29
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Weak evidence on nalmefene creates dilemmas for clinicians and poses questions for regulators and researchers

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          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.

          Related collections

          Most cited references45

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Systematic Review of the Empirical Evidence of Study Publication Bias and Outcome Reporting Bias

          Background The increased use of meta-analysis in systematic reviews of healthcare interventions has highlighted several types of bias that can arise during the completion of a randomised controlled trial. Study publication bias has been recognised as a potential threat to the validity of meta-analysis and can make the readily available evidence unreliable for decision making. Until recently, outcome reporting bias has received less attention. Methodology/Principal Findings We review and summarise the evidence from a series of cohort studies that have assessed study publication bias and outcome reporting bias in randomised controlled trials. Sixteen studies were eligible of which only two followed the cohort all the way through from protocol approval to information regarding publication of outcomes. Eleven of the studies investigated study publication bias and five investigated outcome reporting bias. Three studies have found that statistically significant outcomes had a higher odds of being fully reported compared to non-significant outcomes (range of odds ratios: 2.2 to 4.7). In comparing trial publications to protocols, we found that 40–62% of studies had at least one primary outcome that was changed, introduced, or omitted. We decided not to undertake meta-analysis due to the differences between studies. Conclusions Recent work provides direct empirical evidence for the existence of study publication bias and outcome reporting bias. There is strong evidence of an association between significant results and publication; studies that report positive or significant results are more likely to be published and outcomes that are statistically significant have higher odds of being fully reported. Publications have been found to be inconsistent with their protocols. Researchers need to be aware of the problems of both types of bias and efforts should be concentrated on improving the reporting of trials.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Comparison of registered and published primary outcomes in randomized controlled trials.

            As of 2005, the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors required investigators to register their trials prior to participant enrollment as a precondition for publishing the trial's findings in member journals. To assess the proportion of registered trials with results recently published in journals with high impact factors; to compare the primary outcomes specified in trial registries with those reported in the published articles; and to determine whether primary outcome reporting bias favored significant outcomes. MEDLINE via PubMed was searched for reports of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in 3 medical areas (cardiology, rheumatology, and gastroenterology) indexed in 2008 in the 10 general medical journals and specialty journals with the highest impact factors. For each included article, we obtained the trial registration information using a standardized data extraction form. Of the 323 included trials, 147 (45.5%) were adequately registered (ie, registered before the end of the trial, with the primary outcome clearly specified). Trial registration was lacking for 89 published reports (27.6%), 45 trials (13.9%) were registered after the completion of the study, 39 (12%) were registered with no or an unclear description of the primary outcome, and 3 (0.9%) were registered after the completion of the study and had an unclear description of the primary outcome. Among articles with trials adequately registered, 31% (46 of 147) showed some evidence of discrepancies between the outcomes registered and the outcomes published. The influence of these discrepancies could be assessed in only half of them and in these statistically significant results were favored in 82.6% (19 of 23). Comparison of the primary outcomes of RCTs registered with their subsequent publication indicated that selective outcome reporting is prevalent.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Medical Journals Are an Extension of the Marketing Arm of Pharmaceutical Companies

              Medical journals have become dependent on the pharmaceutical industry for their survival, which can have a corrupting influence on their content, argues Smith, the former editor of the BMJ.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                niamh.fitzgerald@stir.ac.uk
                Journal
                Addiction
                Addiction
                10.1111/(ISSN)1360-0443
                ADD
                Addiction (Abingdon, England)
                John Wiley and Sons Inc. (Hoboken )
                0965-2140
                1360-0443
                05 June 2016
                August 2016
                : 111
                : 8 ( doiID: 10.1111/add.v111.8 )
                : 1477-1487
                Affiliations
                [ 1 ] Institute for Social Marketing, UK Centre for Tobacco Alcohol StudiesUniversity of Stirling Scotland UK
                [ 2 ]Glasgow Caledonian University Glasgow ScotlandUK
                [ 3 ] School of Health in Social ScienceUniversity of Edinburgh Edinburgh ScotlandUK
                [ 4 ]Leeds Addiction Unit LeedsUK
                [ 5 ] Department of Psychology, Faculty of Health and Life SciencesNorthumbria University Newcastle upon TyneUK
                [ 6 ] Department of Health SciencesUniversity of York YorkUK
                Author notes
                [*] [* ] Correspondence to: Niamh Fitzgerald, Lecturer in Alcohol Studies, Institute for Social Marketing, UK Centre for Tobacco and Alcohol Studies, University of Stirling, Stirling FK9 4LA, UK. E‐mail: niamh.fitzgerald@ 123456stir.ac.uk
                Author information
                http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3643-8165
                Article
                ADD13438 ADD-15-1022.R2
                10.1111/add.13438
                5089629
                27262594
                b769f836-3576-4797-af7d-b2541484c519
                © 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 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.

                History
                : 30 October 2015
                : 15 December 2015
                : 21 April 2016
                Page count
                Figures: 0, Tables: 3, Pages: 11, Words: 8814
                Categories
                Vested Interests Series
                Vested Interests Series
                Custom metadata
                2.0
                add13438
                August 2016
                Converter:WILEY_ML3GV2_TO_NLMPMC version:4.9.6 mode:remove_FC converted:01.11.2016

                Clinical Psychology & Psychiatry
                addiction,alcohol,brief intervention,nalmefene,trial regulation,vested interests

                Comments

                Comment on this article