Research Needs for Inpatient Management of Severe Alcohol Withdrawal Syndrome: An Official American Thoracic Society Research Statement

Alcohol Withdrawal Severity Measures for Identifying Patients Requiring High-Intensity Care

OBJECTIVES

Alcohol withdrawal syndrome (AWS) may progress to require high-intensity care. Approaches to identify hospitalized patients with AWS who received higher level of care have not been previously examined. This study aimed to examine the utility of Clinical Institute Withdrawal Assessment Alcohol Revised (CIWA-Ar) for alcohol scale scores and medication doses for alcohol withdrawal management in identifying patients who received high-intensity care.

DESIGN

A multicenter observational cohort study of hospitalized adults with alcohol withdrawal.

SETTING

University of Chicago Medical Center and University of Wisconsin Hospital.

PATIENTS

Inpatient encounters between November 2008 and February 2022 with a CIWA-Ar score greater than 0 and benzodiazepine or barbiturate administered within the first 24 hours. The primary composite outcome was patients who progressed to high-intensity care (intermediate care or ICU).

INTERVENTIONS

None.

MAIN RESULTS

Among the 8742 patients included in the study, 37.5% (n = 3280) progressed to high-intensity care. The odds ratio for the composite outcome increased above 1.0 when the CIWA-Ar score was 24. The sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), and negative predictive value (NPV) at this threshold were 0.12 (95% CI, 0.11-0.13), 0.95 (95% CI, 0.94-0.95), 0.58 (95% CI, 0.54-0.61), and 0.64 (95% CI, 0.63-0.65), respectively. The OR increased above 1.0 at a 24-hour lorazepam milligram equivalent dose cutoff of 15 mg. The sensitivity, specificity, PPV, and NPV at this threshold were 0.16 (95% CI, 0.14-0.17), 0.96 (95% CI, 0.95-0.96), 0.68 (95% CI, 0.65-0.72), and 0.65 (95% CI, 0.64-0.66), respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Neither CIWA-Ar scores nor medication dose cutoff points were effective measures for identifying patients with alcohol withdrawal who received high-intensity care. Research studies for examining outcomes in patients who deteriorate with AWS will require better methods for cohort identification.

Management of alcohol withdrawal syndrome in patients with alcohol-associated liver disease

Alcohol-associated liver disease is a common and severe sequela of excessive alcohol use; effective treatment requires attention to both liver disease and underlying alcohol use disorder (AUD). Alcohol withdrawal syndrome (AWS) can be dangerous, is a common barrier to AUD recovery, and may complicate inpatient admissions for liver-related complications. Hepatologists can address these comorbid conditions by learning to accurately stage alcohol-associated liver disease, identify AUD using standardized screening tools (eg, Alcohol Use Disorder Identification Test), and assess risk for and symptoms of AWS. Depending on the severity, alcohol withdrawal often merits admission to a monitored setting, where symptom-triggered administration of benzodiazepines based on standardized scoring protocols is often the most effective approach to management. For patients with severe liver disease, selection of benzodiazepines with less dependence on hepatic metabolism (eg, lorazepam) is advisable. Severe alcohol withdrawal often requires a "front-loaded" approach with higher dosing, as well as intensive monitoring. Distinguishing between alcohol withdrawal delirium and HE is important, though it can be difficult, and can be guided by differentiating clinical characteristics, including time to onset and activity level. There is little data on the use of adjuvant medications, including anticonvulsants, dexmedetomidine, or propofol, in this patient population. Beyond the treatment of AWS, inpatient admission and outpatient hepatology visits offer opportunities to engage in planning for ongoing management of AUD, including initiation of medications for AUD and referral to additional recovery supports. Hepatologists trained to identify AUD, alcohol-associated liver disease, and risk for AWS can proactively address these issues, ensuring that patients' AWS is managed safely and effectively and supporting planning for long-term recovery.

Critical care for patients with substance use disorders

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

To examine the impact of substance use disorders (SUDs) on critical illness and the role of critical care providers in treating SUDs. We discuss emerging evidence supporting hospital-based addiction treatment and highlight the clinical and research innovations needed to elevate the standards of care for patients with SUDs in the intensive care unit (ICU) amidst staggering individual and public health consequences.

RECENT FINDINGS

Despite the rapid increase of SUDs in recent years, with growing implications for critical care, dedicated studies focused on ICU patients with SUDs remain scant. Available data demonstrate SUDs are major risk factors for the development and severity of critical illness and are associated with poor outcomes. ICU patients with SUDs experience mutually reinforcing effects of substance withdrawal and pain, which amplify risks and consequences of delirium, and complicate management of comorbid conditions. Hospital-based addiction treatment can dramatically improve the health outcomes of hospitalized patients with SUDs and should begin in the ICU.

SUMMARY

SUDs have a significant impact on critical illness and post-ICU outcomes. High-quality cohort and treatment studies designed specifically for ICU patients with SUDs are needed to define best practices and improve health outcomes in this vulnerable population.

Prevalence and clinical impact of alcohol withdrawal syndrome in alcohol-associated hepatitis and the potential role of prophylaxis: a multinational, retrospective cohort study

Background

The prevalence and impact of alcohol withdrawal syndrome (AWS) in patients with alcohol-associated hepatitis (AH) are unknown. In this study, we aimed to investigate the prevalence, predictors, management, and clinical impact of AWS in patients hospitalized with AH.

Methods

A multinational, retrospective cohort study enrolling patients hospitalized with AH at 5 medical centres in Spain and in the USA was performed between January 1st, 2016 to January 31st, 2021. Data were retrospectively retrieved from electronic health records. Diagnosis of AWS was based on clinical criteria and use of sedatives to control AWS symptoms. The primary outcome was mortality. Multivariable models controlling for demographic variables and disease severity were performed to determine predictors of AWS (adjusted odds ratio [OR]) and the impact of AWS condition and management on clinical outcomes (adjusted hazard ratio [HR]).

Findings

In total, 432 patients were included. The median MELD score at admission was 21.9 (18.3-27.3). The overall prevalence of AWS was 32%. Lower platelet levels (OR = 1.61, 95% CI 1.05-2.48) and previous history of AWS (OR = 2.09, 95% CI 1.31-3.33) were associated with a higher rate of incident AWS, whereas the use of prophylaxis decreased the risk (OR = 0.58, 95% CI 0.36-0.93). The use of intravenous benzodiazepines (HR = 2.18, 95% CI 1.02-4.64) and phenobarbital (HR = 2.99, 95% CI 1.07-8.37) for AWS treatment were independently associated with a higher mortality. The development of AWS increased the rate of infections (OR = 2.24, 95% CI 1.44-3.49), the need for mechanical ventilation (OR = 2.49, 95% CI 1.38-4.49), and ICU admission (OR = 1.96, 95% CI 1.19-3.23). Finally, AWS was associated with higher 28-day (HR = 2.31, 95% CI 1.40-3.82), 90-day (HR = 1.78, 95% CI 1.18-2.69), and 180-day mortality (HR = 1.54, 95% CI 1.06-2.24).

Interpretation

AWS commonly occurs in patients hospitalized with AH and complicates the hospitalization course. Routine prophylaxis is associated with a lower prevalence of AWS. Prospective studies should determine diagnostic criteria and prophylaxis regimens for AWS management in patients with AH.

Funding

This research received no specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.

Comparative efficacy and safety of pharmacotherapies for alcohol withdrawal: a systematic review and network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

There have been few head-to-head clinical trials of pharmacotherapies for alcohol withdrawal (AW). We, therefore, aimed to evaluate the comparative performance of pharmacotherapies for AW.

METHODS

Six databases were searched for randomized clinical trials through November 2021. Trials were included after a blinded review by two independent reviewers. Outcomes included incident seizures, delirium tremens, AW severity scores, adverse events, dropouts, dropouts from adverse events, length of hospital stay, use of additional medications, total benzodiazepine requirements, and death. Effect sizes were pooled using frequentist random-effects network meta-analysis models to generate summary ORs and Cohen's d standardized mean differences (SMDs).

RESULTS

Across the 149 trials, there were 10 692 participants (76% male, median 43.5 years old). AW severity spanned mild (n = 32), moderate (n = 51), and severe (n = 66). Fixed-schedule chlormethiazole (OR, 0.16; 95% CI, 0.04-0.65), fixed-schedule diazepam (OR, 0.16; 95% CI, 0.04-0.59), fixed-schedule lorazepam (OR = 0.19; 95% CI, 0.08-0.45), fixed-schedule chlordiazepoxide (OR = 0.21; 95% CI, 0.08-0.53), and divalproex (OR = 0.22; 95% CI, 0.05-0.86) were superior to placebo at reducing incident AW seizures. However, only fixed-schedule diazepam (OR, 0.19; 95% CI, 0.05-0.76) reduced incident delirium tremens. Oxcarbazepine (d = -3.69; 95% CI, -6.21 to -1.17), carbamazepine (d = -2.76; 95% CI, -4.13 to -1.40), fixed-schedule oxazepam (d = -2.55; 95% CI, -4.26 to -0.83), and γ-hydroxybutyrate (d = -1.80; 95% CI, -3.35 to -0.26) improved endpoint Clinical Institute Withdrawal Assessment for Alcohol-Revised scores over placebo. Promazine and carbamazepine were the only agents significantly associated with greater dropouts because of adverse events. The quality of evidence was downgraded because of the substantial risk of bias, heterogeneity, inconsistency, and imprecision.

CONCLUSIONS

Although some pharmacotherapeutic modalities, particularly benzodiazepines, appear to be safe and efficacious for reducing some measures of alcohol withdrawal, methodological issues and a high risk of bias prevent a consistent estimate of their comparative performance.