Maintenance treatment with depot opioid antagonists in subcutaneous implants: an alternative in the treatment of opioid dependence. Naltrexone administration affects ad libitum smoking behavior. Acute detoxification of opioid-addicted patients with naloxone during propofol or methohexital anesthesia: a comparison of withdrawal symptoms, neuroendocrine, metabolic, and cardiovascular patterns. The impact of naloxone/lofexidine combination treatment on the opiate withdrawal syndrome. Clonidine and opiate receptor antagonists in the treatment of heroin addiction. Rapid opiate detoxication in outpatient treatment: relationship with naltrexone compliance. A comparison of antagonist-precipitated withdrawal under anesthesia to standard inpatient withdrawal as a precursor to maintenance naltrexone treatment in heroin users: outcomes at 6 and 12 months. A naltrexone double blind placebo controlled study in Israel. Anesthesia-assisted vs buprenorphine- or clonidine-assisted heroin detoxification and naltrexone induction: a randomized trial.
A report is presented of treatment of 156 patients (male 98%) with opioid dependence (ICD-10 criteria) using a maintenance programme with depot opioid antagonists (naltrexone) as subcutaneous implants, started after an outpatient rapid antagonization regimen. The retention index in the treatment was from 80% in the sixth month, and 65% after one year. The patients were followed-up for 1 year after discharge. For 6 months after discharge 55.4% were still returning for follow-up visits and 20.8% after 1 year, all of them remaining abstinent to opioids. It is concluded that the programme is safe for the patients and shows a better retention index than programmes using oral antagonists, with an improved compliance (negative urine analysis) compared to the latter. Endogenous opioid peptides have been implicated in the reinforcement of smoking and opioid antagonists have been examined to determine their role in smoking behavior. To date, the relationship between smoking behavior and chronic opiate antagonist administration during ad libitum smoking has not been investigated. The purpose of this study was to examine the relationships between naltrexone, an opiate antagonist administered orally, and smoking behavior and mood states during ad libitum smoking. A repeated measures experimental design was used. Normal adult male and female volunteers, admitted to the Clinical Research Center, were randomly assigned to naltrexone-treated (n = 22) or placebo-control (n = 21) groups in a double-blind manner. Day 1 was considered acclimation to the unit and day 2 was baseline, or pre-drug administration. On days 3, 4, and 5, subjects received 50 mg naltrexone or a placebo at 0700 and 1600 hours. Plasma nicotine and expired air carbon monoxide levels were measured daily at 1900 hours. Number of cigarettes smoked, mood states, withdrawal symptomatology and self-reported satisfaction with smoking were also quantified daily. Results indicated that plasma nicotine levels (P = 0.005), number of cigarettes smoked daily (P = 0.003) and self-reported satisfaction with smoking (P = 0.043) were significantly lower among those treated with naltrexone, compared to the placebo-control group. Expired air carbon monoxide levels did not differ between the two groups. In addition, mood states and withdrawal symptoms did not differ between groups. These findings suggest that endogenous opioid peptides influence specific smoking behavior variables. Mu-Opioid receptor blockade during general anesthesia is a new treatment for detoxification of opioid addicted patients. We assessed catecholamine plasma concentrations, oxygen consumption, cardiovascular variables, and withdrawal symptoms after naloxone and tested the hypothesis that variables are influenced by the anesthetic administered during detoxification.
                Prospective randomized clinical study.
                Intensive care unit of a university hospital and psychiatric ward.
                Twenty-five mono-opioid addicted patients with mild to moderate systemic disease (ASA II classification) in a methadone substitution program.
                General anesthesia with either propofol (129+/-7 microg x kg(-1) x min(-1), mean +/- SEM) or methohexital (74+/-14 microg x kg(-1). min(-1)), mu-opioid receptor blockade by naloxone in a stepwise fashion (increasing doses of 0.4 mg, 0.8 mg, 1.6 mg, 3.2 mg, and 6.4 mg at 15 min intervals followed by 0.8 mg x hr(-1) for 24 hrs) and naltrexone 50 mg x day(-1) orally for > or =4 wks. Clonidine was started 180 mins after the first naloxone dose and its infusion rate was individually adjusted to mitigate withdrawal symptoms during weaning and after extubation.
                During propofol and methohexital anesthesia, naloxone induced a 30-fold increase in epinephrine and a significant three-fold increase in norepinephrine plasma concentrations without a significant difference between groups. This increase in catecholamine plasma concentrations was associated with increased oxygen consumption and marked cardiovascular stimulation with both anesthetics, as shown by increased cardiac index, heart rate, and systolic atrial pressure whereas diastolic pressure remained unchanged. Patients receiving propofol could be extubated significantly earlier after discontinuation of the anesthetics. Although the maximum degree of withdrawal symptoms (Short Opioid Withdrawal Scale) on the day after detoxification was similar with both anesthetics, subsequent withdrawal symptoms decreased significantly more rapidly after propofol anesthesia.
                Naloxone treatment, in opioid-addicted patients, induced a marked increase in catecholamine plasma concentrations, metabolism, and cardiovascular stimulation during anesthesia with both propofol and methohexital. Although both anesthetics appear suitable for detoxification treatment, the use of propofol is associated with earlier extubation and, surprisingly, a shortened period of long-term withdrawal symptoms during detoxification. Clinical studies in opiate-dependent patients suggest that detoxification treatment with opiate antagonists may accelerate the resolution of the opiate withdrawal syndrome, permitting early induction onto naltrexone maintenance treatment. The present open study compared the clinical efficacy of daily naloxone injections in conjunction with lofexidine, with conventional lofexidine monotherapy, in 49 polysubstance-misusing opiate-dependent patients. Overall, the addition of naloxone did not confer substantial benefit over lofexidine monotherapy, although area-under-the-curve analysis showed that withdrawal severity in the naloxone/lofexidine combination group was significantly less than in the lofexidine monotherapy group, who experienced more severe withdrawal symptoms on days 4, 7, 9 and 13 of treatment. There were no significant differences in rates of completion of detoxification. Blood pressure remained within normal limits in both groups. Naltrexone maintenance treatment acceptability was low; only four patients continued with treatment for 5 or more days. The modest benefit of adding naloxone to lofexidine compared to the findings of previous opiate antagonist detoxification treatment studies is discussed in the context of the hypothesis that a critical level of opiate receptor occupancy is required to accelerate resolution of opiate withdrawal; the neurochemical mechanisms which may promote this are discussed. Good results in detoxification methods have been reached using both together clonidine and opiate receptors antagonists. One hundred fifty-two heroin-abusing patients were studied evaluating withdrawal symptoms after therapy with (a) clonidine only, (b) clonidine and naltrexone, (c) clonidine and naloxone, and (d) placebos. Treatment results, emotional and behavioral changes, and involvement in psychosocial programs were evaluated after a 6-month follow-up. Although opiate antagonists were able to induce slight and transient withdrawal signs and symptoms, there was, in the group of patients treated with clonidine and naltrexone together, a low percentage of catabolites in urine and an improvement in mood and family relationships. Furthermore, the patients that underwent longer naltrexone treatment showed a stronger involvement in psychosocial programs, and even their relatives demonstrated more interest in the recovery program. A decrease in the difficulties of accepting an opiate antagonists treatment and a different evaluation of withdrawal syndrome were the results of an early use of naltrexone. A variety of detoxification methods have been utilized for the treatment of heroin withdrawal before individuals begin long-term opiate-free and naltrexone programs. While methadone in decreasing doses is still widely used for detoxication procedures, rapid and ultrarapid protocols including clonidine and opiate receptors antagonists have been proposed. This study compares the efficacy of different detoxification methods and investigates possible changes in naltrexone compliance. Ninety-eight heroin-addicted individuals were studied to evaluate withdrawal symptoms, craving, mood, urine toxicologic screens, and drop-out rate during therapy with: Group A: clonidine only (5 days); Group B: clonidine, oxazepam, baclofen, and ketoprofene with naloxone and naltrexone (2 days); and Group C: methadone in decreasing doses (10 days). Naltrexone compliance and relapse rates were evaluated during a 6-month follow-up period. Rapid detoxification with opiate antagonists (Group B) induced slight and transient withdrawal symptoms, and resulted in a significantly lower percentage of heroin catabolites in urine controls during the detoxification procedure, lower negative and positive craving, less mood problems, and higher compliance in extended naltrexone treatment. In comparison with clonidine only (Group A) and methadone (Group C), the early use of naltrexone during detoxification in combination with benzodiazepines and clonidine facilitated extended naltrexone acceptance and improved the recovery outcome in outpatients. To compare two methods of heroin withdrawal, 51 heroin users were randomised to undergo a 1 day precipitated withdrawal procedure using naloxone under anaesthetic. About 50 participants were randomised to receive the current standard inpatient withdrawal treatment using clonidine plus symptomatic medication. Following withdrawal, both groups were offered 9 months of naltrexone treatment and supportive counselling. Outcome measures were: commencement of naltrexone, retention in treatment and heroin use at 6 and 12 months. Significantly more of the precipitated withdrawal group completed withdrawal, commenced naltrexone and stayed in treatment for the first 3 months. Overall, there was a significant reduction in both self-reported heroin use and morphine concentration in hair over the 12 month study period, with participants in the precipitated withdrawal group showing significantly lower morphine concentration at 6 months. Being younger and having a lower level of dependence were predictors of abstinence at 6 and 12 months. The advantage of precipitated withdrawal under anesthesia did not persist beyond 3 months with respect to retention in naltrexone treatment or beyond 6 months with respect to heroin use. Long-term follow-up is crucial in assessing the effects of treatment interventions for heroin dependence. In a double blind study, out of 31 newly abstinent patients who underwent opioid free detoxification, 15 were started on the opiate antagonist Naltrexone for 2 months, and 16 were put on placebo for the same period. Given Naltrexone's known efficacy in blocking euphorigenic effects of opioid intake, and in decreasing cravings for the drug, the authors have tried to assess eventual drug taking, specifically in the context of suburban housing projects, and evaluate the rate of retention in a rehabilitative program for both the Naltrexone and placebo groups. An Opioid free condition was followed up for a year, also respecting double blind conditions. Naltrexone did not appear to be superior to the placebo with regards to retention rate. In the Naltrexone group (n = 15), 9 finished the two-month treatment, and 8 remained opioid-free for a year. In the placebo group (n = 16), 8 finished the 2 month trial and 6 remained opioid-free for a year. Naltrexone blocked opioid-induced euphoria and decreased the craving for opium, but it did not inhibit drug usage. The retention rate registered during the course of the study, as well as an opioid-free condition in the follow-up year, correlated with a patient profile defined by good social functioning and stable relationships. The inherent methodological limitations of this study did not allow for the discrimination of the role of non-pharmacological factors, such as psychotherapy, supportive family framework, community assistance, and staff motivation, concerning the clinical results. Further investigation of Naltrexone in larger samples is needed. Rapid opioid detoxification with opioid antagonist induction using general anesthesia has emerged as an expensive, potentially dangerous, unproven approach to treat opioid dependence.
                To determine how anesthesia-assisted detoxification with rapid antagonist induction for heroin dependence compared with 2 alternative detoxification and antagonist induction methods.
                A total of 106 treatment-seeking heroin-dependent patients, aged 21 through 50 years, were randomly assigned to 1 of 3 inpatient withdrawal treatments over 72 hours followed by 12 weeks of outpatient naltrexone maintenance with relapse prevention psychotherapy. This randomized trial was conducted between 2000 and 2003 at Columbia University Medical Center's Clinical Research Center. Outpatient treatment occurred at the Columbia University research service for substance use disorders. Patients were included if they had an American Society of Anesthesiologists physical status of I or II, were without major comorbid psychiatric illness, and were not dependent on other drugs or alcohol.
                Anesthesia-assisted rapid opioid detoxification with naltrexone induction, buprenorphine-assisted rapid opioid detoxification with naltrexone induction, and clonidine-assisted opioid detoxification with delayed naltrexone induction.
                Withdrawal severity scores on objective and subjective scales; proportions of patients receiving naltrexone, completing inpatient detoxification, and retained in treatment; proportion of opioid-positive urine specimens.
                Mean withdrawal severities were comparable across the 3 treatments. Compared with clonidine-assisted detoxification, the anesthesia- and buprenorphine-assisted detoxification interventions had significantly greater rates of naltrexone induction (94% anesthesia, 97% buprenorphine, and 21% clonidine), but the groups did not differ in rates of completion of inpatient detoxification. Treatment retention over 12 weeks was not significantly different among groups with 7 of 35 (20%) retained in the anesthesia-assisted group, 9 of 37 (24%) in the buprenorphine-assisted group, and 3 of 34 (9%) in the clonidine-assisted group. Induction with 50 mg of naltrexone significantly reduced the risk of dropping out (odds ratio, 0.28; 95% confidence interval, 0.15-0.51). There were no significant group differences in proportions of opioid-positive urine specimens. The anesthesia procedure was associated with 3 potentially life-threatening adverse events.
                These data do not support the use of general anesthesia for heroin detoxification and rapid opioid antagonist induction.
The use of opioid antagonists combined with alpha2-adrenergic agonists is a feasible approach to the management of opioid withdrawal. However, it is unclear whether this approach reduces the duration of withdrawal or facilitates transfer to naltrexone treatment to a greater extent than withdrawal managed primarily with an adrenergic agonist.
A high level of monitoring and support is desirable for several hours following administration of opioid antagonists because of the possibility of vomiting, diarrhoea and delirium.
Further research is required to confirm the relative effectiveness of antagonist-induced regimes, as well as variables influencing the severity of withdrawal, adverse effects, the most effective antagonist-based treatment regime, and approaches that might increase retention in subsequent naltrexone maintenance treatment.