This story discusses nalmefene, an opioid antagonist, which is a drug that affects the brain’s dopamine system and is thought to reduce the pleasurable sensation associated with addictive behaviors such as compulsive gambling. The drug was FDA approved for the treatment of alcoholism in 1994, but it is still under study for the treatment of other addictions. Nalmefene was tested in a multi-site, randomized, double-blind trial; however, there were only 207 participants, and of these, only 73 actually completed the full 16-week trial. There was no mention of this in the news story, and only brief discussion that a third of the participants dropped out due to nausea and “other side effects”. Other side effects included insomnia and dizziness and were slightly greater in those given a higher dose of nalmefene. Though the study was well-designed, results would not likely be generalizable to a larger population based solely on this small group of compulsive gamblers treated with nalmefene. No quantitative data is provided on the efficacy of the drug, and no information is provided on potential long-term side effects, namely the long-term side effects of this class of drug on the liver. Other opioid antagonist drugs such as naltrexone have shown some toxicity to the liver. Nalmefene does not appear to have the same incidence of toxicity, but long-term safety has not been studied. If this is a pill taken daily, as might be expected in patients with a chronic condition, more long-term data on liver and other toxicities is needed. No information is provided on the cost of the drug. Lastly, the journalist cites the primary author of the study, noting he has “no financial stake in BioTie”, maker of nalmefene, however, two other researchers are employees of BioTie Therapies, and in the disclosure section of the journal article there is a note that the study was supported by BioTie Therapies Corp.
No mention of
the cost of treatment.
This study was only 16 weeks and since compulsive
gambling, like other addictions, is a chronic disease, long-term data would be needed to prove efficacy and safely of this
medication. The story provided no absolute quantitative data on safety of efficacy or relative risk reduction in those who
took nalmefene. What’s the number needed to treat (NNT) in order to see a benefit? Additionally, results were slightly
better in higher dose of the drug, but these people experienced more intolerable side effects and were less likely to remain
in the study.
Mentions side effects such as nausea so bad that 1/3 of participants dropped out of the study. Insomnia and
dizziness were also common in the groups which took nalmefene. Not discussed was the potential long-term side effects of
this class of drug, namely the effect on the liver. The trial was only 16 weeks. Other opioid antagonist drugs such as
naltrexone have shown abnormalities in liver tests. Nalmefene does not appear to have the same incidence of toxicity, but
long-term safety has not been studied. If this is a pill taken daily, more long term data on liver toxicity is needed.
Does not mention that this was a multi-site, double-blind,
randomized controlled study. Study included 207 people initially, but only 24 people in the placebo group and 49 in the
nalmefene group completed the 16-week trial. Though the study was well-designed, results would not likely be generalizable to
a larger population based on this small group of compulsive gamblers.
Story includes a caveat that this is
“not a magic pill”. Gives U.S. incidence of compulsive gambling.
Cites primary author of the study, noting he has “no financial stake in BioTie”, maker of nalmefene. However, 2
other authors are employees of BioTie and in the disclosure section of the journal article there is a note the study was
supported by BioTie. The story didn’t mention this.
Mentions other biomedical research for
addictions such as gambling and the need for combined pharmacology and behavioral interventions, such as therapy. No real
comparison with other agents/studies in terms of treatment efficacy or safety profile.
Not mentioned. Approved by FDA in 27 for treatment of alcoholism. Investigational drug not
currently approved for treatment of other addictions, such as gambling.
Mentions novelty of
treatment for gambling addiction. Not novel for other addictions. The ability of opiate antagonists to block compulsive
behaviors has been well described previously. See (Opioid antagonists in the treatment of impulse-control disorders.
J Clin
Psychiatry. 191 Apr;59(4):159-64. )
Systematic, Criteria-Driven
Puleeeeease... this 'game changer' weight loss drug causes more nausea and vomiting than a placebo. Some game, some change. My friend Gary would spank you for using the eighth word medical reporters should never, ever use. @garyschwitzer @thackerpd
https://www.healthnewsreview.org/toolkit/just-journalists-writing-tips-case-studies/7-words-and-more-you-shouldnt-use-in-medical-news/ https://twitter.com/OttawaCitizen/status/1361426796126830597
A scary @statnews Op-Ed warns that govt attempts to rein in Pharma may cut off access to "life-changing" drugs.
It takes @garyschwitzer to let us know: the author spent 10 years as Pfizer's public-policy chief. https://twitter.com/garyschwitzer/status/1360325022578053123
.@TranspariMED criticizes STAT op-ed for not disclosing pharma funding of author’s institute - similar to criticism we’ve made of STAT op-eds in the past. @transparify @ThinkTankWatch @icer_review https://www.healthnewsreview.org/2021/02/transparency-watchdog-criticizes-stats-non-disclosure-on-pro-pharma-op-ed/
Comments
Please note, comments are no longer published through this website. All previously made comments are still archived and available for viewing through select posts.
Our Comments Policy
But before leaving a comment, please review these notes about our policy.
You are responsible for any comments you leave on this site.
This site is primarily a forum for discussion about the quality (or lack thereof) in journalism or other media messages (advertising, marketing, public relations, medical journals, etc.) It is not intended to be a forum for definitive discussions about medicine or science.
We will delete comments that include personal attacks, unfounded allegations, unverified claims, product pitches, profanity or any from anyone who does not list a full name and a functioning email address. We will also end any thread of repetitive comments. We don”t give medical advice so we won”t respond to questions asking for it.
We don”t have sufficient staffing to contact each commenter who left such a message. If you have a question about why your comment was edited or removed, you can email us at feedback@healthnewsreview.org.
There has been a recent burst of attention to troubles with many comments left on science and science news/communication websites. Read “Online science comments: trolls, trash and treasure.”
The authors of the Retraction Watch comments policy urge commenters:
We”re also concerned about anonymous comments. We ask that all commenters leave their full name and provide an actual email address in case we feel we need to contact them. We may delete any comment left by someone who does not leave their name and a legitimate email address.
And, as noted, product pitches of any sort – pushing treatments, tests, products, procedures, physicians, medical centers, books, websites – are likely to be deleted. We don”t accept advertising on this site and are not going to give it away free.
The ability to leave comments expires after a certain period of time. So you may find that you’re unable to leave a comment on an article that is more than a few months old.
You might also like