Aims: The aim of the study was to investigate the efficacy and safety of as-needed use of nalmefene 18 mg versus placebo in reducing alcohol consumption in patients who did not reduce their alcohol consumption after an initial assessment, i.e. the pooled subgroup of patients with at least a high drinking risk level (men: >60 g/day; women: >40 g/day) at both screening and randomization from the two randomized controlled 6-month studies ESENSE 1 (NCT00811720) and ESENSE 2 (NCT00812461). Methods: Nalmefene 18 mg and placebo were taken on an as-needed basis. All the patients also received a motivational and adherence-enhancing intervention (BRENDA). The co-primary outcomes were number of heavy drinking days (HDDs) and mean total alcohol consumption (g/day) in Month 6 measured using the Timeline Follow-back method. Additionally, data on clinical improvement, liver function and safety were collected throughout the study. Results: The pooled population consisted of 667 patients: placebo n = 332; nalmefene n = 335. There was a superior effect of nalmefene compared with placebo in reducing the number of HDDs [treatment difference: −3.2 days (95% CI: −4.8; −1.6); P < 0.0001] and total alcohol consumption [treatment difference: −14.3 g/day (−20.8; −7.8); P < 0.0001] at Month 6. Improvements in clinical status and liver parameters were greater in the nalmefene group compared with the placebo group. Adverse events and adverse events leading to dropout were more common with nalmefene than placebo. Conclusion: As-needed nalmefene was efficacious in reducing alcohol consumption in patients with at least a high drinking risk level at both screening and randomization, and the effect in this subgroup was larger than in the total population.

— Aims: To identify suitable short versions of the Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test (AUDIT) and to evaluate their effectiveness as screening tests for ‘risky drinking’ among men and women in primary health care (PHC) settings. Methods: A total of 255 patients attending five PHC centres in Catalonia (Spain) were interviewed by clinicians regarding health status and drinking pattern. Patients also completed the AUDIT. Clinicians’ diagnosis of risky drinking was used as a gold standard to evaluate the effectiveness of three forms of AUDIT. Results: AUDIT-3 and AUDIT-4 performed similarly to AUDIT-10 in detecting risky drinking and had equivalent receiver operating characteristics curves and their areas under the curve. Conclusions: Both short forms of AUDIT seem to be as effective as the full AUDIT for detecting risky drinking among men and women in PHC settings.

Aims: The aim of the study was to explore whether the concept of heavy substance use over time can be used as definition of substance use disorder. Methods: Narrative review. Results: Heavy use over time clearly underlies the neurobiological changes associated with current thinking of substance use disorders. In addition, there is evidence that heavy use over time can explain the majority of social problems and of burden of disease (morbidity and mortality). A definition of substance use disorders via heavy use over time would avoid some of the problems of current conceptualizations, for instance the cultural specificity of concepts such as loss of control. Finally, stressing the continuum of use may avoid the high level of stigmatization currently associated with substance use disorders. Conclusion: ‘Heavy substance use over time’ seems to be a definition of substance use disorders in line with results of basic research and epidemiology. Additionally, it reduces stigmatization. This approach should thus be further explored.