4.6 Article

Naltrexone in alcohol dependence: a randomised controlled trial of effectiveness in a standard clinical setting

Journal

MEDICAL JOURNAL OF AUSTRALIA
Volume 176, Issue 11, Pages 530-534

Publisher

AUSTRALASIAN MED PUBL CO LTD
DOI: 10.5694/j.1326-5377.2002.tb04550.x

Keywords

-

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objectives: To determine whether naltrexone is beneficial in the treatment of alcohol dependence in the absence of obligatory pyschosocial intervention. Design: Multicentre, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. Setting: Hospital-based drug and alcohol clinics, 18 March 1998 - 22 October 1999. Patients: 107 patients (mean age, 45 years) fulfilling Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (4th edition) criteria for alcohol dependence. Interventions: Patients with alcohol dependence were randomly allocated to naltrexone (50 mg/day) or placebo for 12 weeks. They were medically assessed, reviewed and advised by one physician, and encouraged to strive for abstinence and attend counselling and/or Alcoholics Anonymous, but this was not obligatory, Main outcome measures: Relapse rated time to first relapse: side effects. Results: On an intention-to-treat basis, the Kaplan-Meier survival curve showed a clear advantage in relapse rates for naltrexone over placebo (log-rank test, 2 chi(1)(2) = 4.15; P = 0.042). This treatment effect was most marked in the first 6 weeks of the trial. The median time to relapse was 90 days for naltrexone. compared with 42 days for placebo. In absolute numbers, 19 of 56 patients (33.9%) taking naltrexone relapsed, compared with 27 of 51 patients (52.9%) taking placebo (P = 0.047). Naltrexone was well tolerated. Conclusions: Unlike previous studies, we have shown that naltrexone with adjunctive medical advice is effective in the treatment of alcohol dependence irrespective of whether it is accompanied by psychosocial interventions.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available