Questioning the validity of the 4+/5+ binge or heavy drinking criterion in college and clinical populations
- PMID: 27605077
- PMCID: PMC5017312
- DOI: 10.1111/add.13210
Questioning the validity of the 4+/5+ binge or heavy drinking criterion in college and clinical populations
Abstract
Background and aims: The terms 'binge drinking' and 'heavy drinking' are both operationalized typically as 4+/5+ standard drinks per occasion for women/men, and are used commonly as a proxy for non-problematic (<4/<5) versus problematic (4+/5+) drinking in multiple research contexts. The Food and Drug Administration in the United States recently proposed the 4+/5+ criterion as a primary efficacy end-point in their guidance for trials examining new medications for alcohol use disorders (AUDs). Internationally, similar cut-offs have been proposed, with the European Medicines Agency having identified reductions in the number of heavy drinking days (defined as 40/60 g pure alcohol in women/men) as a primary end-point for efficacy trials with a harm reduction goal.
Analysis and evidence: We question the validity of the 4+/5+ cut-off (and other similar cut-offs) on multiple accounts. The 4+/5+ cut-off has not been shown to have unique predictive validity or clinical utility. The cut-off has been created based on retrospective self-reports and its use demonstrates ecological bias. Given strong evidence that the relationship between alcohol consumption and problems related to drinking is at least monotonic, if not linear, there is little existing evidence to support the 4+/5+ cut-off as a valid marker of problematic alcohol use.
Conclusions: There is little empirical evidence for the 4+/5+ standard drinks per occasion threshold for 'binge' or 'heavy' drinking in indexing treatment efficacy. Further consideration of an appropriate threshold seems to be warranted.
Keywords: Alcohol treatment outcome; alcohol use disorders; binge drinking; college students; heavy drinking; heavy episodic drinking.
© 2015 Society for the Study of Addiction.
Figures
Comment in
-
Better options than self-report of consumption.Addiction. 2016 Oct;111(10):1727-8. doi: 10.1111/add.13278. Epub 2016 Mar 1. Addiction. 2016. PMID: 26929117 No abstract available.
-
Settling the score: moving beyond the 5/4 criterion debate.Addiction. 2016 Oct;111(10):1728-9. doi: 10.1111/add.13279. Epub 2016 Mar 1. Addiction. 2016. PMID: 26929127 No abstract available.
-
One size should not fit all, so use the right tool for the job.Addiction. 2016 Oct;111(10):1729-31. doi: 10.1111/add.13283. Epub 2016 Mar 1. Addiction. 2016. PMID: 26929136 Free PMC article.
-
Questions about the validity of the binge or heavy drinking criterion have implications for more than just treatment evaluation.Addiction. 2016 Oct;111(10):1731-2. doi: 10.1111/add.13294. Epub 2016 Mar 1. Addiction. 2016. PMID: 26929144
-
We still question the utility and validity of the binge/heavy drinking criterion.Addiction. 2016 Oct;111(10):1733-4. doi: 10.1111/add.13384. Epub 2016 May 3. Addiction. 2016. PMID: 27137172 Free PMC article. No abstract available.
-
Human cognition tips the balance away from thresholds.Addiction. 2016 Oct;111(10):1732-3. doi: 10.1111/add.13305. Epub 2016 Mar 1. Addiction. 2016. PMID: 27605078 No abstract available.
References
-
- Johnston LD, O’Malley PM, Miech R a, Bachman JG, Schulenberg JE. Monitoring the Future national results on drug use: 1975--2013: Overview, key findings on adolescent drug use. 2014:90.
-
- Wechsler H, Davenport A, Dowdall G, Moeykens B, Castillo S. Health and behavioral consequences of binge drinking in college: A national survey of students at 140 campuses. J Am Med Assoc. 1994;272:1672–1677. - PubMed
-
- Center on Alcoholism, Substance Abuse and Addictions BAC estimator. [Internet]. 2013 [cited 2015 Apr 12]. Available from: http://casaa.unm.edu/BACcalc.html.
Publication types
MeSH terms
Grants and funding
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
Other Literature Sources
