The Use of Baclofen as a Treatment for Alcohol Use Disorder: A Clinical Practice Perspective

Alcohol use disorder (AUD) is a brain disorder associated with high rates of mortality and morbidity worldwide. Baclofen, a selective gamma-aminobutyric acid-B (GABA-B) receptor agonist, has emerged as a promising drug for AUD. The use of this drug remains controversial, in part due to uncertainty regarding dosing and efficacy, alongside concerns about safety. To date there have been 15 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) investigating the use of baclofen in AUD; three using doses over 100 mg/day. Two additional RCTs have been completed but have not yet been published. Most trials used fixed dosing of 30–80 mg/day. The other approach involved titration until the desired clinical effect was achieved, or unwanted effects emerged. The maintenance dose varies widely from 30 to more than 300 mg/day. Baclofen may be particularly advantageous in those with liver disease, due to its limited hepatic metabolism and safe profile in this population. Patients should be informed that the use of baclofen for AUD is as an “off-label” prescription, that no optimal fixed dose has been established, and that existing clinical evidence on efficacy is inconsistent. Baclofen therapy requires careful medical monitoring due to safety considerations, particularly at higher doses and in those with comorbid physical and/or psychiatric conditions. Baclofen is mostly used in some European countries and Australia, and in particular, for patients who have not benefitted from the currently used and approved medications for AUD

ETUDE DES LIENS ENTRE FACTEURS SOCIAUX ET MESUSAGE DES MEDICAMENTS PRESCRITS DANS LE CADRE D'UN TRAITEMENT DE SUBSTITUTION A L'HEROINE AUPRES D'UNE PATIENTELE DE 102 TOXICOMANES SUIVIE EN MEDECINE DE VILLE (PROPOSITION D'UN SCORE DE GRAVITE DES PROFILS SOCIAUX, DES CONDUITES TOXICOMANIAQUES, DES PRESCRIPTIONS)

PARIS6-Bibl.Pitié-Salpêtrie (751132101) / SudocPARIS-BIUM (751062103) / SudocSudocFranceF

The use of baclofen as a treatment for alcohol use disorder: A clinical practice perspective

Alcohol use disorder (AUD) is a brain disorder associated with high rates of mortality and morbidity worldwide. Baclofen, a selective gamma-aminobutyric acid-B (GABA-B) receptor agonist, has emerged as a promising drug for AUD. The use of this drug remains controversial, in part due to uncertainty regarding dosing and efficacy, alongside concerns about safety. To date there have been 15 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) investigating the use of baclofen in AUD; three using doses over 100 mg/day. Two additional RCTs have been completed but have not yet been published. Most trials used fixed dosing of 30–80 mg/day. The other approach involved titration until the desired clinical effect was achieved, or unwanted effects emerged. The maintenance dose varies widely from 30 to more than 300 mg/day. Baclofen may be particularly advantageous in those with liver disease, due to its limited hepatic metabolism and safe profile in this population. Patients should be informed that the use of baclofen for AUD is as an “off-label” prescription, that no optimal fixed dose has been established, and that existing clinical evidence on efficacy is inconsistent. Baclofen therapy requires careful medical monitoring due to safety considerations, particularly at higher doses and in those with comorbid physical and/or psychiatric conditions. Baclofen is mostly used in some European countries and Australia, and in particular, for patients who have not benefitted from the currently used and approved medications for AUD

Olaparib tablets as maintenance therapy in patients with platinum-sensitive, relapsed ovarian cancer and a BRCA1/2 mutation (SOLO2/ENGOT-Ov21): a double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial

Background Olaparib, a poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitor, has previously shown efficacy in a phase 2 study when given in capsule formulation to all-comer patients with platinum-sensitive, relapsed high-grade serous ovarian cancer. We aimed to confirm these findings in patients with a BRCA1 or BRCA2 (BRCA1/2) mutation using a tablet formulation of olaparib. Methods This international, multicentre, double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial evaluated olaparib tablet maintenance treatment in platinum-sensitive, relapsed ovarian cancer patients with a BRCA1/2 mutation who had received at least two lines of previous chemotherapy. Eligible patients were aged 18 years or older with an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status at baseline of 0\ue2\u80\u931 and histologically confirmed, relapsed, high-grade serous ovarian cancer or high-grade endometrioid cancer, including primary peritoneal or fallopian tube cancer. Patients were randomly assigned 2:1 to olaparib (300 mg in two 150 mg tablets, twice daily) or matching placebo tablets using an interactive voice and web response system. Randomisation was stratified by response to previous platinum chemotherapy (complete vs partial) and length of platinum-free interval (6\ue2\u80\u9312 months vs \ue2\u89\ua512 months) and treatment assignment was masked for patients, those giving the interventions, data collectors, and data analysers. The primary endpoint was investigator-assessed progression-free survival and we report the primary analysis from this ongoing study. The efficacy analyses were done on the intention-to-treat population; safety analyses included patients who received at least one dose of study treatment. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01874353, and is ongoing and no longer recruiting patients. Findings Between Sept 3, 2013, and Nov 21, 2014, we enrolled 295 eligible patients who were randomly assigned to receive olaparib (n=196) or placebo (n=99). One patient in the olaparib group was randomised in error and did not receive study treatment. Investigator-assessed median progression-free survival was significantly longer with olaparib (19\uc2\ub71 months [95% CI 16\uc2\ub73\ue2\u80\u9325\uc2\ub77]) than with placebo (5\uc2\ub75 months [5\uc2\ub72\ue2\u80\u935\uc2\ub78]; hazard ratio [HR] 0\uc2\ub730 [95% CI 0\uc2\ub722\ue2\u80\u930\uc2\ub741], p<0\uc2\ub70001). The most common adverse events of grade 3 or worse severity were anaemia (38 [19%] of 195 patients in the olaparib group vs two [2%] of 99 patients in the placebo group), fatigue or asthenia (eight [4%] vs two [2%]), and neutropenia (ten [5%] vs four [4%]). Serious adverse events were experienced by 35 (18%) patients in the olaparib group and eight (8%) patients in the placebo group. The most common in the olaparib group were anaemia (seven [4%] patients), abdominal pain (three [2%] patients), and intestinal obstruction (three [2%] patients). The most common in the placebo group were constipation (two [2%] patients) and intestinal obstruction (two [2%] patients). One (1%) patient in the olaparib group had a treatment-related adverse event (acute myeloid leukaemia) with an outcome of death. Interpretation Olaparib tablet maintenance treatment provided a significant progression-free survival improvement with no detrimental effect on quality of life in patients with platinum-sensitive, relapsed ovarian cancer and a BRCA1/2 mutation. Apart from anaemia, toxicities with olaparib were low grade and manageable. Funding AstraZeneca

Effect of general anaesthesia on functional outcome in patients with anterior circulation ischaemic stroke having endovascular thrombectomy versus standard care: a meta-analysis of individual patient data

Background: General anaesthesia (GA) during endovascular thrombectomy has been associated with worse patient outcomes in observational studies compared with patients treated without GA. We assessed functional outcome in ischaemic stroke patients with large vessel anterior circulation occlusion undergoing endovascular thrombectomy under GA, versus thrombectomy not under GA (with or without sedation) versus standard care (ie, no thrombectomy), stratified by the use of GA versus standard care. Methods: For this meta-analysis, patient-level data were pooled from all patients included in randomised trials in PuMed published between Jan 1, 2010, and May 31, 2017, that compared endovascular thrombectomy predominantly done with stent retrievers with standard care in anterior circulation ischaemic stroke patients (HERMES Collaboration). The primary outcome was functional outcome assessed by ordinal analysis of the modified Rankin scale (mRS) at 90 days in the GA and non-GA subgroups of patients treated with endovascular therapy versus those patients treated with standard care, adjusted for baseline prognostic variables. To account for between-trial variance we used mixed-effects modelling with a random effect for trials incorporated in all models. Bias was assessed using the Cochrane method. The meta-analysis was prospectively designed, but not registered. Findings: Seven trials were identified by our search; of 1764 patients included in these trials, 871 were allocated to endovascular thrombectomy and 893 were assigned standard care. After exclusion of 74 patients (72 did not undergo the procedure and two had missing data on anaesthetic strategy), 236 (30%) of 797 patients who had endovascular procedures were treated under GA. At baseline, patients receiving GA were younger and had a shorter delay between stroke onset and randomisation but they had similar pre-treatment clinical severity compared with patients who did not have GA. Endovascular thrombectomy improved functional outcome at 3 months both in patients who had GA (adjusted common odds ratio (cOR) 1·52, 95% CI 1·09–2·11, p=0·014) and in those who did not have GA (adjusted cOR 2·33, 95% CI 1·75–3·10, p<0·0001) versus standard care. However, outcomes were significantly better for patients who did not receive GA versus those who received GA (covariate-adjusted cOR 1·53, 95% CI 1·14–2·04, p=0·0044). The risk of bias and variability between studies was assessed to be low. Interpretation: Worse outcomes after endovascular thrombectomy were associated with GA, after adjustment for baseline prognostic variables. These data support avoidance of GA whenever possible. The procedure did, however, remain effective versus standard care in patients treated under GA, indicating that treatment should not be withheld in those who require anaesthesia for medical reasons