Search

Aim: To validate a French translation of the Alcohol Urge Questionnaire (AUQ) that measures craving in patients with alcohol dependence., Method: All patients aged > 18 years who were hospitalized for alcohol detoxification from February to May 2019 in the alcohol unit of the Rennes university hospital were eligible. A back-translated version of the AUQ was completed at admission. Patients were interviewed at the end of the 7-day detoxification program by a trained addiction psychiatrist (MS), using tablet computed-based questionnaires assessing state craving (visual analog scale), alcohol dependence severity, drinking behavior, psychological distress and physical/mental health. The same investigator assessed relapse 1 month after discharge., Results: A total of 80 inpatients were recruited and completed questionnaires. The single factor structure of the French version of the AUQ was similar to the original questionnaire, and was supported by strong internal reliability and item-scale validity. The AUQ score correlated highly acute craving measure, but moderately scales assessing the severity of alcohol dependence, drinking behavior and mental health. Relapse 1 month after discharge was significantly related to AUQ score assessed either at baseline, or with better estimate at the end of the 7-day detoxification period., Conclusion: The French version of the AUQ provides a reliable measure of phasic craving, which is best described as a context-dependent single-factor variable, related to but distinct from tonic craving, dependence severity and drinking behavior. The ease of administration makes the AUQ a useful tool for French-speaking patients with alcohol dependence., (© The Author(s) 2020. Medical Council on Alcohol and Oxford University Press. All rights reserved.)

Background and Aims: Pharmacologically controlled drinking in the treatment of alcohol dependence or alcohol use disorders (AUDs) is an emerging concept. Our objective was to explore the comparative effectiveness of drugs used in this indication., Design: Systematic review with direct and network meta-analysis of double-blind randomized controlled trials (RCTs) assessing the efficacy of nalmefene, naltrexone, acamprosate, baclofen or topiramate in non-abstinent adults diagnosed with alcohol dependence or AUDs. Two independent reviewers selected published and unpublished studies on Medline, the Cochrane Library, Embase, ClinicalTrials.gov, contacted pharmaceutical companies, the European Medicines Agency and the Food and Drug Administration, and extracted data., Setting: Thirty-two RCTs., Participants: A total of 6036 patients., Measurements: The primary outcome was total alcohol consumption (TAC). Other consumption outcomes and health outcomes were considered as secondary outcomes., Findings: No study provided direct comparisons between drugs. A risk of incomplete outcome data was identified in 26 studies (81%) and risk of selective outcome reporting in 17 (53%). Nalmefene [standardized mean difference (SMD) = -0.19, 95% confidence interval (CI) = -0.29, -0.10; I 2  = 0%], baclofen (SMD = -1.00, 95% CI = -1.80, -0.19; one study) and topiramate (SMD = -0.77, 95% CI = -1.12, -0.42; I 2  = 0%) showed superiority over placebo on TAC. No efficacy was observed for naltrexone or acamprosate. Similar results were observed for other consumption outcomes, except for baclofen (the favourable outcome on TAC was not reproduced). The number of withdrawals for safety reasons increased under nalmefene and naltrexone. No treatment demonstrated any harm reduction (no study was powered to explore health outcomes). Indirect comparisons suggested that topiramate was superior to nalmefene, naltrexone and acamprosate on consumption outcomes, but its safety profile is known to be poor., Conclusions: There is currently no high-grade evidence for pharmacological treatment to control drinking using nalmefene, naltrexone, acamprosate, baclofen or topiramate in patients with alcohol dependence or alcohol use disorder. Some treatments show low to medium efficacy in reducing drinking across a range of studies with a high risk of bias. None demonstrates any benefit on health outcomes., (© 2017 Society for the Study of Addiction.)

Background: Nalmefene is a recent option in alcohol dependence treatment. Its approval was controversial. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of the aggregated data (registered as PROSPERO 2014:CRD42014014853) to compare the harm/benefit of nalmefene versus placebo or active comparator in this indication., Methods and Findings: Three reviewers searched for published and unpublished studies in Medline, the Cochrane Library, Embase, ClinicalTrials.gov, Current Controlled Trials, and bibliographies and by mailing pharmaceutical companies, the European Medicines Agency (EMA), and the US Food and Drug Administration. Double-blind randomized clinical trials evaluating nalmefene to treat adult alcohol dependence, irrespective of the comparator, were included if they reported (1) health outcomes (mortality, accidents/injuries, quality of life, somatic complications), (2) alcohol consumption outcomes, (3) biological outcomes, or (4) treatment safety outcomes, at 6 mo and/or 1 y. Three authors independently screened the titles and abstracts of the trials identified. Relevant trials were evaluated in full text. The reviewers independently assessed the included trials for methodological quality using the Cochrane Collaboration tool for assessing risk of bias. On the basis of the I2 index or the Cochrane's Q test, fixed or random effect models were used to estimate risk ratios (RRs), mean differences (MDs), or standardized mean differences (SMDs) with 95% CIs. In sensitivity analyses, outcomes for participants who were lost to follow-up were included using baseline observation carried forward (BOCF); for binary measures, patients lost to follow-up were considered equal to failures (i.e., non-assessed patients were recorded as not having responded in both groups). Five randomized controlled trials (RCTs) versus placebo, with a total of 2,567 randomized participants, were included in the main analysis. None of these studies was performed in the specific population defined by the EMA approval of nalmefene, i.e., adults with alcohol dependence who consume more than 60 g of alcohol per day (for men) or more than 40 g per day (for women). No RCT compared nalmefene with another medication. Mortality at 6 mo (RR = 0.39, 95% CI [0.08; 2.01]) and 1 y (RR = 0.98, 95% CI [0.04; 23.95]) and quality of life at 6 mo (SF-36 physical component summary score: MD = 0.85, 95% CI [-0.32; 2.01]; SF-36 mental component summary score: MD = 1.01, 95% CI [-1.33; 3.34]) were not different across groups. Other health outcomes were not reported. Differences were encountered for alcohol consumption outcomes such as monthly number of heavy drinking days at 6 mo (MD = -1.65, 95% CI [-2.41; -0.89]) and at 1 y (MD = -1.60, 95% CI [-2.85; -0.35]) and total alcohol consumption at 6 mo (SMD = -0.20, 95% CI [-0.30; -0.10]). An attrition bias could not be excluded, with more withdrawals for nalmefene than for placebo, including more withdrawals for safety reasons at both 6 mo (RR = 3.65, 95% CI [2.02; 6.63]) and 1 y (RR = 7.01, 95% CI [1.72; 28.63]). Sensitivity analyses showed no differences for alcohol consumption outcomes between nalmefene and placebo, but the weight of these results should not be overestimated, as the BOCF approach to managing withdrawals was used., Conclusions: The value of nalmefene for treatment of alcohol addiction is not established. At best, nalmefene has limited efficacy in reducing alcohol consumption.