Department of Psychology, University of California, Los Angeles, CA, USA.
Department of Psychiatry and Biobehavioral Sciences, University of California, Los Angeles, CA, USA.
Am J Drug Alcohol Abuse. 2020;46(1):131-138. doi: 10.1080/00952990.2019.1635138. Epub 2019 Jul 11.
: Recent studies have examined the distinction between treatment-seekers and non-treatment-seekers with alcohol use disorder (AUD) with a focus on treatment development.: To advance our understanding of treatment-seeking in clinical research for AUD, this study compares treatment-seekers to non-treatment-seekers with AUD on alcohol cue-reactivity (CR).: A community sample ( = 65, 40% female) of treatment-seeking ( = 32, 40.6% female) and non-treatment-seeking individuals ( = 33, 39.4% female) with a diagnosis of moderate-to-severe AUD completed a laboratory CR paradigm. Analyses compared the two groups on subjective alcohol craving, heart rate, and blood pressure after the presentation of water cues and alcohol cues.: Mixed-design analyses of variance revealed a main effect of treatment-seeking status (i.e., group; = .02), such that treatment-seekers reported higher levels of subjective craving across both water ( = .04) and alcohol ( = .03) cue types. However, analyses did not support a group × cue type interaction effect ( = .9), indicating that treatment-seekers were not more cue-reactive. Group differences in craving were no longer significant when controlling for AUD severity. On blood pressure and heart rate, there was no significant effect of cue type, group, or cue type × group ( > 0.13).: These findings suggest that while treatment-seekers report higher levels of subjective craving than non-treatment-seekers, they are not more cue-reactive. Under the framework of medications development, we interpret these null findings to indicate that non-treatment seeking samples may be informative about CR and therefore, medication-induced effects on CR.
: 最近的研究考察了患有酒精使用障碍 (AUD) 的治疗寻求者和非治疗寻求者之间的区别，重点是治疗方法的发展。: 为了增进我们对 AUD 临床研究中寻求治疗的理解，本研究比较了有 AUD 诊断的治疗寻求者 ( = 32，40.6%为女性) 和非治疗寻求者 ( = 33，39.4%为女性) 在酒精线索反应性 (CR) 方面的差异。: 一个社区样本 ( = 65，40%为女性) 完成了一个实验室 CR 范式。分析比较了两组在呈现水线索和酒精线索后的主观酒精渴求、心率和血压。: 混合设计方差分析显示，治疗寻求状态 (即组) 存在主效应 ( = 0.02)，即治疗寻求者在水 ( = 0.04) 和酒精 ( = 0.03) 线索类型上报告的主观渴求水平更高。然而，分析不支持组 × 线索类型的交互效应 ( = 0.9)，表明治疗寻求者的线索反应性没有更高。当控制 AUD 严重程度时，两组在渴求方面的差异不再显著。在血压和心率方面，线索类型、组或线索类型 × 组均无显著影响 ( > 0.13)。: 这些发现表明，尽管治疗寻求者报告的主观渴求水平高于非治疗寻求者，但他们的线索反应性没有更高。在药物开发框架下，我们将这些无效发现解释为表明非治疗寻求者样本可能对 CR 有信息价值，因此，药物对 CR 的影响。
