Shared genetic vulnerability for disordered gambling and alcohol use disorder in men and women: evidence from a national community-based Australian twin study.

University of Missouri, Department of Psychological Sciences, Columbia, MO, USA.
Twin Research and Human Genetics (Impact Factor: 1.92). 04/2013; 16(2):525-34. DOI: 10.1017/thg.2013.11
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT Disordered gambling (DG) will soon be included along with the substance use disorders in a revised diagnostic category of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders DSM-5 called 'Substance Use and Addictive Disorders'. This was premised in part on the common etiologies of DG and the substance use disorders. Using data from the national community-based Australian Twin Registry, we used biometric model fitting to examine the extent to which the genetic liabilities for DG and alcohol use disorder (AUD) were shared, and whether this differed for men and women. The effect of using categorical versus dimensional DG and AUD phenotypes was explored, as was the effect of using diagnoses based on the DSM-IV and the proposed DSM-5 diagnostic criteria. The genetic correlations between DG and AUD ranged from 0.29 to 0.44. There was a significantly larger genetic correlation between DG and AUD among men than women when using dimensional phenotypes. Overall, about one-half to two-thirds of the association between DG and AUD was due to a shared genetic vulnerability. This study represents one of the few empirical demonstrations of an overlap in the genetic risk for DG and another substance-related addictive disorder. More research is needed on the genetic overlap between DG and other substance use disorders, as well as the genetic overlap between DG and other (non-substance-related) psychiatric disorders.

Download full-text


Available from: Jarrod Ellingson, Jul 05, 2015
1 Follower
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Investigate the genetic and environmental contributions to age at first drink (AFD) and age first gambled (AFG), assess their overlap and examine sex differences. Univariate twin models were fit to decompose the variation in AFD and AFG into additive genetic, shared environmental, and unique environmental factors. Bivariate genetic models were fit to assess the genetic and environmental contributions to the sources of covariation in AFD and AFG. National Australian Twin Registry PARTICIPANTS: 4,542 same-sex and opposite-sex twins aged 32-43, 42% male and 58% female MEASUREMENTS: AFD and AFG were assessed via structured psychiatric telephone interviews. Age of onset was treated as both continuous and categorical (early/late onset). AFD and AFG were modestly correlated (r=.18). Unique environmental influences explained a substantial proportion of the variation in both AFD (.55, 95% confidence interval [CI]=.50-.61) and AFG (.66, 95% CI=.59-.72), but these influences were uncorrelated (rE=.01). Additive genetic factors explained a notable proportion of variation in AFG (.21, 95% CI=.003-.39), while shared environmental factors were important for AFD (.31, 95% CI=.15-.46). Among men, genetic factors influenced variation in AFG but not in AFD and shared environmental factors influenced variation in AFD but not in AFG. Among women, shared environmental factors influenced variation in both AFD and AFG, but these environmental factors were not significantly correlated (rC=.09). Among Australian twins, age at first drink and age first gambled are influenced by distinct unique environmental factors, and the genetic and environmental underpinnings of both phenotypes differ in men and women.
    Addiction 07/2013; 109(2). DOI:10.1111/add.12310 · 4.60 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Gambling disorder, recognized by the DSM-5 as a behavioral addiction, affects .4-1.6% of adults worldwide, and is highly comorbid with other mental health disorders, particularly substance use disorders (SUDs). To provide a concise primer on the relationship between gambling disorder and SUDs, focusing on phenomenology/clinical presentation, co-morbidity, familiality, cognition, neuroanatomy/neurochemistry, and treatment. Selective review of the literature. Scientific evidence shows that gambling and SUDs have consistently high rates of comorbidity, similar clinical presentations, and some genetic and physiological overlap. Several treatment approaches show promise for gambling disorder, some of which have previously been effective for SUDs. It is hoped that recognition of overlap between gambling disorder and SUDs in terms of phenomenology and neurobiology will signal novel treatment approaches and raise the profile of this neglected condition. (Am J Addict 2013;XX:1-6).
    American Journal on Addictions 09/2013; 24(2). DOI:10.1111/j.1521-0391.2013.12112.x · 1.74 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Pathological gambling is known to be associated with a higher than average prevalence of psychological co-morbidities including a range of psychiatric conditions. A problem with much of this literature, however, is that such problems are also frequently found in populations affected by alcohol use disorder, which is common in populations of pathological gamblers. Accordingly, the principal aim of this study was to profile the comorbidities present in a sample of pathological gamblers, comparing those who did, and did not, additionally meet criteria for alcohol use disorder. A sample of 140 community-recruited regular gamblers completed a number of measures including the Mini International Neuropsychiatric Interview, the Personality Diagnostic Questionnaire, NORC DSM-IV Screen Self-Administered and the Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test. Comparisons showed that most psychiatric conditions (and in particular personality disorders) were significantly more prevalent in those with a dual diagnosis, followed by problem gamblers and then by those with neither disorder. This suggests that high rates of psychiatric illness in pathological gambling may be strongly influenced by co-occurring alcohol problems.
    Addictive behaviors 11/2013; 39(3). DOI:10.1016/j.addbeh.2013.11.004 · 2.44 Impact Factor