4.7 Article

Cue-induced brain activity changes and relapse in cocaine-dependent patients

期刊

NEUROPSYCHOPHARMACOLOGY
卷 31, 期 3, 页码 644-650

出版社

NATURE PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1038/sj.npp.1300851

关键词

cocaine; fMRI; posterior cingulate cortex; treatment outcome; drug cues; sertraline

资金

  1. NIDA NIH HHS [DA12762, K12-DA00167, P50-DA04060, K12-DA00366, K05-DA0454] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study used functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) to examine the association between brain activation during exposure to cocaine-related cues and relapse to drug use in cocaine-dependent (CD) patients. We imaged 17 CD subjects during a 2-week in-patient stay. The subjects then entered a 10-week outpatient placebo-controlled, double-blind randomized clinical trial where urine toxicologies were assessed three times weekly to calculate the treatment effectiveness score (TES). Worse TES correlated with BOLD activation in the left precentral, superior temporal, and posterior cingulate cortices (PCC), and right middle temporal and lingual cortices (R > 0.65; P < 0.005). The left PCC activation also distinguished eight nonrelapsers (TES above mean and completed treatment) from nine relapsers. Cocaine-free urines were significantly greater in the nonrelapsers (92%) than in the relapsers (66%), who also remained in treatment for an average of only 3.2 weeks. Self-reports of craving during fMRI did not differ between nonrelapsers and relapsers and did not correlate with TES. Relapse to cocaine abuse was associated with increased activation in the sensory association cortex, the motor cortex, and PCC while viewing images of cocaine-related cues. These results suggest that relapse to cocaine abuse is associated with increased brain activation to cocaine cues in sensory, motor, and cognitive-emotional processing areas. This physiological activation was a better predictor of relapse than subjective reports of craving, and may be a useful target for treatment development.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据