Meta-Analyses of Placebo-Controlled Trials of Acamprosate for the Treatment of Alcohol Dependence
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: : The Combined Pharmacotherapies and Behavior Interventions Study (COMBINE) reported no significant difference between acamprosate and placebo in the treatment of alcohol dependence. To evaluate the impact of COMBINE, we performed a meta-analysis of acamprosate placebo-controlled trials with the inclusion of data from COMBINE. As a secondary analysis, we added the COMBINE data to a recently published meta-analysis of naltrexone placebo-controlled trials. METHODS: : A structured literature search of major databases was performed from January 1990 to August 2007 for acamprosate placebo-controlled randomized trials. Mean differences in cumulative abstinent days (CAD) and abstinence rates (AR) from eligible studies were statistically combined to calculate point estimates and 95% CI for differences in CAD and AR. RESULTS: : Ten and 16 studies evaluating CAD and AR, respectively were suitable for statistical pooling. The findings revealed that acamprosate was superior to placebo in the mean number of CAD (P < 0.001) and AR (pooled AR = 1.58; P < 0.001). The pooled AR for naltrexone was also significant indicating a relative benefit over placebo (AR = 1.27; P < 0.001). The COMBINE trial results contributed a weight of less than 15% to the final pooled statistical outcomes for both agents. CONCLUSIONS: : The current study confirmed that acamprosate and naltrexone are both effective agents for the treatment of patients with alcohol dependence. Systematic reviews with meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials and randomized controlled trials with adequate sample sizes are in the same (highest) level of evidence. Therefore, clinicians should use both these sources of information as their foundation for selecting optimal therapy for patients with alcohol dependence.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".