INTRODUCTION AND AIMS: Naltrexone implants are used to treat opioid dependence, but their safety and efficacy remain poorly understood. We systematically reviewed the literature to assess the safety and efficacy of naltrexone implants for treating opioid dependence. DESIGN AND METHODS: Studies were eligible if they compared naltrexone implants with another intervention or placebo. Examined outcomes were induction to treatment, retention in treatment, opioid and non-opioid use, adverse events, non-fatal overdose and mortality. Quality of the evidence was assessed using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation approach. Data from randomised studies were combined using meta-analysis. Data from non-randomised studies were presented narratively. RESULTS: Five randomised trials (n = 576) and four non-randomised studies (n = 8358) were eligible for review. The quality of the evidence ranged from moderate to very low. Naltrexone implants were superior to placebo implants [risk ratio (RR): 0.57; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.48, 0.68; k = 2] and oral naltrexone (RR: 0.57; 95% CI 0.47, 0.70; k = 2) in suppressing opioid use. No difference in opioid use was observed between naltrexone implants and methadone maintenance (standardised mean difference: -0.33; 95% CI -0.93, 0.26; k = 1); however, this finding was based on low-quality evidence from one study. DISCUSSION: The evidence on safety and efficacy of naltrexone implants is limited in quantity and quality, and the evidence has little clinical utility in settings where effective treatments for opioid dependence are used. CONCLUSION: Better designed research is needed to establish the safety and efficacy of naltrexone implants. Until such time, their use should be limited to clinical trials. [Larney S, Gowing L, Mattick RP, Farrell M, Hall W, Degenhardt L. A systematic review and meta-analysis of naltrexone implants for the treatment of opioid dependence.
INTRODUCTION AND AIMS: Naltrexone implants are used to treat opioid dependence, but their safety and efficacy remain poorly understood. We systematically reviewed the literature to assess the safety and efficacy of naltrexone implants for treating opioid dependence. DESIGN AND METHODS: Studies were eligible if they compared naltrexone implants with another intervention or placebo. Examined outcomes were induction to treatment, retention in treatment, opioid and non-opioid use, adverse events, non-fatal overdose and mortality. Quality of the evidence was assessed using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation approach. Data from randomised studies were combined using meta-analysis. Data from non-randomised studies were presented narratively. RESULTS: Five randomised trials (n = 576) and four non-randomised studies (n = 8358) were eligible for review. The quality of the evidence ranged from moderate to very low. Naltrexone implants were superior to placebo implants [risk ratio (RR): 0.57; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.48, 0.68; k = 2] and oral naltrexone (RR: 0.57; 95% CI 0.47, 0.70; k = 2) in suppressing opioid use. No difference in opioid use was observed between naltrexone implants and methadone maintenance (standardised mean difference: -0.33; 95% CI -0.93, 0.26; k = 1); however, this finding was based on low-quality evidence from one study. DISCUSSION: The evidence on safety and efficacy of naltrexone implants is limited in quantity and quality, and the evidence has little clinical utility in settings where effective treatments for opioid dependence are used. CONCLUSION: Better designed research is needed to establish the safety and efficacy of naltrexone implants. Until such time, their use should be limited to clinical trials. [Larney S, Gowing L, Mattick RP, Farrell M, Hall W, Degenhardt L. A systematic review and meta-analysis of naltrexone implants for the treatment of opioid dependence.
Authors: Kevin Pottie; Claire E Kendall; Tim Aubry; Olivia Magwood; Anne Andermann; Ginetta Salvalaggio; David Ponka; Gary Bloch; Vanessa Brcic; Eric Agbata; Kednapa Thavorn; Terry Hannigan; Andrew Bond; Susan Crouse; Ritika Goel; Esther Shoemaker; Jean Zhuo Jing Wang; Sebastian Mott; Harneel Kaur; Christine Mathew; Syeda Shanza Hashmi; Ammar Saad; Thomas Piggott; Neil Arya; Nicole Kozloff; Michaela Beder; Dale Guenter; Wendy Muckle; Stephen Hwang; Vicky Stergiopoulos; Peter Tugwell Journal: CMAJ Date: 2020-03-09 Impact factor: 8.262
Authors: Kevin Pottie; Claire E Kendall; Tim Aubry; Olivia Magwood; Anne Andermann; Ginetta Salvalaggio; David Ponka; Gary Bloch; Vanessa Brcic; Eric Agbata; Kednapa Thavorn; Terry Hannigan; Andrew Bond; Susan Crouse; Ritika Goel; Esther Shoemaker; Jean Zhuo Jing Wang; Sebastian Mott; Harneel Kaur; Christine Mathew; Syeda Shanza Hashmi; Ammar Saad; Thomas Piggott; Neil Arya; Nicole Kozloff; Michaela Beder; Dale Guenter; Wendy Muckle; Stephen Hwang; Vicky Stergiopoulos; Peter Tugwell Journal: CMAJ Date: 2020-10-13 Impact factor: 8.262
Authors: Brantley P Jarvis; August F Holtyn; Shrinidhi Subramaniam; D Andrew Tompkins; Emmanuel A Oga; George E Bigelow; Kenneth Silverman Journal: Addiction Date: 2018-03-24 Impact factor: 6.526
Authors: Kathleen M Carroll; Charla Nich; Tami L Frankforter; Sarah W Yip; Brian D Kiluk; Elise E DeVito; Mehmet Sofuoglu Journal: Drug Alcohol Depend Date: 2018-10-04 Impact factor: 4.492
Authors: Louisa Degenhardt; Jason Grebely; Jack Stone; Matthew Hickman; Peter Vickerman; Brandon D L Marshall; Julie Bruneau; Frederick L Altice; Graeme Henderson; Afarin Rahimi-Movaghar; Sarah Larney Journal: Lancet Date: 2019-10-23 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Kenneth Blum; Ali Raza; Tiffany Schultz; Rehan Jalali; Richard Green; Raymond Brewer; Panyotis K Thanos; Thomas McLaughlin; David Baron; Abdalla Bowirrat; Igor Elman; B William Downs; Debasis Bagchi; Rajendra D Badgaiyan Journal: Acta Sci Neurol Date: 2021-02-02
Authors: M Belgers; M Leenaars; J R Homberg; M Ritskes-Hoitinga; A F A Schellekens; C R Hooijmans Journal: Transl Psychiatry Date: 2016-05-31 Impact factor: 6.222