Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28721822›Full record

SynthesisCurrent neuropharmacology2018

Opioid Antagonists for Pharmacological Treatment of Gambling Disorder: Are they Relevant?

Caroline Victorri-Vigneau, Andrew Spiers, Pascal Caillet, Mélanie Bruneau, Ignace-Consortium, Gaëlle Challet-Bouju, Marie Grall-Bronnec

Open access · bronzeAbstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Current neuropharmacology, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
2.6field-weighted citation impact, top 11% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

11 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 32 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Caroline Victorri-VigneauPharmacology Department, Nantes University Hospital, Nantes, France.
Andrew SpiersPharmacology Department, Nantes University Hospital, Nantes, France.
Pascal CailletPharmacology Department, Nantes University Hospital, Nantes, France.
Mélanie BruneauAddictology and Psychiatry Department, Nantes University Hospital, Nantes, France.
Ignace-ConsortiumService de Pharmacologie Clinique, Institut de Biologie, 9 quai moncousu, 44093 Nantes cedex, France.
Gaëlle Challet-BoujuINSERM UMR1246 SPHERE Methods in Patients-centered outcomes and Health Research, University of Nantes and Tours, Nantes, France.
Marie Grall-BronnecINSERM UMR1246 SPHERE Methods in Patients-centered outcomes and Health Research, University of Nantes and Tours, Nantes, France.
Nantes Université · FRSciences, Philosophie, Histoire · FRUniversité de Tours · FR

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundTo date, no drugs have been approved for gambling disorder. Numerous publications have described the value of opioid antagonists. Indeed, the mesocorticolimbic dopaminergic pathway has been suggested as the underlying cause of reward-seeking behaviour, and it is modulated by the opioid system.

objectiveThis study aims to evaluate the relevance of opioid antagonists for treating GD.

methodA systematic literature review was conducted. A search of the PubMed electronic database, PsycINFO and the Cochrane Systematic Review Database without any limits was performed.

resultsThere is little information concerning the effects of opioid antagonists on GD. The total search with "nalmefene and gambling" without any limits revealed only 11 articles. The search with "naltrexone and gambling" without any limits generated 47 articles. Nevertheless, the best available data support the use of opioid antagonists, particularly in individuals with a history of alcohol use disorder or strong gambling urges.

conclusionFuture trials are still needed. Indeed, opioid antagonists effectiveness has been investigated in only a limited number of patients, clinical trials do not reflect the heterogeneity of GD and there is little knowledge of the predictive factors of response to treatments. Moreover, differential affinity to nalmefene for kappa receptors may be associated with a particular effect in a yet to be defined addiction phenotype. Head to head comparisons between naltrexone and nalmefene would be helpful in combining other medication or psychotherapy. The identification of subgroups of patients that are more likely to benefit from opioid antagonists should be a goal.

Indexed as

AnimalsBehavior, AddictiveGamblingHumansNarcotic AntagonistsReceptors, Opioid, deltaReceptors, Opioid, kappaReceptors, Opioid, muNarcotic AntagonistsReceptors, Opioid, deltaReceptors, Opioid, kappaReceptors, Opioid, muaddictive disordersgambling disorderNalmefenenaltrexoneopioid antagonistspathological gambling.

Identifiers

PMID28721822
PMCPMC6295935
OpenAlexW2739377560

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.