4 results
3294 HIGH INTENSITY BINGE DRINKING AND STIMULATING EFFECTS IN HUMAN LABORATORY STUDIES OF ALCOHOL SELF-ADMINISTRATION
- Julia Swan, Joshua L.Gowin, Bethany L. Stangl, Vijay A. Ramchandani
-
- Journal:
- Journal of Clinical and Translational Science / Volume 3 / Issue s1 / March 2019
- Published online by Cambridge University Press:
- 26 March 2019, pp. 145-146
-
- Article
-
- You have access Access
- Open access
- Export citation
-
OBJECTIVES/SPECIFIC AIMS: Alcohol use disorder (AUD) has previously been studied using Timeline Followback (TLFB) interview measures and administration of alcohol within laboratory sessions. However, most of those studies supplied alcohol orally and analyzed drinking across a range of drinking intensity and frequency measures. High intensity binge drinking, i.e., drinking alcohol at multiple levels of the binge threshold (5+ drinks for males, 4+ drinks for females) has been identified as a significant risk factor for developing AUD. In the present study, we examined the relationship between high intensity binge drinking with the behavioral and subjective response to intravenous alcohol in a lab study. METHODS/STUDY POPULATION: Two hundred participants completed a 90-Day TLFB interview, wherein the maximum number of drinks in a day established the participant’s binge level status as a Non-Binger (N = 37), Binge Level 1 (N = 96), Binge Level 2 (N = 44), or Binge Level 3 (N = 22). Binge Level 1 corresponds with at least one binge (4-7 drinks for women, 5-9 drinks for men); Binge Level 2 requires at least twice the binge level (8-11 drinks for women, 10-14 drinks for men); and Level 3 necessitates a participant to drink at least three times the binge level (12+ drinks for women, 15+ drinks for men) on one day. Non-Bingers had no binge level drinking in the 90-day interview. Participants also underwent a 150-minute intravenous-alcohol self-infusion, where participants would press a button to receive an infusion of an ethanol solution. During this, participants also completed subjective questionnaires including the Alcohol Urge Questionnaire (AUQ), Biphasic Alcohol Effects Scale (BAES), and Drug Effects Questionnaire (DEQ). Kruskal-Wallis and chi-square tests were used to examine the effect of group on alcohol infusion and subjective response measures. RESULTS/ANTICIPATED RESULTS: A chi-square test for association showed significant statistical differences by groups in reaching binge level status (0.08% breath alcohol content) during the alcohol infusion session in the lab, X2 (3) = 23.321, p < 0.001. However, mean difference was not significantly different between Binge Level 2 and Binge Level 3 (0 < 1 < 2 = 3). Binge level groups showed significant differences in the number of button presses during the lab session (H(3) = 36.955, p < 0.001), peak breath alcohol concentration in the lab session (H(3) = 19.870, p < 0.001), and total binges in the TLFB (H(3) = 90.296, p < 0.001). Increased self-administration measures were proportional to the binge intensity level across groups, with no differences between Binge Level 2 and Binge Level 3 (0 < 1 < 2 = 3). For subjective measures, a Kruskal-Wallis H median test showed statistically significant differences between groups in the AUQ score following the priming infusion, H(3) = 11.489, p = 0.009, with bingers at all levels reporting higher scores compared to non-bingers (0 < 1 = 2 = 3). There was also a statistically significant difference between groups in the BAES Stimulation score following the priming infusion, H(3) = 9.023, p = 0.029, with differences seen between non-bingers and level 2 and level 3 bingers (0 = 1 < 2 = 3). DISCUSSION/SIGNIFICANCE OF IMPACT: This study demonstrated that high intensity binge drinkers were more likely to reach binge level and overall greater alcohol consumption during a human lab alcohol administration study. Binge intensity level was also associated with higher stimulation and urge for alcohol following priming exposures, which may in turn drive the consumption of greater amounts of alcohol, which we know to be associated with greater risk for AUD.
3376 Super Bingers: Traits and Patterns Associated with High-Intensity Drinking
- James Keoni Morris, Julia E. Swan, Josh L. Gowin, Melanie L. Schwandt, Nancy Diazgranados, Vijay A. Ramchandani
-
- Journal:
- Journal of Clinical and Translational Science / Volume 3 / Issue s1 / March 2019
- Published online by Cambridge University Press:
- 26 March 2019, pp. 154-155
-
- Article
-
- You have access Access
- Open access
- Export citation
-
OBJECTIVES/SPECIFIC AIMS: This study attempts to evaluate the drinking patterns and traits of individuals who partake in high intensity drinking, defined as binge drinking at 2 or more times the minimum binge count (4 drinks for females, 5 drinks for males). METHODS/STUDY POPULATION: We analyzed data from non-treatment seeking volunteers enrolled in NIAAA screening protocols. The sample included 706 males and 474 females ranging in age from 18 to 91. Subjects were assigned to one of four groups (Non-Binge, Level 1, Level 2, Level 3) based on the highest binge session reported in their Timeline Followback questionnaire. The criteria for each group were different for males and females based on the current NIAAA definitions of binge drinking. The cutoffs for females were 0-3 drinks for Non-Binge, 4-7 drinks for Level 1, 8-11 drinks for Level 2, and 12+ drinks for Level 3. The male drink cutoffs were 0-4, 5-9, 10-14, and 15+ respectively. We looked at various drinking measures (Timeline Followback, Self-Reported Effects of Alcohol (SRE), Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test (AUDIT)) and trait measures (UPPS-P Impulsivity Scale, Barratt’s Impulsiveness Scale, Buss Perry Aggression Questionnaire) to identify mean differences between groups. RESULTS/ANTICIPATED RESULTS: There were significant differences in drinking patterns between the groups for both males and females. Number of drinking days, average drinks per drinking day, and number of heavy drinking days all increased as binge level increased. There were also significant differences between groups in males for trait measures. Level 2 and Level 3 bingers scored significantly higher on impulsivity and aggression than the Level 1 and Non-Binge groups. Ongoing analyses are examining differences among binge groups on other measures including SRE and AUDIT. Future analyses will explore potential mechanisms underlying the relationships between trait measures and binge drinking using structural equation modeling. DISCUSSION/SIGNIFICANCE OF IMPACT: This study found significant differences between high-intensity drinkers, or “super bingers”, and lighter binge and non-binge drinkers. Super bingers showed an overall heavier drinking pattern across measures. The elevated aggression, impulsivity, and overall heavy drinking patterns of super bingers suggest a behavioral profile that makes this group in particular at higher risk for developing alcohol use disorder and related problems. These traits and behaviors may also help identify targets for treatment interventions for alcohol use disorder.
2226 Influence of alcohol use disorder and comorbid psychopathology on discounting of delayed rewards
- Julia Swan, Joshua L. Gowin, Matthew E. Sloan, Reza Momenan, Vijay A. Ramchandani
-
- Journal:
- Journal of Clinical and Translational Science / Volume 2 / Issue S1 / June 2018
- Published online by Cambridge University Press:
- 21 November 2018, p. 43
-
- Article
-
- You have access Access
- Open access
- Export citation
-
OBJECTIVES/SPECIFIC AIMS: Alcohol use disorder (AUD) has been associated with greater discounting of delayed rewards relative to healthy controls. The relationship, however, has been inconsistent, likely because previous studies had relatively small sample sizes and inadequately controlled for comorbid psychopathology and substance use. In the present study, we analyzed one of the largest clinical research samples to date to assess the influence of alcohol use on delay discounting, and examine the influence of confounding variables including substance use disorder. METHODS/STUDY POPULATION: In total, 801 participants completed a delay discounting task where they chose between smaller, immediately available monetary amounts ($0–$90) and $100 available after a delay of 7–30 days. Delay discounting behavior was summarized as the natural log of k, a constant derived from a hyperbolic discounting equation. Participants also completed Structured Clinical Interviews for DSM-IV disorders, 90-day Timeline Followback interviews, and the Fagerström Test for Nicotine Dependence. Participants were divided into 4 groups: healthy controls (n=298), past AUD (n=69), and current AUD with (n=224) and without (n=210) comorbid psychopathology or substance use disorder. Kruskal-Wallis test was used to examine the effect of group on delay discounting. RESULTS/ANTICIPATED RESULTS: There were significant differences in the distribution of delay discounting scores by group (H=80.195, p<0.001). Healthy controls and past AUD showed lower levels of delay discounting than current AUD and current AUD+comorbidity groups with medium effect sizes (Cohen’s d=−0.635 and Cohen’s d=−0.614, respectively). There were nearly no differences between current AUD with and without comorbid psychopathology groups (Cohen’s d=−0.024). The past AUD group showed almost no difference relative to the healthy control group (Cohen’s d=0.007). DISCUSSION/SIGNIFICANCE OF IMPACT: Individuals with current AUD were shown to discount rewards greater than those without current AUD, although comorbid psychopathology did not significantly affect discounting. Surprisingly, individuals with past AUD were more similar to controls than to those with current AUD. Our findings suggest that current problematic alcohol use is related to greater discounting of delayed rewards, but comorbid diagnoses do not significantly impact this relationship. However, once problematic patterns of alcohol use cease, delay discounting appears to return to levels comparable to healthy controls.
Looking Backward, Looking Forward: MLA Members Speak
- April Alliston, Elizabeth Ammons, Jean Arnold, Nina Baym, Sandra L. Beckett, Peter G. Beidler, Roger A. Berger, Sandra Bermann, J.J. Wilson, Troy Boone, Alison Booth, Wayne C. Booth, James Phelan, Marie Borroff, Ihab Hassan, Ulrich Weisstein, Zack Bowen, Jill Campbell, Dan Campion, Jay Caplan, Maurice Charney, Beverly Lyon Clark, Robert A. Colby, Thomas C. Coleman III, Nicole Cooley, Richard Dellamora, Morris Dickstein, Terrell Dixon, Emory Elliott, Caryl Emerson, Ann W. Engar, Lars Engle, Kai Hammermeister, N. N. Feltes, Mary Anne Ferguson, Annie Finch, Shelley Fisher Fishkin, Jerry Aline Flieger, Norman Friedman, Rosemarie Garland-Thomson, Sandra M. Gilbert, Laurie Grobman, George Guida, Liselotte Gumpel, R. K. Gupta, Florence Howe, Cathy L. Jrade, Richard A. Kaye, Calhoun Winton, Murray Krieger, Robert Langbaum, Richard A. Lanham, Marilee Lindemann, Paul Michael Lützeler, Thomas J. Lynn, Juliet Flower MacCannell, Michelle A. Massé, Irving Massey, Georges May, Christian W. Hallstein, Gita May, Lucy McDiarmid, Ellen Messer-Davidow, Koritha Mitchell, Robin Smiles, Kenyatta Albeny, George Monteiro, Joel Myerson, Alan Nadel, Ashton Nichols, Jeffrey Nishimura, Neal Oxenhandler, David Palumbo-Liu, Vincent P. Pecora, David Porter, Nancy Potter, Ronald C. Rosbottom, Elias L. Rivers, Gerhard F. Strasser, J. L. Styan, Marianna De Marco Torgovnick, Gary Totten, David van Leer, Asha Varadharajan, Orrin N. C. Wang, Sharon Willis, Louise E. Wright, Donald A. Yates, Takayuki Yokota-Murakami, Richard E. Zeikowitz, Angelika Bammer, Dale Bauer, Karl Beckson, Betsy A. Bowen, Stacey Donohue, Sheila Emerson, Gwendolyn Audrey Foster, Jay L. Halio, Karl Kroeber, Terence Hawkes, William B. Hunter, Mary Jambus, Willard F. King, Nancy K. Miller, Jody Norton, Ann Pellegrini, S. P. Rosenbaum, Lorie Roth, Robert Scholes, Joanne Shattock, Rosemary T. VanArsdel, Alfred Bendixen, Alarma Kathleen Brown, Michael J. Kiskis, Debra A. Castillo, Rey Chow, John F. Crossen, Robert F. Fleissner, Regenia Gagnier, Nicholas Howe, M. Thomas Inge, Frank Mehring, Hyungji Park, Jahan Ramazani, Kenneth M. Roemer, Deborah D. Rogers, A. LaVonne Brown Ruoff, Regina M. Schwartz, John T. Shawcross, Brenda R. Silver, Andrew von Hendy, Virginia Wright Wexman, Britta Zangen, A. Owen Aldridge, Paula R. Backscheider, Roland Bartel, E. M. Forster, Milton Birnbaum, Jonathan Bishop, Crystal Downing, Frank H. Ellis, Roberto Forns-Broggi, James R. Giles, Mary E. Giles, Susan Blair Green, Madelyn Gutwirth, Constance B. Hieatt, Titi Adepitan, Edgar C. Knowlton, Jr., Emanuel Mussman, Sally Todd Nelson, Robert O. Preyer, David Diego Rodriguez, Guy Stern, James Thorpe, Robert J. Wilson, Rebecca S. Beal, Joyce Simutis, Betsy Bowden, Sara Cooper, Wheeler Winston Dixon, Tarek el Ariss, Richard Jewell, John W. Kronik, Wendy Martin, Stuart Y. McDougal, Hugo Méndez-Ramírez, Ivy Schweitzer, Armand E. Singer, G. Thomas Tanselle, Tom Bishop, Mary Ann Caws, Marcel Gutwirth, Christophe Ippolito, Lawrence D. Kritzman, James Longenbach, Tim McCracken, Wolfe S. Molitor, Diane Quantic, Gregory Rabassa, Ellen M. Tsagaris, Anthony C. Yu, Betty Jean Craige, Wendell V. Harris, J. Hillis Miller, Jesse G. Swan, Helene Zimmer-Loew, Peter Berek, James Chandler, Hanna K. Charney, Philip Cohen, Judith Fetterley, Herbert Lindenberger, Julia Reinhard Lupton, Maximillian E. Novak, Richard Ohmann, Marjorie Perloff, Mark Reynolds, James Sledd, Harriet Turner, Marie Umeh, Flavia Aloya, Regina Barreca, Konrad Bieber, Ellis Hanson, William J. Hyde, Holly A. Laird, David Leverenz, Allen Michie, J. Wesley Miller, Marvin Rosenberg, Daniel R. Schwarz, Elizabeth Welt Trahan, Jean Fagan Yellin
-
- Journal:
- PMLA / Publications of the Modern Language Association of America / Volume 115 / Issue 7 / December 2000
- Published online by Cambridge University Press:
- 23 October 2020, pp. 1986-2078
- Print publication:
- December 2000
-
- Article
- Export citation