An observational comparative study of clinical efficacy and safety of chlordiazepoxide and lorazepam in alcohol withdrawal syndrome

Journal Title: International Journal of Medical Research and Review - Year 2016, Vol 4, Issue 9

Abstract

Background: Currently, Benzodiazepines like chlordiazepoxide, diazepam and lorazepam are the preferred drugs in the management of Alcohol withdrawal syndrome (AWS). These drugs of similar class are different in their pharmacokinetic profile which differently affect in AWS. Chlordiazepoxide is longer acting and converted to active metabolites in the liver, while lorazepam is shorter acting, with no active metabolites. Materials and methods: An observational, prospective and comparative study conducted in 100 patients of AWS. They received either Chlordiazepoxide or Lorazepam and divided into two comparison groups at the screening. Observation was started from day of admission to every day till day of discharge. The initial withdrawal assessment and subsequent changes in withdrawal during treatment were assessed using the Clinical Institute Withdrawal Assessment for Alcohol scale, revised (CIWA-Ar) in both the groups. Clinical global impression (CGI) score was also used to evaluate drug efficacy in both the groups. Details of adverse drug reactions, if any appear were recorded. Results: CIWA-Ar score, CGI-Severity (CGI-S) score and CGI-Improvement (CGI-I) score showed statistically significant difference between two groups. But percentage reduction in CIWA-Ar, CGI-S and CGI-I score were almost similar in both groups. Intra group comparison at different duration of treatment progressed and in between days of treatment there was statistically significant reduction of these scores. Considering no. of adverse events, reported adverse events causality, severity, predictability and preventability assessment, both drugs were safe. Conclusion: Both the drugs had almost similar efficacy in terms of to reduce CIWAAr score, CGI-S score, CGI-I score and similar safety profile.

Authors and Affiliations

Nitishkumar D Tank, Bharti N. Karelia, Nishant B. Bhansali

Keywords

Related Articles

A comparative therapeutic evaluation of topical Ivermectin Vs topical Permethrin for the management of scabies

Objective: To compare the therapeutic efficacy of topical ivermectin 0.5% vs. topical permethrin 5% cream in the treatment of scabies. Methods: This was open labelled, parallel group, prospective and comparative clinical...

Outcome after Interlocking intramedullary nailing of humeral shaft fractures

Introduction: Management of fractures of humeral shaft is always a challenging problem to deal with as they are very frequently associated with multiple injuries, leading to complications. Interlocking intramedullary nai...

An observational comparative study of clinical efficacy and safety of chlordiazepoxide and lorazepam in alcohol withdrawal syndrome

Background: Currently, Benzodiazepines like chlordiazepoxide, diazepam and lorazepam are the preferred drugs in the management of Alcohol withdrawal syndrome (AWS). These drugs of similar class are different in their pha...

To study the laboratory profile of severe malaria in a tertiary care centre of North India

Introduction: Malaria ranks third among the major infectious diseases in causing deaths- after pneumococcal acute respiratory infections and tuberculosis. It is expected that by the turn of the century malaria would be t...

Degenerative changes in Lumbar spine on MRI: A retrospective study

Introduction: The widespread prevalence of patients complaining of backache has resulted in Spine as the most frequently requested neuroimaging examinations. Various imaging modalities like X-ray, myelography, discograph...

Download PDF file
  • EP ID EP231030
  • DOI 10.7511
  • Views 121
  • Downloads 0

How To Cite

Nitishkumar D Tank, Bharti N. Karelia, Nishant B. Bhansali (2016). An observational comparative study of clinical efficacy and safety of chlordiazepoxide and lorazepam in alcohol withdrawal syndrome. International Journal of Medical Research and Review, 4(9), 1646-1654. https://europub.co.uk/articles/-A-231030