Roache John D, Wang Yanmei, Ait-Daoud Nassima, Johnson Bankole A
Department of Psychiatry, The University of Texas Health Science Center at San Antonio, 7703 Floyd Curl Drive, Mailstop 7792, San Antonio, Texas 78229, USA.
Alcohol Clin Exp Res. 2008 Aug;32(8):1502-12. doi: 10.1111/j.1530-0277.2008.00717.x. Epub 2008 Jun 28.
Previously, we reported that ondansetron was efficacious at treating early-onset (< or =25-years old) but not late-onset (> or =26-years old) alcoholics in a double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled clinical trial (n = 321 enrolled patients, 271 of them randomized). Randomized participants underwent 11 weeks of treatment with ondansetron (1, 4, or 16 microg/kg twice daily; n = 67, 77, and 71, respectively) or identical placebo (n = 56), plus weekly standardized group cognitive behavioral therapy.
For this study, we reanalyzed the original sample to determine whether the Type A/B typological classification predicts ondansetron treatment response. In this comparative analysis, k-means clustering was applied to 19 baseline measures of drinking behavior, psychopathology, and social functioning, similar to those used by Babor in the original typological derivation. A 2-factor solution described robustly 2 groups phenomenologically consistent with Type A/B classification. Subjects were subdivided into early- and late-onset alcoholics.
Seventy-two percent of Type B subjects had early-onset alcoholism (EOA); 67% of Type A subjects had late-onset alcoholism (LOA). The A/B typology better discriminated 2 clusters based upon baseline severity of alcoholism. There was a significant effect (p < 0.05) for Type B alcoholics to respond to ondansetron (4 microg/kg); however, Type A alcoholics receiving ondansetron showed no beneficial effect. Early-onset vs. late-onset classification predicted ondansetron response substantially better than Type A/B classification, which did not add to the prediction of treatment outcome. Further analyses showed that ondansetron was effective in the 33% of Type A alcoholics with EOA but ineffective in the 28% of Type B alcoholics with LOA.
Type A/B classification best discriminates alcoholic subtypes based upon baseline severity. Early- vs. late-onset classification is, however, a better predictor of response to ondansetron treatment because it might be more closely related to fundamental neurobiological processes associated with the underlying pathophysiology of alcoholism.
此前,我们在一项双盲、随机、安慰剂对照临床试验(共纳入321例患者,其中271例被随机分组)中报告,昂丹司琼对早发型(≤25岁)酒精依赖者有效,但对晚发型(≥26岁)酒精依赖者无效。随机分组的参与者接受为期11周的治疗,治疗药物为昂丹司琼(每日两次,剂量分别为1、4或16微克/千克;分别为67例、77例和71例)或相同的安慰剂(56例),同时每周接受标准化的团体认知行为疗法。
在本研究中,我们重新分析了原始样本,以确定A/B型分类是否能预测昂丹司琼的治疗反应。在这项比较分析中,对19项饮酒行为、精神病理学和社会功能的基线测量指标应用k均值聚类法,这些指标与Babor在原始类型推导中使用的指标相似。一个双因素解决方案有力地描述了在现象学上与A/B型分类一致的两组。受试者被细分为早发型和晚发型酒精依赖者。
72%的B型受试者为早发型酒精依赖(EOA);67%的A型受试者为晚发型酒精依赖(LOA)。A/B型分类能更好地根据酒精依赖的基线严重程度区分两组。B型酒精依赖者对昂丹司琼(4微克/千克)有显著反应(p<0.05);然而,接受昂丹司琼治疗的A型酒精依赖者未显示出有益效果。早发型与晚发型分类对昂丹司琼反应的预测明显优于A/B型分类,A/B型分类并未增加对治疗结果的预测。进一步分析表明,昂丹司琼对33%的早发型A型酒精依赖者有效,但对28%的晚发型B型酒精依赖者无效。
A/B型分类能根据基线严重程度最好地区分酒精依赖亚型。然而,早发型与晚发型分类是对昂丹司琼治疗反应的更好预测指标,因为它可能与酒精依赖潜在病理生理学相关的基本神经生物学过程更密切相关。