Objective: Although lower brain volume has been routinely observed in individuals with substance dependence compared with nondependent control subjects, the brain regions exhibiting lower volume have not been consistent across studies. In addition, it is not clear whether a common set of regions are involved in substance dependence regardless of the substance used or whether some brain volume effects are substance specific. Resolution of these issues may contribute to the identification of clinically relevant imaging biomarkers. Using pooled data from 14 countries, the authors sought to identify general and substance-specific associations between dependence and regional brain volumes. Method: Brain structure was examined in a mega-analysis of previously published data pooled from 23 laboratories, including 3,240 individuals, 2,140 of whom had substance dependence on one of five substances: alcohol, nicotine, cocaine, methamphetamine, or cannabis. Subcortical volume and cortical thickness in regions defined by FreeSurfer were compared with nondependent control subjects when all sampled substance categories were combined, as well as separately, while controlling for age, sex, imaging site, and total intracranial volume. Because of extensive associations with alcohol dependence, a secondary contrast was also performed for dependence on all substances except alcohol. An optimized split-half strategy was used to assess the reliability of the findings. Results: Lower volume or thickness was observed in many brain regions in individuals with substance dependence. The greatest effects were associated with alcohol use disorder. A set of affected regions related to dependence in general, regardless of the substance, included the insula and the medial orbitofrontal cortex. Furthermore, a support vector machine multivariate classification of regional brain volumes successfully classified individuals with substance dependence on alcohol or nicotine relative to nondependent control subjects. Conclusions: The results indicate that dependence on a range of different substances shares a common neural substrate and that differential patterns of regional volume could serve as useful biomarkers of dependence on alcohol and nicotine.

There is growing interest in non-invasive brain stimulation (NIBS) as a novel treatment option for substance-use disorders (SUDs). Recent momentum stems from a foundation of preclinical neuroscience demonstrating links between neural circuits and drug consuming behavior, as well as recent FDA-approval of NIBS treatments for mental health disorders that share overlapping pathology with SUDs. As with any emerging field, enthusiasm must be tempered by reason; lessons learned from the past should be prudently applied to future therapies. Here, an international ensemble of experts provides an overview of the state of transcranial-electrical (tES) and transcranial-magnetic (TMS) stimulation applied in SUDs. This consensus paper provides a systematic literature review on published data-emphasizing the heterogeneity of methods and outcome measures while suggesting strategies to help bridge knowledge gaps. The goal of this effort is to provide the community with guidelines for best practices in tES/TMS SUD research. We hope this will accelerate the speed at which the community translates basic neuroscience into advanced neuromodulation tools for clinical practice in addiction medicine.

UHR and 22q11DS patients share a susceptibility for developing psychosis yet were characterized by distinct patterns of WM alterations relative to HC. While UHR patients were typified by signs suggestive of aberrant myelination, 22q11DS subjects showed signs suggestive of lower axonal integrity.

Background: In order to improve the current treatment of addictive disorders non-invasive neuromodulation over the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (DLPFC) has gained attention. The DLPFC is crucially involved in executive functioning, functions which are related to the course of addictive disorders. Non-invasive stimulation of the DLPFC may lead to changes in executive functioning. Currently an overview of effects of neuromodulation on these functions is lacking. Therefore, this systematic review addresses the effects of non-invasive neuromodulation on executive functioning in addictive disorders.Methods: The current review is conducted and reported in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses for Protocols 2015 (PRISMA-P 2015) guidelines and has been registered in PROSPERO International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/, registration number: CRD42018084157). Original articles were searched using the Ovid MEDLINE, Embase and PsycINFO database.Results: The systematic search resulted in 1,228 unique studies, of which sixteen were included in the current review. Some of these studies do not address the classic definition of executive functions, but another cognitive function. However, they were included in this review since the field is small and still under development and we aim to give an inclusive overview in its broadest sense. The following executive and other cognitive functioning domains were assessed: attention, cognitive flexibility, response inhibition, memory and learning, problem solving, social cognition, risk taking, cognitive bias modification and overall executive functioning. The executive function domain most positively affected was social cognition followed by memory & learning, response inhibition, cognitive flexibility and attention.Conclusions: The studies addressed in the current review used a large variability of stimulation protocols and study designs which complicates comparability of the results. Nevertheless, the results of these studies are promising in light of improvement of current treatment. Therefore, we recommend future studies that compare the effect of different types of stimulation, stimulation sides and number of stimulation sessions in larger clinical trials. This will significantly increase the comparability of the studies and thereby accelerate and clarify the conclusion on whether non-invasive neuromodulation is an effective add-on treatment for substance dependence.