[Disulfiram encephalopathy: an underrecognized complication of accidental overdose]. / Disulfiramencefalopathie: een mogelijke complicatie bij accidentele overdosering.

In this paper we discuss the case of a 52-year-old man who consulted the emergency department because of confusion. Based on anamnesis, clinical presentation, various technical investigations and recovery after discontinuation of disulfiram, the diagnosis of disulfiram encephalopathy is made. This is a less common but serious complication of a frequently used therapy and underscores the importance of early recognition and careful but also controlled prescription of disulfiram. We describe the pathophysiology behind this complication and reflect on some important numbers.

Pharmacotherapy for Alcohol Use Disorder: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Importance: Alcohol use disorder affects more than 28.3 million people in the United States and is associated with increased rates of morbidity and mortality. Objective: To compare efficacy and comparative efficacy of therapies for alcohol use disorder. Data Sources: PubMed, the Cochrane Library, the Cochrane Central Trials Registry, PsycINFO, CINAHL, and EMBASE were searched from November 2012 to September 9, 2022 Literature was subsequently systematically monitored to identify relevant articles up to August 14, 2023, and the PubMed search was updated on August 14, 2023. Study Selection: For efficacy outcomes, randomized clinical trials of at least 12 weeks' duration were included. For adverse effects, randomized clinical trials and prospective cohort studies that compared drug therapies and reported health outcomes or harms were included. Data Extraction and Synthesis: Two reviewers evaluated each study, assessed risk of bias, and graded strength of evidence. Meta-analyses used random-effects models. Numbers needed to treat were calculated for medications with at least moderate strength of evidence for benefit. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was alcohol consumption. Secondary outcomes were motor vehicle crashes, injuries, quality of life, function, mortality, and harms. Results: Data from 118 clinical trials and 20 976 participants were included. The numbers needed to treat to prevent 1 person from returning to any drinking were 11 (95% CI, 1-32) for acamprosate and 18 (95% CI, 4-32) for oral naltrexone at a dose of 50 mg/d. Compared with placebo, oral naltrexone (50 mg/d) was associated with lower rates of return to heavy drinking, with a number needed to treat of 11 (95% CI, 5-41). Injectable naltrexone was associated with fewer drinking days over the 30-day treatment period (weighted mean difference, -4.99 days; 95% CI, -9.49 to -0.49 days) Adverse effects included higher gastrointestinal distress for acamprosate (diarrhea: risk ratio, 1.58; 95% CI, 1.27-1.97) and naltrexone (nausea: risk ratio, 1.73; 95% CI, 1.51-1.98; vomiting: risk ratio, 1.53; 95% CI, 1.23-1.91) compared with placebo. Conclusions and Relevance: In conjunction with psychosocial interventions, these findings support the use of oral naltrexone at 50 mg/d and acamprosate as first-line pharmacotherapies for alcohol use disorder.

Medications for alcohol use disorder improve survival in patients with hazardous drinking and alcohol-associated cirrhosis.

BACKGROUND: Medications for alcohol use disorder (MAUD) are highly effective in achieving and maintaining abstinence in patients with alcohol use disorder (AUD). Our aim was to evaluate the effect of MAUD on all-cause mortality in patients with alcohol-associated cirrhosis and active alcohol use. METHODS: This was a retrospective cohort study of patients with alcohol-associated cirrhosis and high-risk alcohol use disorder in the Veterans Outcomes and Costs Associated with Liver Disease (VOCAL) database. Propensity score matching for exposure to MAUD (acamprosate or naltrexone) within a year after cirrhosis diagnosis was performed to account for potential confounders, and the association between MAUD and all-cause mortality was subsequently evaluated using Cox regression analysis. RESULTS: A total of 9131 patients were included, of whom 886 (9.7%) were exposed to MAUD (naltrexone: 520, acamprosate: 307, both medications: 59). The duration of MAUD exposure was >3 months in 345 patients (39%). The strongest positive predictor of MAUD prescription was an inpatient diagnosis code for AUD, followed by a concurrent diagnosis of depression; the strongest negative predictor was a history of cirrhosis decompensation. After propensity score matching (866 patients in each group) with excellent covariate balance (absolute standardized mean differences <0.1), MAUD exposure was associated with improved survival, with an HR of 0.80 relative to no MAUD exposure (95% CI: 0.67-0.97, p = 0.024). CONCLUSION: MAUD are underutilized in patients with alcohol-associated cirrhosis with high-risk alcohol use behavior but are associated with improved survival after adjustment for confounders such as the severity of liver disease, age, and engagement in the healthcare system.

[The Practice of Medicinal Alcohol Withdrawal in the Psychiatry of the GDR - The Methods of Aversion and Disulfiram Treatment]. / Die Praxis der medikamentösen Alkoholentwöhnung in der Psychiatrie der DDR ­ Die Methoden der Aversions- und Disulfirambehandlung.

OBJECTIVE: The aversion and disulfiram treatment used for alcohol withdrawal in the GDR are described in their mode of action, application and in their therapeutic outcome. METHOD: In this literature study primarily works published in the GDR itself were identified, analysed and contextualised. RESULTS: While aversion therapy caused aversion to alcohol through the development of a conditioned reflex, disulfiram has an alcohol-sensitising effect. In therapeutic practice, the aversion therapy was largely replaced by disulfiram during the 1970 s, although there was no general guideline for its use. Disulfiram therapy could prove itself as a drug adjuvant, but was successively marginalised by psycho- and socio-therapeutic approaches. CONCLUSION: Both aversion and disulfiram therapy were the central drug procedures for the treatment of people with alcohol problems in the GDR psychiatric system, were applied inconsistently, and complemented a complex therapeutic regime.

[CME/Answers: Early Recognition and Prevention of a Disulfiram-Ethanol Reaction]. / CME/Antworten: Disulfiram-Ethanol-Reaktion (DER): erkennen und verhindern.

CME/Answers: Early Recognition and Prevention of a Disulfiram-Ethanol Reaction Abstract. Disulfiram is an alcohol-aversive agent for pharmacological relapse prevention in alcohol dependency. When combined with alcohol, disulfiram induces a disulfiram-ethanol reaction (DER), causing mild to severe symptoms. While the anticipated adverse effects should support abstinence, failed abstinence can be potentially lethal. Since there is no specific antidote, early recognition and supportive treatment are vital. The aim of this article is to illustrate the clinical features of DER, to suggest a reasonable diagnostic pathway and to provide a basis for decision-making as to the treatment with disulfiram.

[CME: Early Recognition and Prevention of a Disulfiram-Ethanol Reaction]. / CME: Disulfiram-Ethanol-Reaktion (DER): erkennen und verhindern.

CME: Early Recognition and Prevention of a Disulfiram-Ethanol Reaction Abstract. Disulfiram is an alcohol-aversive agent for pharmacological relapse prevention in alcohol dependency. When combined with alcohol, disulfiram induces a disulfiram-ethanol reaction (DER), causing mild to severe symptoms. While the anticipated adverse effects should support abstinence, failed abstinence can be potentially lethal. Since there is no specific antidote, early recognition and supportive treatment are vital. The aim of this article is to illustrate the clinical features of DER, to suggest a reasonable diagnostic pathway and to provide a basis for decision-making as to the treatment with disulfiram.

Pharmacotherapies for the Treatment of Alcohol Use Disorders During Pregnancy: Time to Reconsider?

It is generally recommended that medications only be used in pregnancy where the potential harms to both the mother and foetus are outweighed by the potential benefits. Despite the known harms associated with alcohol consumption during pregnancy, the use of medication for the treatment of pregnant women with an alcohol use disorder (AUD) appears to be rare. This is likely due to the lack of available data regarding the safety of these medications in pregnancy. We reviewed the literature and weighed up the harms associated with alcohol use and AUD during pregnancy with the potential benefits of medications for AUD in pregnancy, including acamprosate, naltrexone and disulfiram. There is little published evidence to support the safety of medications for AUD in pregnancy. However, from the research available it is likely that only disulfiram has the potential to cause serious foetal harm. While further research is required, acamprosate and naltrexone do not appear to be associated with substantial risks of congenital malformations or other serious consequences. Given the potential risks associated with alcohol consumption during pregnancy, the use of acamprosate and naltrexone should be considered for the treatment of pregnant women with AUD based on the current evidence base, although more research is warranted.

Combining behavioral harm-reduction treatment and extended-release naltrexone for people experiencing homelessness and alcohol use disorder in the USA: a randomised clinical trial.

BACKGROUND: The rate of alcohol-related mortality in people experiencing homelessness and alcohol use disorder is high and necessitates accessible and effective treatment for alcohol use disorder. However, typical abstinence-based treatments do not optimally engage this population. Recent studies have shown that harm-reduction treatment, which does not require abstinence, but instead aims to incrementally reduce alcohol-related harm and improve health-related quality of life, is acceptable to and effective for this population. The aim of this study was to test the efficacy of combined pharmacological and behavioural harm-reduction treatment for alcohol use disorder (HaRT-A) in people experiencing homelessness and alcohol use disorder. METHODS: This randomised clinical trial was done at three community-based service sites (low-barrier shelters and housing programmes) in Seattle (WA, USA). Eligible participants were adults (aged 21-65 years) who met the DSM-IV-TR criteria for alcohol use disorder and who experienced homelessness in the past year. Participants were randomly assigned (1:1:1:1) by permuted block randomisation, stratified by site, to receive either HaRT-A plus intramuscular injections of 380 mg extended-release naltrexone (XR-NTX; HaRT-A plus XR-NTX group); HaRT-A plus placebo injection (HaRT-A plus placebo group); HaRT-A alone (HaRT-A alone group); or community-based supportive services as usual (services-as-usual control group). Patients assigned to receive HaRT-A attended sessions at baseline (week 0) and in weeks 1, 4, 8, and 12. XR-NTX and placebo injections were administered in weeks 0, 4, and 8. During the study, participants, interventionists, and investigators were masked to group assignment in the two injection arms. All participants were invited to follow-up assessments at weeks 4, 8, 12, 24, and 36. The primary outcomes were self-reported alcohol use quantity (ie, alcohol quantity consumed on peak drinking occasion, as measured with the Alcohol Quantity Use Assessment questionnaire) and frequency (measured with the Addiction Severity Index), alcohol-related harm (measured with the Short Inventory of Problems-2R questionnaire), and physical and mental health-related quality of life (measured with the Short Form-12 survey). Using piecewise growth modelling and an intention-to-treat model, we compared the effects of the three active treatment groups with the services-as-usual control group, and the HaRT-A plus XR-NTX group with the HaRT-A plus placebo group, over the 12-week treatment course and during the 24 weeks following treatment withdrawal. Safety analyses were done on an intention-to-treat basis. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT01932801. FINDINGS: Between Oct 14, 2013, and Nov 30, 2017, 417 individuals experiencing homelessness and alcohol use disorder were screened, of whom 308 were eligible and randomly assigned to the HaRT-A plus XR-NTX group (n=74), the HaRT-A plus placebo group (n=78), the HaRT-A alone group (n=79), or the services-as-usual control group (n=77). Compared with the services-as-usual control group, the HaRT-A plus XR-NTX group showed significant improvements from baseline to 12 weeks post-treatment across four of the five primary outcomes: peak alcohol quantity (linear B -0·48 [95% CI -0·79 to -0·18] p=0·010; full model Cohen's d=-0·68), alcohol frequency (linear B -4·42 [-8·09 to -0·76], p=0·047; full model Cohen's d=-0·16), alcohol-related harm (linear B -2·22 [-3·39 to -1·06], p=0·002; full model Cohen's d=-0·56), and physical health-related quality of life (linear B 0·66 [0·23 to 1·10], p=0·012; full model Cohen's d=0·43). Compared with the services-as-usual control group, the HaRT-A plus placebo group showed significant improvements in three of the five primary outcomes: peak alcohol quantity (linear B -0·41 [95% CI -0·67 to -0·15] p=0·010; full model Cohen's d=-0·23), alcohol frequency (linear B -5·95 [-9·72 to -2·19], p=0·009; full model Cohen's d=-0·13), and physical health-related quality of life (linear B 0·53 [0·09 to 0·98], p=0·050; full model Cohen's d=0·35). Compared with the services-as-usual control group, the HaRT-A alone group showed significant improvements in two of the five primary outcomes: alcohol-related harm (linear B -1·58 [95% CI -2·73 to -0·42] p=0·025; full model Cohen's d=-0·40) and physical health-related quality of life (linear B 0·63 [0·18 to 1·07], p=0·020; full model Cohen's d=0·41). After treatment discontinuation at 12 weeks, the active treatment groups plateaued, whereas the services-as-usual group showed improvements. Thus, during the post-treatment period (weeks 12 to 36), the services-as-usual control group showed greater reductions in alcohol-related harm compared with both the HaRT-A plus XR-NTX group (linear B 0·96 [0·24 to 1·67], p=0·028; full model Cohen's d=0·24) and the HaRT-A alone group (linear B 1·02 [0·35 to 1·70], p=0·013; full model Cohen's d=0·26). During the post-treatment period, the services-as-usual control group significantly improved on mental health-related quality of life compared with the HaRT-A alone group (linear B -0·46 [-0·79 to -0·12], p=0·024; full model Cohen's d=-0·28), and on physical health-related quality of life compared with the HaRT-A plus XR-NTX group (linear B -0·42 [-0·67 to -0·17], p=0·006; full model Cohen's d=-0·27), the HaRT-A plus placebo group (linear B -0·42 [-0·69 to -0·15], p=0·009; full model Cohen's d=-0·27), and the HaRT-A alone group (linear B -0·47 [-0·72 to -0·22], p=0·002; full model Cohen's d=-0·31). For all other primary outcomes, there were no significant linear differences between the services-as-usual and active treatment groups. When comparing the HaRT-A plus placebo group with the HaRT-A plus XR-NTX group, there were no significant differences for any of the primary outcomes. Missing data analysis indicated that participants were more likely to drop out in the services-as-usual control group than in the active treatment groups; however, primary outcome findings were found to be robust to attrition. Participants in the HaRT-A plus XR-NTX, HaRT-A plus placebo, and HaRT-A alone groups were not more likely to experience adverse events than those in the services-as-usual control group. INTERPRETATION: Compared with existing services, combined pharmacological and behavioural harm-reduction treatment resulted in decreased alcohol use and alcohol-related harm and improved physical health-related quality of life during the 12-week treatment period for people experiencing homelessness and alcohol use disorder. Although not as consistent, there were also positive findings for behavioural harm-reduction treatment alone. Considering the non-significant differences between participants receiving HaRT-A plus placebo and HaRT-A plus XR-NTX, the combined pharmacological and behavioural treatment effect cannot be attributed to XR-NTX alone. Future studies are needed to further investigate the relative contributions of the pharmacological and behavioural components of harm-reduction treatment for alcohol use disorder, and to ascertain whether a maintenance treatment approach could extend these positive outcome trajectories. FUNDING: National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism.

Disulfiram Ethanol Reaction with Alcohol-Based Hand Sanitizer: An Exploratory Study.

AIMS: We conducted a cross-sectional survey to estimate the prevalence and clinical manifestation of disulfiram ethanol reaction (DER) and isopropanol toxicity (IT) in patients with alcohol use disorders, on disulfiram. Alcohol-based hand rub contains either ethanol or isopropanol or both. COVID-19 pandemic has led to wide scale usage of sanitizers. Patients with alcohol use disorders, on disulfiram, might experience disulfiram ethanol like reactions with alcohol-based sanitizers. METHODS: We telephonically contacted 339 patients, prescribed disulfiram between January 2014 and March 2020. The assessment pertained to the last 3 months (i.e. third week of March to third week of June 2020). RESULT: The sample consisted of middle-aged men with a mean 16 years of alcohol dependence. Among the 82 (24%) patients adherent to disulfiram, 42 (12.3%) were using alcohol-based hand rubs. Out of these, a total of eight patients (19%; 95% CI 9-33) had features suggestive of DER; four of whom also had features indicative of IT. Five patients (62.5%) had mild and self-limiting symptoms. Severe systemic reactions were experienced by three (37.5%). Severe reactions were observed with exposure to sanitizers in greater amounts, on moist skin or through inhalation. CONCLUSION: Patients on disulfiram should be advised to use alternate methods of hand hygiene.

Pharmacotherapies and personalized medicine for alcohol use disorder: a review.

Alcohol use disorder (AUD) is highly prevalent and among the leading causes of morbidity and mortality in the United States. Pharmacotherapies for AUD are limited, thus making identification of patient subgroups that are most likely to respond favorably crucial. In this article, pharmacogenetic research on US FDA-approved and commonly prescribed off-label medications for the treatment of AUD is comprehensively reviewed. While the field has advanced in understanding pharmacotherapies for AUD and potential genetic moderators of treatment responses, the pharmacogenetic data to guide the prescribing clinician are limited and should be interpreted with caution. Precision medicine for AUD with more beneficial treatment responses and minimal side effects remains a high priority for further research.

Interaction of Ethanol and Oral ANS-6637, a Selective ALDH2 Inhibitor in Males: A Randomized, Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled, Single-Ascending Dose Cohort Study.

BACKGROUND: ANS-6637, an orally bioavailable selective and reversible aldehyde dehydrogenase-2 (ALDH2) inhibitor, is under development for drug and alcohol use disorders. During the elimination of alcohol, ALDH2 metabolizes acetaldehyde to acetate; inhibiting this enzyme can lead to aversive reactions due to the accumulation of acetaldehyde. Thus, understanding the safety and tolerability of ANS-6637 in combination with alcohol is essential. TRIAL DESIGN AND METHODS: Forty eight healthy males participated in a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, single-ascending dose cohort study of oral ANS-6637. Eligible participants were randomized to ANS-6637 (n = 36) or placebo (n = 12) in a 3:1 fashion in each of 6 dose cohorts (8 per cohort; ANS-6637 dose levels were 25, 50, 100, 200, 400, and 600 mg). Two hours after receiving study drug, participants drank up to 5 standard drinks, 1 every 30 minutes. Safety assessments, pharmacodynamic measures, and pharmacokinetic blood samples were obtained. RESULTS: Flushing was the most common adverse event (AE) associated with ANS-6637 (24 of 36 participants) compared with placebo (3 of 12). Statistically significant, but modest, increases in heart rate (HR) occurred (+10.5 bpm after 2 drinks; +16.9 to + 20.5 bpm after 3rd through 5th drink). No participant met HR or systolic blood pressure criteria for stopping ethanol administration. There were no clinically significant QTc interval prolongations. Individuals receiving ANS-6637 reported lower ratings of liking, alcohol effects, and feeling drunk. CONCLUSIONS: A single oral dose of ANS-6637 with up to 5 standards drinks over 2.5 hours was generally well tolerated in healthy males. The most common pharmacological response was flushing and an increase in HR, which are known effects of acetaldehyde accumulation and consistent with inhibition of ALDH2 with oral ANS-6637 in combination with alcohol. The results of this alcohol interaction study support further testing of ANS-6637 in individuals who consume alcohol heavily.

Evidence-Based Pharmacotherapies for Alcohol Use Disorder: Clinical Pearls.

Pathologic alcohol use affects more than 2 billion people and accounts for nearly 6% of all deaths worldwide. There are three medications approved for the treatment of alcohol use disorder by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA): disulfiram, naltrexone (oral and long-acting injectable), and acamprosate. Of growing interest is the use of anticonvulsants for the treatment of alcohol use disorder, although currently none are FDA approved for this indication. Baclofen, a γ-aminobutyric acid B receptor agonist used for spasticity and pain, received temporary approval for alcohol use disorder in France. Despite effective pharmacotherapies, less than 9% of patients who undergo any form of alcohol use disorder treatment receive pharmacotherapies. Current evidence does not support the use of pharmacogenetic testing for treatment individualization. The objective of this review is to provide knowledge on practice parameters for evidenced-based pharmacologic treatment approaches in patients with alcohol use disorder.

Comparison of Disulfiram and Naltrexone in Cases of Alcohol Dependence Syndrome.

BACKGROUND: Relapse prevention in alcoholism is recognised as an important component of management. Use of pharmacotherapies to prevent relapse in combination to psychological intervention is emerging. Disulfiram and Naltrexone are two of three FDA approved drugs for pharmacotherapy. The aim of the study is to compare the effectiveness of these two drugs in preventing relapse in alcohol dependence syndrome cases. METHODS: A prospective crossectional study was conducted to compare disulfiram and naltrexone in alcohol dependent patients in tertiary institution. Cases of alcohol dependence syndrome were diagnosed based on ICD-10 DCR presenting to psychiatry department of Tribhuvan University Teaching Hospital, over the period of 6 months. After detoxification and fulfillment of inclusion criteria, semi structured proforma, Severity of alcohol dependence questionnaire, Stages of change readiness and treatment eagerness scale, Obsessive compulsive drinking scale were applied. Drug allocation was based on simple random method and on subsequent follow ups done at 2nd, 4th, 8th, 12th week semi structured proforma, Obsessive Compulsive Drinking Scale were completed and psychological intervention continued. After data collection, analysis and final results were computed. RESULTS: Both drugs reduced craving and amount of alcohol intake(p less than 0.001). Relapse was more in naltrexone group but was not statistically significant (p>0.05). Side effects were more with disulfiram(p less than 0.001) whereas dropout was more in naltrexone group,(p less than 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: Disulfiram and Naltrexone were equally effective in reducing craving, reducing amount of alcohol intake, and preventing relapse in 12 weeks follow up period. Naltrexone was found to be better in tolerability whereas disulfiram was better in terms of dropout from treatment.

Fomepizole to treat disulfiram-ethanol reaction: a case series.

Introduction: Disulfiram-ethanol reaction (DER) due to acetaldehyde accumulation occurs after drinking ethanol during disulfiram therapy. DER may result in life-threatening toxicity requiring urgent critical care. Fomepizole, an alcohol dehydrogenase inhibitor used to treat toxic alcohol poisoning, has been suggested for treating DER by preventing the metabolism of ethanol to acetaldehyde. However, its effectiveness and safety have been poorly assessed in this setting.Cases: Ten DER patients (median age, 40 years; 7 males/3 females) were included in the study. DER features consisted of consciousness impairment (median Glasgow coma score, 13; need for mechanical ventilation, 30%) with flushing (50%), vomiting (40%), electrocardiogram abnormalities (30%) and circulatory failure requiring norepinephrine (30%). Patients were successfully treated with a single intravenous infusion of fomepizole (median dose, 7.5 mg/kg). The three patients receiving norepinephrine did not improve until fomepizole was administered. The other seven patients improved promptly following fomepizole infusion without requirement for vasopressor support. All patients fully recovered. Local pain at the injection site was the only reported adverse reaction in one patient.Conclusion: Our case series supports the effectiveness and safety of fomepizole in rapidly reversing DER-induced vasodilatation and toxicity.