TY - JOUR
T1 - Blood naltrexone levels over time following naltrexone implant
AU - Ngo, Hanh
AU - Arnold-Reed, Diane
AU - Hansson, R.C.
AU - Tait, Robert
AU - Hulse, Gary
PY - 2008
Y1 - 2008
N2 - Aims: Oral naltrexone is used in the management of both heroin and alcohol dependence. However, poor compliance has limited its clinical utility. The study's objective was to determine the period of therapeutic coverage (≥2 ng/ml) provided by a 3.3 g naltrexone subcutaneous implant compared with existing data on 1.1 g and 2.2 g implants. Methods: We assessed free blood naltrexone levels following treatment with a 3.3 g naltrexone implant in heroin dependent patients (n=50) in Perth, Western Australia. Results were compared with previously collated data for patients treated with either a 1.1 g (n=10) or 2.2 g (n=24) implant. Results: Following 3.3 g naltrexone implant treatment, free blood naltrexone levels remained above 2 ng/ml for 145 days (95% CI 125–167). In comparison, 1.1 g or 2.2 g implant treatment resulted in 95 days (95% CI 69–121) and 136 days (95% CI 114–158) coverage, respectively. Conclusions: The 3.3 g implant provides longer therapeutic coverage than the 1.1 g implant but not significantly longer than the 2.2 g implant. © 2007 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
AB - Aims: Oral naltrexone is used in the management of both heroin and alcohol dependence. However, poor compliance has limited its clinical utility. The study's objective was to determine the period of therapeutic coverage (≥2 ng/ml) provided by a 3.3 g naltrexone subcutaneous implant compared with existing data on 1.1 g and 2.2 g implants. Methods: We assessed free blood naltrexone levels following treatment with a 3.3 g naltrexone implant in heroin dependent patients (n=50) in Perth, Western Australia. Results were compared with previously collated data for patients treated with either a 1.1 g (n=10) or 2.2 g (n=24) implant. Results: Following 3.3 g naltrexone implant treatment, free blood naltrexone levels remained above 2 ng/ml for 145 days (95% CI 125–167). In comparison, 1.1 g or 2.2 g implant treatment resulted in 95 days (95% CI 69–121) and 136 days (95% CI 114–158) coverage, respectively. Conclusions: The 3.3 g implant provides longer therapeutic coverage than the 1.1 g implant but not significantly longer than the 2.2 g implant. © 2007 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
U2 - 10.1016/j.pnpbp.2007.06.007
DO - 10.1016/j.pnpbp.2007.06.007
M3 - Article
SN - 0278-5846
VL - 32
SP - 23
EP - 28
JO - Progress in Neuro-Psychopharmacology & Biological Psychiatry
JF - Progress in Neuro-Psychopharmacology & Biological Psychiatry
IS - 1
ER -