Evaluation of phosphatidylethanol by ELISA for detection of excessive alcohol use compared with traditional biomarkers: a case-control study

Figures & data

Table 1. Characteristics of the study subjects.

	Patients (n = 22)	Social drinkers (n = 16)	Nondrinkers (n = 16)	Test	p
Age (years)^a	45.73 ± 9.66	39.69 ± 12.76	43.86 ± 13.61	χ^2 = 2.650	0.266
	44.50	36.00	47.50
	(38.00–55.25)	(28.00–51.50)	(28.25–56.00)
BMI (kg/m^2)^b	25.28 ± 4.08	26.89 ± 2.30	27.06 ± 3.62	F = 1.363	0.266
	24.90	27.62	27.56
	(22.31–28.06)	(24.87–28.33)	(24.64–29.97)
Drinking amount (g ethanol/last month)^a	6864.30 ± 2214.24	325.40 ± 204.37	0.00 ± 0.00	χ^2 = 48.043	<0.001
	7402.50	254.00
	(4818–7931)	(147–536)
AUDIT score^a	30.05 ± 5.66	3.63 ± 1.67	0.00 ± 0.00	χ^2 = 48.024	<0.001
	30.50	3.00
	(26.75–34.00)	(2.00–5.00)
Smoking amount (cigarettes/day)^a	23.81 ± 9.74	7.94 ± 9.73	5.00 ± 8.37	χ^2 = 25.155	<0.001
	20 (20–30)	1 (0–20)	0 (0–12.5)
Smoking amount (pack-years)^b	26.53 ± 11.17	13.44 ± 20.14	11.06 ± 15.09	F = 5.478	0.007
	26 (20–30)	4 (0–20)	3.5 (0–20)

Note: Values are mean ± SD and median (25–75% values).

^aKruskal–Wallis test.

^bOne-way ANOVA.

Figure 1. PEth serum levels of the alcohol-dependent patients during alcohol withdrawal compared to the healthy controls (nondrinkers and social drinkers). The difference between the groups (patients [day 1], nondrinkers, and social drinkers) with respect to the PEth levels showed marginal trends towards significance (p = 0.052). PEth levels of the patients decreased statistically significantly during alcohol withdrawal (p = 0.002).

Table 2. Biomarker levels of the study subjects and clinical features of alcohol withdrawal.

	Patients (n = 22)			Social drinkers (n = 16)	Nondrinkers (n = 16)
	Day 1	Day 7	Day 14
PEth (µg/ml)	36.41 ± 29.98	27.58 ± 24.56	27.44 ± 26.27	23.14 ± 13.99	21.53 ± 9.29
	21.97	18.20	17.53	18.94	20.84
	(19.80–37.38)	(12.09–27.63)	(13.72–27.71)	(14.10–24.18)	(12.36–29.67)
GGT (U/l)	194.95 ± 228.26	136.81 ± 147.95	85.30 ± 60.81	41.25 ± 68.99	23.56 ± 9.03
	133.50	85.00	67.00	25.00	21.50
	(68.25–216.75)	(55.50–144.00)	(51.25–93.50)	(18.50–32.25)	(16.25–30.75)
MCV (fl)	94.92 ± 7.55	95.91 ± 5.88	94.79 ± 6.23	86.71 ± 2.65	85.96 ± 7.24
	95.80	96.10	95.15	86.40	87.20
	(89.90–99.55)	(92.95–99.70)	(91.50–97.80)	(84.40–87.98)	(85.55–89.73)
ALT (U/l)	49.86 ± 34.87	47.41 ± 26.37	32.05 ± 13.16	25.44 ± 12.67	20.31 ± 9.86
	38.50	39.50	28.00	21.00	18.00
	(25.00–71.25)	(26.75–65.75)	(22.00–44.50)	(16.00–33.00)	(13.00–26.00)
AST (U/l)	55.18 ± 33.02	40.50 ± 20.67	31.95 ± 12.40	20.38 ± 5.43	20.13 ± 4.10
	46.50	33.50	29.00	19.50	20.00
	(29.00–68.00)	(27.25–52.50)	(24.50–36.25)	(15.25–24.75)	(17.25–22.50)
PACS score	19.86 ± 8.89	9.82 ± 9.01	5.71 ± 6.64	–	–
	21.50	6.50	4.00
	(12.50–28.25)	(2.00–17.75)	(1.00–8.50)
CIWA-Ar score	8.77 ± 5.42	3.73 ± 2.98	1.10 ± 1.51	–	–
	8.00	4.00	1.00
	(4.00–12.25)	(1.00–6.00)	(0–1.50)

Note: Values are mean ± SD and median (25–75% values).

Figure 2. ROC curve analysis for the alcohol-dependent patients versus healthy controls, with PEth, GGT, MCV, ALT, and AST as test variables. PEth was found to have statistically significant diagnostic efficacy for detecting chronic heavy drinking according to the ROC curve analysis (p = 0.024), but traditional biomarkers performed better than PEth.