We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Naltrexone has considerable potential in helping to prevent relapse in heroin dependency. A longer-lasting formulation for naltrexone treatment is desirable to further reduce non-adherence and relapse during treatment of opiate dependence.
To evaluate the safety and effectiveness of a 6-month naltrexone implant in reducing opioid use after in-patient treatment.
A group of 56 abstinence-oriented patients who completed in-patient treatment for opioid dependence were randomly and openly assigned to receive either a 6-month naltrexone implant or their usual aftercare. Drug use and other outcomes were assessed at 6-month follow-up.
Patients receiving naltrexone had on average 45 days less heroin use and 60 days less opioid use than controls in the 180-day period (both P<0.05). Blood tests showed naltrexone levels above 1 ng/ml for the duration of 6 months. Two patients died, neither of whom had received an implant.
Naltrexone implant treatment safely and significantly reduces opioid use in a motivated population of patients.
To send this article to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about sending to your Kindle. Find out more about sending to your Kindle.
Note you can select to send to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be sent to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.
Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.
To send this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Dropbox.
To send this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Google Drive.
Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this journal to your organisation's collection.
| Type | Description | Title | |
|
Kun⊘e et al. supplementary material |
|||
|
Kun⊘e et al. supplementary material |
|||
|
Kun⊘e et al. supplementary material |
* Views captured on Cambridge Core between <date>. This data will be updated every 24 hours.
Usage data cannot currently be displayed
Nikolaj Kun�
22 October 2009
We are happy to clarify: Of the 667 patients, 265 opioid dependent patients entered inpatient treatment for induction onto agonist maintenance treatment and were therefore excluded. Also, patients who left their respective clinics prematurely were not eligible for participation (n=193). Eleven were excluded due to psychotic symptoms, 8 due to pregnancy, and 17 due to extreme ALT/AST values.
This left n=173 opioid dependent patients as satisfying inclusion criteria. However, the virtually complete novelty of naltrexone implant treatment in Norway at the time of recruitment probably means that these results are a poor basis upon which to base estimates of demand for this form of treatment.
The randomized trial period was followed by an implantation or re-implantation opportunity for all patients, meaning that the proportion of patients who entered inpatient treatment again at the end of the study to detoxify or stabilise is probably higher than future clinical samples.Reporting it as a result or as part of a figure could be regarded as misleading. ... More
Conflict of interest: None Declared
Write a replyBack to top
Kathleen I Kelly, Specialist Registrar Psychiatry
30 September 2009
The report by Kuone et al(1) of the first randomised controlled trialof naltrexone implants is of great interest.
The authors identify two inclusion criteria in their methodology:being an in-patient and being 18years or above. Exclusion criteria are given as psychosis,pregnancy and serious hepatic disease. Of 667 possible participants 480 are excluded. In the results,the term "ineligibility" is used to describe not completeing treatment,starting maintenance and transfer to other clinics. Could the authors clarify when these additional criteria were decided upon,and how many were excluded foreach reason? Given that all 667 patients were receiving "abstinence-orinated" in-patient treatment,it is notable that only a small proportion of patients were eligible for,or wanted such treatment.The characteristicsof the ineligible or refusal group could provide important information about which group of opiate dependent patients are likely to benefit from naltrexone.
Data on opiod use throughout the period of treatment would be of value. In the non-abstainers we would expect both groups to use in the first few days,but behavioural extinction to occur in the naltrexone group.
Participants who had their implants removed were included in the analysis using their last response carried forward. If these patients could not be contacted,would it not be a more conservative assumption thatthey would have relapsed?
The patient group who were living in controlled environments(prison or clinic),at follow up,were dealt with by using preadmission data. This group is missing from the flowchart. ... More
Conflict of interest: None Declared
Write a replyBack to top