Cargando…
Weak evidence on nalmefene creates dilemmas for clinicians and poses questions for regulators and researchers
BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Nalmefene has been approved in Europe for the treatment of alcohol dependence and subsequently recommended by the UK National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE). This study examines critically the evidence base underpinning both decisions and the issues arising. MET...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
John Wiley and Sons Inc.
2016
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5089629/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27262594 http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/add.13438 |
_version_ | 1782464270309523456 |
---|---|
author | Fitzgerald, Niamh Angus, Kathryn Elders, Andrew de Andrade, Marisa Raistrick, Duncan Heather, Nick McCambridge, Jim |
author_facet | Fitzgerald, Niamh Angus, Kathryn Elders, Andrew de Andrade, Marisa Raistrick, Duncan Heather, Nick McCambridge, Jim |
author_sort | Fitzgerald, Niamh |
collection | PubMed |
description | BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Nalmefene has been approved in Europe for the treatment of alcohol dependence and subsequently recommended by the UK National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE). This study examines critically the evidence base underpinning both decisions and the issues arising. METHODS: Published studies of nalmefene were identified through a systematic search, with documents from the European Medicines Agency, the NICE appraisal and public clinical trial registries also examined to identify methodological issues. RESULTS: Efficacy data used to support the licensing of nalmefene suffer from risk of bias due to lack of specification of a priori outcome measures and sensitivity analyses, use of post‐hoc sample refinement and the use of inappropriate comparators. Despite this, evidence for the efficacy of nalmefene in reducing alcohol consumption in those with alcohol dependence is, at best, modest, and of uncertain significance to individual patients. The relevance of existing trial data to routine primary care practice is doubtful. CONCLUSIONS: Problems with the registration, design, analysis and reporting of clinical trials of nalmefene did not prevent it being licensed and recommended for treating alcohol dependence. This creates dilemmas for primary care clinicians and commissioning organisations where nalmefene has been heavily promoted, and poses wider questions about the effectiveness of the medicines regulation system and how to develop the alcohol treatment evidence base. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-5089629 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2016 |
publisher | John Wiley and Sons Inc. |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-50896292016-11-09 Weak evidence on nalmefene creates dilemmas for clinicians and poses questions for regulators and researchers Fitzgerald, Niamh Angus, Kathryn Elders, Andrew de Andrade, Marisa Raistrick, Duncan Heather, Nick McCambridge, Jim Addiction Vested Interests Series BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Nalmefene has been approved in Europe for the treatment of alcohol dependence and subsequently recommended by the UK National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE). This study examines critically the evidence base underpinning both decisions and the issues arising. METHODS: Published studies of nalmefene were identified through a systematic search, with documents from the European Medicines Agency, the NICE appraisal and public clinical trial registries also examined to identify methodological issues. RESULTS: Efficacy data used to support the licensing of nalmefene suffer from risk of bias due to lack of specification of a priori outcome measures and sensitivity analyses, use of post‐hoc sample refinement and the use of inappropriate comparators. Despite this, evidence for the efficacy of nalmefene in reducing alcohol consumption in those with alcohol dependence is, at best, modest, and of uncertain significance to individual patients. The relevance of existing trial data to routine primary care practice is doubtful. CONCLUSIONS: Problems with the registration, design, analysis and reporting of clinical trials of nalmefene did not prevent it being licensed and recommended for treating alcohol dependence. This creates dilemmas for primary care clinicians and commissioning organisations where nalmefene has been heavily promoted, and poses wider questions about the effectiveness of the medicines regulation system and how to develop the alcohol treatment evidence base. John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2016-06-05 2016-08 /pmc/articles/PMC5089629/ /pubmed/27262594 http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/add.13438 Text en © 2016 The Authors. Addiction published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of Society for the Study of Addiction. This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution‐NonCommercial‐NoDerivs (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/) License, which permits use and distribution in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited, the use is non‐commercial and no modifications or adaptations are made. |
spellingShingle | Vested Interests Series Fitzgerald, Niamh Angus, Kathryn Elders, Andrew de Andrade, Marisa Raistrick, Duncan Heather, Nick McCambridge, Jim Weak evidence on nalmefene creates dilemmas for clinicians and poses questions for regulators and researchers |
title | Weak evidence on nalmefene creates dilemmas for clinicians and poses questions for regulators and researchers |
title_full | Weak evidence on nalmefene creates dilemmas for clinicians and poses questions for regulators and researchers |
title_fullStr | Weak evidence on nalmefene creates dilemmas for clinicians and poses questions for regulators and researchers |
title_full_unstemmed | Weak evidence on nalmefene creates dilemmas for clinicians and poses questions for regulators and researchers |
title_short | Weak evidence on nalmefene creates dilemmas for clinicians and poses questions for regulators and researchers |
title_sort | weak evidence on nalmefene creates dilemmas for clinicians and poses questions for regulators and researchers |
topic | Vested Interests Series |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5089629/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27262594 http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/add.13438 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT fitzgeraldniamh weakevidenceonnalmefenecreatesdilemmasforcliniciansandposesquestionsforregulatorsandresearchers AT anguskathryn weakevidenceonnalmefenecreatesdilemmasforcliniciansandposesquestionsforregulatorsandresearchers AT eldersandrew weakevidenceonnalmefenecreatesdilemmasforcliniciansandposesquestionsforregulatorsandresearchers AT deandrademarisa weakevidenceonnalmefenecreatesdilemmasforcliniciansandposesquestionsforregulatorsandresearchers AT raistrickduncan weakevidenceonnalmefenecreatesdilemmasforcliniciansandposesquestionsforregulatorsandresearchers AT heathernick weakevidenceonnalmefenecreatesdilemmasforcliniciansandposesquestionsforregulatorsandresearchers AT mccambridgejim weakevidenceonnalmefenecreatesdilemmasforcliniciansandposesquestionsforregulatorsandresearchers |