Carolien Zeetsen

115 CHAPTER Cognitive i mpairments in patients with GUD predict relapse 6 Procedure Patients were informed about the study before admission to the clinic (before detoxification). After informed consent was signed, demographic data were collected and the MATE 2.1 and MoCA 7.1 were administered by a trained nurse or psychologist prior to detoxification (T1). After detoxification, on average 20.1 days later, MoCA 7.2 was administered (T2). Another three months after detoxification patients were contacted to assess relapse into GHB use (T3). Data were collected between January 2014 and May 2015. Analyses The patient characteristics for age, sex, substance use, MoCA Domain Scores (MoCA–DS), Total Score (MoCA–TS) and the number of patients scoring below the cut–off score were summarized using descriptive statistics for both T1 and T2. Differences between MoCA–DS and –TS on T1 and those on T2 were analysed using repeated measures ANOVAs, and a chi–square test was used for the cut–off scores. Only patients with data available for both time–points were included in these analyses. For each patient a total GHB exposure score was calculated by taking ‘the average daily dose of GHB’ times ‘the number of days GHB was used in the past thirty days’ times ‘the months of daily GHB use’. To study the relationship between MoCA–TS, the number of comas and GHB use (dose per day, months of use, months of daily use, and the GHB exposure score) Pearson or Spearman correlations were used as appropriate. The difference in MoCA–DS and –TS between relapse and non–relapse patients at T3 was analysed using MANOVA. In order to assess the predictive value of the MoCA, a backward logistic regression was performed with relapse as the dependent variable and MoCA scores (all –DS and –TS) as the independent variables. Two–sided p –values of < .05 were considered statistically significant. Data were analysed with IBM SPSS version 26.0.