Injectable, sustained-release naltrexone for the treatment of opioid dependence: a randomized, placebo-controlled trial. A naltrexone double blind placebo controlled study in Israel. Anesthesia-assisted vs buprenorphine- or clonidine-assisted heroin detoxification and naltrexone induction: a randomized trial. Follow-up after a six-month maintenance period on naltrexone versus placebo in heroin addicts. Comparison of pharmacological treatments for opioid-dependent adolescents: a randomized controlled trial. Naltrexone alone and with sertraline for the treatment of alcohol dependence in Alaska natives and non-natives residing in rural settings: a randomized controlled trial. Naltrexone shortened opioid detoxification with buprenorphine. A placebo-controlled randomized clinical trial of naltrexone in the context of different levels of psychosocial intervention. A multicentre, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of naltrexone in the treatment of alcohol dependence or abuse.
Oral naltrexone can completely antagonize the effects produced by opioid agonists. However, poor compliance with naltrexone has been a major obstacle to the effective treatment of opioid dependence.
                To evaluate the safety and efficacy of a sustained-release depot formulation of naltrexone in treating opioid dependence.
                Randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, 8-week trial conducted at 2 medical centers.
                Sixty heroin-dependent adults.
                Participants were stratified by sex and years of heroin use (> or = 5 vs < 5) and then were randomized to receive placebo or 192 or 384 mg of depot naltrexone. Doses were administered at the beginning of weeks 1 and 5. All participants received twice-weekly relapse prevention therapy, provided observed urine samples, and completed other assessments at each visit.
                Retention in treatment and percentage of opioid-negative urine samples.
                Retention in treatment was dose related, with 39%, 60%, and 68% of patients in the placebo, 192 mg of naltrexone, and 384 mg of naltrexone groups, respectively, remaining in treatment at the end of 2 months. Time to dropout had a significant main effect of dose, with mean time to dropout of 27, 36, and 48 days for the placebo, 192 mg of naltrexone, and 384 mg of naltrexone groups, respectively. The percentage of urine samples negative for opioids, methadone, cocaine, benzodiazepines, and amphetamine varied significantly as a function of dose. When the data were recalculated without the assumption that missing urine samples were positive, a main effect of group was not found for any drugs tested except cocaine, where the percentage of cocaine-negative urine samples was lower in the placebo group. Adverse events were minimal and generally mild. This formulation of naltrexone was well tolerated and produced a robust, dose-related increase in treatment retention.
                These data provide new evidence of the feasibility, efficacy, and tolerability of long-lasting antagonist treatments for opioid dependence. In a double blind study, out of 31 newly abstinent patients who underwent opioid free detoxification, 15 were started on the opiate antagonist Naltrexone for 2 months, and 16 were put on placebo for the same period. Given Naltrexone's known efficacy in blocking euphorigenic effects of opioid intake, and in decreasing cravings for the drug, the authors have tried to assess eventual drug taking, specifically in the context of suburban housing projects, and evaluate the rate of retention in a rehabilitative program for both the Naltrexone and placebo groups. An Opioid free condition was followed up for a year, also respecting double blind conditions. Naltrexone did not appear to be superior to the placebo with regards to retention rate. In the Naltrexone group (n = 15), 9 finished the two-month treatment, and 8 remained opioid-free for a year. In the placebo group (n = 16), 8 finished the 2 month trial and 6 remained opioid-free for a year. Naltrexone blocked opioid-induced euphoria and decreased the craving for opium, but it did not inhibit drug usage. The retention rate registered during the course of the study, as well as an opioid-free condition in the follow-up year, correlated with a patient profile defined by good social functioning and stable relationships. The inherent methodological limitations of this study did not allow for the discrimination of the role of non-pharmacological factors, such as psychotherapy, supportive family framework, community assistance, and staff motivation, concerning the clinical results. Further investigation of Naltrexone in larger samples is needed. Rapid opioid detoxification with opioid antagonist induction using general anesthesia has emerged as an expensive, potentially dangerous, unproven approach to treat opioid dependence.
                To determine how anesthesia-assisted detoxification with rapid antagonist induction for heroin dependence compared with 2 alternative detoxification and antagonist induction methods.
                A total of 106 treatment-seeking heroin-dependent patients, aged 21 through 50 years, were randomly assigned to 1 of 3 inpatient withdrawal treatments over 72 hours followed by 12 weeks of outpatient naltrexone maintenance with relapse prevention psychotherapy. This randomized trial was conducted between 2000 and 2003 at Columbia University Medical Center's Clinical Research Center. Outpatient treatment occurred at the Columbia University research service for substance use disorders. Patients were included if they had an American Society of Anesthesiologists physical status of I or II, were without major comorbid psychiatric illness, and were not dependent on other drugs or alcohol.
                Anesthesia-assisted rapid opioid detoxification with naltrexone induction, buprenorphine-assisted rapid opioid detoxification with naltrexone induction, and clonidine-assisted opioid detoxification with delayed naltrexone induction.
                Withdrawal severity scores on objective and subjective scales; proportions of patients receiving naltrexone, completing inpatient detoxification, and retained in treatment; proportion of opioid-positive urine specimens.
                Mean withdrawal severities were comparable across the 3 treatments. Compared with clonidine-assisted detoxification, the anesthesia- and buprenorphine-assisted detoxification interventions had significantly greater rates of naltrexone induction (94% anesthesia, 97% buprenorphine, and 21% clonidine), but the groups did not differ in rates of completion of inpatient detoxification. Treatment retention over 12 weeks was not significantly different among groups with 7 of 35 (20%) retained in the anesthesia-assisted group, 9 of 37 (24%) in the buprenorphine-assisted group, and 3 of 34 (9%) in the clonidine-assisted group. Induction with 50 mg of naltrexone significantly reduced the risk of dropping out (odds ratio, 0.28; 95% confidence interval, 0.15-0.51). There were no significant group differences in proportions of opioid-positive urine specimens. The anesthesia procedure was associated with 3 potentially life-threatening adverse events.
                These data do not support the use of general anesthesia for heroin detoxification and rapid opioid antagonist induction. Naltrexone and placebo as adjuvant treatment of opioid dependence were compared in a double-blind, controlled clinical trial in 50 heroin addicts. The overall efficacy was assessed by the degree of treatment acceptance, percentage of relapse in heroin consumption, presence of side effects, and overall retention on naltrexone. A total of 50 patients of both sexes, aged from 18 to 30 years, who fulfilled DSM-III-R criteria for opioid dependence were included in the study. All patients completed detoxification with clonidine on an inpatient basis for 2 weeks and subsequently, on an out-patient basis, received oral naltrexone (350 mg per week) for a month. At the beginning of the second month patients were randomly allocated to treatment with naltrexone (28 patients) or placebo (22 patients) until a 6-month treatment period in a double-blind fashion had been completed. During the study period (1 year) all patients followed the same therapeutic schedule. Patients in both groups were comparable in terms of socio-demographic data and toxicological history. The efficacy of naltrexone was not superior to that of placebo as there were no significant differences in acceptance of treatment, retention rates, opioid and other drug consumption, drug compliance or side effects. The prevalence of heroin and other opioid use has markedly increased among adolescents in the last decade; however, virtually no research has been conducted to identify effective treatments for this population.
                To evaluate the relative efficacy of 2 pharmacotherapies, the partial opioid agonist buprenorphine hydrochloride and the centrally active alpha(2)-adrenergic blocker clonidine hydrochloride, in the detoxification of opioid-dependent adolescents.
                A double-blind, double-dummy, parallel-groups randomized controlled trial conducted in a university-based research clinic from October 2001 to December 2003. Patients were a volunteer sample of 36 adolescents who met DSM-IV criteria for opioid dependence (ages 13-18 years eligible).
                Participants were randomly assigned to a 28-day, outpatient, medication-assisted withdrawal treatment with either buprenorphine or clonidine. Both medications were provided along with thrice weekly behavioral counseling and incentives contingent on opiate abstinence. Postdetoxification, all participants were offered the opportunity for continued treatment with the opiate antagonist, naltrexone hydrochloride.
                Treatment retention, opiate abstinence, and human immunodeficiency virus risk behavior, along with measures of withdrawal and medication effects.
                A significantly greater percentage of adolescents who received buprenorphine were retained in treatment (72%) relative to those who received clonidine (39%) (P<.05). For those in the buprenorphine group, a significantly higher percentage of scheduled urine test results were opiate negative (64% vs 32%; P = .01). Participants in both groups reported relief of withdrawal symptoms and drug-related human immunodeficiency virus risk behavior. Those in the buprenorphine condition generally reported more positive effects of the medication. No evidence of opioid intoxication or psychomotor impairment was observed. Sixty-one percent of participants in the buprenorphine condition and 5% of those in the clonidine group initiated treatment with naltrexone.
                Combining buprenorphine with behavioral interventions is significantly more efficacious in the treatment of opioid-dependent adolescents relative to combining clonidine and behavioral interventions. Access to specialty alcoholism treatment in rural environments is limited and new treatment approaches are needed. The objective was to evaluate the efficacy of naltrexone alone and in combination with sertraline among Alaska Natives and other Alaskans living in rural settings. An exploratory aim examined whether the Asn40Asp polymorphism of the mu-opioid receptor gene (OPRM1) predicted response to naltrexone, as had been reported in Caucasians.
                Randomized, controlled trial enrolling 101 Alaskans with alcohol dependence, including 68 American Indians/Alaska Natives. Participants received 16 weeks of either (1) placebo (placebo naltrexone + placebo sertraline), (2) naltrexone monotherapy (50 mg naltrexone + sertraline placebo) and (3) naltrexone + sertraline (100 mg) plus nine sessions of medical management and supportive advice. Primary outcomes included Time to First Heavy Drinking Day and Total Abstinence.
                Naltrexone monotherapy demonstrated significantly higher total abstinence (35%) compared with placebo (12%, p = 0027) and longer, but not statistically different, Time to First Heavy Drinking Day (p = 0.093). On secondary measures, naltrexone compared with placebo demonstrated significant improvements in percent days abstinent (p = 0.024) and drinking-related consequences (p = 0.02). Combined sertraline and naltrexone did not differ from naltrexone alone. The pattern of findings was generally similar for the American Indian/Alaska Native subsample. Naltrexone treatment response was significant within the group of 75 individuals who were homozygous for OPRM1 Asn40 allele. There was a small number of Asp40 carriers, precluding statistical testing of the effect of this allele on response.
                Naltrexone can be used effectively to treat alcoholism in remote and rural communities, with evidence of benefit for American Indians and Alaska Natives. New models of care incorporating pharmacotherapy could reduce important health disparities related to alcoholism. This double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled clinical trial evaluated the impact on withdrawal symptoms of (i) combining naltrexone with a 4-day buprenorphine taper for short opioid detoxification (NB Group), compared to (ii) using a 4-day buprenorphine taper alone, followed by naltrexone on day 8 (PB Group). Sublingual buprenorphine was administered on days 1-4 (26 mg total). For the NB Group (n = 32) escalating doses of oral naltrexone were given on days 2-8 (placebo day 1). For the PB Group (n = 28) placebo was given on days 1-7 and naltrexone on day 8. Main outcome measures were Observed Opioid Withdrawal scores (OOW, 0-30) and use of medications to treat opioid withdrawal. Of 32 patients in the NB group, 59% experienced clinically relevant withdrawal (defined as OOW > or = 5) on day 2, but, after day 5, none experienced withdrawal. In the PB group, the number of patients experiencing withdrawal increased over time. The first naltrexone dose induced comparable withdrawal in both groups: peak OOW scores were (mean +/- SD) 5.2 +/- 3.3 on day 2 for the NB group, and 4.0 +/- 3.9 on day 8 for the PB group (NS), though, on day 2, 7 patients dropped out in the NB group and none in the PB group, while only one patient dropped out in the PB group on day 8. Throughout the 8-day study, patients in both groups received similar amount of adjunct medication: 0.64 +/- 0.07 mg (NB group) of clonidine vs 0.73 +/- 0.15 mg (PB group; NS). Only 25% of patients required use of sedatives (up to 20 mg diazepam). Starting naltrexone on day 2 appeared to abolish withdrawal symptoms after day 5 and, thus, to shorten the duration of withdrawal symptoms. Peak withdrawal symptoms after naltrexone were of moderate intensity, suggesting that naltrexone combined with buprenorphine is an acceptable and safe treatment for shortened opioid detoxification and induction of naltrexone maintenance. Naltrexone is approved for the treatment of alcohol dependence when used in conjunction with a psychosocial intervention. This study was undertaken to examine the impact of 3 types of psychosocial treatment combined with either naltrexone or placebo treatment on alcohol dependency over 24 weeks of treatment: (1) Cognitive-Behavioral Therapy (CBT) + medication clinic, (2) BRENDA (an intervention promoting pharmacotherapy) + medication clinic, and (3) a medication clinic model with limited therapeutic content.
                Two hundred and forty alcohol-dependent subjects were enrolled in a 24-week double-blind placebo-controlled study of naltrexone (100 mg/d). Subjects were also randomly assigned to 1 of 3 psychosocial interventions. All patients were assessed for alcohol use, medication adherence, and adverse events at regularly scheduled research visits.
                There was a modest main treatment effect for the psychosocial condition favoring those subjects randomized to CBT. Intent-to-treat analyses suggested that there was no overall efficacy of naltrexone and no medication by psychosocial intervention interaction. There was a relatively low level of medication adherence (50% adhered) across conditions, and this was associated with poor outcome.
                Results from this 24-week treatment study demonstrate the importance of the psychosocial component in the treatment of alcohol dependence. Moreover, results demonstrate a substantial association between medication adherence and treatment outcomes. The findings suggest that further research is needed to determine the appropriate use of pharmacotherapy in maximizing treatment response. The opioid antagonist, naltrexone, is reported, in single centre studies, to improve the clinical outcome of individuals with alcohol dependence participating in outpatient psychosocial programmes. This is the first multicentre controlled study to evaluate the efficacy and safety of naltrexone as adjunctive treatment for alcohol dependence or abuse. Patients who met criteria for alcohol dependence (n = 169) or alcohol abuse (n = 6) were randomly assigned to receive double-blind oral naltrexone 50 mg daily (n = 90) or placebo (n = 85) for 12 weeks as an adjunct to psychosocial treatment. The primary efficacy variable was time to first episode of heavy drinking; secondary efficacy assessments included time to first drink, alcohol consumption, craving, and changes in the serum biological markers gamma-glutamyl transferase (GGT), and aspartate and alanine aminotransferases. Compliance was assessed by tablet counts and, in the naltrexone-treated group, by measurement of urinary concentrations of 6-ss-naltrexol. Forty-nine (58%) patients randomized to placebo and 53 (59%) randomized to naltrexone did not complete the study. In intention-to-treat analyses, there was no difference between groups on measures of drinking. The median reduction from baseline of serum GGT (P: < 0.05) and the reductions in alcohol craving (Obsessive and Compulsive Drinking Scale: OCDS) were greater in the naltrexone group (P: < 0.05), from approximately half-way through the study. Of 70 patients (35 placebo; 35 naltrexone) who met an a priori definition of compliance (80% tablet consumption, attendance at all follow-up appointments), those allocated to naltrexone reported consuming half the amount of alcohol (P: < 0.05), had greater median reduction in serum GGT activity (P: < 0.05), and greater reduction in alcohol craving (OCDS total score: P: < 0.05; Obsessive subscale score: P: < 0.05), compared to patients in the placebo group. Use of naltrexone raised no safety concerns. Naltrexone is effective in treating alcohol dependence/abuse in conjunction with psychosocial therapy, in patients who comply with treatment.
The findings of this review suggest that oral naltrexone did not perform better than treatment with placebo or no pharmacological agent with respect to the number of participants re-incarcerated during the study period. If oral naltrexone is compared with other pharmacological treatments such as benzodiazepine and buprenorphine, no statistically significant difference was found. The percentage of people retained in treatment in the included studies is however low (28%). The conclusion of this review is that the studies conducted have not allowed an adequate evaluation of oral naltrexone treatment in the field of opioid dependence. Consequently, maintenance therapy with naltrexone cannot yet be considered a treatment which has been scientifically proved to be superior to other kinds of treatment.