Explore the vast range of titles available.

Extended-release naltrexone (XR-NTX), an opioid antagonist, and sublingual buprenorphine-naloxone (BUP-NX), a partial opioid agonist, are pharmacologically and conceptually distinct interventions to prevent opioid relapse. We aimed to estimate the difference in opioid relapse-free survival between XR-NTX and BUP-NX. We initiated this 24 week, open-label, randomised controlled, comparative effectiveness trial at eight US community-based inpatient services and followed up participants as outpatients. Participants were 18 years or older, had Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders-5 opioid use disorder, and had used non-prescribed opioids in the past 30 days. We stratified participants by treatment site and opioid use severity and used a web-based permuted block design with random equally weighted block sizes of four and six for randomisation (1:1) to receive XR-NTX or BUP-NX. XR-NTX was monthly intramuscular injections (Vivitrol; Alkermes) and BUP-NX was daily self-administered buprenorphine-naloxone sublingual film (Suboxone; Indivior). The primary outcome was opioid relapse-free survival during 24 weeks of outpatient treatment. Relapse was 4 consecutive weeks of any non-study opioid use by urine toxicology or self-report, or 7 consecutive days of self-reported use. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02032433. Between Jan 30, 2014, and May 25, 2016, we randomly assigned 570 participants to receive XR-NTX (n=283) or BUP-NX (n=287). The last follow-up visit was Jan 31, 2017. As expected, XR-NTX had a substantial induction hurdle: fewer participants successfully initiated XR-NTX (204 [72%] of 283) than BUP-NX (270 [94%] of 287; p<0·0001). Among all participants who were randomly assigned (intention-to-treat population, n=570) 24 week relapse events were greater for XR-NTX (185 [65%] of 283) than for BUP-NX (163 [57%] of 287; hazard ratio [HR] 1·36, 95% CI 1·10–1·68), most or all of this difference accounted for by early relapse in nearly all (70 [89%] of 79) XR-NTX induction failures. Among participants successfully inducted (per-protocol population, n=474), 24 week relapse events were similar across study groups (p=0·44). Opioid-negative urine samples (p<0·0001) and opioid-abstinent days (p<0·0001) favoured BUP-NX compared with XR-NTX among the intention-to-treat population, but were similar across study groups among the per-protocol population. Self-reported opioid craving was initially less with XR-NTX than with BUP-NX (p=0·0012), then converged by week 24 (p=0·20). With the exception of mild-to-moderate XR-NTX injection site reactions, treatment-emergent adverse events including overdose did not differ between treatment groups. Five fatal overdoses occurred (two in the XR-NTX group and three in the BUP-NX group). In this population it is more difficult to initiate patients to XR-NTX than BUP-NX, and this negatively affected overall relapse. However, once initiated, both medications were equally safe and effective. Future work should focus on facilitating induction to XR-NTX and on improving treatment retention for both medications. NIDA Clinical Trials Network.

In this trial involving adult ex-prisoners who had a history of opioid dependence, extended-release naltrexone resulted in a lower rate of opioid relapse than did usual treatment (brief counseling and referrals). The drug did not reduce rates of reincarceration or unsafe sex. Opioid-use disorder is a chronic relapsing condition that has serious public health consequences. Opioid dependence disproportionately affects U.S. criminal justice system populations, and relapse and overdose deaths occur at high rates after release from incarceration. 1 Evidence-based opioid-agonist maintenance therapies for opioid dependence (methadone and buprenorphine) are effective in prison, jail, and community reentry (i.e., parole) settings 2 – 5 but have historically been unavailable or discouraged among criminal justice clients. 6 – 8 Extended-release naltrexone (Vivitrol, Alkermes), a sustained-release monthly injectable formulation of the full mu-opioid receptor antagonist, was approved by the Food and Drug Administration in 2010 for the prevention of relapse to . . .

In this trial, patients with opioid-induced constipation were treated with naloxegol, an oral, peripherally acting, μ-opioid receptor antagonist. Naloxegol was more effective than placebo and did not reduce pain control or increase opioid dose requirements. Opioids are a family of compounds that includes natural, synthetic, and semisynthetic agents. Because of their centrally mediated analgesic properties, opioids play a critical role in the management of acute and chronic pain. In the United States, more than 240 million opioid prescriptions are dispensed per year, the majority for noncancer pain such as back pain and other musculoskeletal ailments. 1 Among patients taking opioids, 40 to 90% have constipation and other gastrointestinal side effects, 2 – 5 which can adversely affect adherence to pain-medication regimens and quality of life. 3 Constipation is the most common 3 , 4 , 6 and most bothersome 3 gastrointestinal side effect . . .

Opioid dependence is associated with low rates of treatment-seeking, poor adherence to treatment, frequent relapse, and major societal consequences. We aimed to assess the efficacy, safety, and patient-reported outcomes of an injectable, once monthly extended-release formulation of the opioid antagonist naltrexone (XR-NTX) for treatment of patients with opioid dependence after detoxification. We did a double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomised, 24-week trial of patients with opioid dependence disorder. Patients aged 18 years or over who had 30 days or less of inpatient detoxification and 7 days or more off all opioids were enrolled at 13 clinical sites in Russia. We randomly assigned patients (1:1) to either 380 mg XR-NTX or placebo by an interactive voice response system, stratified by site and gender in a centralised, permuted-block method. Participants also received 12 biweekly counselling sessions. Participants, investigators, staff, and the sponsor were masked to treatment allocation. The primary endpoint was the response profile for confirmed abstinence during weeks 5–24, assessed by urine drug tests and self report of non-use. Secondary endpoints were self-reported opioid-free days, opioid craving scores, number of days of retention, and relapse to physiological opioid dependence. Analyses were by intention to treat. This trial is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT00678418. Between July 3, 2008, and Oct 5, 2009, 250 patients were randomly assigned to XR-NTX (n=126) or placebo (n=124). The median proportion of weeks of confirmed abstinence was 90·0% (95% CI 69·9–92·4) in the XR-NTX group compared with 35·0% (11·4–63·8) in the placebo group (p=0·0002). Patients in the XR-NTX group self-reported a median of 99·2% (range 89·1–99·4) opioid-free days compared with 60·4% (46·2–94·0) for the placebo group (p=0·0004). The mean change in craving was −10·1 (95% CI −12·3 to −7·8) in the XR-NTX group compared with 0·7 (−3·1 to 4·4) in the placebo group (p<0·0001). Median retention was over 168 days in the XR-NTX group compared with 96 days (95% CI 63–165) in the placebo group (p=0·0042). Naloxone challenge confirmed relapse to physiological opioid dependence in 17 patients in the placebo group compared with one in the XR-NTX group (p<0·0001). XR-NTX was well tolerated. Two patients in each group discontinued owing to adverse events. No XR-NTX-treated patients died, overdosed, or discontinued owing to severe adverse events. XR-NTX represents a new treatment option that is distinct from opioid agonist maintenance treatment. XR-NTX in conjunction with psychosocial treatment might improve acceptance of opioid dependence pharmacotherapy and provide a useful treatment option for many patients. Alkermes.

Evidence-based practices for reducing opioid-related overdose deaths include overdose education and naloxone distribution, the use of medications for the treatment of opioid use disorder, and prescription opioid safety. Data are needed on the effectiveness of a community-engaged intervention to reduce opioid-related overdose deaths through enhanced uptake of these practices. In this community-level, cluster-randomized trial, we randomly assigned 67 communities in Kentucky, Massachusetts, New York, and Ohio to receive the intervention (34 communities) or a wait-list control (33 communities), stratified according to state. The trial was conducted within the context of both the coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19) pandemic and a national surge in the number of fentanyl-related overdose deaths. The trial groups were balanced within states according to urban or rural classification, previous overdose rate, and community population. The primary outcome was the number of opioid-related overdose deaths among community adults. During the comparison period from July 2021 through June 2022, the population-averaged rates of opioid-related overdose deaths were similar in the intervention group and the control group (47.2 deaths per 100,000 population vs. 51.7 per 100,000 population), for an adjusted rate ratio of 0.91 (95% confidence interval, 0.76 to 1.09; P = 0.30). The effect of the intervention on the rate of opioid-related overdose deaths did not differ appreciably according to state, urban or rural category, age, sex, or race or ethnic group. Intervention communities implemented 615 evidence-based practice strategies from the 806 strategies selected by communities (254 involving overdose education and naloxone distribution, 256 involving the use of medications for opioid use disorder, and 105 involving prescription opioid safety). Of these evidence-based practice strategies, only 235 (38%) had been initiated by the start of the comparison year. In this 12-month multimodal intervention trial involving community coalitions in the deployment of evidence-based practices to reduce opioid overdose deaths, death rates were similar in the intervention group and the control group in the context of the Covid-19 pandemic and the fentanyl-related overdose epidemic. (Funded by the National Institutes of Health; HCS ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04111939.).

Objectives. To determine whether the Communities That HEAL (CTH) intervention is effective in increasing naloxone distribution compared with usual care. Methods. The HEALing (Helping to End Addiction Long-Term) Communities Study (HCS) is a cluster-randomized, parallel-arm, wait-list controlled implementation science trial testing the impact of the CTH intervention on increasing the use of evidence-based practices to lower opioid-related overdose deaths. Communities (n = 67) highly impacted by opioid overdose in Kentucky, Massachusetts, New York, and Ohio were allocated to CTH intervention (n = 34) or wait-list comparison (usual care; n = 33) arms. The primary outcome for this study was the number of naloxone units distributed in HCS communities during the comparison period (July 1, 2021‒June 30, 2022), examined using an intent-to-treat negative binomial regression model. Results. Naloxone distribution was 79% higher in the CTH intervention versus usual care arm (adjusted relative rate = 1.79; 95% confidence interval = 1.28, 2.51; P = .001; adjusted rates of naloxone distribution 3378 vs 1884 naloxone units per 100 000 residents), when controlling for urban‒rural status, state, baseline opioid-related overdose death rate, and baseline naloxone distribution rate. Conclusions. The CTH intervention increased naloxone distribution compared with usual care in communities highly impacted by the opioid crisis. Trial Registration. ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT04111939. ( Am J Public Health. 2025;115(1):83–94. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2024.307845 )

Randomized trials of medications for alcohol dependence (AD) often report no differences between active medications. Few studies in AD have tested hypotheses regarding which medication will work best for which patients (ie, precision medicine). The PREDICT study tested acamprosate and naltrexone vs placebo in 426 randomly assigned AD patients in a 3-month treatment. PREDICT proposed individuals whose drinking was driven by positive reinforcement (ie, reward drinkers) would have a better treatment response to naltrexone, whereas individuals whose drinking was driven by negative reinforcement (ie, relief drinkers) would have a better treatment response to acamprosate. The goal of the current analysis was to test this precision medicine hypothesis of the PREDICT study via analyses of subgroups. Results indicated that four phenotypes could be derived using the Inventory of Drinking Situations, a 30-item self-report questionnaire. These were high reward/high relief, high reward/low relief, low reward/high relief, and low reward/low relief phenotypes. Construct validation analyses provided strong support for the validity of these phenotypes. The subgroup of individuals who were predominantly reward drinkers and received naltrexone vs placebo had an 83% reduction in the likelihood of any heavy drinking (large effect size). Cutoff analyses were done for clinical applicability: individuals are reward drinkers and respond to naltrexone if their reward score was higher than their relief score AND their reward score was between 12 and 31. Using naltrexone with individuals who are predominantly reward drinkers produces significantly higher effect sizes than prescribing the medication to a more heterogeneous sample.

Patient-reported outcomes in the treatment of opioid dependence may differ between subcutaneously administered depot buprenorphine and daily sublingual buprenorphine. To compare patient satisfaction between depot buprenorphine and sublingual buprenorphine in adult outpatients with opioid dependence. This open-label, randomized clinical trial was conducted among adult patients with opioid dependence at 6 outpatient clinical sites in Australia from October 2018 to September 2019. Data analysis was conducted from October 2019 to May 2020. Participants were randomized to receive treatment with weekly or monthly depot buprenorphine or daily sublingual buprenorphine over 24 weeks. The primary end point was the difference in global treatment satisfaction, assessed by the Treatment Satisfaction Questionnaire for Medication (TSQM) version 1.4 (range, 0-100; higher score indicates greater satisfaction) at week 24. Secondary end points included other patient-reported outcomes, including quality of life, treatment burden, and health-related outcomes, as well as measures of opioid use, retention in treatment, and safety. A total of 119 participants (70 [58.8%] men; mean [SD] age, 44.4 [10.5] years) were enrolled, randomized to, and received either depot buprenorphine (60 participants [50.4%]) or sublingual buprenorphine (59 participants [49.6%]). From the initial sample of 120, a participant (0.8%) in the sublingual buprenorphine group withdrew consent and did not receive study treatment. All participants were receiving sublingual buprenorphine when enrolled. The mean TSQM global satisfaction score was significantly higher for the depot group compared with the sublingual group at week 24 (mean [SE] score, 82.5 [2.3] vs 74.3 [2.3]; difference, 8.2; 95% CI, 1.7 to 14.6; P = .01). Improved outcomes were also observed for several secondary end points after treatment with depot buprenorphine (eg, mean [SE] treatment burden assessed by the Treatment Burden Questionnaire global score, on which lower scores indicate lower burden: 13.2 [2.6] vs 28.6 [2.5]; difference, -15.4; 95% CI, -22.6 to -8.2; P < .001). Thirty-nine participants (65.0%) in the depot buprenorphine group experienced 117 adverse drug reactions, mainly injection site reactions of mild intensity following subcutaneous administration, and 12 participants (20.3%) in the sublingual buprenorphine group experienced 21 adverse drug reactions. No participants withdrew from the trial medication or the trial due to adverse events. In this study, participants receiving depot buprenorphine reported improved treatment satisfaction compared with those receiving sublingual buprenorphine. The results highlight the application of patient-reported outcomes as alternative end points to traditional markers of substance use in addiction treatment outcome studies. anzctr.org.au Identifier: ANZCTR12618001759280.

Empathy for pain activates brain areas partially overlapping with those underpinning the first-hand experience of pain. It remains unclear, however, whether such shared activations imply that pain empathy engages similar neural functions as first-hand pain experiences. To overcome the limitations of previous neuroimaging research, we pursued a conceptually novel approach: we used the phenomenon of placebo analgesia to experimentally reduce the first-hand experience of pain, and assessed whether this results in a concomitant reduction of empathy for pain. We first carried out a functional MRI experiment (n = 102) that yielded results in the expected direction: participants experiencing placebo analgesia also reported decreased empathy for pain, and this was associated with reduced engagement of anterior insular and midcingulate cortex: that is, areas previously associated with shared activations in pain and empathy for pain. In a second step, we used a psychopharmacological manipulation (n = 50) to determine whether these effects can be blocked via an opioid antagonist. The administration of the opioid antagonist naltrexone blocked placebo analgesia and also resulted in a corresponding \"normalization\" of empathy for pain. Taken together, these findings suggest that pain empathy may be associated with neural responses and neurotransmitter activity engaged during first-hand pain, and thus might indeed be grounded in our own pain experiences.

Severe opioid-induced respiratory depression (OIRD) can be treated with intranasal (IN) or intramuscular (IM) naloxone. It is relevant to compare their efficacy and determine the optimal strategy to restore breathing following OIRD. In this open label, crossover, one-on-one randomized trial, conducted in a research unit of an academic medical center, we compared the required number of IM (5 mg/0.5 mL) versus IN (4 mg/0.1 mL) naloxone doses following 10 µg/kg intravenous fentanyl-induced apnea in opioid-naïve participants and participants who chronically use an opioid. After 2 min of apnea, IM or IN naloxone was given at 2 min intervals until return of adequate ventilation. The primary outcome was the number of naloxone doses needed to achieve full reversal of breathing. If necessary, rescue intravenous naloxone was administered. Eighteen opioid-naïve participants were randomized, 16 analyzed. The required median IM naloxone doses were 1.5 (IQR 1-2) versus 2 (1-3) for IN naloxone ( p  = 0.0002); one participant required rescue naloxone. No serious adverse events occurred. Similarly, in participants who chronically used an opioid, IM was more effective than IN naloxone. In these participants, adverse effects included muscle rigidity in the IN treated participants and mild to moderate withdrawal irrespective of treatment. Here we show the superiority of IM over IN naloxone in the number of doses required for full reversal of breathing following opioid-induced apnea. While the trial shows superiority for IM naloxone with products used in the community, we relate our findings to the higher naloxone plasma concentrations after IM naloxone compared to IN naloxone. The study was registered at https://doi.org/10.1186/ISRCTN21068708 . Opioid-induced respiratory depression can be treated with intranasal (IN) or intramuscular (IM) naloxone. Here the authors report a randomized, crossover, open-label trial showing that lower number of IM doses are required for full reversal of breathing following fentanyl-induced apnea by comparison to IN doses.