Controlled clinical study of naltrexone side effects comparing first-day doses and maintenance regimens

Andrographis paniculata and Its Main Bioactive Ingredient Andrographolide Decrease Alcohol Drinking and Seeking in Rats Through Activation of Nuclear PPARγ Pathway

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Andrographis paniculata is an annual herbaceous plant which belongs to the Acanthaceae family. Extracts from this plant have shown hepatoprotective, anti-inflammatory and antidiabetic properties, at least in part, through activation of the nuclear receptor Peroxisome Proliferator-Activated Receptor-gamma (PPAR γ). Recent evidence has demonstrated that activation of PPARγ reduces alcohol drinking and seeking in Marchigian Sardinian (msP) alcohol-preferring rats.

METHODS

The present study evaluated whether A. paniculata reduces alcohol drinking and relapse in msP rats by activating PPARγ.

RESULTS

Oral administration of an A. paniculata dried extract (0, 15, 150 mg/kg) lowered voluntary alcohol consumption in a dose-dependent manner and achieved ~65% reduction at the dose of 450 mg/kg. Water and food consumption were not affected by the treatment. Administration of Andrographolide (5 and 10 mg/kg), the main active component of A. paniculata, also reduced alcohol drinking. This effect was suppressed by the selective PPARγ antagonist GW9662. Subsequently, we showed that oral administration of A. paniculata (0, 150, 450 mg/kg) prevented yohimbine- but not cues-induced reinstatement of alcohol seeking.

CONCLUSIONS

Results point to A. paniculata-mediated PPARγactivation as a possible therapeutic strategy to treat alcohol use disorder.

Oral naltrexone maintenance treatment for opioid dependence

BACKGROUND

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.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the effects of naltrexone maintenance treatment versus placebo or other treatments in preventing relapse in opioid addicts after detoxification.

SEARCH STRATEGY

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.

SELECTION CRITERIA

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

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

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.

MAIN RESULTS

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.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

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.

Oral naltrexone maintenance treatment for opioid dependence

BACKGROUND

Research on the clinical application of oral naltrexone agrees on several things. From a pharmacological perspective, naltrexone works. From an applied perspective, however, the medication compliance and the retention rates are very poor.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the effects of naltrexone maintenance treatment versus placebo or other treatments in preventing relapse in opioid addicts after detoxification.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched the 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 we contacted pharmaceutical producers of naltrexone, authors and other Cochrane review groups.

SELECTION CRITERIA

All randomised and controlled clinical trials which focus on the use of naltrexone maintenance treatment versus placebo, or other treatments to reach sustained abstinence from opiate drugs

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

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.

MAIN RESULTS

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.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.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

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.

Oral naltrexone maintenance treatment for opioid dependence

BACKGROUND

Research on the clinical application of oral naltrexone agrees on several things. From a pharmacological perspective, naltrexone works. From an applied perspective, however, this medication is not used since the medication compliance and the retention rates are very poor.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the effects of naltrexone maintenance treatment versus placebo or other treatments in preventing relapse in opioid addicts after detoxification.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched the Cochrane Drugs and Alcohol Group Register of Trials (January 2005), Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL - The Cochrane Library Issue 1, 2005), MEDLINE (1973-first year of naltrexone use in humans- January 2005), EMBASE (1974- January 2005), PsycINFO (OVID-January 1985 to January 2004). We inspected reference lists of relevant articles and we contacted pharmaceutical producers of naltrexone, authors and other Cochrane review groups.

SELECTION CRITERIA

All randomised and controlled clinical trials which focus on the use of naltrexone maintenance treatment versus placebo, or other treatments to reach sustained abstinence from opiate drugs

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

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.

MAIN RESULTS

Ten studies, 696 participants, met the criteria for inclusion in this review. Only two studies described an adequate allocation concealment. The results show that naltrexone maintenance therapy alone or associated with psychosocial therapy is more efficacious that placebo alone or associated with psychosocial therapy in limiting the use of heroin during the treatment (RR 0,72 95% confidence interval 0.58 to 0.90). If we consider only the studies comparing naltrexone with placebo, the difference do not reach the statistical significancy, RR 0.79 (95%CI 0.59 to 1.06). With respect to the number of participants re incarcerated during the study period, the naltrexone associated with psychosocial therapy is more effective than the psychosocial treatment alone; RR 0.50 (95%CI 0.27 to 0.91). No statistically significant benefit was shown in terms of retention in treatment, side effects or relapse results at follow-up for any of the considered comparisons.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Unfortunately the studies did not provide an objective evaluation of naltrexone treatment in the field of opioid dependence. The conclusions are also limited due to the heterogeneity of the trials both in the interventions and in the assessment of outcomes.

A systematic review on the efficacy of naltrexone maintenance treatment in opioid dependence

AIM

To evaluate the efficacy of naltrexone maintenance treatment in preventing relapse in opioid addicts after detoxification.

DESIGN

A systematic review according to the methodology developed by the Cochrane Collaboration based on either randomized controlled trials (RCTs) or controlled clinical trials (CCTs).

PARTICIPANTS

Seven hundred and seven heroin dependent in- and out-patients, or former heroin addicts dependent on methadone and participating in a naltrexone treatment programme; 89% were male.

INTERVENTION

Maintenance treatments on opiate dependent people after detoxification, comparing naltrexone with placebo, pharmacological or behavioural treatments.

MEASUREMENTS

The outcomes considered were successfully completed treatment, opioid use under treatment (re)-incarcerations during the study period, mean duration of treatment.

FINDINGS

The outcomes tended to be slightly although not significantly in favour of the naltrexone groups. Use of naltrexone in addition to behavioural treatment significantly decreased the probability of (re-)incarceration (OR=0.30; 95% CI 0.12, 0.76). The difficulties in producing a quantitative analysis were due mainly to the heterogeneity of the included studies.

CONCLUSIONS

From the available clinical trials performed up to this time, there is insufficient evidence to justify the use of naltrexone in maintenance treatment of opioid addicts.

Naltrexone maintenance treatment for opioid dependence

BACKGROUND

Despite widespread use of naltrexone maintenance in many countries for more than a decade, the evidence of its effects has not yet been systematically evaluated.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the effects of naltrexone maintenance treatment in preventing relapse in opioid addicts after detoxification.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched MEDLINE (1973-first year of naltrexone use in humans-July 2000), EMBASE (1974-July 2000), Cochrane Controlled Trials Register (Cochrane Library issue 2001.4) and handsearched the "Bolletino per le Farmacodipendenze e l'Alcolismo" (1978 to 1997) and reference lists of relevant articles. We contacted pharmaceutical producers of naltrexone, authors and other Cochrane review groups. Date of most recent searches: December 2001.

SELECTION CRITERIA

All controlled studies of naltrexone; treatment of heroin addicts after detoxification.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Reviewers evaluated data independently and analysed outcome measures taking into consideration adherence to and success of the study intervention. Data were extracted and analysed stratifying for the three categories of study quality. Where possible, meta-analysis was performed.

MAIN RESULTS

Eleven studies met the criteria for inclusion in this review, even if not all of them were randomised. The methodological quality of the included studies varied, but was generally poor. Meta-analysis could be performed to a very low degree only, because the studies and their outcome measures were very heterogeneous. A statistically significant reduction of (re-)incarcerations was found for patients treated with naltrexone and behaviour therapy in respect to those treated with behaviour therapy only. The other outcomes considered in the meta-analysis did not yield any significant results. Final conclusions on whether naltrexone treatment may be considered effective in maintenance therapy cannot be drawn from the clinical trials available so far.

REVIEWER'S CONCLUSIONS

The available trials do not allow a final evaluation of naltrexone maintenance treatment yet. A trend in favour of treatment with naltrexone was observed for certain target groups (particularly people who are highly motivated), as has been previously described in the literature.

Naltrexone pharmacotherapy for opioid dependent federal probationers

Federal probationers or parolees with a history of opioid addiction were referred by themselves or their probation/parole officer for a naltrexone treatment study. Participation was voluntary and subjects could drop out of the study at any time without adverse consequences. Following orientation and informed consent, 51 volunteers were randomly assigned in a 2:1 ratio to a 6-month program of probation plus naltrexone and brief drug counseling, or probation plus counseling alone. Naltrexone subjects received medication and counseling twice a week; controls received counseling at similar intervals. All therapy and medication were administered in an office located adjacent to the federal probation department. Fifty-two percent of subjects in the naltrexone group continued for 6 months and 33% remained in the control group. Opioid use was significantly lower in the naltrexone group. The overall mean percent of opioid positive urine tests among the naltrexone subjects was 8%, versus 30% for control subjects (p < .05). Fifty-six percent of the controls and 26% of the naltrexone group (p < .05) had their probation status revoked within the 6-month study period and returned to prison. Treatment with naltrexone and brief drug counseling can be integrated into the Federal Probation/Parole system with favorable results on both opioid use and re-arrest rates.

Multiple family therapy and naltrexone in the treatment of opiate dependence

The effect of multiple family therapy on client compliance and retention in a high intervention, naltrexone treatment program was examined retrospectively. The population consisted of 65 opiate-dependent individuals consecutively treated with naltrexone and a standard program of counseling and supportive psychotherapy. Twenty-five of these individuals, in addition, received multiple family therapy. The data presented are suggestive of the efficacy of combining multiple family therapy and high intervention in patients being treated with naltrexone. Analysis of the data demonstrated that the group receiving multiple family therapy had a larger continuous time of naltrexone ingestion and remained in the treatment program longer than clients who did not receive multiple family therapy. These effects were independent of race and employment status. The implication of the results for treatment and avenues for future research are discussed.