Advertisement

International Journal of Legal Medicine

, Volume 127, Issue 4, pp 761–768 | Cite as

Comparison of direct and indirect alcohol markers with PEth in blood and urine in alcohol dependent inpatients during detoxication

  • M. Winkler
  • G. Skopp
  • A. Alt
  • E. Miltner
  • Th. Jochum
  • C. Daenhardt
  • F. Sporkert
  • H. Gnann
  • W. Weinmann
  • A. Thierauf
Original Article

Abstract

The importance of direct and indirect alcohol markers to evaluate alcohol consumption in clinical and forensic settings is increasingly recognized. While some markers are used to prove abstinence from ethanol, other markers are suitable for detection of alcohol misuse. Phosphatidyl ethanol (PEth) is ranked among the latter. There is only little information about the correlation between PEth and other currently used markers (ethyl glucuronide, ethyl sulfate, carbohydrate deficient transferrin, gamma-glutamyl transpeptidase, and methanol) and about their decline during detoxification. To get more information, 18 alcohol-dependent patients in withdrawal therapy were monitored for these parameters in blood and urine for up to 19 days. There was no correlation between the different markers. PEth showed a rapid decrease at the beginning of the intervention, a slow decline after the first few days, and could still be detected after 19 days of abstinence from ethanol.

Keywords

Alcohol consumption markers Phosphatidyl ethanol Decrease during abstinence Correlation 

References

  1. 1.
    Hannuksela ML, Liisanantti MK, Nissinen AET, Savolainen MJ (2007) Biochemical markers of alcoholism. Clin Chem Lab Med 45:953–961PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bradley KA, Bush KR, McDonell MB, Malone T, Fihn SD (1998) Screening for problem drinking: comparison of CAGE and AUDIT. J Gen Intern Med 13:379–388CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Reinert DF, Allen JP (2007) The alcohol use disorders identification test: an update of research findings. Alcohol Clin Exp Res 31:185–199PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Niemelä O (2007) Biomarkers in alcoholism. Clin Chim Acta 377:39–49PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Conigrave KM, Degenhardt LJ, Whitfield JB et al (2002) CDT, GGT, and AST as markers of alcohol use: the WHO/ISBRA collaborative project. Alcohol Clin Exp Res 24:332–339CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Sillanaukee P, Massot N, Jousilahti P et al (2000) Enhanced clinical utility of gamma-CDT in a general population. Alcohol Clin Exp Res 24:1202–1206PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Thomas L (1998) Gamma glutamyltransferase (GGT). In: Thomas L (ed) Clinical laboratory diagnostics. TH-Books, Frankfurt a.M., pp 80–86Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Hietala J, Koivisto H, Anttila P, Niemelä O (2006) Comparison of the combined marker GGT-CDT and the conventional laboratory markers of alcohol abuse in heavy drinkers, moderate drinkers and abstainers. Alcohol Alcohol 41:528–533PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Wurst FM, Kempter C, Seidl S, Alt A (1999) Ethyl glucuronide—a marker of recent alcohol consumption and a relapse marker with clinical and forensic implications. Alcohol Alcohol 34:71–77PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Stauber RE, Stepan V, Trauner M et al (1995) Evaluation of carbohydrate-deficient transferrin for detection of alcohol abuse in patients with liver dysfunction. Alcohol Alcohol 30:171–176PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Buchholtz U (1993) Blutmethanol als Alkoholismusmarker. Blutalkohol 30:43–51PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Varga A, Hansson P, Johnson G, Alling C (2000) Normalization rate and cellular localization of phosphatidylethanol in whole blood from chronic alcoholics. Clin Chim Acta 299:141–150PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Alt A, Wurst FM, Seidl S (1997) Bestimmung von Ethylglucuronid in Urinproben mit dem internen Standard d5-Ethylglucuronid. Blutalkohol 34:360–365Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Helander A, Böttcher M, Fehr C et al (2009) Detection times for urinary ethyl glucuronide and ethyl sulfate in heavy drinkers during alcohol detoxification. Alcohol Alcohol 44:55–61PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Wurst FM, Skipper GE, Weinmann W (2003) Ethyl glucuronide—the direct ethanol metabolite on the threshold from science to routine use. Addiction 98(Suppl 2):51–61PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Wurst FM, Thon N, Aradottir S, Hartmann S, Wiesbeck G, Lesch O, Skala K, Wolfersdorf M, Weinmann W, Alling C (2010) Phosphatidylethanol: normalization during detoxification, gender aspects and correlation with other biomarkers and self-reports. Addict Biol 15:88–95PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Varga A, Hansson P, Lundqvist C, Alling C (1998) Phosphatidylethanol in blood as a marker of ethanol consumption in healthy volunteers: comparison with other markers. Alcohol Clin Exp Res 22:1832–1837PubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Gnann H, Weinmann W, Engelmann C, Wurst FM, Skopp G, Winkler M, Thierauf A, Auwärter V, Dresen S, Ferreiros Bouzas N (2009) Selective detection of phosphatidylethanol homologues in blood as biomarkers for alcohol consumption by LC-ESI-MS/MS. J Mass Spectrom 44:1293–1299PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Faller A, Richter B, Kluge M, Koenig P, Seitz H, Thierauf A, Gnann H, Winkler M, Mattern R, Skopp G (2011) LC-MS/MS analysis of phosphatidylethanol in dried blood spots versus conventional blood specimens. Anal Bioanal Chem 401:1163–1166PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Gnann H, Engelmann C, Skopp G, Winkler M, Auwärter V, Dresen S, Ferreiros N, Wurst FM, Weinmann W (2010) Identification of 48 homologues of phosphatidyethanol in blood by LC-ESI-MS/MS. Anal Bioanal Chem 396:2415–2423PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Dresen S, Weinmann W, Wurst FM (2004) Forensic confirmatory analysis of ethyl sulfate—a new marker for alcohol consumption—by liquid chromatography/electrospray ionization/tandem mass spectrometry. J Am Soc Mass Spectrom 15:1644–1648PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Weinmann W, Schaefer P, Thierauf A, Schreiber A, Wurst FM (2004) Confirmatory analysis of ethylglucuronide in urine by liquid-chromatography/electrospray ionization/tandem mass spectrometry according to forensic guidelines. J Am Soc Mass Spectrom 15:188–193PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Butler AR (1976) The Jaffe reaction: identification of the couloured species. Clin Chim Acta 59:227–232CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Madea B, Brinkmann B (2003) Handbuch gerichtliche Medizin, Band 2. Springer, BerlinGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Kharbouche H, Faouzi M, Sanchez N, Bernard J, Augsburger M, Mangin P, Staub C, Sporkert F (2012) Diagnostic performance of ethyl glucuronide for the investigation of alcohol drinking behavior: a comparison with traditional biomarkers. Int J Legal Med 126(2):243–250PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • M. Winkler
    • 1
  • G. Skopp
    • 2
  • A. Alt
    • 1
  • E. Miltner
    • 1
  • Th. Jochum
    • 3
  • C. Daenhardt
    • 4
  • F. Sporkert
    • 5
  • H. Gnann
    • 6
  • W. Weinmann
    • 7
  • A. Thierauf
    • 6
  1. 1.Institute of Legal MedicineUniversity of UlmUlmGermany
  2. 2.Institute of Legal Medicine and Traffic MedicineUniversity HospitalHeidelbergGermany
  3. 3.Department of Psychiatry and PsychotherapySRH Wald-Klinikum GeraGeraGermany
  4. 4.Department of Psychiatry and PsychotherapyFriedrich-Schiller-University JenaJenaGermany
  5. 5.University Centre of Legal Medicine, Lausanne-GenevaLausanneSwitzerland
  6. 6.Institute of Forensic MedicineFreiburg University Medical CentreFreiburgGermany
  7. 7.Institute of Forensic MedicineUniversity of BernBernSwitzerland

Personalised recommendations