Harms associated with taking nalmefene for substance use and impulse control disorders: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials

Karina Glies Vincents Johansen, Simon Tarp, Arne Astrup, Hans Lund, Anne K Pagsberg and Robin Christensen

PLOS ONE, 2017, vol. 12, issue 8, 1-14

Abstract: Importance: Nalmefene is a newly approved drug for alcohol use disorder, but the risk of harms has not been evaluated from empirical trial evidence. Objective: To assess the harm of nalmefene administered to individuals diagnosed with substance use or impulse control disorders by performing a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials. Data sources: A search was performed in Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL, 2014), MEDLINE via PubMed (1950), EMBASE via Ovid (1974), and Clinicaltrials.gov through December 2014. Study selection: This study included only randomised controlled trials with placebo or active controls that administered nalmefene to adult individuals for treating impulse control and/or substance use disorders. Both published and unpublished randomised controlled trials were eligible for inclusion. Data extraction and synthesis: Internal validity was assessed using the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool. Published information from the trials was supplemented by contact between reviewers and industry sponsor. Data were combined using two meta-approaches in fixed effects models; Peto Odds Ratios and risk differences were reported with 95% confidence intervals (95%CIs). Main outcomes and measures: Number of patients with serious adverse events, including specific psychiatric serious adverse events and withdrawals due to adverse events. Results: Of 20 potentially relevant studies, 15 randomised controlled trials met the inclusion criteria, and 8 of these provided data enabling the meta-analysis. Overall, serious adverse events did not occur more often in the nalmefene group than in the placebo group (Peto Odds Ratio = 0.97 [95% CI 0.64–1.44]; P = 0.86). Risk of psychiatric serious adverse events was slightly elevated, albeit not at a statistically significant level (Peto Odds Ratio = 1.32 [95% CI 0.62, 2.83]; P = 0.47). Withdrawals due to adverse events were significantly more likely to occur with nalmefene compared to placebo (Peto Odds Ratio = 3.22 [95% CI 2.46–4.22]; P

Date: 2017
References: View references in EconPapers View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations:

Downloads: (external link)
https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0183821 (text/html)
https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id= ... 83821&type=printable (application/pdf)

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:plo:pone00:0183821

DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0183821

Access Statistics for this article

More articles in PLOS ONE from Public Library of Science
Bibliographic data for series maintained by plosone ().