Acamprosate may be safer than baclofen for the treatment of alcohol use disorder in patients with cirrhosis: a first description of use in real-world clinical practice.

OBJECTIVES: Patients with alcohol use disorder (AUD) and liver cirrhosis benefit from stopping alcohol intake. Baclofen has been trialled for AUD in cirrhosis and appears to be effective. However, in patients without cirrhosis acamprosate is safer and more efficacious. Acamprosate is rarely used in cirrhosis due to safety concerns: the only published report was for 24 h in a controlled setting. Our centre uses both medications off-label in cirrhotic patients. We performed an audit to pragmatically compare the safety of acamprosate to baclofen in these patients. METHODS: The electronic records of patients prescribed acamprosate or baclofen between 01/04/17 and 31/03/20 were retrospectively reviewed. Adverse events and abstinence at last follow-up were compared by Student's t-test, Mann-Whitney U or chi-square test. Confounding variables were evaluated by logistic regression. RESULTS: In total 48 cirrhotic patients taking acamprosate (median 84 days, range 2-524); 44 baclofen (247 days, 8-910) met inclusion criteria. At baseline, 41% had Childs-Pugh B or C cirrhosis. More patients taking baclofen had an unplanned hospital admission or attendance (23 vs 13; P = 0.013) and the mean number per patient was higher (1.6 vs 0.6; P = 0.032). Sub-group analysis revealed increased admissions in actively drinking patients prescribed baclofen to achieve abstinence (mean 2.4 vs 0.6; P = 0.020); acamprosate use was associated with a reduced chance of admission or attendance (OR, 0.284; 0.095-0.854; P = 0.025) independent of treatment length. No difference in efficacy was observed. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with cirrhosis, acamprosate was associated with fewer unplanned admissions than baclofen, hence may be safer despite historical concerns.

An identification and brief advice programme for low-risk alcohol consumption in an acute medical setting: an implementation study.

OBJECTIVES: To implement an identification and brief advice (IBA) intervention to detect low-risk/hazardous alcohol consumption. DESIGN: Implementation was guided through the use of quality improvement tools and training. SETTING: This study was conducted over an 18-month period from April 2010 to September 2011 on a 42-bed acute medical unit at a central London acute hospital. PARTICIPANTS: All medical patients over the age of 18 admitted to the acute assessment unit were eligible; any patient unable to provide a medical history either through language barriers or due to illness was excluded. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Percentage of medical patients admitted each week to the acute assessment unit who were screened for low-risk/hazardous alcohol consumption. RESULTS: Weekly data were analysed in time series run charts and cross-referenced to the date of educational sessions and their effect on the uptake of screening monitored. A demonstrable change in the mean percentage number of patients screened was observed in different time periods, 67.3-80.1%, following targeted teaching on the AAU. CONCLUSIONS: Our study demonstrates the successful use of quality improvement methodology to guide the implementation of Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test-Consumption (AUDIT-C), an IBA intervention, in the acute medical setting. The incorporation of the AUDIT-C into an admission document has been well accepted by the junior doctors, attaining an average (mean) of 80% of patients being screened using the tool. Targeted teaching of clinical staff involved in admitting patients appears to be the most effective method in improving uptake of IBA by junior doctors.