Dataset Information

Use of Nalmefene in Routine Practice: Results from a French Prospective Cohort Study and a National Database Analysis.

ABSTRACT:

Aims

Two complementary studies were used to assess the real-life use of nalmefene in alcohol-dependent patients and its impact on alcohol use health status.

Methods

USE-PACT was a prospective cohort study designed to evaluate the real-life effectiveness of nalmefene in the management of alcohol dependence, as assessed by total alcohol consumption (TAC) and number of heavy drinking days (HDD) at 1 year. USE-AM was a cohort study using data from the French nationwide claims database and was used to evaluate the external validity of the population in the prospective study.

Results

Overall, 256 of 700 new nalmefene users enrolled in the USE-PACT study had valid data at 1 year. After 1 year, patients treated with nalmefene showed a mean ± SD reduction from baseline in TAC (-41.5 ± 57.4 g/day) and number of HDD (-10.7 ± 11.7 days/4 weeks). Patients took a mean ± SD of 20.0 ± 12.0 tablets/4 weeks (median of 1 tablet/day) for the first 3 months and then reduced the dose. The proportion of patients who no longer took nalmefene gradually increased from 5% at 1 month to 52% at 1 year. The USE-AM study identified 486 patients with a first reimbursement for nalmefene in 2016; baseline characteristics confirmed external validity of the USE-PACT study. Overall, 46.3% of initial USE-AM prescriptions were made by GPs; most (91.8%) patients stopped treatment during follow-up. However, 15.2% of patients resumed treatment after stopping.

Conclusions

In this analysis of French routine practice, patients with alcohol dependence treated with nalmefene showed reduced alcohol consumption, and nalmefene was generally well tolerated.

SUBMITTER: Aubin HJ

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8406069 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundHepatotoxicity may be a concern when prescribing antidepressants. Nevertheless, this risk remains poorly understood for serotonin and noradrenaline reuptake inhibitors (SNRIs: venlafaxine, milnacipran, duloxetine) and 'other antidepressants' (mianserin, mirtazapine, tianeptine and agomelatine), particularly in comparison with selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs: fluoxetine, citalopram, paroxetine, sertraline, fluvoxamine, escitalopram), which are by far the most commonly prescribed antidepressants.ObjectiveWe quantified the risk of serious liver injury associated with new use of SNRIs and 'other antidepressants' compared with SSRIs in real-life practice.MethodsBased on the French national health insurance database, this cohort study included 4,966,825 individuals aged 25 years and older with a first reimbursement of SSRIs, SNRIs or 'other antidepressants' between January 2010 and June 2015. We compared the risk of serious liver injury within the 6 months following antidepressant initiation according to antidepressant class, with SSRIs as the reference, using an inverse probability-of-treatment-weighted Cox proportional hazard model adjusted for demographic characteristics and risk factors of liver injury.ResultsWe identified 382 serious liver injuries overall (none for milnacipran initiators). Age and gender standardized incidence rates per 100,000 person-years were 19.2 for SSRIs, 22.2 for venlafaxine, 12.6 for duloxetine, 21.5 for mianserin, 32.8 for mirtazapine, 31.6 for tianeptine and 24.6 for agomelatine initiators. Initiation of antidepressants of interest versus SSRIs was not associated with an increased risk of serious liver injury [adjusted hazard ratios (95% confidence interval): venlafaxine 1.17 (0.83-1.64), duloxetine 0.54 (0.28-1.02), mianserin 0.90 (0.58-1.41), mirtazapine 1.17 (0.67-2.02), tianeptine 1.35 (0.82-2.23) and agomelatine 1.07 (0.51-2.23)]. This finding was confirmed by the results of an additional study using a case-time-control design.ConclusionThese results do not provide evidence of an increased risk of serious liver injury following initiation of SNRIs or 'other antidepressants' compared with SSRIs in real-life practice. This could reflect an inherent lack of difference in risk between the drug classes, or the fact that individuals with higher susceptibility to drug-induced liver injury are not prescribed drugs considered to be more hepatotoxic.

Project description:ObjectiveTo determine outcomes and safety of endovascular treatment for acute ischaemic stroke, due to proximal intracranial vessel occlusion in the anterior circulation, in routine clinical practice.DesignOngoing, prospective, observational cohort study.Setting16 centres that perform endovascular treatment in the Netherlands.Participants1488 patients included in the Multicentre Randomised Controlled Trial of Endovascular Treatment for Acute Ischaemic Stroke in the Netherlands (MR CLEAN) Registry who had received endovascular treatment, including stent retriever thrombectomy, aspiration, and all alternative methods for acute ischaemic stroke within 6.5 hours from onset of symptoms between March 2014 and June 2016.Main outcome measuresThe primary outcome was the modified Rankin Scale (mRS) score, ranging from 0 (no symptoms) to 6 (death) at 90 days after the onset of symptoms. Secondary outcomes were excellent functional outcome (mRS score 0-1), good functional outcome (mRS score 0-2), and favourable functional outcome (mRS score 0-3) at 90 days; score on the extended thrombolysis in cerebral infarction scale at the end of the intervention procedure; National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale score 24-48 hours after intervention; and complications that occurred during intervention, hospital admission, or three months' follow up period. Outcomes and safety variables in the MR CLEAN Registry were compared with the MR CLEAN trial intervention and control arms.ResultsA statistically significant shift was observed towards better functional outcome in patients in the MR CLEAN Registry compared with the MR CLEAN trial intervention arm (adjusted common odds ratio 1.30, 95% confidence interval 1.02 to 1.67) and the MR CLEAN trial control arm (1.85, 1.46 to 2.34). The reperfusion rate, with successful reperfusion defined as a score of 2B-3 on the extended thrombolysis in cerebral infarction score, was 58.7%, the same as for patients in the MR CLEAN trial. Duration from onset of stroke to start of endovascular treatment and from onset of stroke to successful reperfusion or last contrast bolus was one hour shorter for patients in the MR CLEAN Registry. Symptomatic intracranial haemorrhage occurred in 5.8% of patients in the MR CLEAN Registry compared with 7.7% in the MR CLEAN trial intervention arm and 6.4% in the MR CLEAN trial control arm.ConclusionIn routine clinical practice, endovascular treatment for patients with acute ischaemic stroke is at least as effective and safe as in the setting of a randomised controlled trial.