key: cord-0943179-tb41esd4
authors: Merlo, A.; Hendriksen, P.A.; Severeijns, N.R.; Garssen, J.; Benson, S.; Scholey, A.; Bruce, G.; Verster, J.C.
title: P.0307 Coping with stress and alcohol consumption during covid-19 lockdown
date: 2021-12-30
journal: Eur Neuropsychopharmacol
DOI: 10.1016/j.euroneuro.2021.10.290
sha: 7c61a4b15369c09082c7e9fee1a3225dfbf408ed
doc_id: 943179
cord_uid: tb41esd4

nan

The rate of comorbidity for substance use disorders is high in internet addiction, and it is not yet known whether a common etiological risk factor predisposes to both of these disorders. In this context, it is suggested that the personality traits previously associated with substance use disorders can play a role in the development of internet addiction as well. The aim of our study is to examine the relationship of internet addiction with high-risk personality traits that predict future alcohol and substance use in adolescents and to compare adolescents with and without internet addiction in terms of these personality traits. Methods: A cross-sectional design study was adopted in which 196 participants, 161 of whom were males, with a mean age of 16.7 took part. The assessment consisted of a demographic form, and additionally two self-administered instruments including the Substance Use Risk Profile Scale (SURPS) and the Addiction Profile Index Internet Addiction Form (BAPINT). Using Student t test, Mann-Whitney u test and Spearman correlation analysis, the differences and associations were evaluated. Pearson-χ 2 and Fisher's exact tests were used for categorical variables. A P value less than 0.05 was considered statistically significant. Results: There was a statistically significant, positive but weak relationship between the scores of craving subscale of the BAPINT and the scores of impulsivity subscale of the SURPS (rho = 0.221, p = 0.003). In addition, there was a statistically significant, positive but weak relationship between the scores of effect on life subscale of the BAPINT and the scores of anxiety sensitivity subscale of the SURPS (rho = 0.176, p = 0.019). According to the total scores of the BAPINT, 31.1% (n = 61) of the participants had internet addiction. There were no significant differences between the adolescents with and without internet addiction in terms of lack of self-contentment, sensation seeking, impulsivity, and anxiety sensitivity. The scores of diagnosis, effect on life, craving and motivation to quit subscales of the BAP-INT, and hours of daily internet usage were statistically significantly higher in the adolescents with internet addiction (p = 0,000 for all). While 75.4% (n = 52) of those with internet addiction had internet access at home, 59.2% (n = 71) of those without internet addiction had internet access, and this rate was statistically significantly higher in addicts ( χ 2 = 5.056, p = 0.025). The rate of those who used the internet for gaming, social media and chat purposes (n = 39, 59.1%) was statistically significantly higher in those with internet addiction than those without addiction (n = 45, 38.5%) ( χ 2 = 10.087, p = 0.006). The scores of impulsivity subscale of the SURPS were statistically significantly higher in youth with higher scores of craving subscale of the BAPINT (n = 48) than those with lower scores of craving subscale of the BAP-INT (n = 129) (11.98 ± 3.06 versus 10.06 ± 3.06, respectively, t = 3.706, p = 0.000). Conclusions: Like substance abuse, adolescents' internet addiction may be mediated by a different motivational pattern such as impulsivity and anxiety sensitivity. Communitybased prospective studies may show which potential factors create vulnerability to internet addiction in adolescents. While effective, it has also been reported that lockdowns negatively affect psychological wellbeing, which has been associated with increased substance misuse. Objective: To investigate the impact of the COVID-19 lockdown on alcohol consumption. Methods: An online survey was conducted among the Dutch population [1] . Number of alcoholic drinks and number of drinking days per week were collected. This was done for the pre-lockdown period (15 January-14 March 2020) and the first Dutch lockdown (15 March-11 May 2020). Using 1item scales, stress was assessed on a scale ranging from absent (0) to extreme (10) [2] . Coping with stress was assessed with the corresponding subscale of the Fantastic Lifestyle Checklist [3] . Perceived immune fitness was assessed using a scale ranging from 0 (very poor) to 10 (excellent) [4] . Assessed COVID-19 symptoms included sneezing, runny nose, sore throat, cough, and malaise/feeling sick, high temperature (up to 38 Celsius), fever (38 Celsius and higher), shortness of breath, and chest pain [1] . Severity was rated as none (0), mild (1), moderate (2), or severe (3). The sum score of items served as the COVID-19 symptom severity score. COVID-19 symptom presence was calculated as the sum of symptoms with a score > 0. Assessments before and during the COVID-19 lockdown were compared using the Related Samples Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test. For each variable, difference scores ( , lockdown -before lockdown) were calculated. For the difference scores, Pearson's correlations with alcohol consumption outcomes were calculated.

Results: Data of N = 761 participants were analyzed (mean (SD) age 42.3 (19.0), 61.6% female). Compared to prelockdown, the lockdown period was associated with poorer mood (e.g. anxiety, depression, loneliness, fatigue, loneliness) and increased stress levels (all p < 0.0001). The stress scores correlated significantly with the quantity (r = 0.117, p = 0.002) and frequency (r = 0.088, p = 0.018) of alcohol consumption. The coping with stress scores correlated significantly with both the quantity (r = -0.200, p < 0.0001) and frequency (r = -0.229, p < 0.0001) of alcohol consumption. Significant correlations were found between perceived immune fitness and stress (r = -0.288, p < 0.0001) and coping with stress (r = 0.360, p < 0.0001), as well as between perceived immune fitness and the quantity (r = -0.082, p = 0.030), but not the frequency (r = -0.019, p = 0.614) of alcohol consumption. About half of the participants did not alter weekly alcohol consumption during lockdown (50.4%), whereas 25.9% reported a decrease, and 23.8% reported an increase. The increase in stress was greatest among those that increased alcohol consumption (p = 0.025), while coping with stress was poorest for this group (p = 0.001). Only for those that increased alcohol consumption, a significant poorer perceived immune fitness (p = 0.012), and an increase in both the presence (p = 0.013) and severity (p = 0.007) of COVID-19 symptoms was found. Conclusions: A substantial number of individuals increased alcohol consumption during lockdown. Increased alcohol consumption was associated with poorer perceived immune fitness and increased presence and severity of COVID-19 symptoms. These effects were not seen in individuals that did not increase alcohol consumption, presumably due to attaining better coping strategies for lockdown-related stress No conflict of interest

Immune fitness, and the psychosocial and health consequences of the COVID-19 pandemic lockdown in The Netherlands: methodology and design of the CLOFIT study

The use of single-item ratings versus traditional multiple-item questionnaires to assess mood and health

Lifestyle assessment: testing the FANTASTIC Instrument

Development and validation of the Immune Status Questionnaire (ISQ)

0308 Safety and efficacy of alcohol hangover treatments J. Verster 1 , 2 , C.J.I. Van Rossum 1

Netherlands-The; 2 Swinburne University, Centre for Human Psychopharmacology

The alcohol hangover is defined as the combination of negative mental and physical symptoms, which may be experienced the day after a single episode of alcohol consumption, starting when blood alcohol concentration (BAC) approaches zero [1] . Alcohol hangover is accompanied by significant mood changes and performance impairment, which can impair performance on potentially dangerous daily activities such as driving a car [2] . While limiting alcohol consumption is a strategy to reduce or prevent hangovers, there is also a significant market need for safe and effective hangover treatments [3] . Despite this market need [3] , a 2017 literature review on this topic failed to identify evidence-based hangover treatments that were proven safe and effective [4] . For consumers, however, it is important that hangover products are both safe and effective [3] . %2526nbsp; Objective: The objectives of this study were to evaluate (a) the ingredients of currently marketed hangover treatments, (b) whether companies make disease modification claims for these products, and (c) if there exists any independent scientific evidence on their efficacy and safety. Methods: A search on US Amazon for 'hangover treatment' was conducted on December 14, 2019. This yielded 378 products. After removing irrelevant products (i.e., if their primary use was not hangover-related, rehydration products, sport and soft drinks) and duplicates. Ingredients of the 82 products remaining in the analysis were listed. For these products, it was evaluated if the product name and/or package and insert contained any disease claim (i.e., if terms such as "cure", "treat", "correct", "prevent", or similar were used, or the word 'hangover' was included in the product name). Finally, a literature search was conducted (PubMed, cross references, and company websites) to identify scientific studies that examined the efficacy and safety of the marketed products. Results: The 82 hangover products that were identified come in various formats including capsules (46), tablets (10), powders (10), drinks (6), transdermal patches (5), oral liquids (3), gummies (1), or an aromatic scent (1). Two hundred and fifteen different vitamins, minerals, 'natural' ingredients (e.g., plant extracts), and synthetic organic chemicals were included in these products. Most common ingredients were vitamin B, vitamin C, milk thistle extract (silymarin), dihydromyricetin (DHM), and N-acetyl Lcysteine (NAC), often in combination. None of the products were registered as medicinal drugs, most were registered as a dietary supplement. Inspection of the product name and/or package/insert revealed explicit disease modification claims by 64.6 %2525 of the products. A review of scientific literature revealed no peer-reviewed human studies that evaluated the safety or efficacy of any of the 82 hangover products.