A double blind randomised comparison of chlordiazepoxide and lorazepam in alcohol withdrawal

Alcohol use disorder research in India: An update

Background

Despite alcohol use being a risk factor for numerous health-related conditions and alcohol use disorder (AUD) recognized as a disease, there was limited research in India until 2010. This narrative review aims to evaluate AUD-related research in India from 2010 to July 2023.

Methods

A PubMed search used key terms for AUD in India after 2010. Indian and international journals with regional significance that publish alcohol-related research were searched by each author individually. These were then collated, and duplicates were removed. In addition, we also conducted a gray literature search on focused areas related to AUD.

Results

The alcohol-related research in India after 2010 focused on diverse areas associated with alcohol use. Some areas of research have received more attention than others. Two major epidemiological surveys conducted in the past decade reveal that around 5% have a problematic alcohol use pattern. Factors associated with alcohol use, like genetic, neurobiological, psychological, and sociocultural, were studied. The studies focused on the clinical profile of AUD, including their correlates, such as craving, withdrawal, alcohol-related harm, and comorbid psychiatric and medical illnesses. During this period, minimal research was conducted to understand AUD's laboratory biomarkers, course, and prognosis. While there was a focus on generating evidence for different psychological interventions for alcohol dependence in management-related research, pharmacological studies centered on anticraving agents like baclofen. Research on noninvasive brain stimulation, such as rTMS, has shown preliminary usefulness in treating alcohol dependence. Very little research has been conducted regarding alcohol policy.

Conclusion

In the past decade, Indian research on alcohol has focused on diverse areas. Epidemiological and psychological management-related research received maximum attention. Considering the magnitude of the alcohol-related burden, it is essential to prioritize research to other less studied areas like pharmacological management of alcohol dependence and alcohol policy.

Magnesium in the treatment of alcohol withdrawal syndrome: a multicenter randomized controlled trial

OBJECTIVE

Alcohol withdrawal syndrome (AWS) is a frequent and potentially life-threatening condition experienced in alcohol use disorder. Since hypomagnesemia is involved in AWS's severity, we conducted a multicenter double-blind randomized placebo-controlled trial to examine the efficacy of oral magnesium supplementation as an adjuvant therapy of AWS.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Inpatients were recruited in six different centers if they had a baseline score higher than eight on the Revised Clinical Institute Withdrawal Assessment for Alcohol (CIWA-Ar). The experimental treatment was magnesium lactate dehydrate, administrated three times per day providing a total of 426.6 mg per day and up to 15 days. The primary endpoint was the significant between-group difference of the CIWA-Ar total score change from baseline to 3 days later. The treatment group and baseline score were introduced as covariables in an analysis of covariance.

RESULTS

A total of 98 inpatients were included {71.4% of men; mean age of 49.1 years [standard deviation (SD): 10.3]}. In the intention-to-treat population, the mean reduction of the CIWA-Ar score in the experimental group between baseline and 3 days later was 10.1 (SD: 5.2), whereas it was 9.2 (SD: 3.9) in the control group. The absolute difference of the adjusted mean in the experimental group compared with the control group was -0.69 (SD: 0.72), which did not correspond to a significant between-group difference (P = 0.34). Per-protocol analysis and sensitivity analyses also supported this result. Supplementary analyses found no significant difference regarding benzodiazepine consumption, magnesium blood concentration, and satisfaction to care.

CONCLUSIONS

The present study does not support the rationale of systematic oral magnesium supplementation in patients with AWS.

Lorazepam versus chlordiazepoxide for the treatment of alcohol withdrawal syndrome and prevention of delirium tremens in general medicine ward patients

Alcohol withdrawal syndrome (AWS) is a serious complication of abrupt alcohol cessation. Severe AWS can develop into delirium tremens (DT), which is potentially life-threatening. Lorazepam (LOR) and chlordiazepoxide (CDE) are mainstays of therapy for AWS. Current literature lacks studies comparing outcomes between the two drugs for patients who are not in a de-addiction ward specifically for withdrawal treatment. The primary objective of the study was to determine the incidence rate of DT between the groups. Of 2112 patients screened, 142 met inclusion criteria (LOR = 74, CDE = 68). Baseline characteristics were similar between groups. No significant difference in the primary outcome of DT development was observed (7% LOR, 9% CDE; p = 0.76). No significant differences in cumulative doses of scheduled LOR or CDE were observed (LOR 14.6 ± 8 mg, CDE 15.4 ± 12; p = 0.64). However, significant differences were found in the amount of "as needed" (PRN) LOR required for the two groups (LOR 3.2 ± 4 mg, CDE 6.6 ± 13 mg; p = 0.03) and the amount of scheduled plus PRN LOR required (LOR 17.7 ± 10 mg, CDE 21.9 ± 14 mg; p = 0.04). Doses are reported in LOR equivalents. There were no observed differences in duration of treatment (LOR 3.6 ± 1.3 days, CDE 3.9 ± 2.1 days; p = 0.3) or length of stay (LOR 5.28 ± 3.8 days, CDE 4.73 ± 4.2 days p = 0.4). No adverse events related to BZD were noted in either group. Hospital outcomes did not differ between the groups, but patients treated with CDE may require more adjuvant therapy to control symptoms of AWS. Both agents appear equally effective at preventing the development of DT in those patients admitted to general medicine wards.

Diazepam in the Treatment of Moderate to Severe Alcohol Withdrawal

Benzodiazepines ameliorate or prevent the symptoms and complications of moderate to severe alcohol withdrawal, which can include autonomic hyperactivity, agitation, combativeness, hallucinations, seizures, delirium, and death. The benzodiazepines most commonly used for this purpose are lorazepam, chlordiazepoxide, oxazepam, and diazepam. It is widely asserted that no member of this group is superior to the others for treatment of alcohol withdrawal. However, of these, diazepam has the shortest time to peak effect, which facilitates both rapid control of symptoms and accurate titration to avoid over-sedation. Furthermore, diazepam and its active metabolite, desmethyldiazepam, have the longest elimination half-lives, so their levels decrease in a gradual, self-tapering manner, resulting in a smoother withdrawal, i.e., a lower incidence and severity of both breakthrough symptoms and rebound phenomena, including a possibly decreased seizure risk. Importantly, the fear of increased risk of over-sedation with diazepam compared with other benzodiazepines is based on a misunderstanding of its pharmacokinetics and is unfounded. Similarly, the notion that diazepam should be avoided in patients with liver disease and elderly patients to avoid prolonged over-sedation is based on no more than conjecture. In fact, there is clinical evidence that diazepam is safe for the treatment of alcohol withdrawal in these patients when administered using a simple symptom-based approach. There is one instance in which diazepam should not be used: when intramuscular administration is the only option, the lipophilicity of diazepam can result in slow absorption-either lorazepam or, when rapid control of symptoms is required, midazolam should be used. The comparative pharmacokinetics of the benzodiazepines used in the treatment of alcohol withdrawal together with a comprehensive review of the literature on their use strongly suggest that diazepam should be the preferred benzodiazepine for the treatment of patients experiencing moderate to severe alcohol withdrawal under most circumstances.

Are Alcohol Anti-relapsing and Alcohol Withdrawal Drugs Useful in Cannabinoid Users?

Cannabinoids are still classified as illegal psychoactive drugs despite their broad and increasingly acknowledged therapeutic potential. These substances are most famous for their wide recreational use, particularly among young adults to either alter the state of consciousness, intensify pleasure induced by other psychoactive substances or as an alternative to the previously abused drugs. It is important to emphasize that cannabinoids are often taken together with a variety of medications intended for the treatment of alcohol use disorder (AUD) or alcohol withdrawal syndrome (AWS). These medications include disulfiram, acamprosate, and naltrexone. In this paper, we summarize recent advances in the knowledge of possible beneficial effects and interactions between cannabinoids and drugs commonly used for treatment of AUD and AWS either comorbid or existing as a separate disorder.

A comparative study of the clinical efficacy and safety of Lorazepam and chlordiazepoxide in alcohol dependence syndrome

BACKGROUND

Currently, benzodiazepines are the preferred drugs in the management of alcohol withdrawal symptoms. Chlordiazepoxide and diazepam, the most frequently used drugs have a long duration of action and are converted to active metabolites in the liver, while lorazepam is shorter acting, with no active metabolites.

OBJECTIVE

To compare and evaluate the safety and efficacy of lorazepam and chlordiazepoxide in patients with alcohol dependence syndrome with symptoms of alcohol withdrawal.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This was a prospective, randomized, double-blind, study carried out at a teaching hospital in Bangalore. Sixty patients aged ≥18 y with alcohol dependence syndrome with mild-to-moderate withdrawal symptoms were allocated at a ratio of 1:1 to either lorazepam or chlordiazepoxide, by means of a computer-generated randomization chart. Thirty patients each were started with lorazepam tablets 8 mg/day and chlordiazepoxide 80 mg/day. For both treatment groups, the dose was tapered and at the end of 8 days, the patients were drug-free. The severity of alcohol dependence was assessed using the Severity of Alcohol Dependence Questionnaire (SADQ). The CIWA-Ar was used for quantification of withdrawal symptoms. Liver function tests were performed at baseline and at the end of the study.

RESULTS

Of the 60 patients included in the study, 15 patients each had mild and moderate withdrawal symptoms in the chlordiazepoxide group and 17 and 13 patients respectively in the lorazepam group, based on the SADQ score. At baseline, the mean CIWA-Ar scores were similar in both the treatment groups: 24.77±5.98 in the chlordiazepoxide group and 24.90±6.12 in the lorazepam group. There was a significant intragroup decrease in the CIWA-Ar scores measured from baseline to the end of 8 days (p<0.0001) and 12 days (p<0.0001) in both treatment groups; however, there was no significant difference between the two groups. There was no significant difference observed in the liver function tests done at baseline and at the end of study period.

CONCLUSION

Lorazepam is noninferior to chlordiazepoxide in reducing alcohol withdrawal symptoms.