You can manage bookmarks using lists, please log in to your user account for this.
Media type:
E-Article
Title:
Impulsivity and Alcohol Dependence Treatment Completion: Is There a Neurocognitive Risk Factor at Treatment Entry?
Contributor:
Rupp, Claudia I.;
Beck, J. Katharina;
Heinz, Andreas;
Kemmler, Georg;
Manz, Sarah;
Tempel, Katharina;
Fleischhacker, W. Wolfgang
Published:
Wiley, 2016
Published in:
Alcoholism: Clinical and Experimental Research, 40 (2016) 1, Seite 152-160
Language:
English
DOI:
10.1111/acer.12924
ISSN:
0145-6008;
1530-0277
Origination:
Footnote:
Description:
<jats:sec><jats:title>Background</jats:title><jats:p>Although there is considerable support for the relationship between impulsivity and alcohol dependence, little is known about the impact of neurocognitive aspects of impulsivity on treatment outcome. The aim of this study was to prospectively investigate the impact of neurocognitive impulsivity at treatment onset on treatment completion.</jats:p></jats:sec><jats:sec><jats:title>Methods</jats:title><jats:p>Forty‐three alcohol‐dependent patients entering inpatient treatment for alcohol dependence completed neurocognitive measures of impulsivity at the beginning of treatment. Assessments included prototypical measures of impulsive action (Go/No‐go task [GNG] and Stop Signal Task [SST]) and impulsive choice (Delay Discounting Test [DDT], and Iowa Gambling Task). According to treatment outcomes, patients were divided into a patient group with regular treatment completion (e.g., with planned discharges, and without relapse during treatment) or irregular treatment course (e.g., premature and unplanned termination of treatment, “dropout,” and/or relapse).</jats:p></jats:sec><jats:sec><jats:title>Results</jats:title><jats:p>Results show that, relative to patients completing treatment in a regular fashion (regular treatment completers [RTC]; 67%), those with an irregular course of treatment (relapse and/or dropout) (irregular treatment completers [ITC]; 33%) had significantly poorer <jats:styled-content style="fixed-case">GNG</jats:styled-content> response inhibition performance (<jats:italic>p</jats:italic> = 0.011), and showed a trend toward greater delay discounting (<jats:styled-content style="fixed-case">DDT</jats:styled-content>;<jats:italic> p</jats:italic> = 0.052) at treatment onset. Additional logistic regression analyses identified poor <jats:styled-content style="fixed-case">GNG</jats:styled-content> response inhibition performance as a significant predictor for an irregular treatment course (<jats:styled-content style="fixed-case">GNG</jats:styled-content>:<jats:italic> p</jats:italic> = 0.021; <jats:styled-content style="fixed-case">DDT</jats:styled-content>:<jats:italic> p</jats:italic> = 0.067), particularly for relapse (<jats:styled-content style="fixed-case">GNG</jats:styled-content>:<jats:italic> p</jats:italic> = 0.023).</jats:p></jats:sec><jats:sec><jats:title>Conclusions</jats:title><jats:p>Neurocognitive impulsivity impacts upon treatment completion and appears sensitive for the prediction of relapse and dropout in alcohol‐dependent patients. Poorer <jats:styled-content style="fixed-case">GNG</jats:styled-content> response inhibition and a tendency toward steeper discounting of delayed rewards should be regarded as neurocognitive risk factors, which can be identified early in the course of alcohol dependence treatment.</jats:p></jats:sec>