Drug and alcohol dependence · 2011
The effects of combined acamprosate and integrative behaviour therapy in the outpatient treatment of alcohol dependence: a randomized controlled trial.
СтатьяРандомизированное исследованиеПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Wölwer Wolfgang, Frommann Nicole, Jänner Michaela, Franke Petra E, Scherbaum Norbert, Lieb Bodo, Falkai Peter, Wobrock Thomas, Kuhlmann Thomas, Radermacher Michael, Maier Wolfgang, Schütz Christian, Ohmann Christian, Burtscheidt Wilhelm, Gaebel Wolfgang
Аннотация
AIMS: The aim of this randomized, controlled, multisite trial was to evaluate the efficacy of combined treatment with integrative behaviour therapy (IBT) and acamprosate on drinking behaviour in detoxified alcohol-dependent patients.
METHODS: A total of 371 patients were randomized to one of the three treatment conditions: IBT plus acamprosate, IBT plus placebo, or supportive counselling ('treatment as usual', TAU) plus acamprosate. The main outcome was success rate, i.e., rate of abstinence plus improvement according to the criteria of Feuerlein and Küfner (1989), at the end of the six-month treatment phase and at the subsequent six-month follow-up. Drinking status was validated by blood parameters (CDT, GGT, and MCV). Data were analyzed by an intent-to-treat model and missing data were classified as relapse.
RESULTS: The success rates at the end of treatment under both TAU plus acamprosate (37.7%) and IBT plus placebo (48%) almost reached the levels derived from the literature. However, adding acamprosate to IBT did not result in the expected increase in success rate (IBT plus acamprosate: 47.6%), and success rates did not differ significantly between groups. Similarly, there was no significant difference between treatment success rates at follow-up.
CONCLUSION: The results suggest that the combination of acamprosate and IBT is not more effective than treatment with either IBT or acamprosate alone. However, the two acamprosate conditions differed in success rate by about 10%, which might constitute a clinically relevant though statistically non-significant effect.
METHODS: A total of 371 patients were randomized to one of the three treatment conditions: IBT plus acamprosate, IBT plus placebo, or supportive counselling ('treatment as usual', TAU) plus acamprosate. The main outcome was success rate, i.e., rate of abstinence plus improvement according to the criteria of Feuerlein and Küfner (1989), at the end of the six-month treatment phase and at the subsequent six-month follow-up. Drinking status was validated by blood parameters (CDT, GGT, and MCV). Data were analyzed by an intent-to-treat model and missing data were classified as relapse.
RESULTS: The success rates at the end of treatment under both TAU plus acamprosate (37.7%) and IBT plus placebo (48%) almost reached the levels derived from the literature. However, adding acamprosate to IBT did not result in the expected increase in success rate (IBT plus acamprosate: 47.6%), and success rates did not differ significantly between groups. Similarly, there was no significant difference between treatment success rates at follow-up.
CONCLUSION: The results suggest that the combination of acamprosate and IBT is not more effective than treatment with either IBT or acamprosate alone. However, the two acamprosate conditions differed in success rate by about 10%, which might constitute a clinically relevant though statistically non-significant effect.