↓ Skip to main content

Combined Pharmacotherapies for the Management of Alcoholism: Rationale and Evidence to Date

Overview of attention for article published in CNS Drugs, February 2014
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
15 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
34 Mendeley
Title
Combined Pharmacotherapies for the Management of Alcoholism: Rationale and Evidence to Date
Published in
CNS Drugs, February 2014
DOI 10.1007/s40263-013-0137-z
Pubmed ID
Authors

Mary R. Lee, Lorenzo Leggio

Abstract

Pharmacotherapies for alcohol use disorders (AUDs) have limited efficacy. One approach to improving treatment outcomes for AUDs is to combine pharmacotherapies that have shown some efficacy as individual agents. The rationale for combining medications rests on the following principles: a combination of medications can target more than one neurotransmitter system that is dysfunctional in AUDs, can target different drinking behaviors (i.e., positive and negative reinforcement), can treat co-morbid psychiatric and medical disorders, and can minimize side effects, improving adherence to treatment by using lower doses of each drug in combination. Combined pharmacotherapy strategies may produce additive or even synergistic effects to decrease alcohol craving and consumption. Here, we reviewed the literature investigating the effect on alcohol-related outcomes of combinations of medications that have shown efficacy as single agents to reduce drinking in animal studies and clinical trials. We focused on 17 clinical studies investigating the combination of medications in AUDs, 11 of which were randomized, double-blind, and placebo-controlled. Ten of the 11 studies showed the combination to be superior to placebo, but only three showed an advantage of the combination compared with the single agent. Overall, these studies used diverse methodologies, assessments of severity, outcome measures, and adjunctive psychosocial treatments. Limitations of the current published studies and possible future directions for new combinations are discussed.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 34 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 1 3%
Canada 1 3%
Unknown 32 94%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 5 15%
Student > Bachelor 4 12%
Student > Doctoral Student 4 12%
Student > Master 3 9%
Student > Ph. D. Student 3 9%
Other 6 18%
Unknown 9 26%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 7 21%
Psychology 6 18%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 4 12%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 9%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 6%
Other 2 6%
Unknown 10 29%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 24 February 2014.
All research outputs
#18,365,132
of 22,745,803 outputs
Outputs from CNS Drugs
#1,164
of 1,305 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#229,408
of 307,216 outputs
Outputs of similar age from CNS Drugs
#18
of 22 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,745,803 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,305 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.2. This one is in the 6th percentile – i.e., 6% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 307,216 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 13th percentile – i.e., 13% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 22 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 4th percentile – i.e., 4% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.