CCATClinical Analysis Tool
‹ Knowledge base

Browse the corpus

Walk the evidence base by book and chapter — the raw source passages that ground Ask, Differential, and the rest.

3 passages

abstractpubmed· Abstract 2019· item PMID:31689723

Baclofen for alcohol withdrawal. BACKGROUND: Alcohol withdrawal syndrome (AWS) is a distressing and life-threatening condition that usually affects people who are alcohol dependent when they discontinue or decrease their alcohol consumption. Baclofen shows potential for rapidly reducing symptoms of severe AWS in people with alcoholism. Treatment with baclofen is easy to manage and rarely produces euphoria or other pleasant effects, or craving for the drug. This is an updated version of the original Cochrane Review first published in 2011 and last updated in 2017. OBJECTIVES: To assess the efficacy and safety of baclofen for people with AWS. SEARCH METHODS: We updated our searches of the following databases to June 2019: the Cochrane Drugs and Alcohol Group Specialised Register, CENTRAL, PubMed, Embase, and CINAHL. We also searched registers of ongoing trials. We handsearched the references quoted in the identified trials, and sought information from researchers, pharmaceutical companies, and relevant trial authors about unpublished or uncompleted trials. We placed no restrictions on language. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included all randomised controlled clinical trials (RCTs) evaluating baclofen versus placebo or any other treatment for people with AWS. We excluded uncontrolled, non-randomised, or quasi-randomised trials. We included both parallel group and cross-over studies. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. MAIN RESULTS: We included four RCTs with 189 randomised participants (one RCT new for this update). None of the included studies reported the primary outcomes of alcohol withdrawal seizures, alcohol withdrawal delirium, or craving. For the comparison of baclofen and placebo (1 study, 31 participants), there was no evidence of a difference in Clinical Institute Withdrawal Assessment of Alcohol Scale, Revised (CIWA-Ar) scores in eight-hour periods from days one to five (very low-quality evidence). For the comparison of baclofen and diazepam (2 studies, 85 participants), there was no evidence of a difference in change from baseline to days 10 to 15 on CIWA-Ar scores (very low-quality evidence, meta-analysis was not performed due to insufficient data). In one study (37 participants), there was no evidence of a difference in participants with at least one adverse event (risk difference (RD) 0.00, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.10 to 0.10; very low-quality evidence), dropouts (RD 0.00, 95% CI -0.10 to 0.10; very low-quality evidence), and dropouts due to adverse events (RD 0.00, 95% CI -0.10 to 0.10; very low-quality evidence). For the comparison of baclofen and chlordiazepoxide (1 study, 60 participants), there was no evidence of a difference in difference from baseline to nine-day decremental fixed-dose intervention: CIWA-Ar scores (mean difference (MD) 1.00, 95% CI 0.70 to 1.30; very low-quality evidence), global improvement (MD 0.10, 95% CI -0.03 to 0.23; very low-quality evidence), 14/60 participants with adverse events (RD 2.50, 95% CI 0.88 to 7.10; very low-quality of evidence), dropouts (RD 0.00, 95% CI -0.06 to 0.06; very low-quality evidence), and dropouts due to adverse events (RD 0.00, 95% CI -0.06 to 0.06; very low-quality evidence). None of the RCTs provided information on random sequence generation or allocation concealment, therefore, we assessed them at unclear risk of bias. Two RCTs were not of double-blind design and had a high risk of bias in blinding (Addolorato 2006; Girish 2016). One RCT had more than 5% dropouts with high risk of attrition bias (Lyon 2011). We could not assess reporting bias as none of the prepublished protocols were available. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: No conclusions can be drawn about the efficacy and safety of baclofen for the management of alcohol withdrawal because we found insufficient and very low-quality evidence.

abstractpubmed· Abstract 2017· item PMID:28822350

Baclofen for alcohol withdrawal. BACKGROUND: Baclofen shows potential for rapidly reducing symptoms of severe alcohol withdrawal syndrome (AWS) in people with alcoholism. Treatment with baclofen is easy to manage and rarely produces euphoria or other pleasant effects, or craving for the drug. This is an updated version of the original Cochrane Review published in 2015, Issue 4. OBJECTIVES: To assess the efficacy and safety of baclofen for people with AWS. SEARCH METHODS: We updated our searches of the following databases to March 2017: the Cochrane Drugs and Alcohol Group Specialised Register, CENTRAL, PubMed, Embase, and CINAHL. We also searched registers of ongoing trials. We handsearched the references quoted in the identified trials, and sought information from researchers, pharmaceutical companies, and relevant trial authors about unpublished or uncompleted trials. We placed no restrictions on language. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included all randomised controlled clinical trials (RCTs) evaluating baclofen versus placebo or any other treatment for people with AWS. We excluded uncontrolled, non-randomised, or quasi-randomised trials. We included both parallel group and cross-over studies. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. MAIN RESULTS: We included three RCTs with 141 randomised participants. We did not perform meta-analyses due to the different control interventions. For the comparison of baclofen and placebo (1 study, 31 participants), there was no significant difference in Clinical Institute Withdrawal Assessment of Alcohol Scale, Revised (CIWA-Ar) scores (very low quality evidence). For the comparison of baclofen and diazepam (1 study, 37 participants), there was no significant difference in CIWA-Ar scores (very low quality evidence), adverse events (risk difference (RD) 0.00, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.10 to 0.10; very low quality evidence), dropouts (RD 0.00, 95% CI -0.10 to 0.10; very low quality evidence), and dropouts due to adverse events (RD 0.00, 95% CI -0.10 to 0.10; very low quality evidence). For the comparison of baclofen and chlordiazepoxide (1 study, 60 participants), there was no significant difference in CIWA-Ar scores (mean difference (MD) 1.00, 95% CI 0.70 to 1.30; very low quality evidence), global improvement (MD 0.10, 95% CI -0.03 to 0.23; very low quality evidence), adverse events (RD 2.50, 95% CI 0.88 to 7.10; very low quality of evidence), dropouts (RD 0.00, 95% CI -0.06 to 0.06; very low quality evidence), and dropouts due to adverse events (RD 0.00, 95% CI -0.06 to 0.06; very low quality evidence). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: No conclusions can be drawn about the efficacy and safety of baclofen for the management of alcohol withdrawal because we found insufficient and very low quality evidence.

abstractpubmed· Abstract 2015· item PMID:25836263

Baclofen for alcohol withdrawal. BACKGROUND: The treatment baclofen shows potential for rapidly reducing symptoms of severe alcohol withdrawal syndrome (AWS) in people with alcoholism. Treatment with baclofen is easy to manage and rarely produces euphoria or other pleasant effects, or craving for the drug. This is an updated version of the original Cochrane review published in Issue 2, 2013. OBJECTIVES: To assess the efficacy and safety of baclofen for people with AWS. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Drugs and Alcohol Group Specialised Register (searched 13 January 2015), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2015, Issue 1), MEDLINE (1966 to January 2015), EMBASE (1980 to January 2015), and CINAHL (1982 to January 2015). We also searched registers of ongoing trials, including ClinicalTrials.gov, the ISRCTN registry, and the European Clinical Trials Database. At the same time, we handsearched the references quoted in the identified trials, and sought information from researchers, pharmaceutical companies, and relevant trial authors about unpublished or uncompleted trials. We placed no restrictions on language. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included all randomised controlled clinical trials (RCTs) evaluating baclofen versus placebo or any other treatment for people with AWS. We excluded uncontrolled, non-randomised, or quasi-randomised trials. We included both parallel group and cross-over studies. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently assessed references retrieved for possible inclusion. Any disagreements were resolved by an independent party. We contacted study authors for additional information where needed. We collected adverse effects information from the trials. MAIN RESULTS: Two RCTs with a total of 81 participants were eligible according to the inclusion criteria. One study suggested that both baclofen and diazepam significantly decreased the Clinical Institute Withdrawal Assessment of Alcohol Scale, Revised (CIWA-Ar) score, without any significant difference between the two interventions. The other study showed no significant difference in CIWA-Ar score between baclofen and placebo, but a significantly decreased dependence on high-dose benzodiazepines with baclofen compared to placebo. Only one study reported on the safety of baclofen, without any side effects. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The evidence for recommending baclofen for AWS is insufficient. We therefore need more well-designed RCTs to prove its efficacy and safety.