The Effects of Cognitive Impulsivity on the Duration of Remission in Alcohol-Dependent Patients

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Cognitive impulsivity manifesting in impaired inhibitory control and decision-making impulsivity is observed both in alcohol-dependent and substance-dependent individuals and may affect the ability to maintain long-term (persistent) remission.

AIM: To evaluate the effects of cognitive parameters of impulsivity on the duration of remission in alcohol-dependent patients.

METHODS: The study included 83 patients with alcohol dependence and 51 mentally healthy study subjects as the control group. The distribution of patients by duration of remission was based on the DSM-5 criteria. Patients were divided into two groups according to the duration of their most recent remission: patients with early remission (n=48) and patients with sustained remission (n=35). Impulsivity was assessed using the Go/No-Go task, which included a response inhibition component (inhibitory control). Choice impulsivity was assessed using two cognitive tests that encompass its separate components: decision-making under risk (Cambridge Gambling Task, CGT), and decision making under uncertainty (Iowa Gambling Task, IGT).

RESULTS: The study groups (patients and the controls) differed significantly in all domains of impulsivity: decision making under risk [GT: decision making quality (H(2, N=134)=30.233, p <0.001) and decision-making time (H(2, N=134)=18.433, p <0.001)] and decision making under uncertainty [IGT: selecting cards from “losing” decks (H(2, N=134)=9.291, p=0.009)]. The group of patients with sustained alcohol remission was characterized by longer decision times in CGT compared to the group of patients with early remission (z=2.398, p=0.049). Decision quality in CGT (z=0.673, p=0.999) and IGT scores (z=1.202, p=0.687) were not statistically significantly different between the groups of patients with sustained and early remission from alcohol dependence. The assessment of impulsive actions showed that the study groups were significantly different in terms of their ability to suppress their dominant behavioral response when performing the GNG task [false presses when seeing the “No-Go” signal (H(2, N=134)=28.851, p <0.001)]. The group of patients in sustained remission from alcohol dependence was characterized by better suppression of the behavioral response to the “No-Go” signal relative to the patients in early remission [H(2, N=134)=2.743, p=0.044)]. The regression analysis showed that the decision-making quality (t=2.507, р=0.049) and decision-making time (t=3.237, р=0.031) and the number of false presses when seeing the “No-Go” signal in the GNC task had a statistically significant impact on the duration of remission (t=3.091, р=0.043).

CONCLUSION: The results of this study indicate that impaired decision-making processes and the ability to inhibit the dominant behavioral response have a significant impact on the ability of alcohol-dependent patients to maintain long-term remission.

Keywords

decision making / response inhibition / alcohol dependence / remission

References

[1] Sachdeva A, Chandra M, Choudhary M, et al. Alcohol-related dementia and neurocognitive impairment: a review study. Int J High Risk Behav Addict. 2016;5(3):e27976. doi: 10.5812/ijhrba.27976.

[2] Voevodin IV. Age and educational factors in the formation and clinical dynamics of alcohol dependence and neurotic disorders. Siberian Herald of Psychiatry and Addiction Psychiatry. 2022; 1(114):27–32. doi: 10.26617/1810-3111-2022-1(114)-27-32.

[3] Kwako LE, Momenan R, Litten RZ, et al. Addictions neuroclinical assessment: a neuroscience-based framework for addictive disorders. Biol. Psychiatry. 2016;80:179–189. doi: 10.1016/j.biopsych.2015.10.024.

[4] Galkin SA, Bokhan NA. Features of the reward-based decision-making in patients with alcohol use disorders. Zhurnal Nevrologii i Psikhiatrii imeni S.S. Korsakova. 2023;123(2):37–43. doi: 10.17116/jnevro202312302137. Russian.

[5] Lee R, Hoppenbrouwers S, Franken I. A Systematic meta-review of impulsivity and compulsivity in addictive behaviors. Neuropsychol. Rev. 2019;29:14–26. doi: 10.1007/s11065-019-09402-x.

[6] Peshkovskaya AG, Galkin SA, Bokhan NA. Cognition in Alcohol Dependence: Review of Concepts, Hypotheses and Research Methods. Siberian J of Psychol. 2023;87:138–158. doi: 10.17223/17267080/87/8. Russian.

[7] Crews FT, Boettiger C. Impulsivity, frontal lobes and risk for addiction. Pharmacol. Biochem. Behav. 2009;93:237–247. doi: 10.1016/j.pbb.2009.04.018.

[8] Avtonomov DA. Impulsivity in narcology. Narcology. 2018;17(1):48–53. doi: 10.25557/1682-8313.2018.01.48-53. Russian.

[9] Hamilton KR, Mitchell MR, Wing VC, et al. Choice impulsivity: Definitions, measurement issues, and clinical implications. Pers Disord. 2015;6:182–198. doi: 10.1037/per0000099.

[10] Bechara A, Damasio AR, Damasio H, Anderson SW. Insensitivity to future consequences following damage to human prefrontal cortex. Cognition. 1994;50:7–15. doi: 10.1016/0010-0277(94)90018-3.

[11] Rogers R, Everitt B, Baldacchino A, et al. Dissociable deficits in the decision-making cognition of chronic amphetamine abusers, opiate abusers, patients with focal damage to prefrontal cortex, and tryptophan-depleted normal volunteers: Evidence for monoaminergic mechanisms. Neuropsychopharmacol. 1999;20:322–339. doi: 10.1016/S0893-133X(98)00091-8.

[12] Kvam PD, Romeu RJ, Turner BM, et al. Testing the factor structure underlying behavior using joint cognitive models: Impulsivity in delay discounting and Cambridge gambling tasks. Psychol Methods. 2021;26:18–37. doi: 10.1037/met0000264.

[13] Hamilton KR, Littlefield AK, Anastasio NC, et al. Rapid- response impulsivity: Definitions, measurement issues, and clinical implications. Pers Disord. 2015;6:168–181. doi: 10.1037/per0000100.

[14] Dougherty DM, Bjork J, Harper RA, et al. Behavioral impulsivity paradigms: A comparison in hospitalized adolescents with disruptive behavior disorders. J Child Psychol Psychiatry. 2003;44:1145–1157. doi: 10.1111/1469-7610.00197.

[15] Dalley JW, Everitt B, Robbins T. Impulsivity, compulsivity, and top-down cognitive control. Neuron. 2011;69:680–694. doi: 10.1016/j.neuron.2011.01.020.

[16] Galkin SA, Peshkovskaya AG, Roshchina OV, et al. Features of brain activity in alcohol dependence in the task of inhibitory control. Bulletin of Siberian Medicine. 2020;19(4):38–45. doi: 10.20538/1682-0363-2020-4-38-45.

[17] Smith JL, Mattick RP, Jamadar SD, Iredale JM. Deficits in behavioural inhibition in substance abuse and addiction: a meta-analysis. Drug Alcohol Depend. 2014;145:1–33. doi: 10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2014.08.009.

[18] de Wilde B, Verdejo-García A, Sabbe B, et al. Affective decision-making is predictive of three-month relapse in polysubstance-dependent alcoholics. Eur Addict Res. 2013;19:21–28. doi: 10.1159/000339290.

[19] Galkin SA, Oshkina TA, Kisel NI. Features of decision-making in patients with alcohol dependence. Zhurnal Nevrologii i Psikhiatrii imeni S.S. Korsakova. 2023;123(8):115–119. doi: 10.17116/jnevro2023123081115. Russian.

[20] Rupp CI, Beck JK, Heinz A, et al. Impulsivity and alcohol dependence treatment completion: is there a neurocognitive risk factor at treatment entry? Alcohol Clin Exp Res. 2016;40:152–160. doi: 10.1111/acer.12924.

[21] Association AP. Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders. 5th ed. American Psychiatric Association: Washington, DC, USA; 2013.

[22] WHO (World Health Organization). Adaptation and validation of the Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test (AUDIT) in the Russian Federation: report on implementation of the RUS-AUDIT project in the Russian Federation. WHO reference number: WHO/MSD/MSB/01.6a; 2021.

[23] Gomez P, Ratcliff R, Perea M. A model of the go/no–go task. J Exp Psychol Gen. 2007;136(3):389–413. doi: 10.1037/0096–3445.136.3.389.

[24] Romeu RJ, Haines N, Ahn WY, et al. A computational model of the Cambridge gambling task with applications to substance use disorders. Drug Alcohol Depend. 2020;206:107711. doi: 10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2019.107711.

[25] Bechara A, Tranel D, Damasio H. Characterization of the decision-making deficit of patients with ventromedial prefrontal cortex lesions. Brain. 2000;123:2189–2202. doi: 10.1093/brain/123.11.2189.

[26] Otdelnova KA. Determination of the required number of observations in social and hygienic research. Sb. trudov 2-go MMI 1980; 150(6):18–22. Russian.

[27] Psederska E, Vassileva J. Neurocognitive impulsivity in opiate users at different lengths of abstinence. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2023;20(2):1236. doi: 10.3390/ijerph20021236.

[28] Kirby KN, Petry NM. Heroin and cocaine abusers have higher discount rates for delayed rewards than alcoholics or non-drug-using controls. Addiction. 2004;99:461–471. doi: 10.1111/j.1360-0443.2003.00669.x.

[29] Cantrell H, Finn PR, Rickert ME, Lucas J. Decision making in alcohol dependence: insensitivity to future consequences and comorbid disinhibitory psychopathology. Alcohol Clin Exp Res. 2008;32(8):1398–1407. doi: 10.1111/j.1530-0277.2008.00714.x.

[30] Lyoo IK, Pollack MH, Silveri MM, et al. Prefrontal and temporal gray matter density decreases in opiate dependence. Psychopharmacology. 2006;184:139–144. doi: 10.1007/s00213-005-0198-x.

[31] Tanabe J, Tregellas JR, Dalwani M, et al. Medial orbitofrontal cortex gray matter is reduced in abstinent substance- dependent individuals. Biol Psychiatry. 2009;65:160–164. doi: 10.1016/j.biopsych.2008.07.030.

[32] Morie KP, Garavan H, Bell RP, et al. Intact inhibitory control processes in abstinent drug abusers (II): A high-density electrical mapping study in former cocaine and heroin addicts. Neuropharmacology. 2014;82:151–160. doi: 10.1016/j.neuropharm.2013.02.023.

[33] Ahn W, Vassileva J. Machine-learning identifies substance- specific behavioral markers for opiate and stimulant dependence. Drug Alcohol Depend. 2016;161:247–257. doi: 10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2016.02.008.

Funding

Russian Science FoundationРоссийский научный фонд(№ 22-75-00023)

RIGHTS & PERMISSIONS

Galkin S.A.