Nicolas Bertholet1, Michael R Winter2, Debbie M Cheng3, Jeffrey H Samet4, Richard Saitz5. 1. Alcohol Treatment Center, Department of Community Medicine and Health, Lausanne University Hospital, Lausanne, Switzerland Nicolas.Bertholet@chuv.ch. 2. Data Coordinating Center, Boston University School of Public Health, Boston, MA, USA. 3. Clinical Addiction Research and Education Unit, Section of General Internal Medicine, Boston University and Boston Medical Center, Boston, MA, USA Department of Biostatistics, Boston University School of Public Health, Boston, MA, USA. 4. Clinical Addiction Research and Education Unit, Section of General Internal Medicine, Boston University and Boston Medical Center, Boston, MA, USA Department of Community Health Sciences, Boston University School of Public Health, Boston, MA, USA. 5. Data Coordinating Center, Boston University School of Public Health, Boston, MA, USA Department of Epidemiology, Boston University School of Public Health, Boston, MA, USA.
Abstract
AIMS: Managing patients with alcohol dependence includes assessment for heavy drinking, typically by asking patients. Some recommend biomarkers to detect heavy drinking but evidence of accuracy is limited. METHODS: Among people with dependence, we assessed the performance of disialo-carbohydrate-deficient transferrin (%dCDT, ≥1.7%), gamma-glutamyltransferase (GGT, ≥66 U/l), either %dCDT or GGT positive, and breath alcohol (> 0) for identifying 3 self-reported heavy drinking levels: any heavy drinking (≥4 drinks/day or >7 drinks/week for women, ≥5 drinks/day or >14 drinks/week for men), recurrent (≥5 drinks/day on ≥5 days) and persistent heavy drinking (≥5 drinks/day on ≥7 consecutive days). Subjects (n = 402) with dependence and current heavy drinking were referred to primary care and assessed 6 months later with biomarkers and validated self-reported calendar method assessment of past 30-day alcohol use. RESULTS: The self-reported prevalence of any, recurrent and persistent heavy drinking was 54, 34 and 17%. Sensitivity of %dCDT for detecting any, recurrent and persistent self-reported heavy drinking was 41, 53 and 66%. Specificity was 96, 90 and 84%, respectively. %dCDT had higher sensitivity than GGT and breath test for each alcohol use level but was not adequately sensitive to detect heavy drinking (missing 34-59% of the cases). Either %dCDT or GGT positive improved sensitivity but not to satisfactory levels, and specificity decreased. Neither a breath test nor GGT was sufficiently sensitive (both tests missed 70-80% of cases). CONCLUSIONS: Although biomarkers may provide some useful information, their sensitivity is low the incremental value over self-report in clinical settings is questionable.
AIMS: Managing patients with alcohol dependence includes assessment for heavy drinking, typically by asking patients. Some recommend biomarkers to detect heavy drinking but evidence of accuracy is limited. METHODS: Among people with dependence, we assessed the performance of disialo-carbohydrate-deficient transferrin (%dCDT, ≥1.7%), gamma-glutamyltransferase (GGT, ≥66 U/l), either %dCDT or GGT positive, and breath alcohol (> 0) for identifying 3 self-reported heavy drinking levels: any heavy drinking (≥4 drinks/day or >7 drinks/week for women, ≥5 drinks/day or >14 drinks/week for men), recurrent (≥5 drinks/day on ≥5 days) and persistent heavy drinking (≥5 drinks/day on ≥7 consecutive days). Subjects (n = 402) with dependence and current heavy drinking were referred to primary care and assessed 6 months later with biomarkers and validated self-reported calendar method assessment of past 30-day alcohol use. RESULTS: The self-reported prevalence of any, recurrent and persistent heavy drinking was 54, 34 and 17%. Sensitivity of %dCDT for detecting any, recurrent and persistent self-reported heavy drinking was 41, 53 and 66%. Specificity was 96, 90 and 84%, respectively. %dCDT had higher sensitivity than GGT and breath test for each alcohol use level but was not adequately sensitive to detect heavy drinking (missing 34-59% of the cases). Either %dCDT or GGT positive improved sensitivity but not to satisfactory levels, and specificity decreased. Neither a breath test nor GGT was sufficiently sensitive (both tests missed 70-80% of cases). CONCLUSIONS: Although biomarkers may provide some useful information, their sensitivity is low the incremental value over self-report in clinical settings is questionable.
Authors: P Sillanaukee; N Massot; P Jousilahti; E Vartiainen; J Sundvall; U Olsson; K Poikolainen; M Pönniö; J P Allen; H Alho Journal: Am J Epidemiol Date: 2000-10-15 Impact factor: 4.897
Authors: Jessica M Lowe; Michael G McDonell; Emily Leickly; Frank A Angelo; Roger Vilardaga; Sterling McPherson; Debra Srebnik; John Roll; Richard K Ries Journal: Alcohol Clin Exp Res Date: 2015-04-10 Impact factor: 3.455
Authors: Julianne C Flanagan; Jane E Joseph; Paul J Nietert; Sudie E Back; Barbara S McCrady Journal: Contemp Clin Trials Date: 2019-05-04 Impact factor: 2.226
Authors: Katie Witkiewitz; Kevin E Vowles; Elizabeth McCallion; Tessa Frohe; Megan Kirouac; Stephen A Maisto Journal: Addiction Date: 2015-06-03 Impact factor: 6.526