The role of alcohol response phenotypes in the risk for alcohol use disorder

Andrea C King, Dingcai Cao, Harriet deWit, Sean J O'Connor, Deborah S Hasin, Andrea C King, Dingcai Cao, Harriet deWit, Sean J O'Connor, Deborah S Hasin

Abstract

Heavy alcohol use is pervasive and one of our most significant global health burdens. Early theories posited that certain alcohol response phenotypes, notably low sensitivity to alcohol ('low-level response') imparts risk for alcohol use disorder (AUD). However, other theories, and newer measures of subjective alcohol responses, have challenged that contention and argued that high sensitivity to some alcohol effects are equally important for AUD risk. This study presents results of a unique longitudinal study in 294 young adult non-dependent drinkers examined with alcohol and placebo testing in the laboratory at initial enrolment and repeated 5 years later, with regular follow-up intervals assessing AUD (trial registration: https://ichgcp.net/clinical-trials-registry/NCT00961792). Findings showed that alcohol sedation was negatively correlated with stimulation across the breath alcohol curve and at initial and re-examination testing. A higher rather than lower alcohol response phenotype was predictive of future AUD. The findings underscore a new understanding of factors increasing vulnerability to AUD.

Keywords: Alcohol; differentiator model; low-level response theory; sedation; stimulation.

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
(a) Scatterplots and Pearson correlation between alcohol sedation (x-axis) and stimulation (y-axis) change scores calculated for the alcohol minus placebo session responses for the whole sample at initial testing at peak breath alcohol concentration (BrAC). (b) Bar graph of the frequency of participants with alcohol use disorder (AUD+) who were initially high- and low-alcohol responders at peak BrAC (change scores from placebo >0 for stimulation, <0 for sedation).

References

    1. World Health Organization. Consequences. In Global Status Report on Alcohol and Health: 20–37. World Health Organization, 2011.
    1. Kanny D, Naimi TS, Liu Y, Lu H, Brewer RD. Annual total binge drinks consumed by U.S. adults, 2015. Am J Prev Med 2018; 54: 486–96.
    1. Schuckit MA. Low level of response to alcohol as a predictor of future alcoholism. Am J Psychiatry 1994; 151: 184–9.
    1. Hendler RA, Ramchandani VA, Gilman J, Hommer DW. Stimulant and sedative effects of alcohol. Curr Topics Behav Neurosci 2013; 13: 489–509.
    1. Newlin DB, Renton RM. High risk groups often have higher levels of alcohol response than low risk: the other side of the coin. Alcohol Clin Exp Res 2010; 34: 199–202.
    1. Wise RA, Bozarth MA. A psychomotor stimulant theory of addiction. Psychol Rev 1987; 94: 469–92.
    1. Newlin DB, Thomson JB. Alcohol challenge with sons of alcoholics: a critical review and analysis. Psychol Bull 1990; 108: 383–402.
    1. King AC, de Wit H, McNamara PJ, Cao D. Rewarding, stimulant and sedative alcohol responses and relationship to future binge drinking. Arch Gen Psych 2011; 68: 389–99.
    1. King AC, McNamara PJ, Hasin DS, Cao D. Alcohol challenge responses predict future alcohol use disorder symptoms: a six-year prospective study. Biol Psychiatry 2014; 75: 798–806.
    1. King AC, Cao D, O'Connor SJ, McNamara PJ. A prospective 5-year re-examination of alcohol response in heavy drinkers progressing in alcohol use disorder (AUD). Biol Psychiatry 2016; 76: 489–98.
    1. American Psychiatric Association. Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorder (5th edn) (DSM-5). APA, 2013.
    1. Rueger SY, McNamara PJ, King AC. Expanding the utility of the biphasic alcohol effects scale (BAES) and initial psychometric support for the brief-BAES (B-BAES). Alcohol Clin Exp Res 2009; 33: 916–24.
    1. Roche DJO, Palmeri MD, King AC. Acute alcohol response phenotype in heavy social drinkers is robust and reproducible. Alcoholism 2014; 38: 844–52.

Source: PubMed

3
Sottoscrivi