Last night I posted a comment in reply to Joan Warmbold's recommendatiion of Ameisen's (2009) book advocating investigation of baclofen for treatment of alcoholism.
Ameisen apparently complained in his book about the lack of interest in testing baclofen in double-blind randomized trials, which he attributed to the absence of a profit motive for drug companies for this particular drug. I noted that there was a 2007 trial which found baclofen effective, which I cited as Leggio (actually the second author). I should have said Addolorato. Here's the full reference: Effectiveness and safety of baclofen for maintenance of alcohol abstinence in alcohol-dependent patients with liver cirrhosis: randomised, double-blind controlled study. Addolorato G, Leggio L, Ferrulli A, Cardone S, Vonghia L, Mirijello A, Abenavoli L, D'Angelo C, Caputo F, Zambon A, Haber PS, Gasbarrini G. Lancet. 2007 Dec 8;370(9603):1915-22. I wondered why instead of complaining, Ameisen didn't mention this study in his book two years later. It's possible that the Addolorato study just missed being published in time. If you scan through the 40 comments on the Scientific American report on Ameisen at http://tinyurl.com/nrug3e you'll find a comment from Ameisen himself in which he does cite the study. Stephen ----------------------------------------------------------------- Stephen L. Black, Ph.D. Professor of Psychology, Emeritus Bishop's University e-mail: [email protected] 2600 College St. Sherbrooke QC J1M 1Z7 Canada Subscribe to discussion list (TIPS) for the teaching of psychology at http://flightline.highline.edu/sfrantz/tips/ ----------------------------------------------------------------------- --- To make changes to your subscription contact: Bill Southerly ([email protected])
