Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32319006›Full record

Observational studyCNS drugs2020

Tapering with Pharmaceutical GHB or Benzodiazepines for Detoxification in GHB-Dependent Patients: A Matched-Subject Observational Study of Treatment-as-Usual in Belgium and The Netherlands.

Harmen Beurmanjer, J J Luykx, B De Wilde, K van Rompaey, V J A Buwalda, C A J De Jong, B A G Dijkstra, A F A Schellekens

Abstract readComparative StudyMulticenter StudyObservational Study
In one paragraph

Observational study in CNS drugs, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Guideline
  2. Observational
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Characterization of the GHB Withdrawal Syndrome.Journal of clinical medicine · 2021
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors.

Harmen BeurmanjerNovadic-Kentron Addictioncare, Hogedwarsstraat 3, 5261, AE, Vught, The Netherlands. Harmen.beurmanjer@novadic-kentron.nl.
J J LuykxZiekenhuis Netwerk Antwerpen (ZNA), Borgerhout, Belgium.
B De WildeZiekenhuis Netwerk Antwerpen (ZNA), Borgerhout, Belgium.
K van RompaeyZiekenhuis Netwerk Antwerpen (ZNA), Borgerhout, Belgium.
V J A BuwaldaNovadic-Kentron Addictioncare, Hogedwarsstraat 3, 5261, AE, Vught, The Netherlands.
C A J De JongNijmegen Institute for Scientist-Practitioners in Addiction (NISPA), Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
B A G DijkstraNovadic-Kentron Addictioncare, Hogedwarsstraat 3, 5261, AE, Vught, The Netherlands.
A F A SchellekensNijmegen Institute for Scientist-Practitioners in Addiction (NISPA), Nijmegen, The Netherlands.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe gamma-hydroxybutyric acid (GHB) withdrawal syndrome often has a fulminant course, with a rapid onset and swift progression of severe complications. In clinical practice, two pharmacological regimens are commonly used to counteract withdrawal symptoms during GHB detoxification: tapering with benzodiazepines (BZDs) or tapering with pharmaceutical GHB. In Belgium, standard treatment is tapering with BZDs, while in the Netherlands, pharmaceutical GHB is the preferred treatment method. Though BZDs are cheaper and readily available, case studies suggest GHB tapering results in less severe withdrawal and fewer complications.

objectivesThis study aimed to compare two treatments-as-usual in tapering methods on withdrawal, craving and adverse events during detoxification in GHB-dependent patients.

methodsIn this multicentre non-randomised indirect comparison of two treatments-as-usual, patients with GHB dependence received BZD tapering (Belgian sample: n = 42) or GHB tapering (Dutch sample: n = 42, matched historical sample). Withdrawal was assessed using the Subjective and Objective Withdrawal Scales, craving was assessed with a Visual Analogue Scale and adverse events were systematically recorded. Differences in withdrawal and craving were analysed using a linear mixed-model analysis, with 'days in admission' and 'detoxification method' as fixed factors. Differences in adverse events were analysed using a Chi-square analysis.

resultsWithdrawal decreased over time in both groups. Withdrawal severity was higher in patients receiving BZD tapering (subjective mean = 36.50, standard deviation = 21.08; objective mean = 8.05, standard deviation = 4.68) than in patients receiving pharmaceutical GHB tapering (subjective mean = 15.90; standard deviation = 13.83; objective mean = 3.72; standard deviation = 2.56). No differences in craving were found. Adverse events were more common in the BZD than the GHB group, especially delirium (20 vs 2.5%, respectively).

conclusionsThese results support earlier work that BZD tapering might not always sufficiently dampen withdrawal in GHB-dependent patients. However, it needs to be taken into account that both treatments were assessed in separate countries. Based on the current findings, tapering with pharmaceutical GHB could be considered for patients with GHB dependence during detoxification, as it has potentially less severe withdrawal and fewer complications than BZD tapering.

Indexed as

AdultBelgiumBenzodiazepinesCravingDrug TaperingFemaleHumansHydroxybutyratesMaleNetherlandsSubstance-Related DisordersSubstance Withdrawal SyndromeYoung Adult4-hydroxybutyric acidBenzodiazepinesHydroxybutyrates

Identifiers

PMID32319006
PMCPMC7275016

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.