Vulnerabilty to alcoholism

Is the Impulsive Behaviour that Precedes Addiction Hardwired into the Brain?

Posted on by alcoholicsguide

In various blogs we have forwarded the idea that emotional and stress dysregulation are that the heart of addiction and alcoholism and are also possible present in those at risk to these disorders.

Essentially we suggest that the behavioural endpoint of addictive behaviours, the distress based impulsivity (negative urgency) seen in alcoholics and addicts which shapes decision making may be the consequence of chronic neurotoxic activity (as the consequence of chronic alcohol and drug use)  on brain areas which have a pre-existing impairments or vulnerability such as brain regions involved in emotional regulation, processing, inhibition and stress and reward response.

Here we cite an article (1) which looks at some of these brain regions, specifically those involved in emotional regulation and impulsivity and considers whether these deficits may be “hardwired” into the brain in terms of white and grey matter impairments.

 

Brain areas actively developing during adolescence include the prefrontal cortex, limbic system areas, and white matter myelin ( electrically insulating material that forms a layer, the myelin sheath – the yellow insulation below), usually around only the axon of a neuron. It is essential for the proper functioning of the nervous system.)

400px-Neuron_Hand-tuned.svg

These areas serving cognitive, behavioral, and emotional regulation may be particularly vulnerable to adverse alcohol effects.

Alternatively, deficits or developmental delays in these structures and their functions may underlie liability to accelerated alcohol use trajectories in adolescence.

The prefrontal cortex, limbic brain regions, white matter ( composed of bundles of myelinated nerve cell axons which connect various grey matter areas (the locations of nerve cell bodies) of the brain to each other (see below – grey on outside, white inside) and carry nerve impulses between neurons. Myelin acts as an insulator, increasing the speed of transmission of all nerve signals, and reward circuits undergo active development during adolescence (Chambers et al., 2003; Spear, 2000).

 

250px-Human_brain_right_dissected_lateral_view_description

 

These structures and their functions, involving behavioral, emotional and cognitive regulation, may be particularly vulnerable to the adverse effects of alcohol exposure during adolescence.

Delays or deficits in the development of neural substrates necessary for these psychological regulation abilities to fully develop may be termed neurodevelopmental dysmaturation.

download (6)

 

Psychological Dysregulation

The development of accelerated alcohol involvement in adolescence is not an isolated phenomenon, but is typically presaged by persistent behavioral characteristics including attentional deficits, conduct problems, and irritability (Chassin et al., 1999; Clark et al., 1997a, 2005; Tapert et al., 2002).

Two main psychological factors have been identified: (1) Behavioral Undercontrol, comprised of conduct disorder symptoms and personality characteristics including aggression and diminished constraint, and (2) Negative Emotionality, comprised of depression, anxiety and stress reactivity variables (Martin et al., 2000).

These two factors were significantly correlated. These correlated characteristics have been hypothesized to comprise the early phenotypic manifestations of a core liability for SUDs (Tarter et al., 1999).

The proposed construct manifested by these psychopathologic features has been termed psychological dysregulation (Clark and Winters, 2002). Psychological dysregulation is a deficiency in the ability to regulate attention, emotions and behavior in response to environmental challenges. Psychological regulation is thus the ability to modulate prepotent responses in order to optimize reward opportunities. The skills involved in psychological regulation include executive cognitive functioning (ECF), behavioral inhibition and emotional management.

Deficiencies in psychological regulation may be the result of delays or persistent deficits in the acquisition of behavioral, emotional, and cognitive regulation skills.

Adolescents at risk for developing SUDs exhibit deficits in psychological regulation. Childhood psychological dysregulation, or neurobehaviour disinhibition, correlates with parental substance use disorders (SUDs) and prospectively predicts adolescent alcohol and other substance use as well as related disorders (Clark et al., 2005; Tarter et al., 2003).

The psychological dysregulation dimension integrates several psycho patholological dimensions heretofore considered distinct, including affective disorders and SUDS themselves (Krueger et al., 2002).

Neurobiological Basis of Psychological Dysregulation

The functions subsumed under the construct of psychological dysregulation are thought to be served by the prefrontal cortex (Koechlin and Summerfield, 2007). The capabilities that comprise psychological regulation improve during adolescence (Levin et al., 1991; Welsh et al., 1991). The ongoing development of the prefrontal cortex has been hypothesized to be the primary neurobiological foundation for the advancement of these abilities (Happaney et al., 2004; Spear, 2000). Developmental abnormalities in the frontal cortex have been found in children and adolescents with behavioral problems reflecting psychological dysregulation (Rubia et al., 2000; Spear, 2000).

Diffusion tensor imaging (DTI) studies  indicated that white matter organization increases from early childhood to young adulthood (Klingberg et al., 1999; Nagy et al., 2004; Schmithorst et al., 2002; Zhang et al., 2005).White matter development may underlie advancing executive functioning. The prefrontal cortex is a brain region undergoing relatively late gray matter pruning, and volumes of gray matter appear to decrease over adolescence (Gogtay et al., 2004; Lenroot and Giedd, 2006; Sowell et al., 2001, 2004). Unlike grey matter volume, white matter volume appears to increase during adolescence, particularly in the prefrontal area (Ashtari et al., 2007;Barnea-Goraly et al., 2005; Lenroot and Giedd, 2006).

 

scientificamerican0308-54-I1

 

 

White Matter Development and Alcohol Exposure

Selective white matter loss has been reported among adults with Alcohol Use Disorders (AUDs) (Carlen et al., 1978, 1986) and with fMRI (Agartz et al., 2003), and postmortem specimens (Krill et al., 1997).  Compared with controls, adolescents with AUDs have been found to have smaller prefrontal white matter volumes (DeBellis et al., 2005). Prefrontal grey and white matter volumes were compared in adolescents with AUDs. Compared with control subjects, subjects with AUDs had significantly smaller prefrontal white matter volumes.Marijuana use has also been found to be associated with smaller white matter volumes in adolescents (Medina et al., 2007b). While these volumetric findings suggest problematic frontal development among adolescents with AUD, the emergence of neuroimaging techniques developed to examine white matter organization may prove to be more specifically relevant to understanding the effects of alcohol on neurodevelopmental maturation.

Changes in gene expression may be involved in alteration of white matter structure in AUDs.  In a postmortem study, myelin-related genes were found to be down-regulated in the AUD group (Lewohl et al., 2000).

While evidence has been presented that alcohol consumption may disrupt white matter organization, the possibility remains that delayed or diminished white matter organization may presage alcohol involvement and constitute a risk factor for AUDs. Immaturity of white matter development and the related deficits in the functional integration of brain areas may in part explain individual differences in psychological regulation during adolescence. For example, disruptive behavior disorders in childhood, particularly conduct disorder, have been found to predict accelerated trajectories of alcohol use, cannabis use, and substance-related problems in adolescence (Clark et al., 1999).

Limbic System Development and Alcohol Exposure

The limbic system is central to the processing of affective stimuli, the successful formation of new memories, and the implementation of related responses. Limbic system structures, including the hippocampus and amygdala, may be susceptible to alcohol-induced dysmaturation.

Smaller hippocampal volumes have been reported in adults with AUDs compared with control adults (Sullivan et al., 1995). As hippocampal development progresses in adolescence (Gogtay et al., 2006), this brain area may be particularly susceptible to the adverse effects of alcohol involvement during this developmental period.

DeBellis et al. (2000) compared the hippocampal volumes of 12 adolescents and young adults with adolescent-onset AUD to those of 24 control subjects. Both left and right hippocampi were significantly smaller in AUD subjects compared to the volumes in controls. Specifically, left hippocampal volumes were smaller in teens with AUD than demographically similar controls, and youth with greater severity of AUD had the smallest left hippocampal volumes (Medina et al., 2007a; Nagel et al., 2005).

The amygdala may also be important for understanding the neurodevelopmental effects of alcohol exposure. The amygdala, along with ventral striatum, has been hypothesized to be involved in reward mechanisms and thereby critical for understanding alcohol use trajectories (Koob, 1999). Amygdala volumes have been found to be relatively smaller in high-risk older adolescents and adults with SUDs compared to that in control subjects (Hill et al., 2001; Makris et al., 2004). Lack of correlation with use levels has led to the suggestion that this may be a predisposing characteristics rather than a substance effect.

Interacting brain areas are involved in reward processing (McClure et al., 2004), motivation (Chambers et al., 2003), and decision-making (Verdejo-Garcia et al., 2006).  The interactions between the prefrontal cortex and subcortical areas, including the amygdala and nucleus accumbens, constitute the neurocircuitry involved in reward responding. In the affective component of reward responding, the amygdala appears to be a network node involved in reactivity to emotional stimuli (Hariri et al., 2006; Schwartz et al., 2003). An understanding of the adolescent development of neural circuits underlying reward processing and decision making is central to considering the role of these systems in the development of alcohol involvement.

Impulsivity, defined as acting without forethought, progressively decreases from childhood into adulthood. This change has been thought to occur as a result of neuromaturation in the prefrontal cortex (Casey et al., 2005).

The generation of behaviors optimizing long-term reward opportunities often involves behavioral inhibition. The activation of prefrontal cortical areas during response inhibition tasks has been found to increase from childhood through adolescence, a change corresponding to the development of abilities to suppress prepotent behaviors (Luna and Sweeney, 2004; Luna et al., 2004). The ability to select an optimally adaptive behavioral response while suppressing a predominant or prepotent response with problematic consequences defines impulse control and is fundamental to psychological regulation skills. Improved abilities in response inhibition and related prefrontal activation during adolescence are thought to involve maturation of functional connectivity subserved by ongoing myelination.

Adolescents with psychopathology predictive of SUDs, similar to adults with alcohol dependence, have difficulty with behavioral inhibition during laboratory tasks (Bjork et al., 2004a; Dougherty et al., 2003; Schweinsburg et al., 2004). Furthermore, adolescents with histories of substantial marijuana use, compared with control adolescents, showed more activation in frontal cortical areas during behavioral inhibition tasks (Tapert et al., 2007). More activitation suggests greater effort was required by the marijuana using group.

 

References

1.  Clark, D. B., Thatcher, D. L., & Tapert, S. F. (2008). Alcohol, psychological dysregulation, and adolescent brain development. Alcoholism: Clinical and Experimental Research, 32(3), 375-385.

 

What makes some children of alcoholics vulnerable, and some resilient?

Posted on by alcoholicsguide

I come from a family of four siblings, two of whom are alcoholic and two who are not. I have often wondered why this is the case? Why is it the case that certain children of alcoholic parents will grow up to become alcoholics and why some will not? What is it that makes certain children vulnerable to alcoholism and other children, from the very same family, protected. What do these children have that protects them from later alcoholism?

This is especially important to know in terms of prevention strategies to help children at risk.

Obviously environment has an impact on vulnerability but does an inherited protectiveness help prevent this sometimes dysfunctional and abusive childhood environment of alcoholic parenting from having the same impact as those children who have inherited a genetic vulnerability?

Throughout our blogs has been a thread suggesting alcoholics, and children of alcoholics, may have difficulties in processing and regulating emotions. Is this the vulnerability, is there a difference in affective/emotional circuitry in the brain?

We cite a very interesting article here  Affective circuitry and risk for alcoholism in late adolescence: Differences in frontostriatal responses between vulnerable and resilient children of alcoholic parents

in setting out an argument that children of alcoholics who are at greater risk of later alcoholism may have inherited impairments in brain neural circuitry which is responsible for affective/emotional processing.

Children of alcoholics (COAs) are at elevated risk for alcohol use disorders (AUD), yet not all COAs will develop AUD. One aim of this study was to identify neural activation mechanisms that may mark protection or vulnerability to AUD in COAs.

 

Thoughtful little girl

 

Some differences between alcohol abusers and control samples may precede alcoholism onset and thus constitute markers of precursive risk. After all, behavioral and affective markers early in life can predict later alcoholism (Caspi et al., 1996; Mayzer et al., 2001). Thus, it is reasonable to hypothesize that pre-alcoholic differences in the functioning of relevant neural systems will be related to risk for alcoholism.

In hoping to identify neural activation mechanisms that may mark protection or vulnerability to AUD in children of alcoholic fathers, the guiding conceptual framework was that the functioning of affective and behavioral regulation networks in the brain may serve as such mechanisms.

Consistent with that framework, the resilient and vulnerable groups were distinguished from one another by remarkably consistent inverse or opposite patterns of activation in the brain in response to the processing of emotional stimuli and which were most apparent with regard to negative affective stimuli and the vulnerable group.

These results suggest separate pathways of risk and resilience in the COA’s. First, the COA group that was not prone to early problem drinking (the resilient group) had more activation of the orbital frontal gyrus (OFG) than controls in response particularly to negative affect stimuli, but also to some extent in response to positive affect stimuli. The OFG is involved in the monitoring and evaluation of the affective value of stimuli, allowing for appropriate behavioral responses (Kringelbach and Rolls, 2004; Rolls, 2004).

The resilient group also had increased left insula activation to negative words. The insula is involved in evaluating internally generated emotions and the monitoring of ongoing internal emotional state (Phan et al., 2002).

The present findings, then, are consistent with the hypothesis that resilient youth have enhanced monitoring of emotionally arousing stimuli, even compared to typically developing youth. Yet, in an important nuance, they did not suppress the emotional experience.

They were prepared to modify behavioral response while maintaining affective response to these stimuli. This pattern of response in resilient youth may represent increased flexibility in emotional and social behavior.  These youth may be exhibiting precisely an ability to delay external response to arousing stimuli, while internally processing those stimuli. In short, this may be a “reflective” pattern of approach to the world.

It is not difficult to speculate how this pattern might protect these at risk youth from substance misuse: they are able to respond to the emotional stimuli, but demonstrate enhanced monitoring that may allow for the inhibition of inappropriate responding, buying time for flexible response options based on well-processed information.

Interestingly, the vulnerable group displayed no differences from the control group in emotional monitoring and behavioral regulation systems (OFG and insula), suggesting that weakness in that system is not a risk factor. Rather, they demonstrated over-activation of DMPFC and an atypical under-activation of key emotion processing regions (particularly extended amygdala and ventral striatum). This pattern was more notable in regard to negative affect, it was also observed to a lesser extent with positive affect.

All of this may be consistent with a reactive approach to the world, in which affect is not fully processed.

Supporting this interpretation, neuroimaging studies have consistently shown the involvement of the DMPFC with conscious self-monitoring of emotional responses (Beauregard et al., 2001; Kuchinke et al., 2006; Levesque et al., 2003; Levesque et al., 2004; Phan et al., 2005). For example, during the voluntary suppression of negative affect in healthy adults, activation in the dorsal medial and lateral prefrontal cortex increased and that in the nucleus accumbens and extended amygdala decreased (Phan et al., 2005). It has been suggested that emotional information is conveyed from limbic regions to the prefrontal cortex allowing conscious, voluntary emotional self-regulation (Levesque et al., 2003; Levesque et al., 2004).

Therefore, one interpretation of the present findings is that the vulnerable youth were recruiting an emotional control system that was suppressing emotional response.

 

References

Heitzeg, M. M., Nigg, J. T., Yau, W. Y. W., Zubieta, J. K., & Zucker, R. A. (2008). Affective circuitry and risk for alcoholism in late adolescence: differences in frontostriatal responses between vulnerable and resilient children of alcoholic parents. Alcoholism: Clinical and Experimental Research, 32(3), 414-426.

 

Do alcoholics drive through life with Faulty Brakes!

Posted on by alcoholicsguide

There has been a lot of debate in the last thirty – forty years about genetic inheritance – with at least half of children of alcoholic families at risk for later alcoholism. What is less known is what exactly is inherited in our genes? What marks us out for later alcoholism? Prior to drinking are there aspects of our behaviour, personality or emotional responding that marks us out compared to so-called normal healthy types.

Recently research has looked at brain systems which overlap in decision making such as cognitive control over impulsive behaviour and also emotional processing. Children from alcoholics seem to have difficulties with both these overlapping circuits in the brain – they are not only impulsive but also do not seem to process emotions in the same way their “health” peers do. Research has also begun  to show that emotional processing is indeed important to making decisions, as is the ability to inhibit impulsive responses.

It seems  young alcoholics in the making, are not using our emotions  to make decisions and  are also prone to being impulsive. This difficulty with making decisions must shape all other future decisions ?

Youth for families with a history of alcoholism (FH+) are more likely to engage in early adolescent alcohol use (1), they may be more prone to experience the neurotoxic effects of alcohol use during adolescence.

_54075099_teenage_girl_drinking_

Heavy alcohol use during adolescence is related to poorer neuropsychological functioning, including response inhibition (2), working memory (3-5), and decision-making (6).

Neuroimaging studies have shown that alcohol abusing teens have atypical grey matter volume in the PFC (7,8), and subcortical structures, such as the hippocampus (9,10) OFC and the amgydala.

Further, they have reduced integrity of white matter pathways, in both long-range connections between frontal and parietal brain regions as well as in pathways connecting subcortical and higher-order brain areas (11,12).

FMRI studies have found reduced BOLD response in adolescent alcohol abusers
in brain regions important affective decision-making (13).

The raging debate in research has been to whether these deficits are a consequence of heavy alcohol use or if genetic and environmental factors, such as family history of alcoholism, may contribute.

Risk Factor for Alcohol Use Disorders (AUDs): Family History of Alcoholism

The observation that alcoholism runs in families has long been documented
(14-16). Over the past few decades, adoption (17,18) and twin (19)
studies have suggested that there is an increased likelihood of individuals with a family history of alcoholism to develop the disorder themselves (20, 21).

These studies indicate that familial alcoholism is one of the most robust predictors of the development of an AUD during one’s lifetime. Furthermore, this risk factor appears to be stable over time, since it also predicts the chronicity of alcohol dependence at multiple time points (22).
This indicates that higher familial density is often associated with greater
risk (23), with genetic vulnerability accounting for about 30-50% of
individual risk (24-26).

 

One of the best characterized findings in individuals with familial alcoholism are greater impulsivity and difficulties in response inhibition which are commonly seen in this population (27,28), and FH+ individuals are less able to delay reward gratification compared with their peers (29).

Emotional processing and its relationship with executive control has received much less
attention in FH+ individuals.

Alcohol Use Disorders and Emotional Processing

Emotion Recognition and Affective Processing – Research suggests that alcohol use disorder (AUDs)  are associated with deficits in emotion recognition
(30-33), which may be related to atypical brain structure and functioning observed in the
limbic system among alcoholics (34-37).

Alcoholics not only tend to overestimate the intensity of emotions seen in faces  but they also make more negative emotional attributions and often confuse one emotion for another, such as mislabeling disgust as anger or contempt (32). Additionally, these deficits seem to be specific to alcoholism, since alcoholics, both recently abstinent and long-term abstinent, perform poorer on emotion recognition tasks than individuals with other drug abuse history (38). Alcoholics have also been shown to have slower reaction time when recognizing emotions (39).
Furthermore, poorer accuracy on emotion recognition tasks in alcoholics does not improve across the duration of the task, even though better performance is seen over time with other drug abusers (38).

Polysubstance abusing adults, the majority of whom were alcohol abusers, showed emotion recognition deficits on angry, disgusted, fearful, and sad faces (40). Based on the evidence of emotion recognition deficits in alcoholics, it is necessary to determine whether similar difficulties are present in FH+ youth that could be disruptive to emotional functioning and may contribute to the ultimately higher prevalence of alcohol abuse in this population.

Ultimately we may be observing here external emotional processing difficulties in the same manner we observed “internal” emotional processing difficulties in those with alexithymia, the reduced ability to “read” internal emotions of which a majority of alcoholics appear to suffer.

In summary, alcoholics and children of alcoholic families appear to have both external, i.e. recognition of other people’s emotions as well as their own and these may relate to immature development of brain regions which govern emotional, processing, recognition and regulation, which appears to contribute greatly to the initiation and progression of alcohol abuse.

binge_drink404_675458c

In addition to emotional processing deficits, alcoholics have various structural
and functional abnormalities in affective processing brain regions. Studies of the limbic system have found reduced volume in subcortical structures, including the amygdala, thalamus, ventral striatum, and hippocampus among adult alcoholics (41,42). Alcoholics with smaller amygdalar volumes, are more likely to continue drinking after six months of abstinence (37).

Marinkovic et al. (2009) alcoholics exhibited both amygdalar and hippocampal hypoactivity during face encoding, and when recognizing deeply encoded faces, alcoholics had significantly reduced amygdalar activity to positive and negative emotional expressions compared with controls (35). These results help explain findings in behavioral studies of alcoholics that have found considerable evidence for emotion recognition deficits in this population.

Furthermore, during emotion identification, alcoholics showed comparable
performance to controls, but had reduced brain response in the affective division of the
anterior cingulate cortex (ACC) to disgust and sadness, with this lack of affective response to aversive stimuli believed to underlie disinhibitory traits in AUDs (36).

There is also evidence to suggest that non-alcohol abusing FHP individuals
share similar deficits in affective systems to alcohol abusers, including reduced
amygdalar volume, less amygdalar activity in response to emotional stimuli, and high
rates of internalizing symptoms such as anxiety and depression (37; 45-47).

Furthermore, research examining the relationship between emotional
processing and cognition has found that poor inhibition in individuals with co-morbid
substance and alcohol abuse is associated with atypical arousal in response to affective images (48), and affective measures in FH+ alcoholics also relate to deficits in executive functioning, e.g impulsivity (47).

This suggests that familial history of AUDs may put individuals at greater risk for problems with emotional processing and associated disruptions in executive functioning (47), which could, in turn, increase risk for alcohol abuse (49).

As we suggested previously, in relation to decision making profiles, in those at risk, those with alexithymia and also with cocaine addicts, decision making often involves more emotion expressive-motor areas of the brain like the caudate nucleus which is more of a “feel it-do it” type of reaction to decision making or a emotionally impaired or distress-based impulsivity. If there is a difficulty  processing emotions, these emotions can not be used as a signal to guide adaptive, optimal decisions. Decisions appear more compulsive and short term.

It may be this tendency to act now, rather than later,  that defines the vulnerability in FH+ children. It is like driving through life with faulty brakes on decision making, which sets up a chain of maladaptive choices such as alcohol abuse which then damages these affective based decision making regions of the brain even more, with increasing  deleterious consequences as the addiction cycle progresses until the endpoint of addiction of very limited choice of behaviour as emotional distress acts eventually as a stimulus response to alcohol use.  Emotional processing usurped by compulsive responding.

 

References

Main reference – Cservenka, A., Fair, D. A., & Nagel, B. J. (2014). Emotional Processing and Brain Activity in Youth at High Risk for Alcoholism. Alcoholism: Clinical and Experimental Research.

1.  Dawson, D.A., 2000. The link between family history and early onset alcoholism: earlier initiation of drinking or more rapid development of dependence? J Stud Alcohol 61, 637-646.

2. Ferrett, H.L., Cuzen, N.L., Thomas, K.G., Carey, P.D., Stein, D.J., Finn, P.R., Tapert, S.F., Fein, G., 2011. Characterization of South African adolescents with alcohol use disorders but without psychiatric or polysubstance comorbidity. Alcohol Clin Exp Res 35, 1705-1715.

3. Brown, S.A., Tapert, S.F., 2004. Adolescence and the trajectory of alcohol use: basic to clinical studies. Ann N Y Acad Sci 1021, 234-244.

4.   Brown, S.A., Tapert, S.F., Granholm, E., Delis, D.C., 2000. Neurocognitive functioning of adolescents: effects of protracted alcohol use. Alcohol Clin Exp Res 24, 164-171.

5.   Squeglia, L.M., Schweinsburg, A.D., Pulido, C., Tapert, S.F., 2011. Adolescent binge drinking linked to abnormal spatial working memory brain activation: differential gender effects. Alcohol Clin Exp Res 35, 1831-1841.

6. Johnson, C.A., Xiao, L., Palmer, P., Sun, P., Wang, Q., Wei, Y., Jia, Y., Grenard, J.L.,  Stacy, A.W., Bechara, A., 2008. Affective decision-making deficits, linked to a dysfunctional ventromedial prefrontal cortex, revealed in 10th grade Chinese adolescent binge drinkers. Neuropsychologia 46, 714-726.

7. De Bellis, M.D., Narasimhan, A., Thatcher, D.L., Keshavan, M.S., Soloff, P., Clark, D.B.,  2005. Prefrontal cortex, thalamus, and cerebellar volumes in adolescents and young adults with adolescent-onset alcohol use disorders and comorbid mental disorders. Alcohol Clin Exp Res 29, 1590-1600.

8.  Medina, K.L., McQueeny, T., Nagel, B.J., Hanson, K.L., Schweinsburg, A.D., Tapert, S.F., 2008. Prefrontal cortex volumes in adolescents with alcohol use disorders: unique gender effects. Alcohol Clin Exp Res 32, 386-394.

9.  De Bellis, M.D., Clark, D.B., Beers, S.R., Soloff, P.H., Boring, A.M., Hall, J., Kersh, A., Keshavan, M.S., 2000. Hippocampal volume in adolescent-onset alcohol use disorders. Am J Psychiatry 157, 737-744.

10.  Nagel, B.J., Schweinsburg, A.D., Phan, V., Tapert, S.F., 2005. Reduced hippocampal volume among adolescents with alcohol use disorders without psychiatric comorbidity. Psychiatry Res 139, 181-190.

11.  Bava, S., Jacobus, J., Thayer, R.E., Tapert, S.F., 2013. Longitudinal changes in white matter integrity among adolescent substance users. Alcohol Clin Exp Res 37 Suppl 1, E181-189.

12.   McQueeny, T., Schweinsburg, B.C., Schweinsburg, A.D., Jacobus, J., Bava, S., Frank, L.R., Tapert, S.F., 2009. Altered white matter integrity in adolescent binge drinkers. Alcohol Clin Exp Res 33, 1278-1285.

13. Xiao, L., Bechara, A., Gong, Q., Huang, X., Li, X., Xue, G., Wong, S., Lu, Z.L., Palmer, P., Wei, Y., Jia, Y., Johnson, C.A., 2012. Abnormal Affective Decision Making Revealed in Adolescent Binge Drinkers Using a Functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging Study. Psychol Addict Behav.

14. Cotton, N.S., 1979. The familial incidence of alcoholism: a review. J Stud Alcohol 40, 89-116.

15. Goodwin, D.W., 1979. Alcoholism and heredity. A review and hypothesis. Arch Gen Psychiatry 36, 57-61.

16.  Schuckit, M.A., 1985. Genetics and the risk for alcoholism. Jama 254, 2614-2617

17. Bohman, M., 1978. Some genetic aspects of alcoholism and criminality. A population of adoptees. Arch Gen Psychiatry 35, 269-276.

18. Cloninger, C.R., Bohman, M., Sigvardsson, S., 1981. Inheritance of alcohol abuse. Cross-fostering analysis of adopted men. Arch Gen Psychiatry 38, 861-868.

19. Merikangas, K.R., Stolar, M., Stevens, D.E., Goulet, J., Preisig, M.A., Fenton, B., Zhang, H., O’Malley, S.S., Rounsaville, B.J., 1998. Familial transmission of substance use disorders. Arch Gen Psychiatry 55, 973-979

20. Finn, P.R., Kleinman, I., Pihl, R.O., 1990. The lifetime prevalence of psychopathology in men with multigenerational family histories of alcoholism. J Nerv Ment Dis 178, 500-504.

21. Goodwin, D.W., 1985. Alcoholism and genetics. The sins of the fathers. Arch Gen Psychiatry 42, 171-174.

22. Hasin, D., Paykin, A., Endicott, J., 2001. Course of DSM-IV alcohol dependence in a community sample: effects of parental history and binge drinking. Alcohol Clin Exp Res 25, 411-414.

23. Hill, S.Y., Yuan, H., 1999. Familial density of alcoholism and onset of adolescent drinking. J Stud Alcohol 60, 7-17.

24.   Heath, A.C., Bucholz, K.K., Madden, P.A., Dinwiddie, S.H., Slutske, W.S., Bierut, L.J., Statham, D.J., Dunne, M.P., Whitfield, J.B., Martin, N.G., 1997. Genetic and environmental contributions to alcohol dependence risk in a national twin sample: consistency of findings in women and men. Psychol Med 27, 1381-1396.

25. Kaprio, J., Koskenvuo, M., Langinvainio, H., Romanov, K., Sarna, S., Rose, R.J., 1987. Genetic influences on use and abuse of alcohol: a study of 5638 adult Finnish twin brothers. Alcohol Clin Exp Res 11, 349-356.

26.  Knopik, V.S., Heath, A.C., Madden, P.A., Bucholz, K.K., Slutske, W.S., Nelson, E.C., Statham, D., Whitfield, J.B., Martin, N.G., 2004. Genetic effects on alcohol dependence risk: re-evaluating the importance of psychiatric and other heritable risk factors. Psychol Med 34, 1519-1530.

27. Acheson, A., Richard, D.M., Mathias, C.W., Dougherty, D.M., 2011a. Adults with a family history of alcohol related problems are more impulsive on measures of response initiation and response inhibition. Drug Alcohol Depend 117, 198-203.

28.  Saunders, B., Farag, N., Vincent, A.S., Collins, F.L., Jr., Sorocco, K.H., Lovallo, W.R., 2008. Impulsive errors on a Go-NoGo reaction time task: disinhibitory traits in relation to a family history of alcoholism. Alcohol Clin Exp Res 32, 888-894.

29.  Acheson, A., Vincent, A.S., Sorocco, K.H., Lovallo, W.R., 2011b. Greater discounting of delayed rewards in young adults with family histories of alcohol and drug use disorders: studies from the Oklahoma family health patterns project. Alcohol Clin Exp Res 35, 1607-1613.

30. Foisy, M.L., Kornreich, C., Petiau, C., Parez, A., Hanak, C., Verbanck, P., Pelc, I., Philippot, P., 2007b. Impaired emotional facial expression recognition in alcoholics: are these deficits specific to emotional cues? Psychiatry Res 150, 33-41.

31.  Foisy, M.L., Philippot, P., Verbanck, P., Pelc, I., van der Straten, G., Kornreich, C., 2005. Emotional facial expression decoding impairment in persons dependent on multiple substances: impact of a history of alcohol dependence. J Stud Alcohol 66, 673-681.

32.  Philippot, P., Kornreich, C., Blairy, S., Baert, I., Den Dulk, A., Le Bon, O., Streel, E., Hess, U., Pelc, I., Verbanck, P., 1999. Alcoholics’ deficits in the decoding of emotional facial expression. Alcohol Clin Exp Res 23, 1031-1038.

33.  Townshend, J.M., Duka, T., 2003. Mixed emotions: alcoholics’ impairments in the recognition of specific emotional facial expressions. Neuropsychologia 41, 773-782.

34.  Gilman, J.M., Hommer, D.W., 2008. Modulation of brain response to emotional images by alcohol cues in alcohol-dependent patients. Addict Biol 13, 423-434.

35. Marinkovic, K., Oscar-Berman, M., Urban, T., O’Reilly, C.E., Howard, J.A., Sawyer, K., Harris, G.J., 2009. Alcoholism and dampened temporal limbic activation to emotional faces. Alcohol Clin Exp Res 33, 1880-1892.

36.  Salloum, J.B., Ramchandani, V.A., Bodurka, J., Rawlings, R., Momenan, R., George, D., Hommer, D.W., 2007. Blunted rostral anterior cingulate response during a simplified decoding task of negative emotional facial expressions in alcoholic patients. Alcohol Clin Exp Res 31, 1490-1504.

37.  Wrase, J., Makris, N., Braus, D.F., Mann, K., Smolka, M.N., Kennedy, D.N., Caviness, V.S., Hodge, S.M., Tang, L., Albaugh, M., Ziegler, D.A., Davis, O.C., Kissling, C., Schumann, G., Breiter, H.C., Heinz, A., 2008. Amygdala volume associated with alcohol abuse relapse and craving. Am J Psychiatry 165, 1179-1184.

38.  Kornreich, C., Foisy, M.L., Philippot, P., Dan, B., Tecco, J., Noel, X., Hess, U., Pelc, I., Verbanck, P., 2003. Impaired emotional facial expression recognition in alcoholics, opiate dependence subjects, methadone maintained subjects and mixed alcohol-opiate antecedents subjects compared with normal controls. Psychiatry Res 119, 251-260.

39.  Maurage, P., Campanella, S., Philippot, P., Martin, S., de Timary, P., 2008. Face processing in chronic alcoholism: a specific deficit for emotional features. Alcohol Clin Exp Res 32, 600-606.

40.  Fernandez-Serrano, M.J., Perez-Garcia, M., Schmidt Rio-Valle, J., Verdejo-Garcia, A., 2010. Neuropsychological consequences of alcohol and drug abuse on different components of executive functions. J Psychopharmacol 24, 1317-1332.

41.  Durazzo, T.C., Tosun, D., Buckley, S., Gazdzinski, S., Mon, A., Fryer, S.L., Meyerhoff, D.J., 2011. Cortical thickness, surface area, and volume of the brain reward system in alcohol dependence: relationships to relapse and extended abstinence. Alcohol Clin Exp Res 35, 1187-1200.

42.   Makris, N., Oscar-Berman, M., Jaffin, S.K., Hodge, S.M., Kennedy, D.N., Caviness, V.S., Marinkovic, K., Breiter, H.C., Gasic, G.P., Harris, G.J., 2008. Decreased volume of the brain reward system in alcoholism. Biol Psychiatry 64, 192-202.

43.   Benegal, V., Antony, G., Venkatasubramanian, G., Jayakumar, P.N., 2007. Gray matter volume abnormalities and externalizing symptoms in subjects at high risk for alcohol dependence. Addict Biol 12, 122-132.

44.  Glahn, D.C., Lovallo, W.R., Fox, P.T., 2007. Reduced amygdala activation in young adults at high risk of alcoholism: studies from the Oklahoma family health patterns project. Biol Psychiatry 61, 1306-1309.

45.   Hill, S.Y., De Bellis, M.D., Keshavan, M.S., Lowers, L., Shen, S., Hall, J., Pitts, T., 2001. Right amygdala volume in adolescent and young adult offspring from families at high risk for developing alcoholism. Biol Psychiatry 49, 894-905.

46.  Oscar-Berman, M., Bowirrat, A., 2005. Genetic influences in emotional dysfunction and alcoholism-related brain damage. Neuropsychiatr Dis Treat 1, 211-229.

47.  Sinha, R., Parsons, O.A., Glenn, S.W., 1989. Drinking variables, affective measures and neuropsychological performance: familial alcoholism and gender correlates. Alcohol 6, 77-85

48.  Verdejo-Garcia, A., Bechara, A., Recknor, E.C., Perez-Garcia, M., 2006. Executive dysfunction in substance dependent individuals during drug use and abstinence: an examination of the behavioral, cognitive and emotional correlates of addiction. J Int Neuropsychol Soc 12, 405-415.

49.  Fox, H.C., Hong, K.A., Sinha, R., 2008. Difficulties in emotion regulation and impulse control in recently abstinent alcoholics compared with social drinkers. Addict Behav 33, 388-394

 

An Emotional Disease?

Posted on by alcoholicsguide

Is Addiction an Emotional Disease!?

“Addiction”, is widely viewed as a chronic, relapsing, neurobiological disorder, characterized by compulsive use of alcohol or substances, despite serious negative consequences. It involves both physiological and psychological dependence and leads to the emergence of a negative emotional state.  The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, DSM-5, combines DSM-IV categories of substance abuse and dependence into a single disorder, on a continuum from mild to severe.  The previous definition of addiction by the American Society of Addiction Medicine (ASAM) includes the terms, craving, persistent risk, and emphasizes risk of relapse after periods of abstinence triggered by exposure to substance-related cues and emotional stressors . This conceptualisation points to the role of substance-related cues, e.g., environmental stimuli that are strongly associated with the effects of the administration of substances and acquire incentive salience through Pavlovian conditioning, as well as stress (an internal cue), as major determinants of relapse.

For example in terms of the reasons for relapse implicated in much research, alcoholics relapse due to ‘cue-reactivity’ i.e. they see ‘people, places, or things’ associated with their drinking past and they are drawn to it and simply relapse.

 In some years of recovery, we have rarely heard of a committed abstinent alcoholic addict in recovery who relapsed simply because he/she was lured siren like to some cue associated stimuli. That is not to say cue reactivity is not a valid construct, it is obviously. Recovering alcoholics  exhibit an automatic, that is involuntary,  attentional bias towards drug and alcohol-related “cues”. This is a torturous aspect of early recovery thus most therapeutic regimes advise those in early abstinence and recovery to avoid “people, places and things” that act as  cue-associated stimuli. In fact, some in early recovery do challenge this only to learn painfully as the result by thinking they can spend time, like before, in drinking establishments,  only to find that it is “like sitting in a hairdressors  all day and not expecting to eventually get a haircut!”

A more recent  ASAM definition includes “Addiction is a primary, chronic disease of brain reward, motivation, memory and related circuitry. Dysfunction in these circuits leads to characteristic biological, psychological, social and spiritual manifestations. Addiction is characterized by inability to consistently abstain, impairment in behavioral control, craving, diminished recognition of significant problems with one’s behaviors and interpersonal relationships, and a dysfunctional emotional response.”

We appreciate the role now afforded to “dysfunctional emotional response” in this new definition as we believe it is dysfunctional emotional response which is at the heart of alcoholism and addiction.

Our own experience of recovery, coupled with our neuroscientific research over several years, has  made us curious as why the ways addicts and alcoholics talk about their condition or the explanations they forward all generally point to what they would call an “emotional disease” or “a parasite the feeds on their emotions”, an “emotional cancer” or a “fear based disease” yet these are rarely countenanced in any theory of addiction, whether neurobiological, psychological, psycho-analytical (although there have been very interesting ideas based on attachment within this methodology).

How could addicts and alcoholics be so wrong about themselves and what ails them? Especially when they see it also in hundreds of others with the same condition? We doubt that they are wrong, in fact, we have in recent years taken the opposite approach and started to explore, in terms of research, if addiction and alcoholism, especially, have their roots in emotional dysregulation and emotional processing deficits

In even more recent times, we have been encouraged that these difficulties also shape decision making difficulties, distress based impulsivity (leading to compulsivity) lack of inhibition across various psychological domains, as well as more revealingly the cognitive and executive dysfunctions and ‘flight or flight’ reactions which seem common to this group, over reacting in other words.

There appears to be a short term decision making profile which we suggest is distress based, which implicates more emotive-motoric “automatic,compulsive”regions of the brain rather than goal-directed. A more “let’s do it NOW!”way of making decisions.  This is also seen in children of alcoholics.

Could this be an important vulnerabilty to alcoholism? In order to get this debate going we will now consider whether there are possibilities for re-defining the DSM criterion in relation to the manifest difficulties observed in these clinical groups in relation to emotional dysregulation. The “official” nosology (e.g. DSM IV) is largely limited to physical manifestations of addiction although addicted individuals display additional psychiatric symptoms that affect their well-being and social functioning but which have been relegated to the domain of psychiatric “comorbidity.” 

Although the relationship of these psychiatric symptoms with addiction is very close, substance abuse may modify pre-existing psychic structures and lead to addiction as a specific mental disorder, inclusive of symptoms pertaining to mood/anxiety, or impulse control dimensions, decision making difficulties or, as we suggest, the various characteristics of emotional dysregulation. All of which suggests the current DSM based nosology of addiction-related mental comorbidity does not consider the overlap of the biological substrates and neurophysiology of addictive processes and psychiatric symptoms associated with addiction, so fails to include specific mood, anxiety, and impulse control dimensions and decision making difficulties in the psychopathology of addictive processes.

Addiction reaches beyond the mere result of drug-elicited effects on the brain and cannot be peremptorily equated only with the use of drugs despite the adverse consequences produced. Addiction is a relapsing chronic condition in which these psychiatric manifestations play a crucial role. Thus it may be that the aetiology of addiction cannot be severed from its psychopathological underpinning, it’s roots.  In may have been initiated by these mechanisms and also the addiction cycle may be continually perpetuated by them. Particularly in view of the undeniable presence of symptoms, of their manifest contribution to the way addicted patients feel and behave, and to the role they play in maintaining the continued use of substances.

In other words, the latter symptoms frequently precede the addictive process constituting a predisposing psychological background on which substance effects and addictive processes interact, leading to a full-fledged psychiatric disorder. Within the frame of the current DSM, numerous relevant psychiatric issues in substance abuse disorders may have been overlooked.   Even in the absence of psychiatric diagnosis, specific psychological vulnerabilities may constitute a background for the development of  disorders. The neural circuitry implicated in affective reactivity and regulation is closely related to the circuitry proposed to underlie addictive behaviours.  Affect is related to dysfunctional decision-making processes and risky behaviours,  In fact, we suggest these affective processing difficulties cause inherent decision making difficulties and constitute a premorbid vulnerability.

Substance dependence is associated with significant emotional dysregulation that influences cognition via numerous mechanisms. This dysregulation comes in the form of heightened reward sensitivity to drug-related stimuli, reduced sensitivity to natural reward stimuli, and heightened sensitivity of the brain’s stress systems that respond to threats. Such disturbances have the effect of biasing attentional processing toward drugs with powerful rewarding and/or anxiolytic effects. 

Emotional dysregulation can also result in impulsive actions and influence decision-making. It appears clear in addiction and alcoholism (substance dependence)  and that emotional processing significantly impairs cognition in substance dependence. Emotionally influenced cognitive impairments have serious negative effects with both the resultant attentional bias and decision-making deficits being predictive of drug relapse. 

The influence of emotion is clearly detrimental in substance dependence, and many of the detrimental effects observed are due to the ability of drugs of abuse to mimic the effects of stimuli or events that have survival significance. Drugs of abuse effectively trick the brain’s emotional systems into thinking that they have survival significance!

They trick the alcoholic into thinking he needs to drink to survive! 

It is important to note that the neural mechanisms implicated in neurobiological accounts of the transition to endpoint addiction from initial use are also experienced emotionally in human beings, in addicted individuals. That human beings, addicted individuals have to live with these profound alterations and impairments of various regions and neural networks in the brain. And that it is in treating these human manifestation of this neurobiological disease, i.e. one’s “dysfunctional emotional responses” in every day life that is required for long term recovery. We have to manage the emotional difficulties which perpetuate this disease, this “parasite on our emotions”, otherwise these dysfunctional overwhelming emotions manage us.   

It is through this emotional dysregulation that the addiction cycle is experienced and via emotional means perpetuated! It is through living “emotionally light” and spiritually aware lives which help manage our emotions that perpetuate our long term recovery.

Emotional distress is at the heart of addiction and alcoholism, and relief from it on a continually, daily basis is at the heart of recovery.    

References

American Psychiatric Association (2013). Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (Fifth ed.). Arlington, VA: American Psychiatric Publishing. pp. 5–25.

Pani, Pier Paolo, et al. “Delineating the psychic structure of substance abuse and addictions: Should anxiety, mood and impulse-control dysregulation be included?.” Journal of affective disorders 122.3 (2010): 185-197.

Murphy, A., Taylor, E., & Elliott, R. (2012). The detrimental effects of emotional process dysregulation on decision-making in substance dependence. Frontiers in integrative neuroscience, 6.

Cheetham, A., Allen, N. B., Yücel, M., & Lubman, D. I. (2010). The role of affective dysregulation. in drug addiction. Clinical Psychology Review, 30(6), 621-634.