What Works in Alcohol Use Disorders? Jason Luty APT 2006, 12:13-22
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
What works in alcohol use disorders? Jason Luty APT 2006, 12:13-22. Access the most recent version at DOI: 10.1192/apt.12.1.13 References This article cites 0 articles, 0 of which you can access for free at: http://apt.rcpsych.org/content/12/1/13#BIBL Reprints/ To obtain reprints or permission to reproduce material from this paper, please write permissions to [email protected] You can respond http://apt.rcpsych.org/cgi/eletter-submit/12/1/13 to this article at Downloaded http://apt.rcpsych.org/ on February 18, 2014 from Published by The Royal College of Psychiatrists To subscribe to Adv. Psychiatr. Treat. go to: http://apt.rcpsych.org/site/subscriptions/ Advances in PsychiatricWhat worksTreatment in alcohol (2006), use vol. disorders? 12, 13–22 What works in alcohol use disorders? Jason Luty Abstract Treatment of alcohol use disorders typically involves a combination of pharmacotherapy and psychosocial interventions. About one-quarter of people with alcohol dependence (‘alcoholics’) who seek treatment remain abstinent over 1 year. Research has consistently shown that less intensive, community treatment (particularly brief interventions) is just as effective as intense, residential treatment. Many psychosocial treatments are probably equally effective. Techniques for medically assisted detoxification are widespread and effective. More recent evidence provides some support for the use of drugs such as acamprosate to prevent relapse in the medium to long term. There has been much recent debate and criticism of Unfortunately there are many uncertainties in the UK alcohol policy (Drummond, 2004; Hall, 2005). evidence base for treatment of alcohol use disorders Over the past 20 years, per capita alcohol consump- – not least of which is the cost-effectiveness of tion in Britain has increased by 31%, leading to large therapy. Many in-patient and residential alcohol increases in the prevalence of alcoholic cirrhosis, services in the UK were downsized following the alcohol-related violence and heavy alcohol use. famous trials by Edwards (see below). Controversies Alcohol misuse causes at least 22 000 premature also remain concerning the benefits of disulfiram deaths each year and costs the taxpayer an estimated and controlled drinking. £20 billion (Prime Minister’s Strategy Unit, 2003). Ideally, trials of alcohol treatment should follow The key features of alcohol dependence and harmful more than 70% of participants for 1 year and confirm use are listed in Box 1. About 5% of the UK alcohol consumption using relatives or other population are dependent on alcohol (Farrell et al, 2001) and 8 million Britons drink more than recommended levels. An excellent and authoritative review of alcohol Box 1 Alcohol dependence and harmful use treatment literature is provided by the Mesa Grande Key features1 of ICD–10 dependence include: project (Miller et al, 2001). Updated on a regular • Compulsion to drink basis, it includes a review of seven multicentre • Problems in controlling drinking studies in the USA and Europe involving over 8000 • Physiological withdrawal symptoms treatment-seeking individuals. In the 2001 review, • Escalating consumption, owing to tolerance overall mortality at 1-year follow-up was about • Preoccupation with alcohol, to the exclusion 1.5%. Clients reported an 87% reduction in alcohol of other pursuits consumption, with abstinence on 80% of days. • Increasing time lost to hangovers Overall, 24% were abstinent for the entire year, • Disregard of evidence that excessive drinking and a similar proportion resumed controlled, is harmful problem-free drinking. These results were validated using confidants (often the client’s spouse). Most Harmful alcohol use relapses occurred within the first 3 months. These • Harmful use is diagnosed if there is evidence results are supported by other studies, including that alcohol is damaging an individual’s a recent review of alcohol treatment from the mental or physical health, but criteria for Scottish Executive (Ludbrook et al, 2005). By dependence are not met contrast, Vaillant (1983) estimated that 2–3% of 1. Full diagnostic criteria appear in ICD–10 alcohol-dependent individuals in the USA abstain (World Health Organization, 1992: pp. 75–76). spontaneously each year in the community. Jason Luty is consultant in addictions psychiatry at the South Essex Partnership NHS Trust (Taylor Centre, Queensway House, Essex Street, Southend on Sea, Essex SS4 1RB, UK. Tel: 01702 440 550/07939 922 712; fax: 01702 440 551; e-mail: [email protected]) and an honorary consultant for Cambridge and Peterborough Partnership NHS Trust. He has published in the addictions field and trained at the Maudsley Hospital, London. He has a PhD in pharmacology following a study of the molecular mechanisms of receptor desensitisation and tolerance. He has no monetary interest in the products cited in this review. Advances in Psychiatric Treatment (2006), vol. 12. http://apt.rcpsych.org/ 13 Luty confidants. Clients should be breathalysed at follow- procedures that have become the preferred method up interviews. Appropriate outcome measures of treatment for most people dependent on alcohol. include time to first drink, time to relapse (more than Clients can usually complete home detoxification five standard drinks in one day), biochemical in 5–9 days. In ideal circumstances they are visited markers (especially γ-glutamyl transferase and twice daily for the first 3 days and medication is carbohydrate-deficient transferase) and functional supervised by a relative. Clients are breathalysed outcome scales such as the Alcohol Problems and medication withheld if they have consumed Questionnaire. A number of the published trials fail significant amounts of alcohol. to meet these ideals. Another common problem is Hayashida et al (1989) reported a randomised trial an unusually high rate of adherence to medication of in-patient (77) and out-patient (87) detoxification regimens (often exceeding 70%) or conclusions using oxazepam with daily clinic visits. In-patient based on very small samples. detoxification was significantly shorter than out- patient detoxification (6.5 v. 9.2 days). Fewer out-patients completed the procedure (72 v. 95%). Home v. in-patient detoxification There were no serious medical complications in either group. Both groups had improved at Detoxification is is a treatment designed to control 6 months, with no significant differences; nearly both the medical and psychological complications half the participants were completely abstinent. that may occur temporarily after a period of heavy In-patient detoxification cost 9–20 times more than and sustained alcohol use. Clinical procedures for out-patient detoxification. Hayashida et al noted that managing detoxification have been well described the Veterans Administration Medical Centre in in an earlier article in APT (Raistrick, 2000). These Philadelphia had reported the out-patient detoxi- usually involve chlordiazepoxide at diminishing fication of more than 6000 individuals with no doses over 7–10 days, with parenteral thiamine serious adverse consequences. Many of these people supplementation. Ideally the dose of medication had no supportive friends or relatives. Home should be titrated against withdrawal symptoms. detoxification can also be conducted by a nurse or The mean cell volume has been identified as the best general practitioner without recourse to a specialist. predictor of withdrawal complications such as Other trials have shown no difference in outcome hallucinations or fits. These occur in 5–10% of between in-patient and home detoxification (Irvin patients and would indicate in-patient detoxifi- et al, 1999). cation (Metcalf et al, 1995). Unfortunately a history of previous alcohol withdrawal seizures has little predictive value. Treatment intensity In the 1960s in-patient psychotherapy over several weeks was the preferred method of therapy for Research has consistently shown that less intensive alcohol dependence. However, published reports treatments are as effective as the more intensive have consistently failed to find any difference options (Chick et al, 1988). For example, Edwards in outcome between long and short in-patient et al (1977) reported another classic trial of 100 detoxification programmes (Miller & Hester, 1986). alcohol-dependent men randomised to a treatment For example Foster et al (2000) report a study of 64 group and an advice-only group. The treatment alcohol-dependent patients admitted for either 7 or group received a 12-month programme involving 28 days. About 60% relapsed (drank more than the introduction to Alcoholics Anonymous (AA), recommended weekly intake) over the 3-month calcium cyanamide, drugs to cover withdrawal, follow-up period. regular contact with a psychiatrist, advice on Edwards & Guthrie (1967) reported a classic trial abstinence strategies and interpersonal problems, of 40 alcohol-dependent men who were randomly and regular support for the patient’s wife from a assigned to in-patient or ‘intensive’ out-patient social worker. If out-patient management failed, treatment. Treatment duration for both groups was participants were offered in-patient detoxification 7–9 weeks. Participants were followed up each for around 6 weeks. Participants in the advice-only month for 1 year. Social worker support and group were offered just a sympathetic explanation medication were used to provide assistance where that the responsibility for improvement lay with necessary, for example by encouraging