ArticleThe mental health clinician2025
Review of acamprosate pharmacokinetics and dosing strategies.
Article in The mental health clinician, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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.
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.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Case report: Acamprosate for treatment of volatile hydrocarbon (VHC) inhalant use disorder with comorbid alcohol use disorder.The mental health clinician · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Alcohol use disorder (AUD) is associated with significant morbidity and mortality, contributing to 5% of annual deaths. Although some literature suggests that acamprosate is an effective treatment for AUD, its traditional dosing regimen of 2 tablets 3 times daily may challenge patient adherence. This review compares clinical and pharmacokinetic data of different acamprosate dosing regimens to provide guidance on optimal dosing for treating AUD. Methods: A comprehensive literature search was performed for articles published before March 2024. Relevant randomized controlled trials, case reports, and pharmacokinetic studies were identified from PubMed, PubMed Central, and Google Scholar. Results: Three dosing regimens were identified, including traditional dose, reduced dose, and reduced frequency. Definitive conclusions regarding the comparative efficacy of these regimens cannot be drawn. However, reduced doses appear safe and efficacious in small clinical trials, and a pharmacokinetic study found reduced frequency to be bioequivalent to traditional doses. Discussion: Adherence to pharmacotherapy for AUD is challenging and difficult to measure. A reduced dose regimen may be appropriate for patients who struggle with the pill burden of traditional doses, though the varying number of tablets required at different times may still pose adherence issues. The bioequivalence of reduced frequency dose to traditional dose suggests it could be a viable option for patients who find a 3-time daily frequency cumbersome. However, the lack of data on the clinical efficacy of reduced frequency makes it difficult to recommend as a primary regimen. Further research is needed to determine if either reduced dose or reduced frequency regimens could improve patient adherence compared with a traditional dose.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.