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.