Search This Blog

Saturday, January 19, 2019

The Latest Dirt on Hospital Cleanliness


How ‘Clean’ Is the Hospital Environment?

A recent multistate survey of 183 acute care hospitals in the United States revealed that approximately 1 of every 25 inpatients developed at least one healthcare–associated infection per day.[1] Clostridioides difficile was reported as the most common healthcare–associated pathogen, leading to an increased focus on prevention strategies.
A growing body of evidence suggests that hospital surfaces, floors, sheets, sinks, curtains and equipment are contaminated with pathogens that can serve as sources of infection. Rigorous environmental cleaning is required to ensure that hospital surfaces, equipment, and linens are safe for patient use and to prevent transmission of such pathogens as C difficile. With the emergence of multidrug-resistant pathogens and an increasing focus on patient safety, environmental cleaning and disinfection have come to the forefront.

Hospital Surfaces

Multiple studies[2,3,4,5,6] have demonstrated contamination of hospital surfaces with epidemiologically relevant pathogens. Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) contamination of hospital surfaces ranges between 1% and 27% in hospital wards and can be as high as 64% in burn units, whereas vancomycin- resistant enterococcus contamination ranges between 7% and 58%.[3] Studies have also demonstrated widespread environmental contamination with C difficile in the rooms of infected patients ranging from 2.9% to 75%.[4] Multidrug-resistant gram-negative organisms, such as Escherichia coliKlebsiella spp., Acinetobacter spp., and Pseudomonas aeruginosa, have the capacity to survive on inanimate surfaces for months, serving as reservoirs for transmission to healthcare workers and susceptible patients.[4]
High-touch surfaces are inanimate objects or surfaces in patient care areas that are handled frequently by various users, causing them to become more contaminated. The Healthcare Infection Control Practices Advisory Committee and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommend disinfecting high-touch surfaces more frequently than other surfaces (Figure 1).
Figure 1. Potentially contaminated high-touch surfaces in the patient environment. Image from Wikipedia

Privacy Curtains

Hospital privacy curtains around patient beds are at high risk for cross-contamination, because they are high-touch surfaces and may not be cleaned or changed frequently. A recent pilot study[7] tracked the contamination rate of 10 freshly laundered privacy curtains in a burn unit and found that curtains in patient rooms became increasingly contaminated over time. More than 87% of curtains tested positive for MRSA by day 14. In contrast, control curtains that were not placed in patient rooms stayed clean the entire 21 days.

Hospital Bed Linens

A recent study[8] found that commercial washing machines failed to remove all traces of C difficile from hospital linens. This could possibly explain sporadic outbreaks of C difficile infections from unknown sources. In another study[9] of 15 transplant and cancer hospitals, healthcare linens were contaminated with mold upon arrival at 47% of hospitals, and failed to achieve hygienically clean standards for mold at 20% of these hospitals.

Sinks and Water Sources

Hospital water may also serve as a source of healthcare-associated infections and lead to outbreaks. Common waterborne pathogens, such as Legionellaand other gram-negative bacteria, nontuberculous mycobacteria, fungi, and viruses, may be transmitted by direct and indirect contact, ingestion, and aspiration of contaminated water, or by inhalation of aerosols from various reservoirs, such as electronic faucets (Pseudomonas aeruginosa and Legionella), decorative wall fountains (Legionella), and heater-cooler devices used in cardiac surgery (Mycobacterium chimaera).[10,11] In a recent study,[12] an Israeli hospital traced repeated infections in its intensive care unit to sink traps.
Aerosolization of bacteria during handwashing can spread these organisms in certain situations. Risk factors include clinical waste disposal in sinks, storage of materials near the sinks, and poor placement of sinks.

Healthcare Personnel Clothing

Scrubs, white lab coats, neckties, and wristwatches can all become contaminated and serve as vehicles to transfer pathogens from one patient to another.[13] In the recent Antimicrobial Scrub Contamination and Transmission (ASCOT) trial,[14] researchers followed 40 nurses who were wearing traditional cotton-polyester scrubs, scrubs with silver alloy embedded in the fabric, or scrubs treated with antibacterial materials. They took cultures from the nurses’ scrubs, the patients, and the environment (bed rails, beds, and supply carts), which showed that nurses’ scrubs frequently became contaminated with pathogens in the environment, and the type of scrubs worn made no difference.

Duodenoscopes

In 2013, the US Food and Drug Administration discovered a potential association between duodenoscopes and multidrug-resistant bacterial infections.[15] Increasing numbers of outbreaks have been reported since then, some with fatal outcomes. In a recent study[16] of 73 participating Dutch endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography centers, at least one contaminated duodenoscope was identified in 39% of these facilities. Among contaminated duodenoscopes, 15% harbored microorganisms of gastrointestinal origin, suggesting failure of disinfection practices. Recent strategies have focused on improving current reprocessing and process control procedures.[17]

Blood Product Transfusions

In 2017, two separate clusters of transfusion-associated sepsis episodes were reported in Utah and California.[18] Investigations revealed no deviations in blood supplier or hospital procedures. Despite following procedures and protocols, the risk for transfusion-related infection can persist, which makes additional interventions necessary. Blood product suppliers and hospitals are now working on including pathogen inactivation, rapid detection devices, and modified screening of blood products to mitigate these risks.

What More Can Be Done to Clean the Hospital?

Until better data are available, healthcare facilities should focus on evidence-based strategies to prevent transmission, including hand hygiene, environmental cleaning, and appropriate sterilization and disinfection practices. Healthcare workers should remember the World Health Organization’s 5 Moments of Hand Hygiene: before patient contact, after patient contact, after contact with inanimate surfaces and objects (including medical equipment) in the vicinity of the patient, after contact with any body fluids or if hands are visibly soiled, and before an aseptic procedure (Figure 2).
Figure 2. Five moments for hand hygiene. Image from World Health Organization
It is important to address personnel issues in hospital environmental services departments and follow manufacturers’ recommendations for cleaning and disinfection. Monitoring of cleanliness is also important, and should be done by more than one method. Recognizing and educating the cleaning staff is equally important for the success of a cleaning program.
Currently, disinfection procedures vary significantly among hospitals, and there is no gold standard. As newer technologies, such as ultraviolet light disinfection and electronic hand-hygiene monitoring systems, become available, we should carefully assess the evidence, cost-effectiveness, and implementation challenges before investing in them.

In-Hospital Acute Heart Attacks Common, Outcomes Poor


In-hospital acute myocardial infarctions (AMI) are common and often lead to poor survival outcomes, a nested case-control, and matched cohort study found.
Incidence was 4.27 per 1,000 admissions among 1.3 million patients at U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) centers, reported Steven Bradley, MD, MPH, of Minneapolis Heart Institute, and colleagues in JAMA Network Open.
Factors linked with an increased risk of in-hospital AMI were history of elevated heart rate exceeding 100 beat/min, coronary artery disease, hemoglobin level under 8 g/dL, indicators of physiological stress, white blood cell count of 14,000/μL or more, and atherosclerosis.
Mortality was significantly greater for patients that had in-hospital AMI by comparison to the matched control group:
  • 1-year mortality: 59.2% vs 34.4%
  • 30-day mortality: 33.0% vs 10.0%
  • In-hospital mortality: 26.4% vs 4.2%
Much of the existing literature has evaluated incidence of AMI outside of the hospital setting, and the findings from these investigations have contributed to declines in AMI death and incidence, the study authors noted.
When compared with individuals experiencing ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) onset outside the hospital, patients with in-hospital STEMI have had worse short-term outcomes and revascularization delays, they noted. But “less is known about the patient characteristics and long-term outcomes associated with in hospital AMI,” the researchers wrote.
Some research has compared outpatient onset AMI who survive to hospital admission and in-hospital AMI outcomes, possibly biasing comparisons of patient outcomes and characteristics. Moreover, STEMI only accounts for a small portion of all MIs, and there are a limited number of studies on in-hospital cases of non-STEMI (NSTEMI), the authors emphasized.
While the study provides foundational information about in-hospital AMI, future studies will have to determine optimal care delivery for it, said Bradley in an interview with MedPage Today.
The findings weren’t surprising, but are “useful in reminding physicians caring for hospitalized patients that in-hospital acute myocardial infarction is not a rare occurrence and in providing them with a set of risk factors to identify high-risk patients,” commented Daniel Blumenthal, MD, MPH, of Morehouse School of Medicine in Atlanta, who was not involved in the study.
Bradley’s group assessed 5,556 in-hospital AMI patients, with a mean age of 73 years and of whom 98.2% were male. They did a thorough medical record assessment on 687 cases and 687 individually matched controls from the in-hospital AMI group.
Patients with incidentally heightened troponin levels and without concurrent symptoms and signs of myocardial ischemia were excluded. Patients with AMI onset within 1 day of being admitted to the hospital were also excluded, to make sure that all cases of AMI actually took place in the hospital.
Outcomes and risk factors linked with in-hospital AMI were identified from matched comparison of hospitalized controls and in-hospital AMI cases. Using the entire cohort of in-hospital AMI relative to all the inpatient admissions, the investigators determined the incidence of in-hospital AMI.
All-cause 1-year readmissions occurred in 52.4% of the controls and 54.4% of cases, while readmissions for AMI occurred in 1.2% and 5.3%, respectively.
The researchers acknowledged the limitations of the study as: the cohort was predominately male, reliance on ICD-9 codes, lack of distinction between STEMI and NSTEMI, delays between data acquisition and data analysis due to administrative changes, and difficulty of assessment of participant risk factors close to the event.
Going forward, “additional research to define risk reduction and optimal treatment strategies of in-hospital AMI are needed to address this common and high-risk condition,” the authors concluded.
This study was supported by the Veterans Administration (VA) Clinical Studies Research and Development Program.
Bradley reported no conflicts of interest.

Increased Risk of Chemo-Associated AML for Nearly All Solid Cancers


Cancer patients treated with chemotherapy for almost every type of solid tumor were found to be at increased risk for developing therapy-related myelodysplastic syndrome or acute myeloid leukemia (MDS/AML), a population-based cohort study found.
Patients receiving cytotoxic agents in the modern era for 22 of 23 different solid tumor types had anywhere from a 1.5- to 10-fold increased risk for treatment-related MDS/AML, reported Lindsay Morton, PhD, of the National Cancer Institute (NCI) in Bethesda, Maryland, and colleagues in JAMA Oncology.
And the researchers also found that risk for therapy-related MDS/AML, a group of secondary neoplasms associated with poor outcomes, was greatest among younger patients.
“We’ve known for a long time that the development of myeloid leukemia is a very rare adverse effect of some types of cancer treatments that damage cells,” Morton said in a statement from the NCI. “There have been many changes in cancer treatment over time, including the introduction of new chemotherapy drugs and drug combinations, but we didn’t know what the risk of therapy-related leukemia looked like for patients since these changes were made.”
In an editorial accompanying the study, Shyam Patel, MD, PhD, of the Stanford Cancer Institute in California, wrote that information on outcomes associated with treatment-related MDS/AML is “highly desirable to oncologists because improved survival from primary cancers is associated with increased risk for secondary neoplasms later in life.”
For the cohort study, the researchers looked at 1,619 patients with therapy-related MDS/AML from among more than 700,000 adults diagnosed with a first primary solid cancer from 2000 to 2013 who went on to receive chemotherapy and survived at least 1 year, as reported to the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) Program. Additional descriptive analyses were conducted using linked SEER and Medicare data on 165,820 older adults who received initial chemotherapy for a first primary cancer during this stretch of time.
The median overall survival after diagnosis of treatment-related MDS/AML was 7 months, with 78.4% of the patients diagnosed having died during the study period.
Therapy-related MDS/AML occurred significantly more often than expected after initial chemotherapy for all primary solid tumors examined, except for colon cancer. The highest standardized incidence ratio (SIR) occurred in cancer of the bone (SIR 39.0), soft tissue (SIR 10.4), and testis (SIR 12.3), all of which were typically diagnosed in younger patients, the researchers noted. SIRs ranged from 5 to 9 for peritoneum, small cell lung, ovary, fallopian tube, brain, and central nervous system cancers, and from 1.5 to 4 in all remaining cancers examined.
Patel noted that the data on risk for treatment-related MDS/AML in younger patients is likely the most clinically relevant and leads one to “speculate that the diagnosis and treatment of a solid tumor at an early age permits a longer latency period during which clonal evolution can occur in a previously damaged bone marrow compartment.”
However, he also wrote that continued follow-up of these trends may reveal a relative decrease in the risk for therapy-related MDS/AML “given the recent acceleration of regulatory agency approvals of novel anticancer therapies whose clinical activity is defined by specific molecular aberrations in contrast with approval of new applications of the same cytotoxic chemotherapies.”
Patel posited several reasons for the lack of risk associated with colon cancer, including diagnosis at a later age, wherein “subclinical clonal hematopoiesis induced by chemotherapy may not have ample time to evolve into frank disease.”
There was a greater risk for therapy-related MDS/AML within 5 years of diagnosis compared with 5 or more years after diagnosis for esophageal, gastric, soft-tissue, breast, uterine corpus, and testis cancers. However, for 15 of the 23 solid tumors examined, risk for MDS/AML remained statistically significant more than 5 years after the primary diagnosis.
The linked SEER-Medicare data revealed that the proportion of claims that included a known leukemogenic agent increased from 57% of claims in 2000-2001 to 81% in 2012-2013. The biggest driver of this increase was platinum agents — with an increase from 35% to 59% during that time period — specifically among gastrointestinal cancers such as esophageal, stomach, colon, and rectum cancers.
Looking at U.S. cancer statistics, the researchers estimated that in 2018 about 360,000 adults will be diagnosed with one of these 23 solid tumors, will undergo initial chemotherapy, and survive at least 1 year. Of these patients, they estimated that three-quarters (73.0%) of the 714 expected cases of therapy-related MDS/AML occurring within 5 years of diagnosis would be attributable to chemotherapy, with others due to radiation therapy and other factors.
“While advances in cancer treatment approaches have improved the prognosis for many types of cancer, the number of patients at risk of developing rare, therapy-related leukemia after cancer chemotherapy in the modern treatment era has markedly expanded,” Morton said. “Assessments of treatment risks and benefits should balance these risks and other adverse effects of chemotherapy against potential gains in survival following treatment for the initial solid cancer.”
Patel suggested four criteria for appropriate risk assessment of chemotherapy administration for solid tumors: the probability of a chemotherapeutic agent inducing a disease-initiating event, likelihood that pathogenic events will occur at a later time, the benefit gained with respect to solid tumor regression, and the consequences of forgoing chemotherapy.
“Because patients who receive chemotherapy for solid tumors are expected to live longer, the incidence of treatment-related myeloid neoplasms is likely to increase, pending the further availability of non-DNA-damaging agents such as targeted therapy,” Patel wrote. “For these reasons, a holistic approach to risk assessment should be undertaken.”
Morton and colleagues reported no conflicts of interest.
Patel reported no conflict of interests.
LAST UPDATED 

AstraZeneca licences Luye Pharma cholesterol drug in China


Luye Pharma has granted AstraZenecas Chinese division exclusive rights to promote its cholesterol medicine Xuezhikang Capsules in mainland China.
The drug, made by fermenting red yeast rice, is indicated to regulate abnormal lipids in blood through decrease in total blood cholesterol, triglycerides and low-density lipoprotein cholesterol.
The drug also improves high-density lipoprotein cholesterol, as well as inhibiting atherosclerotic plaque formation, protecting vascular endothelial cells and preventing lipid deposition in the liver.
According to the terms of the agreement, Luye Pharma will retain asset and commercial sales rights, registration permits, in addition to all intellectual property and additional product-related rights.
AstraZeneca China president Leon Wang said: Cardiovascular therapy is one of our key business areas in China, and we hope to expand the accessibility of Xuezhikang further to bring benefits to more Chinese patients.
Building on this partnership, we will further integrate the resources of the two sides, and apply international medical management practices to promote locally developed innovative drugs in the world markets.
Luye Pharma said in a statement that it will build on AstraZenecas expertise in cardiovascular space to boost the accessibility of Xuezhikang Capsules in the country.
Luye Pharma Group president Yang Rongbing said: Xuezhikang Capsules are one of our key independently-developed medicines. The partnership with AstraZeneca will enable this highly trusted and naturally made medicine to reach more Chinese patients in need.
The deal will also help accelerate the promotion of Xuezhikang capsules in international markets, and further strengthen Luye Pharmas competitive advantage in the cardiovascular field.
The partners are planning to further expand the availability of Xuezhikang to other countries and regions, including the US and Europe.
Apart from mainland China, the drug is currently offered in Taiwan, Hong Kong, Singapore and Malaysia, among others.

iAnthus, Aurora, CuraLeaf, Cannex Make Their Pitch To Investors


Hundreds of cannabis investors had the opportunity to hear some of the industry’s major players make their case in person Wednesday at the Benzinga Cannabis Capital Conference in Miami Beach. Here’s what iAnthus Capital Holdings Inc ITHUF 5.18%Aurora Cannabis Inc ACB 1.83%CuraLeaf Holdings Inc CURLF 1.69%, MJ Freeway and the newly combined Cannex Capital Holdings Inc CNXXF 2.34% and 4Front had to say.

iAnthus

CEO Hadley Ford highlighted his company’s M&A activity and growing national footprint.
New York-based iAnthus has made 18 transactions in the last 27 months, including its $673-million acquisition of MPX Bioceutical, which received shareholder approval this week.
The company has 18 retail dispensaries across 11 states. That amount will increase to around 50 in 2019, as the company has plans to open an additional 16 dispensaries in Florida, five in Massachusetts, three in Staten Island and two in New Jersey, Ford said. The cannabis company is also focusing on incorporating MPX-branded products into its California locations.
All told, the expansion will being iAnthus’ addressable market to 121 million people.

Aurora Cannabis

Aurora’s pitch to investors focuseds on their Aurora Sky facility, the nearly completed 800,000-square-foot hybrid indoor grow facility in Edmonton. The facility, which has a price tag of $115 million, will be able to grow over 100 million grams of cannabis per year once it reaches full capacity in the next 12-16 months thanks to a staff of 400 people and automation, said Marc Lakmaaker, Aurora’s vice president of investor relations.
“Growing cannabis at scale, as most producers have found out, is not easy. It’s a very fickle plant,” he said.
Aurora Sky will enable the company to grow the plant for under CA$1 (75 cents) per gram, down from $1.30, Lakmaaker said.
With over 70,000 patients, Aurora remains focused on its mission as a medical marijuana company, he said: “We are very much a medical company at heart.”

CuraLeaf

CuraLeaf’s investor presentation highlighted the company’s dominance in retail. CuraLeaf has the largest footprint of branded retail stores in the U.S. and is the first multistate operator to create a national brand, said CEO Joe Lusardi.
The company’s 12 cultivation facilities and 10 growing operations give it 650,000 square feet of production space, the most of any American cannabis company, he said.
Lusardi highlighted Florida and New Jersey as success stories, as he said CuraLeaf opened more stores in Florida than anyone else in 2018 and holds 40 percent of the New Jersey retail cannabis market.
“Cannabis is a commodity, but we’ve already seen on the west coast tremendous pressure on the commodity itself,” he told a room of investors. “For now, it pays handsomely in the U.S. to be a vertical operator given the state-by-state operations.”
CuraLeaf will have over 60 retail locations by the end of 2019, up from 38 at the end of 2018 and seven at the end of 2017, Lusardi said.

MJ Freeway

Jessica Billingsley, MJ Freeway’s co-founder and CEO, pitched the company as a SaaS play that happens to have exposure to cannabis.
“You should think about us as an attractively valued software as a service technology business, and you get to participate in the upside of the cannabis industry as a bonus.”
The cannabis technology market totals $2.2 billion, Billingsley said — and MJ Freeway is aiming to be the industry’s leading technology provider. Their applications include vendor management, labor management, supplies, forecasting, inventory, point-of-sale, CRM and online ordering.
“Businesses will need to focus on their IT [and] that’s where we come in,” she said. “If all we were able to do is grow at the rate of the cannabis industry, it’d be a tremendous outcome. But we think there’s a bigger opportunity to address.”

Cannex Capital, 4Front

Cannex Capital and 4Front recently announced a merger. The combination brings together Cannex, a cannabis producer, with 4Front, a retailer.
Combined, the firm will have 16 brands of marijuana-infused products, including seven of the top 10 bestsellersin Washington, and 220 product skews, said Anthony Dutton, CEO of Cannex Capital.
Cannex/4Front will have 14 dispensaries by end the end of 2019 in five states — Washington, Massachusetts, Illinois, Maryland and Pennsylvania — and is pursuing M&A in California, Arizona, Nevada, Michigan and Pennsylvania.
“If you boil it all down to why we’re so excited to the opportunity of this merger, you’re taking 16 product brands and immediately we’re dropping that into over 100,000-square-foot capacity,” said 4Front CFO Andrew Thut.
“If you believe we can get half the market share that we’ve achieved in Washington [which is 8 percent]  … if we can get that, that’s $75 million. That’s what gets us excited.”

Janney: Cannabis, Naloxone, Adrenaline The Perfect Mix For Insys


With a blooming cannabis portfolio, an EpiPen alternative and a potent solution to opioid overdoses, Insys Therapeutics Inc INSY 5.36% is claiming space in some of biotech’s hottest segments. Some on the Street see “significant upside potential.”

The Rating

Janney analyst Yun Zhong maintained a Buy rating on Insys with an $11 price target.

The Thesis

Janney anticipates three catalysts for 2019:
◘ March data from a juvenile nonclinical toxicity study on intranasal naloxone will support a New Drug Application submission by the end of the first quarter, Zhong said in a Thursday note.
As the Food and Drug Administration prioritizes increased naloxone access, Zhong expects strong demand for the product, which proves a superior alternative to currently marketed overdose solutions.
“Although based on the discussions at the FDA AdCom and the voting results afterwards, we do not expect the FDA to recommend co-prescribing in all patients who are receiving opioid treatment, we believe naloxone prescription in high-risk populations should increase.”
◘ Insys plans an NDA submission for its intranasal epinephrine by the fourth quarter. The product is slated to launch into a high-demand market with short supply.
“We see a prime opportunity for Insys’ non-invasive product, which could have a longer shelf life, to take market share upon FDA approval,” Zhong said, noting a pharmacokinetic profile similar to those of the EpiPen and Adrenalin injections.
◘The firm’s cannabinoid pipeline awaits multiple milestones. Insys expects data from two Phase 2 trials in the first and fourth quarter, and it may secure approval to initiate an autism study during the year. It is also preparing Investigational New Drug applications for treatment of psychosis and anorexia-related anxiety.
“We do not believe investors have attributed much valuation to the CBD pipeline but positive data from the above studies could bring significant changes to investor sentiment,” Zhong said.

Friday, January 18, 2019

The shifting age of peak binge drinking


Young adults in the U.S. are engaging in binge drinking later into their 20s, according to a recent analysis from the long-term Monitoring the Future study that has tracked the attitudes and behaviors of young adults since the 1970s. The analysis, led by University of Minnesota Professor Megan Patrick, Ph.D., was recently published in the journal Alcoholism: Clinical and Experimental Research.
The study examined how the peak binge  prevalence has changed in both men and women over time. Historically, research has shown a consistent pattern of binge drinking behaviors in young : an increase from age 18 through the early 20s and then subsiding through the late 20s.
However, this recent study—which used long-term data from 58,012 Monitoring the Future participants who were tracked from ages 18 to 30 beginning in 1976—found:
  • the age of peak drinking prevalence increased from age 20 to age 22 in women and from age 21 to age 23 in men;
  • women reported significantly higher binge drinking prevalence than in previous cohorts, from ages 21 through 30;
  • men in the recent analysis reported binge drinking more often at ages 25 to 26, but converged with earlier cohorts by age 30.
“There has been a lot of talk about how the transition to adulthood has changed and how  are delaying or forgoing social roles like marriage,” said Patrick, a research professor in the College of Education and Human Development’s Institute for Translational Research. “These changes have been accompanied by changes in socialization and drinking patterns, especially for women.”
With binge drinking behaviors appearing to last later into young adulthood, the individual and societal risks associated with binge drinking are likewise extended, especially among women. According to researchers, this conclusion suggests efforts to prevent high-risk drinking are needed at least through the third decade of life.
“Most alcohol-related interventions have focused on adolescents or college students,” said Patrick. “Drinking during the later 20s has received less attention, and there are fewer prevention and intervention programs focused on these ages. However, we found that more  are now and clinicians should think about screening for drinking problems throughout the 20s.”

Explore further

More information: Megan E. Patrick et al. Shifting Age of Peak Binge Drinking Prevalence: Historical Changes in Normative Trajectories Among Young Adults Aged 18 to 30, Alcoholism: Clinical and Experimental Research (2019). DOI: 10.1111/acer.13933