The safety and effectiveness of naldemedine for opioid-induced constipation in patients with advanced cancer in real-world palliative care settings: a multicenter prospective observational study.

PURPOSE: In this study, we aimed to evaluate the safety and effectiveness of naldemedine for treating opioid-induced constipation (OIC) in patients with advanced cancer, who are receiving palliative care, and particularly explored its early effects. METHODS: Palliative care teams and inpatient palliative care units across 14 institutions in Japan were included in this multicenter, prospective, observational study. Patients who were newly prescribed a daily oral dose of 0.2 mg naldemedine were enrolled. The spontaneous bowel movement (SBM) within 24 h after the first dose of naldemedine was considered the primary outcome, whereas, the secondary outcomes included weekly changes in SBM frequency and adverse events. RESULTS: A total of 204 patients were enrolled and 184 completed the 7-day study. The average age of the participants (103 males, 101 females) was 63 ± 14 years. The primary cancer was detected in the lungs (23.5%), gastrointestinal tract (13.7%), and urological organs (9.3%). A considerable proportion of patients (34.8%) had ECOG performance status of 3-4. Most patients were undergoing active cancer treatment, however, 40.7% of the patients were receiving the best supportive care. Within 24 h of the first naldemedine dose, 146 patients (71.6%, 95% CI: 65.4-77.8%) experienced SBMs. The weekly SBM counts increased in 62.7% of the participants. The major adverse events included diarrhea and abdominal pain, detected in 17.6% and 5.4% of the patients, respectively. However, no serious adverse events were observed. CONCLUSION: Conclusively, naldemedine is effective and safe for OIC treatments in real-world palliative care settings. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: UMIN000031381, registered 20/02/2018.

Medications for Obesity: A Review.

Importance: Obesity affects approximately 19% of women and 14% of men worldwide and is associated with increased morbidity. Antiobesity medications (AOMs) modify biological processes that affect appetite and significantly improve outcomes, such as type 2 diabetes, hypertension, and dyslipidemia. Observations: AOMs should be administered in combination with lifestyle interventions and can be classified according to their mechanisms of action. Orlistat modifies digestive tract absorption and causes gastrointestinal adverse effects, such as oily fecal spotting and urgency, in more than 25% of patients. Centrally acting drugs, such as phentermine-topiramate and naltrexone-bupropion, regulate appetite in the brain and are associated with constipation in approximately 20% of patients, although the incidence of other adverse effects (eg, paresthesia, nausea) varies by medication. Nutrient-stimulated hormone-based medications, such as liraglutide, semaglutide, and tirzepatide, mimic the actions of enteropancreatic hormones that modify central appetite regulation and provide multiple cardiometabolic weight-loss benefits. Adverse effects of these drugs include nausea (28%-44%), diarrhea (21%-30%), and constipation (11%-24%). The relative potency of adult obesity medications has been studied in meta-analyses. Compared with placebo, orlistat was associated with 3.1% greater weight loss (52 randomized clinical trials [RCTs]; 16 964 participants), phentermine-topiramate was associated with 8.0% greater weight loss (5 RCTs; 3407 participants), naltrexone-bupropion was associated with 4.1% greater weight loss (6 RCTs; 9949 participants), liraglutide was associated with 4.7% greater weight loss (18 RCTs; 6321 participants), semaglutide was associated with 11.4% greater weight loss (5 RCTs; 4421 participants), and tirzepatide 15 mg was associated with 12.4% greater weight loss (6 RCTs; 1972 participants). Conclusion and Relevance: Obesity is associated with increased morbidity. Antiobesity medications are effective adjunctive therapy to lifestyle changes for improved weight loss and health outcomes.

A case of naltrexone-induced acute eosinophilic pneumonia.

Acute eosinophilic pneumonia (AEP) is a rare cause of acute respiratory failure. Clinical presentations can range from dyspnoea, fever and cough, to rapidly progressive and potentially fulminant respiratory failure. While its exact cause is often unknown, associations with inhalational injuries and exposures to new medications have been described.We report a case of a middle-aged, non-smoking man with a history of alcohol use disorder. He presented with 4 days of shortness of breath that started hours after taking injectable naltrexone (Vivitrol). The patient had rapidly worsening hypoxaemia, necessitating emergent bronchoscopy with transbronchial biopsies and bronchoalveolar lavage which showed 66% eosinophils. The patient was intubated for the procedure and unable to get extubated due to worsening hypoxaemic respiratory failure with high fractional inspired oxygen requirements. Chest radiograph showed worsening lung infiltrates and with a high index of suspicion for AEP, he was started empirically on methylprednisolone. He had rapid improvement in his respiratory status and was extubated on day 5 of admission then discharged on day 8. Histopathological examination confirmed acute/subacute eosinophilic pneumonia. A 3-week post-discharge follow-up chest radiograph confirmed the full resolution of pulmonary infiltrates.Naltrexone-induced AEP is rare, with only six other cases reported in the literature. Careful history taking and prompt evaluation for AEP are important given the potential for rapid progression to acute hypoxic respiratory failure and the excellent response to steroid treatment.

Neurobehavioral outcomes of infants exposed to buprenorphine-naloxone compared with naltrexone during pregnancy.

BACKGROUND: Naltrexone is a medication used to treat both opioid and alcohol use disorder with limited experience in pregnant individuals, particularly in comparison to more commonly utilized treatments such as buprenorphine-naloxone. The long-term outcomes of infants exposed to naltrexone has not been previously examined. AIMS: To compare the neurobehavioral outcomes of naltrexone versus buprenorphine-naloxone exposed infants. STUDY DESIGN: Multi-centered prospective cohort study. SUBJECTS: Pregnant people on prescribed buprenorphine-naloxone or naltrexone were enrolled during pregnancy and the dyad followed until 12 months after delivery. OUTCOME MEASURES: Infants were evaluated at 4-6 weeks corrected gestational age (CGA) using the NICU Neonatal Neurobehavioral Scale (NNNS) and at the 12-month CGA visit using the Ages and Stages Questionnaire, Third Edition (ASQ-3). RESULTS: There were 7 dyads in the naltrexone group and 34 in the buprenorphine-naloxone group. On the NNNS, infants exposed to naltrexone had higher median scores for arousal and excitability, and lower median scores for attention and regulation at 4-6 weeks CGA compared to the buprenorphine-naloxone group. None of the infants in the naltrexone group were monitored for NOWS and had shorter length of hospital stay compared with the buprenorphine-naloxone group. Although no statistically significant differences were observed, more infants in the buprenorphine-naloxone group were identified as at risk for development delays in the communication, problem solving, and personal social domains of the ASQ-3 at 12 months CGA. Results should be interpreted with caution given this study's small sample size and lack of a prospective comparison cohort. CONCLUSIONS: In this small cohort, there are differences noted in infant neurobehavior by NNNS at 4-6 weeks of age when comparing the buprenorphine-naloxone and naltrexone groups. At 12 months, ASQ-3 scores were similar but with percentage differences in potential development delay risk observed between the two groups. Larger cohort studies are needed to determine the long-term child outcomes after naltrexone exposure in pregnancy.

Clinical evaluation of PF614, a novel TAAP prodrug of oxycodone, versus OxyContin in a multi-ascending dose study with a bioequivalence arm in healthy volunteers.

PF614, a trypsin-activated abuse protection oxycodone prodrug designed to reduce recreational drug abuse, was compared to OxyContin for safety and pharmacokinetics (PKs) of plasma oxycodone following oral administration. This study was a two-part design including a multi-ascending dose (part A) and a bioequivalence (BE) study (part B) in healthy volunteers. In part A, 24 subjects were randomized 3:1 to receive PF614 (50, 100, or 200 mg, n = 6/cohort) or OxyContin (20, 40, or 80 mg; n = 2/cohort) in ascending cohorts, delivered every 12 h for a total of nine doses. In part B, 60 subjects randomized in a four-way crossover to evaluate BE, received PF614 100 mg and OxyContin 40 mg in fasted and fed (high-fat diet) states. All subjects were naltrexone blocked prior to first study drug administration to protect against opioid-related adverse effects; repeat doses were provided on days 1-5. In part A, PF614 was well-tolerated following twice daily doses of up to 200 mg for 5 days. Plasma oxycodone maximal plasma concentration and area under the concentration time curve increased linearly with increasing doses. Part B showed that plasma oxycodone BE was achieved following 100 mg PF614 or 40 mg OxyContin under both fasted and fed conditions. Additionally, PF614 provided similar oxycodone exposures following both fasted and fed states. This study confirms findings from our single-ascending dose study, showing that PF614 100 mg releases oxycodone with a PK profile comparable to 40 mg OxyContin under both fasted and fed conditions and with a similar safety profile under naltrexone-blocked conditions.

Impacts of genetic polymorphisms and cancer cachexia on naldemedine pharmacokinetics and bowel movements in patients receiving opioid analgesics.

BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVES: Clinical responses to naldemedine vary between individuals with advanced cancer. This is a prospective, single-center, observational study aimed to evaluate the influence of genetic polymorphisms and cachexia status on plasma naldemedine and clinical responses. METHODS: Forty-eight patients being treated with naldemedine for opioid-induced constipation under treatment of cancer pain were enrolled. Plasma naldemedine concentrations were determined on the fourth day or later after administration of naldemedine, and the associations with genotypes, cachexia status, and clinical responses were assessed. RESULTS: Cancer patients exhibited a large variation in the plasma naldemedine concentrations, and it was correlated with serum total protein level. Patients who were homozygous CYP3A5*3 had a higher plasma concentration of naldemedine than those with the *1 allele. ABCB1 genotypes tested in this study were not associated with plasma naldemedine. A negative correlation was observed between the plasma naldemedine concentration and 4ß-hydroxycholesterol level. The plasma naldemedine concentration was lower in patients with refractory cachexia than in those with precachexia and cachexia. While serum levels of interleukin-6 (IL-6) and acute-phase proteins were higher in patients with refractory cachexia, they were not associated with plasma naldemedine. A higher plasma concentration of naldemedine, CYP3A5*3/*3, and an earlier naldemedine administration after starting opioid analgesics were related to improvement of bowel movements. CONCLUSION: Plasma naldemedine increased under deficient activity of CYP3A5 in cancer patients. Cachectic patients with a higher serum IL-6 had a lower plasma naldemedine. Plasma naldemedine, related to CYP3A5 genotype, and the initiation timing of naldemedine were associated with improved bowel movements.

Naldemedine is associated with earlier defecation in critically ill patients with opioid-induced constipation: A retrospective, single-center cohort study.

INTRODUCTION: There are few reports describing the association of naldemedine with defecation in critically ill patients with opioid-induced constipation. The purpose of this study was to determine whether naldemedine is associated with earlier defecation in critically ill patients with opioid-induced constipation. METHODS: In this retrospective cohort study, patients admitted to the Intensive Care Unit (ICU) without defecation for 48 hours while receiving opioids were eligible for enrollment. The primary endpoint was the time of the first defecation within 96 hours after inclusion. Secondary endpoints included presence of diarrhea, duration of mechanical ventilation, ICU length of stay, ICU mortality, and in-hospital mortality. The Cox proportional hazard regression analysis with time-dependent covariates was used to evaluate the association naldemedine with earlier defecation. RESULTS: A total of 875 patients were enrolled and were divided into 63 patients treated with naldemedine and 812 patients not treated. Defecation was observed in 58.7% of the naldemedine group and 48.8% of the no-naldemedine group during the study (p = 0.150). The naldemedine group had statistically significantly prolonged duration of mechanical ventilation (8.7 days vs 5.5 days, p < 0.001) and ICU length of stay (11.8 days vs 9.2 days, p = 0.001) compared to the no-naldemedine group. However, the administration of naldemedine was significantly associated with earlier defecation [hazard ratio:2.53; 95% confidence interval: 1.71-3.75, p < 0.001]. CONCLUSION: The present study shows that naldemedine is associated with earlier defecation in critically ill patients with opioid-induced constipation.

Naltrexone 6 mg once daily versus placebo in women with fibromyalgia: a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Low-dose naltrexone is used to treat fibromyalgia despite minimal evidence for its efficacy. This trial aimed to investigate whether 12-week treatment with 6 mg low-dose naltrexone was superior to placebo for reducing pain in women with fibromyalgia. METHODS: We did a single-centre, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial in Denmark. We enrolled women aged 18-64 years who were diagnosed with fibromyalgia. Participants were randomly assigned 1:1 to receive low-dose naltrexone (6 mg) or an identical-appearing placebo, using a computerised algorithm with no stratifications applied. Participants, investigators, outcome assessors, and statistical analysts were all masked to treatment allocation. The primary outcome was change in pain intensity on an 11-point numeric rating scale from baseline to week 12, in the intention-to-treat population. Safety was assessed in participants in the intention-to-treat population who received at least one dose of their allocated intervention. This trial was registered with ClincalTrials.gov (NCT04270877) and EudraCT (2019-000702-30). FINDINGS: We screened 158 participants for eligibility from Jan 6, 2021, to Dec 27, 2022, and 99 patients were randomly assigned to low-dose naltrexone (n=49) or placebo (n=50). The mean age was 50·6 years (SD 8·8), one (1%) of 99 participants was Arctic Asian and 98 (99%) were White. No participants were lost to follow-up. The mean change in pain intensity was -1·3 points (95% CI -1·7 to -0·8) in the low-dose naltrexone group and -0·9 (-1·4 to -0·5) in the placebo group, corresponding to a between-group difference of -0·34 (-0·95 to 0·27; p=0·27, Cohen's d 0·23). Discontinuations due to adverse events were four (8%) of 49 in the low-dose naltrexone group and three (6%) of 50 in the placebo group. 41 (84%) of 49 patients in the low-dose naltrexone group had an adverse event versus 43 (86%) of 50 in the placebo group. One serious adverse event occurred in the placebo group and no deaths occurred. INTERPRETATION: This study did not show that treatment with low-dose naltrexone was superior to placebo in relieving pain. Our results indicate that low-dose naltrexone might improve memory problems associated with fibromyalgia, and we suggest that future trials investigate this further. FUNDING: The Danish Rheumatism Association, Odense University Hospital, Danielsen's Foundation, and the Oak Foundation.

Daily Naltrexone Use Does Not Adversely Affect Physical, Cognitive or Marksmanship Performance in U.S. Army Soldiers.

INTRODUCTION: Considering the potential of weaponized opioids, evaluating how prophylactic countermeasures affect military-relevant performance is necessary. Naltrexone is a commercially available Food and Drug Administration-approved medication that blocks the effects of opioids with minimal side effects. However, the effects of naltrexone on the health and performance of non-substance abusing military personnel are not well described in the existing literature. METHODS: Active duty U.S. Army Soldiers (n = 16, mean ± SD, age: 23.1 ± 5.3 y) completed a series of physical, cognitive, and marksmanship tasks during a 4-day pretrial, a 7-day active trial, and a 4-day post-trial phase. During the active trial, participants were administered 50 mg of oral naltrexone daily. Physiological and biological processes were monitored with a daily review of systems, sleep monitoring, biochemistry, and hematology blood panels. RESULTS: Naltrexone did not negatively affect physical performance, cognitive functioning, marksmanship, or sleep duration (P > 0.05). Improvements were observed during the active trial compared to the pretrial phase in cognitive tasks measuring logical relations (P = 0.05), matching to sample (P = 0.04), math speed (P < 0.01), math percent correct (P = 0.04), and spatial processing (P < 0.01). Results from biochemistry and hematology blood panels remained within clinically normative ranges throughout all phases of the study. No participants were medically withdrawn; however, one participant voluntarily withdrew due to nausea and reduced appetite. CONCLUSIONS: Temporary (7-day) daily use of naltrexone was safe and did not negatively affect physical performance, cognitive functioning, marksmanship ability, or sleep in a healthy cohort of U.S. Army Soldiers.

Lo clásico y lo nuevo en el tratamiento del sobrepeso y la obesidad / The classic and the new in the treatment of overweight and obesity

Así como planteamos en la primera entrega de esta serie de artículos de actualización sobre la obesidad, resulta urgente revisar el abordaje tradicional que la comunidad médica le ofrece a las personas con cuerpos gordos. En este segundo artículo desarrollaremos en profundidad diferentes alternativas terapéuticas para los pacientes que desean bajar de peso:plan alimentario, actividad física, tratamiento farmacológico y cirugía metabólica. (AU)

As we proposed in the first issue of this series of articles, it is urgent to review the traditional approach that the medical community offers to people with fat bodies. This second article will develop different therapeutic alternatives for patients who want to lose weight: eating plans, physical activity, pharmacological treatment, and metabolic surgery. (AU)

Pharmacotherapy for Alcohol Use Disorder: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Importance: Alcohol use disorder affects more than 28.3 million people in the United States and is associated with increased rates of morbidity and mortality. Objective: To compare efficacy and comparative efficacy of therapies for alcohol use disorder. Data Sources: PubMed, the Cochrane Library, the Cochrane Central Trials Registry, PsycINFO, CINAHL, and EMBASE were searched from November 2012 to September 9, 2022 Literature was subsequently systematically monitored to identify relevant articles up to August 14, 2023, and the PubMed search was updated on August 14, 2023. Study Selection: For efficacy outcomes, randomized clinical trials of at least 12 weeks' duration were included. For adverse effects, randomized clinical trials and prospective cohort studies that compared drug therapies and reported health outcomes or harms were included. Data Extraction and Synthesis: Two reviewers evaluated each study, assessed risk of bias, and graded strength of evidence. Meta-analyses used random-effects models. Numbers needed to treat were calculated for medications with at least moderate strength of evidence for benefit. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was alcohol consumption. Secondary outcomes were motor vehicle crashes, injuries, quality of life, function, mortality, and harms. Results: Data from 118 clinical trials and 20 976 participants were included. The numbers needed to treat to prevent 1 person from returning to any drinking were 11 (95% CI, 1-32) for acamprosate and 18 (95% CI, 4-32) for oral naltrexone at a dose of 50 mg/d. Compared with placebo, oral naltrexone (50 mg/d) was associated with lower rates of return to heavy drinking, with a number needed to treat of 11 (95% CI, 5-41). Injectable naltrexone was associated with fewer drinking days over the 30-day treatment period (weighted mean difference, -4.99 days; 95% CI, -9.49 to -0.49 days) Adverse effects included higher gastrointestinal distress for acamprosate (diarrhea: risk ratio, 1.58; 95% CI, 1.27-1.97) and naltrexone (nausea: risk ratio, 1.73; 95% CI, 1.51-1.98; vomiting: risk ratio, 1.53; 95% CI, 1.23-1.91) compared with placebo. Conclusions and Relevance: In conjunction with psychosocial interventions, these findings support the use of oral naltrexone at 50 mg/d and acamprosate as first-line pharmacotherapies for alcohol use disorder.

Extended-release Naltrexone Is Not Linked to Hepatotoxicity in Adults Experiencing Homelessness and Alcohol Use Disorder.

OBJECTIVES: The use of extended-release naltrexone (XR-NTX) as treatment for alcohol use disorder (AUD) has been limited by a prior black box warning for hepatotoxicity. We performed a secondary analysis of data from a randomized clinical trial to compare serum liver enzyme levels for those randomized to XR-NTX versus placebo. METHODS: The parent study aimed to test the efficacy of combined pharmacobehavioral harm-reduction treatment in improving alcohol and quality-of-life outcomes for adults experiencing homelessness and AUD. We compared the 2 arms that received intramuscular injections of either 380 mg XR-NTX (n = 74) or placebo (n = 77). Outcomes included ( a ) liver enzyme levels and ( b ) liver enzyme values categorized as normal (<1× upper limit of normal [ULN]), elevated (1-3× ULN), or high (>3× ULN). We performed multinomial logistic regression and negative binomial generalized estimating equations modeling to assess the effects of treatment group and the time × treatment group interaction on liver enzyme outcomes. RESULTS: The mean age was 47.9 ± 9.9 years, and the mean baseline alcohol consumption was 23.2 ± 14.0 drinks per day. There were no significant differences in the development of liver enzyme elevations 1 to 3× ULN or more than 3× ULN (all P s > 0.25) or in the change in liver enzyme values (all P s > 0.41) between the placebo and the XR-NTX groups over the treatment course. CONCLUSIONS: In our study of adults experiencing homelessness and AUD, receipt of XR-NTX was not associated with hepatotoxicity. These findings support the use of XR-NTX to treat AUD even in patients who are drinking heavily and physiologically dependent on alcohol.

Weight change among patients engaged in medication treatment for opioid use disorder: a scoping review.

Background: Medication treatment for opioid use disorder (MOUD) is an instrumental tool in combatting opioid use and overdose. Excess weight gain associated with MOUD initiation is a potential barrier that is not well understood.Objectives: Conduct a scoping review of available studies investigating the effect of MOUD on weight.Methods: Included studies consisted of adults taking any type of MOUD (e.g. methadone, buprenorphine/naloxone, naltrexone) with data on weight or body mass index for at least two time points. Evidence was synthesized using qualitative and descriptive approaches, and predictors of weight gain including demographics, comorbid substance use, and medication dose were examined.Results: Twenty-one unique studies were identified. Most studies were uncontrolled cohort studies or retrospective chart reviews testing the association between methadone and weight gain (n = 16). Studies examining 6 months of methadone treatment reported weight gain ranging from 4.2 to 23.4 pounds. Women appear to gain more weight from methadone than men, while patients using cocaine may gain less. Racial and ethnic disparities were largely unexamined. Only three case reports and two nonrandomized studies examined the effects of either buprenorphine/naloxone or naltrexone, and potential associations with weight gain were not clear.Conclusion: The use of methadone as an MOUD appears to be associated with mild to moderate weight gain. In contrast, there is little data supporting or refuting weight gain with buprenorphine/naloxone or naltrexone. Providers should discuss the potential risk for weight gain with patients as well as prevention and intervention methods for excess weight gain.

Intramuscular, extended-release naltrexone inadvertently administered in the deltoid muscle: A case report.

BACKGROUND: Extended-release, intramuscular (IM) naltrexone can be an effective and convenient medication option for alcohol use disorder. We sought to assess the clinical impact of an alternate, if inadvertent, administration of IM naltrexone in the deltoid muscle instead of the recommended gluteal muscle. CASE SUMMARY: IM naltrexone was prescribed to a hospitalized 28-year-old man with severe alcohol use disorder as part of an inpatient clinical trial. A nurse unfamiliar with naltrexone administration mistakenly administered the drug to the deltoid instead of the gluteal muscle recommended by the manufacturer. Despite concerns that injection of the large-volume suspension to the smaller muscle would potentially contribute to increased pain and higher chance of adverse events owing to faster medication absorption, the patient experienced only mild discomfort to the deltoid region, without other adverse events on immediate physical and laboratory examinations. The patient later denied additional adverse events in the period after hospitalization, but he did not endorse any anti-craving effect of the medication, resuming drinking alcohol quickly following initial discharge. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: This case represents a unique procedural challenge of administering a medication in the inpatient setting that is typically given in the outpatient setting. Inpatient staff members frequently rotate and may be relatively unfamiliar with IM naltrexone, so handling should be limited to personnel who have received focused training on its administration. Fortunately, in this case deltoid administration of naltrexone was well-tolerated and even deemed quite "acceptable" to the patient. Clinically, the medication was insufficiently effective, but biopsychosocial context may have made his AUD especially refractory. More research is needed to fully establish whether naltrexone given via deltoid muscle injection has comparable safety and efficacy to gluteal muscle administration.

Low-dose naltrexone in the treatment of fibromyalgia: A systematic review and narrative synthesis.

METHOD: A systematic literature search was conducted using the key words 'naltrexone', 'fibromyalgia', 'fibrositis', 'chronic pain' and 'neurogenic inflammation'. RESULTS: Manual exclusion led to the identification of 21 papers, with only five prospective controlled trials of low sample size. DISCUSSION: Low-dose naltrexone may be an effective and safe pharmacotherapy for patients with fibromyalgia. Current evidence lacks power and multisite reproduction.

Risk of Experiencing an Overdose Event for Patients Undergoing Treatment With Medication for Opioid Use Disorder.

OBJECTIVE: Overdose risk during a course of treatment with medication for opioid use disorder (MOUD) has not been clearly delineated. The authors sought to address this gap by leveraging a new data set from three large pragmatic clinical trials of MOUD. METHODS: Adverse event logs, including overdose events, from the three trials (N=2,199) were harmonized, and the overall risk of having an overdose event in the 24 weeks after randomization was compared for each study arm (one methadone, one naltrexone, and three buprenorphine groups), using survival analysis with time-dependent Cox proportional hazard models. RESULTS: By week 24, 39 participants had ≥1 overdose event. The observed frequency of having an overdose event was 15 (5.30%) among 283 patients assigned to naltrexone, eight (1.51%) among 529 patients assigned to methadone, and 16 (1.15%) among 1,387 patients assigned to buprenorphine. Notably, 27.9% of patients assigned to extended-release naltrexone never initiated the medication, and their overdose rate was 8.9% (7/79), compared with 3.9% (8/204) among those who initiated naltrexone. Controlling for sociodemographic and time-varying medication adherence variables and baseline substance use, a proportional hazard model did not show a significant effect of naltrexone assignment. Significantly higher probabilities of experiencing an overdose event were observed among patients with baseline benzodiazepine use (hazard ratio=3.36, 95% CI=1.76, 6.42) and those who either were never inducted on their assigned study medication (hazard ratio=6.64, 95% CI=2.12, 19.54) or stopped their medication after initial induction (hazard ratio=4.04, 95% CI=1.54, 10.65). CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with opioid use disorder seeking medication treatment, the risk of overdose events over the next 24 weeks is elevated among those who fail to initiate or discontinue medication and those who report benzodiazepine use at baseline.

Baclofen for alcohol use disorder.

BACKGROUND: Alcohol use disorder (AUD) is one of the most widespread psychiatric disorders leading to detrimental consequences to people with this disorder and others. Worldwide, the prevalence of heavy episodic drinking (30-day prevalence of at least one occasion of 60 g of pure alcohol intake among current drinkers) is estimated at 20% and the prevalence of AUD at 5% of the adult general population, with highest prevalence in Europe and North America. Therapeutic approaches, including pharmacotherapy, play an important role in treating people with AUD. This is an update of a Cochrane Review first published in 2018. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the benefits and harms of baclofen on achieving and maintaining abstinence or reducing alcohol consumption in people with AUD compared to placebo, no treatment or any other pharmacological relapse prevention treatment. SEARCH METHODS: We used standard, extensive Cochrane search methods. The latest search was 22 November 2021. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of at least four weeks' treatment duration and 12 weeks' overall study duration comparing baclofen for AUD treatment with placebo, no treatment or other treatments. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard Cochrane methods. Our primary outcomes were 1. relapse, 2. frequency of use, 3. amount of use, 4. adverse events, 5. dropouts from treatment and 6. dropouts from treatment due to adverse events. Our secondary outcomes were 7. craving, 8. anxiety, 9. depression and 10. frequency of most relevant adverse events. MAIN RESULTS: We included 17 RCTs (1818 participants) with a diagnosis of alcohol dependence according to the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 4th edition or International Classification of Diseases 10th edition criteria. Mean age was 46.5 years and 70% were men. Ten studies compared baclofen to placebo or another medication; seven compared two baclofen doses to placebo or another medication. Globally, 15 studies compared baclofen to placebo, two baclofen to acamprosate and two baclofen to naltrexone. In 16 studies, participants received psychosocial treatments. We judged most studies at low risk of selection, performance, detection (subjective outcome), attrition and reporting bias. Ten studies detoxified participants before treatment; in seven studies, participants were still drinking at the beginning of treatment. Treatment duration was 12 weeks for 15 RCTs and longer in two studies. Baclofen daily dose was 30 mg to 300 mg: 10 RCTs used low doses (30 mg or less); eight RCTs medium doses (above 30 and 100 mg or less) and four RCTs high doses (above 100 mg). Compared to placebo, moderate-certainty evidence found that baclofen probably decreases the risk to relapse (risk ratio (RR) 0.87, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.77 to 0.99; 12 studies, 1057 participants). This result was confirmed among detoxified participants but not among other subgroups of participants. High-certainty evidence found that baclofen increases the percentage of days abstinent (mean difference (MD) 9.07, 95% CI 3.30 to 14.85; 16 studies, 1273 participants). This result was confirmed among all subgroups of participants except non-detoxified or those who received medium doses. There was no difference between baclofen and placebo in the other primary outcomes: heavy drinking days (standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.18, 95% CI -0.48 to 0.11; 13 studies, 840 participants; moderate-certainty evidence); number of drinks per drinking days (MD -0.45, 95% CI -1.20 to 0.30; 9 studies, 392 participants; moderate-certainty evidence); number of participants with at least one adverse event (RR 1.05, 95% CI 0.99 to 1.11; 10 studies, 738 participants; high-certainty evidence); dropouts (RR 0.88, 95% CI 0.74 to 1.03; 17 studies, 1563 participants; high-certainty evidence); dropouts due to adverse events (RR 1.39, 95% CI 0.89 to 2.18; 16 studies, 1499 participants; high-certainty evidence). These results were confirmed by subgroup analyses except than for the dropouts that resulted lower among participants who received high doses of baclofen and studies longer than 12 weeks. Compared to placebo, there was no difference in craving (SMD -0.16, 95% CI -0.37 to 0.04; 17 studies, 1275 participants), anxiety (MD -0.01, 95% CI -0.14 to 0.11; 15 studies, 1123 participants) and depression (SMD 0.07, 95% CI -0.12 to 0.27; 11 studies, 1029 participants). Concerning the specific adverse events, baclofen increases fatigue, dizziness, somnolence/sedation, dry mouth, paraesthesia and muscle spasms/rigidity. There was no difference in the other adverse events. Compared to acamprosate, one study (60 participants) found no differences in any outcomes but the evidence was very uncertain: relapse (RR 1.25, 95% CI 0.71 to 2.20; very low-certainty evidence); number of participants with at least one adverse event (RR 0.63, 95% CI 0.23 to 1.69; very low-certainty evidence); dropouts (RR 0.56, 95% CI 0.21 to 1.46; very low-certainty evidence); dropouts due to adverse events (RR 0.33, 95% CI 0.01 to 7.87; very low-certainty evidence) and craving (MD 5.80, 95% CI -11.84 to 23.44); and all the adverse events evaluated. Compared to naltrexone, baclofen may increase the risk of relapse (RR 2.50, 95% CI 1.12 to 5.56; 1 study, 60 participants; very low-certainty evidence) and decrease the number of participants with at least one adverse event (RR 0.35, 95% CI 0.15 to 0.80; 2 studies, 80 participants; very low-certainty evidence) but the evidence is very uncertain. One study (60 participants) found no difference between baclofen and naltrexone in the dropouts at the end of treatment (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.32 to 3.10; very low-certainty evidence), craving (MD 2.08, 95% CI -3.71 to 7.87), and all the adverse events evaluated. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Baclofen likely reduces the risk of relapse to any drinking and increases the percentage of abstinent days, mainly among detoxified participants. It does not increase the number of participants with at least one adverse event, those who dropout for any reason or due to adverse events. It probably does not reduce number of heavy drinking days and the number of drinks per drinking days. Current evidence suggests that baclofen may help people with AUD in maintaining abstinence. The results of comparisons of baclofen with acamprosate and naltrexone were mainly based on only one study.

An open label phase II study of safety and clinical activity of naltrexone for treatment of hormone refractory metastatic breast cancer.

The opioid receptor (OR) antagonist naltrexone inhibits estrogen receptor-α (ER) function in model systems. The goal of this study was to determine the clinical activity of naltrexone in patients with ER-positive metastatic breast cancer. Patients with hormone receptor positive metastatic breast cancer were enrolled on a phase II study of naltrexone. An escalating dose scheme was used to reach the planned dose of 50 mg daily. The primary objective of the study was to evaluate response to therapy as measured by stabilization or reduction of the tumor Maximum Standardized Uptake Value (SUVmax) at 4 weeks by PET-CT scan. The secondary objectives included safety assessment and tumor SUVmax at 8 weeks. Out of 13 patients we enrolled, 8 patients had serial PET-CT scans that were evaluable for response. Of these 8 patients, 5 had stable or decreased SUVmax values at 4 weeks and 3 had clinical or imaging progression. Median time to progression was short at 7 weeks. Naltrexone was well tolerated. There were no discontinuations due to toxicity and no grade 3 or 4 toxicities were noted. Naltrexone showed modest activity in this short study suggesting the contribution of opioid receptors in ER-positive breast cancer. Our data do not support further development of naltrexone in hormone refractory breast cancer. It is possible that more potent peripherally acting OR antagonists may have a greater effect. (ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT00379197 September 21, 2006).