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 We searched, up to 19 February 2024, a broad range of databases, including MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, PubMed, CINAHL, AMED, and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, ERIC and Web of Science (including Science Citation Index Expanded (SCI-EXPANDED), Social Science Citation Index (SSCI), Conference Proceedings Citation Index-Science (CPCI-S) and Conference Proceedings Citation Index-Social Science and Humanities (CPCI-SSH)) via Web of Knowledge and the WHO International Trials Registry Platform (including ClinicalTrials.gov), for double-blind randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of medications for gambling disorder. Outcomes were gambling symptom severity and quality of life (for efficacy), and tolerability. Confidence in the network estimates was assessed using the CINeMA framework. We followed the PRISMA-NMA guidelines and pre-registered the protocol [CRD42022329520].
Outcomes 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% confidence interval (CI: −1·32,-0·41)] reduced gambling severity, followed by naltrexone [-0·42; −0·85, 0·01)]. Nalmefene [Odds Ratio (OR): 7·55; 95%CI: 2·24-25·41] and naltrexone (7·82; 1·26-48·70) had significantly higher dropout due to side effects (lower tolerability) compared with placebo. Naltrexone (SMD: −0·50; 95%CI: −0·85,-0·14) and nalmefene (−0·36; −0·72,-0·01) were more beneficial than placebo in terms of quality of life. Olanzapine and topiramate were not more efficacious than placebo.
Interpretation 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.
Funding This study was supported by unrestricted grant funds to Professor Chamberlain held at the University of Southampton, originating from the NHS.
Evidence before this study Over the past few decades, there has been a substantial need for evidence-based pharmacological treatments of gambling disorder. However, the benefits and safety of medications trialled to treat gambling disorder remains debateable.
Before planning this study, we searched PubMed on 01.06.2022 (and again on 16.03.2024 for any new evidence) for meta-analyses of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of pharmacological treatments for gambling disorder, using the following syntax/search terms: gambling [tiab] AND meta-analy* [tiab]. We found two recent pairwise meta-analyses assessing the efficacy and tolerability of individual medications. However, we could not find any network meta-analysis (NMA) providing evidence on the comparative efficacy and tolerability of medications used for the treatment of gambling disorder. As NMAs have been successfully used to inform treatment approaches for other conditions, the lack of NMA of pharmacological treatments for gambling disorder is an important gap.
Added value of this study We conducted the first NMA of pharmacological treatments for gambling, based on state-of-the-art methodology for NMA. Our NMA represents the most comprehensive synthesis to date on the comparative efficacy and tolerability of pharmacological options to treat gambling disorder. Unlike previous systematic reviews and pairwise meta-analyses of head-to-head trials, we considered each treatment option separately (i.e., not as “class of medication”) and focused on clinically relevant outcomes – namely, the efficacy on gambling severity symptoms, tolerability and effects on the quality of life. We found that nalmefene and naltrexone currently have the most supportive evidence, in terms of clinical efficacy (reduction of gambling severity and improvement in quality of life), for the pharmacological treatment of gambling disorder, whereas olanzapine or topiramate had less or no supportive evidence. We also found that nalmefene and naltrexone were less well tolerated than placebo, which highlights the need for future clinical trials to broaden the evidence base.
Implications of all the available evidence Evidence from our NMA supports the use of nalmefene and naltrexone in adults with gambling disorder as the preferred first pharmacological choice for the management of gambling disorder. Our NMA should inform future guidelines and supplement clinical decision-making on the choice of treatment for adults with gambling disorder, along with available evidence on psychological options, evidence on cost-effectiveness, and patients’ preferences. Future studies should evaluate a broader range of pharmacological agents for the treatment of gambling disorder .Future research should also include individual patient data in NMA of gambling disorder medications, which will allow a wider and more reliable estimation of predictors of individual response.
Competing Interest Statement
Professor Chamberlain is service director for the NHS Southern Gambling Service. Professor Chamberlain receives a stipend from Elsevier for journal editorial work. Professor Bowden-Jones is National Clinical Advisor on Gambling Harms in the UK, and is Director of the National Problem Gambling Clinic and the National Centre for Gaming Disorders. Professor Bowden-Jones' clinics receive funding from NHS England and CNWL NHS Trust. Professor Bowden-Jones clinics previously received funding from GambleAware. Cinzia Del Giovane's time on the project was funded partly through the grant funding to SRC. Dr Ioannidis is clinical lead for the Southern Gambling Service and receives a stipend from Elsevier for journal editorial work. Dr. Grant has received research grants from Janssen and Biohaven Pharmaceuticals. He receives yearly compensation from Springer Publishing for acting as Editor-in-Chief of the Journal of Gambling Studies and has received royalties from Oxford University Press, American Psychiatric Publishing, Inc., Norton Press, and McGraw Hill. None of the authors have conflicts of interest in relation to the gambling or gaming industry. None of the authors accept voluntary donations from the gambling or gaming industry either personally or in terms of institutional funds held in their name.
Clinical Protocols
https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=329520
Funding Statement
This study was supported by unrestricted grant funds to Professor Chamberlain held at the University of Southampton, originating from the NHS.The funding source had no role in the design, conduct, or reporting of the study.
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:
This is a network meta-analysis (NMA). Data were exctracted from the relevant papers which are cited in the manuscript. Ethics approvals are described in each individual paper.
I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines, such as any relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material, if applicable.
Yes
Footnotes
1) Updated search which yielded an additional RCT, which is now included in all outcomes of the NMA 2) Reconsidered risk of reporting bias for all studies which led to minor changes in the contribution matrix 3) Formatting changes to journal style 4) Full re-analysis of all outcomes, including all NMA results, CINeMA, tables & figures due to addition of new study.
Data Availability
All data produced in the present study are available upon reasonable request to the authors
