Comparaison des méthodes d’évaluation de la consommation d’alcool dans une population de patients hospitalisés à Ouagadougou (Burkina Faso)

Comparison of assessment methods of alcohol consumption in a population of patients hospitalized in Ouagadougou (Burkina Faso)

Résumé

La consommation d’alcool est un facteur de risque cardiovasculaire et oncologique avéré. Plusieurs méthodes d’évaluation existent, mais n’ont pas encore fait l’objet d’étude au Burkina Faso.

Objectif

Comparer le questionnaire AUDIT (Alcohol Use Disorder Identification Test), le questionnaire DETA (Diminuer, Entourage, Trop, Alcool) et la présence d’une macrocytose comme marqueur biologique dans le dépistage de la consommation alcoolique chez les malades hospitalisés.

Méthodes

Étude transversale analytique menée durant deux mois dans 14 services d’hospitalisation du CHU Yalgado-Ouédraogo à Ouagadougou. La consommation d’alcool a été évaluée comparativement à l’aide du questionnaire AUDIT, du questionnaire DETA et de la valeur du volume globulaire moyen (VGM): existence de macrocytose. Les normes OMS ont été utilisées comme valeur de référence pour la comparaison.

Résultats

Trois cent quatre-vingt-onze patients ont été inclus d’âge moyen de 44 ans, le sex-ratio était de 1,34 en faveur des hommes. Cent trente-cinq (34,53 %) étaient consommateurs d’alcool. La prévalence de la consommation excessive était de 7,92 % (n = 31) selon l’OMS; de 10,49 % (n = 41) selon le questionnaire AUDIT; de 8,18 % (n = 32) selon le questionnaire DETA; et de 15,16 % selon le VGM. En prenant les normes OMS comme référence, la sensibilité et la spécificité étaient de 84 et 96 % respectivement pour le questionnaire AUDIT, de 64 et 96 % respectivement pour le questionnaire DETA et de 26,32 et 85,80 % respectivement avec la macrocytose comme marqueur.

Abstract

Alcohol consumption is a proven risk factor for cardiovascular diseases and cancers. There are several assessment methods that still need to be studied in Burkina Faso.

Objective

The objective of this paper is to compare the AUDIT (Alcohol Use Disorder Identification Test) questionnaire, the CAGE (Cut-down, Annoyed, Guilty, Eyeopener) questionnaire, and the presence of macrocytosis as a biological marker in the screening for alcohol consumption in hospitalized patients.

Methodology

A transversal analytical study was carried out during 2 months in 14 hospitalization wards of the University Hospital Yalgado Ouedraogo. Alcohol consumption was assessed comparatively with the AUDIT questionnaire, the CAGE questionnaire, and the value of the mean corpuscular volume (MCV), indicating the presence of macrocytosis; World Health Organization (WHO) standards were used as reference value for the comparison.

Results

A total of 391 patients with an average age of 44 years were included in the study; the sex ratio was 1.34 in favor of men (34.53%) who were alcohol consumers. The prevalence of excess intake of alcohol was 7.92% (N = 41) according to WHO; 10.49% (N = 41) according to the AUDIT questionnaire; 8.18% (N = 32) according to the CAGE questionnaire; and 15.16% according to MCV. In taking into account WHO standards as reference, the sensitivity and specificity were 84% and 96%, respectively, for the AUDIT questionnaire, 64% and 96%, respectively, for the CAGE questionnaire, and 26.32% and 85.80%, respectively, with the macrocytosis as marker.

Conclusion

Harmfull alcohol consumption is common among hospitalized patients in Ouagadougou. The complete AUDIT questionnaire is the most effective of screnning test.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Références

  1. 1.

    Strong K, Bonita R (2003) Surveillance des facteurs de risque liés aux maladies non transmissibles: état actuel des données mondiales. Rapport Surf 1. Organisation mondiale de la santé (OMS)

    Google Scholar 

  2. 2.

    Documentation française (2002) Usage de substances psychoactives. Identification des usages à risque, outils de repérage, conduite à tenir. Rapport au directeur général de la Santé

    Google Scholar 

  3. 3.

    Ewing JA (1984) Detecting alcoholism: the CAGE questionnaire. JAMA 252:1905–7

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. 4.

    Girela E, Villanueva E, Hernandez-Cueto C, Luna JD (1995) Comparison of the CAGE questionnaire versus some biochemical markers in the diagnosis of alcoholism. Alcohol Alcoholism 30:13–26

    Google Scholar 

  5. 5.

    Nicol EF, Ford MJ (1986) Use of Michigan Alcoholism Screening Test in general practice. J R Coll Gen Pract 36:409–10

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  6. 6.

    Rumpf HF, Hapke U, Hill A, John U (1997) Development of a screening questionnaire for the general hospital and general practices. Alcohol Clin Exp Res 21:894–8

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. 7.

    Saunders JB, Aasland OG, Babor TF, et al (1993) Development of the Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test (AUDIT): WHO Collaborative project on early detection of persons with harmful alcohol consumption — II. Addiction 88:791–804

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. 8.

    Paille F (2002) Évaluation pratique de la consommation d’alcool classifications et définitions des conduites d’alcoolisation. Gastroenterol Clin Biol 26:B141–B8

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. 9.

    EASL clinical practical guidelines (2012) Management of alcoholic liver disease. J Hepatol 57:399–420

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. 10.

    Adewuya AO (2005) Validation of the Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test (AUDIT) as a screening tool for alcoholrelated problems among Nigerian university students. Alcohol Alcoholism 40:575–7

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. 11.

    Li Q, Babor TF, Hao W, Chen X (2011) The Chinese translations of Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test (AUDIT) in China: a systematic review. Alcohol Alcoholism 46:416–23

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  12. 12.

    Wetterling T, Kanitz RD, Rumpf HJ, et al (1998) Comparison of CAGE and MAST with the alcohol markers CDT, GAMMA-GT, ALAT, ASAT and MCV. Alcohol Alcoholism 33:424–30

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. 13.

    Wu SI, Huang HC, Liu SI, et al (2008) Validation and comparison of alcohol-screening instruments for identifying hazardous drinking in hospitalized patients in Taiwan. Alcohol Alcoholism 43:577–82

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. 14.

    Siegfried N, Parry CDH, Morojele NK, Wason D (2001) Profile of drinking behaviour and comparison of self-report with the CAGE questionnaire and carbohydrate-deficient transferrin in a rural Lesotho community. Alcohol Alcoholism 36:243–8

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. 15.

    Abdoul-Latif FM, Bassolé IHN, Dicko MH (2013) Proximate composition of traditional local sorghum beer “dolo” manufactured in Ouagadougou. Afr J Biotechnol 12:1517–22

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. 16.

    Aziz K, Bonnet D (2008) Hépatogastroentérologie. Masson Cahier des ECN

    Google Scholar 

  17. 17.

    Rambaldi A, Todisco N, Gluud C, et al (1996) Prevalence of alcohol problems in general practice: an experience from Southern Italy. Alcohol Alcoholism 31:191–6

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. 18.

    Mackenzie DM, Langa A, Brown TM (1996) Identifying hazardous or harmful alcohol use in medical admissions: a comparison of AUDIT, CAGE and brief MAST. Alcohol Alcoholism 31:591–9

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. 19.

    Agabio R, Nioi M, Serra C, et al (2006) Alcohol use disorders in primary care patients in Cagliari, Italy. Alcohol Alcoholism 41:341–4

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. 20.

    Sharkey J, Brennan D, Curran P (1996) The pattern of alcohol consumption of a general hospital population in North Belfast. Alcohol Alcoholism 31:279–85

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. 21.

    Fiellin DA, Reid MC, O’Connor PG (2000) Screening for alcohol problems in primary care: a systematic review. Arch Intern Med 160:1977–89

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. 22.

    Conigrave KM, Saunders J, Whitfield JB (1995) Diagnostic test for alcohol consumption. Alcohol Alcoholism 29:337–43

    Google Scholar 

  23. 23.

    Sermé AK (1996) Macrocytose et alcoolisme chronique en milieu ivoirien (à propos de 87 cas) [mémoire d’études spécialisées en gastroentérologie]. Faculté de médecine, université d’Abidjan

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Z. D. Ouattara.

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Ouattara, Z.D., Koura, M., Sermé, A.K. et al. Comparaison des méthodes d’évaluation de la consommation d’alcool dans une population de patients hospitalisés à Ouagadougou (Burkina Faso). J Afr Hepato Gastroenterol 11, 47–51 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12157-016-0694-4

Download citation

Mots clés

  • Évaluation
  • Alcool
  • Normes OMS
  • AUDIT: DETA
  • Macrocytose

Keywords

  • Assessment
  • Alcohol
  • WHO standards
  • AUDIT
  • CAGE
  • Macrocytosis