<scp>SAEM GRACE</scp>: Anti‐craving medications for alcohol use disorder treatment in the emergency department: A systematic review of direct evidence
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Alcohol-related concerns commonly present to the emergency department (ED), with a subset of individuals experiencing the symptoms of an alcohol use disorder (AUD). As such, examining the efficacy of pharmacological anti-craving treatment for AUD in the ED is of increasing interest. The objective of this systematic review was to evaluate the direct evidence assessing the efficacy of providing anti-craving medications for AUD treatment in the ED. METHODS: A systematic search was conducted according to the patient-intervention-control-outcome question: (P) adults (≥18 years old) presenting to the ED with an AUD (including suspected AUD); (I) anti-craving medications (i.e., naltrexone, acamprosate, gabapentin); (C) no prescription or placebo; (O) reduction of repeat ED visits, engagement in addiction services, reductions in heavy drinking days, reductions in any drinking and amount consumed (or abstinence), and in relapse. Two reviewers independently assessed articles for inclusion and conducted risk of bias assessments for included studies. RESULTS: From 143 potentially relevant articles, 6 met inclusion criteria: 3 clinical trials, and 3 case studies. The clinical trials identified evaluated oral versus extended-release naltrexone, monthly extended-release naltrexone injections, and disulfiram. Both oral and extended-release naltrexone resulted in decreased alcohol consumption. Monthly extended-release naltrexone injections resulted in significant improvements in drinking and quality of life. Although out of scope, the disulfiram studies identified did not result in an improvement in drinking in comparison to no medication. CONCLUSIONS: Overall, there are few studies directly examining the efficacy of anti-craving medications for AUD in the ED, although the limited evidence that exists is supportive of naltrexone pharmacotherapy, particularly extended-release injection formulation. Additional randomized controlled trials are necessary for substantive direct evidence on anti-craving medication initiation in the ED.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.009 | 0.052 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.010 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.021 | 0.002 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".