Early outcomes following low dose naltrexone enhancement of opioid detoxification

Rapid Initiation of Injection Naltrexone for Opioid Use Disorder: A Stepped-Wedge Cluster Randomized Clinical Trial

Importance

Injectable extended-release (XR)-naltrexone is an effective treatment option for opioid use disorder (OUD), but the need to withdraw patients from opioid treatment prior to initiation is a barrier to implementation.

Objective

To compare the effectiveness of the standard procedure (SP) with the rapid procedure (RP) for XR-naltrexone initiation.

Design, Setting, and Participants

The Surmounting Withdrawal to Initiate Fast Treatment with Naltrexone study was an optimized stepped-wedge cluster randomized trial conducted at 6 community-based inpatient addiction treatment units. Units using the SP were randomly assigned at 14-week intervals to implement the RP. Participants admitted with OUD received the procedure the unit was delivering at the time of their admission. Participant recruitment took place between March 16, 2021, and July 18, 2022. The last visit was September 21, 2022.

Interventions

Standard procedure, based on the XR-naltrexone package insert (approximately 5-day buprenorphine taper followed by a 7- to 10-day opioid-free period and RP, defined as 1 day of buprenorphine at minimum necessary dose, 1 opioid-free day, and ascending low doses of oral naltrexone and adjunctive medications (eg, clonidine, clonazepam, antiemetics) for opioid withdrawal.

Main Outcomes and Measures

Receipt of XR-naltrexone injection prior to inpatient discharge (primary outcome). Secondary outcomes included opioid withdrawal scores and targeted safety events and serious adverse events. All analyses were intention-to-treat.

Results

A total of 415 participants with OUD were enrolled (mean [SD] age, 33.6 [8.48] years; 205 [49.4%] identified sex as male); 54 [13.0%] individuals identified as Black, 91 [21.9%] as Hispanic, 290 [69.9%] as White, and 22 [5.3%] as multiracial. Rates of successful initiation of XR-naltrexone among the RP group (141 of 225 [62.7%]) were noninferior to those of the SP group (68 of 190 [35.8%]) (odds ratio [OR], 3.60; 95% CI, 2.12-6.10). Withdrawal did not differ significantly between conditions (proportion of days with a moderate or greater maximum Clinical Opiate Withdrawal Scale score (>12) for RP vs SP: OR, 1.25; 95% CI, 0.62-2.50). Targeted safety events (RP: 12 [5.3%]; SP: 4 [2.1%]) and serious adverse events (RP: 15 [6.7%]; SP: 3 [1.6%]) were infrequent but occurred more often with RP than SP.

Conclusions and Relevance

In this trial, the RP of XR-naltrexone initiation was noninferior to the standard approach and saved time, although it required more intensive medical management and safety monitoring. The results of this trial suggest that rapid initiation could make XR-naltrexone a more viable treatment for patients with OUD.

Trial Registration

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04762537.

The Utilization of Low Dose Naltrexone for Chronic Pain

Naltrexone is a mu-opioid receptor antagonist with a long half-life compared with naloxone. Both of these drugs, along with others, were developed with the intention of reversing the effects of opioid abuse or toxicity. Evidence has also shown that naltrexone has a benefit in preventing relapse by reducing opioid cravings and reducing symptoms of opioid withdrawal. The benefits of this drug were not only shown with opioid abuse. In 1984 this drug was also approved for alcohol abuse. Naltrexone has been proven to decrease alcohol relapse by decreasing the craving. Apart from these approved indications for the use of naltrexone, with time, it has been seen that this drug has a benefit in treating chronic pain. A number of studies have shown the benefits of this drug with inflammatory bowel disease, fibromyalgia, multiple sclerosis, diabetic neuropathy, and complex regional pain syndrome, among others. More studies are needed to approve this medication for specific chronic pain conditions.

Opiate Antagonists for Chronic Pain: A Review on the Benefits of Low-Dose Naltrexone in Arthritis versus Non-Arthritic Diseases

Chronic pain conditions create major financial and emotional burdens that can be devastating for individuals and society. One primary source of pain is arthritis, a common inflammatory disease of the joints that causes persistent pain in affected people. The main objective of pharmacological treatments for either rheumatoid arthritis (RA) or osteoarthritis (OA) is to reduce pain. Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, opioids, and opioid antagonists have each been considered in the management of chronic pain in arthritis patients. Naltrexone is an oral-activated opioid antagonist with biphasic dose-dependent pharmacodynamic effects. The molecule acts as a competitive inhibitor of opioid receptors at high doses. However, naltrexone at low doses has been shown to have hormetic effects and provides relief for chronic pain conditions such as fibromyalgia, multiple sclerosis (MS), and inflammatory bowel disorders. Current knowledge of naltrexone suggests that low-dose treatments may be effective in the treatment of pain perception in chronic inflammatory conditions observed in patients with either RA or OA. In this review, we evaluated the therapeutic benefits of low-dose naltrexone (LDN) on arthritis-related pain conditions.

Diversity inclusion in United States opioid pharmacological treatment trials: A systematic review

Pharmacological treatments for opioid use disorders (OUDs) may have mixed efficacy across diverse groups, i.e., sex/gender, race/ethnicity, and socioeconomic status (SES). The present systematic review aims to examine how diverse groups have been included in U.S. randomized clinical trials examining pharmacological treatments (i.e., methadone, buprenorphine, or naltrexone) for OUDs. PubMed was systematically searched according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. The initial search yielded 567 articles. After exclusion of ineligible articles, 50 remained for the present review. Of the included articles, 14.0% (n = 7) reported both full (i.e., accounting for all participants) sex/gender and race/ethnicity information; only two of those articles also included information about any SES indicators. Moreover, only 22.0% (n = 11) reported full sex/gender information, and 42.0% (n = 21) reported full racial/ethnic information. Furthermore, only 10.0% (n = 5) reported that their lack of subgroup analyses or diverse samples was a limitation to their studies. Particularly underrepresented were American Indian/Alaska Native (AI/AN), Asian, Native Hawaiian/Other Pacific Islander (NH/OPI), and multiracial individuals. These results also varied by medication type; Black individuals were underrepresented in buprenorphine randomized controlled trials (RCTs) but were well represented in RCTs for methadone and/or naltrexone. In conclusion, it is critical that all people receive efficacious pharmacological care for OUDs given the ongoing opioid epidemic. Findings from the present review, however, support that participants from diverse or marginalized backgrounds are underrepresented in treatment trials, despite being at increased risk for disparities related to OUDs. Suggestions for future research are advanced. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2021 APA, all rights reserved).

Negative affect-associated drug refusal self-efficacy, illicit opioid use, and medication use following short-term inpatient opioid withdrawal management

INTRODUCTION

Persons with opioid use disorder (OUD) are prone to frequent relapse following brief inpatient medically managed withdrawal. This longitudinal, naturalistic study examines associations among illicit opioid use, use of medication for opioid use disorder (MOUD), and one's confidence in the ability to resist drug use in the face of negative emotions (i.e., negative affect-associated drug refusal self-efficacy).

METHOD

Participants were 220 adults with OUD who recently completed a short-term inpatient program and the study followed for 6 months. At baseline, participants reported demographics, illicit opioid use, recent engagement with MOUD, and negative affect-associated drug refusal self-efficacy. At follow-up (1 week and 1-, 3-, and 6-months following discharge), participants reported illicit opioid use and MOUD.

RESULTS

Participants averaged 30.7 years of age, 63.2% were male, and 84.1% were white. Both illicit opioid use and rates of MOUD increased during the 6-month follow-up period, although only 34.1% received MOUD. At baseline, participants reported less than 50% self-confidence to resist using opioids during negative emotional states. Baseline negative affect-associated drug refusal self-efficacy inversely predicted illicit opioid use (p = .01) at follow-up but was not associated with follow-up MOUD.

CONCLUSION

Among persons with OUD, lower confidence to resist using opioids in negative emotional states predicts greater use of illicit opioids in the months following medically managed withdrawal, even with receipt of MOUD.

Very low dose naltrexone in opioid detoxification: a double-blind, randomized clinical trial of efficacy and safety

Withdrawal syndrome is one of the initial focuses of opioid detoxification. Very low dose naltrexone (VLNTX) has been found to reduce opioid tolerance and dependence in animal and human clinical studies. The aim of this study was to determine the safety and efficacy of VLNTX during early stages of detoxification. In a multi-arm parallel, double-blind, randomized controlled trial, 63 opioid-dependent male participants referring to Imam Reza Rehabilitation Center were allocated to three equal groups using block randomization method. They received 0.125 mg, 0.250 mg of VLNTX or placebo daily for 10 days, together with the routine clonidine-based protocol. Self-reported and observer ratings of withdrawal severity and adverse events were measured on the 1st, 4th and 10th day of treatment. Runny eyes (p = 0.006), anxiety (p = 0.031) and dehydration (p = 0.014) were reduced during the whole 10 days in the 0.125 mg VLNTX-treated group compared to placebo. Only drowsiness (p = 0.043) and dysphoric mood (p < 0.001) were reduced in the 0.250 mg VLNTX-treated group. Results of 1st, 4th, and 10th-day assessment showed that most symptoms reductions were for the 0.125 mg VLNTX and the placebo group in the 1st and 4th days, respectively. On the 10th day, there was not any significant difference between 0.250 mg VLNTX-treated group and placebo group. No adverse effect was observed. In the starting days of detoxification, VLNTX can reduce the withdrawal symptoms, but the efficacy declined by passing time. Further studies are needed to test the utility of this new therapeutic approach.

Low-Dose Naltrexone (LDN)-Review of Therapeutic Utilization

Naltrexone and naloxone are classical opioid antagonists. In substantially lower than standard doses, they exert different pharmacodynamics. Low-dose naltrexone (LDN), considered in a daily dose of 1 to 5 mg, has been shown to reduce glial inflammatory response by modulating Toll-like receptor 4 signaling in addition to systemically upregulating endogenous opioid signaling by transient opioid-receptor blockade. Clinical reports of LDN have demonstrated possible benefits in diseases such as fibromyalgia, Crohn’s disease, multiple sclerosis, complex-regional pain syndrome, Hailey-Hailey disease, and cancer. In a dosing range at less than 1 μg per day, oral naltrexone or intravenous naloxone potentiate opioid analgesia by acting on filamin A, a scaffolding protein involved in μ-opioid receptor signaling. This dose is termed ultra low-dose naltrexone/naloxone (ULDN). It has been of use in postoperative control of analgesia by reducing the need for the total amount of opioids following surgery, as well as ameliorating certain side-effects of opioid-related treatment. A dosing range between 1 μg and 1 mg comprises very low-dose naltrexone (VLDN), which has primarily been used as an experimental adjunct treatment for boosting tolerability of opioid-weaning methadone taper. In general, all of the low-dose features regarding naltrexone and naloxone have been only recently and still scarcely scientifically evaluated. This review aims to present an overview of the current knowledge on these topics and summarize the key findings published in peer-review sources. The existing potential of LDN, VLDN, and ULDN for various areas of biomedicine has still not been thoroughly and comprehensively addressed.

Pharmacological therapies for management of opium withdrawal

BACKGROUND

Pharmacologic therapies for management of heroin withdrawal have been studied and reviewed widely. Opium dependence is generally associated with less severe dependence and milder withdrawal symptoms than heroin. The evidence on withdrawal management of heroin might therefore not be exactly applicable for opium.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effectiveness and safety of various pharmacologic therapies for the management of the acute phase of opium withdrawal.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the following sources up to September 2017: CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, PsycINFO, regional and national databases (IMEMR, Iranmedex, and IranPsych), main electronic sources of ongoing trials, and reference lists of all relevant papers. In addition, we contacted known investigators to obtain missing data or incomplete trials.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Controlled clinical trials and randomised controlled trials on pharmacological therapies, compared with no intervention, placebo, other pharmacologic treatments, different doses of the same drug, and psychosocial intervention, to manage acute withdrawal from opium in a maximum duration of 30 days.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used the standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 13 trials involving 1096 participants. No pooled analysis was possible. Studies were carried out in three countries, Iran, India, and Thailand, in outpatient and inpatient settings. The quality of the evidence was generally very low.When the mean of withdrawal symptoms was provided for several days, we mainly focused on day 3. The reason for this was that the highest severity of opium withdrawal is in the second to fourth day.Comparing different pharmacological treatments with each other, clonidine was twice as good as methadone for completion of treatment (risk ratio (RR) 2.01, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.69 to 2.38; 361 participants, 1 study, low-quality evidence). All the other results showed no differences between the considered drugs: baclofen versus clonidine (RR 1.06, 95% CI 0.63 to 1.80; 66 participants, 1 study, very low-quality evidence); clonidine versus clonidine plus amantadine (RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.86 to 1.24; 69 participants, 1 study); clonidine versus buprenorphine in an inpatient setting (RR 1.04, 95% CI 0.90 to 1.20; 1 study, 35 participants, very low-quality evidence); methadone versus tramadol (RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.65 to 1.37; 1 study, 72 participants, very low-quality evidence); methadone versus methadone plus gabapentin (RR 1.17, 95% CI 0.96 to 1.43; 1 study, 40 participants, low-quality evidence), and tincture of opium versus methadone (1 study, 74 participants, low-quality evidence).Comparing different pharmacological treatments with each other, adding amantadine to clonidine decreased withdrawal scores rated at day 3 (mean difference (MD) -3.56, 95% CI -5.97 to -1.15; 1 study, 60 participants, very low-quality evidence). Comparing clonidine with buprenorphine in an inpatient setting, we found no difference in withdrawal symptoms rated by a physician (MD -1.40, 95% CI -2.93 to 0.13; 1 study, 34 participants, very low-quality evidence), and results in favour of buprenorpine when rated by participants (MD -11.80, 95% CI -15.56 to -8.04). Buprenorphine was superior to clonidine in controlling severe withdrawal symptoms in an outpatient setting (RR 0.35, 95% CI 0.19 to 0.64; 1 study, 76 participants). We found no difference in the comparison of methadone versus tramadol (MD 0.04, 95% CI -2.68 to 2.76; 1 study, 72 participants) and in the comparison of methadone versus methadone plus gabapentin (MD -2.20, 95% CI -6.72 to 2.32; 1 study, 40 participants).Comparing clonidine versus buprenorphine in an outpatient setting, more adverse effects were reported in the clonidine group (1 study, 76 participants). Higher numbers of participants in the clonidine group experienced hypotension at days 5 to 8, headache at days 1 to 8, sedation at days 5 to 8, dizziness and dry mouth at days 1 to 10, and nausea at days 1 to 9. Sweating was reported in a significantly higher number of participants in the buprenorphine group at days 1 to 10. We found no difference between groups for all the other comparisons considering this outcome.Comparing different dosages of the same pharmacological detoxification treatment, a high dose of clonidine (1 to 1.2 mg/day) did not differ from a low dose of clonidine (0.5 to 0.6 mg/day) in completion of treatment in an inpatient setting (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.84 to 1.19; 1 study, 68 participants), however a higher number of participants with hypotension was reported in the high-dose group (RR 3.25, 95% CI 1.77 to 5.98). Gradual reduction of methadone was associated with more adverse effects than abrupt withdrawal of methadone (RR 2.25, 95% CI 1.02 to 4.94; 1 study, 20 participants, very low-quality evidence).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Results did not support using any specific pharmacological approach for the management of opium withdrawal due to generally very low-quality evidence and small or no differences between treatments. However, it seems that opium withdrawal symptoms are significant, especially at days 2 to 4 after discontinuation of opium. All of the assessed medications might be useful in alleviating symptoms. Those who receive clonidine might experience hypotension.

Antagonists in the medical management of opioid use disorders: Historical and existing treatment strategies

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

Opioid use disorder (OUD) is a chronic condition with potentially severe health and social consequences. Many who develop moderate to severe OUD will repeatedly seek treatment or interact with medical care via emergency department visits or hospitalizations. Thus, there is an urgent need to develop feasible and effective approaches to help persons with OUD achieve and maintain abstinence from opioids. Treatment that includes one of the three FDA-approved medications is an evidence-based strategy to manage OUD. The purpose of this review is to address practices for managing persons with moderate to severe OUD with a focus on opioid withdrawal and naltrexone-based relapse-prevention treatment.

METHODS

Literature available on PubMed was used to review the evolution of treatment strategies from the 1960s onward to manage opioid withdrawal and initiate treatment with naltrexone.

RESULTS

Emerging practices for extended-release naltrexone induction include the use of agonist tapers and adjuvant medications. Clinical challenges frequently encountered when initiating this therapy include managing withdrawal and ongoing opioid use during treatment. Clinical factors may inform decisions regarding patient selection and length of naltrexone treatment, such as recent opioid use and patient preferences.

CONCLUSIONS AND SCIENTIFIC SIGNIFICANCE

Treatment strategies to manage opioid withdrawal have evolved, but many patients with OUD do not receive medication for the prevention of relapse. Clinical strategies for induction onto extended-release naltrexone are now available and can be safely and effectively implemented in specialty and select primary care settings. (© 2018 The Authors. The American Journal on Addictions Published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc. on behalf of The American Academy of Addiction Psychiatry (AAAP);27:177-187).

Opioid antagonists with minimal sedation for opioid withdrawal

BACKGROUND

Managed withdrawal is a necessary step prior to drug-free treatment or as the endpoint of long-term substitution treatment.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of opioid antagonists plus minimal sedation for opioid withdrawal. Comparators were placebo as well as more established approaches to detoxification, such as tapered doses of methadone, adrenergic agonists, buprenorphine and symptomatic medications.

SEARCH METHODS

We updated our searches of the following databases to December 2016: CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO and Web of Science. We also searched two trials registers and checked the reference lists of included studies for further references to relevant studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised and quasi-randomised controlled clinical trials along with prospective controlled cohort studies comparing opioid antagonists plus minimal sedation versus other approaches or different opioid antagonist regimens for withdrawal in opioid-dependent participants.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane.

MAIN RESULTS

Ten studies (6 randomised controlled trials and 4 prospective cohort studies, involving 955 participants) met the inclusion criteria for the review. We considered 7 of the 10 studies to be at high risk of bias in at least one of the domains we assessed.Nine studies compared an opioid antagonist-adrenergic agonist combination versus a treatment regimen based primarily on an alpha2-adrenergic agonist (clonidine or lofexidine). Other comparisons (placebo, tapered doses of methadone, buprenorphine) made by included studies were too diverse for any meaningful analysis. This review therefore focuses on the nine studies comparing an opioid antagonist (naltrexone or naloxone) plus clonidine or lofexidine versus treatment primarily based on clonidine or lofexidine.Five studies took place in an inpatient setting, two studies were in outpatients with day care, two used day care only for the first day of opioid antagonist administration, and one study described the setting as outpatient without indicating the level of care provided.The included studies were heterogeneous in terms of the type of opioid antagonist treatment regimen, the comparator, the outcome measures assessed, and the means of assessing outcomes. As a result, the validity of any estimates of overall effect is doubtful, therefore we did not calculate pooled results for any of the analyses.The quality of the evidence for treatment with an opioid antagonist-adrenergic agonist combination versus an alpha2-adrenergic agonist is very low. Two studies reported data on peak withdrawal severity, and four studies reported data on the average severity over the period of withdrawal. Peak withdrawal induced by opioid antagonists in combination with an adrenergic agonist appears to be more severe than withdrawal managed with clonidine or lofexidine alone, but the average severity over the withdrawal period is less. In some situations antagonist-induced withdrawal may be associated with significantly higher rates of treatment completion compared to withdrawal managed with adrenergic agonists. However, this result was not consistent across studies, and the extent of any benefit is highly uncertain.We could not extract any data on the occurrence of adverse events, but two studies reported delirium or confusion following the first dose of naltrexone. Delirium may be more likely with higher initial doses and with naltrexone rather than naloxone (which has a shorter half-life), but we could not confirm this from the available evidence.Insufficient data were available to make any conclusions on the best duration of treatment.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Using opioid antagonists plus alpha2-adrenergic agonists is a feasible approach for managing 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.Using opioid antagonists to induce and accelerate opioid withdrawal is not currently an active area of research or clinical practice, and the research community should give greater priority to investigating approaches, such as those based on buprenorphine, that facilitate the transition to sustained-release preparations of naltrexone.

Update on pharmacotherapy for treatment of opioid use disorder

INTRODUCTION

Opioid Use Disorder (OUD) is a significant public health concern, negatively impacting the medical, psychological, and social domains of an individual's life as well as creating substantial burdens for society. Effective treatment interventions are necessary for reduction of OUD and its consequences. Pharmacotherapy represents a central component of management. Areas covered: This review focuses on pharmacologic strategies for OUD treatment, discussing both primary as well as adjunctive therapy modalities. We will discuss both medications used during detoxification to treat withdrawal, as well as those used as maintenance therapy. Detox medications include alpha-2 adrenergic agonists, such as clonidine, as well as the μ-opioid agonist, methadone, and the μ-opioid partial agonist, buprenorphine. Opioid maintenance treatment (OMT) is also discussed, focusing on those medications meant to substitute abused opioids and includes the agonists, methadone and buprenorphine, as well as supervised intravenous heroin, and opioid antagonist, naltrexone. Expert opinion: Medication therapy for treatment of OUD has demonstrated efficacy and is of great clinical benefit. While agonist treatment with methadone or buprenorphine remains the gold standard, there is an important place for use of long-acting antagonist therapy with naltrexone. Continued investigation into treatment paradigms and behavioral platforms which optimize medication therapy is most needed.

Are Alcohol Anti-relapsing and Alcohol Withdrawal Drugs Useful in Cannabinoid Users?

Cannabinoids are still classified as illegal psychoactive drugs despite their broad and increasingly acknowledged therapeutic potential. These substances are most famous for their wide recreational use, particularly among young adults to either alter the state of consciousness, intensify pleasure induced by other psychoactive substances or as an alternative to the previously abused drugs. It is important to emphasize that cannabinoids are often taken together with a variety of medications intended for the treatment of alcohol use disorder (AUD) or alcohol withdrawal syndrome (AWS). These medications include disulfiram, acamprosate, and naltrexone. In this paper, we summarize recent advances in the knowledge of possible beneficial effects and interactions between cannabinoids and drugs commonly used for treatment of AUD and AWS either comorbid or existing as a separate disorder.

Buprenorphine-mediated transition from opioid agonist to antagonist treatment: state of the art and new perspectives

Constant refinement of opioid dependence (OD) therapies is a condition to promote treatment access and delivery. Among other applications, the partial opioid agonist buprenorphine has been studied to improve evidence-based interventions for the transfer of patients from opioid agonist to antagonist medications. This paper summarizes PubMed-searched clinical investigations and conference papers on the transition from methadone maintenance to buprenorphine and from buprenorphine to naltrexone, discussing challenges and advances. The majority of the 26 studies we examined were uncontrolled investigations. Many small clinical trials have demonstrated the feasibility of in- or outpatient transfer to buprenorphine from low to moderate methadone doses (up to 60-70 mg). Results on the conversion from higher methadone doses, on the other hand, indicate significant withdrawal discomfort, and need for ancillary medications and inpatient treatment. Tapering high methadone doses before the transfer to buprenorphine is not without discomfort and the risk of relapse. The transition buprenorphine-naltrexone has been explored in several pilot studies, and a number of treatment methods to reduce withdrawal intensity warrant further investigation, including the co-administration of buprenorphine and naltrexone. Outpatient transfer protocols using buprenorphine, and direct comparisons with other modalities of transitioning from opioid agonist to antagonist medications are limited. Given its potential salience, the information gathered should be used in larger clinical trials on short and long-term outcomes of opioid agonist-antagonist transition treatments. Future studies should also test new pharmacological mechanisms to help reduce physical dependence, and identify individualized approaches, including the use of pharmacogenetics and long-acting opioid agonist and antagonist formulations.

Agonist-antagonist combinations in opioid dependence: a translational approach

The potential therapeutic benefits of co-administering opiate agonist and antagonist agents remain largely to be investigated. This paper focuses on the mechanisms of very low doses of naltrexone that help modulate the effects of methadone withdrawal and review pharmacological properties of the buprenorphine/naltrexone combination that support its clinical investigation. The bench-to-bedside development of the very low dose naltrexone treatment can serve as a translational paradigm to investigate and treat drug addiction. Further research on putative mechanisms elicited by the use of opioid agonist-antagonist combinations may lead to effective pharmacological alternatives to the gold standard methadone treatment, also useful for the management of the abuse of non opioid drugs and alcohol.