Psychoactive Substance Use Disorders: Drugs

Chapter 18
Psychoactive Substance Use Disorders: Drugs


Stacey B. Daughters and Matthew Cohen


Description of the Disorder


Illicit drug use is a prevalent and pervasive issue in the United States and, as a result, substance use disorders (SUDs) incur major costs to individuals, families, and society at large. In 2008 approximately 8.9% (22.2 million) of Americans age 12 or older were classified with substance dependence or abuse in the past year, and these estimates have remained constant over the past 7 years (Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration [SAMHSA], 2009a). The financial burden on society is estimated to be $484 billion annually in substance use–related treatment and prevention, health care expenditures, lost wages, reduced job production, accidents, and crime. In addition to the substantial economic cost of substance use, SUDs are associated with engagement in multiple health-compromising and risk-taking behaviors (e.g., condom nonuse, multiple partners, impulsive spending, driving while intoxicated) that contribute to the significant public health costs associated with SUDs (Office of National Drug Control Policy [ONDCP], 2004).


Clinical Picture


SUDs can result from abuse of a single drug or multiple substances. Commonly, drugs of abuse are grouped based on categories that vary in their physiological and behavioral effects. In this section we discuss the different drug categories, including street and slang names, physiological and psychological effects of each category, and the withdrawal symptoms that occur as tolerance and dependence develop. Interested readers are referred to Julien (2004) for an extensive review.


Cannabinoids, such as marijuana and hashish (street names include dope, pot, weed, grass, hash), produce mild euphoria, sedation, enhanced sensory perception, increased appetite and pulse, psychomotor impairment, and confusion. Tolerance can occur with habitual use, and discontinuation of use can result in uncomfortable withdrawal effects including anxiety, depression, irritability, and insomnia. Alternatively, hallucinogens, which include LSD (acid, blotter), mescaline (buttons, peyote, mesc), and psilocybin (magic mushrooms, shrooms), create an altered state of consciousness, detachment from self and environment, and dissociative symptoms. Hallucinogens are not physically addictive; however, LSD and mescaline produce negative physiological reactions such as increased body temperature, blood pressure, and heart rate. Psychologically, hallucinogen use can result in persistent mental disorders characterized by panic attacks and psychosis.


Both cannabinoids and hallucinogens are illegal street drugs, but central nervous system (CNS) depressants, including alcohol, benzodiazepines (e.g., alprazolam [Xanax], diazepam [Valium], lorazepam [Ativan], clonazepam [Klonopin]; benzos, xannies), and barbiturates (Seconal, Amytal, Phenobarbital; reds, yellows, yellow jackets, barbs) are legal substances that can be obtained with a doctor’s prescription. With low or moderate doses, they produce euphoria and disinhibition as well as decreased respiration, pulse, and blood pressure. At higher doses, confusion, impaired judgment, coordination, and memory loss occur. CNS depressants are particularly dangerous when combined because this increases the risk of respiratory depression and arrest. With long-term use, tolerance occurs and discontinuation of use can cause symptoms ranging from anxiety, insomnia, nausea, and muscle tension to more severe symptoms such as seizures, hallucinations, and psychosis.


Opioids are often prescribed for pain relief (e.g., codeine, fentanyl, oxycodone), but these drugs are also commonly abused. Other drugs in this category include opium (big O, tar) and heroin (dope, H, junk, smack). The effects of intoxication include euphoria, sedation, drowsiness, confusion, nausea, constipation, and respiratory depression. High doses of opioids can lead to coma and death. With prolonged use, tolerance occurs and, in the absence of the drug, users experience craving, sweating, fever, diarrhea, vomiting, and pain.


Unlike CNS depressants and opiates, stimulants increase respiration, heart rate, and blood pressure, and decrease appetite. Stimulant intoxication produces euphoria, mental alertness, and increased energy. Impulsive behavior, aggressiveness, anxiety, and irritability are also common features experienced by users. Additionally, prolonged use or high doses of stimulants can result in stimulant-induced psychosis. Due to the stress placed on the cardiovascular system, stimulant use can cause cardiac arrest, stroke, and death. Stimulants include cocaine (crack, coke, blow, yayo), methamphetamine (meth, speed, crystal, crank), MDMA (ecstasy, E, X, Adam), amphetamines (Adderall, Dexedrine; speed), and methylphenidate (Ritalin, vitamin R). Nicotine, found in cigarettes, cigars, and smokeless tobacco (snuff, dip, spit) is also a stimulant. Tolerance occurs quickly and can often lead to dependence. Withdrawal symptoms include anxiety, anhedonia, irritability, insomnia, and depression.


Dissociative anesthetics, such as ketamine (Special K, vitamin K) and PCP (angel dust, hog, love boat, sherms), create a dream-like state, euphoria, numbness, increased heart rate and blood pressure, and impaired memory and motor function. At high doses, ketamine can cause delirium, respiratory depression, and arrest. PCP use can result in panic, aggression, depression, and violence. Users of dissociative anesthetics quickly experience increasing tolerance, and a permanent tolerance may develop after several months of use. Although tolerance occurs, these drugs do not appear to have withdrawal symptoms or dependence.


Inhalants include a range of solvents (glues, paint thinners, gasoline), gases (propane, butane, aerosol propellants, nitrous oxide; laughing gas, whippets), nitrates (isobutyl, isoamyl; poppers, snappers), and aerosols (hair spray, spray paint). Inhalants are “huffed” through the nose and mouth and enter the lungs and subsequently the bloodstream rather quickly. The effects of intoxication include loss of motor skills and inhibition, slurred speech, headache, nausea, wheezing, and loss of consciousness. Extended use can lead to muscle weakness, memory impairment, depression, damage to the nervous and cardiovascular systems, and sudden death. There is little known about tolerance, withdrawal, and dependence in relation to inhalants.


In summary, once an SUD is present, the withdrawal experience from different substances varies by the class of drug. In general, common psychological features of withdrawal involve symptoms of depression and anxiety. Although the physical symptoms of withdrawal can be difficult to tolerate, they are often short lived.


Diagnostic Considerations


The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual (DSM-5; American Psychiatric Association [APA], 2013) provides a comprehensive classification system for the assessment and subsequent diagnosis of a substance use disorder across 10 drug classes including alcohol, cannabis, phencyclidine, other hallucinogens, inhalants, opioids, sedatives, stimulants, tobacco, and other/unknown. The DSM-5 diagnostic criteria for a substance use disorder require evidence of continued use in spite of significant substance-related problems. A key characteristic of a substance use disorder is a change in the user’s neurological circuitry, a side effect that persists even in times of post-use sobriety. This altered circuitry is believed to manifest itself in the user’s behavior and can therefore be linked to relapse.


The DSM-5 diagnostic criteria for substance use disorders specify a maladaptive pattern of behaviors related to substance use. These behaviors fall into four categories: impaired control, social impairment, risky use, and pharmacological criteria. Impaired control is often characterized by unsuccessful efforts to follow through with intended plans to cut back on use, taking more than planned, or use for a greater duration than initially planned. Impaired control can involve craving, a perceived need to engage in substance use, often arising in the context of prior use (e.g., the presence of people with whom one had used; being in a location where one had previously used). Craving is operationalized as the extent to which the desire to use consumes the patient’s thoughts. Social impairment pertains to an inability to carry out the needs of daily life in all facets of one’s environment, whether it involves failing to fulfill obligations or opting to use rather than engaging in social activities. Further, in spite of the negative impact that using may have, social impairment is characterized by persistent substance use in spite of the negative social impact. Risky use involves the continued use of a substance that is known to present a danger to the user. This risk might entail using in a dangerous situation or using with a known vulnerability to a physical or psychological issue that would likely be made worse by further use. Pharmacological criteria focuses on tolerance and withdrawal. Tolerance is a state that develops wherein the user needs progressively larger doses of the drug in order to feel the desired effect. Withdrawal is a physical response to specific substances that can occur after extended, consistent use. The diagnostic criteria for substance use disorders specify that at any given time the presence of two to three symptoms suggest mild substance abuse disorder with moderate (four to five symptoms) and severe disorders (six or more symptoms) requiring greater symptomology.


Another system, the International Classification of Diseases, 10th revision (ICD-10; World Health Organization [WHO], 1994), is considered the international standard diagnostic classification system for all general epidemiological and many health management purposes, including the analysis of the general health situation of population groups and monitoring of the incidence and prevalence of diseases in relation to social, biological, and interpersonal variables. Although there is overlap in the way that the DSM and ICD view substance use disorders, the two systems have had different paradigms for maladaptive substance use that do not align well. Most notably, the DSM-5 characterizes substance use by negative social consequences of recurrent or continued use, whereas the ICD-10 includes a category for harmful use (a nonresidual category), which requires demonstrable physical or psychological harm. The emphasis on physical or psychological harm (rather than legal and social) in the ICD-10 stems from a need for developing criteria that can be applied uniformly across different countries and cultures.


Substance use disorders co-occur with many clinical disorders, ranging from depression and anxiety disorders to personality disorders. National epidemiological data suggest that among individuals with any SUD, the prevalence for any mood or anxiety disorder is 40.9% and 29.9% respectively (Conway, Compton, Stinson, & Grant, 2006). Mood and anxiety disorders are the most common comorbidities, followed by antisocial personality disorder (Jane-Llopis & Matysina, 2006) and schizophrenia-spectrum disorders (Kushner, Abrams, & Borchardt, 2000). Among personality disorders, borderline and antisocial personality disorders have the highest rates of co-occurrence with SUDs, with estimates ranging from 5% to 32% and 14% to 69%, respectively (e.g., Goldstein et al., 2007; Trull, Sher, Minks-Brown, Durbin, & Burr, 2000). In fact, estimates from the Epidemiologic Catchment Area (ECA) Survey suggest that SUDs are more strongly associated with antisocial personality disorder than with any other mood, anxiety, or thought disorder (Regier et al., 1993). Additionally, prevalence of disorders differs by substance. For example, among individuals with lifetime opioid abuse or dependence, nearly 50% met the criteria for a personality disorder (Grella, Karno, Warda, Niv, & Moore, 2009). These statistics are particularly alarming given that individuals with co-occurring disorders generally have worse treatment outcomes (e.g., noncompliance and relapse), higher rates of suicidal ideation, distorted perception and cognition, social exclusion, aggression, and homelessness (Horsfall, Cleary, Hunt, & Walter, 2009). The causal direction of co-occurring conditions is mixed, with some evidence of mental disorders predicting the onset of SUDs, while other studies have found that SUDs predict later mental illness (Kessler, 2004; National Institute on Drug Abuse [NIDA], 2009).


Epidemiology


Approximately 20.1 million (8%) Americans age 12 or older report illicit drug use in the past month, of which 57.3% report using only marijuana and 42.7% report illicit drug use other than marijuana (SAMHSA, 2009b). Specific populations are more vulnerable to initiation and continued illicit drug use. In particular, youth and young adults are a special population of interest, because early use increases the likelihood of future substance use problems. Data from the Monitoring the Future Study indicates that although use of several drugs (including inhalants, ecstasy, and amphetamines) has declined over the past decade, within the past 2 years marijuana use has increased. Approximately 12% of 8th graders, 27% of 10th graders, and 33% of 12th graders reported marijuana use in the past year. Respectively, about 15%, 29%, and 37% reported using any illicit drug in the past year (Johnston, O’Malley, Bachman, & Schulenberg, 2010).


In 2007, there were more than 1.8 million admissions to treatment, with the majority of these admissions being for alcohol only or alcohol and a secondary substance (SAMHSA, 2009b). Among the different treatment settings available, most admissions were in ambulatory care (62.3%), which is made up of outpatient (49.4%), intensive outpatient (10.6%), and detoxification (2.2%). Additionally, 18% of admissions entered residential treatment, with the majority in short-term treatment (less than 31 days), and 19.7% of admissions were for short detoxification (24-hour service) (SAMHSA, 2009b).


Psychological and Biological Assessment


Several variables need to be considered when determining the best method of assessment for patients with substance use problems. It is important to determine if the goal of the assessment is to screen for potential substance use problems, to determine if an individual meets diagnostic criteria for an SUD, to develop treatment goals and a treatment plan, or to assess treatment outcome. Outlined in Table 18.1 are commonly used psychological measures for screening, diagnosis, treatment planning, and posttreatment outcome measurement.


Table 18.1 Instruments for the Screening and Diagnosis of Substance Use Disorders




















































































































Instrument Summary Method of Administration Population
Screening

Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test (AUDIT; Saunders, Aasland, & Babor, 1993) Developed by WHO, the AUDIT screens for increased risk for hazardous drinking and can identify problem drinking and dependence. Interview, self-administered and computerized versions. Adults; Validated cross-culturally; translated into many languages
Drug Use Disorders Identification Test (DUDIT; Stuart, Moore, & Kahler, 2003) An 11-item measure to screen for drug-related problems across the following drug classes: cannabis, cocaine, hallucinogens, stimulants, sedatives, and opiates. Self-report Adults
CAGE (Cooney, Zweben, & Fleming, 1995) Consists of four questions used to screen for a substance use problem. Each “have you ever?” question can be answered either “YES” or “NO,” and each positive response gets 1 point. A score of 1 out of 4 indicates “possible” and 2 detects most cases of substance misuse. However, may not be sensitive enough to capture binge drinkers. Interview Adults; Adolescents
Drug Abuse Screening Test (DAST; Skinner, 1982) Focuses on lifetime severity of drug abuse and its consequences and provides an index of drug use severity. Covers a variety of consequences related to drug use without specifying drug type, alleviating the necessity of using different instruments specific to each drug. Interview or self-administered Adults
MCMI-III (Millon & Meagher, 2004) Short 14-item drug dependence scale. High scores on this scale suggest a recurrent or recent history of drug abuse, a tendency to have poor impulse control, and an inability to manage the consequences of drug use and impulsive behavior. Self-report Adults
Addiction Potential Scale (APS) of the MMPI-2 (Weed, Butcher, & McKenna, 1992) This measure does not directly assess substance use behavior, but was designed to identify personality characteristics and lifestyle patterns that are associated with substance abuse. Self-report Adults
Simple Screening Instrument for Substance Abuse (SSI-SA; SAMHSA, 2005) The SSI-SA screens for five domains of substance use including substance consumption, preoccupation and loss of control, adverse consequences, problem recognition, and tolerance and withdrawal. Interview or self-administered Adults; Co-occurring disorders
Alcohol, Smoking, and Substance Involvement Screening Test (ASSIST; Ali et al., 2002) Developed by WHO, the ASSIST uses eight questions to screen for tobacco, alcohol, and illicit drug use. Additional items assess problems related to substance use, the risk of current or future harm, level of dependence, and method of use (e.g., needle injection). Interview or self-administered Adults
Diagnostic Status

Structured Clinical Interview for DSM-5 (SCID-5; revision pending) The SCID is a precise method for identifying substance dependence across 10 drug classes and is the most frequently used instrument in clinical trials. Interview; Clinician administered Adults; Adolescents
Substance Dependence Severity Scale (SDSS; Miele et al., 2000) Assesses both the frequency and severity of symptoms. For each symptom, the SDSS measures total number of days a symptom occurred, usual severity of the symptom, and worst severity of the symptom over a 30-day time frame. Interview; Clinician-administered Adults; Adolescents
Composite International Diagnostic Interview–Second Edition (CIDI-2; Kessler & Üstün, 2004) Structured interview that provides lifetime diagnoses for past and current substance use disorders according to both the DSM-IV and ICD-10. An SUD diagnosis from the CIDI has demonstrated good reliability and validity and can be administered by a lay interviewer in approximately 20 to 30 minutes. There is not yet an updated version for DSM-5. Interview Adults; Adolescents
Treatment Planning and Outcome

Addiction Severity Index (ASI; McLellan et al., 1992) The most comprehensive and widely used measure. The ASI assesses drug and alcohol use in the context of seven domains: medical status, employment status, family history, legal status, psychiatric status, and family and social relationships. It identifies problem areas in need of targeted intervention and is often used in clinical settings for treatment planning and outcome evaluation. Interview or self-report Adults
Drug Use Screening Inventory (DUSI; Tarter, 1991) Measures the severity of drug and alcohol problem in 10 psychosocial and psychiatric domains: behavior patterns, drug consequences, health status, psychiatric disorder, social competency, family system, school performance, work adjustments, recreation, and peer relationships. A “lie scale” is built in to ensure truthfulness and increase reliability by identifying inconsistencies. Interview or self-report Adults; Adolescents
Inventory of Drug Use Consequences (InDUC; Tonigan & Miller, 2002) An inventory of drug-related consequences. The InDUC is distinct from screening instruments in that it measures adverse consequences of substance use including items referring to pathological use practices (e.g., rapid use), items reflecting dependence symptoms (e.g., craving), and items concerning help-seeking (e.g., Narcotics Anonymous). Includes five scales including impulse control, social responsibility, and physical, interpersonal, and intrapersonal domains. Self-report Adults
Timeline Followback (TLFB; Fals-Stewart, O’Farrell, & Freitas, 2000) Assesses recent substance use by asking the client to retrospectively report use in a defined period prior to the interview date. In addition to capturing use, the TLFB can also identify frequency of use. Interview or self-report Adults; Adolescents
Form 90D (Westerberg, Tonigan, & Miller, 1998) Using a calendar, this semi-structured interview captures substance use for the past 90 days. Clinician-administered Adults; Adolescents
Motivation and Treatment Readiness

University of Rhode Island Change Assessment (URICA; McConnaughy, Prochaska, & Velicer, 1983) Measures the Stages of Change (Precontemplation, Contemplation, Action, and Maintenance) using a 5-point Likert scale. Assesses readiness to change when clients enter treatment. Self-report Adults; Co-occurring disorders
Stages of Change Readiness and Treatment Eagerness Scale (SOCRATES; Miller & Tonigan, 1996) Scale used to assess motivation for change, in relation to alcohol and drug use, using three factorially derived scores: Recognition, Ambivalence, and Taking Steps. Self-report Adults
Readiness to Change Questionnaire (RTCQ; Rollnick, Heather, Gold, & Hall, 1992) Uses Stages of Change Model to assign substance users to three stages: precontemplation, contemplation, and action. Interview Adults; Adolescents

Given the high rate of comorbidity between SUD and other psychological disorders, particularly mood, anxiety, or thought disorders, patients often present to treatment for problems other than drug dependence. As such, screening measures are useful for identifying SUDs in other settings. Several diagnostic instruments are available for use in both research and clinical settings, with advantages and disadvantages inherent in each instrument with regard to administration, cost, and interviewer qualification and training requirements.


Once a substance use problem or diagnosis is established, it is important to assess how the patient’s level of substance use has affected other life areas (e.g., social and occupational functioning) in order to develop appropriate treatment goals and a treatment plan. For example, by assessing how much time the patient spends obtaining and using the substance, in addition to time spent recovering, the clinician will likely gain a better sense of the extent of impairment and as such, which intervention might be most efficacious. Additional assessment techniques are utilized prior to and during treatment to target processes such as treatment planning, utilization of services, and goal attainment. It has been suggested that assessing one’s readiness for change prior to developing a treatment plan will improve treatment outcomes (DiClemente & Prochaska, 1998). Accordingly, the transtheoretical model (TTM) argues that the individual moves through five stages when changing behaviors: precontemplation, contemplation, preparation, action, and maintenance.


Functional analysis often is used in substance use treatment to help patients effectively problem-solve ways to reduce the probability of future drug use. Within this model, an analysis of the antecedents and consequences of drug use is used to develop alternative cognitive and behavioral skills to reduce the risk of future drug use. Working together, the therapist and patient identify five high-risk situations and the (1) trigger for that situation, (2) thoughts during that situation, (3) feelings experienced in response to the trigger and thoughts, (4) drug use behavior, and (5) positive and negative consequences of drug use. After analyzing this behavior chain, the therapist and patient then develop strategies for altering thoughts and behaviors when faced with those same situations. Those interested in the use of functional analysis in treatment are directed to Monti, Kadden, Rohsenhow, Cooney, and Abrams (2002) or the National Institute on Drug Abuse online publication A Community Reinforcement Approach: Treating Cocaine Addiction.


Outcome assessments should include a wide range of dimensions beyond substance use behavior, including changes in social, occupational, and psychological functioning. As such, it is ideal to readminister comprehensive measures such as the Addiction Severity Index, Drug Use Screening Inventory, and Inventory of Drug Use Consequences (see Table 18.1). In addition, self-report and biological indicators can be used to determine return to drug use, drug use behavior, and psychiatric symptoms.


The following is a brief overview of recent trends in the biological assessment of substance use (see Wolff, 2006, for an extensive review). Although recent work has identified cutting-edge technologies for biological testing of substance use, urinalysis remains the preferred method of detection for several reasons. First, because urinalysis has been used historically, it is well-known and many of the problems associated with it have been addressed. Second, urine contains high concentrations of the target drug or its metabolites. Third, it is inexpensive and may be acquired in a minimally invasive manner as compared to other biological approaches. Self-contained urine-based testing kits that can reliably detect the most commonly used psychoactive substances are becoming increasingly available, which allow practitioners and researchers to conduct on-site testing across a wide range of settings. Finally, recently developed quantitative and semi-quantitative tests are more sensitive to changes in the pattern, frequency, and amount of use (Preston, Silverman, Schuster, & Charles, 2002). Thus, in addition to indicating the presence or absence of a drug, quantitative urinalysis can be useful in detecting initial efforts to reduce drug use and monitoring the effects of treatments.


While urinalysis has several advantages and obvious clinical utility, several limitations remain. Urine can only indicate drug use in the past 3 days (except for cannabis, methadone, and diazepam), thereby increasing the reliance on self-report for longer-term follow-up periods. In addition, urine is easily adulterated by using chemicals such as bleach, vinegar, or liquid soap, and can be easily diluted by using old urine or someone else’s urine. Conversely, over-the-counter medications and certain foods can produce positive test results in the absence of illicit drug use. As such, careful attention to detail and procedures are needed to ensure accurate collection, and positive tests may need additional confirmation.


Blood collection is another method that can detect very recent drug use and is considered an ideal method for assessing quantitative levels when accuracy is the primary criterion for measure selection. However, blood is often not collected due to its invasive nature, reliance on trained personnel, and the potential risk of spreading infections such as HIV and hepatitis. Saliva is the only body fluid that can be used as a substitute for blood, as drug concentration levels are comparable. Saliva collection has the advantage of being easy to obtain and is cost effective because, similar to urinalysis, self-contained testing kits are widely available that eliminate the need for trained personnel and off-site testing. One collection procedure often utilized is the sallivete-sampling device. It consists of a cotton wool swab, which is placed in the patients’ buccal cavity for saliva collection by absorption. Drawbacks to saliva collection include difficulty collecting an adequate amount for drug detection and the possible contamination of the oral cavity as a result of oral, intranasal, and smoking drug use.


Hair testing has been developed and theorized to have the potential benefits of drug detection over a longer period of time as is not possible with the aforementioned methods. However, quality control criteria and standard laboratory methods have yet to be established. In addition, evidence indicates that drug detection may differentially appear in darker hair, leading to a bias toward missing drug use in blonde individuals and differentially detecting it in people with black hair. In addition, hair is sensitive to smoke in the air, resulting in a false positive for individuals who abstain yet are surrounded by people who have smoked drugs.


Etiological Considerations


Behavioral Genetics and Molecular Genetics


Behavioral Genetics


Findings from twin, adoption, and family studies suggest that genetic factors account for a significant portion of the variance in liability for substance use disorders. Indeed, SUDs are some of the most highly heritable psychiatric disorders, with heritability estimates ranging from 0.39 for hallucinogens to 0.72 for cocaine (Goldman, Oroszi, & Ducci, 2005). The magnitude of genetic influence on substance use varies over the course of development, beginning with a negligible amount of genetic influence during early adolescence that increases over time until it stabilizes by age 35 to 40 (Kendler, Schmitt, Aggen, & Prescott, 2008). It also appears that the majority of the genetic vulnerability for SUDs can be accounted for by shared genetic influences that are common across drug classes (Agrawal, Neale, Prescott, & Kendler, 2004; True et al., 1999; Tsuang et al., 1998). For SUDs that are highly comorbid, such as alcohol and nicotine dependence, a common genetic factor for alcohol use and smoking accounts for approximately 45% of the genetic variance in heavy alcohol use and 35% of the genetic variance in heavy smoking (Swan, Carmelli, & Cardon, 1997). These findings point to significance of genetic factors in addiction liability, as well as the importance of studying genes that are involved in neurobiological substrates that are common across substance use disorders.


Molecular Genetics


More recent work has focused on the extent to which specific genetic polymorphisms (variations in DNA structure) contribute to one’s vulnerability for an SUD. The strongest and most consistent single-gene effects on SUD vulnerability are largely specific to Asian populations, including polymorphisms in the aldehyde (ALDH) and alcohol dehydrogenase (ADH) genes, which code for enzymes involved in alcohol metabolism (Wolff, 1972). Individuals who carry one or more of these alleles are less likely to become alcohol dependent (reviewed by Uhl, Drgon, Johnson, & Liu, 2009), and the protective effects of these genes appear to be additive (Thomasson et al., 1991).


Also significantly associated with substance dependence are γ-aminobutyric acid (GABA) receptor genes on chromosome 4. Convergent evidence suggests that polymorphisms, specifically in GABA2, are associated with alcohol dependence (Covault, Gelernter, Hesselbrock, Nellissery, & Kranzler, 2004; Edenberg et al., 2004; Fehr et al., 2006; Lappalainen et al., 2005; Soyka et al., 2008), nicotine dependence, cannabis use, and polysubstance abuse (Agrawal, Pergadia, Saccone, Hinrichs, et al., 2008; Agrawal, Pergadia, Saccone, Lynskey, et al., 2008; Drgon, D’Addario, & Uhl, 2006). Evidence from recent genome-wide association studies (GWAS) has converged to implicate a cluster of nicotinic acetylcholine receptor (nAChR) subunit genes in nicotine dependence, as well as dependence on other substances. For example, variants in CHRNA4 and the CHRNA5/A3/B4 cluster have been associated with nicotine dependence across populations, as well as subjective response to smoking (Berrettini et al., 2008; Feng et al., 2004; Hutchison et al., 2007; Li et al., 2005; Saccone et al., 2007; Weiss et al., 2008). Meta-analytic approaches have provided convergent evidence for the role of nAChR subunit genes, including CHRNA3 and CHRNA5, in smoking initiation and smoking quantity (Liu et al., 2010; Thorgeirsson et al., 2010; Tobacco and Genetics Consortium, 2010), alcohol dependence (Wang et al., 2009), and cocaine dependence (Grucza et al., 2008); however, the effect on cocaine dependence is opposite to that seen in nicotine dependence.


Additional genes that increase the risk of SUDs include polymorphisms in dopamine receptor genes that play a role in reward and reinforcement behavior (Blum et al., 2000). A meta-analysis including 55 studies confirmed the A1+ allele of DRD2 as a marker of substance use and severe substance misuse (Young, Lawford, Nutting, & Noble, 2004). Similarly, a polymorphism in the DAT1 gene has been associated with cocaine abuse (Guindalini et al., 2006) and alcohol dependence (Samochowiec et al., 2006). Recent meta-analyses provide additional support for the involvement of both genes in substance dependence across drug classes (reviewed by Li & Burmeister, 2009), suggesting that genes encoding for dopaminergic functioning may modulate SUD liability to a variety of substances.


Gene-Environment Interactions


Beyond examining genetic factors in isolation, environmental risk factors have been shown to interact with genes to contribute to the development of SUDs. For example, individuals with the A1 allele of the DRD2 gene who also report high levels of stress are at the greatest risk of alcohol dependence (Bau, Almeida, & Hutz, 2000; Madrid, MacMurray, Lee, Anderson, & Comings, 2001). Similarly, Blomeyer and colleagues (2008) found that adolescents with the C allele of a single nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) in CHRNA1 were at an increased risk of alcohol use and heavy drinking, but only if they also experienced three or more negative life events. Additionally, polymorphisms in the monoamine oxidase A (MAOA) gene interact with childhood maltreatment in predicting alcohol use problems (Ducci et al., 2007; Nilsson et al., 2007; Nilsson, Wargelius, Sjöberg, Leppert, & Oreland, 2008). Related to smoking outcomes, one recent study found that an SNP in CHRNA5 increased the risk of nicotine dependence, but only among individuals who reported low levels of parental monitoring during early adolescence; however, parental monitoring did not moderate the effect of an SNP in CHRNA3 on nicotine dependence (Chen et al., 2009). Taken together, genetic risk factors for substance use may be moderated by environmental variables, suggesting that as genetic researchers continue to incorporate environmental measures into their studies, additional gene-environment interactions may be revealed.


Neuroanatomy and Neurobiology


Several neurobiological models have been proposed to explain how chronic substance use contributes to development of SUDs and vulnerability to relapse, with a great deal of emphasis placed on the role of neuroadaptive changes that take place in brain reward and stress circuits over the course of chronic drug use (e.g., Koob & Le Moal, 2001, 2008; Li & Sinha, 2008; Robinson & Berridge, 1993, 2001; Wise, 1980, 2002). The following sections will discuss neurobiological mechanisms that increase liability to substance use across drug classes, as well as the neurobiological changes that contribute to development and maintenance of SUDs.


Brain Reward Circuits

Stay updated, free articles. Join our Telegram channel

Jun 10, 2016 | Posted by in PSYCHOLOGY | Comments Off on Psychoactive Substance Use Disorders: Drugs

Full access? Get Clinical Tree

Get Clinical Tree app for offline access