Evidence Hub

A comparative study of two methods for attaining constant alcohol levels

Zoethout RW, van Gerven JM, Dumont GJ, Paltansing S, van Burgel ND, van der Linden M, Dahan A, Cohen AF et al.

British journal of clinical pharmacology, 2008

20 citations

Abstract

Aims: Alcohol effects or drug-alcohol interactions are preferably studied at constant blood levels. To achieve pseudo-steady state levels, various methods are used, which usually produce adequate averages but variable individual concentration profiles. The aim was to compare two modes of alcohol administration: a 'two-step prekinetic procedure' and a 'clamping method'.

Methods: The two-step prekinetic procedure started with determination of individual pharmacokinetic (PK) parameters, during a prestudy occasion. Individual infusion regimens were calculated afterwards, based on a pseudo-steady state breath alcohol concentration (BrAC) of 0.65 g l(-1) and applied on a separate occasion. For the clamping procedure, a spreadsheet-based paradigm was developed using BrAC-guided adjustments of infusion rates, to maintain stable BrAC levels of 0.6 g l(-1).

Results: The mean BrAC during clamping [0.61 g l(-1), 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.58, 0.63] did not differ from its intended level of 0.6 g l(-1) (1.0% on average). In contrast, the mean BrAC during the prekinetic procedure was significantly lower than the 0.65 g l(-1) set-point (0.59 g l(-1), 95% CI 0.54, 0.63) and deviated from this target by 9.7% on average. The clamping method also showed less variation between subjects [coefficient of variation (CV) 6.2%] compared with the prekinetic procedure (CV 14.6%).

Conclusions: Although the two methods differ considerably in their approach, clamping of BrAC resulted in more accurate…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a randomized trial, done in people. Its evidence level is 2 of 5 (High · randomized trial). Randomized trials of a reasonable size are the strongest single-study design.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free