Brain Health Institute, Department of Psychiatry, University Behavioral Health Care, Rutgers University-New Brunswick, Piscataway, New Jersey.
Neuroscience Institute, New York University School of Medicine, New York.
JAMA Psychiatry. 2020 Apr 1;77(4):368-377. doi: 10.1001/jamapsychiatry.2019.4013.
Opioid addiction is a major public health problem. Despite availability of evidence-based treatments, relapse and dropout are common outcomes. Efforts aimed at identifying reuse risk and gaining more precise understanding of the mechanisms conferring reuse vulnerability are needed.
To use tools from computational psychiatry and decision neuroscience to identify changes in decision-making processes preceding opioid reuse.
DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: A cohort of individuals with opioid use disorder were studied longitudinally at a community-based treatment setting for up to 7 months (1-15 sessions per person). At each session, patients completed a risky decision-making task amenable to computational modeling and standard clinical assessments. Time-lagged mixed-effects logistic regression analyses were used to assess the likelihood of opioid use between sessions (t to t + 1; within the subsequent 1-4 weeks) from data acquired at the current session (t). A cohort of control participants completed similar procedures (1-5 sessions per person), serving both as a baseline comparison group and an independent sample in which to assess measurement test-retest reliability. Data were analyzed between January 1, 2018, and September 5, 2019.
Two individual model-based behavioral markers were derived from the task completed at each session, capturing a participant's current tolerance of known risks and ambiguity (partially unknown risks). Current anxiety, craving, withdrawal, and nonadherence were assessed via interview and clinic records. Opioid use was ascertained from random urine toxicology tests and self-reports.
Seventy patients (mean [SE] age, 44.7 [1.3] years; 12 women and 58 men [82.9% male]) and 55 control participants (mean [SE] age, 42.4 [1.5] years; 13 women and 42 men [76.4% male]) were included. Of the 552 sessions completed with patients (mean [SE], 7.89 [0.59] sessions per person), 252 (45.7%) directly preceded opioid use events (mean [SE], 3.60 [0.44] sessions per person). From the task parameters, only ambiguity tolerance was significantly associated with increased odds of prospective opioid use (adjusted odds ratio, 1.37 [95% CI, 1.07-1.76]), indicating patients were more tolerant specifically of ambiguous risks prior to these use events. The association of ambiguity tolerance with prospective use was independent of established clinical factors (adjusted odds ratio, 1.29 [95% CI, 1.01-1.65]; P = .04), such that a model combining these factors explained more variance in reuse risk. No significant differences in ambiguity tolerance were observed between patients and control participants, who completed 197 sessions (mean [SE], 3.58 [0.21] sessions per person); however, patients were more tolerant of known risks (B = 0.56 [95% CI, 0.05-1.07]).
Computational approaches can provide mechanistic insights about the cognitive factors underlying opioid reuse vulnerability and may hold promise for clinical use.
阿片类药物成瘾是一个主要的公共卫生问题。尽管有循证治疗方法,但复发和辍学是常见的结果。需要努力确定再使用的风险,并更准确地了解导致再使用易感性的机制。
使用计算精神病学和决策神经科学的工具来确定阿片类药物再使用之前决策过程的变化。
设计、设置和参与者:在一个以社区为基础的治疗环境中,对一组患有阿片类药物使用障碍的个体进行了纵向研究,最长可达 7 个月(每人 1-15 次)。在每次会议上,患者都完成了一项适合计算建模和标准临床评估的风险决策任务。使用时间滞后的混合效应逻辑回归分析来评估在当前会议(t)期间获得的数据后,会话之间(t 到 t+1;在随后的 1-4 周内)发生阿片类药物使用的可能性。一组对照参与者完成了类似的程序(每人 1-5 次),既是基线比较组,也是评估测量测试重测可靠性的独立样本。数据于 2018 年 1 月 1 日至 2019 年 9 月 5 日进行分析。
从每次会议完成的任务中得出了两个基于模型的行为标记,分别捕捉了参与者当前对已知风险和模糊性(部分未知风险)的容忍度。当前的焦虑、渴望、戒断和不依从通过访谈和诊所记录进行评估。阿片类药物的使用通过随机尿液毒物检测和自我报告来确定。
70 名患者(平均[SE]年龄 44.7[1.3]岁;12 名女性和 58 名男性[82.9%男性])和 55 名对照参与者(平均[SE]年龄 42.4[1.5]岁;13 名女性和 42 名男性[76.4%男性])被纳入。在与患者完成的 552 次会议中(平均[SE],每人 7.89[0.59]次),有 252 次(45.7%)直接发生了阿片类药物使用事件(平均[SE],每人 3.60[0.44]次)。从任务参数来看,只有模糊容忍度与增加前瞻性阿片类药物使用的几率显著相关(调整后的优势比,1.37[95%CI,1.07-1.76]),这表明患者在这些使用事件之前对模糊风险的容忍度更高。模糊容忍度与前瞻性使用的关联独立于既定的临床因素(调整后的优势比,1.29[95%CI,1.01-1.65];P=0.04),因此,结合这些因素的模型可以更好地解释再使用风险的变化。在完成 197 次会议的患者(平均[SE],每人 3.58[0.21]次)和对照参与者之间,没有观察到模糊容忍度的显著差异;然而,患者对已知风险的容忍度更高(B=0.56[95%CI,0.05-1.07])。
计算方法可以提供有关阿片类药物再使用易感性的潜在认知因素的机制见解,并可能具有临床应用的前景。