The University of Southampton
University of Southampton Institutional Repository

Pharmacological management of gambling disorder: a systematic review and network meta-analysis

Pharmacological management of gambling disorder: a systematic review and network meta-analysis
Pharmacological management of gambling disorder: a systematic review and network meta-analysis
Background: clinical guidelines remain unclear on which medications for gambling disorder are to be preferred in terms of efficacy and tolerability. We aimed to compare pharmacological treatments for gambling disorder in terms of efficacy and tolerability, using network meta-analysis (NMA).

Methods: based on our pre-registered protocol [CRD42022329520], a structured search was conducted across broad range of databases, for double-blind randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of medications for gambling disorder. Data were independently extracted by two researchers. We used standardized mean differences (SMD) using Hedges’' g to measure the efficacy outcomes, and for the effect for tolerability we used dropout rate due to medication side effects, expressed as odds ratio (OR). Confidence in the network estimates was assessed using the CINeMA framework. We followed the PRISMA-NMA guidelines for this work. Outcomes were gambling symptom severity and quality of life (for efficacy), and tolerability.

Findings : we included 22 RCTs in the systematic review and 16 RCTs (n = 977 participants) in the NMA. Compared with placebo, moderate confidence evidence indicated that nalmefene [Standardized Mean Difference (SMD): ‐−0.86; 95%95 % confidence interval (CI: ‐−1.32,-0.41)] reduced gambling severity, followed by naltrexone (SMD: -0.42; 95%95 %CI: (‐−0.85,0.01)). Naltrexone (SMD: -0.50; 95%95 %CI: (‐−0.85,-0.14)) and nalmefene (SMD: -0.36; 95%95 %CI: (‐−0.72,-0.01) were also more beneficial than placebo in terms of quality of life. Olanzapine and topiramate were not more efficacious than placebo. Nalmefene [Odds Ratio (OR): 7.55; 95%95 %CI: (2.24‐–25.41)] and naltrexone (OR: 7.82; 95%95 %CI: (1.26‐–48.70)) had significantly higher dropout due to side effects (lower tolerability) compared with placebo.

Interpretation : based on NMA, nalmefene and naltrexone currently have the most supportive evidence for the pharmacological treatment of gambling disorder. Further clinical trials of novel compounds, and analysis of individual participant data are needed, to strengthen the evidence base, and help tailor treatments at the individual patient level.
0010-440X
Ioannidis, Konstantinos
8ad30a4f-7b70-4189-a06c-e327caed8b2c
Giovane, Cinzia Del
d56c8930-a1aa-4506-804c-bc38c204d250
Tzagarakis, Charidimos Tzagarakis
254f5233-92a5-4a71-9c8b-e963c77ce7e0
Solly, Jeremy E.
0422396e-a1d6-46a9-a8d8-348e95a31780
Westwood, Samuel J.
4683dcf1-f7bb-4d3a-beea-6e554a3d538b
Parlatini, Valeria
6cdfb200-40ce-43ce-84da-dcb6eba0f67a
Bowden-Jones, Henrietta
8422a458-cdd1-49b4-918e-ead577eea66c
Grant, Jon E.
07372bd5-8a0d-42b4-b41b-e376c652acf3
Cortese, Samuele
53d4bf2c-4e0e-4c77-9385-218350560fdb
Chamberlain, Samuel R.
8a0e09e6-f51f-4039-9287-88debe8d8b6f
Ioannidis, Konstantinos
8ad30a4f-7b70-4189-a06c-e327caed8b2c
Giovane, Cinzia Del
d56c8930-a1aa-4506-804c-bc38c204d250
Tzagarakis, Charidimos Tzagarakis
254f5233-92a5-4a71-9c8b-e963c77ce7e0
Solly, Jeremy E.
0422396e-a1d6-46a9-a8d8-348e95a31780
Westwood, Samuel J.
4683dcf1-f7bb-4d3a-beea-6e554a3d538b
Parlatini, Valeria
6cdfb200-40ce-43ce-84da-dcb6eba0f67a
Bowden-Jones, Henrietta
8422a458-cdd1-49b4-918e-ead577eea66c
Grant, Jon E.
07372bd5-8a0d-42b4-b41b-e376c652acf3
Cortese, Samuele
53d4bf2c-4e0e-4c77-9385-218350560fdb
Chamberlain, Samuel R.
8a0e09e6-f51f-4039-9287-88debe8d8b6f

Ioannidis, Konstantinos, Giovane, Cinzia Del, Tzagarakis, Charidimos Tzagarakis, Solly, Jeremy E., Westwood, Samuel J., Parlatini, Valeria, Bowden-Jones, Henrietta, Grant, Jon E., Cortese, Samuele and Chamberlain, Samuel R. (2024) Pharmacological management of gambling disorder: a systematic review and network meta-analysis. Comprehensive Psychiatry, 137, [152566]. (doi:10.1016/j.comppsych.2024.152566).

Record type: Article

Abstract

Background: clinical guidelines remain unclear on which medications for gambling disorder are to be preferred in terms of efficacy and tolerability. We aimed to compare pharmacological treatments for gambling disorder in terms of efficacy and tolerability, using network meta-analysis (NMA).

Methods: based on our pre-registered protocol [CRD42022329520], a structured search was conducted across broad range of databases, for double-blind randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of medications for gambling disorder. Data were independently extracted by two researchers. We used standardized mean differences (SMD) using Hedges’' g to measure the efficacy outcomes, and for the effect for tolerability we used dropout rate due to medication side effects, expressed as odds ratio (OR). Confidence in the network estimates was assessed using the CINeMA framework. We followed the PRISMA-NMA guidelines for this work. Outcomes were gambling symptom severity and quality of life (for efficacy), and tolerability.

Findings : we included 22 RCTs in the systematic review and 16 RCTs (n = 977 participants) in the NMA. Compared with placebo, moderate confidence evidence indicated that nalmefene [Standardized Mean Difference (SMD): ‐−0.86; 95%95 % confidence interval (CI: ‐−1.32,-0.41)] reduced gambling severity, followed by naltrexone (SMD: -0.42; 95%95 %CI: (‐−0.85,0.01)). Naltrexone (SMD: -0.50; 95%95 %CI: (‐−0.85,-0.14)) and nalmefene (SMD: -0.36; 95%95 %CI: (‐−0.72,-0.01) were also more beneficial than placebo in terms of quality of life. Olanzapine and topiramate were not more efficacious than placebo. Nalmefene [Odds Ratio (OR): 7.55; 95%95 %CI: (2.24‐–25.41)] and naltrexone (OR: 7.82; 95%95 %CI: (1.26‐–48.70)) had significantly higher dropout due to side effects (lower tolerability) compared with placebo.

Interpretation : based on NMA, nalmefene and naltrexone currently have the most supportive evidence for the pharmacological treatment of gambling disorder. Further clinical trials of novel compounds, and analysis of individual participant data are needed, to strengthen the evidence base, and help tailor treatments at the individual patient level.

Text
YCOMP_152566_edit_report_AU - Accepted Manuscript
Available under License Creative Commons Attribution.
Download (521kB)
Text
1-s2.0-S0010440X24001172-main - Version of Record
Available under License Creative Commons Attribution.
Download (2MB)

More information

e-pub ahead of print date: 10 December 2024
Published date: 14 December 2024

Identifiers

Local EPrints ID: 497582
URI: http://eprints.soton.ac.uk/id/eprint/497582
ISSN: 0010-440X
PURE UUID: 0bc560a1-2a13-4dc1-9329-65cb67f71d83
ORCID for Konstantinos Ioannidis: ORCID iD orcid.org/0000-0002-1537-5425
ORCID for Jeremy E. Solly: ORCID iD orcid.org/0000-0003-1401-5919
ORCID for Valeria Parlatini: ORCID iD orcid.org/0000-0002-4754-2494
ORCID for Samuele Cortese: ORCID iD orcid.org/0000-0001-5877-8075
ORCID for Samuel R. Chamberlain: ORCID iD orcid.org/0000-0001-7014-8121

Catalogue record

Date deposited: 28 Jan 2025 17:35
Last modified: 27 Sep 2025 02:33

Export record

Altmetrics

Contributors

Author: Konstantinos Ioannidis ORCID iD
Author: Cinzia Del Giovane
Author: Charidimos Tzagarakis Tzagarakis
Author: Jeremy E. Solly ORCID iD
Author: Samuel J. Westwood
Author: Valeria Parlatini ORCID iD
Author: Henrietta Bowden-Jones
Author: Jon E. Grant
Author: Samuele Cortese ORCID iD
Author: Samuel R. Chamberlain ORCID iD

Download statistics

Downloads from ePrints over the past year. Other digital versions may also be available to download e.g. from the publisher's website.

View more statistics

Atom RSS 1.0 RSS 2.0

Contact ePrints Soton: eprints@soton.ac.uk

ePrints Soton supports OAI 2.0 with a base URL of http://eprints.soton.ac.uk/cgi/oai2

This repository has been built using EPrints software, developed at the University of Southampton, but available to everyone to use.

We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website. If you continue without changing your settings, we will assume that you are happy to receive cookies on the University of Southampton website.

×