<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<!DOCTYPE root>
<article xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink" xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance" xmlns:ali="http://www.niso.org/schemas/ali/1.0/" article-type="research-article" dtd-version="1.2" xml:lang="en"><front><journal-meta><journal-id journal-id-type="publisher-id">Consortium PSYCHIATRICUM</journal-id><journal-title-group><journal-title xml:lang="en">Consortium PSYCHIATRICUM</journal-title><trans-title-group xml:lang="ru"><trans-title>Consortium PSYCHIATRICUM</trans-title></trans-title-group></journal-title-group><issn publication-format="print">2712-7672</issn><issn publication-format="electronic">2713-2919</issn><publisher><publisher-name xml:lang="en">Eco-Vector</publisher-name></publisher></journal-meta><article-meta><article-id pub-id-type="publisher-id">13627</article-id><article-id pub-id-type="doi">10.17816/CP13627</article-id><article-categories><subj-group subj-group-type="toc-heading" xml:lang="en"><subject>RESEARCH</subject></subj-group><subj-group subj-group-type="toc-heading" xml:lang="ru"><subject>ИССЛЕДОВАНИЕ</subject></subj-group><subj-group subj-group-type="article-type"><subject>Research Article</subject></subj-group></article-categories><title-group><article-title xml:lang="en">The Effects of Cognitive Impulsivity on the Duration of Remission in Alcohol-Dependent Patients</article-title><trans-title-group xml:lang="ru"><trans-title>Влияние когнитивной импульсивности у больных алкогольной зависимостью на продолжительность ремиссии</trans-title></trans-title-group></title-group><contrib-group><contrib contrib-type="author"><contrib-id contrib-id-type="orcid">https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7709-3917</contrib-id><contrib-id contrib-id-type="scopus">57211892228</contrib-id><contrib-id contrib-id-type="spin">3902-4570</contrib-id><name-alternatives><name xml:lang="en"><surname>Galkin</surname><given-names>Stanislav A.</given-names></name><name xml:lang="ru"><surname>Галкин</surname><given-names>Станислав Алексеевич</given-names></name></name-alternatives><address><country country="RU">Russian Federation</country></address><bio xml:lang="en"><p>MD, Cand. Sci. (Med.)</p></bio><bio xml:lang="ru"><p>к.м.н.</p></bio><email>s01091994@yandex.ru</email><xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff1"/></contrib></contrib-group><aff-alternatives id="aff1"><aff><institution xml:lang="en">Mental Health Research Institute, Tomsk National Research Medical Center, Russian Academy of Sciences</institution></aff><aff><institution xml:lang="ru">Научно–исследовательский институт психического  здоровья  ФГБНУ  «Томский  национальный  исследовательский  медицинский  центр  Российской академии наук»</institution></aff></aff-alternatives><pub-date date-type="preprint" iso-8601-date="2023-12-15" publication-format="electronic"><day>15</day><month>12</month><year>2023</year></pub-date><pub-date date-type="pub" iso-8601-date="2023-12-22" publication-format="electronic"><day>22</day><month>12</month><year>2023</year></pub-date><volume>4</volume><issue>4</issue><issue-title xml:lang="en"/><issue-title xml:lang="ru"/><fpage>29</fpage><lpage>38</lpage><history><date date-type="received" iso-8601-date="2023-09-13"><day>13</day><month>09</month><year>2023</year></date><date date-type="accepted" iso-8601-date="2023-12-08"><day>08</day><month>12</month><year>2023</year></date></history><permissions><copyright-statement xml:lang="en">Copyright ©; 2023, Galkin S.A.</copyright-statement><copyright-statement xml:lang="ru">Copyright ©; 2023, Галкин С.А.</copyright-statement><copyright-year>2023</copyright-year><copyright-holder xml:lang="en">Galkin S.A.</copyright-holder><copyright-holder xml:lang="ru">Галкин С.А.</copyright-holder><ali:free_to_read xmlns:ali="http://www.niso.org/schemas/ali/1.0/"/><license><ali:license_ref xmlns:ali="http://www.niso.org/schemas/ali/1.0/">https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0</ali:license_ref></license></permissions><self-uri xlink:href="https://consortium-psy.com/jour/article/view/13627">https://consortium-psy.com/jour/article/view/13627</self-uri><abstract xml:lang="en"><p><bold>BACKGROUND:</bold> 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.</p> <p><bold>AIM:</bold> To evaluate the effects of cognitive parameters of impulsivity on the duration of remission in alcohol-dependent patients.</p> <p><bold>METHODS:</bold> 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 (<italic>n</italic>=48) and patients with sustained remission (<italic>n</italic>=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).</p> <p><bold>RESULTS:</bold> 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, <italic>p</italic> &lt;0.001) and decision-making time (H(2, N=134)=18.433, <italic>p</italic> &lt;0.001)] and decision making under uncertainty [IGT: selecting cards from “losing” decks (H(2, N=134)=9.291, <italic>p</italic>=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, <italic>p</italic>=0.049). Decision quality in CGT (z=0.673, <italic>p</italic>=0.999) and IGT scores (z=1.202, <italic>p</italic>=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, <italic>p</italic> &lt;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, <italic>p</italic>=0.044)]. The regression analysis showed that the decision-making quality (t=2.507, <italic>р</italic><italic>=</italic>0.049) and decision-making time (t=3.237, <italic>р</italic><italic>=</italic>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, <italic>р</italic><italic>=</italic>0.043).</p> <p><bold>CONCLUSION:</bold> 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.</p></abstract><trans-abstract xml:lang="ru"><p><bold>ВВЕДЕНИЕ:</bold> Когнитивная импульсивность, проявляющаяся в импульсивности принятия решений и нарушении ингибиторного контроля, отмечается как у лиц, склонных к злоупотреблению алкоголем, так и у больных с зависимостью от алкоголя и других психоактивных веществ, и может влиять на способность поддерживать длительную (стойкую) ремиссию.</p> <p><bold>ЦЕЛЬ:</bold> Оценить влияние когнитивных показателей импульсивности на продолжительность ремиссии больных алкогольной зависимостью.</p> <p><bold>МЕТОДЫ: </bold>В исследовании приняли участие 83 пациента с алкогольной зависимостью и 51 психически здоровый испытуемый в качестве группы контроля. Распределение пациентов по длительности ремиссии было основано на критериях DSM-5. Пациенты были разделены на две группы в зависимости от длительности последней ремиссии: пациенты с неустойчивой ремиссией (<italic>n</italic>=48) и пациенты с устойчивой ремиссией (<italic>n</italic>=35). Импульсивное действие оценивалось с помощью задачи Go/No-Go, которая охватывает компонент торможения реакции (ингибиторный контроль). Оценка импульсивности выбора проводилась с помощью двух когнитивных тестов, которые охватывают ее отдельные компоненты: принятие решений в условиях риска (Кембриджская игровая задача, CGT), и принятие решений в условиях неопределенности (игровая задача Айова, IGT).</p> <p><bold>РЕЗУЛЬТАТЫ:</bold> Исследуемые группы (пациенты и контроль) имели значительные различия по всем доменам импульсивного выбора: принятие решений в условиях риска [CGT: качество принятия решений (H(2, N=134)=30,233, <italic>р</italic> &lt;0,001) и время принятия решений (H(2, N=134)=18,433, <italic>р</italic> &lt;0,001)] и принятие решений в условиях неопределенности [IGT: выбор карт из «проигрышных» колод (H(2, N=134)=9,291, <italic>р</italic>=0,009)]. Группа пациентов с устойчивой алкогольной ремиссией характеризовалась большим временем принятия решений в CGT по сравнению с группой пациентов с неустойчивой ремиссией (z=2,398, <italic>р</italic>=0,049). Качество принятия решений в CGT (z=0,673, <italic>p</italic>=0,999) и результаты IGT (z=1,202, <italic>p</italic>=0,687) между группами пациентов с устойчивой и неустойчивой алкогольной ремиссией статистически значимо не различались. При оценке импульсивного действия обнаружено, что исследуемые группы значительно различались по своей способности подавлять доминирующую поведенческую реакцию при выполнении задачи GNG [ложные нажатия при сигнале «No-Go» (H(2, N=134)=28,851, <italic>р </italic>&lt;0,001)]. Группа пациентов с устойчивой алкогольной ремиссией характеризовалась лучшим подавлением поведенческой реакции на сигнал «No-Go» относительно пациентов с неустойчивой ремиссией [H(2, N=134)=2,743, <italic>р</italic>=0,044]. Результаты регрессионного анализа показали, что качество принятия решений (t=2,507, <italic>р</italic>=0,049), время принятия решений (t=3,237, <italic>р</italic>=0,031) и количество ложных нажатий при появлении сигнала «No-Go» в задаче GNG оказывали статистически значимое влияние на продолжительность ремиссии у пациентов (t=3,091,<italic> р</italic>=0,043).</p> <p><bold>ЗАКЛЮЧЕНИЕ:</bold> Результаты исследования показывают, что нарушение процессов принятия решений и способности подавлять доминирующую поведенческую реакцию оказывают существенное влияние на способность больных алкоголизмом поддерживать длительную ремиссию.</p></trans-abstract><kwd-group xml:lang="en"><kwd>decision making</kwd><kwd>response inhibition</kwd><kwd>alcohol dependence</kwd><kwd>remission</kwd></kwd-group><kwd-group xml:lang="ru"><kwd>принятие решений</kwd><kwd>торможение реакции</kwd><kwd>алкогольная зависимость</kwd><kwd>ремиссия</kwd></kwd-group><funding-group><award-group><funding-source><institution-wrap><institution xml:lang="en">Russian Science Foundation</institution></institution-wrap><institution-wrap><institution xml:lang="ru">Российский научный фонд</institution></institution-wrap></funding-source><award-id>№ 22-75-00023</award-id></award-group></funding-group></article-meta></front><body></body><back><ref-list><ref id="B1"><label>1.</label><mixed-citation>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.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B2"><label>2.</label><mixed-citation>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.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B3"><label>3.</label><mixed-citation>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.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B4"><label>4.</label><mixed-citation>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.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B5"><label>5.</label><mixed-citation>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.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B6"><label>6.</label><mixed-citation>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.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B7"><label>7.</label><mixed-citation>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.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B8"><label>8.</label><mixed-citation>Avtonomov DA. Impulsivity in narcology. Narcology. 2018;17(1):48–53. doi: 10.25557/1682-8313.2018.01.48-53. Russian.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B9"><label>9.</label><mixed-citation>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.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B10"><label>10.</label><mixed-citation>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.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B11"><label>11.</label><mixed-citation>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.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B12"><label>12.</label><mixed-citation>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.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B13"><label>13.</label><mixed-citation>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.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B14"><label>14.</label><mixed-citation>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.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B15"><label>15.</label><mixed-citation>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.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B16"><label>16.</label><mixed-citation>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.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B17"><label>17.</label><mixed-citation>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.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B18"><label>18.</label><mixed-citation>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.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B19"><label>19.</label><mixed-citation>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.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B20"><label>20.</label><mixed-citation>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.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B21"><label>21.</label><mixed-citation>Association AP. Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders. 5th ed. American Psychiatric Association: Washington, DC, USA; 2013.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B22"><label>22.</label><mixed-citation>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.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B23"><label>23.</label><mixed-citation>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.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B24"><label>24.</label><mixed-citation>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.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B25"><label>25.</label><mixed-citation>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.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B26"><label>26.</label><mixed-citation>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.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B27"><label>27.</label><mixed-citation>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.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B28"><label>28.</label><mixed-citation>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.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B29"><label>29.</label><mixed-citation>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.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B30"><label>30.</label><mixed-citation>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.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B31"><label>31.</label><mixed-citation>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.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B32"><label>32.</label><mixed-citation>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.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B33"><label>33.</label><mixed-citation>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.</mixed-citation></ref></ref-list></back></article>
