No evidence of clinical efficacy of oxomemazine in cough, according to a systematic review.

PURPOSE: Cough is a prevalent symptom driving patients to seek medical attention in general practice. Despite its widespread use, the clinical efficacy of oxomemazine, the second most reimbursed molecule in France for symptomatic cough treatment, remains uncertain. This study aims to systematically evaluate the clinical efficacy of oxomemazine in cough. METHODS: A systematic literature review with meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) was conducted according to the Rebuild the Evidence Base (REB) protocol. Clinical trials comparing the efficacy of oxomemazine versus placebo or active comparator in cough were searched for. Trials with insufficient data were excluded. Searches were conducted across major databases (Medline, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and Embase) and trial registries (World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform and ClinicalTrials.gov). RCTs comparing oxomemazine versus placebo or active comparators in cough were sought. Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane Collaboration's RoB2 tool. The protocol was preregistered on PROSPERO under the number CRD42022345496 (15). This study received no funding. RESULTS: No RCTs were at low risk of bias. Therefore, no meta-analysis was conducted, in accordance to the pre-specified protocol. CONCLUSIONS: This systematic review highlights the lack of evidence regarding the efficacy of oxomemazine in cough treatment and underscores the need for further well-designed clinical trials to inform its clinical utility in primary care settings.

Critical appraisal of international guidelines for the management of Helicobacter pylori infection in case of dyspepsia.

BACKGROUND: Affecting between 20% and 90% of the world's population depending on the geo-socio-economic conditions, Helicobacter pylori (Hp) infection requires an adapted management because of the medico-economic stakes it generates. Also responsible for dyspepsia, the management of Hp infection differs in this context between international guidelines. OBJECTIVES: The primary outcome of the study was assessing the quality of current guidelines for HP eradication in dyspepsia. The secondary was defining the best therapeutic strategy for patients consulting with dyspepsia in the outpatient setting. METHODS: Clinical practice guidelines (CPG) published between January 2000 and May 2021 were retrieved from various databases (PubMed; Guidelines International Network; websites of scientific societies that issued the guidelines). Their quality was assessed using the AGREE II evaluation grid. To provide decision support for healthcare practitioners, particularly in primary care, a summary of the main points of interest for management was made for each guideline. RESULTS: Fourteen guidelines were included. Only four (28.6%) could be validated according to AGREE II? Most of the non-validated guidelines had low ratings in the "Rigour of development" and "Applicability" domains with means of 40% [8%-71%] and 14% [0%-25%], respectively. Three out of four validated guidelines (75%) advocated a "test and treat" strategy for dyspepsia based on the national prevalence of Hp. Gastroscopy was the 1st line examination method in case of warning signs or high risk of gastric cancer. Triple therapy (Proton pomp inhibitor, amoxicillin, and clarithromycin) was favored for Hp eradication but required a study of the sensitivity to clarithromycin in the validated guidelines. Antibiotic resistance also had an impact on treatment duration. CONCLUSIONS: Many guidelines were of poor quality, providing few decision-making tools for practical use. Conversely, those of good quality had established a management strategy addressing the current problems associated with the emergence of antibiotic-resistant strains.

A critical appraisal of acute sore throat guidelines using the AGREE II instrument: a scoping review.

BACKGROUND: Conflicting international guidelines exist on the management of sore throat by antibiotics. OBJECTIVES: To assess with the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation II (AGREE) instrument the quality of guidelines for uncomplicated acute group A beta-haemolytic streptococcal (GABHS) sore-throat. To make a sensitivity analysis restricted to guidelines with a rigour of development score higher than 60% and to describe their recommendations on scores, tests, and antibiotic therapy, including their justification. METHODS: A guideline literature review of acute GABHS sore throat, published between January 2000 and December 2019 in primary care and secondary care. The PubMed database, the Canadian Medical Association Infobase on Clinical Practice Guidelines and the International Network Guidelines were used. The quality of guidelines was assessed using the AGREE II instrument. The guidelines were classified into 2 categories: high-quality guidelines had to rate >60% for the rigour of development score, the others were classified as low-quality guidelines. RESULTS: Significant heterogeneity between the 15 guidelines concerned the scores of the 6 assessment domains. Among them, 6 guidelines presented a score above 60% with regards to the rigor of development domain and used a systematic literature search method, citing meta-analyses of recent randomised clinical trials. Most of the 6 high-quality guidelines no longer recommended the systematic use of diagnostic scores and tests, nor antibiotic therapy to prevent acute rheumatic fever or loco-regional complications, except for high-risk patients. CONCLUSION: Major discrepancies emphasise the need for only high-quality guidelines, based on adequately assessed evidence. Restricted antibiotic prescriptions to severe cases or high-risk patients would avoid antibiotic resistance.

SGLT2 inhibitors in type 2 diabetes: a systematic review and meta-analysis of cardiovascular outcome trials balancing their risks and benefits.

AIMS/HYPOTHESIS: Cardiovascular outcome trials (CVOTs) have demonstrated the benefits of sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors (SGLT2i). However, serious adverse drug reactions have been reported. The risk/benefit ratio of SGLT2i remains unquantified. We aimed to provide an estimation of their risk/benefit ratio in individuals with type 2 diabetes. METHODS: We conducted a systematic review (MEDLINE, up to 14 September 2021) and meta-analysis. We included randomised CVOTs assessing SGLT2i in individuals with type 2 diabetes with or without other diseases. We used the Cochrane 'Risk of bias' assessment tool. The primary outcomes were overall mortality, major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE), hospitalisation for heart failure (HHF), end-stage renal disease (ESRD), amputation, diabetic ketoacidosis (DKA) and reported genital infections. For each outcome, we estimated the incidence rate ratio (IRR) with a 95% CI; we then computed the number of events expected spontaneously and with SGLT2i. RESULTS: A total of 46,969 participants from five double-blind, placebo-controlled international trials (weighted mean follow-up 3.5 years) were included. The prevalence of previous CVD ranged from 40.6% to 99.2%. The definition of reported genital infections ranged from 'genital mycotic infection' to 'genital infections that led to discontinuation of the trial regimen or were considered to be serious adverse events'. The number of included studies for each outcomes was five. The use of SGLT2i decreased the risk of all-cause death (IRR 0.86 [95% CI 0.78, 0.95]), MACE (IRR 0.91 [95% CI 0.86, 0.96]), HHF (IRR 0.69 [95% CI 0.62, 0.76]) and ESRD (IRR 0.67 [95% CI 0.53, 0.84]), and increased the risk of DKA (IRR 2.59 [95% CI 1.57, 4.27]) and genital infection (IRR 3.50 [95% CI 3.09, 3.95]) but not of amputation (IRR 1.23 [95% CI 1.00, 1.51]). For 1000 individuals treated over 3.5 years, SGLT2i are expected, on average, to decrease the number of deaths from 70 to 61, to prevent nine MACE, 11 HHF and two cases of ESRD, while inducing two DKA occurrences and 36 genital infections; 778 individuals are expected to avoid all the following outcomes: MACE, HHF, ESRD, amputation, DKA and genital infection. CONCLUSIONS/INTERPRETATION: Our study is limited to aggregate data. In a population of individuals with type 2 diabetes and a high CVD risk, the cardiovascular and renal benefits of SGLT2i remain substantial despite the risk of DKA and even the hypothetical risk of amputation. TRIAL REGISTRATION: OSF Registries: https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/J3R7Y FUNDING: This research received no specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial or not-for-profit sectors.

How do they add up? The interaction between the placebo and treatment effect: A systematic review.

AIM: The placebo effect and the specific effect are often thought to add up (additive model). Whether additivity holds can dramatically influence the external validity of a trial. This assumption of additivity was tested by Kleijnen et al in 1994 but the data produced since then have not been synthetized. In this review, we aimed to systematically review the literature to determine whether additivity held. METHODS: We searched Medline and PsychInfo up to 10 January 2019. Studies using the balanced placebo design (BPD), testing two different strengths of placebos, were included. The presence of interaction was evaluated by comparing each group in the BPD with analysis of variance or covariance. RESULTS: Thirty studies were included and the overall risk of bias was high: four found evidence of additivity and 16 studies found evidence of interaction (seven had evidence of positive additivity). CONCLUSION: Evidence of additivity between placebo and specific features of treatments was rare in included studies. We suggest interventions for placebo-sensitive ailments should be tested in trials designed to take interactions seriously once an exploratory RCTs has proven their efficacy with sufficient internal validity.

Development of a patient decision aid for COVID-19 vaccination with the Comirnaty vaccine.

BACKGROUND: SARS-CoV-2 has been responsible for a pandemic since the beginning of 2020. Vaccine arrival brings a concrete solution to fight the virus. However, vaccine hesitancy is high. In France, the first available vaccine was Comirnaty from Pfizer-BioNTech. Shared decision-making, based on tools such as patient decision aids (PtDAs), can help patients make an informed choice about vaccination with Comirnaty. OBJECTIVE: The French College of Teachers in General Practice (CNGE) aimed to create a PtDA for people who have to decide whether they will receive the Comirnaty vaccine. METHODS: Development of the PtDA was performed according to the International Patient Decision Aids Standards (IPDAS). The initial design was based on a literature review and semistructured interviews with 17 patients to explore and clarify patients' expectations. A first draft of the PtDA was then alpha tested by a patient expert group and a physician expert group. The PtDA was finally beta tested in 14 prevaccine consultations. A steering group was consulted throughout the work. Patient support, community groups and the French National Authority for Health (HAS) were involved in the development process. RESULTS: A literature review identified one randomized trial on Comirnaty efficacy and safety. The first part of the PtDA allows patients to identify their own risk factors. The second part of the PtDA provides information on vaccination: benefits and risks, unknown data, and technical explanations about the mRNA vaccine. CONCLUSIONS: We developed a PtDA to be used in primary care settings for shared decision-making regarding vaccination with Comirnaty.

An open science pathway for drug marketing authorization-Registered drug approval.

Florian Naudet and co-authors propose a pathway involving registered criteria for evaluation and approval of new drugs.

Benefits and adverse effects of ACE inhibitors in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

PURPOSE: Angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors are part of first-line treatment for reduced ejection fraction heart failure (HFrEF). The aim was to assess the benefits and adverse effects of ACE inhibitors in HFrEF with a focus on important patient outcomes. METHODS: A systematic review of double-blind randomized clinical trials (RCTs) and comparison of ACE inhibitors versus placebo, in HFrEF patients published in French or English. Searches were undertaken of Medline, Cochrane Central, and Embase. The primary outcomes were all-cause mortality and adverse events. RESULTS: From 636 articles analysed, 11 were included (13,882 patients). For all-cause mortality (5 RCTs, 9277 patients), the number needed to treat (NNT) to avoid one death at 6 months was 50 (33-107). The NNT to prevent one death at 12 months (6 RCTs, 13,016 patients) was 63 (35-314). Under the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach, the evidence was of moderate quality. The number needed to harm was 12 (10-15) for cough, 20 (14-31) for hypotension, 23 (17-36) for dizziness, 31 (23-47) for hyperkalaemia, and 49 (30-121) for increased creatinine levels. The quality of evidence was moderate for these criteria except for cough (low quality of evidence). CONCLUSION: This review focuses on clinical elements necessary in a shared decision-making process. In practice, general practitioners will be able to use these data to discuss ACE inhibitor treatment with HFrEF patients. This study was registered in the PROSPERO registry under the reference number CRD42018096930.

Saline nasal irrigation for acute upper respiratory tract infections in infants and children: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

PURPOSE: Acute upper respiratory tract infections are the most common infections in infants and children. Saline nasal irrigation (SNI) is widely prescribed and recommended. We conducted a systematic review to assess the efficacy and safety of SNI in infants and children with acute rhinopharyngitis. METHODS: We searched CENTRAL, Medline, Embase and clinicalTrials.gov. Two authors selected randomized control trials (RCTs), including infants ≥3 months and children ≤12 years, comparing the use of isotonic saline solutions, whatever their mode of administration, with one therapeutic abstention, or a therapy deemed less important for nasal lavage. Trial quality was assessed independently by two authors, who, with a third author, extracted and analysed data. Statistical analysis was conducted using Comprehensive Meta-Analysis software. The standard difference in means (SMD) between groups and its 95% confidence interval were estimated. RESULTS: Four RCTs (569 participants) were included. The analysis showed a benefit of SNI for certain clinical rhinological symptoms (SMD = -0.29 [-0.45; -0.13]) but no significant improvement of respiratory symptoms (SMD = -0.19 [-0.70; 1.08]) or health status (SMD = -0.30 [-0.68; 0.07]). Its use appeared to limit the prescription of other treatments, whether local or systemic, and particularly antibiotics. Long-term use led to a decrease in the incidence of acute rhinosinusitis and its complications. SNI appeared to be a safe treatment. CONCLUSIONS: SNI is beneficial for rhinological symptoms but not respiratory symptoms. Further research is needed to address the full benefits/risks of this treatment.

Correction to: Efficacy of phloroglucinol for the treatment of pain of gynaecologic or obstetrical origin: a systematic review of literature of randomised controlled trials.

The correct presentation of the Author names are shown in this paper.

Efficacy of acetylleucine in vertigo and dizziness: a systematic review of randomised controlled trials.

PURPOSE: To assess the efficacy of acetylleucine to improve or stop an attack of vertigo and dizziness (vertigo/dizziness). METHODS: Systematic review by 2 independent reviewers. Consultation of the Medline, Cochrane and ClinicalTrials.gov databases until September 2018. Keywords used: Acetylleucine, Tanganil®, Acetyl-DL-leucine, Acetyl-leucine. Trial selection: randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing acetylleucine against placebo. RESULTS: Up until 2018, no RCTs have been published on the efficacy of acetylleucine in vertigo/dizziness. CONCLUSION: There is no solid evidence of the efficacy of acetylleucine in vertigo/dizziness. Given its frequent prescription and the cost generated for the French social security system, high-quality randomised trials should be carried out to assess its efficacy.

Efficacy of phloroglucinol for treatment of abdominal pain: a systematic review of literature and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials versus placebo.

AIM: Phloroglucinol is a musculotropic anti-spasmodic drug. It is frequently prescribed in many European countries with a considerable cost for health services. The purpose of this study was to review the existing randomised controlled trials (RCT) comparing the efficacy of phloroglucinol treating abdominal pain versus placebo. METHODS: A literature search was carried out up to May 2017 to select RCT comparing the effect of phloroglucinol versus placebo with intensity of abdominal pain as an endpoint. Studies concerning obstetric or gynaecologic-related pain were not included. RESULTS: Three RCT were included and then analysed for risk of bias and meta-analysed. Only one RCT found that phloroglucinol was superior to placebo, although with a high risk of bias. The meta-analysis found a risk ratio of 1.10 (95% CI 0.95, 1.27) with no statistical significance. DISCUSSION: There is insufficient data to justify the wide-spread prescription of phloroglucinol for alleviating abdominal pain.

How are patients with heart failure treated in primary care?
.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to assess the adherence of general practitioners (GPs) to guidelines in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) and to describe GPs' prescribing behavior regarding patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Cross-sectional study as part of the ETIC trial. Five classes of drugs were described: angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEIs) or angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs); ß-blockers (BBs); mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists (MRAs); diuretics (thiazide or loop diuretics); and digoxin. RESULTS: 178 patients were studied: their mean age was 73.5 years (± 10.6). Of the 128 patients with HFpEF, 81.3% received ACEIs or ARBs, 63.3% received BBs, 13.3% received MRAs, 75.8% received diuretics, and 12.5% received digoxin. Of the 50 patients with HFrEF, 84% received ACEIs or ARBs, 74% received BBs, 20% received MRAs, 76% received diuretics, and 2% received digoxin. 25% of the patients were given a drug in accordance with the recommendations for drug class but not a drug authorized for the HFrEF indication. Among the patients with HFrEF who were treated in accordance with the recommendations, target doses were achieved in 1/3 given ACEIs/ARBs, 1/4 given BBs, and 1/2 given MRAs. Only 6% of the patients had a perfect Global Adherence Indicator-3 (GAI-3) with all target doses achieved. CONCLUSION: Several drugs were prescribed even though they were not recommended, and few patients were treated optimally. It seems to be necessary to develop a pragmatic tool to help GPs and cardiologists in optimizing treatment.
.

[Acute analgesic effect of paracetamol in primary care: Incomplete evidence]. / Effet antalgique aigu du paracétamol en soins primaires : des preuves incomplètes.

This meta-analysis assessed the analgesic effect of a single oral dose of paracetamol versus placebo in adults, in primary care. Parallel randomized studies were searched on MEDLINE®, CENTRAL®, and EMBASE®. We found five studies on sore throat (842 patients) and 12 studies on headache (3433 patients). None related to low back pain. Regardless of the outcome, paracetamol was superior to placebo (number need to treat [NNT]=4-5; standardized mean difference [SMD]=0.51-0.92). Additional clinical trials in other primary care conditions, like low back pain, must be conducted.

[Justification of off-label antibiotics uses in hospitalized children]. / Justification de la prescription hors-AMM d'antibiotiques chez l'enfant hospitalisé.

Unlicensed and off-label (UL/OL) drugs are commonly used in pediatrics wards, especially the antibiotics. It remains unclear if this strategy is justified by randomized controlled trials of good quality? OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to compare the level of evidence of UL/OL antibiotics prescription in hospitalized children. The initial hypothesis was that the UL/OL antibiotics prescriptions had a lower level of evidence than licensed antibiotics. METHOD: This observational study assessed the antibiotics prescription in the children mother and women hospital of Lyon. Each antibiotic medicine courses was classified depending on: (i) they were licensed, UL or OL, (ii) their level of evidence for efficiency (sufficient evidence, insufficient evidence, no evidence) and (iii) the existence or not of randomized controlled trials (RCT) or not. The antibiotics medicine courses in atypical cases were excluded (rare disease, lack of diagnosis, comorbidities modifying antibiotic use). Data were collected with computerized patient file data. The data were compared using Fisher exact test and χ2. RESULTS: One hundred and eight medicine courses were identified, corresponding to 72 mono, bi or tri-antibiotic therapies administered to 62 patients; 34% were OL and 66% were licensed. No prescriptions were UL. Thirty-two prescriptions were excluded from the evidence assessment. No proof of efficiency was found for any of the 76 analyzed medicine courses. RCTs were found for 36 of the analyzed medicine courses (47%); licensed medicine courses were significantly more justified by RCTs than UL/OL medicine courses (63% vs. 16%, P<0.001). DISCUSSION: This study has shown the absence of RCTs of good quality to justify the prescriptions of antibiotics in pediatrics, regardless their license status. Nevertheless, the licensed prescriptions have shown more data of efficiency than OL prescriptions. Still, even when data were found, no antibiotics prescriptions reach the threshold of good quality studies. New clinical trials should respond to the patient needs.

Evaluation in alcohol use disorders - insights from the nalmefene experience.

Nalmefene was the first treatment approved by the European Medicines Agency for reducing alcohol consumption in adult patients with alcohol dependence. It is often presented as a paradigm shift in therapeutics, but major issues limit the interpretation of the evidence supporting its use. The randomised trials submitted provided no evidence of harm reduction, the differences on consumption outcomes were of questionable clinical relevance, the target population was defined a posteriori and the drug was compared to a placebo although naltrexone was already used off-label. No post-approval randomised study is currently designed to clearly address these issues. In addition, nalmefene trials have been uncritically cited, even in guidelines. This experience reveals weaknesses in drug evaluations in alcohol dependence, which call for changes. We propose to dispense with alcohol consumption as a surrogate outcome, to consider comparative effectiveness issues, and to recommend randomised post-approval studies in case of controversial approval.

Efficacy and safety of insulin in type 2 diabetes: meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials.

BACKGROUND: It is essential to anticipate and limit the social, economic and sanitary cost of type 2 diabetes (T2D), which is in constant progression worldwide. When blood glucose targets are not achieved with diet and lifestyle intervention, insulin is recommended whether or not the patient is already taking hypoglycaemic drugs. However, the benefit/risk balance of insulin remains controversial. Our aim was to determine the efficacy and safety of insulin vs. hypoglycaemic drugs or diet/placebo on clinically relevant endpoints. METHODS: A systematic literature review (Pubmed, Embase, Cochrane Library) including all randomised clinical trials (RCT) analysing insulin vs. hypoglycaemic drugs or diet/placebo, published between 1950 and 2013, was performed. We included all RCTs reporting effects on all-cause mortality, cardiovascular mortality, death by cancer, cardiovascular morbidity, microvascular complications and hypoglycaemia in adults ≥ 18 years with T2D. Two authors independently assessed trial eligibility and extracted the data. Internal validity of studies was analyzed according to the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool. Risk ratios (RR) with 95 % confidence intervals (95 % CI) were calculated, using the fixed effect model in first approach. The I(2) statistic assessed heterogeneity. In case of statistical heterogeneity, subgroup and sensitivity analyses then a random effect model were performed. The alpha threshold was 0.05. Primary outcomes were all-cause mortality and cardiovascular mortality. Secondary outcomes were non-fatal cardiovascular events, hypoglycaemic events, death from cancer, and macro- or microvascular complications. RESULTS: Twenty RCTs were included out of the 1632 initially identified studies. 18 599 patients were analysed: Insulin had no effect vs. hypoglycaemic drugs on all-cause mortality RR = 0.99 (95 % CI =0.92-1.06) and cardiovascular mortality RR = 0.99 (95 % CI =0.90-1.09), nor vs. diet/placebo RR = 0.92 (95 % CI = 0.80-1.07) and RR = 0.95 (95 % CI 0.77-1.18) respectively. No effect was found on secondary outcomes either. However, severe hypoglycaemia was more frequent with insulin compared to hypoglycaemic drugs RR = 1.70 (95 % CI = 1.51-1.91). CONCLUSIONS: There is no significant evidence of long term efficacy of insulin on any clinical outcome in T2D. However, there is a trend to clinically harmful adverse effects such as hypoglycaemia and weight gain. The only benefit could be limited to reducing short term hyperglycemia. This needs to be confirmed with further studies.

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.