-
JAMA Psychiatry Jul 2021Opioid use disorder (OUD) is a significant cause of morbidity and mortality in the US, yet many individuals with OUD do not receive treatment.
IMPORTANCE
Opioid use disorder (OUD) is a significant cause of morbidity and mortality in the US, yet many individuals with OUD do not receive treatment.
OBJECTIVE
To assess the cost-effectiveness of OUD treatments and association of these treatments with outcomes in the US.
DESIGN AND SETTING
This model-based cost-effectiveness analysis included a US population with OUD.
INTERVENTIONS
Medication-assisted treatment (MAT) with buprenorphine, methadone, or injectable extended-release naltrexone; psychotherapy (beyond standard counseling); overdose education and naloxone distribution (OEND); and contingency management (CM).
MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES
Fatal and nonfatal overdoses and deaths throughout 5 years, discounted lifetime quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), and costs.
RESULTS
In the base case, in the absence of treatment, 42 717 overdoses (4132 fatal, 38 585 nonfatal) and 12 660 deaths were estimated to occur in a cohort of 100 000 patients over 5 years, and 11.58 discounted lifetime QALYs were estimated to be experienced per person. An estimated reduction in overdoses was associated with MAT with methadone (10.7%), MAT with buprenorphine or naltrexone (22.0%), and when combined with CM and psychotherapy (range, 21.0%-31.4%). Estimated deceased deaths were associated with MAT with methadone (6%), MAT with buprenorphine or naltrexone (13.9%), and when combined with CM, OEND, and psychotherapy (16.9%). MAT yielded discounted gains of 1.02 to 1.07 QALYs per person. Including only health care sector costs, methadone cost $16 000/QALY gained compared with no treatment, followed by methadone with OEND ($22 000/QALY gained), then by buprenorphine with OEND and CM ($42 000/QALY gained), and then by buprenorphine with OEND, CM, and psychotherapy ($250 000/QALY gained). MAT with naltrexone was dominated by other treatment alternatives. When criminal justice costs were included, all forms of MAT (with buprenorphine, methadone, and naltrexone) were associated with cost savings compared with no treatment, yielding savings of $25 000 to $105 000 in lifetime costs per person. The largest cost savings were associated with methadone plus CM. Results were qualitatively unchanged over a wide range of sensitivity analyses. An analysis using demographic and cost data for Veterans Health Administration patients yielded similar findings.
CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE
In this cost-effectiveness analysis, expanded access to MAT, combined with OEND and CM, was associated with cost-saving reductions in morbidity and mortality from OUD. Lack of widespread MAT availability limits access to a cost-saving medical intervention that reduces morbidity and mortality from OUD. Opioid overdoses in the US likely reached a record high in 2020 because of COVID-19 increasing substance use, exacerbating stress and social isolation, and interfering with opioid treatment. It is essential to understand the cost-effectiveness of alternative forms of MAT to treat OUD.
Topics: Adult; Buprenorphine; Combined Modality Therapy; Cost-Benefit Analysis; Delayed-Action Preparations; Female; Humans; Male; Methadone; Middle Aged; Naloxone; Opiate Overdose; Opiate Substitution Treatment; Opioid-Related Disorders; Psychotherapy; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 33787832
DOI: 10.1001/jamapsychiatry.2021.0247 -
BMJ (Clinical Research Ed.) Apr 2017To compare the risk for all cause and overdose mortality in people with opioid dependence during and after substitution treatment with methadone or buprenorphine and... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
To compare the risk for all cause and overdose mortality in people with opioid dependence during and after substitution treatment with methadone or buprenorphine and to characterise trends in risk of mortality after initiation and cessation of treatment. Systematic review and meta-analysis. Medline, Embase, PsycINFO, and LILACS to September 2016. Prospective or retrospective cohort studies in people with opioid dependence that reported deaths from all causes or overdose during follow-up periods in and out of opioid substitution treatment with methadone or buprenorphine. Two independent reviewers performed data extraction and assessed study quality. Mortality rates in and out of treatment were jointly combined across methadone or buprenorphine cohorts by using multivariate random effects meta-analysis. There were 19 eligible cohorts, following 122 885 people treated with methadone over 1.3-13.9 years and 15 831 people treated with buprenorphine over 1.1-4.5 years. Pooled all cause mortality rates were 11.3 and 36.1 per 1000 person years in and out of methadone treatment (unadjusted out-to-in rate ratio 3.20, 95% confidence interval 2.65 to 3.86) and reduced to 4.3 and 9.5 in and out of buprenorphine treatment (2.20, 1.34 to 3.61). In pooled trend analysis, all cause mortality dropped sharply over the first four weeks of methadone treatment and decreased gradually two weeks after leaving treatment. All cause mortality remained stable during induction and remaining time on buprenorphine treatment. Overdose mortality evolved similarly, with pooled overdose mortality rates of 2.6 and 12.7 per 1000 person years in and out of methadone treatment (unadjusted out-to-in rate ratio 4.80, 2.90 to 7.96) and 1.4 and 4.6 in and out of buprenorphine treatment. Retention in methadone and buprenorphine treatment is associated with substantial reductions in the risk for all cause and overdose mortality in people dependent on opioids. The induction phase onto methadone treatment and the time immediately after leaving treatment with both drugs are periods of particularly increased mortality risk, which should be dealt with by both public health and clinical strategies to mitigate such risk. These findings are potentially important, but further research must be conducted to properly account for potential confounding and selection bias in comparisons of mortality risk between opioid substitution treatments, as well as throughout periods in and out of each treatment.
Topics: Buprenorphine; Drug Overdose; Humans; Methadone; Narcotics; Opiate Substitution Treatment; Opioid-Related Disorders; Risk
PubMed: 28446428
DOI: 10.1136/bmj.j1550 -
Anesthesiology Jun 2020Intrathecal opioids are routinely administered during spinal anesthesia for postcesarean analgesia. The effectiveness of intrathecal morphine for postcesarean analgesia... (Comparative Study)
Comparative Study Randomized Controlled Trial
BACKGROUND
Intrathecal opioids are routinely administered during spinal anesthesia for postcesarean analgesia. The effectiveness of intrathecal morphine for postcesarean analgesia is well established, and the use of intrathecal hydromorphone is growing. No prospective studies have compared the effectiveness of equipotent doses of intrathecal morphine versus intrathecal hydromorphone as part of a multimodal analgesic regimen for postcesarean analgesia. The authors hypothesized that intrathecal morphine would result in superior analgesia compared with intrathecal hydromorphone 24 h after delivery.
METHODS
In this single-center, double-blinded, randomized trial, 138 parturients undergoing scheduled cesarean delivery were randomized to receive 150 µg of intrathecal morphine or 75 µg of intrathecal hydromorphone as part of a primary spinal anesthetic and multimodal analgesic regimen; 134 parturients were included in the analysis. The primary outcome was the numerical rating scale score for pain with movement 24 h after delivery. Static and dynamic pain scores, nausea, pruritus, degree of sedation, and patient satisfaction were assessed every 6 h for 36 h postpartum. Total opioid consumption was recorded.
RESULTS
There was no significant difference in pain scores with movement at 24 h (intrathecal hydromorphone median [25th, 75th] 4 [3, 5] and intrathecal morphine 3 [2, 4.5]) or at any time point (estimated difference, 0.5; 95% CI, 0 to 1; P = 0.139). Opioid received in the first 24 h did not differ between groups (median [25th, 75th] oral morphine milligram equivalents for intrathecal hydromorphone 30 [7.5, 45.06] vs. intrathecal morphine 22.5 [14.0, 37.5], P = 0.769). From Kaplan-Meier analysis, the median time to first opioid request was 5.4 h for hydromorphone and 12.1 h for morphine (log-rank test P = 0.200).
CONCLUSIONS
Although the hypothesis was that intrathecal morphine would provide superior analgesia to intrathecal hydromorphone, the results did not confirm this. At the doses studied, both intrathecal morphine and intrathecal hydromorphone provide effective postcesarean analgesia when combined with a multimodal analgesia regimen.
Topics: Adult; Analgesia, Epidural; Analgesia, Obstetrical; Analgesics, Opioid; Cesarean Section; Double-Blind Method; Female; Humans; Hydromorphone; Male; Morphine; Pain, Postoperative; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 32251031
DOI: 10.1097/ALN.0000000000003283 -
Scientific Reports Nov 2023Opiate alkaloids and their synthetic derivatives are still widely used in pain management, drug addiction, and abuse. To avoid serious side effects, compounds with...
Opiate alkaloids and their synthetic derivatives are still widely used in pain management, drug addiction, and abuse. To avoid serious side effects, compounds with properly designed pharmacological profiles at the opioid receptor subtypes are long needed. Here a series of 17-N-substituted derivatives of normorphine and noroxymorphone analogues with five- and six-membered ring substituents have been synthesized for structure-activity study. Some compounds showed nanomolar affinity to MOR, DOR and KOR in in vitro competition binding experiments with selective agonists [H]DAMGO, [H]Ile-deltorphin II and [H]HS665, respectively. Pharmacological characterization of the compounds in G-protein signaling was determined by [S]GTPγS binding assays. The normorphine analogues showed higher affinity to KOR compared to MOR and DOR, while most of the noroxymorphone derivatives did not bind to KOR. The presence of 14-OH substituent resulted in a shift in the pharmacological profiles in the agonist > partial agonist > antagonist direction compared to the parent compounds. A molecular docking-based in silico method was also applied to estimate the pharmacological profile of the compounds. Docking energies and the patterns of the interacting receptor atoms, obtained with experimentally determined active and inactive states of MOR, were used to explain the observed pharmacological features of the compounds.
Topics: Receptors, Opioid, mu; Molecular Docking Simulation; Receptors, Opioid; Binding, Competitive; Structure-Activity Relationship; Receptors, Opioid, kappa
PubMed: 37985681
DOI: 10.1038/s41598-023-46317-3 -
Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers &... Mar 2020There is little information on human exposure to carcinogens and other toxicants related to opiate use, alone or in combination with tobacco.
BACKGROUND
There is little information on human exposure to carcinogens and other toxicants related to opiate use, alone or in combination with tobacco.
METHODS
Among male participants of the Golestan Cohort Study in Northeast Iran, we studied 28 never users of either opiates or tobacco, 33 exclusive cigarette smokers, 23 exclusive users of smoked opiates, and 30 opiate users who also smoked cigarettes (dual users; 21 smoked opiates and 9 ingested them). We quantified urinary concentrations of 39 exposure biomarkers, including tobacco alkaloids, tobacco-specific nitrosamines, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAH), and volatile organic compounds (VOC), and used decomposition to parse out the share of the biomarker concentrations explained by opiate use and nicotine dose.
RESULTS
Dual users had the highest concentrations of all biomarkers, but exclusive cigarette smokers and exclusive opiate users had substantially higher concentrations of PAH and VOC biomarkers than never users of either product. Decomposition analysis showed that opiate use contributed a larger part of the PAH concentrations than nicotine dose, and the sum of 2- and 3-hydroxyphenanthrene (∑-phe) resulted almost completely from opiate use. Concentrations of most VOC biomarkers were explained by both nicotine dose and opiate use. Two acrylamide metabolites, a 1,3-butadiene metabolite and a dimethylformamide metabolite, were more strongly explained by opiate use. Acrylamide metabolites and ∑-phe were significantly higher in opiate smokers than opiate eaters; other biomarkers did not vary by the route of opiate intake.
CONCLUSIONS
Both cigarette smokers and opiate users (by smoking or ingestion) were exposed to many toxicants and carcinogens.
IMPACT
This high exposure, particularly among dual opiate and cigarette users, can have a substantial global public health impact.
Topics: Administration, Oral; Adult; Biomarkers; Carcinogens; Cigarette Smoking; Cohort Studies; Humans; Iran; Male; Middle Aged; Opiate Alkaloids; Smoking, Non-Tobacco Products; Tobacco Products
PubMed: 31915141
DOI: 10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-19-1212 -
Assessment of the potential of novel and classical opioids to induce respiratory depression in mice.British Journal of Pharmacology Dec 2023Opioid-induced respiratory depression limits the use of μ-opioid receptor agonists in clinical settings and is the main cause of opioid overdose fatalities. The...
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE
Opioid-induced respiratory depression limits the use of μ-opioid receptor agonists in clinical settings and is the main cause of opioid overdose fatalities. The relative potential of different opioid agonists to induce respiratory depression at doses exceeding those producing analgesia is understudied despite its relevance to assessments of opioid safety. Here we evaluated the respiratory depressant and anti-nociceptive effects of three novel opioids and relate these measurements to their in vitro efficacy.
EXPERIMENTAL APPROACH
Respiration was measured in awake, freely moving male CD-1 mice using whole body plethysmography. Anti-nociception was measured using the hot plate test. Morphine, oliceridine and tianeptine were administered intraperitoneally, whereas methadone, oxycodone and SR-17018 were administered orally. Receptor activation and arrestin-3 recruitment were measured in HEK293 cells using BRET assays.
KEY RESULTS
Across the dose ranges examined, all opioids studied depressed respiration in a dose-dependent manner, with similar effects at the highest doses, and with tianeptine and oliceridine showing reduced duration of effect, when compared with morphine, oxycodone, methadone and SR-17018. When administered at doses that induced similar respiratory depression, all opioids induced similar anti-nociception, with tianeptine and oliceridine again showing reduced duration of effect. These data were consistent with the in vitro agonist activity of the tested compounds.
CONCLUSION AND IMPLICATIONS
In addition to providing effective anti-nociception, the novel opioids, oliceridine, tianeptine and SR-17018 depress respiration in male mice. However, the different potencies and kinetics of effect between these novel opioids may be relevant to their therapeutic application in different clinical settings.
Topics: Male; Humans; Animals; Mice; Analgesics, Opioid; Oxycodone; HEK293 Cells; Morphine; Respiratory Insufficiency; Methadone
PubMed: 37489013
DOI: 10.1111/bph.16199 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Aug 2021This is an update of the original Cochrane Review first published in Issue 10, 2016. For people with advanced cancer, the prevalence of pain can be as high as 90%.... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
This is an update of the original Cochrane Review first published in Issue 10, 2016. For people with advanced cancer, the prevalence of pain can be as high as 90%. Cancer pain is a distressing symptom that tends to worsen as the disease progresses. Evidence suggests that opioid pharmacotherapy is the most effective of these therapies. Hydromorphone appears to be an alternative opioid analgesic which may help relieve these symptoms.
OBJECTIVES
To determine the analgesic efficacy of hydromorphone in relieving cancer pain, as well as the incidence and severity of any adverse events.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase and clinical trials registers in November 2020. We applied no language, document type or publication status limitations to the search.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compared hydromorphone with placebo, an alternative opioid or another active control, for cancer pain in adults and children. Primary outcomes were participant-reported pain intensity and pain relief; secondary outcomes were specific adverse events, serious adverse events, quality of life, leaving the study early and death.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently extracted data. We calculated risk ratio (RR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) for binary outcomes on an intention-to-treat (ITT) basis. We estimated mean difference (MD) between groups and 95% CI for continuous data. We used a random-effects model and assessed risk of bias for all included studies. We assessed the evidence using GRADE and created three summary of findings tables.
MAIN RESULTS
With four new identified studies, the review includes a total of eight studies (1283 participants, with data for 1181 participants available for analysis), which compared hydromorphone with oxycodone (four studies), morphine (three studies) or fentanyl (one study). All studies included adults with cancer pain, mean age ranged around 53 to 59 years and the proportion of men ranged from 42% to 67.4%. We judged all the studies at high risk of bias overall because they had at least one domain with high risk of bias. We found no studies including children. We did not complete a meta-analysis for the primary outcome of pain intensity due to skewed data and different comparators investigated across the studies (oxycodone, morphine and fentanyl). Comparison 1: hydromorphone compared with placebo We identified no studies comparing hydromorphone with placebo. Comparison 2: hydromorphone compared with oxycodone Participant-reported pain intensity We found no clear evidence of a difference in pain intensity (measured using a visual analogue scale (VAS)) in people treated with hydromorphone compared with those treated with oxycodone, but the evidence is very uncertain (3 RCTs, 381 participants, very low-certainty evidence). Participant-reported pain relief We found no studies reporting participant-reported pain relief. Specific adverse events We found no clear evidence of a difference in nausea (RR 1.13 95% CI 0.74 to 1.73; 3 RCTs, 622 participants), vomiting (RR 1.18, 95% CI 0.72 to 1.94; 3 RCTs, 622 participants), dizziness (RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.58 to 1.44; 2 RCTs, 441 participants) and constipation (RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.72 to 1.19; 622 participants) (all very low-certainty evidence) in people treated with hydromorphone compared with those treated with oxycodone, but the evidence is very uncertain. Quality of life We found no studies reporting quality of life. Comparison 3: hydromorphone compared with morphine Participant-reported pain intensity We found no clear evidence of a difference in pain intensity (measured using the Brief Pain Inventory (BPI) or VAS)) in people treated with hydromorphone compared with those treated with morphine, but the evidence is very uncertain (2 RCTs, 433 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Participant-reported pain relief We found no clear evidence of a difference in the number of clinically improved participants, defined by 50% or greater pain relief rate, in the hydromorphone group compared with the morphine group, but the evidence is very uncertain (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.84 to 1.18; 1 RCT, 233 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Specific adverse events At 24 days of treatment, morphine may reduce constipation compared with hydromorphone, but the evidence is very uncertain (RR 1.56, 95% CI 1.12 to 2.17; 1 RCT, 200 participants; very low-certainty evidence). We found no clear evidence of a difference in nausea (RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.66 to 1.30; 1 RCT, 200 participants), vomiting (RR 0.87, 95% CI 0.58 to 1.31; 1 RCT, 200 participants) and dizziness (RR 1.15, 95% CI 0.71 to 1.88; 1 RCT, 200 participants) (all very low-certainty evidence) in people treated with hydromorphone compared with those treated with morphine, but the evidence is very uncertain. Quality of life We found no studies reporting quality of life. Comparison 4: hydromorphone compared with fentanyl Participant-reported pain intensity We found no clear evidence of a difference in pain intensity (measured by numerical rating scale (NRS)) at 60 minutes in people treated with hydromorphone compared with those treated with fentanyl, but the evidence is very uncertain (1 RCT, 82 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Participant-reported pain relief We found no studies reporting participant-reported pain relief. Specific adverse events We found no studies reporting specific adverse events. Quality of life We found no studies reporting quality of life.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
The evidence of the benefits and harms of hydromorphone compared with other analgesics is very uncertain. The studies reported some adverse events, such as nausea, vomiting, dizziness and constipation, but generally there was no clear evidence of a difference between hydromorphone and morphine, oxycodone or fentanyl for this outcome. There is insufficient evidence to support or refute the use of hydromorphone for cancer pain in comparison with other analgesics on the reported outcomes. Further research with larger sample sizes and more comprehensive outcome data collection is required.
Topics: Adult; Analgesics, Opioid; Cancer Pain; Child; Humans; Hydromorphone; Male; Middle Aged; Morphine; Neoplasms; Oxycodone
PubMed: 34350974
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD011108.pub3 -
Canadian Journal of Psychiatry. Revue... Jul 2017Six recent randomised control trials (RCTs) have suggested that supervised injectable heroin (SIH) can be effective in patients who persist in street heroin use during... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Six recent randomised control trials (RCTs) have suggested that supervised injectable heroin (SIH) can be effective in patients who persist in street heroin use during methadone treatment. However, short-term randomised control trials have limitations in assessing the effectiveness of treatments for addictive disorders, which are chronic and relapsing disorders of motivation. These RCTs particularly fail to capture the process of the SIH treatment and the diversity of influence and change over time.
METHOD
This narrative review is based on the analysis of published data. Conclusions are drawn from a process of reflection informed by experience in delivering one of the published trials, subsequent experiences in varying the way SIH is delivered, and through consideration of possible mechanisms of action of SIH.
OBSERVATIONS
Many long-term, socially marginalised and demoralised people who are addicted to heroin experience few rewards from the stability afforded by methadone treatment. Supervised injected heroin is sufficiently reinforcing for many of these individuals to attend daily and participate in highly structured treatment. With an adequate daily dose of supervised methadone to avoid withdrawal dysphoria, occasional diamorphine injections-not necessarily twice daily, or even every day-is enough to hold people in treatment. Participation was associated with reduced amounts of non-prescribed drug use, a gradual change in self-image and attitude, and for some subjects, a movement towards social reintegration and eventual withdrawal from SIH.
CONCLUSIONS
Prescribed heroin is sufficiently motivating to hold a proportion of recidivist addicts in long-term treatment. Participation in structured treatment provides respite from compulsive drug use, and a proportion of subjects develop sufficient rewards from social reintegration to successfully withdraw from treatment. Such change, when it occurs, is slow and stuttering.
Topics: Heroin; Heroin Dependence; Humans; Methadone; Narcotics; Opiate Substitution Treatment
PubMed: 28683227
DOI: 10.1177/0706743716673966 -
The International Journal on Drug Policy Mar 2022Buprenorphine-naloxone (BUP-NX) is a first-line treatment for opioid use disorder and has a superior safety profile compared to other forms of opioid agonist therapy. In...
BACKGROUND
Buprenorphine-naloxone (BUP-NX) is a first-line treatment for opioid use disorder and has a superior safety profile compared to other forms of opioid agonist therapy. In Canada, restrictions on BUP-NX prescribing were relaxed in 2016, which may have had an effect on rates of diversion and non-prescribed use. We sought to longitudinally examine the reported availability and use of non-prescribed BUP-NX among people who use drugs (PWUD) in an urban Canadian setting.
METHODS
We collected data from two linked prospective cohorts of PWUD in Vancouver, Canada, and examined self-reported availability and use of non-prescribed BUP-NX over time. We used a multivariable generalized estimating equations model to identify trends and factors associated with the immediate availability (i.e., within 10 min) of non-prescribed BUP-NX.
RESULTS
Among 1617 participants between 2014 and 2020, the immediate availability of non-prescribed BUP-NX increased from 16% to 63% (p<0.001). In the multivariable analysis, factors independently associated with immediate BUP-NX availability included calendar year (adjusted odds ratio = 1.19, 95% confidence interval: 1.15-1.23), along with a number of other variables suggestive of more severe substance use disorders. Only 17 participants ever reported use of non-prescribed BUP-NX.
CONCLUSIONS
We observed that BUP-NX has become increasingly available in the unregulated drug supply in recent years but its use has remained infrequent in this setting. These results suggest that relaxed restrictions on BUP-NX prescribing have not been a major driver of increased non-prescribed use in this population.
Topics: Buprenorphine; Buprenorphine, Naloxone Drug Combination; Canada; Humans; Naloxone; Narcotic Antagonists; Opiate Substitution Treatment; Opioid-Related Disorders; Prospective Studies
PubMed: 34875527
DOI: 10.1016/j.drugpo.2021.103545 -
European Journal of Psychotraumatology 2023The clinical guidelines for the treatment of dissociation focus primarily on psychotherapy. However, different psychoactive drugs are used in clinical practice. The use... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
The clinical guidelines for the treatment of dissociation focus primarily on psychotherapy. However, different psychoactive drugs are used in clinical practice. The use of opioid antagonists has been proposed as a therapeutic option based on the theory that dissociation might be a phenomenon mediated by dysregulation of the endogenous opioid system.
OBJECTIVE
To review and meta-analyse the available evidence on the efficacy of the opioid antagonists naltrexone, naloxone, and nalmefene as treatments for dissociative symptoms and disorders.
METHOD
The PRISMA guidelines were followed, and this review was registered in Prospero with reference number CRD42021280976. The search was performed in the PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, EMBASE, PsycINFO, and PubPsych databases.
RESULTS
1,798 citations were obtained. After removing duplicates and applying inclusion and exclusion criteria, we included 5 comparative studies with 9 dissociation measures that had included a total of 154 participants, of whom 134 had been treated with an opioid antagonist. The results of the meta-analysis showed a treatment effect for dissociation when using opioid antagonists [pooled = 1.46 (95% CI: 0.62-2.31)]. However, the studies we included were very heterogeneous [Q = 66.89 ( < .001)] and there may have been publication bias.
CONCLUSIONS
Although more research is needed and the results must be interpreted with caution because of the limited amount of data and heterogeneity in the studies and their methodological qualities, opioid antagonists (particularly naltrexone) are promising candidates for the treatment of dissociative symptoms and showed a moderate - large effect size in reducing these symptoms.
Topics: Humans; Narcotic Antagonists; Naltrexone; Naloxone; Dissociative Disorders
PubMed: 37860852
DOI: 10.1080/20008066.2023.2265184