Comparative Effectiveness of Naltrexone Formulations in Alcohol Use Disorder: An Updated Meta-Analysis.

Nicolas A Nunez, Hossam M Ali, Leslie Hassett, Balwinder Singh
{"title":"Comparative Effectiveness of Naltrexone Formulations in Alcohol Use Disorder: An Updated Meta-Analysis.","authors":"Nicolas A Nunez, Hossam M Ali, Leslie Hassett, Balwinder Singh","doi":"10.64719/pb.16596","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>We aimed to synthesize and provide an updated meta-analysis of the current data on extended-release naltrexone (XR-NTX) and oral naltrexone (NTX) for alcohol use disorder (AUD).</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A comprehensive database search was conducted and updated on October 1, 2025. This meta-analysis encompassed randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies that compared XR-NTX and oral NTX in adults with AUD. Included studies reported outcomes on treatment persistence and healthcare utilization, specifically ED visits and inpatient hospitalizations during follow-up. Odds ratios (ORs) were computed using the Mantel-Haenszel random-effects model.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Out of 101 studies screened, seven studies (N = 42,268; n = 2,103 for XR-NTX, n = 40,165 for NTX) met the inclusion criteria for the meta-analysis. Overall, treatment persistence was significantly higher with XR-NTX compared with oral NTX (OR = 1.94 [95% CI, 1.22-3.10]), with benefits observed at both three months (pooled OR = 2.24 [95% CI, 1.14-4.41], p = 0.019) and six months (OR = 1.59 [95% CI, 1.04-2.43], p = 0.032). No significant differences were observed in healthcare utilization, including all-cause ED visits (OR = 1.33 [95% CI, 0.93-1.90]) or all-cause inpatient admissions (OR = 0.84 [95% CI, 0.49-1.43]).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>This meta-analysis suggests higher treatment persistence among patients with AUD receiving XR-NTX versus oral NTX, underscoring formulation as a key factor in persistence and retention. However, alcohol-related healthcare utilization metrics, including ED visits and hospitalizations, showed no significant between-group differences. Further pragmatic trials accounting for patient preferences, sex-specific outcomes, and barriers to care accessibility are needed.</p>","PeriodicalId":94351,"journal":{"name":"Psychopharmacology bulletin","volume":"56 2","pages":"130-148"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2026-03-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12976952/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Psychopharmacology bulletin","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.64719/pb.16596","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Purpose: We aimed to synthesize and provide an updated meta-analysis of the current data on extended-release naltrexone (XR-NTX) and oral naltrexone (NTX) for alcohol use disorder (AUD).

Methods: A comprehensive database search was conducted and updated on October 1, 2025. This meta-analysis encompassed randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies that compared XR-NTX and oral NTX in adults with AUD. Included studies reported outcomes on treatment persistence and healthcare utilization, specifically ED visits and inpatient hospitalizations during follow-up. Odds ratios (ORs) were computed using the Mantel-Haenszel random-effects model.

Results: Out of 101 studies screened, seven studies (N = 42,268; n = 2,103 for XR-NTX, n = 40,165 for NTX) met the inclusion criteria for the meta-analysis. Overall, treatment persistence was significantly higher with XR-NTX compared with oral NTX (OR = 1.94 [95% CI, 1.22-3.10]), with benefits observed at both three months (pooled OR = 2.24 [95% CI, 1.14-4.41], p = 0.019) and six months (OR = 1.59 [95% CI, 1.04-2.43], p = 0.032). No significant differences were observed in healthcare utilization, including all-cause ED visits (OR = 1.33 [95% CI, 0.93-1.90]) or all-cause inpatient admissions (OR = 0.84 [95% CI, 0.49-1.43]).

Conclusion: This meta-analysis suggests higher treatment persistence among patients with AUD receiving XR-NTX versus oral NTX, underscoring formulation as a key factor in persistence and retention. However, alcohol-related healthcare utilization metrics, including ED visits and hospitalizations, showed no significant between-group differences. Further pragmatic trials accounting for patient preferences, sex-specific outcomes, and barriers to care accessibility are needed.

纳曲酮制剂治疗酒精使用障碍的比较疗效:一项更新的meta分析。
目的:我们旨在综合并提供一项最新的关于缓释纳曲酮(XR-NTX)和口服纳曲酮(NTX)治疗酒精使用障碍(AUD)的现有数据的荟萃分析。方法:全面检索数据库,更新日期为2025年10月1日。这项荟萃分析包括随机对照试验(rct)和观察性研究,比较XR-NTX和口服NTX对成年AUD患者的影响。纳入的研究报告了治疗持续性和医疗保健利用的结果,特别是在随访期间的急诊科就诊和住院治疗。比值比(ORs)采用Mantel-Haenszel随机效应模型计算。结果:在筛选的101项研究中,有7项研究(N = 42,268, XR-NTX为2103,NTX为40,165)符合meta分析的纳入标准。总体而言,与口服NTX相比,XR-NTX的治疗持久性显著更高(OR = 1.94 [95% CI, 1.22-3.10]),在三个月(合并OR = 2.24 [95% CI, 1.14-4.41], p = 0.019)和六个月(OR = 1.59 [95% CI, 1.04-2.43], p = 0.032)时均观察到益处。在医疗保健利用方面没有观察到显著差异,包括全因急诊科就诊(OR = 1.33 [95% CI, 0.93-1.90])或全因住院(OR = 0.84 [95% CI, 0.49-1.43])。结论:该荟萃分析表明,与口服NTX相比,接受XR-NTX治疗的AUD患者的治疗持久性更高,强调配方是持久性和保留性的关键因素。然而,与酒精相关的医疗保健利用指标,包括急诊科就诊和住院,在组间没有显着差异。需要进一步的实用试验来考虑患者偏好、性别特异性结果和护理可及性障碍。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书