SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
from the Stopping-is-easy...-I've-done-it-many-times! dept.
A new study published by the scientific journal Addiction has found no reliable evidence for using nalmefene, naltrexone, acamprosate, baclofen or topiramate to control drinking in patients with alcohol dependence or alcohol use disorder. At best, some treatments showed low to medium efficacy in reducing drinking, but those findings were from studies with a high risk of bias. None demonstrated any benefit on health outcomes.
The study pooled the results from 32 double-blind randomised controlled trials representing 6,036 patients, published between 1994 and 2015. The studies compared the effects of oral nalmefene (n=9), naltrexone (n=14), acamprosate (n=1), baclofen (n=4) and topimarate (n=4) against placebo.
Many of the studies provided unreliable results due to risk of bias (potential exaggeration of the effects of the drug). Twenty-six studies (81%) showed an unclear or high risk of incomplete outcome data due to the large number of withdrawals. Seventeen studies (53%) showed an unclear or a high risk of selective outcome reporting, as they did not include a protocol registration number, which would allow another researcher to check whether all outcomes were reported.
Clément Palpacuer, et. al. Pharmacologically controlled drinking in the treatment of alcohol dependence or alcohol use disorders: a systematic review with direct and network meta-analyses on nalmefene, naltrexone, acamprosate, baclofen and topiramate. Addiction, 2017; DOI: 10.1111/add.13974
Back to the drawing board.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by linkdude64 on Friday September 22 2017, @08:07PM (1 child)
More like it "preys on" (utilizes) the "religious" mind-bug that human brains seem to have for a purpose other than encompassing morality or idolatry. That being the functional application of separating from alcohol.
For the people who quite literally destroy their lives and burn bridges with their friends and family (all for a drink? How logical is that, really?) I think the millions of success stories are quite an impressive demonstration of self-training not found elsewhere in Western society, where impulse is King - for better or worse.
When a "successful" person with a stable life and a healthy mind and body accomplishes something positive, nobody thinks twice about it, or maybe they are even encouraging.
When an "unsuccessful" person who has had an abusive and unstable life, with a sickened body, and a self-defeating mind accomplishes something positive, it seems they are mocked and ridiculed if they found that success through AA. I really am curious what the root cause is, myself being the offspring of a drug addict and alcoholic, who benefitted greatly in life due to my parent becoming a gradually more successful member of AA. You won't convince me that my life wasn't improved, but I'm curious how yours was negatively impacted.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday September 23 2017, @01:43AM
Amen. (Too much on the mark??)
What galls me is the judges who say that e.g. an atheist drunk driver has to go to AA.
A real separation of church and state violation there.
...and nobody yet has mentioned the pill that makes you feel like shit when you drink booze after taking it.
A judge could require convicted folks to show up every morning at a clinic and have a staff member watch you take the pill.
(A powder would probably be better.)
-- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]