Universidade de São Paulo
2012-10
Compulsive features in behavioural addictions:
the case of pathological gambling
ADDICTION, HOBOKEN, v. 107, n. 10, supl. 1, Part 1, pp. 1726-1734, OCT, 2012
http://www.producao.usp.br/handle/BDPI/32598
Downloaded from: Biblioteca Digital da Produção Intelectual - BDPI, Universidade de São Paulo
Biblioteca Digital da Produção Intelectual - BDPI
Compulsive features in behavioural addictions:
the case of pathological gambling
add_35461726..1734Nady el-Guebaly
1, Tanya Mudry
2, Joseph Zohar
3, Hermano Tavares
4& Marc N. Potenza
5Department of Psychiatry, University of Calgary, Alberta, Canada,1
Division of Applied Psychology, University of Calgary, Alberta, Canada,2
Department of Psychiatry, Chaim Sheba Medical Centre,Tel Hashomer, Israel,3Department of Psychiatry, University of São Paolo, São Paolo, Brazil4and Departments of Psychiatry,
Child Study and Neurobiology, Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, CT, USA5
ABSTRACT
Aims To describe, in the context of DSM-V, how a focus on addiction and compulsion is emerging in the consideration of pathological gambling (PG).Methods A systematic literature review of evidence for the proposed re-classification of PG as an addiction.Results Findings include: (i) phenomenological models of addiction highlighting a motiva-tional shift from impulsivity to compulsivity associated with a protracted withdrawal syndrome and blurring of the ego-syntonic/ego-dystonic dichotomy; (ii) common neurotransmitter (dopamine, serotonin) contributions to PG and substance use disorders (SUDs); (iii) neuroimaging support for shared neurocircuitries between ‘behavioural’ and substance addictions and differences between obsessive–compulsive disorder (OCD), impulse control disorders (ICDs) and SUDs; (iv) genetic findings more closely related to endophenotypic constructs such as compulsivity and impulsivity than to psychiatric disorders; (v) psychological measures such as harm avoidance identifying a closer association between SUDs and PG than with OCD; (vi) community and pharmacotherapeutic trials data supporting a closer association between SUDs and PG than with OCD. Adapted behavioural therapies, such as exposure therapy, appear applicable to OCD, PG or SUDs, suggesting some commonalities across disorders.Conclusions PG shares more simi-larities with SUDs than with OCD. Similar to the investigation of impulsivity, studies of compulsivity hold promising insights concerning the course, differential diagnosis and treatment of PG, SUDs, and OCD.
Keywords Addiction, compulsivity, endophenotypes, impulsivity, pathological gambling.
Correspondence to:Nady el-Guebaly, Department of Psychiatry, University of Calgary, Alberta, Canada, T2N 4T7. E-mail: [email protected]
Submitted 5 January 2011; initial review completed 23 March 2011; final version accepted 13 June 2011
INTRODUCTION
Debate exists regarding the appropriateness of consider-ing pathological gamblconsider-ing (PG) as an impulse control, obsessive–compulsive-spectrum or addictive disorder [1,2] as features of impulsivity, compulsivity and addic-tion are observed in PG [3]. This debate is timely, as the
Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders
(DSM-5) develops [4,5]. Proposed changes include the reclassification of PG from the Impulse Control Disorders (ICDs) category to one of ‘Addiction and Related Dis-orders’ [1] and obsessive–compulsive disorder (OCD) from the anxiety disorder category to one of obsessive– compulsive spectrum disorders (OCSDs) [6], where ICDs characterized by excessive shopping, internet use or sexual behaviour could be included [7]. Emerging from these proposed changes is an increasing focus on
addic-tion and compulsion in the consideraaddic-tion of ICDs within the new nomenclature. Here we examine the potential overlap of compulsivity and addiction in relation to PG, substance use disorders (SUDs) and OCD along phenom-enological and neurobiological lines, and discuss treat-ment implications.
COMMONALITIES BETWEEN DEFINITIONS AND CRITERIA
A feature of substance dependence in the DSM-IV-TR is that ‘use is continued despite knowledge of having a per-sistent or recurrent physical or psychological problem’ [8]. The term ‘addiction’ avoids confusion relating to non-addictive forms of dependence (e.g. as observed in people taking beta-adrenergic antagonists for hypertension). With components related to diminished self-control and
craving [9], addiction involves compulsive drug use despite adverse consequences [10], suggesting that addic-tions are not limited to drug use [4,11]. Similar to drug addictions, PG can include repeated unsuccessful efforts to control, cut back or stop gambling; feeling restless or irritable when attempting to cut down or stop gambling; and diminished ability to resist an impulse to gamble despite serious or adverse consequences of the gambling behaviours [8].
Compulsivity in OCD involves performing unpleas-antly repetitive acts in a habitual manner to prevent perceived negative consequences, leading to functional impairment [12–14]. The traditional psychopathology perspective associates compulsive behaviours with obses-sions, cognitions which, as a whole, are characterized by unrelenting doubts about one’s own perceptions and behaviours, hesitation, feelings of incompleteness and over-estimation of risk. Such features are proposed to have their roots in personality, the so-called ‘anankastic trait’. The perennial nature of the trait would answer for the recurrent need to repeat specific behaviours to domesticate an eternal subjective disquiet, thus delineat-ing a compulsivity construct [15]. Parallels in phenom-enology related to OCD, ICDs and substance addictions may involve engagement in seemingly compulsive behav-iours to prevent or reduce distress [8], anxiety or stress prior to participation in the behaviours and relief during and following performance of the behaviours [9].
PHENOMENOLOGICAL ASPECTS OF COMPULSIVITY
Is there a motivational shift?
Several models of addiction conceptualize a progression from impulsivity to compulsivity, transitioning from initial positive reinforcement motivations to later nega-tive reinforcement and automaticity mechanisms [9,16– 20]. A protracted withdrawal syndrome may occur, generating motivational aspects of dependence, through negative emotional states (e.g. dysphoria, anxiety, irrita-bility) when access to the drug or addictive behaviour is prevented. This negative affective state may contribute to compulsivity through negative reinforcement [9,19,21].
How distinct is the ego-syntonic/ ego-dystonic dichotomy?
While there may be similar compulsive features in PG, OCD and substance addiction, there are also differences. Substance and behavioural addictions such as PG have been described as ego-syntonic, meaning they are often preceded by feelings of ‘pleasure, gratification, or relief at the time of committing the act’ [8]. In OCD, compulsive behaviours are often completed to suppress or neutralize
thoughts and reduce tension and anxiety related to obsessions [8]. These compulsions are typically consid-ered ego-dystonic in nature. Thus, the motivations underlying compulsive behaviours in addictions and OCD may differ. However, addictive behaviours may become less ego-syntonic and more ego-dystonic over time, as the behaviour or effects of the substance becomes less plea-surable and more habitual or compulsive [9,19,21–23]. Similarly, reference to the compulsions in OCD as integrally ‘unpleasant’ may not always be the case, as in childhood OCD, or the relief individuals may obtain after ‘cleaning just right’ or the satisfaction attached to arranging until ‘mission accomplished’ [24].
Tolerance and withdrawal
The occurrence of tolerance may be another similarity between substance addiction, PG and OCD, with a drive to increase the intensity of the repetitive behaviour over time [25,26]. An urge or craving while abstaining from the behaviours may have similarity with cravings during drug withdrawal in substance addictions [1]. The transi-tion of drug use to addictransi-tion has also been considered with respect to neuroplasticity where, with repeated exposure to drugs of abuse, an incentive salience state of ‘wanting’, linked to compulsive use, replaces a ‘liking’ or hedonic response [27].
NEUROBIOLOGICAL UNDERPINNINGS OF COMPULSIVITY
Neurotransmitters
Multiple neurotransmitter systems contribute to sub-stance addiction and PG, many of which are implicated in OCD; however, data suggest differences in the nature of the involvement of these systems in PG and OCD [22]. Serotonin (5-HT) contributes to behavioural inhibi-tion and dopamine (DA) to learning, motivainhibi-tion and the salience of stimuli, including rewards [28]. Pharma-cological challenges of 5-HT and dopamine systems [29–33] suggest differences in the nature of the involve-ment of these systems in OCD compared to PG and SUDs. Following a challenge with a serotonergic agonist such asmeta-chlorophenyl piperazine (m-CPP), OCD patients report an exacerbation of OC symptoms [32]. Individuals with PG are more likely to report a euphoric or ‘high’ response tom-CPP, similar to responses seen in alcohol-dependent subjects [30].
Neurocircuitry
Neuroimaging data support a shared neurocircuitry of behavioural and substance addictions that appears differ-entially involved in OCD [19]. Frontostriatal circuitry
contributes to impulsive choice in substance addiction [17] and PG [34,35]. Dysfunction of striato-thalamo-cortical circuitry, implicated in perseverative behaviours, may account for compulsive drug use in addiction [36].
Frontal-striatal circuits are implicated in OCD, ICDs in Parkinson’s disease (PD) and cocaine-seeking behaviours [37]. In one model [37], a ventral prefrontal system con-cerned with emotive factors interacts with a dorsal pre-frontal executive functioning system. In ICDs in PD, an imbalance between limbic and motor cortical systems, related in part to PD pathology and/or the DA replace-ment therapies used to treat the disorder, may exist [38]. In drug addiction, an imbalance of the ventral and motor systems may be flexible in time, moving from involvement of ventral to dorsal circuitry [17,19,39].
Cravings in substance and behavioural addictions have been associated with diminished ventral striatal activation [40], similar to findings during reward pro-cessing or simulated gambling in PG and alcoholism [41,42]. Gambling task participation may elicit greater DA release in the ventral striatum in individuals with PD and PG than in individuals with PD alone [43], a response similar to that elicited by drugs or drug-associated cues in drug-addicted individuals [44] or in PD subjects who take DA replacement drugs excessively [45]. Increased activation of frontostriatal circuitry has been observed following cue exposure in OCD [46], whereas diminished activation has been seen in PG [47], highlighting the need for concurrent investigation of PG, OCD, drug-dependent and control subjects [22].
Koob & Volkow [9] argue that impulsivity domi-nates the early stages of addiction, and impulsivity com-bined with compulsivity dominates the later stages. They propose three stages of the addiction cycle: ‘binge/intoxication’, ‘withdrawal/negative affect’ and ‘preoccupation/anticipation’ (craving). In their model, the ventral tegmental area and ventral striatum contrib-ute substantially to the binge/intoxication stage, the extended amygdala (including regions of amygdala, stria terminalis and nucleus accumbens) contributes substan-tially to the withdrawal/negative affect stage, and the preoccupation/anticipation stage involves a widely dis-tributed network involving the orbitofrontal cortex– dorsal striatum, prefrontal cortex, basolateral amygdala and hippocampus. The insula contributes to craving, the cingulate gyrus, dorsolateral prefrontal and inferior frontal cortices to poor inhibitory control, and a pro-tracted withdrawal syndrome with a negative affect state to compulsivity [9,21].
Consideration of protracted withdrawal in PG is war-ranted, as psychological withdrawal has been reported in PG [1,48]. Additionally, gambling in response to emotional dysregulation [23] and coping with stress have been cited as precedents of engaging in PG [49].
Similarly, drug-taking in drug addiction and compulsive behaviours in OCD may be performed to reduce distress [8].
Lubmanet al. [50] caution that, while there are simi-larities in clinical features and behavioural deficits asso-ciated with inhibitory control in both addiction and OCD, functional activity within inhibitory regions is markedly dissimilar, reflecting differences in core cognitive pro-cesses relevant to each disorder [50–53]. An under-activity of the inhibitory system in addiction may be associated with limited future regard and diminished ability to resist engaging in drug-related behaviours, whereas in OCD the system may be overactive, perhaps because individuals are overly concerned about future consequences [50].
Genetic vulnerability and endophenotypes
Candidate gene studies of PG suggest links to SUDs and poor inhibitory control [22]. Some but not other studies have implicated theTaq-A1 polymorphism of the gene encoding the DA D2 receptor [54–56]. Variants of the 5-HT transporter gene have been implicated in both OCD and PG, but the nature of the associations differ [22], with the long allele found in association with OCD and the short allele found in association with PG [57,58].
In support of OCSDs, a cluster analysis conducted in patients with OCD identified three separate clusters [59]. The clusters were termed: reward deficiency (including trichotillomania, Tourette’s disorder, pathological gam-bling and hypersexual disorder); impulsivity (including compulsive shopping, kleptomania, eating disorders, self-injury and intermittent explosive disorder); and somatic (including body dysmorphic disorder and hypochondria-sis). None were associated with any particular genetic variant studied. Future genetic investigations should con-sider behavioural dimensions (compulsivity and impul-sivity) and endophenotypes [60]. Endophenotypes have the potential to measure objective trait markers that are either simpler to assess than complex phenotypic behav-ioural diseases or may represent constructs aligned more closely with biological underpinnings of psychiatric disorders [61]. Because endophenotype research in psy-chiatry is relatively new, limited data are available [62].
An abnormally reduced activation of several cortical regions, including the orbitofrontal cortex during rever-sal learning in OCD patients and their clinically un-affected close relatives, has been identified. In a study assessing inhibitory control processes, OCD probands and unaffected first-degree relatives showed cognitive inflex-ibility (extra-dimensional set shifting) and motor impul-sivity (stop-signal reaction times). These deficits may represent endophenotypes for OCD and related conditions [62,63].
In a motor inhibition paradigm (the stop-signal task—SST), both OCD patients and their unaffected first-degree relatives exhibited impaired motor inhibitory control, indexed by prolonged latency of the stop-signal reaction time (SSRT), and longer latency was associated with both decreased grey-matter volume in the orbito-frontal cortex and right inferior orbito-frontal cortex (areas associated conventionally with OCD and SST activation, respectively) and increased grey-matter volume in areas of the striatum, cingulate and parietal cortex [64]. These results argue for the first structural magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) endophenotype mediating familial, and possibly genetic, risk for OCD-related impulsivity. Data suggest that such an endophenotype may also be relevant to PG and SUDs [23].
COMPLEMENTARY DIMENSIONS OF COMPULSIVITY
Psychological measures
Individuals with OCD score highly on measures of harm avoidance [65], whereas those with PG approximate more closely those with SUDs, scoring highly on mea-sures of impulsivity and novelty seeking [19,47,66]. However, some individuals with OCD display high levels of cognitive impulsiveness [67], and individuals with PG or OCD have demonstrated high levels of both impulsiv-ity and harm avoidance, suggesting a complex relation-ship between impulsivity and compulsivity [22,68]. Within OCSDs, Hollander & Wong [69] proposed an organizing axis (the impulsive–compulsive spectrum) in which psychiatric disorders lie along a spectrum with OCD at the compulsivity extreme and antisocial person-ality disorder at the impulsive extreme. However, the co-occurrence of impulsivity and compulsivity traits in several addictive disorders challenges this uni-dimensional model. A study of PG and OCD [68] pro-posed unfolding the impulsive–compulsive spectrum into two orthogonal dimensions, yielding three psy-chopathological domains: predominantly impulsive, predominantly compulsive (OCD) and impulsive– compulsive (PG).
Decision-making is relevant to PG, OCD and SUDs [22]. Similar differences in decision-making reflecting a propensity to make disadvantageous choices during gambling task performance have been found between control subjects and those with PG [70], OCD [71] and SUDs [72]. However, other studies have found decision-making to be intact in OCD despite impairment on other tasks [73,74]. The lack of convergence of these findings may reflect the heterogeneity of OCD, and further research is needed investigating compulsivity and decision-making.
Co-occurring disorders
Clinical and community samples indicate that PG co-occurs with multiple Axis I and II disorders, with particularly strong associations with SUDs [75–78]. Unfortunately, diagnostic assessments of OCD have not been obtained consistently. In the St Louis Epidemio-logic Catchment Area (ECA) study, whereas elevated odds ratios (ORs) were observed between problem/ pathological gambling and SUDs, a non-elevated OR of 0.6 was observed between problem/pathological gambling and OCD [79].
Although PG and OCD might not have a strong connection, they share comorbidities. In the National Comorbidity Survey Replication, a subsample of 2073 respondents was assessed for OCD [80]. More than one-quarter of respondents reported experiencing life-time obsessions or compulsions, but only small proportions of respondents met DSM-IV criteria for life-time (2.3%) or 12-month (1.2%) OCD. OCD was associated with sub-stantial comorbidity, with the strongest associations with internalizing (anxiety and mood) disorders and elevated odds for ICDs and SUDs. Together, these findings suggest the need for measures of OCD, PG and other substance and behavioural addictions in population surveys and further investigation of their relationships.
RESPONSE TO TREATMENT
Pharmacotherapies
Although no drug is indicated formally for PG, three main classes have been investigated: opioid antagonists, mood stabilizers and serotonin re-uptake inhibitors (SRIs) [81,82]. Opioid antagonists such as naltrexone reduce drinking frequency and likelihood of relapse to heavy drinking [83,84]. Opioid antagonists also appear effica-cious in the treatment of PG [1,85–87]. As response to opioid antagonist treatment appears particularly robust among individuals with a family history of alcoholism [88], a treatment-relevant addiction-related endopheno-type, perhaps related to craving or urges, is suggested.
The treatment-related similarities between PG and SUDs constrast with OCD findings. Naltrexone does not influence OCD severity [89] and may exacerbate symp-toms [90,91]. Mood stabilizers such as lithium may be helpful in treating PG [92–94] but not OCD [95]. Antip-sychotic drugs antagonizing DA D2-like receptors (halo-peridol, risperidone and olanzapine) have shown efficacy as augmenting agents in OCD [96], but have demon-strated negative findings in placebo-controlled trials in PG [97–99] and increase motivations to gamble in PG [100]. SRIs are indicated for treating OCD [96], but have had mixed results for PG and SUDs [22]. Some randomized control trials have found fluvoxamine and paroxetine to
be superior to placebo in the treatment of PG [101,102], and others have not [103,104]. Differential effects of pharmacotherapy on PG suggest targeting co-occurring disorders, such as anxiety [105], when treating PG [76,106], and concurrent decreases in both PG and the co-occurring domains have been observed [93,105].
A double-blind, placebo-controlled, counterbalanced study of an atypical stimulant (modafinil) in PG sug-gested two subgroups [100]. Subjects with high impulsiv-ity showed a decrease in motivation to gamble, risky decision-making, impulsivity and responses to gambling-related lexical stimuli. Those with low impulsivity showed increased scores on all these measures, suggesting a bidi-rectional effect of modafinil that differentiates between high and low impulsive individuals with PG. This finding suggests heterogeneity in PG, which could explain seem-ingly conflicting results in clinical trials. Other data suggest that impulsivity may represent an important treatment target in PG [107,108]. Emerging data also suggest roles for glutamatergic therapies in the treatment of OCD, PG and SUDs [96,109,110], possibly through targeting compulsivity related measures (e.g. cognitive inflexibility) [111], although results should be inter-preted cautiously.
Behavioural interventions
Behavioural therapies efficacious in treating SUDs may also be helpful for PG and OCD [112,113]. Behavioural and motivational therapies, including motivational inter-viewing (MI) and cognitive–behavioural therapy (CBT), have been shown to be effective in treating SUDs and PG [82,114–117]. Attendance in Gamblers Anonymous (GA), modelled after Alcoholics Anonymous (AA), has been associated with better outcome for people partici-pating in professional gambling treatment [118]. OCD has been treated typically through exposure/response prevention strategies [119,120], and theoretically similar imaginal desensitization approaches have support in PG [121–124].
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
Significant overlap exists between PG and SUDs, with compulsivity representing a potentially important endophenotype. Although OCD and addictions may share some similarities, they appear neurobiologically dif-ferent, have lower than expected comorbidity rates and differ with respect to responses to treatments [125]. However, like impulsivity, compulsivity as an endopheno-typic construct is important to examine in future studies of ICDs, SUDs and OCD [28,39,61].
Regarding the putative behavioural addictions, PG may be the only disorder with enough existing data to progress with classification as an addiction [1].
Behav-ioural addictions represent an important focus of future research. Behavioural addictions may be similar to or dif-ferent from each other at phenotypical and neurobiologi-cal levels with existing data suggesting both [126]. It is likely that as with OCD and other psychiatric disorders, each behavioural addiction will represent a heteroge-neous disorder [127,128]. Such heterogeneity should be recognized while investigating the precise categorizations of the disorders and the development of optimally effec-tive prevention and treatment strategies. Neurobiological advances may help in the understanding of heterogene-ities and guide treatment development. Cognitive and behavioural approaches mindful of specific symptom clusters and recognizing the symptomatic evolution of the impulsivity–compulsivity constructs may lead to enhanced effectiveness. Recent models of impulsivity suggest the construct is not uni-dimensional [129,130]. Compulsivity is likely to be multi-dimensional, with com-ponents reflecting motivationally driven, repetitive per-formance of behaviours. Compulsivity, like impulsivity, may represent an important endophenotype for ICDs, SUDs and OCD ([28,39,61]). As endophenotypes repre-sent intermediary constructs between complex disorders and genotypes, they may track more closely to biological constructs and be improved targets for prevention and treatment interventions.
Declarations of interest
Dr Nady el-Guebaly and Tanya Mudry have no financial conflict of interest to report with respect to the content of this manuscript. Dr Zohar has received research funding and speaking fees from Lundbeck, as well as research funding and consultancy fees from Servier. Dr Tavares has received research support from Cristalia, Roche and Sandoz in his role as President of Brazil’s National Association on Pathological Gambling and Other Impulse Control Disorders. Dr Potenza has received research support from the Mohegan Sun Casino, the National Center for Responsible Gaming and its affiliated Institute for Research on Gambling Disorders (both gambling industry funded organisations); has consulted for and advised Boehringer Ingelheim; has consulted for and has financial interests in Somaxon; and Forest Laboratories, Ortho-McNeil, Oy-Control/Biotie, Glaxo-SmithKline and Psyadon Pharmaceuticals.
Acknowledgements
This paper was conceived with the help of a travel grant funded by the Alberta Gaming Research Institute and supported in part by NIH grants R01 DA019039, R01 DA020908, RL1 AA017539, RC1 DA028279 and P20 DA027844, the VA VISN1 MIRECC and the National Center for Responsible Gaming and its Institute for Research on Gambling Disorders.
References
1. Grant J. E., Potenza M. N., Weinstein A., Gorelick D. A. Introduction to behavioral addictions.Am J Drug Alcohol
Abuse2010;35: 233–41.
2. Wareham J. D., Potenza M. N. Pathological gambling and substance use disorders.Am J Drug Alcohol Abuse2000;
36: 242–7.
3. el-Guebaly N., Mudry T. Problematic internet use and the diagnostic journey.World Psychiatry2010;9: 93–4. 4. Holden C. Psychiatry. Behavioral addictions debut in
proposed DSM-V.Science2010;327: 935.
5. American Psychiatric Association.DSM-5: The Future of
Psychiatric Diagnosis. DSM-5 development website. 2010.
Available at: http://www.dsm5.org/Pages/Default.aspx (accessed 15 July 2011). (Archived by Webcite at http:// www.webcitation.org/60Cf7JKHc).
6. Hollander E., Benzaquen S. D. The obsessive–compulsive spectrum disorders.Int Rev Psychiatry1997;9: 99–110. 7. Lejoyeux M., Weinstein A. Compulsive buying.Am J Drug
Alcohol Abuse2010;36: 248–53.
8. American Psychiatric Association.Diagnostic and
Statisti-cal Nanual of Mental Disorders, IV-TR edn. Arlington, VA:
American Psychiatric Association; 2000.
9. Koob G. F., Volkow N. D. Neurocircuitry of addiction.
Neuropharmacology2010;35: 217–38.
10. O’Brien C. P., Volkow N., Li T. K. What’s in a word? Addic-tion versus dependence in DSM-V.Am J Psychiatry2006;
163: 764–5.
11. Holden C. ‘Behavioral’ addictions: do they exist?Science
2001;294: 980–2.
12. Hollander E., Cohen L. J. Impulsivity and Compulsivity. Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Press; 1996. 13. Chamberlain S. R., Fineberg N. A., Blackwell A. D.,
Robbins T. W., Sahakian B. J. Motor inhibition and cognitive flexibility in obsessive–compulsive disorder and trichotillomania.Am J Psychiatry2006;163: 1282–4. 14. World Health Organization. International Classification
of Diseases, 10th Revision. World Health Organization
website. 2010. Available at: http://www.who.int/ classifications/icd/en/ (accessed 15 July 2011). (Archived by Webcite at http://www.webcitation.org/60Cfqog86). 15. Rasmussen S. A., Eisen J. L. Epidemiological and clinical
features of obsessive–compulsive disorder. In: Jenike M. A., Baer L. B., Minichielo W.E., editors.Obsessive–Compulsive
Disorders: Theory and Management, 2nd edn. Chicago, IL:
Year Book Medical; 1990, p. 39–60.
16. Koob G. F. Brain stress systems in the amygdala and addic-tion.Brain Res2009;1293: 61–75.
17. Everitt B., Robbins T. W. Neural systems of reinforcement for drug addiction: from actions to habits to compulsion.
Nat Neurosci2005;8: 1481–9.
18. Zohar J., Fostick L., Juven-Wetzler E. Obsessive compulsive disorder. In: Belder M., Andreasen N., Lopez-Ibor J., Geddes J., editors.New Oxford Textbook of Psychiatry, 2nd edn. New York: Oxford University Press; 2009, p. 765–73. 19. Brewer J. A., Potenza M. N. The neurobiology and genetics
of impulse control disorders: relationships to drug addic-tions.Biochem Pharmacol2008;75: 63–75.
20. Koob G. F., Le Moal M. Drug abuse: hedonic homeostatic dysregulation.Science1997;278: 52–8.
21. Koob G. F., Le Moal M. Drug addiction, dysregulation of reward, and allostasis. Neuropsychopharmacology 2001;
24: 97–129.
22. Potenza M. N., Koran L. M., Pallanti S. The relation-ship between impulse–control disorders and obsessive– compulsive disorder: a current understanding and future research directions.Psychiatry Res2009;170: 22–31. 23. de Castro V., Fong T., Rosenthal R. J., Tavares H. A
comparison of craving and emotional states between pathological gamblers and alcoholics.Addict Behav2007;
32: 1555–64.
24. Zohar J., Hollander E., Stein D. J., Westenberg H. G., The Cape Town Consensus Group. Consensus statement.
CNS Spectr,Int J Neuropsychiatr Med2007;12: 59–63.
25. Blanco C., Moreyra P., Nunes E. V., Saiz-Ruiz J., Ibanez A. Pathological gambling: addiction or compulsion? Semin
Clin Neuropsychiatry2001;6: 167–76.
26. Grant J. E., Brewer J. A., Potenza M. N. The neurobiology of substance and behavioral addictions. CNS Spectr2006;
11: 924–30.
27. Robinson T. E., Berridge K. C. The neural basis of drug craving: an incentive–sensitization theory of addiction.
Brain Res Rev1993;18: 247–91.
28. Fineberg N. A., Potenza M. N., Chamberlain S. R., Berlin H. A., Menzies L., Bechara A.et al. Probing compulsive and impulsive behaviors, from animal models to endopheno-types: a narrative review.Neuropsychopharmacology2010;
35: 591–604.
29. Chambers R. A., Taylor J. R., Potenza M. N. Developmental neurocircuitry of motivation in adolescence: a critical period of addiction vulnerability.Am J Psychiatry2003;
160: 1041–52.
30. Potenza M. N., Hollander E. Pathological gambling and impulse control disorders. In: Davis K. L., Charney D., Coyle J. T., Nemeroff C., editors.Neuropsychopharmacology:
The 5th Generation of Progress. Baltimore, MD: Lippincott
Williams and Wilkins; 2002, p. 1725–41.
31. Pauls D. L., Mundo E., Kennedy J. L. The pathophysiology and genetics of obsessive–compulsive disorder. In: Davis K., Charney D., Coyle J. T., Nemeroff C., editors.
Neuropsy-chopharmacology: The 5th Generation of Progress. Baltimore,
MD: Lippincott Williams and Wilkins; 2002, p. 1609– 19.
32. Gross-Isseroff R., Cohen R., Sasson Y., Voet H., Zohar J. Serotonergic dissection of obsessive compulsive symp-toms: a challenge study with m-chlorophenylpiperazine and sumatriptan. Neuropsychobiology 2004; 50: 200– 5.
33. Denys D., de Geus F., van Megan H. J., Westenberg H. G. A double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial of quetiapine addition in patients with obsessive–compulsive disorder refractory to serotonin reuptake inhibitors.J Clin
Psychiatry2004;65: 1040–8.
34. Potenza M. N. Should addictive disorders include non-substance-related conditions? Addiction2006;101: 142–51.
35. Williams W. A., Potenza M. N. The neurobiology of impulse control disorders.Rev Bras Psiquiatr2008;30: S24–30.
36. Volkow N. D., Fowler J. S. Addiction, a disease of compul-sion and drive: involvement of the orbitofrontal cortex.
Cereb Cortex2000;10: 318–25.
37. van den Heuvel O. A., der Werf Y. D., Verhoef K. M., de Wit S., Berendse H. W., Wolters E. C. h. et al. Frontal-striatal abnormalities underlying behaviours in the compulsive–impulsive spectrum.J Neurol Sci2010;289: 55–9.
38. Leeman R. F., Potenza N. M. Impulse control disorders in Parkinson’s disease: clinical characteristics and implica-tions.Neuropsychiatry2011;1: 133–47.
39. Dalley J. W., Everitt B. J., Robbins T. W. Impulsivity, com-pulsivity, and top-down cognitive control.Neuron2011;
69: 680–94.
40. Potenza M. N. The neurobiology of pathological gambling and drug addiction: an overview and new findings.Phil
Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci2008;363: 3181–9.
41. Reuter J., Raedler T., Rose M., Hand I., Glascher J., Buchel C. Pathological gambling is linked to reduced activation of the mesolimbic reward system.Nat Neurosci2005;8: 147–8.
42. Wrase J., Kahnt T., Schlagenhauf F., Beck A., Cohen M. X., Knutson B.et al. Different neural systems adjust motor behavior in response to reward and punishment. Neuroim-age2007;36: 1253–62.
43. Steeves T. D., Miyasaki J., Zurowski M., Lang A. E., Pellecchia G., VanEimeren T. et al. Increased striatal dopamine release in Parkinsonian patients with pathologi-cal gambling: a [11C] raclopride PET study.Brain2009;
132: 1376–85.
44. Bradberry C. W. Cocaine sensitization and dopamine mediation of cue effects in rodents, monkeys, and humans: areas of agreement, disagreement, and implications for addiction.Psychopharmacology2007;191: 705–17. 45. Evans A. H., Pavese N., Lawrence A. D., Tai Y. F., Appel S.,
Doder M.et al. Compulsive drug use linked to sensitized ventral striatal dopamine transmission.Ann Neurol2006;
59: 852–8.
46. Mataix-Cols D., van den Heuvel O. A. Common and distinct neural correlates of obsessive–compulsive disorder and related disorders.Psychiatr Clin North Am2006;29: 391– 410.
47. Potenza M. N., Leung H. C., Blumberg H. P., Peterson B. S., Fulbright R. K., Lacadie C. M.et al. An fMRI stroop task study of ventromedial prefrontal cortical function in pathological gamblers. Am J Psychiatry 2003; 160: 1990–4.
48. Rosenthal R. J., Lesieur H. R. Self-reported withdrawal symptoms and pathological gambling.Am J Addict1992;
1: 150–4.
49. Lightsey O. R., Hulsey C. D. Impulsivity, coping, stress, and problem gambling among university students.J Couns
Psychol2002;49: 202–11.
50. Lubman D. I., Yucel M., Pantelis C. Addiction, a condition of compulsive behaviour? Neuroimaging and neuropsy-chological evidence of inhibitory dysregulation.Addiction
2004;99: 1491–502.
51. Nordahl T. E., Benkelfat C., Semple W. E., Gross M., King A. C., Cohen R. M. Cerebral glucose metabolic rates in obsessive compulsive disorder.Neuropsychopharmacology
1989;2: 23–8.
52. Volkow N. D., Wang G.-J., Overall J. E., Hitzemann R., Fowler J. S., Pappas N. R.et al. Regional brain metabolic response to lorazepam in alcoholics during early and late alcohol detoxification.Alcohol Clin Exp Res1997;21: 1278–84.
53. Maruff P., Purcell R., Pantelis C. Obsessive compulsive disorder. In: Harrison J. E., Owen A. M., editors.Cognitive
Deficits in Brain Disorders. London: Martin Dunitz; 2002, p.
249–72.
54. Comings D. E. The molecular genetics of pathological gambling.CNS Spectr1998;3: 20–37.
55. Rodriguez-Jimenez R., Avila C., Ponce G., Ibanez M. I., Rubio G., Jimenez-Arriero M. A.et al. The Taq1A polymor-phism linked to the DRD2 gene is related to lower attention and less inhibitory control in alcoholic patients.Eur
Psy-chiatry2006;21: 66–9.
56. Lobo D. S., Souza R. P., Tong R. P., Casey D. M., Hodgins D. C., Smith G. J.et al. Association of functional variants in the dopamine D2- like receptors with risk for gambling behaviors in healthy Caucasian subjects. Biol Psychol
2010;85: 33–7.
57. Ibanez A., Blanco C., de Castro I. P., Fernandez-Piqueras J., Saiz-Ruiz J. Genetics of pathological gambling.J Gambl Stud2003;19: 11–22.
58. Hemmings S. M. J., Stein D. J. The current status of asso-ciation studies in obsessive–compulsive disorder.Psychiatr
Clin North Am2006;29: 411–44.
59. Lochner C., Hemmings S. M. J., Kinnear C. J. D., Niehaus J., Nel D. G., Corfield V. A.et al. Cluster analysis of obsessive– compulsive spectrum disorder in patients with obsessive– compulsive disorder: clinical and genetic correlates.Compr
Psychiatry2005;46: 14–9.
60. Baca-Garcia E., Salgado B. R., Segal H. D., Lorenzo C. V., Acosta M. N., Romero M. A.et al. A pilot genetic study of the continuum between compulsivity and impulsivity in females: the serotonin transporter promoter polymor-phism.Prog Neuropsychopharmacol Biol Psychiatry2005;
29: 713–7.
61. Gottesman II, Gould T. D. The endophenotype concept in psychiatry: etymology and strategic intentions.Am J
Psychiatry2003;160: 636–45.
62. Chamberlain S. R., Menzies L., Hampshire A., Suckling J., Fineberg N. A., del Campo N.et al. Orbitofrontal dysfunc-tion in patients with obsessive–compulsive disorder and their unaffected relatives.Science2008;321: 421–2. 63. Chamberlain S. R., Fineberg N. A., Menzies L. A., Menzies
L. A., Blackwell A. D., Bullmore E. T.et al. Impaired cogni-tive flexibility and motor inhibition in unaffected first-degree relatives of patients with obsessive–compulsive disorder.Am J Psychiatry2007;164: 335–8.
64. Menzies L., Achard S., Chamberlain S. R., Fineberg N., Chen C. H., del Campo N.et al. Neurocognitive endophe-notypes of obsessive–compulsive disorder. Brain 2007;
130: 3223–36.
65. Anholt G. E., Emmelkamp P. M., Cath D. C., van Oppen P., Nelissen H., Smit J. H. Do patients with OCD and pathologi-cal gambling have similar dysfunctional cognitions.Behav
Res Ther2004;42: 529–37.
66. Hollander E., Wong C. M. Body dysmorphic disorder, pathological gambling, and sexual compulsions.J Clin
Psy-chiatry1995;56: 7–12.
67. Ettelt S., Ruhrmann S., Barnow S., Buthz F., Hochrein A., Meyer K.et al. Impulsiveness in obsessive–compulsive dis-order: results from a family study.Acta Psychiatr Scand
2007;115: 41–7.
68. Tavares H., Gentil V. Pathological gambling and obsessive– compulsive disorder: towards a spectrum of disorders of volition.Rev Bras Psiquiatr2007;29: 107–17.
69. Hollander E., Wong C. M. Obsessive–compulsive spectrum disorders.J Clin Psychiatry1995;56: 3–6.
70. Cavedini P., Riboldi G., Keller R., D’Annucci A., Bellodi L. Frontal lobe dysfunction in pathological gambling.Biol
Psychiatry2002;51: 334–41.
71. Cavedini P., Riboldi G., D’Annucci A., Belotti P., Cisima M., Bellodi L. Decision making heterogeneity in obsessive–
compulsive disorder: ventromedial prefrontal cortex function predicts different treatment outcomes.
Neuro-psychologia2002;40: 205–11.
72. Bechara A. Risky business: emotion, decision-making, and addiction.J Gambl Stud2003;19: 23–51.
73. Chamberlain S. R., Fineberg N. A., Blackwell A. D., Clark L., Robbins T. W., Sahakian B. J. A neuropsychological comparison of obsessive–compulsive disorder and tricho-tillomania.Neuropsychologia2007;45: 654–62. 74. Watkins L. H., Sahakian B. J., Robertson M. M., Veale D. M.,
Rogers R. D., Pickard K. M. et al. Executive function in Tourette’s syndrome and obsessive compulsive disorder.
Psychol Med2005;35: 571–82.
75. Crockford D. N., el-Guebaly N. Psychiatric comorbidity in pathological gambling: a critical review.Can J Psychiatry
1998;43: 43–50.
76. Potenza M. N. Impulse control disorders and co-occurring disorders: dual diagnosis considerations. J Dual Diagn
2007;3: 47–57.
77. Potenza M. N., Xian H., Shah K., Scherrer J. F., Eisen S. A. Shared genetic contributions to pathological gambling and major depression in men.Arch Gen Psychiatry2005;
62: 1015–21.
78. Petry N. M., Stinson F. S., Grant B. F. Co-morbidity of DSM-IV pathological gambling and other psychiatric dis-orders: results from the National Epidemiologic Survey on Alcohol and Related Conditions.J Clin Psychiatry2005;
66: 564–74.
79. Cunningham-Williams R. M., Cottler L. B., Compton W. M. I., Spitznagel E. L. Taking chances: problem gamblers and mental health disorders: results from the St. Louis Epide-miologic Catchment Area study.Am J Public Health1998;
88: 1093–6.
80. Ruscio A. M., Stein D. J., Chiu W. T., Kessler R. C. The epidemiology of obsessive–compulsive disorder in the National Comorbidity Survey Replication.Mol Psychiatry
2010;15: 53–63.
81. Leung K. S., Cottler L. B. Treatment of pathological gam-bling.Curr Opin Psychiatry2009;22: 69–74.
82. Brewer J. A., Grant J. E., Potenza M. N. The treatment of pathological gambling.Addict Disord Treat2008; 7: 1– 14.
83. O’Malley S. S., Jaffe A. J., Chang G., Schottenfeld R. S., Meyer R. E., Rounsaville B. Naltrexone and coping skills therapy for alcohol dependence: a controlled study.Arch
Gen Psychiatry1992;49: 881–7.
84. Volpicelli J. R., Alterman A. I., Hayashida M., O’Brien C. P. Naltrexone in the treatment of alcohol dependence.Arch
Gen Psychiatry1992;49: 876–80.
85. Grant J. E., Kim S. W., Hartman B. K. A double-blind, placebo-controlled study of the opiate antagonist naltrex-one in the treatment of pathological gambling urges.J Clin
Psychiatry2008;69: 783–9.
86. Grant J. E., Potenza M. N., Hollander E., Cunningham-Williams R., Nurminen T., Smits G.et al. Multicenter inves-tigation of the opioid antagonist nalmefene in the treatment of pathological gambling. Am J Psychiatry
2006;163: 303–12.
87. Kim S. W., Grant J. E., Adson D. E., Shin Y. C. Double-blind naltrexone and placebo comparison study in the treatment of pathological gambling.Biol Psychiatry2001;49: 914– 21.
88. Grant J. E., Kim S. W., Hollander E., Potenza M. N. Predicting response to opiate antagonists and placebo
in the treatment of pathological gambling.
Psychopharma-cology (Berl)2008;200: 521–7.
89. Revital A., Leah F., Ari G., Joseph Z. Naltrexone augmen-tation in OCD: a double-blind placebo-controlled cross-over study.Eur Neuropsychopharmacol2008;18: 455–61. 90. Insel T. R., Pickar D. Naloxone administration in obsessive– compulsive disorder: report of two cases.Am J Psychiatry
1983;140: 1219–20.
91. Keuler D. J., Altemus M., Michelson D., Greenberg B., Murphy D. L. Behavioral effects of naloxone infusion in obsessive–compulsive disorder.Biol Psychiatry1996;40: 154–6.
92. Dannon P. N., Lowengrub K., Gonopolski Y., Musin E., Kotler M. Topiramate versus fluvoxamine in the treatment of pathological gambling: a randomized, blind-rater com-parison study.Clin Neuropharmacol2005;28: 6–10. 93. Hollander E., Pallanti S., Allen A., Sood E., Baldini R. N.
Does sustained-release lithium reduce impulsive gambling and affective instability versus placebo in pathological gamblers with bipolar spectrum disorders?Am J Psychiatry
2005;162: 137–45.
94. Pallanti S., Quercioli L., Sood E., Hollander E. Lithium and valproate treatment of pathological gambling: a random-ized single-blind study.J Clin Psychiatry2002;63: 559– 64.
95. McDougle C. J., Price L. H., Goodman W. K., Charney D. S., Heninger G. R. A controlled trial of lithium augmentation in fluvoxamine-refractory obsessive–compulsive disorder: lack of efficacy.J Clin Psychopharmacol1991;11: 175–84. 96. Denys D. Pharmacotherapy of obsessive–compulsive disor-der and obsessive–compulsive spectrum disordisor-ders.
Psychi-atr Clin North Am2006;29: 553–84.
97. Grant J. E., Potenza M. N. Impulse control disorders: clini-cal characteristics and pharmacologiclini-cal management.
Ann Clin Psychiatry2004;16: 27–34.
98. Fong T., Kalechstein A., Bernhard B., Rosenthal R., Rugle L. A double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of olanzapine for the treatment of video poker pathological gamblers.
Pharmacol Biochem Behav2008;89: 298–303.
99. McElroy S. L., Nelson E. B., Welge J. A., Kaehler L., Keck P. E. Jr. Olanzapine in the treatment of pathological gam-bling: a negative randomized placebo-controlled trial.
J Clin Psychiatry2008;69: 433–40.
100. Zack M., Poulos C. X. Effects of the atypical stimulant modafinil on a brief gambling episode in pathological gam-blers with high versus low impulsivity.J Psychopharmacol
2009;23: 660–71.
101. Hollander E., DeCaria C. M., Finkell J. N., Begaz T., Wong C. M., Cartwright C. A randomized double-blind fluvoxamine/placebo crossover trial in pathologic gam-bling.Biol Psychiatry2000;47: 813–7.
102. Kim S. W., Grant J. E., Adson D. E., Shin Y. C., Zaninelli R. A double-blind placebo-controlled study of the efficacy and safety of paroxetine in the treatment of pathological gam-bling.J Clin Psychiatry2002;63: 501–7.
103. Blanco C., Petkova E., Ibáñez A., Sáiz-Ruiz J. A pilot placebo-controlled study of fluvoxamine for pathological gambling.Ann Clin Psychiatry2002;14: 9–15.
104. Grant J. E., Kim S. W., Potenza M. N., Blanco C., Ibanez A., Stevens L.et al. Paroxetine treatment of pathological gam-bling: a multi-centre randomized controlled trial.Int Clin
Psychopharmacol2003;18: 243–9.
105. Grant J. E., Potenza M. N. Escitalopram treatment of pathological gambling with co-occurring anxiety: an Compulsivity in addictions 1733
open-label pilot study with double-blind discontinuation.
Int Clin Psychopharmacol2006;21: 203–9.
106. Hollander E., Kaplan A., Pallanti S. Pharmacological treatments. In: Grant J. E., Potenza M. N., editors.
Patho-logical Gambling: A Clinical Guide to Treatment. Washington,
DC: American Psychiatric Press; 2004, p. 189–206. 107. Blanco C., Potenza M. N., Kim S. W., Ibáñez A., Zaninelli R.,
Saiz-Ruiz J.et al. A pilot study of impulsivity and compul-sivity in pathological gambling.Psychiatry Res2009;167: 161–8.
108. Potenza M. N., Sofuoglu M., Carroll K. M., Rounsaville B. J. Neuroscience of behavioral and pharmacological treat-ments for addictions.Neuron2011;69: 695–712. 109. Grant J. E., Kim S. W., Odlaug B. L. N-Acetyl cysteine, a
glutamate-modulating agent, in the treatment of patho-logical gambling: a pilot study.Biol Psychiatry2007;62: 652–75.
110. Kalivas P. W. The glutamate homeostasis hypothesis of addiction.Nat Rev Neurosci2009;10: 561–72.
111. Grant J. E., Chamberlain S. R., Odlaug B. L., Potenza M. N., Kim S. W. Memantine shows promise in reducing gam-bling severity and cognitive inflexibility in pathological gambling: a pilot study.Psychopharmacology (Berl2010;
212: 603–12.
112. Miller W. R., Leckman A. L., Delaney H. D., Tinkcom M. Long-term follow-up of behavioral self-control training.
J Stud Alcohol1992;53: 249–61.
113. Kadden R. M., Litt M. D., Cooney N. L., Busher D. A. Rela-tionship between role-play measures of coping skills and alcoholism treatment outcome.Addict Behav1992;17: 425–37.
114. Sylvain C., Ladouceur R., Boisvert J. M. Cognitive and behavioral treatment of pathological gambling: a con-trolled study.J Consult Clin Psychol1997;65: 727–32. 115. Hodgins D. C., Currie S. R., el-Guebaly N. Motivational
enhancement and self-help treatments for problem gam-bling.J Consult Clin Psychol2001;69: 50–7.
116. Petry N. M., Ammerman Y., Bohl J., Doersch A., Gay H., Kadden R.et al. Cognitive-behavioral therapy for patho-logical gamblers.J Consult Clin Psychol2006;74: 555–67. 117. Grant J. E., Potenza M. N. Treatments for pathological gam-bling and other impulse control disorders. In: Gorman J., Nathan P., editors.A Guide to Treatments That Work. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press; 2007, p. 561–77.
118. Petry N. M. Gamblers anonymous and cognitive– behavioral therapies for pathological gamblers.J Gambl Stud2005;21: 27–33.
119. Hohagen F., Winkelmann G., Rasche R., Hand I., Konig A., Munchau N.et al. Combination of behaviour therapy with fluvoxamine in comparison with behaviour therapy and placebo. Results of a multicentre study.Br J Psychiatry
1998;35:71–8.
120. Neziroglu F., Henricksen J., Yaryura-Tobias J. A. Psycho-therapy of obsessive–compulsive disorder and spectrum: established facts and advances, 1995–2005.Psychiatr Clin
North Am2006;29: 585–604.
121. Battersby M. The South Australian Statewide Gambling Therapy Service: exposure as the model of therapy. Alberta Gaming Research Institute Conference, Banff, Alberta, 8–10 April 2010.
122. Oakes J., Battersby M. W., Pols R. G., Cromarty P. Exposure therapy for problem gambling via videoconferencing: a case report.J Gambl Stud2008;24: 107–18.
123. Grant J. E., Donahue C. B., Odlaug B. L., Kim S. W., Miller M. J., Petry N. M. Imaginal desensitisation plus motiva-tional interviewing for pathological gambling: randomised controlled trial.Br J Psychiatry2009;195: 266–7. 124. Echeburua E., Baez C., Fernandez-Montalvo J.
Compara-tive effecCompara-tiveness of three therapeutic modalities in the psychological treatment of pathological gambling: long-term outcome. Behav Cogn Psychother 1996; 24: 51–72.
125. Fineberg N. A., Saxena S., Zohar J., Craig K. J. Obsessive– compulsive disorder: boundary issues.CNS Spectr2007;
12: 359–75.
126. Voon V., Sohr M., Lang A. E., Potenza M. N., Siderowf A. D., Whetteckey J.et al. Impulse control disorders in parkinson disease: a multicenter case–control study. Ann Neurol
2011;69: 1–11.
127. Milosevic A., Ledgerwood D. M. The subtyping of patho-logical gambling: a comprehensive review.Clin Psychol Rev
2010;30: 988–98.
128. Ledgerwood D. M., Petry N. M. Subtyping pathological gamblers based on impulsivity, depression, and anxiety.
Psychol Addict Behav2010;24: 680–8.
129. Meda S. A., Stevens M. C., Potenza M. N., Pittman B., Gue-orguieva R., Andrews M. M.et al. Investigating the behav-ioral and self-report constructs of impulsivity domains using principal component analysis. Behav Pharmacol
2009;20: 390–9.
130. Whiteside S. P., Lynam D. R., Miller J. D., Reynolds S. K. Validation of the UPPS impulsive behaviour scale: a four-factor model of impulsivity.Eur J Pers2005;19: 559– 74.
