Filling the gap between lab and clinical impact: An open randomized diagnostic trial comparing urinary ethylglucuronide and ethanol in alcohol dependent outpatients. (1st February 2018)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Barrio, Pablo; Teixidor, Lídia; Ortega, Lluisa; Lligoña, Anna; Rico, Nayra; Bedini, José Luis; Vieta, Eduard; Gual, Antoni
• Is Part Of: Drug and alcohol dependence. Volume 183(2018)
• Page Start: 225
• Page End: 230
• Publication Date: 2018-02-01
• Subjects: Ethyl glucuronide -- Urine screening -- Alcohol dependence -- Randomized diagnostic trial; Drug abuse -- Periodicals; Alcoholism -- Periodicals; 616.86
• DOI: 10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2017.11.015
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 0376-8716

Abstract

Highlights: The use of ethyl glucuronide improves patients' self-report accuracy. Ethyl glucuronide feedback leads to a reduction of positive urine screening tests. Ethyl glucuronide improves abstinence rates in alcohol dependent outpatients. Abstract: Background: Efforts aimed at reducing alcohol-related harm include early detection of risky drinkers as well as detection of early relapse in patients with alcohol dependence. Ethyl glucuronide (EtG) has been proven to be a reliable biomarker for the detection of recent drinking; however, no randomized, diagnostic trial to date has tested its impact on drinking outcomes. The aim of this study was to assess, in a randomized design, the implications of EtG screening on alcohol outcomes, compared to screening with a low sensitivity biomarker such as ethanol. Methods: Alcohol dependent outpatients were randomized to either 24 weeks of continuous screening with EtG or ethanol. Patients were aware of screening methods and results. After 24 weeks, all participants were screened with EtG. Self-reports were also gathered. A logistic regression compared the rate of EtG positive results at study end between groups. Generalized estimating equations evaluated the descending monthly rate of EtG positive patients in the EtG group. Results: A total of 162 patients were randomized. During the study period, the ethanol group showed less patients with positive screens (19/64 (29.7%) vs 58/98 (59%)). After 24 weeks, the EtG group showed a greater number of patients having a negative screening test compared to ethanol subjects when they were all screened with EtG (5/62 (8.1%) vs 13/39 (33.3%)). A significant decrease in the rate of EtG positive patients was found for the first three months of the study. Conclusions: Routine screening with EtG seems to reduce drinking and improve abstinence rates in alcohol dependent outpatients.