David W Frank1, Paul M Cinciripini1, Menton M Deweese2, Maher Karam-Hage1, George Kypriotakis1, Caryn Lerman3, Jason D Robinson1, Rachel F Tyndale4, Damon J Vidrine5, Francesco Versace1. 1. Department of Behavioral Science, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX. 2. Department of Teaching and Learning, Peabody College at Vanderbilt University, Nashville, TN. 3. Department of Psychiatry, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA. 4. Campbell Family Mental Health Research Institute, Center for Addiction and Mental Health, Departments of Psychiatry, Pharmacology and Toxicology, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada. 5. Stephenson Cancer Center, Oklahoma Tobacco Research Center, University of Oklahoma Health Sciences Center, Oklahoma City, OK.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: By improving our understanding of the neurobiological mechanisms underlying addiction, neuroimaging research is helping to identify new targets for personalized treatment interventions. When trying to quit, smokers with larger electrophysiological responses to cigarette-related, compared with pleasant, stimuli ("C > P") are more likely to relapse than smokers with the opposite brain reactivity profile ("P > C"). AIM AND METHOD: The goal was to (1) build a classification algorithm to identify smokers characterized by P > C or C > P neuroaffective profiles and (2) validate the algorithm's classification outcomes in an independent data set where we assessed both smokers' electrophysiological responses at baseline and smoking abstinence during a quit attempt. We built the classification algorithm applying discriminant function analysis on the event-related potentials evoked by emotional images in 180 smokers. RESULTS: The predictive validity of the classifier showed promise in an independent data set that included new data from 177 smokers interested in quitting; the algorithm classified 111 smokers as P > C and 66 as C > P. The overall abstinence rate was low; 15 individuals (8.5% of the sample) achieved CO-verified 12-month abstinence. Although individuals classified as P > C were nearly 2.5 times more likely to be abstinent than smokers classified as C > P (12 vs. 3, or 11% vs. 4.5%), this result was nonsignificant, preliminary, and in need of confirmation in larger trials. CONCLUSION: These results suggest that psychophysiological techniques have the potential to advance our knowledge of the neurobiological underpinnings of nicotine addiction and improve clinical applications. However, larger sample sizes are necessary to reliably assess the predictive ability of our algorithm. IMPLICATIONS: We assessed the clinical relevance of a neuroimaging-based classification algorithm on an independent sample of smokers enrolled in a smoking cessation trial and found those with the tendency to attribute more relevance to rewards than cues were nearly 2.5 times more likely to be abstinent than smokers with the opposite brain reactivity profile (11% vs. 4.5%). Although this result was not statistically significant, it suggests our neuroimaging-based classification algorithm can potentially contribute to the development of new precision medicine interventions aimed at treating substance use disorders. Regardless, these findings are still preliminary and in need of confirmation in larger trials.
INTRODUCTION: By improving our understanding of the neurobiological mechanisms underlying addiction, neuroimaging research is helping to identify new targets for personalized treatment interventions. When trying to quit, smokers with larger electrophysiological responses to cigarette-related, compared with pleasant, stimuli ("C > P") are more likely to relapse than smokers with the opposite brain reactivity profile ("P > C"). AIM AND METHOD: The goal was to (1) build a classification algorithm to identify smokers characterized by P > C or C > P neuroaffective profiles and (2) validate the algorithm's classification outcomes in an independent data set where we assessed both smokers' electrophysiological responses at baseline and smoking abstinence during a quit attempt. We built the classification algorithm applying discriminant function analysis on the event-related potentials evoked by emotional images in 180 smokers. RESULTS: The predictive validity of the classifier showed promise in an independent data set that included new data from 177 smokers interested in quitting; the algorithm classified 111 smokers as P > C and 66 as C > P. The overall abstinence rate was low; 15 individuals (8.5% of the sample) achieved CO-verified 12-month abstinence. Although individuals classified as P > C were nearly 2.5 times more likely to be abstinent than smokers classified as C > P (12 vs. 3, or 11% vs. 4.5%), this result was nonsignificant, preliminary, and in need of confirmation in larger trials. CONCLUSION: These results suggest that psychophysiological techniques have the potential to advance our knowledge of the neurobiological underpinnings of nicotine addiction and improve clinical applications. However, larger sample sizes are necessary to reliably assess the predictive ability of our algorithm. IMPLICATIONS: We assessed the clinical relevance of a neuroimaging-based classification algorithm on an independent sample of smokers enrolled in a smoking cessation trial and found those with the tendency to attribute more relevance to rewards than cues were nearly 2.5 times more likely to be abstinent than smokers with the opposite brain reactivity profile (11% vs. 4.5%). Although this result was not statistically significant, it suggests our neuroimaging-based classification algorithm can potentially contribute to the development of new precision medicine interventions aimed at treating substance use disorders. Regardless, these findings are still preliminary and in need of confirmation in larger trials.
Authors: Francesco Versace; Jennifer A Minnix; Jason D Robinson; Cho Y Lam; Victoria L Brown; Paul M Cinciripini Journal: Addict Biol Date: 2010-12-23 Impact factor: 4.280
Authors: Pebbles Fagan; Erik Augustson; Cathy L Backinger; Mary E O'Connell; Robert E Vollinger; Annette Kaufman; James T Gibson Journal: Am J Public Health Date: 2007-06-28 Impact factor: 9.308
Authors: David Gonzales; Stephen I Rennard; Mitchell Nides; Cheryl Oncken; Salomon Azoulay; Clare B Billing; Eric J Watsky; Jason Gong; Kathryn E Williams; Karen R Reeves Journal: JAMA Date: 2006-07-05 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Francesco Versace; Cho Y Lam; Jeffrey M Engelmann; Jason D Robinson; Jennifer A Minnix; Victoria L Brown; Paul M Cinciripini Journal: Addict Biol Date: 2011-10-04 Impact factor: 4.280
Authors: Michael H Bernstein; Grayson L Baird; Karim Oueidat; Saurabh Agarwal; Alexander Atalay; Shannon Healey; Terrance T Healey Journal: Front Med (Lausanne) Date: 2022-05-11
Authors: Joshua L Haight; Paolo Campus; Cristina E Maria-Rios; Allison M Johnson; Marin S Klumpner; Brittany N Kuhn; Ignacio R Covelo; Jonathan D Morrow; Shelly B Flagel Journal: Psychopharmacology (Berl) Date: 2020-08-27 Impact factor: 4.530