Minozzi Silvia, Amato Laura, Vecchi Simona, Davoli Marina, Kirchmayer Ursula, Verster Annette
Department of Epidemiology, ASL RM/E, Via di Santa Costanza, 53, Rome, Italy, 00198.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2011 Apr 13;2011(4):CD001333. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD001333.pub4.
Research on clinical application of oral naltrexone agrees on several things. From a pharmacological perspective, naltrexone works. From an applied perspective, the medication compliance and the retention rates are poor.
To evaluate the effects of naltrexone maintenance treatment versus placebo or other treatments in preventing relapse in opioid addicts after detoxification.
We searched: Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL - The Cochrane Library issue 6 2010), PubMed (1973- June 2010), CINAHL (1982- June 2010). We inspected reference lists of relevant articles and contacted pharmaceutical producers of naltrexone, authors and other Cochrane review groups.
All randomised controlled clinical trials which focus on the use of naltrexone maintenance treatment versus placebo, or other treatments to reach sustained abstinence from opiate drugs
Three reviewers independently assessed studies for inclusion and extracted data. One reviewer carried out the qualitative assessments of the methodology of eligible studies using validated checklists.
Thirteen studies, 1158 participants, met the criteria for inclusion in this review.Comparing naltrexone versus placebo or no pharmacological treatments, no statistically significant difference were noted for all the primary outcomes considered. The only outcome statistically significant in favour of naltrexone is re incarceration, RR 0.47 (95%CI 0.26-0.84), but results come only from two studies. Considering only studies were patients were forced to adherence a statistical significant difference in favour of naltrexone was found for retention and abstinence, RR 2.93 (95%CI 1.66-5.18).Comparing naltrexone versus psychotherapy, in the two considered outcomes, no statistically significant difference was found in the single study considered.Naltrexone was not superior to benzodiazepines and to buprenorphine for retention and abstinence and side effects. Results come from single studies.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The findings of this review suggest that oral naltrexone did not perform better than treatment with placebo or no pharmacological agent with respect to the number of participants re-incarcerated during the study period. If oral naltrexone is compared with other pharmacological treatments such as benzodiazepine and buprenorphine, no statistically significant difference was found. The percentage of people retained in treatment in the included studies is however low (28%). The conclusion of this review is that the studies conducted have not allowed an adequate evaluation of oral naltrexone treatment in the field of opioid dependence. Consequently, maintenance therapy with naltrexone cannot yet be considered a treatment which has been scientifically proved to be superior to other kinds of treatment.
关于口服纳曲酮临床应用的研究在几个方面达成了共识。从药理学角度来看,纳曲酮是有效的。从应用角度来看,药物依从性和留存率较差。
评估纳曲酮维持治疗与安慰剂或其他治疗方法相比,在预防阿片类药物成瘾者戒毒后复吸方面的效果。
我们检索了:Cochrane对照试验中心注册库(CENTRAL - The Cochrane Library 2010年第6期)、PubMed(1973年 - 2010年6月)、CINAHL(1982年 - 2010年6月)。我们检查了相关文章的参考文献列表,并联系了纳曲酮的制药生产商、作者和其他Cochrane综述小组。
所有聚焦于使用纳曲酮维持治疗与安慰剂或其他治疗方法以实现阿片类药物持续戒断的随机对照临床试验
三位评审员独立评估研究是否纳入并提取数据。一位评审员使用经过验证的清单对符合条件的研究方法进行定性评估。
13项研究,共1158名参与者,符合本综述的纳入标准。比较纳曲酮与安慰剂或非药物治疗,在所考虑的所有主要结局方面未发现统计学上的显著差异。唯一在统计学上显著有利于纳曲酮的结局是再次入狱,风险比(RR)为0.47(95%置信区间0.26 - 0.84),但结果仅来自两项研究。仅考虑患者被迫依从的研究时,在留存率和戒断方面发现有利于纳曲酮的统计学显著差异,RR为2.93(95%置信区间1.66 - 5.18)。比较纳曲酮与心理治疗,在所考虑的两个结局方面,在纳入的单项研究中未发现统计学显著差异。在留存率、戒断率和副作用方面,纳曲酮并不优于苯二氮䓬类药物和丁丙诺啡。结果来自单项研究。
本综述的结果表明,在研究期间再次入狱的参与者数量方面,口服纳曲酮并不比安慰剂治疗或非药物治疗表现更好。如果将口服纳曲酮与其他药物治疗如苯二氮䓬类药物和丁丙诺啡进行比较,未发现统计学显著差异。然而,纳入研究中的治疗留存率较低(28%)。本综述的结论是,所进行的研究尚未对阿片类药物依赖领域的口服纳曲酮治疗进行充分评估。因此,纳曲酮维持治疗尚未能被视为一种经科学证明优于其他治疗方法的治疗手段。