4.4 Article

Impaired performance in a test of decision-making by opiate-dependent tobacco smokers

Journal

DRUG AND ALCOHOL DEPENDENCE
Volume 73, Issue 1, Pages 79-86

Publisher

ELSEVIER IRELAND LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2003.10.003

Keywords

tobacco smoking; opiate dependence; decision-making; prefrontal cortex

Funding

  1. NIDA NIH HHS [1 Y01 DA 50038, 1 R01 DA 09992, 1 P50 DA 12755] Funding Source: Medline

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This study tested whether opiate dependence, tobacco smoking, or their combination accompanied impaired performance on the gambling task (GT), which tests decision-making. GT previously detected impairments in patients with lesions of the ventromedial prefrontal cortex and in substance abusers. Four groups were matched on demographic characteristics and intelligence: methadone-maintained smokers (n = 9) and nonsmokers (n = 9), and control (i.e., not opiate-dependent) smokers (n = 9) and nonsmokers (n = 10). The Wisconsin Card Sorting Task (WCST) was administered to test whether differences in GT performance reflected generalized deficits in prefrontal cortical function. While there were no significant group differences on the WCST, groups differed significantly on GT performance (F(3, 31) = 2.95, P = 0.048), controlling for depressive symptom ratings and childhood attention deficit hyperactivity disorder. Methadone-maintained smokers (but not nonsmokers) performed more poorly than either of the two control groups (P = 0.007 versus smokers; P = 0.024 versus nonsmokers). In a planned analysis of methadone-maintained subjects, smokers scored more poorly on GT than nonsmokers (F(1, 18) = 5.64, P = 0.032) and had more treatment failures (67% heroin use during the last 30 days versus 20%). The findings suggest that among opiate-dependent individuals, tobacco smoking may be a marker for a more severe form of substance abuse disorder, reflecting impaired decision-making, as modeled by GT. (C) 2003 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available