Search

Objective: Cannabis use disorder diagnoses are increasing among U.S. adults and are more prevalent among people with comorbid psychiatric disorders. Recent changes in cannabis laws, increasing cannabis availability, and higher-potency cannabis may have placed people with cannabis use and psychiatric disorders at disproportionately increasing risk for cannabis use disorder. The authors used Veterans Health Administration (VHA) data to examine whether trends in cannabis use disorder prevalence among VHA patients differ by whether they have psychiatric disorders., Methods: VHA electronic health records from 2005 to 2019 (N range, 4,332,165-5,657,277) were used to identify overall and age-group-specific (<35, 35-64, and ≥65 years) trends in prevalence of cannabis use disorder diagnoses among patients with depressive, anxiety, posttraumatic stress, bipolar, or psychotic spectrum disorders and to compare these to corresponding trends among patients without any of these disorders. Given transitions in ICD coding, differences in trends were tested within two periods: 2005-2014 (ICD-9-CM) and 2016-2019 (ICD-10-CM)., Results: Greater increases in prevalence of cannabis use disorder diagnoses were observed among patients with psychiatric disorders compared to those without (difference in prevalence change, 2005-2014: 1.91%, 95% CI=1.87-1.96; 2016-2019: 0.34%, 95% CI=0.29-0.38). Disproportionate increases in cannabis use disorder prevalence among patients with psychiatric disorders were greatest among those under age 35 between 2005 and 2014, and among those age 65 or older between 2016 and 2019. Among patients with psychiatric disorders, the greatest increases in cannabis use disorder prevalences were observed among those with bipolar and psychotic spectrum disorders., Conclusions: The findings highlight disproportionately increasing disparities in risk of cannabis use disorder among VHA patients with common psychiatric disorders. Greater public health and clinical efforts are needed to monitor, prevent, and treat cannabis use disorder in this population., Competing Interests: Dr. Saxon receives royalties from UpToDate. Dr. Hasin has received support from Syneos Health.The other authors report no financial relationships with commercial interests.

Objective: The diagnostic criteria for opioid use disorder, originally developed for heroin, did not anticipate the surge in prescription opioid use and the resulting complexities in diagnosing prescription opioid use disorder (POUD), including differentiation of pain relief (therapeutic intent) from more common drug use motives, such as to get high or to cope with negative affect. The authors examined the validity of the Psychiatric Research Interview for Substance and Mental Disorders, DSM-5 opioid version, an instrument designed to make this differentiation., Methods: Patients (N=606) from pain clinics and inpatient substance treatment who ever received a ≥30-day opioid prescription for chronic pain were evaluated for DSM-5 POUD (i.e., withdrawal and tolerance were not considered positive if patients used opioids only as prescribed, per DSM-5 guidelines) and pain-adjusted POUD (behavioral/subjective criteria were not considered positive if pain relief [therapeutic intent] was the sole motive). Bivariate correlated-outcome regression models indicated associations of 10 validators with DSM-5 and pain-adjusted POUD measures, using mean ratios for dimensional measures and odds ratios for binary measures., Results: The prevalences of DSM-5 and pain-adjusted POUD, respectively, were 44.4% and 30.4% at the ≥2-criteria threshold and 29.5% and 25.3% at the ≥4-criteria threshold. Pain adjustment had little effect on prevalence among substance treatment patients but resulted in substantially lower prevalence among pain treatment patients. All validators had significantly stronger associations with pain-adjusted than with DSM-5 dimensional POUD measures (ratios of mean ratios, 1.22-2.31). For most validators, pain-adjusted binary POUD had larger odds ratios than DSM-5 measures., Conclusions: Adapting POUD measures for pain relief (therapeutic intent) improved validity. Studies should investigate the clinical utility of differentiating between therapeutic and nontherapeutic intent in evaluating POUD diagnostic criteria.

Objective: In the United States, adult cannabis use has increased over time, but less information is available on time trends in cannabis use disorder. The authors used Veterans Health Administration (VHA) data to examine change over time in cannabis use disorder diagnoses among veterans, an important population subgroup, and whether such trends differ by age group (&lt;35 years, 35-64 years, ≥65 years), sex, or race/ethnicity., Methods: VHA electronic health records from 2005 to 2019 (range of Ns per year, 4,403,027-5,797,240) were used to identify the percentage of VHA patients seen each year with a cannabis use disorder diagnosis (ICD-9-CM, January 1, 2005-September 30, 2015; ICD-10-CM, October 1, 2015-December 31, 2019). Trends in cannabis use disorder diagnoses were examined by age and by race/ethnicity and sex within age groups. Given the transition in ICD coding, differences in trends were tested within two periods: 2005-2014 (ICD-9-CM) and 2016-2019 (ICD-10-CM)., Results: In 2005, the percentages of VHA patients diagnosed with cannabis use disorder in the &lt;35, 35-64, and ≥65 year age groups were 1.70%, 1.59%, and 0.03%, respectively; by 2019, the percentages had increased to 4.84%, 2.86%, and 0.74%, respectively. Although the prevalence of cannabis use disorder was consistently higher among males than females, between 2016 and 2019, the prevalence increased more among females than males in the &lt;35 year group. Black patients had a consistently higher prevalence of cannabis use disorder than other racial/ethnic groups, and increases were greater among Black than White patients in the &lt;35 year group in both periods., Conclusions: Since 2005, diagnoses of cannabis use disorder have increased substantially among VHA patients, as they have in the general population and other patient populations. Possible explanations warranting investigation include decreasing perception of risk, changing laws, increasing cannabis potency, stressors related to growing socioeconomic inequality, and use of cannabis to self-treat pain. Clinicians and the public should be educated about the increases in cannabis use disorder in general in the United States, including among patients treated at the VHA.

Objective: The authors sought to estimate the prevalence of past-12-month and lifetime cannabis use and cannabis use disorder among U.S. veterans; to describe demographic, substance use disorder, and psychiatric disorder correlates of nonmedical cannabis use and cannabis use disorder; and to explore differences in cannabis use and cannabis use disorder prevalence among veterans in states with and without medical marijuana laws., Methods: Participants were 3,119 respondents in the 2012-2013 National Epidemiologic Survey on Alcohol and Related Conditions-III (NESARC-III) who identified as U.S. veterans. Weighted prevalences were calculated. Logistic regression analyses tested associations of nonmedical cannabis use and cannabis use disorder with demographic and clinical correlates and examined whether prevalence differed by state legalization status., Results: The prevalences of any past-12-month cannabis use and cannabis use disorder were 7.3% and 1.8%, respectively. Lifetime prevalences were 32.5% and 5.7%, respectively. Past-12-month and lifetime cannabis use disorder prevalence estimates among nonmedical cannabis users were 24.4% and 17.4%, respectively. Sociodemographic correlates of nonmedical cannabis use and use disorder included younger age, male gender, being unmarried, lower income, and residing in a state with medical marijuana laws. Nonmedical cannabis use and use disorder were associated with most psychiatric and substance use disorders examined., Conclusions: Among veterans, the odds of nonmedical cannabis use and use disorder were elevated among vulnerable subgroups, including those with lower income or psychiatric disorders and among survey participants residing in states with medical marijuana laws. The study findings highlight the need for clinical attention (e.g., screening, assessment) and ongoing monitoring among veterans in the context of increasing legalization of cannabis.

Objective: The authors sought to determine the association of cannabis indicators with self-reported psychotic disorders in the U.S. general population., Methods: Participants were from the National Epidemiologic Survey on Alcohol and Related Conditions (NESARC; 2001-2002; N=43,093) and NESARC-III (2012-2013; N=36,309). Logistic regression was used to estimate standardized prevalences of past-year self-reported psychotic disorders within each survey and to evaluate the association of past-year self-reported psychotic disorders with indicators of nonmedical cannabis use (any use; frequent use [at least three times/week], daily/near-daily use, and DSM-IV cannabis use disorder) compared with those with no past-year nonmedical cannabis use. Whether the strength of associations differed between surveys was indicated by difference-in-difference tests (between-survey contrasts) and ratios of odds ratios between surveys., Results: Self-reported psychotic disorders were significantly more prevalent among participants with any nonmedical cannabis use than those without (2001-2002: 1.65% compared with 0.27%; 2012-2013: 1.89% compared with 0.68%). In 2001-2002, self-reported psychotic disorders were unrelated to either frequent use or daily/near-daily use. However, in 2012 - 2013, compared with nonusers, self-reported psychotic disorders were more common among participants with frequent use and those with daily/near-daily nonmedical cannabis use (2012-2013: 2.79% and 2.52%, respectively, compared with 0.68% among nonusers). Self-reported psychotic disorders were significantly more prevalent among participants with cannabis use disorder than nonusers in both surveys (2001-2002: 2.55% compared with 0.27%; 2012 - 2013: 3.38% compared with 0.68%). The strength of these associations did not change over time., Conclusions: Data from the U.S. general population, especially more recent data, suggest associations between self-reported psychotic disorder and frequent nonmedical cannabis use and cannabis use disorder. Clinicians and policy makers should consider these relationships when monitoring patients and formulating programs.

Objective: Alcohol use disorder (AUD) remains an urgent public health problem. Longitudinal data are needed to clarify the role of acute subjective responses to alcohol in the development and maintenance of excessive drinking and AUD. The authors report on 10 years of repeated examination of acute alcohol responses in the Chicago Social Drinking Project., Methods: Young adult drinkers (N=190) participated in an initial alcohol challenge (0.8 g/kg of alcohol compared with placebo) that was repeated 5 and 10 years later. They were also assessed on drinking behavior and AUD symptoms at numerous intervals across the decade. Retention was high, as 184 of the 185 (99%) nondeceased active participants completed the 10-year follow-up, and 91% (163 of 179) of those eligible for alcohol consumption engaged in repeated laboratory testing during this interval., Results: At the end of the decade, 21% of participants met criteria for past-year AUD. Individuals who reported the greatest alcohol stimulation, liking, and wanting at the initial alcohol challenge were most likely to have developed AUD 10 years later. Further, alcohol-induced stimulation and wanting increased in reexamination testing among those with the highest AUD symptoms as the decade progressed., Conclusions: Initial stimulant and rewarding effects of alcohol predicted heavy alcohol use, and the magnitude of these positive subjective effects increased over a 10-year period in those who developed AUD compared with those who did not develop the disorder. The findings demonstrate systematic changes in subjective responses to alcohol over time, providing an empirical basis for prevention, early intervention, and treatment strategies.

Objective: Given changes in U.S. marijuana laws, attitudes, and use patterns, individuals with pain may be an emerging group at risk for nonmedical cannabis use and cannabis use disorder. The authors examined differences in the prevalence of nonmedical cannabis use and cannabis use disorder among U.S. adults with and without pain, as well as whether these differences widened over time., Methods: Data from the National Epidemiologic Survey on Alcohol and Related Conditions (NESARC, 2001-2002; N=43,093) and NESARC-III (2012-2013; N=36,309) were analyzed using logistic regression. Risk differences of past-year nonmedical cannabis use, frequent (at least three times a week) nonmedical use, and DSM-IV cannabis use disorder were estimated for groups with and without moderate to severe pain, and these risk differences were tested for change over time., Results: Any nonmedical cannabis use was more prevalent in respondents with than without pain (2001-2002: 5.15% compared with 3.74%; 2012-2013: 12.42% compared with 9.02%), a risk difference significantly greater in the 2012-2013 data than in the 2001-2002 data. The prevalence of frequent nonmedical cannabis use did not differ by pain status in the 2001-2002 survey, but was significantly more prevalent in those with than without pain in the 2012-2013 survey (5.03% compared with 3.45%). Cannabis use disorder was more prevalent in respondents with than without pain (2001-2002: 1.77% compared with 1.35%; 2012-2013: 4.18% compared with 2.74%), a significantly greater risk difference in the data from 2012-2013 than from 2001-2002., Conclusions: The results suggest that adults with pain are a group increasingly vulnerable to adverse cannabis use outcomes, warranting clinical and public health attention to this risk. Psychiatrists and other health care providers treating patients with pain should monitor such patients for signs and symptoms of cannabis use disorder.

Objective: Attitudes toward marijuana are changing, the prevalence of DSM-IV cannabis use disorder has increased, and DSM-5 modified the cannabis use disorder criteria. Therefore, updated information is needed on the prevalence, demographic characteristics, psychiatric comorbidity, disability, and treatment for DSM-5 cannabis use disorder., Method: In 2012-2013, 36,309 participants ≥18 years old were interviewed in the National Epidemiologic Survey on Alcohol and Related Conditions-III. Psychiatric and substance use disorders were assessed with the Alcohol Use Disorders and Associated Disabilities Interview Schedule-5., Results: The prevalences of 12-month and lifetime cannabis use disorder were 2.5% and 6.3%. Among those with 12-month and lifetime diagnoses, the mean days of marijuana use per year were 225.3 (SE=5.7) and 274.2 (SE=3.8). The odds of 12-month and lifetime cannabis use disorder were higher for men, Native Americans, unmarried individuals, those with low incomes, and young adults (e.g., among those age 18-24 years versus ≥45: odds ratio for 12-month disorder, 7.2; 95% confidence interval, 5.5-9.5). Cannabis use disorder was associated with other substance use disorders, affective disorders, anxiety, and personality disorders. Twelve-month cannabis use disorder was associated with disability. As disorder severity increased, virtually all associations became stronger. Only 13.2% with lifetime cannabis use disorder participated in 12-step programs or professional treatment., Conclusions: DSM-5 cannabis use disorder is prevalent, associated with comorbidity and disability, and largely untreated. Findings suggest the need to improve prevention and educate the public, professionals, and policy makers about possible harms associated with cannabis use disorders and available interventions., Competing Interests: Disclosures: No conflicts of interest declared by any author.

Since DSM-IV was published in 1994, its approach to substance use disorders has come under scrutiny. Strengths were identified (notably, reliability and validity of dependence), but concerns have also arisen. The DSM-5 Substance-Related Disorders Work Group considered these issues and recommended revisions for DSM-5. General concerns included whether to retain the division into two main disorders (dependence and abuse), whether substance use disorder criteria should be added or removed, and whether an appropriate substance use disorder severity indicator could be identified. Specific issues included possible addition of withdrawal syndromes for several substances, alignment of nicotine criteria with those for other substances, addition of biomarkers, and inclusion of nonsubstance, behavioral addictions.This article presents the major issues and evidence considered by the work group, which included literature reviews and extensive new data analyses. The work group recommendations for DSM-5 revisions included combining abuse and dependence criteria into a single substance use disorder based on consistent findings from over 200,000 study participants, dropping legal problems and adding craving as criteria, adding cannabis and caffeine withdrawal syndromes, aligning tobacco use disorder criteria with other substance use disorders, and moving gambling disorders to the chapter formerly reserved for substance-related disorders. The proposed changes overcome many problems, while further studies will be needed to address issues for which less data were available.

Objective: The authors examined treatment utilization and outcomes over 2 years among patients admitted to emergency departments with early-phase primary or substance-induced psychosis. The main hypothesis was that patients with substance-induced psychosis would have a more benign course of illness than those with primary psychosis, Method: Using a prospective naturalistic cohort study design, the authors compared 217 patients with early-phase primary psychosis plus substance use and 134 patients with early-phase substance-induced psychosis who presented to psychiatric emergency departments at hospitals in Upper Manhattan. Assessments at baseline and at 6, 12, 18, and 24 months included psychiatric diagnoses, service use, and institutional outcomes using the Psychiatric Research Interview for Substance and Mental Disorders; psychiatric symptoms using the Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale; social, vocational, and family functioning using the World Health Organization Psychiatric Disability Assessment Schedule; and life satisfaction using the Quality of Life Interview. Longitudinal analyses were conducted using generalized estimating equations., Results: Participants with primary psychosis were more likely to receive antipsychotic and mood-stabilizing medications, undergo hospitalizations, and have outpatient psychiatric visits; those with substance-induced psychosis were more likely to receive addiction treatments. Only a minority of each group received minimally adequate treatments. Both groups improved significantly over time on substance dependence, psychotic symptoms, homelessness, and psychosocial outcomes, and few group-by-time interactions emerged., Conclusions: Patients presenting to Upper Manhattan emergency departments with either early-phase primary psychosis or substance-induced psychosis improved steadily over 2 years despite minimal use of mental health and substance abuse services.

Objective: The purpose of this study was to examine the effects of specific personality disorder comorbidity on the course of major depressive disorder in a nationally representative sample., Method: Data were drawn from 1,996 participants in a national survey. Participants who met criteria for major depressive disorder at baseline in face-to-face interviews (in 2001-2002) were reinterviewed 3 years later (in 2004-2005) to determine persistence and recurrence. Predictors included all DSM-IV personality disorders. Control variables included demographic characteristics, other axis I disorders, family and treatment histories, and previously established predictors of the course of major depressive disorder., Results: A total of 15.1% of participants had persistent major depressive disorder, and 7.3% of those who remitted had a recurrence. Univariate analyses indicated that avoidant, borderline, histrionic, paranoid, schizoid, and schizotypal personality disorders all elevated the risk for persistence. With axis I comorbidity controlled, all personality disorders except histrionic personality disorder remained significant. With all other personality disorders controlled, borderline and schizotypal disorders remained significant predictors. In final, multivariate analyses that controlled for age at onset of major depressive disorder, the number of previous episodes, duration of the current episode, family history, and treatment, borderline personality disorder remained a robust predictor of major depressive disorder persistence. Neither personality disorders nor other clinical variables predicted recurrence., Conclusions: In this nationally representative sample of adults with major depressive disorder, borderline personality disorder robustly predicted persistence, a finding that converges with recent clinical studies. Personality psychopathology, particularly borderline personality disorder, should be assessed in all patients with major depressive disorder, considered in prognosis, and addressed in treatment.

Objective: Prescriptions for anxiety medications have increased substantially in recent years. Individuals with anxiety disorders are at risk of nonmedical use of these medications, but information about whether this risk is elevated among patients with a prescription for such medications is lacking. The authors compared risk of nonmedical use in individuals in a national sample with and without a prescription for anxiety medication and identified characteristics associated with nonmedical use., Method: Data were drawn from face-to-face surveys of 34,653 adult participants in the National Epidemiologic Survey on Alcohol and Related Conditions. The risk of nonmedical use of prescription anxiety medication and associated drug use disorders was computed for individuals who had or had not ever received a prescription for anxiety medication; among those who had received a prescription, characteristics associated with nonmedical use were analyzed., Results: Prescription of anxiety medication was associated with lifetime and past-year nonmedical use (odds ratios, 1.6 and 1.9, respectively) and lifetime DSM-IV abuse or dependence (odds ratio, 2.6). Among respondents who received a prescription (N=4,294), nonmedical use was associated with male sex, younger age, white race, history of use of illicit drugs, history of other drug use disorders, and history of illegal behaviors., Conclusions: These results indicate that prescription for anxiety medications is associated with nonmedical use of these medications, although the direction of causality cannot be determined in this study. Although anxiety medications have clinical utility, greater clinical attention should be given to the potential for their abuse among patients at particular risk.

Objective: The course of alcohol disorders in women is often described as "telescoped" compared to that in men, with a later age at initiation of alcohol use but shorter times from use to dependence and treatment. This study examined evidence for such a telescoping effect in the general population and tested birth cohort effects for gender differences., Method: Data from two U.S. national surveys conducted 10 years apart (1991-1992 and 2001-2002) using the same diagnostic instrument (the Alcohol Use Disorder and Associated Disabilities Interview Schedule-IV) were used to analyze five birth cohorts. Age at initiation of alcohol use, time from first use to dependence, and time from dependence to first treatment were analyzed. Interaction terms (cohort by gender; cohort by gender by time) were tested in Cox proportional hazards models., Results: Little evidence was found for a telescoping effect in women. For alcohol use and dependence, cohort and gender interacted, which suggests that gender differences are diminished in more recent cohorts. A three-way interaction of cohort, gender, and time was significant for time from first use to dependence, suggesting that men have a shorter time to dependence, especially in younger cohorts., Conclusions: A telescoping effect is not evident in the general population. Gender differences in the overall hazard of alcohol use and dependence are decreasing in more recent cohorts, while gender differences in time from first use to dependence are increasing. These findings challenge the commonly held notion of a gender-specific course of alcohol disorders and suggest the need for a greater clinical focus on problem drinking in women and further research on accelerated time to dependence in men.

Objective: Although studies have shown disparities between black and white populations in service utilization for mental disorders, little information exists on whether such disparities apply equally across disorders. The objective of this study was to examine racial differences in lifetime prevalence of service utilization for mood and anxiety disorders and for alcohol and drug use disorders, with controls for predisposing, enabling, and need-for-service variables unequally distributed between racial-ethnic groups., Methods: Data were from a face-to-face epidemiologic survey of 32,752 non-Hispanic white or black adults ages 18 and older residing in households and group quarters in the United States. Main outcome measures were treatment for mood, anxiety, and alcohol and drug use disorders., Results: White adults were consistently more likely than black adults to have had treatment for mood disorders (odds ratio [OR]=2.16, 95% confidence interval [CI]=1.80-2.59) and anxiety disorders (OR=1.77, 95% CI=1.43-2.19) after adjustment for predisposing and enabling factors and need for service (severity of disorder). In contrast no evidence of lower service utilization for treatment of alcohol use disorders emerged among black respondents (OR=.87, 95% CI=.69-1.10). Moreover, white respondents with drug use disorders were significantly less likely than black respondents to receive treatment for a drug problem (OR=.64, 95% CI=.47-.88)., Conclusions: Differences in treatment between black and white adults depended on the specific disorder and type of treatment considered. Prevention and intervention strategies should address disorder-specific disparities in services received.

Objective: For patients who are actively using a substance and experience psychotic symptoms, determining whether the psychotic symptoms are due to a primary psychotic disorder or are substance induced is challenging, especially in emergency departments, where historical information is limited. This study examined the accuracy and subsequent treatment implications of emergency department diagnoses among substance-using patients who were having their first psychotic episode., Methods: Emergency department diagnoses for 302 patients were compared with best-estimate longitudinal diagnoses (BELDs) based on research assessments at three time points (baseline, six months, and 12 months)., Results: Of the 223 patients whose symptoms were diagnosed in the emergency department as a primary psychotic disorder, one-quarter were determined by the BELD to have substance-induced psychosis or no psychosis. Overall, the diagnostic agreement was only fair (kappa=.32). Patients with an emergency department diagnosis of primary psychosis were significantly more likely than those with an emergency department diagnosis of substance-induced psychosis to be hospitalized, started on antipsychotic medication, and referred to mental health services instead of treatment for substance use (p<.001). Patients given an emergency department diagnosis of primary psychosis who were found by the BELD to have substance-induced psychosis or no psychosis were significantly more likely to be treated for a psychotic disorder rather than for substance-induced psychosis (p<.001), Conclusions: Clinicians in psychiatric emergency departments appear to have a tendency to attribute psychotic symptoms to a primary psychotic disorder rather than to concurrent substance use. Given that the diagnosis has significant implications for future management, it is important to improve diagnostic approaches in the emergency department.

Objective: The authors' goal was to investigate whether subtypes of DSM-IV depression predict suicidal behavior among patients with substance dependence., Method: Major depression among 602 patients with substance dependence was classified as occurring before dependence, during abstinence, or exclusively during periods of substance use. Analyses of patients with the three types of depression included logistic and linear regression., Results: All three types of depression increased the risk for making a suicide attempt. Major depression that occurred before the patient became substance dependent predicted severity of suicidal intent. Major depression that occurred during abstinence predicted number of attempts., Conclusions: These results suggest the importance of establishing DSM-IV subtypes of depression based on the timing of the occurrence of depression in relation to substance dependence in evaluating suicidal risk among substance-dependent patients.

Objective: The purpose of this study was to investigate the reliability of a new semistructured diagnostic interview, the Psychiatric Research Interview for Substance and Mental Disorders (PRISM), for substance-abusing patients. The reliability of psychiatric diagnoses for individuals who drink heavily or use drugs has been shown to be problematic. The PRISM was designed to improve the reliability for such individuals., Method: A test-retest reliability study of the PRISM was conducted with 172 patients being treated in dual-diagnosis or substance abuse settings., Results: Good to excellent reliability was shown for many diagnoses, including affective disorders, substance use disorders, eating disorders, some anxiety disorders, and psychotic symptoms. The interview has recently been updated for DSM-IV diagnoses., Conclusions: The PRISM offers a method of producing psychiatric diagnoses with improved reliability for patients and other research subjects who have problems with alcohol or drugs.

Is the DSM-III-R category of alcohol abuse validly differentiated from the DSM-III-R category of alcohol dependence, or is abuse primarily a mild, prodromal condition that typically deteriorates into dependence? A 4-year longitudinal epidemiologic study of male drinkers provided data to answer this question. The study used identical questions at baseline and follow-up. At follow-up, 70% of the subjects who were initially classified as alcohol abusers were still abusers or were classified as remitted. This contrasted significantly with outcome in the subjects who initially reported alcohol dependence. Although additional research is needed, these results indicate that alcohol abuse often has a course distinct from that of alcohol dependence.

The authors examined the 2-year course of alcoholism as defined by Research Diagnostic Criteria (RDC) in 127 newly admitted patients with major affective syndromes and concurrent alcoholism at intake. The cumulative probability of remission (at least 6 months free of alcohol problems) in these patients was 0.67. Many of the remissions began within a few weeks of intake; the remaining were distributed over the follow-up period. Of the patients without remissions, 17% died, half by suicide. Diagnoses of schizoaffective disorder, indicators of alcohol dependence, and previous chronicity of alcohol problems predicted poor outcome of alcoholism, but none of these variables predicted subsequent relapse.