Hanne Tønnesen

The Efficacy of Disulfiram for the Treatment of Alcohol Use Disorder

BACKGROUNDnAlcohol use disorders (AUD) involving hazardous, harmful, and addictive misuse of alcohol are widespread in most parts of the world. The aim of this study was to review the effect of disulfiram in the treatment of patients with AUD. The effect of disulfiram was evaluated according to the primary outcome of an intake of alcohol below 30 and 20 g/d for men and women, respectively, as well as secondary outcomes such as days until relapse, alcohol intake, and numbers of drinking days.nnnMETHODSnA systematic review of the literature was conducted using MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL).nnnRESULTSnEleven randomized controlled trials were included with a total of 1,527 patients. They compared disulfiram treatment with placebo, none or other abstinence-supportive treatments. Overall, 6 studies reported of a significant better effect on abstinence for patients treated with disulfiram. Six of 9 studies measuring secondary outcomes reported that patients treated with disulfiram had significantly more days until relapse and fewer drinking days, respectively. The quality of the included studies was moderate. Heterogeneity was significant in most of the meta-analyses, but valid results were found regarding the effect of disulfiram versus placebo over 12 months and unsupervised disulfiram versus other or no treatment. The vast majority of significant studies were of shorter duration, while only 3 studies of 12 months were significant regarding more days until relapse and/or reduction in drinking days.nnnCONCLUSIONSnSupervised treatment with disulfiram has some effect on short-term abstinence and days until relapse as well as number of drinking days when compared with placebo, none, or other treatments for patients with alcohol dependency or abuse. Long-term effect on abstinence has not been evaluated yet. However, there is a need for more homogeneous and high-quality studies in the future regarding the efficacy of disulfiram.

Alcohol screening and risk of postoperative complications in male VA patients undergoing major non-cardiac surgery

ABSTRACTBACKGROUNDPatients who misuse alcohol are at increased risk for surgical complications. Four weeks of preoperative abstinence decreases the risk of complications, but practical approaches for early preoperative identification of alcohol misuse are needed.OBJECTIVETo evaluate whether results of alcohol screening with the Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test - Consumption (AUDIT-C) questionnaire—up to a year before surgery—were associated with the risk of postoperative complications.DESIGNThis is a cohort study.SETTING AND PARTICIPANTSMale Veterans Affairs (VA) patients were eligible if they had major noncardiac surgery assessed by the VA’s Surgical Quality Improvement Program (VASQIP) in fiscal years 2004-2006, and completed the AUDIT-C alcohol screening questionnaire (0-12 points) on a mailed survey within 1xa0year before surgery.MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREOne or more postoperative complication(s) within 30xa0days of surgery based on VASQIP nurse medical record reviews.RESULTSAmong 9,176 eligible men, 16.3% screened positive for alcohol misuse with AUDIT-C scores ≥ 5, and 7.8% had postoperative complications. Patients with AUDIT-C scores ≥ 5 were at significantly increased risk for postoperative complications, compared to patients who drank less. In analyses adjusted for age, smoking, and days from screening to surgery, the estimated prevalence of postoperative complications increased from 5.6% (95% CI 4.8–6.6%) in patients with AUDIT-C scores 1–4, to 7.9% (6.3–9.7%) in patients with AUDIT-Cs 5–8, 9.7% (6.6–14.1%) in patients with AUDIT-Cs 9–10 and 14.0% (8.9–21.3%) in patients with AUDIT-Cs 11–12. In fully-adjusted analyses that included preoperative covariates potentially in the causal pathway between alcohol misuse and complications, the estimated prevalence of postoperative complications increased significantly from 4.8% (4.1–5.7%) in patients with AUDIT-C scores 1–4, to 6.9% (5.5–8.7%) in patients with AUDIT-Cs 5-8 and 7.5% (5.0–11.3%) among those with AUDIT-Cs 9–10.CONCLUSIONSAUDIT-C scores of 5 or more up to a year before surgery were associated with increased postoperative complications.

Preoperative alcohol cessation prior to elective surgery

BACKGROUNDnHazardous drinking has been associated with an increased postoperative complication rate after surgery. Common complications include postoperative infections, cardiopulmonary complications, and bleeding episodes. Preoperative abstinence may to some degree reverse alcohol-induced pathophysiological processes and thus prevent postoperative complications.nnnOBJECTIVESnTo assess the effect of preoperative alcohol cessation interventions on the rate of postoperative complications including mortality in hazardous drinkers. To assess the effect of preoperative alcohol cessation interventions for hazardous drinkers on alcohol use in the postoperative period and in the long term.nnnSEARCH METHODSnWe searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library 2011, Issue 9); Ovid MEDLINE (1966 to September 2011); Ovid EMBASE (1966 to September 2011); CINAHL via EBSCOhost (1982 to September 2011). We combined the MEDLINE search strategy with the Cochrane highly sensitive search strategy, as contained in the Cochrane Handbook for Systematicxa0Reviews of Interventions, to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs).nnnSELECTION CRITERIAnWe included all randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that evaluated the effects of a preoperative alcohol cessation intervention on postoperative complications or postoperative alcohol consumption, or both, in the short and long term in hazardous drinkers . We excluded intraoperative and postoperative alcohol interventions.nnnDATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSISnThree authors independently assessed studies to determine eligibility and extracted data using a tool based on guidance in the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. Where required, we obtained additional information through collaboration with the original author. We presented the main outcomes as dichotomous variables. Where data were available, we planned to conduct subgroup analyses as well as a sensitivity analysis to explore risk of bias.nnnMAIN RESULTSnWe included two studies which involved 69 patients. Both studies were RCTs evaluating the effect of intensive alcohol cessation interventions including pharmacological strategies for alcohol withdrawal and relapse prophylaxis.Our primary outcome measure was postoperative complications and in-hospital and 30-day mortality. Meta-analysis showed an effect on the overall complication rates (odds ratio (OR) 0.22; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.08 to 0.61; P = 0.004). There was no significant reduction of in-hospital and 30-day mortality (OR 0.39; 95% CI 0.06 to 2.83; P = 0.35).Secondary outcomes included length of stay and postoperative alcohol use. No significant reduction was found.nnnAUTHORS CONCLUSIONSnBased on the finding of two studies, it appears that intensive preoperative alcohol cessation interventions, including pharmacological strategies for relapse prophylaxis and withdrawal symptoms, may significantly reduce postoperative complication rates. No effect was found on mortality rates and length of stay.The effect of preoperative alcohol cessation intervention should be further explored in an effort to reduce the adverse effect of alcohol use on surgical outcomes. The number needed to screen to identify eligible patients for alcohol intervention studies in surgical settings seems to be extremely high. This may indicate that these studies are difficult to perform. Nevertheless, timing, duration and intensity of alcohol cessation interventions need to be subject to further investigation.

Gold Standard Program for Heavy Smokers in a Real-Life Setting

Background: High-intensity smoking cessation programs generally lead to more continuous abstinence, however, lower rates of success have been reported among heavy smokers. The aim was to evaluate continuous abstinence among heavy smokers during the intensive 6-week Gold Standard Program (GSP) and to identify modifiable factors associated with continuous abstinence. Methods: In this nationwide clinical study based on 36,550 smokers attending an intensive cessation program in Denmark. Heavy smoking was defined as ≥7 points in the Fagerström Nicotine Dependency Test, smoking ≥20 cigarettes daily or ≥20 pack-years. Results: Overall, 28% had a Fagerström score ≥7 points, 58% smoked ≥20 cigarettes daily and 68% smoked ≥20 pack-years. Continuous abstinence was 33% in responders (6-months response rate: 78%); however, abstinence was approximately 1–6% lower in the heavy smokers than the overall population. Attending GSP with an individual format (vs. group/other, OR 1.23–1.44); in a hospital setting (vs. pharmacy/municipality services, OR 1.05–1.11); and being compliant (attending the planned meetings OR 4.36–4.89) were associated with abstinence. Abstinence decreased in a dose-dependent manner with increasing smoking severity. Conclusions: Abstinence after GSP was 1–6% lower in the heavy smokers than in the overall study population. Modifiable factors may be used for small improvements in continued abstinence. However attempts to improve compliance seemed especially promising.

AUDIT-C Alcohol Screening Results and Postoperative Inpatient Health Care Use.

BACKGROUNDnAlcohol screening scores ≥5 on the Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test-Consumption (AUDIT-C) up to a year before surgery have been associated with postoperative complications, but the association with postoperative health care use is unknown. This study evaluated whether AUDIT-C scores in the year before surgery were associated with postoperative hospital length of stay, total ICU days, return to the operating room, and hospital readmission.nnnSTUDY DESIGNnThis cohort study included male Veterans Affairs patients who completed the AUDIT-C on mailed surveys (October 2003 through September 2006) and were hospitalized for nonemergent noncardiac major operations in the following year. Postoperative health care use was evaluated across 4 AUDIT-C risk groups (scores 0, 1 to 4, 5 to 8, and 9 to 12) using linear or logistic regression models adjusted for sociodemographics, smoking status, surgical category, relative value unit, and time from AUDIT-C to surgery. Patients with AUDIT-C scores indicating low-risk drinking (scores 1 to 4) were the referent group.nnnRESULTSnAdjusted analyses revealed that among eligible surgical patients (n = 5,171), those with the highest AUDIT-C scores (ie, 9 to 12) had longer postoperative hospital length of stay (5.8 [95% CI, 5.0-6.7] vs 5.0 [95% CI, 4.7-5.3] days), more ICU days (4.5 [95% CI, 3.2-5.8] vs 2.8 [95% CI, 2.6-3.1] days), and increased probability of return to the operating room (10% [95% CI, 6-13%] vs 5% [95% CI, 4-6%]) in the 30 days after surgery, but not increased hospital readmission within 30 days postdischarge, relative to the low-risk group.nnnCONCLUSIONSnAUDIT-C screening results could be used to identify patients at risk for increased postoperative health care use who might benefit from preoperative alcohol interventions.

The Gold Standard Programme: smoking cessation interventions for disadvantaged smokers are effective in a real-life setting

Objectives To evaluate the real-life effect of an evidence-based Gold Standard Programme (GSP) for smoking cessation interventions in disadvantaged patients and to identify modifiable factors that consistently produce the highest abstinence rates. Design Observational prospective cohort study. Setting GSPs in pharmacies, hospitals and communities in Denmark, reporting to the national Smoking Cessation Database. Participants Disadvantaged patients, defined as patients with a lower level of education and those receiving unemployment benefits. Interventions 6-week manualised GSP smoking cessation interventions performed by certified staff. Main outcome measures 6u2005months of continuous abstinence, response rate: 80%. Results Continuous abstinence of the 16u2008377 responders was 34% (of all 20u2008588 smokers: 27%). Continuous abstinence was lower in 5738 smokers with a lower educational level (30% of responders and 23% of all) and in 840 unemployed (27% of responders and 19% of all). In respect to modifiable factors, continuous abstinence was found more often after programmes in one-on-one formats (vs group formats) among patients with a lower educational level, 34% (vs 25%, p=0.037), or among unemployed, 35% (vs 24%, p=0.099). The variable ‘format’ stayed in the final model of multivariable analyses in patients with a lower educational level, OR=1.31 (95% CI 1.05 to 1.63). Conclusions Although continuous abstinence was lower among disadvantaged smokers, the absolute difference was small. If the programme had been as effective in disadvantaged as in non-disadvantaged groups, there would have been an extra 46 or 8 quitters annually, respectively. Promoting individual interventions among those with a low education may increase the effectiveness of GSP.

Surgery and smoking at first and second hand: time to act.

A N original study in this issue of ANESTHESIOLOGY shows that only 6.6% of smoking parents maintained abstinence during the period when their child underwent surgery. This cessation rate is disappointingly low, probably because the parents are not informed about the increased risk for their children in relation to the operation and not offered support to quit smoking. It is a fact that daily smoking is a heavy and independent risk factor at surgery. The threshold is so low that even secondhand smoke is a risk factor, and children with smoking parents develop more respiratory complications in relation to anesthesia. The association between smoking and surgery has been evaluated in more than 300 papers since 1944, when Dr. Morton first published the finding that smokers develop more pulmonary complications after operation. Every year still more articles confirm this association; however, the time has come to act instead of repeating the same observations over and over again. The question is therefore what to do to reduce the increased risk for smokers undergoing surgery. We could of course hope that the smoking patients or parents would stop smoking themselves, either coincidentally with the operation or because undergoing surgery is considered a teachable moment in life. However, Drs. Shi and Warner have now shown that parental smoking behavior is not affected by this hope. In addition, the spontaneous cessation rate in surgical patients is only a little higher than that of smokers not undergoing surgery. The perspectives are that far too many firstand secondhand smokers develop complications that are potentially preventable. This leaves us with a great deal of room for improvement in postoperative outcomes among smokers, including children exposed to secondhand smoke. During the last 10 yr, evidence has been gathered from randomized clinical trials (RCT) about the risk-reducing effect of perioperative smoking cessation intervention programs. The first RCT was published on elective orthopaedic surgery by Dr. Møller and colleagues in 2002. It demonstrated that the postoperative complication rate was halved in the group allocated to an intensive smoking cessation intervention of 6 – 8 weeks, the Gold Standard Programme (GSP) (table 1). Another study on elective general surgery was published in 2008 by Dr. Lindström and colleagues. They used the same program and found a similar effect, although they began the GSP only 4 weeks before surgery and continued for 4 weeks after it. Other RCTs have evaluated minor and briefer smoking cessation programs without showing any significant risk-reducing effects in the surgical pathway. It seems that only programs associated with high rates of smoking cessation, such as the GSP, influence the postoperative complication rate. From the clinical point of view (and for the benefit of the patients), we should use the interventions requiring the lowest number of patients needed to treat. Depending on the level of staff salary, the fully hospitalfunded GSP is followed by a moderate or substantial reduction of direct hospital costs. The extra resources spent on the mainly outpatient program that is free of charge for the paIllustration: J. P. Rathmell, A. Johnson.

Will emergency and surgical patients participate in and complete alcohol interventions? A systematic review

BackgroundIn the everyday surgical life, staff may experience that patients with Alcohol Use Disorders (AUDs) seem reluctant to participate in alcohol intervention programs. The objective was therefore to assess acceptance of screening and intervention as well as adherence to the intervention program among emergency department (ED) and surgical patients with AUDs.MethodsA systematic literature search was followed by extraction of acceptance and adherence rates in ED and surgical patients. Numbers needed to screen (NNS) were calculated. Subgroup analyses were carried out based on different study characteristics.ResultsThe literature search revealed 33 relevant studies. Of these, 31 were randomized trials, 28 were conducted in EDs and 31 evaluated the effect of brief alcohol intervention. Follow-up was mainly conducted after six and/or twelve months.Four in five ED patients accepted alcohol screening and two in three accepted participation in intervention. In surgical patients, two in three accepted screening and the intervention acceptance rate was almost 100%. The adherence rate was above 60% for up to twelve months in both ED and surgical patients. The NNS to identify one eligible AUD patient and to get one eligible patient to accept participation in alcohol intervention varied from a few up to 70 patients.The rates did not differ between randomized and non-randomized trials, brief and intensive interventions or validated and self-reported alcohol consumption. Adherence rates were not affected by patients group allocation and type of follow-up.ConclusionsMost emergency and surgical patients with AUD accept participation in alcohol screening and interventions and complete the intervention program.

Effectiveness of a Web-Based Screening and Fully Automated Brief Motivational Intervention for Adolescent Substance Use: A Randomized Controlled Trial.

Background Mid-to-late adolescence is a critical period for initiation of alcohol and drug problems, which can be reduced by targeted brief motivational interventions. Web-based brief interventions have advantages in terms of acceptability and accessibility and have shown significant reductions of substance use among college students. However, the evidence is sparse among adolescents with at-risk use of alcohol and other drugs. Objective This study evaluated the effectiveness of a targeted and fully automated Web-based brief motivational intervention with no face-to-face components on substance use among adolescents screened for at-risk substance use in four European countries. Methods In an open-access, purely Web-based randomized controlled trial, a convenience sample of adolescents aged 16-18 years from Sweden, Germany, Belgium, and the Czech Republic was recruited using online and offline methods and screened online for at-risk substance use using the CRAFFT (Car, Relax, Alone, Forget, Friends, Trouble) screening instrument. Participants were randomized to a single session brief motivational intervention group or an assessment-only control group but not blinded. Primary outcome was differences in past month drinking measured by a self-reported AUDIT-C-based index score for drinking frequency, quantity, and frequency of binge drinking with measures collected online at baseline and after 3 months. Secondary outcomes were the AUDIT-C-based separate drinking indicators, illegal drug use, and polydrug use. All outcome analyses were conducted with and without Expectation Maximization (EM) imputation of missing follow-up data. Results In total, 2673 adolescents were screened and 1449 (54.2%) participants were randomized to the intervention or control group. After 3 months, 211 adolescents (14.5%) provided follow-up data. Compared to the control group, results from linear mixed models revealed significant reductions in self-reported past-month drinking in favor of the intervention group in both the non-imputed (P=.010) and the EM-imputed sample (P=.022). Secondary analyses revealed a significant effect on drinking frequency (P=.037) and frequency of binge drinking (P=.044) in the non-imputation-based analyses and drinking quantity (P=.021) when missing data were imputed. Analyses for illegal drug use and polydrug use revealed no significant differences between the study groups (Ps>.05). Conclusions Although the study is limited by a large drop-out, significant between-group effects for alcohol use indicate that targeted brief motivational intervention in a fully automated Web-based format can be effective to reduce drinking and lessen existing substance use service barriers for at-risk drinking European adolescents. Trial Registration International Standard Randomized Controlled Trial Registry: ISRCTN95538913; http://www.isrctn.com/ISRCTN95538913 (Archived by WebCite at http://www.webcitation.org/6XkuUEwBx)

Effectiveness of the gold standard programmes (GSP) for smoking cessation in pregnant and non-pregnant women.

Background: Smoking is considered the most important preventable risk factor in relation to the development of complications during pregnancy and delivery. The aim of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness of an intensive 6-week gold standard programme (GSP) on pregnant women in real life. Methods: This was a prospective cohort study based on data from a national Danish registry on smoking cessation interventions. The study population included 10,682 women of a fertile age. The pregnancy status of the study population was identified using the National Patient Registry. Results: The response rate to follow up was 76%. The continuous abstinence rate for both pregnant and non-pregnant smokers was 24–32%. The following prognostic factors for continuous abstinence were identified: programme format (individual/group), older age, heavy smoking, compliance with the programme, health professional recommendation, and being a disadvantaged smoker. Conclusions: The GSP seems to be as effective among pregnant smokers as among non-pregnant smoking women. Due to the relatively high effect and clinical significance, the GSP would be an attractive element in smoking cessation intervention among pregnant women.