alcoholism

Primary care intervention to reduce alcohol misuse ranking its health impact and cost effectiveness

Author/s: 
Solberg, Leif I., Maciosek, Michael V., Edwards, Nichol M.

BACKGROUND:

The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) has recommended screening and behavioral counseling interventions in primary care to reduce alcohol misuse. This study was designed to develop a standardized rating for the clinically preventable burden and cost effectiveness of complying with that recommendation that would allow comparisons across many recommended services.

METHODS:

A systematic review of the literature from 1992 through 2004 to identify relevant randomized controlled trials and cost-effectiveness studies was completed in 2005. Clinically preventable burden (CPB) was calculated as the product of effectiveness times the alcohol-attributable fraction of both mortality and morbidity (measured in quality-adjusted life years or QALYs), for all relevant conditions. Cost effectiveness from both the societal perspective and the health-system perspective was estimated. These analyses were completed in 2006.

RESULTS:

The calculated CPB was 176,000 QALYs saved over the lifetime of a birth cohort of 4,000,000, with a range in sensitivity analysis from -43% to +94% (primarily due to variation in estimates of effectiveness). Screening and brief counseling was cost-saving from the societal perspective and had a cost-effectiveness ratio of $1755/QALY saved from the health-system perspective. Sensitivity analysis indicates that from both perspectives the service is very cost effective and may be cost saving.

CONCLUSIONS:

These results make alcohol screening and counseling one of the highest-ranking preventive services among the 25 effective services evaluated using standardized methods. Since current levels of delivery are the lowest of comparably ranked services, this service deserves special attention by clinicians and care delivery systems.

Keywords 

Helping Patients Who Drink Too Much: A Clinician's Guide

Author/s: 
National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism

Why screen for heavy drinking?

  • At-risk drinking and alcohol problems are common. About 3 in 10 U.S. adults drink at levels that elevate their risk for physical, mental health, and social problems. Of these heavy drinkers, about 1 in 4 currently has alcohol abuse or dependence.All heavy drinkers have a greater risk of hypertension, gastro - intestinal bleeding, sleep disorders, major depression, hemorrhagic stroke, cirrhosis of the liver, and several cancers. 
  • Heavy drinking often goes undetected. In a recent study of primary care practices, for example, patients with alcohol dependence received the recommended quality of care, including assessment and referral to treatment, only about 10 percent of the time.
  • Patients are likely to be more receptive, open, and ready to change than you expect. Most patients don’t object to being screened for alcohol use by clinicians and are open to hearing advice afterward. In addition, most primary care patients who screen positive for heavy drinking or alcohol use disorders show some motivational readiness to change, with those who have the most severe symptoms being the most ready.
  • You’re in a prime position to make a difference. Clinical trials have demonstrated that brief interventions can promote significant, lasting reductions in drinking levels in at-risk drinkers who aren’t alcohol dependent.8 Some drinkers who are dependent will accept referral to addiction treatment programs. Even for patients who don’t accept a referral, repeated alcohol-focused visits with a health care provider can lead to significant improvement.
  • If you’re not already doing so, we encourage you to incorporate alcohol screening and intervention into your practice. With this Guide, you have what you need to begin.
Keywords 

Planning and Implementing Screening and Brief Intervention for Risky Alcohol Use

Author/s: 
Higgins-Biddle, John C., Hungerford, Daniel W., Baker, Susan D., Reynolds, Megan R., Cheal, Nancy E., Weber, Mary Kate, Dang, Elizabeth P.

Like hypertension or tobacco screening, alcohol screening and brief intervention (alcohol SBI) is a clinical preventative service. It identifies and helps patients who may be drinking too much. It involves:

  • A validated set of screening questions to identify patients' drinking patterns,
  • A short conversation who are drinking to omuch, and for patients with severe risk, a referral to specialized treatment as warranted.

The entire service takes only a few minutes, is inexpensive, and may be reimbursable. Thirty years of resesarch has shown that alcohol SBI is effective at reducing the amount of alcohol consumed by those who are drinking too much. Based on this evidence the U.S. Preventative Services Task Force and many other organizations have recommended that alcohol SBI be implemented for all adults in primary health care settings.

Addressing Alcohol Use: Practice Manual

Author/s: 
Gonzalez, Sandra, Grubb, John, Kowalchuk, Alicia, Sidani, Mohamad, Spooner, Kiara, Zoorob, Roger

Risky alcohol use, defined as any level of alcohol consumption which increases the risk of harm to oneself or others, is both a substance use disorder and medical issue. Recognized as one of the leading preventable causes of death, risky alcohol use leads to over 88,000 deaths each year in the United States. Among adults in the U.S., approximately 58% of men and 46% of women report drinking in the last 30 days. National estimates also indicate that greater than 50% of the alcohol consumed by adults is during binge drinking, the most common pattern of excessive or risky alcohol use. More specifically, in the U.S., approximately 23% of adult men report binge drinking five times per month, while 11% of adult women report binge drinking three times per month. Furthermore, research indicates that more than one in two women of childbearing age drink alcohol. Among those that drink alcohol, 18% engage in binge drinking.

Family physicians and other primary care providers are in an ideal position to facilitate the prevention of morbidity and mortality associated with risky alcohol use. Many professional organizations recognize the importance of screening and behavioral counseling interventions to reduce alcohol misuse, including the American Academy of Family Physicians (AAFP), American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (AGOG), and the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF).

Alcohol screening and brief intervention (SBI) is a USPSTF grade B recommendation that includes:

• Screening all adult primary care patients for risky alcohol use, at least yearly, using an evidence-based screening tool.

• Providing a brief behavioral intervention to patients screening positive for risky alcohol use, to help them make healthier choices around their drinking (e.g., to reduce alcohol use or quit drinking).

This practice manual provides a systems-change approach for implementing alcohol SBI into your practice.

Diagnosis and Pharmacotherapy of Alcohol Use Disorder: A Review

Author/s: 
Kranzler, Henry R., Soyka, Michael

IMPORTANCE:

Alcohol consumption is associated with 88 000 US deaths annually. Although routine screening for heavy alcohol use can identify patients with alcohol use disorder (AUD) and has been recommended, only 1 in 6 US adults report ever having been asked by a health professional about their drinking behavior. Alcohol use disorder, a problematic pattern of alcohol use accompanied by clinically significant impairment or distress, is present in up to 14% of US adults during a 1-year period, although only about 8% of affected individuals are treated in an alcohol treatment facility.

OBSERVATIONS:

Four medications are approved by the US Food and Drug Administration to treat AUD: disulfiram, naltrexone (oral and long-acting injectable formulations), and acamprosate. However, patients with AUD most commonly receive counseling. Medications are prescribed to less than 9% of patients who are likely to benefit from them, given evidence that they exert clinically meaningful effects and their inclusion in clinical practice guidelines as first-line treatments for moderate to severe AUD. Naltrexone, which can be given once daily, reduces the likelihood of a return to any drinking by 5% and binge-drinking risk by 10%. Randomized clinical trials also show that some medications approved for other indications, including seizure disorder (eg, topiramate), are efficacious in treating AUD. Currently, there is not sufficient evidence to support the use of pharmacogenetics to personalize AUD treatments.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE:

Alcohol consumption is associated with a high rate of morbidity and mortality, and heavy alcohol use is the major risk factor for AUD. Simple, valid screening methods can be used to identify patients with heavy alcohol use, who can then be evaluated for the presence of an AUD. Patients receiving a diagnosis of the disorder should be given brief counseling and prescribed a first-line medication (eg, naltrexone) or referred for a more intensive psychosocial intervention.

Acamprosate for alcohol dependence

Author/s: 
Rösner, Susanne, Hack-Herrwerth, Andrea, Leucht, Stefan, Lehert, Philippe, Vecchi, Simona, Soyka, Michael

BACKGROUND:

Alcohol dependence is among the main leading health risk factors in most developed and developing countries. Therapeutic success of psychosocial programs for relapse prevention is moderate, but could potentially be increased by an adjuvant treatment with the glutamate antagonist acamprosate.

OBJECTIVES:

To determine the effectiveness and tolerability of acamprosate in comparison to placebo and other pharmacological agents.

SEARCH STRATEGY:

We searched the Cochrane Drugs and Alcohol Group (CDAG) Specialized Register, PubMed, EMBASE and CINAHL in January 2009 and inquired manufacturers and researchers for unpublished trials.

SELECTION CRITERIA:

All double-blind randomised controlled trials (RCTs) which compare the effects of acamprosate with placebo or active control on drinking-related outcomes.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS:

Two authors independently extracted data. Trial quality was assessed by one author and cross-checked by a second author. Individual patient data (IPD) meta-analyses were used to verify the primary effectiveness outcomes.

MAIN RESULTS:

24 RCTs with 6915 participants fulfilled the criteria of inclusion and were included in the review. Compared to placebo, acamprosate was shown to significantly reduce the risk of any drinking RR 0.86 (95% CI 0.81 to 0.91); NNT 9.09 (95% CI 6.66 to 14.28) and to significantly increase the cumulative abstinence duration MD 10.94 (95% CI 5.08 to 16.81), while secondary outcomes (gamma-glutamyltransferase, heavy drinking) did not reach statistical significance. Diarrhea was the only side effect that was more frequently reported under acamprosate than placebo RD 0.11 (95% 0.09 to 0.13); NNTB 9.09 (95% CI 7.69 to 11.11). Effects of industry-sponsored trials RR 0.88 (95% 0.80 to 0.97) did not significantly differ from those of non-profit funded trials RR 0.88 (95% CI 0.81 to 0.96). In addition, the linear regression test did not indicate a significant risk of publication bias (p = 0.861).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS:

Acamprosate appears to be an effective and safe treatment strategy for supporting continuous abstinence after detoxification in alcohol dependent patients. Even though the sizes of treatment effects appear to be rather moderate in their magnitude, they should be valued against the background of the relapsing nature of alcoholism and the limited therapeutic options currently available for its treatment.

Keywords 

Antidepressant treatment of co-occurring depression and alcohol dependence

Author/s: 
Agabio, Roberta, Trogu, Emanuela, Pani, Pier Paolo

BACKGROUND:

Alcohol dependence is a major public health problem characterized by recidivism, and medical and psychosocial complications. The co-occurrence of major depression in people entering treatment for alcohol dependence is common, and represents a risk factor for morbidity and mortality, which negatively influences treatment outcomes.

OBJECTIVES:

To assess the benefits and risks of antidepressants for the treatment of people with co-occurring depression and alcohol dependence.

SEARCH METHODS:

We searched the Cochrane Drugs and Alcohol Group Specialised Register (via CRSLive), Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, and Embase from inception to July 2017. We also searched for ongoing and unpublished studies via ClinicalTrials.gov (www.clinicaltrials.gov) and the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) (apps.who.int/trialsearch/).All searches included non-English language literature. We handsearched references of topic-related systematic reviews and the included studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA:

Randomized controlled trials and controlled clinical trials comparing antidepressants alone or in association with other drugs or psychosocial interventions (or both) versus placebo, no treatment, and other pharmacological or psychosocial interventions.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS:

We used standard methodological procedures as expected by Cochrane.

MAIN RESULTS:

We included 33 studies in the review (2242 participants). Antidepressants were compared to placebo (22 studies), psychotherapy (two studies), other medications (four studies), or other antidepressants (five studies). The mean duration of the trials was 9.9 weeks (range 3 to 26 weeks). Eighteen studies took place in the USA, 12 in Europe, two in Turkey, and one in Australia. The antidepressant included in most of the trials was sertraline; other medications were amitriptyline, citalopram, desipramine, doxepin, escitalopram, fluoxetine, fluvoxamine, imipramine, mianserin, mirtazepine, nefazodone, paroxetine, tianeptine, venlafaxine, and viloxazine. Eighteen studies were conducted in an outpatient setting, nine in an inpatient setting, and six in both settings. Psychosocial treatment was provided in 18 studies. There was high heterogeneity in the selection of outcomes and the rating systems used for diagnosis and outcome assessment.Comparing antidepressants to placebo, low-quality evidence suggested that antidepressants reduced the severity of depression evaluated with interviewer-rated scales at the end of trial (14 studies, 1074 participants, standardized mean difference (SMD) -0.27, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.49 to -0.04). However, the difference became non-significant after the exclusion of studies with a high risk of bias (SMD -0.17, 95% CI -0.39 to 0.04). In addition, very low-quality evidence supported the efficacy of antidepressants in increasing the response to the treatment(10 studies, 805 participants, risk ratio (RR) 1.40, 95% Cl 1.08 to 1.82). This result became non-significant after the exclusion of studies at high risk of bias (RR 1.27, 95% CI 0.96 to 1.68). There was no difference for other relevant outcomes such as the difference between baseline and final score, evaluated using interviewer-rated scales (5 studies, 447 participants, SMD 0.15, 95% CI -0.12 to 0.42).Moderate-quality evidence found that antidepressants increased the number of participants abstinent from alcohol during the trial (7 studies, 424 participants, RR 1.71, 95% Cl 1.22 to 2.39) and reduced the number of drinks per drinking days (7 studies, 451 participants, mean difference (MD) -1.13 drinks per drinking days, 95% Cl -1.79 to -0.46). After the exclusion of studies with high risk of bias, the number of abstinent remained higher (RR 1.69, 95% CI 1.18 to 2.43) and the number of drinks per drinking days lower (MD -1.21 number of drinks per drinking days, 95% CI -1.91 to -0.51) among participants who received antidepressants compared to those who received placebo. However, other outcomes such as the rate of abstinent days did not differ between antidepressants and placebo (9 studies, 821 participants, MD 1.34, 95% Cl -1.66 to 4.34; low-quality evidence).Low-quality evidence suggested no differences between antidepressants and placebo in the number of dropouts (17 studies, 1159 participants, RR 0.98, 95% Cl 0.79 to 1.22) and adverse events as withdrawal for medical reasons (10 studies, 947 participants, RR 1.15, 95% Cl 0.65 to 2.04).There were few studies comparing one antidepressant versus another antidepressant or antidepressants versus other interventions, and these had a small sample size and were heterogeneous in terms of the types of interventions that were compared, yielding results that were not informative.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS:

We found low-quality evidence supporting the clinical use of antidepressantsin the treatment of people with co-occurring depression and alcohol dependence. Antidepressants had positive effects on certain relevant outcomes related to depression and alcohol use but not on other relevant outcomes. Moreover, most of these positive effects were no longer significant when studies with high risk of bias were excluded. Results were limited by the large number of studies showing high or unclear risk of bias and the low number of studies comparing one antidepressant to another or antidepressants to other medication. In people with co-occurring depression and alcohol dependence, the risk of developing adverse effects appeared to be minimal, especially for the newer classes of antidepressants (such as selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors). According to these results, in peoplewith co-occurring depression and alcohol dependence, antidepressants may be useful for the treatment of depression, alcohol dependence, or both, although the clinical relevance may be modest.

Pharmacotherapy for Adults With Alcohol Use Disorder (AUD) in Outpatient Settings

Author/s: 
John M. Eisenberg Center for Clinical Decisions and Communications Science

Focus of This Summary

This is a summary of a systematic review evaluating the evidence regarding the efficacy, comparative effectiveness, and adverse effects of medications in adults with alcohol use disorder (AUD). The systematic review included 167 articles reporting on 135 eligible studies published from January 1, 1970, to October 11, 2013. This summary is provided to inform discussions with patients and/or caregivers of treatment options and to assist in decisionmaking along with consideration of a patient's values and preferences. However, reviews of evidence should not be construed to represent clinical recommendations or guidelines.

Motivational Interviewing and Field Instruction: The FRAMES model

Author/s: 
Kamya, Hugo

Motivational interviewing is defined as a “client-centered, directive method for enhancing intrinsic motivation to change by exploring and resolving ambivalence” (Miller & Rollnick, 2002). In supervision of staff, the ultimate goal is to improve an organization’s efficiency by increasing productivity, decreasing employee stress, vicarious trauma and burnout, and reducing clinical negligence and malpractice. In supervision of interns, the major focus is on meeting the intern’s learning needs and on developing competent practitioners. Motivational interviewing in supervision maximizes focus and positive change by developing action plans and addressing ambivalence toward change. Motivational interviewing uses a guide toward change called FRAMES; the acronym stands for Feedback, Responsibility, Advice, Menu Options, Empathy and Self-Efficacy.

Subscribe to alcoholism