Related Experiment Video
Updated: Apr 28, 2026

A Prediction Error-driven Retrieval Procedure for Destabilizing and Rewriting Maladaptive Reward Memories in Hazardous Drinkers
Published on: January 5, 2018
A Bayesian mixed-treatment comparison meta-analysis of treatments for alcohol dependence and implications for
Stacia M DeSantis1, Huirong Zhu1
1Division of Biostatistics, School of Public Health, University of Texas Health Science Center, Houston, TX, USA (SMD, HZ).
Background:
Several treatments for alcohol dependence have been tested in randomized controlled trials, giving rise to systematic reviews with a network of evidence structure, or mixed treatment comparisons (MTCs). Within the network, there are few direct comparisons of active treatments. Thus far, this network has not been adequately analyzed. For example, "indirect comparisons" between treatments (e.g., the comparison of treatments B:C obtained via estimates from A:B and A:C trials) have not been incorporated into estimates of treatment effects. This has implications for the planning of future randomized controlled trials.
Methods:
We applied recent developments in Bayesian MTC meta-analysis to analyze the network of evidence. Using these results, we proposed a methodology to inform, design, and power a hypothetical trial in the context of an updated meta-analysis for treatments that have been infrequently compared and therefore whose effect sizes are not well informed by a meta-analysis.
Results:
An MTC meta-analysis provides more accurate estimates than a pairwise meta-analysis and uncovers decisive differences between active treatments that have been infrequently directly compared. Weighting across all outcomes indicates that a combination (naltrexone + acamprosate) treatment has the highest posterior probability of being the "best" treatment. If a new clinical trial were to be conducted of a combination therapy versus acamprosate alone, there is no feasible sample size that would result in a decisive meta-analysis.
Conclusions:
An MTC meta-analysis should be used to estimate treatment effects in networks in which direct and indirect evidence are consistent and to inform the design of future studies.
Insights
Mixed treatment comparison meta-analysis improves alcohol dependence treatment estimates by incorporating indirect evidence. Combination therapy (naltrexone + acamprosate) shows the highest probability of being the best treatment.
Area of Science:
- Addiction medicine
- Biostatistics
- Clinical trial design
Background:
- Alcohol dependence treatments have been evaluated in randomized controlled trials, leading to systematic reviews and mixed treatment comparisons (MTCs).
- The existing evidence network has limited direct comparisons between active treatments and has not fully incorporated indirect comparisons.
- Inadequate analysis of treatment networks impacts the planning and efficiency of future clinical trials.
Purpose of the Study:
- To apply advanced Bayesian MTC meta-analysis techniques to analyze the evidence network for alcohol dependence treatments.
- To develop a methodology for informing, designing, and powering future clinical trials based on updated meta-analysis results.
- To address the challenge of estimating treatment effects for infrequently compared interventions.
Main Methods:
- Bayesian mixed treatment comparison (MTC) meta-analysis was employed to analyze the network of evidence for alcohol dependence treatments.
- The methodology was developed using results from an updated meta-analysis to inform hypothetical trial design.
- Analysis focused on incorporating both direct and indirect treatment comparisons within the evidence network.
Main Results:
- MTC meta-analysis yielded more precise treatment effect estimates compared to traditional pairwise meta-analyses.
- Decisive differences between active treatments, even those infrequently directly compared, were identified.
- A combination treatment of naltrexone and acamprosate demonstrated the highest probability of being the most effective treatment based on weighted outcomes.
- For a hypothetical trial comparing combination therapy to acamprosate alone, no feasible sample size could yield a decisive result.
Conclusions:
- Mixed treatment comparison meta-analysis is recommended for estimating treatment effects in networks with consistent direct and indirect evidence.
- This approach enhances the accuracy of treatment effect estimation and uncovers significant differences between interventions.
- The methodology informs the design and power calculations for future clinical trials, optimizing resource allocation and study outcomes.
More Related Videos
09:29Investigating Drivers of Antireward in Addiction Behavior with Anatomically Specific Single-Cell Gene Expression Methods
Published on: August 4, 2022
07:31Murine Drinking Models in the Development of Pharmacotherapies for Alcoholism: Drinking in the Dark and Two-bottle Choice
Published on: January 7, 2019
Related Concept Videos
Comparing the Survival Analysis of Two or More Groups
Combined Effects of Drugs: Antagonism
The most common type is receptor antagonism, where one drug acts as an antagonist to block the effects of another drug by...
Bioequivalence Experimental Study Designs: Repeated Measures, Cross-Over, Carry-Over, and Latin Square Designs
CNS Depressants: Alcohol and Nicotine
Bioequivalence Experimental Study Designs: Completely Randomized and Randomized Block Designs
Hazard Ratio
For example, in a clinical trial...