Skip to main content
NCBI home page
UKPMC Funders Author Manuscripts logoLink to UKPMC Funders Author Manuscripts
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2024 Feb 22.
Published in final edited form as: CNS Spectr. 2023 Sep 11;29(1):54–59. doi: 10.1017/S1092852923002444

Duration of untreated illness in gambling disorder

Jon E Grant a,✉, Samuel R Chamberlain b
PMCID: PMC7615660  EMSID: EMS187576  PMID: 37694344

Abstract

Background

Gambling disorder (also known as pathological gambling) is common, affects 0.5-2% of the population, and is under-treated. Duration of untreated illness (DUI) has emerged as a clinically important concept in the context of other mental disorders – for example being linked to worse outcomes in psychosis and to some degree mood and anxiety disorders, and in obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD). However, DUI in gambling disorder has received little (if any) research scrutiny.

Methods

Data were aggregated from eight previous clinical trials conducted in people with gambling disorder who had never previously received any treatment for the disorder. Duration of untreated illness was quantified. Demographic and clinical characteristics were compared as a function of DUI status (higher DUI vs lower DUI).

Results

The sample comprised 298 individuals, and the overall DUI was mean (standard deviation) 8.9 (8.4) years, and the median DUI was 6 years. Longer DUI was significantly associated with male gender, older age, earlier age when the person first started to gamble, and family history of alcohol use disorder (in one or more first degree relatives). Longer DUI was not significantly associated with racial-ethnic status, gambling symptom severity, current depressive or anxiety severity, presence of mainstream mental disorders (including alcohol use disorders), or disability/functioning. The two groups did not differ in their subsequent propensity to drop out of the clinical trials, nor in the overall improvement in symptom severity associated with participation in those trials.

Conclusions

These data suggest that gambling disorder has a relatively long typical DUI. This highlights the need to raise awareness and foster early intervention for affected and at-risk individuals. Because earlier age at first gambling in any form was strongly linked to longer DUI, this highlights the need for more rigorous legislation and education to reduce exposure of younger people to gambling. In terms of treatment, the findings suggest that people with long DUI still benefit from participation in a clinical trial to the same extent as those with shorter DUI, in terms of improvement in gambling symptoms, if they choose to take part in such a trial.

Introduction

Gambling disorder is a mental health disorder affecting 0.4-2% of the population globally, and is associated with many negative outcomes including (but not limited to) impaired functioning, reduced quality of life, elevated rates of comorbidities, bankruptcy, divorce, and suicidality (Hodgins et al., 2011). People affected by the condition also often experience gambling-related intrusive thoughts and urges that interfere with scholastic achievement and/or work performance, and absenteeism is commonplace (Pallanti et al., 2006). Gambling disorder is also associated with physical health problems such as obesity, high blood pressure, and sleep disturbance (Morasco et al., 2006; Grant et al., 2015). It can begin at any age but exhibits bimodal peak ages of onset: the main peak being in early adulthood, and the lesser peak being in the late 30s to early 40s (Black et al., 2015). Unfortunately, most people with the condition (likely around 90% or higher) never receive evidence-based treatment (Braun et al., 2014). Reasons for low rates of treatment are likely to include stigma and perceived shame, lack of education/awareness (for affected individuals, families, healthcare professionals, and society at large), ambivalence (since by definition gambling is rewarding), and a relative lack of specialized medical treatment services in many parts of the world – though this is now changing in some countries, such as with the opening of new NHS gambling treatment services in the United Kingdom.

The concept of ‘duration of untreated illness’ (hereafter ‘DUI’) has emerged as being clinically important across several mental health disorders, yet in a PubMed search dated 18th July 2023, we could find no studies exploring DUI in gambling disorder. DUI has been most studied in the context of psychosis, where longer DUI is associated with higher symptom severity and worse outcomes (Howes et al., 2021), and this may also be the case for at least someanxiety and depressive disorders, and obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD), though there has been much less research in relative terms for disorders besides psychosis (Altamura et al., 2010). For example, in OCD, which has comorbid overlap with gambling disorder (Black & Shaw, 2008; Dowling et al., 2015), a review of the seven available studies identified a typical DUI of around 7 years (Dell’Osso et al., 2019). DUI in OCD has been linked to worse outcomes including reduced treatment response (e.g. Perris et al., 2021).

Given that longer DUI has been associated with negative outcomes in other mental disorders, but has not been investigated much in gambling disorder, we examined DUI in a large sample of people with this condition. The dataset combined participants, who reported they had never previously received treatment for gambling disorder, from eight double-blind, placebo controlled pharmacological trials (Kim et al., 2001; Kim et al., 2002; Grant et al. 2003; Grant et al., 2006; Grant et al., 2007; Grant et al., 2008; Grant et al., 2010; Grant et al., 2014). Based on the literature from other mental health disorders, it was hypothesised that longer DUI might be significantly associated with worse gambling symptom severity, reduced quality of life/functioning, and higher rates of comorbidities. We also hypothesized that early engagement with any form of gambling activity would be associated with longer DUI.

Methods

Subjects

This analysis comprised aggregate data from participants who attended clinical trials at the University of Chicago and the University of Minnesota, USA. In all cases, the diagnosis of gambling disorder was made by an experienced board-certified psychiatrist, using the criteria set forth by the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual Version IV (DSM-IV) (Grant et al., 2004) and the diagnoses were later confirmed to be consistent with the current requirements for gambling disorder using the DSM-5 criteria (American Psychiatric Association, APA, 2013). Diagnosis was made using a validated instrument (see later).

The exclusionary criteria for these studies were: history of psychotic or bipolar disorder, any current psychotherapy, any current (or recent) illicit drug use, or inability to provide informed consent. Data from eight, double-blind, placebo-controlled published trials were included (Kim et al., 2001; Kim et al., 2002; Grant et al. 2003; Grant et al., 2006; Grant et al., 2007; Grant et al., 2008; Grant et al., 2010; Grant et al., 2014). Additionally, we excluded subjects for the purposes of the current analysis who had previously received any treatment for gambling disorder, based on clinical interview.

All study procedures were carried out in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki. The Institutional Review Boards of the University of Minnesota and of the University of Chicago approved the procedures and the accompanying consent forms. After all procedures were explained, all subjects provided informed written consent.

Assessments

Participants were asked the age at which gambling symptoms had first become a problem (i.e. functionally impairing), and this allowed DUI to be calculated (age at point of study enrollment for a treatment trial minus age when gambling first became a problem). DUI is typically defined in the literature as the difference in years between time of presentation for treatment and age at which the symptoms first became a problem from the person’s perspective. In addition, the following instruments were completed:

  • Structured Clinical Interview for Gambling Disorder (SCI-GD) (Grant et al., 2004) for diagnosis of gambling disorder. Clinician administered.

  • Structured Clinical Interview for DSM-IV Axis I Disorders (SCID-I) (First et al., 1995) to identify mainstream psychiatric comorbidities. Clinician administered.

  • Yale-Brown Obsessive-Compulsive Scale modified for Pathological Gambling (PG-YBOCS) to quantify overall symptom severity (Pallanti et al., 2005). Clinician administered.

  • Gambling Symptom Assessment Scale (GSAS) to measure overall symptom severity (Kim et al., 2009). Self-completed.

  • Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HAM-D) to measure severity of depressive symptoms (Hamilton, 1960).

  • Hamilton Anxiety Rating Scale (HAM-A) to measure severity of anxiety symptoms (Hamilton, 1959).

  • Sheehan Disability Scale (SDS) to measure overall disability / functioning (Sheehan, 1983).

For the gambling symptom severity measures, these were also recorded after clinical trial participation along with number of weeks of trial participation.

Data Analysis

Baseline characteristics of the participants, who had never sought treatment for gambling disorder, pooled from all of the studies were presented in terms of means and standard deviations for continuous variables and frequencies and percentages for categorical variables. For DUI we also reported the median.

Patients were grouped as low DUI and high DUI using median DUI as the cut-off (those of median or lower DUI were defined as low DUI) (e.g. per Zheng et al., 2021). The two groups were compared on pertinent demographic and clinical measures using analysis of variance or equivalent non-parametric tests as indicated in the text. This being an exploratory study, statistical significance was defined as p<0.05 uncorrected.

Results

Data from 298 individuals who had never previously received treatment for gambling disorder were available. The sample had a mean (standard deviation, SD) age of 46.0 (12.1) years, and 48.7% were of female sex. In terms of racial-ethnic status, the N [%] of people in each category was: 240 [81.9%] white Caucasian, 31 [10.6%] African American, 11 [3.8%] Latino/Hispanic, 4 [1.4%] Asian, 5 [1.7%] Native American, and 2 [0.7%] mixed race.

The overall DUI was mean 8.9 (8.4) years, and the median DUI was 6 years (see Figure 1 for distribution).

Figure 1. Plot showing the distribution of Duration of Untreated Illness (DUI) in gambling disorder, in years.

Figure 1

Open in a new tab

Demographic and clinical data comparing those with longer DUI vs shorter DUI are summarized in Table 1. It can be seen that longer DUI was significantly associated with older age, male gender, earlier age when individuals first started to gamble in any form, and family history of alcohol use disorder in first degree relative(s). The two groups did not differ significantly in terms of racial-ethnic status, gambling symptom severity, current depressive or anxiety severity, presence of mainstream mental disorders (including alcohol use disorders), or disability/functioning. The two groups did not differ in their propensity to drop out of the subsequent clinical trials (as indexed by the number of weeks they were in the given trial), nor in terms of the overall improvement in symptom severity associated with clinical trial participation.

Table 1. Demographic and Clinical Variables of Participants with Gambling Disorder as a function of DUI status.

Variables Low DUI (6 or fewer years) N=160 Mean (SD) or N [%] High DUI (more than 6 years) N=138 Mean (SD) or N [%] Statistical Test P value
Age, years 43.5 (12.7) 48.9 (10.8) 15.153 0.0001
Sex, female 86 [53.75%] 59 [42.8%] FET 0.0376
Race, White Caucasian 130 [83.3%] 110 [80.3%] LR 4.271 0.5112
Age when first started gambling (any gambling), years 29.7 (13.9) 23.3 (11.1) 18.738 <0.0001
Family history of alcohol use disorder (1st degree relative) 39 [48.2%] 53 [63.1%] FET 0.0377
G-SAS (pre-intervention) 34.7 (10.8) 35.4 (10.2) 0.2611 0.6098
PG-YBOCS (preintervention) 23.1 (4.7) 23.6 (4.4) 0.6363 0.4259
Sheehan Disability Scale 15.2 (6.0) 15.6 (6.8) 0.1429 0.7058
HAMA 7.7 (4.3) 7.7 (4.1) 0.0046 0.9462
HAMD 7.2 (3.9) 7.6 (4.3) 0.3331 0.5647
Presence of mainstream mental disorders, one or more# 35 [24.3%] 39 [31.2%] LR = 4.445 0.3491
Subsequent weeks of clinical trial completed 10.4 (5.3) 10.5 (5.8) 0.0207 0.8856
Subsequent clinical trial dropout 86 [55.5%] 68 [53.4%] FET 0.8102
Subsequent GSAS improvement (end of clinical trial vs baseline) 15.3 (13.6) 13.8 (12.4) 0.8279 0.3637
Subsequent PG-YBOCS improvement (end of clinical trial vs baseline) 12.7 (8.5) 10.8 (8.4) 2.5456 0.1121
Open in a new tab

All values are mean (±SD) for continuous variables and N [%] for categorical variables.

Statistical results are analysis of variance (ANOVA) except where indicated by FET = Fisher’s Exact Test or LR = Likelihood Ratio chi-square. @ Calculated based on all racial-ethnic categories but presented as N [%] White-Caucasian for simplicity;

#

Calculated based on number of comorbidities (0, 1, 2…) but presented as N [%] ‘one or more’ for simplicity.

Discussion

This study examined duration of untreated illness (DUI) in patients with gambling disorder who were presenting for treatment for the first time, via clinical trial participation. In a relatively large dataset, we found that gambling disorder was associated with a mean DUI of 8.9 years, and a median DUI of 6 years. It is known from prior work that many people with gambling disorder do not seek evidence-based treatments and do not receive it. This DUI is relatively long by psychiatric standards – being similar or longer to that reported in related conditions such as obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD). Lack of prompt treatment for psychiatric disorders is thought to play an important role in contributing to the accrued burden of these conditions over time, and factors contributing to delayed treatment can include public stigma, lack of education, and barriers to accessing treatment (Dell’Osso et al., 2016).

Why is the current finding of high typical DUI in gambling disorder important? To our knowledge it is one of the first times DUI for gambling disorder has ever been quantified; the disorder per se receives little research funding to date (e.g. Black, 2016; Bowden-Jones et al., 2023). Now that it is apparent it has a long typical DUI, practical steps could be taken to address and reduce this DUI. For other areas of mental health there is evidence, from different countries and settings, that public educational campaigns were capable of reducing latency to treatment seeking over time(Dell’Osso et al., 2016). Similar approaches could now be used to raise awareness about gambling disorder, and to address stigma. In the UK for example, gambling disorder was recently recognized for the first time as a national priority for the health service – this has led to media attention and a recent governmental paper proposing several changes to legislation and that there is a need for educational activities. The new gambling healthcare focus in the UK has also led to reduced barriers to care because specialized treatment services, providing evidence-based case independent of the gambling industry, have been opened (and more are planned) (Metcalfe, 2023). These types of activities should be further extended upon in the UK and internationally with a view to seeking to reduce DUI over time. It would also seem prudent to consider and evaluate early interventions (e.g. brief therapy or psychoeducation) in individuals with at-risk gambling (i.e. those meeting some but not all necessary diagnostic criteria). It would be invaluable for clinical services in different countries to now measure DUI in patients who present for support. This would help to monitor whether DUI is improving over time but also would enable the current findings to be replicated in routine clinical settings rather than in the context of formal clinical trial recruitment.

In addition to exploring the typical DUI for gambling disorder (and its distribution), this study also identified a number of new findings in terms of significant associations between long DUI and specific demographic and clinical features. In particular, longer DUI was linked to male gender (marginally), earlier age at first gambling, family history of alcohol use disorder (in first-degree relatives, marginally), and older age. Of these significant associations, the most prominent was the link with earlier age at first gambling. Again this could have important public health and clinical implications because it suggests that stronger steps (e.g. legislative, informational…) are now needed to limit early exposure to gambling in young people. The concern is that growing numbers of young people are developing at-risk gambling and gambling disorder – young adulthood is a particularly vulnerable time during which individuals are often developing their relationships and career trajectories (Chambers et al., 2003; Everitt & Robbins, 2016; Ersche et al., 2020). Not only do young people appear particularly vulnerable, but more generally maladaptive habits developed during this time have a propensity to become chronic in nature.

Contrary to expectation, DUI was not related to the magnitude of gambling symptom severity or disability, nor to the frequency of comorbid mental health conditions, nor to the levels of depressive and anxiety symptoms measured on a continuum. These findings appear to diverge from some studies in other disorders, particularly psychosis and OCD, where longer DUI has been linked to more severe symptoms (and worse outcomes) (e.g. Altamura et al., 2010; Dell’Osso et al., 2019; Howes et al., 2021).

Longer DUI was not associated with worse clinical-trial related outcomes (change in symptom severity), nor was it associated with higher likelihood of dropout from such trials, in the current dataset. In a sense this could be seen as reassuring from the perspective of treating people with gambling disorder who have long term symptoms: the interventions appear to work to the same extent as they do for people who have more recently developed symptoms. Of course such findings would warrant replication in the context of usual clinical care, rather than clinical trial settings. Again these findings diverge from what has been observed thus far in some other mental health conditions such as psychosis, where evidence indicates that longer DUI leads to more severe symptoms and global impairment (Howes et al., 2021).

While this is one of the first studies to measure DUI in gambling disorder and its associations, several limitations should be considered. DUI was based on response to questions collected as part of clinical interviews and of course not all affected individuals may have accurately recalled when their problematic gambling symptoms first started; and recall of such information can be prone to biases. The dataset was collected from clinical trials, and so the findings may not generalise to people with gambling disorder who are not treatment seeking or not wishing to participate in a clinical trial. We operationalized high versus low DUI using the median threshold for convenience of interpretation; of course, other conceptualizations are possible. Another limitation is that, while we collected data using validated instruments, the dataset was not originally collected with the plan to investigate all variables linked to DUI. Future work may thus wish to include a broader range of measures – for example, variables implicated in developmental models of gambling disorder (Blanco et al., 2015), perceived and actual barriers to care and treatment-seeking, contextual traits such as impulsive and compulsive tendencies, and cognitive tasks (Quinn et al., 2023).

In conclusion we found a typical duration of untreated illness (DUI) of 8.9 years (mean) or 6 years (median) in a large aggregate sample of people with gambling disorder. Longer DUI had a number of important associations, which may signal useful targets through a variety of methods (e.g. legislation, education, treatment approaches) with the aim of reducing DUI at the population level over time. Future work should explore DUI and its associations in gambling disorder across a broader range of measures and settings.

Footnotes

Declaration of interest: Dr. Grant has received research grant support from TLC, NIDA, NIAAA, National Center for Responsible Gaming, Brainsway, Psyadon and Takeda Pharmaceuticals. He receives yearly compensation from Springer Publishing for acting as Editor-in-Chief of the Journal of Gambling Studies and has received royalties from Oxford University Press, American Psychiatric Publishing, Inc., Norton Press, and McGraw Hill. Dr. Chamberlain’s work is funded by the NHS. He receives honoraria from Elsevier for associate editor work.

References

  1. Altamura AC, Camuri G, Dell’Osso B. Una revisione critica sul ruolo della durata di malattia non trattata nei disturbi psichiatrici [Understanding the role of the duration of untreated illness in psychiatric disorders: a narrative review] Riv Psichiatr. 2010 Jul-Aug;45(4):197–208. Italian. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. American Psychiatric Association. Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders. 5th ed. text revision. American Psychiatric Press; Washington D.C: 2013. [Google Scholar]
  3. Benedetti F. Placebo effects: from the neurobiological paradigm to translational implications. Neuron. 2014 Nov 5;84(3):623–37. doi: 10.1016/j.neuron.2014.10.023. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Black DW, Arndt S, Coryell WH, Argo T, Forbush KT, Shaw MC, Perry P, Allen J. Bupropion in the treatment of pathological gambling: a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, flexibledose study. J Clin Psychopharmacol. 2007 Apr;27(2):143–50. doi: 10.1097/01.jcp.0000264985.25109.25. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Black DW, Shaw M. Psychiatric Comorbidity Associated With Pathological Gambling. Psychiatric Times. 2008;25(12) [Google Scholar]
  6. Black DW, Shaw M, Coryell W, Crowe R, McCormick B, Allen J. Age at onset of DSM-IV pathological gambling in a non-treatment sample: Early-versus later-onset. Compr Psychiatry. 2015 Jul;60:40–6. doi: 10.1016/j.comppsych.2015.04.007. Epub 2015 Apr 20. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Black DW. The challenge of conducting gambling research. BJPsych Open. 2016 Oct 17;2(5):e14–e15. doi: 10.1192/bjpo.bp.116.002949. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. Blanco C, Petkova E, Ibáñez A, Sáiz-Ruiz J. A pilot placebo-controlled study of fluvoxamine for pathological gambling. Ann Clin Psychiatry. 2002 Mar;14(1):9–15. doi: 10.1023/a:1015215809770. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. Bowden-Jones H, Hook RW, Grant JE, Ioannidis K, Corazza O, Fineberg NA, Singer BF, Roberts A, Bethlehem R, Dymond S, Romero-Garcia R, et al. Gambling disorder in the UK: key research priorities and the urgent need for independent research funding. Lancet Psychiatry. 2022 Apr;9(4):321–329. doi: 10.1016/S2215-0366(21)00356-4. Epub 2022 Feb 15. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. Braun B, Ludwig M, Sleczka P, Bühringer G, Kraus L. Gamblers seeking treatment: Who does and who doesn’t? J Behav Addict. 2014 Sep;3(3):189–98. doi: 10.1556/JBA.3.2014.3.7. Epub 2014 Sep 27. Erratum in: J Behav Addict. 2014 Dec;3(4):268. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  11. Breidert M, Hofbauer K. Placebo: misunderstandings and prejudices. Dtsch Arztebl Int. 2009 Nov;106(46):751–5. doi: 10.3238/arztebl.2009.0751. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  12. Brown WA. Placebo as a treatment for depression. Neuropsychopharmacology. 1994 Jul;10(4):265–9. doi: 10.1038/npp.1994.53. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  13. Brunoni AR, Lopes M, Kaptchuk TJ, Fregni F. Placebo response of non-pharmacological and pharmacological trials in major depression: a systematic review and meta-analysis. PLoS One. 2009;4(3):e4824. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0004824. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  14. Chambers RA, Taylor JR, Potenza MN. Developmental neurocircuitry of motivation in adolescence: a critical period of addiction vulnerability. Am J Psychiatry. 2003 Jun;160(6):1041–52. doi: 10.1176/appi.ajp.160.6.1041. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  15. Dodd S, Dean OM, Vian J, Berk M. A review of the theoretical and biological understandingof the nocebo and placebo phenomena. Clin Ther. 2017 Feb 1;:S0149-2918(17)30048-6. doi: 10.1016/j.clinthera.2017.01.010. [Epub ahead of print] [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  16. Dell’Osso B, Oldani L, Camuri G, Benatti B, Grancini B, Arici C, Cremaschi L, Palazzo M, Spagnolin G, Dobrea C, Altamura AC. Reduced duration of untreated illness over time in patients with schizophrenia spectrum, mood and anxiety disorders. Psychiatry Clin Neurosci. 2016 May;70(5):202–10. doi: 10.1111/pcn.12380. Epub 2016 Apr 5. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  17. Dell’Osso B, Benatti B, Grancini B, Vismara M, De Carlo V, Cirnigliaro G, Albert U, Viganò C. Investigating duration of illness and duration of untreated illness in obsessive compulsive disorder reveals patients remain at length pharmacologically untreated. Int J Psychiatry Clin Pract. 2019 Nov;23(4):311–313. doi: 10.1080/13651501.2019.1621348. Epub 2019 May 30. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  18. Dold M, Kasper S. Increasing placebo response in antipsychotic trials: a clinical perspective. Evid Based Ment Health. 2015 Aug;18(3):77–9. doi: 10.1136/eb-2015-102098. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  19. Dowling NA, Cowlishaw S, Jackson AC, Merkouris SS, Francis KL, Christensen DR. Prevalence of psychiatric co-morbidity in treatment-seeking problem gamblers: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Aust N Z J Psychiatry. 2015 Jun;49(6):519–39. doi: 10.1177/0004867415575774. Epub 2015 Mar 3. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  20. Enck P, Benedetti F, Schedlowski M. New insights into the placebo and nocebo responses. Neuron. 2008 Jul 31;59(2):195–206. doi: 10.1016/j.neuron.2008.06.030. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  21. Ersche KD, Meng C, Ziauddeen H, Stochl J, Williams GB, Bullmore ET, Robbins TW. Brain networks underlying vulnerability and resilience to drug addiction. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2020 Jun 30;117(26):15253–15261. doi: 10.1073/pnas.2002509117. Epub 2020 Jun 15. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  22. Everitt BJ, Robbins TW. Drug Addiction: Updating Actions to Habits to Compulsions Ten Years On. Annu Rev Psychol. 2016;67:23–50. doi: 10.1146/annurev-psych-122414-033457. Epub 2015 Aug 7. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  23. First MB, Spitzer RL, Gibbon M, Williams JBW. Structured Clinical Interview for DSM-IV-Patient Edition (SCID-I/P, Version 20) Biometrics Research Department, New York State Psychiatric Institute; New York: 1995. [Google Scholar]
  24. Furey ML, Nugent AC, Speer AM, Luckenbaugh DA, Hoffman EM, Frankel E, Drevets WC, Zarate CA., Jr Baseline mood-state measures as predictors of antidepressant response to scopolamine. Psychiatry Res. 2012 Mar 30;196(1):62–7. doi: 10.1016/j.psychres.2012.01.003. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  25. Grant JE, Kim SW, Potenza MN, Blanco C, Ibanez A, Stevens L, Hektner JM, Zaninelli R. Paroxetine treatment of pathological gambling: a multi-centre randomized controlled trial. Int Clin Psychopharmacol. 2003;18(4):243–9. doi: 10.1097/00004850-200307000-00007. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  26. Grant JE, Steinberg MA, Kim SW, Rounsaville BJ, Potenza MN. Preliminary validity and reliability testing of a structured clinical interview for pathological gambling. Psychiatry Res. 2004;128(1):79–88. doi: 10.1016/j.psychres.2004.05.006. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  27. Grant JE, Potenza MN, Hollander E, Cunningham-Williams R, Nurminen T, Smits G, Kallio A. Multicenter investigation of the opioid antagonist nalmefene in the treatment of pathological gambling. Am J Psychiatry. 2006;163(2):303–12. doi: 10.1176/appi.ajp.163.2.303. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  28. Grant JE, Kim SW, Odlaug BL. N-acetyl cysteine, a glutamate-modulating agent, in the treatment of pathological gambling: a pilot study. Biol Psychiatry. 2007;62(6):652–7. doi: 10.1016/j.biopsych.2006.11.021. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  29. Grant JE, Kim SW, Hartman BK. A double-blind, placebo-controlled study of the opiate antagonist naltrexone in the treatment of pathological gambling urges. J Clin Psychiatry. 2008;69(5):783–9. doi: 10.4088/jcp.v69n0511. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  30. Grant JE, Odlaug BL, Potenza MN, Hollander E, Kim SW. Nalmefene in the treatment of pathological gambling: multicentre, double-blind, placebo-controlled study. Br J Psychiatry. 2010;197(4):330–1. doi: 10.1192/bjp.bp.110.078105. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  31. Grant JE, Odlaug BL, Chamberlain SR, Potenza MN, Schreiber LR, Donahue CB, Kim SW. A randomized, placebo-controlled trial of N-acetylcysteine plus imaginal desensitization for nicotine-dependent pathological gamblers. J Clin Psychiatry. 2014;75(1):39–45. doi: 10.4088/JCP.13m08411. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  32. Grant JE, Derbyshire K, Leppink E, Chamberlain SR. Obesity and gambling: neurocognitive and clinical associations. Acta Psychiatr Scand. 2015;131(5):379–86. doi: 10.1111/acps.12353. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  33. Grant JE, Chamberlain SR. Gambling disorder and its relationship with substance use disorders: implications for nosological revisions and treatment. Am J Addict. 2015 Mar;24(2):126–31. doi: 10.1111/ajad.12112. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  34. Greers AL, Weiland PE, Kosbab K, Landry SJ, Helfer SG. Goal activation, expectations, and the placebo effect. J Personal Soc Psychol. 2005;89:143–159. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.89.2.143. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  35. Hall KT, Loscalzo J, Kaptchuk TJ. Genetics and the placebo effect: the placebome. Trends Mol Med. 2015;21(5):285–94. doi: 10.1016/j.molmed.2015.02.009. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  36. Hamilton M. The assessment of anxiety states by rating. British Journal of Medical Psychology. 1959;32:50–55. doi: 10.1111/j.2044-8341.1959.tb00467.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  37. Hamilton M. A rating scale for depression. Journal of Neurology, Neurosurgery and Psychiatry. 1960;23:56–62. doi: 10.1136/jnnp.23.1.56. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  38. Hodgins DC, Stea JN, Grant JE. Gambling disorders. Lancet. 2011;378(9806):1874–84. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(10)62185-X. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  39. Howes OD, Whitehurst T, Shatalina E, Townsend L, Onwordi EC, Mak TLA, Arumuham A, O’Brien O, Lobo M, Vano L, Zahid U, et al. The clinical significance of duration of untreated psychosis: an umbrella review and random-effects meta-analysis. World Psychiatry. 2021 Feb;20(1):75–95. doi: 10.1002/wps.20822. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  40. Hrobjartsson A, Gotzsche PC. Is the placebo powerless? N Engl J Med. 2001;344:1594–1602. doi: 10.1056/NEJM200105243442106. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  41. Jubb J, Bensing JM. The sweetest pill to swallow: how patient neurobiology can be harnessed to maximise placebo effects. Neurosci Biobehav Rev. 2013 Dec;37(10 Pt 2):2709–20. doi: 10.1016/j.neubiorev.2013.09.006. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  42. Kim SW, Grant JE, Adson DE, Shin YC. Double-blind naltrexone and placebo comparison study in the treatment of pathological gambling. Biol Psychiatry. 2001;49(11):914–21. doi: 10.1016/s0006-3223(01)01079-4. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  43. Kim SW, Grant JE, Adson DE, Shin YC, Zaninelli R. A double-blind placebo-controlled study of the efficacy and safety of paroxetine in the treatment of pathological gambling. J Clin Psychiatry. 2002;63(6):501–7. doi: 10.4088/jcp.v63n0606. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  44. Kim SW, Grant JE, Potenza MN, Blanco C, Hollander E. The Gambling Symptom Assessment Scale (G-SAS): a reliability and validity study. Psychiatry Res. 2009;166(1):76–84. doi: 10.1016/j.psychres.2007.11.008. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  45. Leuchter AF, Cook IA, Witte EA, Morgan M, Abrams M. Changes in brain function of depressed subjects during treatment with placebo. Am J Psychiatry. 2002;159(1):122–9. doi: 10.1176/appi.ajp.159.1.122. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  46. Linden M. Placebo: Unsolved Problems for Science, and Simple Conclusions for Clinical Practice. Am J Psychiatry. 2017;174(2):91–92. doi: 10.1176/appi.ajp.2016.16101181. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  47. Litten RZ, Castle IJ, Falk D, Ryan M, Fertig J, Chen CM, Yi HY. The placebo effect in clinical trials for alcohol dependence: an exploratory analysis of 51 naltrexone and acamprosate studies. Alcohol Clin Exp Res. 2013;37(12):2128–37. doi: 10.1111/acer.12197. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  48. Metcalfe C. Gambling addiction in the UK: the long road to public health recognition. BMJ. 2023 Apr 6;381:748. doi: 10.1136/bmj.p748. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  49. Morasco BJ, Pietrzak RH, Blanco C, Grant BF, Hasin D, Petry NM. Health problems and medical utilization associated with gambling disorders: results from the National Epidemiologic Survey on Alcohol and Related Conditions. Psychosom Med. 2006;68(6):976–84. doi: 10.1097/01.psy.0000238466.76172.cd. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  50. Nierenberg AA, Østergaard SD, Iovieno N, Walker RS, Fava M, Papakostas GI. Predictors of placebo response in bipolar depression. Int Clin Psychopharmacol. 2015;30(2):59–66. doi: 10.1097/YIC.0000000000000058. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  51. Pallanti S, Bernardi S, Quercioli L, DeCaria C, Hollander E. Serotonin dysfunction in pathological gamblers: increased prolactin response to oral m-CPP versus placebo. CNS Spectr. 2006;11(12):956–64. doi: 10.1017/s1092852900015145. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  52. Perris F, Sampogna G, Giallonardo V, Agnese S, Palummo C, Luciano M, Fabrazzo M, Fiorillo A, Catapano F. Duration of untreated illness predicts 3-year outcome in patients with obsessive-compulsive disorder: A real-world, naturalistic, follow-up study. Psychiatry Res. 2021 May;299:113872. doi: 10.1016/j.psychres.2021.113872. Epub 2021 Mar 15. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  53. Potenza MN. Neurobiology of gambling behaviors. Curr Opin Neurobiol. 2013;23(4):660–7. doi: 10.1016/j.conb.2013.03.004. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  54. Quinn A, Chamberlain SR, Grant JE. Age of gambling onset and resultant gambling behavior during young adulthood in the United States. Am J Addict. 2023 May;32(3):268–273. doi: 10.1111/ajad.13368. Epub 2022 Dec 22. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  55. Quitkin FM, Stewart JW, McGrath PJ, Nunes E, Ocepek-Welikson K, Tricamo E, Rabkin JG, Klein DF. Further evidence that a placebo response to antidepressants can be identified. Am J Psychiatry. 1993;150(4):566–70. doi: 10.1176/ajp.150.4.566. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  56. Saiz-Ruiz J, Blanco C, Ibáñez A, Masramon X, Gómez MM, Madrigal M, Díez T. Sertraline treatment of pathological gambling: a pilot study. J Clin Psychiatry. 2005;66(1):28–33. doi: 10.4088/jcp.v66n0104. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  57. Sheehan DV. The Anxiety Disease. Scribner; New York, NY: 1983. [Google Scholar]
  58. Sonawalla SB, Rosenbaum JF. Placebo response in depression. Dialogues Clin Neurosci. 2002;4(1):105–13. doi: 10.31887/DCNS.2002.4.1/ssonawalla. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  59. Stein DJ, Baldwin DS, Dolberg OT, Despiegel N, Bandelow B. Which factors predict placebo response in anxiety disorders and major depression? An analysis of placebo-controlled studies of escitalopram. J Clin Psychiatry. 2006;67(11):1741–6. doi: 10.4088/jcp.v67n1111. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  60. Walker M, Toneatto T, Potenza MN, Petry N, Ladouceur R, Hodgins DC, el-Guebaly N, Echeburua E, Blaszczynski A. A framework for reporting outcomes in problem gambling treatment research: the Banff, Alberta Consensus. Addiction. 2006;101(4):504–11. doi: 10.1111/j.1360-0443.2005.01341.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  61. Weimer K, Colloca L, Enck P. Placebo effects in psychiatry: mediators and moderators. Lancet Psychiatry. 2015;2(3):246–57. doi: 10.1016/S2215-0366(14)00092-3. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  62. Weiss RD, O’malley SS, Hosking JD, Locastro JS, Swift R COMBINE Study Research Group. Do patients with alcohol dependence respond to placebo? Results from the COMBINE Study. J Stud Alcohol Drugs. 2008;69(6):878–84. doi: 10.15288/jsad.2008.69.878. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  63. Zheng H, Luo G, Yao S, Wang S, Guo G, Quan D, Gao J. Predictors for 12-month long-term outcome in patients with obsessive-compulsive disorder: The influence of duration of untreated illness and age at onset. J Psychiatr Res. 2021 Dec;144:202–207. doi: 10.1016/j.jpsychires.2021.10.019. Epub 2021 Oct 19. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

RESOURCES