Nalmefene 18mg tablets

ObjectiveAlcohol use disorders confer a significant burden of disease and economic cost worldwide. However, the utilisation of pharmacotherapies to manage alcohol use disorder is poor. We aimed to conduct a systematic review of economic evaluation studies of alcohol use disorder pharmacotherapies.MethodsA search was conducted in Embase, Medline, CINAHL, PsychINFO and EconLit (August 2019, updated September 2022). Full economic evaluations using pharmacotherapy to treat alcohol use disorders were included. Included studies were stratified by medication and summarised descriptively. The Consensus on Health Economic Criteria list was used to assess the methodological quality.ResultsA total of 1139 studies were retrieved, of which 15 met the inclusion criteria. All studies were conducted in high-income countries. Four studies analysed nalmefene, four studies assessed acamprosate, three for naltrexone and four for stand-alone and/or combinations of naltrexone and acamprosate. There were 21 interventions synthesised from 15 studies as some studies evaluated multiple interventions and comparators. More than half of the included studies (73%) reported pharmacotherapy as dominant (less costly and more effective than comparators). From healthcare payer perspectives, five studies found that pharmacotherapy added to psychosocial support was dominant or cost-effective, accruing additional benefits at a higher cost but under accepted willingness to pay thresholds. Three analyses from a societal perspective found pharmacotherapy added to psychosocial support was a dominant or cost-effective strategy. Quality scores ranged from 63% to 95%.ConclusionPharmacotherapy added to psychosocial support was cost-effective from both healthcare and societal perspectives, emphasising an increased role for pharmacotherapy to reduce the burden of alcohol use disorders.

Abstract licence: CC BY

Ever since 2018 France has been the only country to approve the gamma aminobutyric acid type B (GABA-B) receptor agonist baclofen for alcohol dependence. This authorization follows a ten-year period of intensive off-label use during which baclofen was used in doses of up to 300 and even 400mg per day to support the gradual reduction of alcohol consumption in patients suffering from alcohol dependence. However, in international clinical trials, baclofen has mainly been studied to support the maintenance of abstinence. The French use of baclofen was therefore somewhat atypical as it paved the way for drug-supported approaches to reducing alcohol consumption, even before nalmefene was marketed. In line with this specific use of baclofen, approval was granted only for alcohol reduction support. However, a recent Cochrane systematic review and meta-analysis by Agabio et al. found significant efficacy only for abstinence maintenance, while no significant effect was found on alcohol reduction outcomes and no dose-response relationship was identified in the analyses. The safety of baclofen was judged to be good. Based on these substantial new results, the Société française d'alcoologie (SFA) now considers that baclofen should also be approved for the maintenance of abstinence. The extension of approval should not lead to the removal of the initial indication or the possibility of using high doses, as some patients have found this therapeutic regimen particularly useful for them. France, which has been a open skies national laboratory on the use of baclofen in alcohol dependence for over ten years, should let this original therapeutic option available to patients. However, it should update the regulatory framework defining the main conditions of access to treatment for patients based on the latest and highest scientific evidence.

Abstract licence: CC BY

Background: This study compared the effectiveness of nalmefene and fentanyl in reducing the incidence and severity of etomidate-induced myoclonus. Methods: One hundred fifty patients were randomized to receive 0.25ug/kg of nalmefene, 1ug/kg of fentanyl, or the same volume of normal saline 3 minutes prior to etomidate-induced anesthesia. The primary observational indexes were the severity level and incidence of etomidate-induced myoclonus, and the secondary observational index included blood pressure, heart rate, and the incidence of adverse effects from anesthesia induction to resuscitation, such as cough, chest wall rigidity, dizziness, nausea, pain after awakening, and intraoperative awareness. Results: The incidence of myoclonus was significantly lower in the nalmefene group (8.0%) than in the fentanyl group (32.0%) (P = .003) and in the normal saline group (72.0%) (P = .000). The severity level of myoclonus in the nalmefene group was significantly lower than the fentanyl group (P = .001) and normal saline group (P = .000). Meanwhile, the incidences of cough and chest wall rigidity during anesthesia induction were significantly lower in the nalmefene group compared with the fentanyl group (P = .003, P = .027). There were no statistically significant differences in heart rate and mean arterial pressure among the 3 gruops (P > .05). There was no difference in the incidence of adverse effects among the 3 groups during recovery from anesthesia (P > .05). Conclusion: Intravenous injection of 0.25ug/kg of nalmefene 3 minutes prior to etomidate is more effective in preventing etomidate-induced myoclonus during general anesthesia than 1ug/kg of fentanyl.

Abstract licence: CC BY-NC 4.0