Florian Naudet

Risks and benefits of Nalmefene in the treatment of adult alcohol dependence: a systematic literature review and meta-analysis of published and unpublished double-blind randomized controlled trials.

Background Nalmefene is a recent option in alcohol dependence treatment. Its approval was controversial. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of the aggregated data (registered as PROSPERO 2014:CRD42014014853) to compare the harm/benefit of nalmefene versus placebo or active comparator in this indication. Methods and Findings Three reviewers searched for published and unpublished studies in Medline, the Cochrane Library, Embase, ClinicalTrials.gov, Current Controlled Trials, and bibliographies and by mailing pharmaceutical companies, the European Medicines Agency (EMA), and the US Food and Drug Administration. Double-blind randomized clinical trials evaluating nalmefene to treat adult alcohol dependence, irrespective of the comparator, were included if they reported (1) health outcomes (mortality, accidents/injuries, quality of life, somatic complications), (2) alcohol consumption outcomes, (3) biological outcomes, or (4) treatment safety outcomes, at 6 mo and/or 1 y. Three authors independently screened the titles and abstracts of the trials identified. Relevant trials were evaluated in full text. The reviewers independently assessed the included trials for methodological quality using the Cochrane Collaboration tool for assessing risk of bias. On the basis of the I2 index or the Cochrane’s Q test, fixed or random effect models were used to estimate risk ratios (RRs), mean differences (MDs), or standardized mean differences (SMDs) with 95% CIs. In sensitivity analyses, outcomes for participants who were lost to follow-up were included using baseline observation carried forward (BOCF); for binary measures, patients lost to follow-up were considered equal to failures (i.e., non-assessed patients were recorded as not having responded in both groups). Five randomized controlled trials (RCTs) versus placebo, with a total of 2,567 randomized participants, were included in the main analysis. None of these studies was performed in the specific population defined by the EMA approval of nalmefene, i.e., adults with alcohol dependence who consume more than 60 g of alcohol per day (for men) or more than 40 g per day (for women). No RCT compared nalmefene with another medication. Mortality at 6 mo (RR = 0.39, 95% CI [0.08; 2.01]) and 1 y (RR = 0.98, 95% CI [0.04; 23.95]) and quality of life at 6 mo (SF-36 physical component summary score: MD = 0.85, 95% CI [−0.32; 2.01]; SF-36 mental component summary score: MD = 1.01, 95% CI [−1.33; 3.34]) were not different across groups. Other health outcomes were not reported. Differences were encountered for alcohol consumption outcomes such as monthly number of heavy drinking days at 6 mo (MD = −1.65, 95% CI [−2.41; −0.89]) and at 1 y (MD = −1.60, 95% CI [−2.85; −0.35]) and total alcohol consumption at 6 mo (SMD = −0.20, 95% CI [−0.30; −0.10]). An attrition bias could not be excluded, with more withdrawals for nalmefene than for placebo, including more withdrawals for safety reasons at both 6 mo (RR = 3.65, 95% CI [2.02; 6.63]) and 1 y (RR = 7.01, 95% CI [1.72; 28.63]). Sensitivity analyses showed no differences for alcohol consumption outcomes between nalmefene and placebo, but the weight of these results should not be overestimated, as the BOCF approach to managing withdrawals was used. Conclusions The value of nalmefene for treatment of alcohol addiction is not established. At best, nalmefene has limited efficacy in reducing alcohol consumption.

Antidepressant Response in Major Depressive Disorder: A Meta-Regression Comparison of Randomized Controlled Trials and Observational Studies

Background To compare response to antidepressants between randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and observational trials. Methods and Findings Published and unpublished studies (from 1989 to 2009) were searched for by 2 reviewers on Medline, the Cochrane library, Embase, clinicaltrials.gov, Current Controlled Trial, bibliographies and by mailing key organisations and researchers. RCTs and observational studies on fluoxetine or venlafaxine in first-line treatment for major depressive disorder reported in English, French or Spanish language were included in the main analysis. Studies including patients from a wider spectrum of depressive disorders (anxious depression, minor depressive episode, dysthymia) were added in a second analysis. The main outcome was the pre-/post-treatment difference on depression scales standardised to 100 (17-item or 21-item Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression or Montgomery and Åsberg Rating Scale) in each study arm. A meta-regression was conducted to adjust the comparison between observational studies and RCTs on treatment type, study characteristics and average patient characteristics. 12 observational studies and 109 RCTs involving 6757 and 11035 patients in 12 and 149 arms were included in the main analysis. Meta-regression showed that the standardised treatment response in RCTs is greater by a magnitude of 4.59 (2.61 to 6.56). Study characteristics were related to standardised treatment response, positively (study duration, number of follow-up assessments, outpatients versus inpatients, per protocol analysis versus intention to treat analysis) or negatively (blinded design, placebo design). At patient level, response increased with baseline severity and decreased with age. Results of the second analysis were consistent with this. Conclusions Response to antidepressants is greater in RCTs than in observational studies. Observational studies should be considered as a necessary complement to RCTs.

Repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation over the orbitofrontal cortex for obsessive-compulsive disorder: a double-blind, crossover study

This pilot study was designed to assess the efficacy of low-frequency repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) over the right orbitofrontal cortex (OFC) by means of a double-cone coil in patients suffering from obsessive-compulsive disorder. We hypothesized that low-frequency stimulation of the OFC would lead to a reduction in clinical symptoms, as measured on the Yale-Brown Obsessive Compulsive Scale (Y-BOCS). A randomized, double-blind, crossover design was implemented with two 1-week treatment periods (active stimulation versus sham stimulation) separated by a 1-month washout period. Concomitantly, a subgroup of patients underwent a positron emission tomography (PET) scan after each stimulation sequence. Statistical analyses compared the Y-BOCS scores at the end of each period. At day 7, we observed a significant decrease from baseline in the Y-BOCS scores, after both active (P<0.01) and sham stimulation (P=0.02). This decrease tended to be larger after active stimulation than after sham stimulation: −6 (−29, 0) points versus −2 (−20, 4) points (P=0.07). Active versus sham PET scan contrasts showed that stimulation was related to a bilateral decrease in the metabolism of the OFC. The OFC should definitely be regarded as a key neuroanatomical target for rTMS, as it is easier to reach than either the striatum or the subthalamic nucleus, structures favored in neurosurgical approaches.

The nucleus accumbens: a target for deep brain stimulation in resistant major depressive disorder

ObjectiveThis review aimed to investigate the therapeutic potential of Deep Brain Stimulation (DBS) for treating resistant Major Depressive Disorder (MDD). We explored the role of Nucleus accumbens (Nac) as a target for treatment.MethodWe made a systematic review of all studies examining the mechanisms of action of high frequency brain stimulation and the pathophysiology of MDD. We also reported all the studies exploring the therapeutic potential of DBS in MDD.ResultsAs a central relay-structure, the Nac seems to play a central role in MDD symptomatology. We investigated its role as a primary target for DBS in depressed patients. Anatomically the Nac is at the centre of the interactions between dopaminergic, serotoninergic and glutamatergic systems. Functionally, the Nac is involved in both normal and abnormal reward processes and in anhedonia and loss of motivation. Due to its central location between the emotional system, the cognitive system and motor control system, the Nac seems to have a central role in mood and feeling regulation.ConclusionAccording to encouraging recent studies, DBS seems to be a promising technique in resistant MDD treatment.

Obsessive Compulsive Disorder Networks: Positron Emission Tomography and Neuropsychology Provide New Insights

Background Deep brain stimulation has shed new light on the central role of the prefrontal cortex (PFC) in obsessive compulsive disorder (OCD). We explored this structure from a functional perspective, synchronizing neuroimaging and cognitive measures. Methods and Findings This case-control cross-sectional study compared 15 OCD patients without comorbidities and not currently on serotonin reuptake inhibitors or cognitive behavioural therapy with 15 healthy controls (matched for age, sex and education level) on resting-state 18FDG-PET scans and a neuropsychological battery assessing executive functions. We looked for correlations between metabolic modifications and impaired neuropsychological scores. Modifications in glucose metabolism were found in frontal regions (orbitofrontal cortex and dorsolateral cortices), the cingulate gyrus, insula and parietal gyrus. Neuropsychological differences between patients and controls, which were subtle, were correlated with the metabolism of the prefrontal, parietal, and temporal cortices. Conclusion As expected, we confirmed previous reports of a PFC dysfunction in OCD patients, and established a correlation with cognitive deficits. Other regions outside the prefrontal cortex, including the dorsoparietal cortex and the insula, also appeared to be implicated in the pathophysiology of OCD, providing fresh insights on the complexity of OCD syndromes.

Primary CNS lymphoma at first relapse/progression: characteristics, management, and outcome of 256 patients from the French LOC network

BACKGROUND Treatment of relapsed/refractory (R/R) primary CNS lymphoma (PCNSL) is poorly defined, because randomized trials and large studies are lacking. The aim of this study was to analyze the characteristics, management, and outcome of R/R PCNSL patients after first-line therapy in a nationwide cohort. METHODS We analyzed R/R PCNSL patients following first-line treatment who had been prospectively registered in the database of the French network for oculocerebral lymphoma (LOC) between 2011 and 2014. RESULTS Among 563 PCNSL patients treated with first-line therapy, we identified 256 with relapsed (n = 93, 16.5%) or refractory (n = 163, 29.0%) disease. Patients who were asymptomatic at relapse/progression (25.5%), mostly diagnosed on routine follow-up neuroimaging, tended to have a better outcome. Patients who received salvage therapy followed by consolidation (mostly intensive chemotherapy plus autologous hematopoietic stem cell transplantation [ICT + AHSCT]) experienced prolonged survival compared with those who did not receive salvage or consolidation therapy. Independent prognostic factors at first relapse/progression were: KPS ≥ 70 vs KPS < 70), sensitivity to first-line therapy (relapsed vs refractory disease), duration of first remission (progression-free survival [PFS] ≥1 y vs <1 y), and management at relapse/progression (palliative care vs salvage therapy). Patients who relapsed early after first-line therapy (ie, PFS < 1 y) had a poor outcome, comparable to that of refractory patients. Conversely, patients experiencing late relapses (PFS ≥ 1 y) and/or undergoing consolidation with ICT + AHSCT experienced prolonged survival. CONCLUSIONS About a third of PCNSL patients are primary refractory to first line treatment. We identified several independent prognostic factors that can guide the management of R/R PCNSL patients.

Cranberry versus placebo in the prevention of urinary infections in multiple sclerosis: a multicenter, randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind trial

Objective: Our aim was to assess the usefulness of cranberry extract in multiple sclerosis (MS) patients suffering from urinary disorders. Methods: In total, 171 adult MS outpatients with urinary disorders presenting at eight centers were randomized (stratification according to center and use of clean intermittent self-catheterization) to cranberry versus placebo in a 1-year, prospective, double-blind study that was analyzed using a sequential method on an intent-to-treat basis. An independent monitoring board analyzed the results of the analyses each time 40 patients were assessed on the main endpoint. Cranberry extract (36 mg proanthocyanidins per day) or a matching placebo was taken by participants twice daily for 1 year. The primary endpoint was the time to first symptomatic urinary tract infection (UTI), subject to validation by a validation committee. Results: The second sequential analyses allowed us to accept the null hypothesis (no difference between cranberry and placebo). There was no difference in time to first symptomatic UTI distribution across 1 year, with an estimated hazard ratio of 0.99, 95% CI [0.61, 1.60] (p = 0.97). Secondary endpoints and tolerance did not differ between groups. Conclusion: Taking cranberry extract versus placebo twice a day did not prevent UTI occurrence in MS patients with urinary disorders. Trial Registration NCT00280592.

Limbic versus cognitive target for deep brain stimulation in treatment-resistant depression: accumbens more promising than caudate.

High-frequency deep brain stimulation (DBS) represents a major stake for treatment for treatment-resistant depression (TRD). We describe a preliminary trial of DBS of two potential brain targets in chronic TRD: the nucleus accumbens (Acb) and, in the event of failure, the caudate nucleus. Patients were followed for 6 months before surgery (M0). From M1 to M5, they underwent stimulation of the Acb target. PET scans allowed us to track metabolic modifications resulting from this stimulation. The caudate target of nonresponders was stimulated between M5 and M9. Patients then entered an extension phase, in which it was possible to adapt stimulation parameters and treatments. Six patients were included and four were operated on. At M5, none of the patients were either responders or remitters, but we did observe a decrease in Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HDRS) scores. Three patients were switched to caudate stimulation, but no improvement was observed. During the extension phase, the Acb target was stimulated for all patients, three of whom exhibited a significant response. A decrease in glucose metabolism was observed after Acb stimulation, in the posterior cingulate gyrus, left frontal lobe, superior and medial gyrus, and bilateral cerebellum. An increase in metabolism was observed in the bilateral frontal lobe (superior gyrus), left frontal lobe (medial gyrus), and right limbic lobe (anterior cingulate gyrus). The results of this trial suggest that Acb is a more promising target than the caudate. NCT01569711.

Which placebo to cure depression? A thought-provoking network meta-analysis

BackgroundAntidepressants are often considered to be mere placebos despite the fact that meta-analyses are able to rank them. It follows that it should also be possible to rank different placebos, which are all made of sucrose. To explore this issue, which is rather more epistemological than clinical, we designed an unusual meta-analysis to investigate whether the effects of placebo in one situation are different from the effects of placebo in another situation.MethodsPublished and unpublished studies were searched for by three reviewers on Medline, the Cochrane Library, Embase, clinicaltrials.gov, Current Controlled Trial, in bibliographies, and by mailing key organizations. The following studies in first-line treatment for major depressive disorder were considered to construct an “evidence network”: 1) randomized controlled trials (RCTs) versus placebo on fluoxetine, venlafaxine and 2) fluoxetine versus venlafaxine head-to-head RCTs.Two network meta-analyses were run to indirectly compare response and remission rates among three different placebos: 1) fluoxetine placebo, 2) venlafaxine placebo, and 3) venlafaxine/fluoxetine placebo (that is, placebo compared to both venlafaxine and fluoxetine). Publication biases were assessed using funnel plots and statistically tested.ResultsThe three placebos were not significantly different in terms of response or remission. The antidepressant agents were significantly more efficacious than the placebos, and venlafaxine was more efficacious than fluoxetine. The funnel plots, however, showed a major publication bias.ConclusionThe presence of significant levels of publication bias indicates that we cannot even be certain of the conclusion that sucrose equals sucrose in trials of major depressive disorder. This result should remind clinicians to step back to take a more objective view when interpreting a scientific result. It is of crucial importance for their practice, far more so than ranking antidepressant efficacy.

Data sharing and reanalysis of randomized controlled trials in leading biomedical journals with a full data sharing policy: survey of studies published in the BMJ and PLOS Medicine

Abstract Objectives To explore the effectiveness of data sharing by randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in journals with a full data sharing policy and to describe potential difficulties encountered in the process of performing reanalyses of the primary outcomes. Design Survey of published RCTs. Setting PubMed/Medline. Eligibility criteria RCTs that had been submitted and published by The BMJ and PLOS Medicine subsequent to the adoption of data sharing policies by these journals. Main outcome measure The primary outcome was data availability, defined as the eventual receipt of complete data with clear labelling. Primary outcomes were reanalyzed to assess to what extent studies were reproduced. Difficulties encountered were described. Results 37 RCTs (21 from The BMJ and 16 from PLOS Medicine) published between 2013 and 2016 met the eligibility criteria. 17/37 (46%, 95% confidence interval 30% to 62%) satisfied the definition of data availability and 14 of the 17 (82%, 59% to 94%) were fully reproduced on all their primary outcomes. Of the remaining RCTs, errors were identified in two but reached similar conclusions and one paper did not provide enough information in the Methods section to reproduce the analyses. Difficulties identified included problems in contacting corresponding authors and lack of resources on their behalf in preparing the datasets. In addition, there was a range of different data sharing practices across study groups. Conclusions Data availability was not optimal in two journals with a strong policy for data sharing. When investigators shared data, most reanalyses largely reproduced the original results. Data sharing practices need to become more widespread and streamlined to allow meaningful reanalyses and reuse of data. Trial registration Open Science Framework osf.io/c4zke.