Explore the vast range of titles available.

Counselling for Alcohol Problems (CAP), a brief intervention delivered by lay counsellors, enhanced remission and abstinence over 3 months among male primary care attendees with harmful drinking in a setting in India. We evaluated the sustainability of the effects after treatment termination, the cost-effectiveness of CAP over 12 months, and the effects of the hypothesized mediator 'readiness to change' on clinical outcomes. Male primary care attendees aged 18-65 years screening with harmful drinking on the Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test (AUDIT) were randomised to either CAP plus enhanced usual care (EUC) (n = 188) or EUC alone (n = 189), of whom 89% completed assessments at 3 months, and 84% at 12 months. Primary outcomes were remission and mean standard ethanol consumed in the past 14 days, and the proposed mediating variable was readiness to change at 3 months. CAP participants maintained the gains they showed at the end of treatment through the 12-month follow-up, with the proportion with remission (AUDIT score < 8: 54.3% versus 31.9%; adjusted prevalence ratio [aPR] 1.71 [95% CI 1.32, 2.22]; p < 0.001) and abstinence in the past 14 days (45.1% versus 26.4%; adjusted odds ratio 1.92 [95% CI 1.19, 3.10]; p = 0.008) being significantly higher in the CAP plus EUC arm than in the EUC alone arm. CAP participants also fared better on secondary outcomes including recovery (AUDIT score < 8 at 3 and 12 months: 27.4% versus 15.1%; aPR 1.90 [95% CI 1.21, 3.00]; p = 0.006) and percent of days abstinent (mean percent [SD] 71.0% [38.2] versus 55.0% [39.8]; adjusted mean difference 16.1 [95% CI 7.1, 25.0]; p = 0.001). The intervention effect for remission was higher at 12 months than at 3 months (aPR 1.50 [95% CI 1.09, 2.07]). There was no evidence of an intervention effect on Patient Health Questionnaire 9 score, suicidal behaviour, percentage of days of heavy drinking, Short Inventory of Problems score, WHO Disability Assessment Schedule 2.0 score, days unable to work, or perpetration of intimate partner violence. Economic analyses indicated that CAP plus EUC was dominant over EUC alone, with lower costs and better outcomes; uncertainty analysis showed a 99% chance of CAP being cost-effective per remission achieved from a health system perspective, using a willingness to pay threshold equivalent to 1 month's wages for an unskilled manual worker in Goa. Readiness to change level at 3 months mediated the effect of CAP on mean standard ethanol consumption at 12 months (indirect effect -6.014 [95% CI -13.99, -0.046]). Serious adverse events were infrequent, and prevalence was similar by arm. The methodological limitations of this trial are the susceptibility of self-reported drinking to social desirability bias, the modest participation rates of eligible patients, and the examination of mediation effects of only 1 mediator and in only half of our sample. CAP's superiority over EUC at the end of treatment was largely stable over time and was mediated by readiness to change. CAP provides better outcomes at lower costs from a societal perspective. ISRCTN registry ISRCTN76465238.

Background Research has consistently shown that early onset of drinking (EOD) is associated with alcohol-related problems in adulthood. However, recent reviews have identified several limitations in the early onset literature, including the use of retrospective reports, insufficient control for potential confounders, ambiguous definitions of the concept, and an assumption that early onset is independent of cultural norms and national alcohol policies. This study addresses these limitations by examining whether EOD, independent of early onset of excessive drinking (EOE), prospectively predicts hazardous drinking in late adolescence/young adulthood in Norway and Australia, two countries with different drinking cultures. Methods Data were drawn from two population-based longitudinal studies; the Norwegian Tracking Opportunities and Problems Study ( n  = 329) and the Australian International Youth Development Study ( n  = 786). Data were collected prospectively from mid adolescence (14–16 years) to late adolescence/young adulthood (18–25 years) and a modified Poisson regression approach was used to estimate prevalence ratios. Adolescent self-reports included measures of EOD and EOE. Young adults completed the Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test (AUDIT). The results were adjusted for adolescent factors; age, gender, impulsivity, hyperactivity, conduct problems, smoking, early sexual intercourse and friends’ substance use, and family factors; alcohol and drug use in the family, maternal education, family management and monitoring. Results Hazardous drinking was identified in 46.8 and 38.9% of young adults in Norway and Australia, respectively. Both EOD and EOE in adolescence were significantly related to an increased risk of alcohol-related problems in late adolescence/young adulthood in both studies, even when adjusting for possible confounders. Conclusion Our findings indicate that adolescent drinking behaviour is an indicator of alcohol-related problems in late adolescence/young adulthood, even when controlling for a variety of covariates. This finding is in contrast to previous research on older adults, where no association between adolescent drinking and later alcohol-related problems were found when controlling for covariates. The divergence in findings may suggest that the impact of EOD/EOE is limited to the late adolescent and young adult period. Preventing drinking in early adolescence may thus have some impact on the drinking patterns in late adolescence/young adulthood.

Although structured psychological treatments are recommended as first-line interventions for harmful drinking, only a small fraction of people globally receive these treatments because of poor access in routine primary care. We assessed the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of Counselling for Alcohol Problems (CAP), a brief psychological treatment delivered by lay counsellors to patients with harmful drinking attending routine primary health-care settings. In this randomised controlled trial, we recruited male harmful drinkers defined by an Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test (AUDIT) score of 12–19 who were aged 18–65 years from ten primary health centres in Goa, India. We excluded patients who needed emergency medical treatment or inpatient admission, who were unable to communicate clearly, and who were intoxicated at the time of screening. Participants were randomly allocated (1:1) by trained health assistants based at the primary health centres to enhanced usual care (EUC) alone or EUC combined with CAP, in randomly sized blocks of four to six, stratified by primary health centre, and allocation was concealed with use of sequential numbered opaque envelopes. Physicians providing EUC and those assessing outcomes were masked. Primary outcomes were remission (AUDIT score of <8) and mean daily alcohol consumed in the past 14 days, at 3 months. Secondary outcomes were the effect of drinking, disability score, days unable to work, suicide attempts, intimate partner violence, and resource use and costs of illness. Analyses were on an intention-to-treat basis. We used logistic regression analysis for remission and zero-inflated negative binomial regression analysis for alcohol consumption. We assessed serious adverse events in the per-protocol population. This trial is registered with the ISCRTN registry, number ISRCTN76465238. Between Oct 28, 2013, and July 29, 2015, we enrolled and randomly allocated 377 participants (188 [50%] to the EUC plus CAP group and 190 [50%] to the EUC alone group [one of whom was subsequently excluded because of a protocol violation]), of whom 336 (89%) completed the 3 month primary outcome assessment (164 [87%] in the EUC plus CAP group and 172 [91%] in the EUC alone group). The proportion with remission (59 [36%] of 164 in the EUC plus CAP group vs 44 [26%] of 172 in the EUC alone group; adjusted prevalence ratio 1·50 [95% CI 1·09–2·07]; p=0·01) and the proportion abstinent in the past 14 days (68 [42%] vs 31 [18%]; adjusted odds ratio 3·00 [1·76–5·13]; p<0·0001) were significantly higher in the EUC plus CAP group than in the EUC alone group, but we noted no effect on mean daily alcohol consumed in the past 14 days among those who reported drinking in this period (37·0 g [SD 44·2] vs 31·0 g [27·8]; count ratio 1·08 [0·79–1·49]; p=0·62). We noted an effect on the percentage of days abstinent in the past 14 days (adjusted mean difference [AMD] 16·0% [8·1–24·1]; p<0·0001), but no effect on the percentage of days of heavy drinking (AMD −0·4% [–5·7 to 4·9]; p=0·88), the effect of drinking (Short Inventory of Problems score AMD–0·03 [–1·93 to 1·86]; p=0.97), disability score (WHO Disability Assessment Schedule score AMD 0·62 [–0·62 to 1·87]; p=0·32), days unable to work (no days unable to work adjusted odds ratio 1·02 [0·61–1·69]; p=0.95), suicide attempts (adjusted prevalence ratio 1·8 [–2·4 to 6·0]; p=0·25), and intimate partner violence (adjusted prevalence ratio 3·0 [–10·4 to 4·4]; p=0·57). The incremental cost per additional remission was $217 (95% CI 50–1073), with an 85% chance of being cost-effective in the study setting. We noted no significant difference in the number of serious adverse events between the two groups (six [4%] in the EUC plus CAP group vs 13 [8%] in the EUC alone group; p=0·11). CAP delivered by lay counsellors plus EUC was better than EUC alone was for harmful drinkers in routine primary health-care settings, and might be cost-effective. CAP could be a key strategy to reduce the treatment gap for alcohol use disorders, one of the leading causes of the global burden among men worldwide. Wellcome Trust.

Alcohol consumption and smoking, 2 major risk factors for cardiovascular disease (CVD), often occur together. The objective of this study is to use a wide range of CVD risk factors and outcomes to evaluate potential total and direct causal roles of alcohol and tobacco use on CVD risk factors and events. Using large publicly available genome-wide association studies (GWASs) (results from more than 1.2 million combined study participants) of predominantly European ancestry, we conducted 2-sample single-variable Mendelian randomization (SVMR) and multivariable Mendelian randomization (MVMR) to simultaneously assess the independent impact of alcohol consumption and smoking on a wide range of CVD risk factors and outcomes. Multiple sensitivity analyses, including complementary Mendelian randomization (MR) methods, and secondary alcohol consumption and smoking datasets were used. SVMR showed genetic predisposition for alcohol consumption to be associated with CVD risk factors, including high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL-C) (beta 0.40, 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.04-0.47, P value = 1.72 × 10-28), triglycerides (TRG) (beta -0.23, 95% CI, -0.30, -0.15, P value = 4.69 × 10-10), automated systolic blood pressure (BP) measurement (beta 0.11, 95% CI, 0.03-0.18, P value = 4.72 × 10-3), and automated diastolic BP measurement (beta 0.09, 95% CI, 0.03-0.16, P value = 5.24 × 10-3). Conversely, genetically predicted smoking was associated with increased TRG (beta 0.097, 95% CI, 0.014-0.027, P value = 6.59 × 10-12). Alcohol consumption was also associated with increased myocardial infarction (MI) and coronary heart disease (CHD) risks (MI odds ratio (OR) = 1.24, 95% CI, 1.03-1.50, P value = 0.02; CHD OR = 1.21, 95% CI, 1.01-1.45, P value = 0.04); however, its impact was attenuated in MVMR adjusting for smoking. Conversely, alcohol maintained an association with coronary atherosclerosis (OR 1.02, 95% CI, 1.01-1.03, P value = 5.56 × 10-4). In comparison, after adjusting for alcohol consumption, smoking retained its association with several CVD outcomes including MI (OR = 1.84, 95% CI, 1.43, 2.37, P value = 2.0 × 10-6), CHD (OR = 1.64, 95% CI, 1.28-2.09, P value = 8.07 × 10-5), heart failure (HF) (OR = 1.61, 95% CI, 1.32-1.95, P value = 1.9 × 10-6), and large artery atherosclerosis (OR = 2.4, 95% CI, 1.41-4.07, P value = 0.003). Notably, using the FinnGen cohort data, we were able to replicate the association between smoking and several CVD outcomes including MI (OR = 1.77, 95% CI, 1.10-2.84, P value = 0.02), HF (OR = 1.67, 95% CI, 1.14-2.46, P value = 0.008), and peripheral artery disease (PAD) (OR = 2.35, 95% CI, 1.38-4.01, P value = 0.002). The main limitations of this study include possible bias from unmeasured confounders, inability of summary-level MR to investigate a potentially nonlinear relationship between alcohol consumption and CVD risk, and the generalizability of the UK Biobank (UKB) to other populations. Evaluating the widest range of CVD risk factors and outcomes of any alcohol consumption or smoking MR study to date, we failed to find a cardioprotective impact of genetically predicted alcohol consumption on CVD outcomes. However, alcohol was associated with and increased HDL-C, decreased TRG, and increased BP, which may indicate pathways through impact CVD risk, warranting further study. We found smoking to be a risk factor for many CVDs even after adjusting for alcohol. While future studies incorporating alcohol consumption patterns are necessary, our data suggest causal inference between alcohol, smoking, and CVD risk, further supporting that lifestyle modifications might be able to reduce overall CVD risk.

Brief interventions can be efficacious in changing alcohol consumption and increasingly take advantage of the internet to reach high-risk populations such as students. To evaluate the effectiveness of a brief online intervention, controlling for the possible effects of the research process. A three-arm parallel groups design was used to explore the magnitude of the feedback and assessment component effects. The three groups were: alcohol assessment and feedback (group 1); alcohol assessment only without feedback (group 2); and no contact, and thus neither assessment nor feedback (group 3). Outcomes were evaluated after 3 months via an invitation to participate in a brief cross-sectional lifestyle survey. The study was undertaken in two universities randomising the email addresses of all 14 910 students (the AMADEUS-1 study, trial registration: ISRCTN28328154). Overall, 52% (n = 7809) of students completed follow-up, with small differences in attrition between the three groups. For each of the two primary outcomes, there was one statistically significant difference between groups, with group 1 having 3.7% fewer risky drinkers at follow-up than group 3 (P = 0.006) and group 2 scoring 0.16 points lower than group 3 on the three alcohol consumption questions from the Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test (AUDIT-C) (P = 0.039). This study provides some evidence of population-level benefit attained through intervening with individual students.