Letter

There is compelling evidence supporting screening and brief intervention (SBI) for hazardous drinking, yet it remains underused in primary health care. Electronic (computer or Web-based) SBI (e-SBI) offers the prospects of ease and economy of access. We sought to determine whether e-SBI reduces hazardous drinking. We conducted a randomized controlled trial in a university primary health care service. Participants were 975 students (age range, 17-29 years) screened using the Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test (AUDIT). Of 599 students who scored in the hazardous or harmful range, 576 (300 of whom were women) consented to the trial and were randomized to receive an information pamphlet (control group), a Web-based motivational intervention (single-dose e-SBI group), or a Web-based motivational intervention with further interventions 1 and 6 months later (multidose e-SBI group). Relative to the control group, the single-dose e-SBI group at 6 months reported a lower frequency of drinking (rate ratio [RR], 0.79; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.68-0.94), less total consumption (RR, 0.77; 95% CI, 0.63-0.95), and fewer academic problems (RR, 0.76; 95% CI, 0.64-0.91). At 12 months, statistically significant differences in total consumption (RR, 0.77; 95% CI, 0.63-0.95 [equivalent to 3.5 standard drinks per week]) and in academic problems (RR, 0.80; 95% CI, 0.66-0.97) remained, and the AUDIT scores were 2.17 (95% CI, -1.10 to -3.24) points lower. Relative to the control group, the multidose e-SBI group at 6 months reported a lower frequency of drinking (RR, 0.85; 95% CI, 0.73-0.98), less total consumption (RR, 0.79; 95% CI, 0.64-0.97 [equivalent to 3.0 standard drinks per week]), reduced episodic heavy drinking (RR, 0.65; 95% CI, 0.45-0.93), and fewer academic problems (RR, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.65-0.93). At 12 months, statistically significant differences in academic problems remained (RR, 0.75; 95% CI, 0.62-0.90), while the AUDIT scores were 2.02 (95% CI, -0.97 to -3.10) points lower. Single-dose e-SBI reduces hazardous drinking, and the effect lasts 12 months. Additional sessions seem not to enhance the effect. Trial Registration www.anzctr.org.au Identifier:ACTRN012607000103460.

BackgroundThe Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test (AUDIT) was developed for use in primary health care settings to identify hazardous and harmful patterns of alcohol consumption, and is often used to screen for alcohol use disorders (AUDs). This study examined the AUDIT as a screening tool for AUDs.MethodsA systematic literature search was performed of electronic bibliographic databases (CINAHL, Embase, ERIC, MEDLINE, PsycINFO, Scopus, and Web of Science) without language or geographic restrictions for original quantitative studies published before September 1, 2018, that assess the AUDIT's ability to screen for AUDs. Random‐effects meta‐regression models were constructed by sex to assess the potential determinants of the AUDIT's specificity and sensitivity. From these models and ecological data from the Global Information System on Alcohol and Health, the true‐ and false‐positive and true‐ and false‐negative proportions were determined. The number of people needed to be screened to treat 1 individual with an AUD was estimated for all countries globally where AUD data exist, using a specificity of 0.95.ResultsA total of 36 studies met inclusion criteria for the meta‐regression. The AUDIT score cut‐point was significantly associated with sensitivity and specificity. Standard drink size was found to affect the sensitivity and specificity of the AUDIT for men, but not among women. The AUDIT performs less well in identifying women compared to men, and countries with a low prevalence of AUDs have higher false‐positive rates compared to countries with a higher AUD prevalence.ConclusionsThe AUDIT does not perform well as a screening tool for identifying individuals with an AUD, especially in countries and among populations with a low AUD prevalence (e.g., among women), and thus should not be used for this purpose.

views and personal experiences of people who have especially contributed to the evolution of ideas in the Journal's field of interest.

Objectives: The purpose of this study was to investigate the usefulness of the Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test (AUDIT) and the relationship between AUDIT score and liver function test. Methods: AUDIT questionnaires were distributed to 440 blue-collar workers. We compared liver function test with firstly, normal and hazardous drinking as defined by WHO, and secondly, with normal, hazardous and harmful drinking as measured by Kim et al.(1999). We also compared influencing factors on abnormal liver function. Results: By simple analysis in the normal BMI group, abnormal liver function was significantly affected by hazardous drinking (odds ratio 2.81) based on the guideline of WHO. By chisquare test for linear trend in the normal BMI group, abnormal liver function was significantly affected by hazardous drinking (odds ratio 1.23) and harmful drinking (odds ratio 2.14) based on the guideline of Kim et al. By multiple logistic regression analysis, abnormal liver function was significantly affected by AUDIT questionnaires No. 1-3 (odds ratiohigh risk 2.39), age (odds ratiothirties 1.95, forties 2.40, fifties 3.85), BMI (odds ratiooverweight 1.66, obesity 4.53), guideline by WHO (odds ratiohazardous drinking 2.10), and guideline by Kim et al (odds ratioharmful drinking 2.20) C o n c l u s i o n s: We found that the problem of alcohol drinking as measured by AUDIT was significantly associated with abnormal liver function. Therefore we suggest that AUDIT will be useful for the predictive test of abnormal liver function and screening test of hazardous and harmful drinking.

Context:Alcohol use contributes to considerable morbidity and mortality worldwide. Screening for alcohol use and alcohol use disorder (AUD) at the primary care level can help in reducing this burden. While several community studies have been conducted to estimate the AUD, there apparently are no studies on opportunistic screening in a primary care setting in India.Aims:The aim was to estimate the prevalence of alcohol use and AUD in a primary care setting.Settings and Design:A hospital-based cross-sectional study was conducted among adult male outpatients in a primary care setting in Puducherry, South India.Subjects and Methods:Male outpatients aged 18 and above were interviewed for alcohol use. Current alcohol users were screened for AUD using World Health Organization - AUD identification test (AUDIT) questionnaire, respectively.Statistical Analysis Used:Proportions were used to describe the study population and the main study findings. The Chi-square test was used to find out the association between sociodemographic factors and alcohol use.Results:Of 256 subjects studied, 39.8% were found to be current alcohol users and 10.9% had AUD (AUDIT score ≥8). The sociodemographic factors did not show any association with an alcohol use in the current setting.Conclusion:Based on the findings of the present study, four current alcohol users are to be screened to identify one patient with AUD. Screening at the primary health care level can help in identifying the risk group and thus help in reducing the morbidity and mortality due to alcohol use in the population.

Population patterns in Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test (AUDIT) scores in the Australian population; 2007–2016

Excessive drinking is a major problem in Western countries. AUDIT (Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test) is a 10-item questionnaire developed as a transcultural screening tool to detect excessive alcohol consumption and dependence in primary health care settings. The aim of the study is to validate a French version of the Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test (AUDIT). We conducted a validation cross-sectional study in three French-speaking areas (Paris, Geneva and Lausanne). We examined psychometric properties of AUDIT as its internal consistency, and its capacity to correctly diagnose alcohol abuse or dependence as defined by DSM-IV and to detect hazardous drinking (defined as alcohol intake >30 g pure ethanol per day for men and >20 g of pure ethanol per day for women). We calculated sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values and Receiver Operator Characteristic curves. Finally, we compared the ability of AUDIT to accurately detect "alcohol abuse/dependence" with that of CAGE and MAST. 1207 patients presenting to outpatient clinics (Switzerland, n = 580) or general practitioners' (France, n = 627) successively completed CAGE, MAST and AUDIT self-administered questionnaires, and were independently interviewed by a trained addiction specialist. AUDIT showed a good capacity to discriminate dependent patients (with AUDIT > or =13 for males, sensitivity 70.1%, specificity 95.2%, PPV 85.7%, NPV 94.7% and for females sensitivity 94.7%, specificity 98.2%, PPV 100%, NPV 99.8%); and hazardous drinkers (with AUDIT > or =7, for males sensitivity 83.5%, specificity 79.9%, PPV 55.0%, NPV 82.7% and with AUDIT > or =6 for females, sensitivity 81.2%, specificity 93.7%, PPV 64.0%, NPV 72.0%). AUDIT gives better results than MAST and CAGE for detecting "Alcohol abuse/dependence" as showed on the comparative ROC curves. The AUDIT questionnaire remains a good screening instrument for French-speaking primary care.

Can the AUDIT consumption items distinguish lower severity from high severity patients seeking treatment for alcohol use disorder?

BackgroundGiven the scarcity of alcohol prevention and use disorder treatments in many low- and middle-income countries (LMICs), the World Health Organization has launched an eHealth portal that includes the web-based self-help program “Alcohol e-Health.”ObjectiveWe aimed to test the effectiveness of the Alcohol e-Health program in a randomized controlled trial.MethodsThis was a two-arm, individually randomized, and controlled trial across four LMICs comparing the self-help program and a psychoeducation and internet access as usual waiting list. Participants were broadly recruited from community samples in Belarus, Brazil, India, and Mexico from January 2016 through January 2019. The primary outcome measure was change in the Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test (AUDIT) score with a time frame of 6 months between baseline and follow-up. Secondary outcomes included self-reported numbers of standard drinks over the previous week and cessation of harmful or hazardous drinking (AUDIT score <8).ResultsFor this study, we recruited 1400 predominantly male (n=982, 70.1%) at least harmful or hazardous alcohol drinkers. The mean age was 37.6 years (SD 10.5). The participants were recruited from Brazil (n=587), Mexico (n=509), India (n=212), and Belarus (n=92). Overall, complete case analysis identified higher AUDIT changes in the intervention group (B=−4.18, 95% CI −5.42 to −2.93, P<.001, d=0.56) that were mirrored by changes in weekly standard drinks (B=−9.34, 95% CI −15.90 to −2.77, P=.005, d=0.28) and cessation rates for harmful or hazardous drinking (χ21=14.56, N=561, P<.001). The supplementary intention-to-treat analyses largely confirmed these initial results.ConclusionsThe expansion of the Alcohol e-Health program to other LMICs with underdeveloped alcohol prevention and treatment systems for alcohol use disorders should be considered after successful replication of the present results.Trial RegistrationISRCTN ISRCTN14037475; https://www.isrctn.com/ISRCTN14037475International Registered Report Identifier (IRRID)RR2-10.1111/add.14034

Numerous brief intervention (BI) trials have reported positive effects in primary care. However, it is unclear if structured advice or counseling is the more effective form of BI. The Screening and Intervention Program for Sensible Drinking (SIPS) trial aimed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of different intensities of BI at reducing risky drinking in primary care. Practices were randomly allocated to one of three conditions: a leaflet-only control; five minutes of brief structured advice; or 20 minutes of brief counseling. Practices were asked to recruit at least 31 risk drinkers who received a short assessment followed by BI. Patients were followed up at six and 12 months post-intervention. The primary outcome was the proportion of risky drinkers as measured by the Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test (AUDIT). Overall, 3562 patients were assessed for eligibility in 29 practices: 2991 (84%) were eligible; 900 (30%) screened positive for risky drinking; and 752 (83.6%) consented to participate in the trial. At 12 months, 79% patients (n = 598) were available for follow-up. No significant differences in follow-up rates were observed by condition. There was an overall reduction in risky drinking of 16.5% between baseline and 12 months. By condition, the reductions were 17.3% for controls, 12.7% for brief advice, and 19.6% for brief counseling. An adjusted logistic regression model identified baseline AUDIT score and gender as significant predictors of risky drinking at 12 months. Patients with lower baseline scores and women were more likely to be negative for risky drinking at follow-up based on AUDIT score. Brief advice and brief counseling did not produce significantly greater effects in reducing risky drinking than leaflet-only. We discuss these findings in light of the current BI literature.

BackgroundMany primary care patients with raised blood pressure or depression drink potentially hazardous levels of alcohol. Brief interventions (BI) to reduce alcohol consumption may improve comorbid conditions and reduce the risk of future alcohol problems. However, research has not established their effectiveness in this patient population. This study aimed to establish the feasibility of definitive trials of BI to reduce excessive drinking in primary care patients with hypertension or mild to moderate depression.MethodsThirteen general practices in North East England were randomized to the intervention or control arm of one of two parallel pilot trials. Adult patients drinking excessively and diagnosed with hypertension or mild-to-moderate depression received the Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test (AUDIT) by postal survey. Consenting respondents scoring more than 7 on AUDIT (score range 0 to 40) received brief alcohol consumption advice plus an information leaflet (intervention) or an information leaflet alone (control) with follow-up at six months. Measurements included the numbers of patients eligible, recruited, and retained, and the AUDIT score and systolic/diastolic blood pressure of each patient or the nine-item Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ-9) score. Acceptability was assessed via practitioner feedback and patient willingness to be screened, recruited, and retained at follow-up.ResultsIn the hypertension trial, 1709 of 33,813 adult patients (5.1%) were eligible and were surveyed. Among the eligible patients, 468 (27.4%) returned questionnaires; 166 (9.6% of those surveyed) screened positively on AUDIT and 83 (4.8% of those surveyed) were recruited (50.0% of positive screens). Sixty-seven cases (80.7% of recruited patients) completed follow-up at six months. In the depression trial, 1,044 of 73,146 adult patients (1.4%) were eligible and surveyed. Among these eligible patients, 215 (20.6%) responded; 104 (10.0% of those surveyed) screened positively on AUDIT and 29 (2.8% of those surveyed) were recruited (27.9% of positive screens). Nineteen cases (65.5% of recruited patients) completed follow-up at six months.ConclusionsRecruitment and retention rates were higher in the hypertension trial than in the depression trial. A full brief intervention trial appears feasible for primary care patients with hypertension who drink excessively. High AUDIT scores in the depression trial suggest the importance of alcohol intervention in this group. However, future work may require alternative screening and measurement procedures.Trial registrationCurrent Controlled Trials ISRCTN89156543; registered 21 October 2013.

The aim of this study was to assess the prevalence of hazardous and harmful alcohol use and associated factors among patients with tuberculosis in South Africa. In a cross-sectional survey new tuberculosis (TB) and TB retreatment patients were consecutively screened using the Alcohol Use Disorder Identification Test (AUDIT) within one month of anti-tuberculosis treatment. The sample included 4,900 (54.5% men and women 45.5%) tuberculosis patients from 42 primary care clinics in three districts. Results indicate that, overall 23.2% of the patients were hazardous or harmful alcohol drinkers, 31.8% of men and 13.0% of women were found to be hazardous drinkers, and 9.3% of men and 3.4% of women meet criteria for probable alcohol dependence (harmful drinking) as defined by the AUDIT. Men had significantly higher AUDIT scores than women. In multivariable analyses it was found that among men poor perceived health status, tobacco use, psychological distress, being a TB retreatment patient and not being on antiretroviral therapy (ART), and among women lower education, tobacco use and being a TB retreatment patient were associated with hazardous or harmful alcohol use. The study found a high prevalence of hazardous or harmful alcohol use among tuberculosis primary care patients. This calls for screening and brief intervention and a comprehensive alcohol treatment programme as a key component of TB management in South Africa.

DIAGNOSIS AND MANAGEMENT OF ALCOHOL PROBLEMS

Predictive validity of the AUDIT for hazardous alcohol consumption in recently released prisoners

How best to provide ongoing services to patients with substance use disorders to sustain long-term recovery is a significant clinical and policy question that has not been adequately addressed. Analyzing nine years of prospective data for 991 adults who entered substance abuse treatment in a private, nonprofit managed care health plan, this study aimed to examine the components of a continuing care model (primary care, specialty substance abuse treatment, and psychiatric services) and their combined effect on outcomes over nine years after treatment entry. In a longitudinal observational study, follow-up measures included self-reported alcohol and drug use, Addiction Severity Index scores, and service utilization data extracted from the health plan databases. Remission, defined as abstinence or nonproblematic use, was the outcome measure. A mixed-effects logistic random intercept model controlling for time and other covariates found that yearly primary care, and specialty care based on need as measured at the prior time point, were positively associated with remission over time. Persons receiving continuing care (defined as having yearly primary care and specialty substance abuse treatment and psychiatric services when needed) had twice the odds of achieving remission at follow-ups (p<.001) as those without. Continuing care that included both primary care and specialty care management to support ongoing monitoring, self-care, and treatment as needed was important for long-term recovery of patients with substance use disorders.