Reduced cannabis use after low-dose naltrexone addition to opioid detoxification

Simultaneous Determination of Levo-tetrahydropalmatine and Naltrexone in Rat Plasma by LC-MS/MS and its Application in a Pharmacokinetic Study

BACKGROUND

Levo-tetrahydropalmatine and low-dose naltrexone are used in association with reducing cocaine-related cravings, but there are no analytical methods for the quantitative simultaneous analysis of this drug combination.

OBJECTIVE

A highly selective and sensitive LC-MS/MS assay was developed and validated to simultaneously quantify l-THP and naltrexone. The analytical method for l-THP offers improved sensitivity compared to previously published methods.

METHODS

The product ion transitions of l-THP and naltrexone were 357.0→193.0 and 342.2→324.1, respectively. Chromatographic separations were performed using a BEH-C18 column by an isocratic elution mode with acetonitrile and 0.1% formic acid in water containing 3 mM ammonium acetate. L-THP and naltrexone were extracted from rat plasma using a liquidliquid extraction method.

RESULTS

For l-THP and naltrexone, the assay displayed good linear response over a concentration range of 0.5-1000 ng/mL and 0.25-500 ng/mL, respectively. The intra-day accuracy of the method for l-THP and naltrexone was 93.8-101% with a precision (%CV) of 2.43-8.15% and 93.4-108% with a precision of 3.47-8.22%. The inter-day accuracy for l-THP and naltrexone was 91.2-102% with a CV of 2.46-8.06% and 91.5-97.8% with a CV of 3.29-8.92%, respectively.

CONCLUSION

The assay has been used for pharmacokinetic studies of l-THP and naltrexone in the rat.

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.

Combination of Levo-Tetrahydropalmatine and Low Dose Naltrexone: A Promising Treatment for Prevention of Cocaine Relapse

Relapse to drug use is often cited as the major obstacle in overcoming a drug addiction. Whereas relapse can occur for a myriad of reasons, it is well established that complex neuroadaptations that occur over the course of addiction are major factors. Cocaine, as a potent dopamine transporter blocker, specifically induces alterations in the dopaminergic as well as other monoaminergic neurotransmissions, which lead to cocaine abuse and dependence. Evidence also suggests that adaptations in the endogenous opioids play important roles in pathophysiology of cocaine addiction. Following this evidence, we investigated a combination medication, levo-tetrahydropalmatine (l-THP) and low dose naltrexone (LDN), targeting primarily dopaminergic and endogenous opioid systems as a cocaine-relapse-prevention treatment. In the present study Wistar rats were used to assess the effects ofl-THP and LDN on cocaine self-administration, drug-seeking behavior during cocaine reinstatement, spontaneous locomotion, and effects on the endogenous opioid system. We determined that the combination ofl-THP and LDN reduces drug-seeking behavior during reinstatement more potently thanl-THP alone. Additionally, the combination ofl-THP and LDN attenuates the sedative locomotor effect induced byl-THP. Furthermore, we revealed that treatment with the combination ofl-THP and LDN has an upregulatory effect on both plasmaβ-endorphin and hypothalamic POMC that was not observed inl-THP-treated groups. These results suggest that the combination ofl-THP and LDN has great potential as an effective and well-tolerated medication for cocaine relapse prevention.

Naltrexone HCI/bupropion HCI for chronic weight management in obese adults: patient selection and perspectives

Naltrexone, an opiate antagonist, and bupropion, a noradrenergic/dopaminergic antidepressant, have many effects on the reward systems of the brain. These medications impact eating behavior, presumably via their impact on food reward. However, only bupropion induces weight loss in obese individuals, while naltrexone does not have any appreciable effect. The combination of 32 mg of naltrexone and 360 mg of bupropion in a sustained-release combination pill form has been recently approved for obesity treatment. Studies have shown that the combination of these two medications is more effective in inducing weight loss, when combined with lifestyle intervention and calorie reduction, than each individual medicine alone. The naltrexone-bupropion combination, when combined with lifestyle intervention and modest calorie reduction, seems to be quite effective for 6-month and 1-year outcomes for clinically significant weight loss (over 5% of total body weight). These medications are not devoid of serious side effects, however, and careful patient selection can reduce dramatic complications and increase positive outcomes. This paper reviews existing weight loss clinical trials with bupropion and the bupropion-naltrexone combination. Additionally, the rationale for the suggested patient selection and clinical strategies for special patient populations are discussed.

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.