Pharmacological relapse prevention of alcoholism: clinical predictors of outcome.

Standard

Pharmacological relapse prevention of alcoholism: clinical predictors of outcome. / Kiefer, Falk; Helwig, Hauke; Tarnaske, Timo; Otte, Christian; Jahn, Holger; Wiedemann, Klaus.

In: EUR ADDICT RES, Vol. 11, No. 2, 2, 2005, p. 83-91.

Research output: SCORING: Contribution to journalSCORING: Journal articleResearchpeer-review

Harvard

APA

Vancouver

Kiefer F, Helwig H, Tarnaske T, Otte C, Jahn H, Wiedemann K. Pharmacological relapse prevention of alcoholism: clinical predictors of outcome. EUR ADDICT RES. 2005;11(2):83-91. 2.

Bibtex

@article{1026bcf60de848feb4ae1983477ee698,
title = "Pharmacological relapse prevention of alcoholism: clinical predictors of outcome.",
abstract = "OBJECTIVE: The efficacy of pharmacological relapse prevention in alcoholism with acamprosate and naltrexone has been supported by several controlled trials. It remains uncertain whether any differential indication for treatment exists. METHODS: We evaluated outcome data of a controlled trial on acamprosate and naltrexone in patients with low vs. high baseline somatic distress, depression and anxiety (Symptom Checklist-90, SCL-90), low vs. high baseline craving, and according to typological differentiation as proposed by Cloninger and Lesch. These variables have previously been suggested to be predictors of outcome. RESULTS: Comparing the course of abstinence rates, acamprosate was mainly efficacious in patients with low baseline somatic distress, whereas naltrexone was effective especially in patients with high baseline depression. Baseline craving showed no predictive value. Pharmacological treatment was efficacious in type II alcoholics according to Cloninger. Applying Lesch's typological differentiation, acamprosate was shown to be mainly effective in type I, whereas naltrexone revealed best treatment effects in type III and IV. CONCLUSION: The study supports the hypothesis that different subgroups of alcohol dependent subjects might benefit from a differential treatment with either naltrexone or acamprosate. Baseline psychopathology and especially typological differentiation might be useful in matching patients to distinct pharmacotherapeutic interventions. .",
author = "Falk Kiefer and Hauke Helwig and Timo Tarnaske and Christian Otte and Holger Jahn and Klaus Wiedemann",
year = "2005",
language = "Deutsch",
volume = "11",
pages = "83--91",
journal = "EUR ADDICT RES",
issn = "1022-6877",
publisher = "S. Karger AG",
number = "2",

}

RIS

TY - JOUR

T1 - Pharmacological relapse prevention of alcoholism: clinical predictors of outcome.

AU - Kiefer, Falk

AU - Helwig, Hauke

AU - Tarnaske, Timo

AU - Otte, Christian

AU - Jahn, Holger

AU - Wiedemann, Klaus

PY - 2005

Y1 - 2005

N2 - OBJECTIVE: The efficacy of pharmacological relapse prevention in alcoholism with acamprosate and naltrexone has been supported by several controlled trials. It remains uncertain whether any differential indication for treatment exists. METHODS: We evaluated outcome data of a controlled trial on acamprosate and naltrexone in patients with low vs. high baseline somatic distress, depression and anxiety (Symptom Checklist-90, SCL-90), low vs. high baseline craving, and according to typological differentiation as proposed by Cloninger and Lesch. These variables have previously been suggested to be predictors of outcome. RESULTS: Comparing the course of abstinence rates, acamprosate was mainly efficacious in patients with low baseline somatic distress, whereas naltrexone was effective especially in patients with high baseline depression. Baseline craving showed no predictive value. Pharmacological treatment was efficacious in type II alcoholics according to Cloninger. Applying Lesch's typological differentiation, acamprosate was shown to be mainly effective in type I, whereas naltrexone revealed best treatment effects in type III and IV. CONCLUSION: The study supports the hypothesis that different subgroups of alcohol dependent subjects might benefit from a differential treatment with either naltrexone or acamprosate. Baseline psychopathology and especially typological differentiation might be useful in matching patients to distinct pharmacotherapeutic interventions. .

AB - OBJECTIVE: The efficacy of pharmacological relapse prevention in alcoholism with acamprosate and naltrexone has been supported by several controlled trials. It remains uncertain whether any differential indication for treatment exists. METHODS: We evaluated outcome data of a controlled trial on acamprosate and naltrexone in patients with low vs. high baseline somatic distress, depression and anxiety (Symptom Checklist-90, SCL-90), low vs. high baseline craving, and according to typological differentiation as proposed by Cloninger and Lesch. These variables have previously been suggested to be predictors of outcome. RESULTS: Comparing the course of abstinence rates, acamprosate was mainly efficacious in patients with low baseline somatic distress, whereas naltrexone was effective especially in patients with high baseline depression. Baseline craving showed no predictive value. Pharmacological treatment was efficacious in type II alcoholics according to Cloninger. Applying Lesch's typological differentiation, acamprosate was shown to be mainly effective in type I, whereas naltrexone revealed best treatment effects in type III and IV. CONCLUSION: The study supports the hypothesis that different subgroups of alcohol dependent subjects might benefit from a differential treatment with either naltrexone or acamprosate. Baseline psychopathology and especially typological differentiation might be useful in matching patients to distinct pharmacotherapeutic interventions. .

M3 - SCORING: Zeitschriftenaufsatz

VL - 11

SP - 83

EP - 91

JO - EUR ADDICT RES

JF - EUR ADDICT RES

SN - 1022-6877

IS - 2

M1 - 2

ER -