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...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Fitzgerald, Niamh, Angus, Kathryn, Elders, Andrew, de Andrade, Marisa, Raistrick, Duncan, Heather, Nick, McCambridge, Jim
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