Evaluation of the course and treatment of Alcohol Withdrawal Syndrome with the Clinical Institute Withdrawal Assessment for Alcohol - Revised: A systematic review-based meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND

Although the Clinical Institute Withdrawal Assessment for Alcohol - Revised (CIWA-Ar) is a gold standard tool for the clinical evaluation of alcohol withdrawal syndrome (AWS), a systematic analysis using the total scores of the CIWA-Ar as a means of an objective follow-up of the course and treatment of AWS is missing. The aims of the present study were to systematically evaluate scientific data using the CIWA-Ar, to reveal whether the aggregated CIWA-Ar total scores follow the course of AWS and to compare benzodiazepine (BZD) and non-benzodiazepine (nBZD) therapies in AWS.

METHODS

1054 findings were identified with the keyword "ciwa" from four databases (PubMed, ScienceDirect, Web of Science, Cochrane Registry). Articles using CIWA-Ar in patients treated with AWS were incorporated and two measurement intervals (cumulative mean data of day 1-3 and day 4-9) of the CIWA-Ar total scores were compared. Subgroup analysis based on pharmacotherapy regimen was conducted to compare the effectiveness of BZD and nBZD treatments.

RESULTS

The random effects analysis of 423 patients showed decreased CIWA-Ar scores between the two measurement intervals (BZD: d = -1.361; CI: -1.829 < δ < -0.893; nBZD: d = -0.858; CI: -1.073 < δ < -0.643). Sampling variances were calculated for the BZD (v1 = 0.215) and the nBZD (v2 = 0.106) groups, which indicated no significant group difference (z = -1.532).

CONCLUSIONS

Our findings support that the CIWA-Ar follows the course of AWS. Furthermore, nBZD therapy has a similar effectiveness compared to BZD treatment based on the CIWA-Ar total scores.