Oral naltrexone maintenance treatment for opioid dependence
ABSTRACT Research on clinical application of oral naltrexone agrees on several things. From a pharmacological perspective, naltrexone works. From an applied perspective, the medication compliance and the retention rates are poor.
To evaluate the effects of naltrexone maintenance treatment versus placebo or other treatments in preventing relapse in opioid addicts after detoxification.
We searched: Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL - The Cochrane Library issue 6 2010), PubMed (1973- June 2010), CINAHL (1982- June 2010). We inspected reference lists of relevant articles and contacted pharmaceutical producers of naltrexone, authors and other Cochrane review groups.
All randomised controlled clinical trials which focus on the use of naltrexone maintenance treatment versus placebo, or other treatments to reach sustained abstinence from opiate drugs
Three reviewers independently assessed studies for inclusion and extracted data. One reviewer carried out the qualitative assessments of the methodology of eligible studies using validated checklists.
Thirteen studies, 1158 participants, met the criteria for inclusion in this review.Comparing naltrexone versus placebo or no pharmacological treatments, no statistically significant difference were noted for all the primary outcomes considered. The only outcome statistically significant in favour of naltrexone is re incarceration, RR 0.47 (95%CI 0.26-0.84), but results come only from two studies. Considering only studies were patients were forced to adherence a statistical significant difference in favour of naltrexone was found for retention and abstinence, RR 2.93 (95%CI 1.66-5.18).Comparing naltrexone versus psychotherapy, in the two considered outcomes, no statistically significant difference was found in the single study considered.Naltrexone was not superior to benzodiazepines and to buprenorphine for retention and abstinence and side effects. Results come from single studies.
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.
[Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Crohn's disease is a transmural, relapsing inflammatory condition afflicting the digestive tract. Opioid signalling, long known to affect secretion and motility in the gut, has been implicated in the inflammatory cascade of Crohn's disease. Low dose naltrexone, an opioid antagonist, has garnered interest as a potential therapy. The primary objective was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of low dose naltrexone for induction of remission in Crohn's disease. A systematic search of MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL, and the Cochrane Inflammatory Bowel Disease and Functional Bowel Disorders Review Group Specialized Register was performed from inception to February 2013 to identify relevant studies. Abstracts from major gastroenterology conferences including Digestive Disease Week and United European Gastroenterology Week and reference lists from retrieved articles were also reviewed. Randomized controlled trials of low dose naltrexone (LDN) for treatment of active Crohn's disease were included. Data were analyzed on an intention-to-treat basis using Review Manager (RevMan 5.2). The primary outcome was induction of clinical remission defined by a Crohn's disease activity index (CDAI) of < 150 or a pediatric Crohn's disease activity index (PCDAI) of < 10. Secondary outcomes included clinical response (70- or 100-point decrease in CDAI from baseline), endoscopic remission or response, quality of life, and adverse events as defined by the included studies. Risk ratios (RR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated for dichotomous outcomes. The methodological quality of included studies was evaluated using the Cochrane risk of bias tool. The overall quality of the evidence supporting the primary outcome and selected secondary outcomes was assessed using the GRADE criteria. Two studies were identified (46 participants). One study assessed the efficacy and safety of 12 weeks of LDN (4.5 mg/day) treatment compared to placebo in adult patients (N = 34). The other study assessed eight weeks of LDN (0.1 mg/kg, maximum 4.5 mg/day) treatment compared to placebo in pediatric patients (N = 12). The primary purpose of the pediatric study was to assess safety and tolerability. Both studies were rated as having a low risk of bias. The study in adult patients reported that 30% (5/18) of LDN treated patients achieved clinical remission at 12 weeks compared to 18% (3/16) of placebo patients, a difference that was not statistically significant (RR 1.48, 95% CI 0.42 to 5.24). The study in children reported that 25% of LDN treated patients achieved clinical remission (PCDAI < 10) compared to none of the patients in the placebo group, although it was unclear if this result was for the randomized placebo-controlled trial or for the open label extension study. In the adult study 70-point clinical response rates were significantly higher in those treated with LDN than placebo. Eighty-three per cent (15/18) of LDN patients had a 70-point clinical response at week 12 compared to 38% (6/16) of placebo patients (RR 2.22, 95% CI 1.14 to 4.32). The effect of LDN on the proportion of adult patients who achieved a 100-point clinical response was uncertain. Sixty-one per cent (11/18) of LDN patients achieved a 100-point clinical response compared to 31% (5/16) of placebo patients (RR 1.96, 95% CI 0.87 to 4.42). The proportion of patients who achieved endoscopic response (CDEIS decline > 5 from baseline) was significantly higher in the LDN group compared to placebo. Seventy-two per cent (13/18) of LDN patients achieved an endoscopic response compared to 25% (4/16) of placebo patients (RR 2.89; 95% CI 1.18 to 7.08). However, there was no statistically significant difference in the proportion of patients who achieved endoscopic remission. Endoscopic remission (CDEIS < 3) was achieved in 22% (4/18) of the LDN group compared to 0% (0/16) of the placebo group (RR 8.05; 95% CI 0.47 to 138.87). Pooled data from both studies show no statistically significant differences in withdrawals due to adverse events or specific adverse events including sleep disturbance, unusual dreams, headache, decreased appetite, nausea and fatigue. No serious adverse events were reported in either study. GRADE analyses rated the overall quality of the evidence for the primary and secondary outcomes (i.e. clinical remission, clinical response, endoscopic response, and adverse events) as low due to serious imprecision (sparse data). Currently, there is insufficient evidence to allow any firm conclusions regarding the efficacy and safety of LDN used to treat patients with active Crohn's disease. Data from one small study suggests that LDN may provide a benefit in terms of clinical and endoscopic response in adult patients with active Crohn's disease. Data from two small studies suggest that LDN does not increase the rate of specific adverse events relative to placebo. However, these results need to be interpreted with caution as they are based on very small numbers of patients and the overall quality of the evidence was rated as low due to serious imprecision. Further randomized controlled trials are required to assess the efficacy and safety of LDN therapy in active Crohn's disease in both adults and children. One study is currently ongoing (NCT01810185).Cochrane database of systematic reviews (Online) 02/2014; 2(2):CD010410. DOI:10.1002/14651858.CD010410.pub2 · 5.94 Impact Factor
[Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: The United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved naltrexone, a synthetic competitive antagonist at opioid receptors, in oral form in 1984 for use in the management of opioid abuse and addiction. Because naltrexone and its major metabolite, 6-β-naltrexone, are both competitive antagonists at opioid receptors - and thereby inhibit opioid agonist-induced effects including those desired by abusers - it was hypothesized that once maintained on naltrex-one, opioid-induced desirable effects would be diminished to the point that relapse to illicit use would decline because it was no longer rewarding. However, good medication compliance is a requisite for such a strategy to be effective and a systematic review of oral naltrexone concluded that this method of treatment was not superior for any outcomes measured (ie, retention, abstinence, or side effects) to placebo, psychotherapy, benzodiazepines, or buprenorphine treatment. In addition, the retention rate on oral naltrexone was very low (less than 30%). Recently, the FDA approved an extended-release formulation (intramuscular depot injection) of naltrexone for prevention of relapse to opioid dependence following opioid detoxification and to be used along with counseling and social support. Since it needs to be administered only monthly, as opposed to the daily administration required for the oral formulation, naltrexone injection has the potential for increasing adherence and retention rates. Concerns include liver damage at high doses (oral formulation) and possible opioid overdose if an attempt is made to surmount receptor antagonism by taking higher doses of an opioid agonist or if opioid receptors become "sensitized" under long-term antagonism. The focus of the present review is the current information regarding the safety and efficacy of naltrexone extended-release therapy.12/2011; 2:219-226. DOI:10.2147/SAR.S17920
[Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: ABSTRACT During the past decade, substantial progress has been made in the field of addiction medicine in Europe, particularly regarding the development of new treatment interventions, resulting in a wide range of therapeutic options for patients with substance use disorders. However, not all interventions are evidence-based. Patients with cannabis and cocaine/amphetamine use disorders and special patient populations especially lack evidence-based treatment recommendations. Many patients undergo treatment that has not been scientifically evaluated for quality and efficacy. Moreover, there are large disparities regarding availability and treatment access across Europe, with the new member states of the EU reporting long waiting lists and low treatment coverage. Even in Austria, which ranks among the countries with relatively high treatment coverage and good diversification of treatment in opioid maintenance therapy due to the availability of methadone, buprenorphine and slow release oral morphine (SROM), a considerable population of untreated or inadequately treated patients exists. Treatment for substance use disorders in Europe still has scope for improvement in terms of treatment availability and access, which is ideally provided by further development and implementation of evidence-based interventions.Substance Abuse 04/2014; DOI:10.1080/08897077.2014.909377 · 1.62 Impact Factor