Saha Tulshi D, Chou S Patricia, Grant Bridget F
Epidemiology and Biometry Branch, National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism, National Institutes of Health, 6700B Rockledge Drive, Room 2126, Bethesda, MD 20892, United States.
Bridget F. Grant, Fedpoint Systems, LLC, Fairfax, VA 22033, United States.
Drug Alcohol Depend. 2020 Nov 1;216:108299. doi: 10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2020.108299. Epub 2020 Sep 21.
Maladaptive patterns of drinking are central to the development of AUD. However, no DSM-5 criteria ask about patterns of alcohol use, such as 5+/4+ binge drinking. It is important to examine whether such an item would improve the diagnostic utility of the DSM-5 instrument.
Using a large representative sample of the US population, we used item response theory (IRT) methodology to examine the threshold, discrimination, and information value and differential criterion functioning of DSM-5 AUD criteria, along with a 5+/4+ drinking pattern criterion assessed at various levels of frequency.
The best fit drinking pattern criterion (defined at 5+/4+ drinking at least once a week in the past year) tapped the milder end of that continuum, which was similar to the criterion of drinking in larger amounts or for longer than intended. The new DSM-5 craving criterion was associated with mid-level values of threshold and discrimination. The AUD criteria with the addition of the 5+/4+ drinking pattern criterion demonstrated invariance across important subgroups of the population.
Among the criteria with the lowest level of threshold, the drinking pattern criterion has demonstrated its utility of the DSM-5 classification by identifying clinically significant but milder AUD cases. Along with its relationship to AUD relapse, the new craving criterion tapped the moderate levels of threshold and discrimination and thus, argues for its continued inclusion in the DSM-5 AUD formulation. Study results showed that DSM-5 AUD criteria and the 5+/4+ drinking pattern criterion formed a unidimensional continuum of AUD severity.
适应不良的饮酒模式是酒精使用障碍(AUD)发展的核心。然而,《精神疾病诊断与统计手册》第五版(DSM - 5)的标准中没有询问饮酒模式,例如5次以上/4次以上的暴饮情况。研究这样一个条目是否会提高DSM - 5工具的诊断效用很重要。
我们使用美国人口的大型代表性样本,采用项目反应理论(IRT)方法来研究DSM - 5中AUD标准的阈值、区分度、信息价值以及不同标准的功能,同时研究在不同频率水平下评估的5次以上/4次以上饮酒模式标准。
最佳拟合的饮酒模式标准(定义为过去一年中每周至少有一次5次以上/4次以上饮酒)涵盖了该连续体中较轻微的一端,这与饮酒量更大或饮酒时间比预期更长的标准类似。新的DSM - 5渴望标准与阈值和区分度的中等水平相关。添加了5次以上/4次以上饮酒模式标准的AUD标准在人群的重要亚组中表现出不变性。
在阈值水平最低的标准中,饮酒模式标准通过识别具有临床意义但较轻微的AUD病例,证明了其在DSM - 5分类中的效用。连同其与AUD复发的关系,新的渴望标准达到了阈值和区分度的中等水平,因此主张继续将其纳入DSM - 5的AUD分类中。研究结果表明,DSM - 5的AUD标准和5次以上/4次以上饮酒模式标准形成了AUD严重程度的单维连续体。