspecific inhibition training, featured alcohol‐related pictures in Go as well as NoGo trials. Measurements The primary outcome, percentage of days abstinent, was assessed at 3‐month follow‐up with a time‐line follow‐back interview. Findings The group receiving improved Alc‐IT showed a significantly higher percentage of days abstinent at 3‐month follow‐up compared with the control group [γcontrol = 74.30; γimproved = 85.78; β = 11.48, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 2.57, 20.40, P = 0.012, adjusted r2 = 0.062], while for standard Alc‐IT no effect significantly different from zero was detected (γstandard = 70.95; β = −3.35, 95% CI = −12.20, 5.50, P = 0.457, adjusted r2 = −0.04). Conclusions: Alcohol‐specific inhibition training with high inhibitory demands increased days abstinent at 3‐month follow‐up in patients with severe alcohol use disorder. Such an improved, inhibitory‐demanding, alcohol‐specific inhibition training outperformed the standard version of alcohol‐specific inhibition training, suggesting an inhibitory working mechanism. pubtype: Academic Journal doctype: research tables/charts randomized controlled trial Journal Article ougenre: Article language: English refInfo: holdings: @attributes: islocal: N |
|---|