4.1 Article

Targeted use of naltrexone without prior detoxification in the treatment of alcohol dependence:: A factorial double-blind, placebo-controlled trial

期刊

JOURNAL OF CLINICAL PSYCHOPHARMACOLOGY
卷 21, 期 3, 页码 287-292

出版社

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1097/00004714-200106000-00006

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Several studies have shown the opioid antagonist naltrexone to be effective when combined with psychosocial therapies for the treatment of patients who are dependent on alcohol with fixed medication and time (12 weeks). In this study, 121 nonabstinent outpatients with alcohol dependence (DSM-IV) were treated with sessions of cognitive coping skills (N = 67) or supportive therapy (N = 54) and either naltrexone 50 mg/day (N = 63) or placebo (N = 58) daily for the first 12 weeks and thereafter for 20 weeks only when craving alcohol (i.e., targeted medication) in a prospective one-center, dual, double-blind, randomized clinical trial. The dropout rate for all subjects was 16.5% during the first 12-week period and approximately twice that level by the end of the study. There were no significant group differences in study completion and therapy participation rates. After the continuous medication (12 weeks), the coping/naltrexone group had the best outcome, and coping/placebo had the worst. This difference remained during the targeted medication period (the following 20 weeks). Naltrexone was not better than placebo in the supportive groups, but it had a significant effect in the coping groups: 27% of the coping/naltrexone patients had no relapses to heavy drinking throughout the 32 weeks, compared with only 3% of the coping/placebo patients. The authors' data confirm the original finding of the efficacy of naltrexone in conjunction with coping skills therapy, In addition, their data show that detoxification is not required and that targeted medication taken only when craving occurs is effective in maintaining the reduction in heavy drinking.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.1
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据