Rachel Vickers Smith1,2, Henry R Kranzler2,3, Amy C Justice4,5, Janet P Tate4,5. 1. University of Louisville School of Nursing , Louisville, Kentucky. 2. Mental Illness Research, Education and Clinical Center , Crescenz VAMC, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. 3. Department of Psychiatry, Center for Studies of Addiction, University of Pennsylvania Perelman School of Medicine, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. 4. VA Connecticut Healthcare System , West Haven, Connecticut. 5. School of Medicine , Yale University, New Haven, Connecticut.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: A variety of measures have been developed to screen for hazardous or harmful drinking. The Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test-Consumption (AUDIT-C) is one of the screening measures recommended by the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. Annual administration of the AUDIT-C to all primary care patients is required by the U.S. Veterans Affairs Health System. The availability of data from the repeated administration of this instrument over time in a large patient population provides an opportunity to evaluate the utility of the AUDIT-C for identifying distinct drinking groups. METHODS: Using data from the Million Veteran Program cohort, we modeled group-based drinking trajectories using 2,833,189 AUDIT-C scores from 495,178 Veterans across an average 6-year time period. We also calculated patients' age-adjusted mean AUDIT-C scores to compare to the drinking trajectories. Finally, we extracted data on selected clinical diagnoses from the electronic health record and assessed their associations with the drinking trajectories. RESULTS: Of the trajectory models, the 4-group model demonstrated the best fit to the data. AUDIT-C trajectories were highly correlated with the age-adjusted mean AUDIT-C scores (rs = 0.94). Those with an alcohol use disorder diagnosis had 10 times the odds of being in the highest trajectory group (consistently hazardous/harmful) compared to the lowest drinking trajectory group (infrequent). Those with hepatitis C, posttraumatic stress disorder, liver cirrhosis, and delirium had 10, 7, 21, and 34%, respectively, higher odds of being classified in the highest drinking trajectory group versus the lowest drinking trajectory group. CONCLUSIONS: Trajectories and age-adjusted mean scores are potentially useful approaches to optimize the information provided by the AUDIT-C. In contrast to trajectories, age-adjusted mean AUDIT-C scores also have clinical relevance for real-time identification of individuals for whom an intervention may be warranted.
BACKGROUND: A variety of measures have been developed to screen for hazardous or harmful drinking. The Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test-Consumption (AUDIT-C) is one of the screening measures recommended by the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. Annual administration of the AUDIT-C to all primary care patients is required by the U.S. Veterans Affairs Health System. The availability of data from the repeated administration of this instrument over time in a large patient population provides an opportunity to evaluate the utility of the AUDIT-C for identifying distinct drinking groups. METHODS: Using data from the Million Veteran Program cohort, we modeled group-based drinking trajectories using 2,833,189 AUDIT-C scores from 495,178 Veterans across an average 6-year time period. We also calculated patients' age-adjusted mean AUDIT-C scores to compare to the drinking trajectories. Finally, we extracted data on selected clinical diagnoses from the electronic health record and assessed their associations with the drinking trajectories. RESULTS: Of the trajectory models, the 4-group model demonstrated the best fit to the data. AUDIT-C trajectories were highly correlated with the age-adjusted mean AUDIT-C scores (rs = 0.94). Those with an alcohol use disorder diagnosis had 10 times the odds of being in the highest trajectory group (consistently hazardous/harmful) compared to the lowest drinking trajectory group (infrequent). Those with hepatitis C, posttraumatic stress disorder, liver cirrhosis, and delirium had 10, 7, 21, and 34%, respectively, higher odds of being classified in the highest drinking trajectory group versus the lowest drinking trajectory group. CONCLUSIONS: Trajectories and age-adjusted mean scores are potentially useful approaches to optimize the information provided by the AUDIT-C. In contrast to trajectories, age-adjusted mean AUDIT-C scores also have clinical relevance for real-time identification of individuals for whom an intervention may be warranted.
Authors: Sven L Klijn; Matty P Weijenberg; Paul Lemmens; Piet A van den Brandt; Valéria Lima Passos Journal: Stat Methods Med Res Date: 2015-08-11 Impact factor: 3.021
Authors: Katharine A Bradley; Anna D Rubinsky; Haili Sun; Chris L Bryson; Michael J Bishop; David K Blough; William G Henderson; Charles Maynard; Mary T Hawn; Hanne Tønnesen; Grant Hughes; Lauren A Beste; Alex H S Harris; Eric J Hawkins; Thomas K Houston; Daniel R Kivlahan Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2011-02 Impact factor: 5.128
Authors: Patrick S Calhoun; Amie R Schry; H Ryan Wagner; Nathan A Kimbrel; Paul Dennis; Scott D McDonald; Jean C Beckham; Eric A Dedert; Harold Kudler; Kristy Straits-Troster Journal: Am J Drug Alcohol Abuse Date: 2015-07-08 Impact factor: 3.829
Authors: Andre M Samuel; Adam M Lukasiewicz; Matthew L Webb; Daniel D Bohl; Bryce A Basques; Kimberly A Davis; Jonathan N Grauer Journal: J Trauma Acute Care Surg Date: 2015-10 Impact factor: 3.313
Authors: Katharine A Bradley; Gwen T Lapham; Eric J Hawkins; Carol E Achtmeyer; Emily C Williams; Rachel M Thomas; Daniel R Kivlahan Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2010-09-22 Impact factor: 5.128
Authors: Brandon D L Marshall; Don Operario; Kendall J Bryant; Robert L Cook; E Jennifer Edelman; Julie R Gaither; Adam J Gordon; Christopher W Kahler; Stephen A Maisto; Kathleen A McGinnis; Jacob J van den Berg; Nickolas D Zaller; Amy C Justice; David A Fiellin Journal: Drug Alcohol Depend Date: 2015-01-02 Impact factor: 4.492
Authors: Daniel F Gros; Julianne C Flanagan; Kristina J Korte; Adam C Mills; Kathleen T Brady; Sudie E Back Journal: Psychol Addict Behav Date: 2016-10-27
Authors: Oghenowede Eyawo; Kathleen A McGinnis; Amy C Justice; David A Fiellin; Judith A Hahn; Emily C Williams; Adam J Gordon; Brandon D L Marshall; Kevin L Kraemer; Stephen Crystal; Julie R Gaither; E Jennifer Edelman; Kendall J Bryant; Janet P Tate Journal: J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr Date: 2018-02-01 Impact factor: 3.731
Authors: Hyungjin Myra Kim; Eric G Smith; Claire M Stano; Dara Ganoczy; Kara Zivin; Heather Walters; Marcia Valenstein Journal: BMC Health Serv Res Date: 2012-01-23 Impact factor: 2.655
Authors: Vanessa A Palzes; Andrea H Kline-Simon; Derek D Satre; Stacy Sterling; Constance Weisner; Felicia W Chi Journal: Addiction Date: 2021-07-12 Impact factor: 6.526