The main symptoms of Gilles de la Tourette syndrome (GTS) are motor and vocal tics, but there are also several psychiatric disturbances such as obsessive compulsive symptoms (OCD) and mutilations. The etiology and pathophysiology of this basal ganglia disorder are unknown. Though many patients benefit from therapy with dopamine antagonists, the effect is often insufficient. Therapeutic efficacy of the opiate antagonist naltrexone has been described in recent years. Ten patients (three f, seven m) with GTS were invesitgated in a seven-week, open dose-response trial, using naltrexone in doses ranging from 12.5 mg to 200 mg/day. The severity of the GTS symptoms were rated with the Yale Global Tic Severity Scale (YGTSS) and the Tourette Syndrome Global Scale (TSGS); OCD was estimated by the Maudsley Obsessive Compulsive Inventory (MOCI). The course of tics and psychopathology was assessed by three self-report scales, and two scales rated by clinicians (Clinical Global Impression, CGI; Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale, BPRS). Only two patients showed improvement of the GTS. In four patients, no effect was observed, whereas the other four patients exhibited deterioration. One patient finished the complete trial, three patients dropped out because of lack of improvement, and four because of deterioration of the symptoms. Considering the mean values, no improvement of GTS could therefore be observed, and because of the unpredictable effect, the study was stopped after ten patients. Nevertheless, the effects were quite controversial. The opiate system seems to be affected only in some of the GTS patients in a clinically relevant manner, and opiate antogonists can either improve or provoke GTS symptoms. Pathophysiologically different subgroups of GTS may contribute to the controversal results.

Four patients with DSM-IV bulimia nervosa were treated in a crossover trial with naltrexone alone, fluoxetine alone, and a fluoxetine-naltrexone combination. Three patients presented a complete remission when treated with the fluoxetine-naltrexone combination.

The main finding of a former Spanish multicenter study (SMS) on the effectiveness of naltrexone maintenance in heroin addicts, was the high retention rate achieved at 24 weeks of follow-up since naltrexone induction (40%). The authors claimed this rate was one of the highest ever reported in the literature for a non-selected sample of opiate addicts and discussed the possible relevance of a set of variables — like motivations and expectations due to a new treatment — on the findings. To assess the possible effects of these variables, we have compared the retention rates in two similar naltrexone programmes. The first programme (hospital sample) included 56 individuals who were also included in the SMS where they accounted for 37% of the total sample. That programme was developed formerly to the naltrexone marketing. The second sample (ambulatory sample) included 67 individuals who were recruited at least a year apart since naltrexone marketing was approved by the Spanish Health Boards. The time-lag between the beginnig of both studies was in the range of 15 to 25 months.

The subjects in both programmes had similar distributions regarding age (p = 0.27), sex (p = 0.79), weeks on treatment after naltrexone induction (p = 0.20), and program compliance (p = 0.78). The retention rates evaluated over a period of 24 weeks were also similar (p = 0.45). The only difference appeared at 12 weeks of follow-up, showing in higher retention the hospital sample than the ambulatory sample (+23%; p < 0.05). The results are discussed according to other studies and it is concluded that findings reported in the former SMS and in this study are not unusual but compatible with recent research. Also underlined is the potential importance of naltrexone as a concomitant treatment for extinguishing high risk behaviours and the conditional stimuli associated with treatment relapse in heroin addicts.

Introduction: Alcohol use disorder (AUD) is a chronic relapsing and highly comorbid disease. Patients suffering from AUD are frequently seen in the emergency department (ED) presenting intoxicated or in withdrawal. Brief interactions in the ED are often the only portal of entry to the healthcare system for many of these patients. Oral naltrexone and long acting injectable naltrexone are effective treatment options for AUD associated with decreased cravings, shorter length of hospital stay, and lower cost of healthcare utilization. This study's objective was to perform a systematic review of the literature evaluating initiation of naltrexone in the ED. Methods: Electronic searches of Medline, EMBASE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews and CINAHL were conducted and reference lists were hand-searched. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing initiation of naltrexone in patients (≥18 years) to standard care in the ED were included. Two reviewers independently screened titles and abstracts, reviewed full text articles for inclusion, assessed quality of the studies, and extracted data. Results: The search strategy yielded 183 potentially relevant citations. After eliminating duplicate citations and studies that did not meet eligibility criteria, 10 articles were retrieved for full text review. There were no published RCTs that examined naltrexone initiation in the ED. There is one ongoing study being conducted in New York, which aims to assess naltrexone initiation in the ED and measure health outcomes and quality of life of study participants, as well as potential healthcare cost savings. Conclusion: The lack of published research in this area demonstrates a significant gap in knowledge. It is clear that well-designed RCTs are needed to evaluate the effectiveness of initiating naltrexone for those with AUD at the ED visit.

Background and objective Numerous drugs have been used to prevent or to treat opioid-induced pruritus in the surgical setting. Their relative efficacy is not well understood.

Methods The methods employed involved the systematic search (MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane library, bibliographies, without language restriction, up to June 2000) for full reports of randomized comparisons of any intervention which is thought to be anti–pruritic (active) compared with placebo or no treatment (control) in surgical (including labour) patients receiving opioids. The number of patients who had no pruritus were analysed using relative risk and number–neededto– treat with 95% confidence interval.

Results Twenty-two trials (1477 patients) were analysed. Two trials (66 patients), both with low-dose propofol, were on treatment of established pruritus; propofol had no anti-pruritic effect compared with Intralipid. In prophylaxis trials, the average incidence of pruritus with control was 59% (range, 10% to 100%). Most mu–receptor antagonists were efficacious: intravenous naloxone 0.25–2.4 μgkg−1 h−1, relative risk 2.31 (95% confidence interval, 1.5 to 3.54), numberneeded– to–treat to prevent pruritus compared with control 3.5; oral naltrexone 9 mg, relative risk 2.80 (1.35–5.80), number-needed-to-treat 1.7; naltrexone 6mg was less effective and 3mg did not work; different intravenous and epidural nalbuphine regimens, relative risk 1.71 (1.12–2.62), number-needed-to-treat 4.2. Intravenous nalmefene 0.5 or 1mg was not antipruritic. Intravenous (but not epidural) droperidol 2.5mg was efficacious, relative risk, 1.71 (1.28–2.29), number-needed-to-treat 4.9. There was a lack of evidence for any anti–pruritic efficacy with prophylactic propofol, epidural or intrathecal epinephrine, epidural clonidine, epidural prednisone, intravenous ondansetron, or intramuscular hydroxyzine.

Conclusion Naloxone, naltrexone, nalbuphine and droperidol are efficacious in the prevention of opioidinduced pruritus; minimal effective doses remain unknown. There is a lack of valid data on the efficacy of interventions for the treatment of established pruritus.

Objective: The objective of this article is to review the use of the opiate antagonist naltrexone as an alternative to opiate agonist maintenance in the treatment of opiate addiction.

Method: An extensive literature search, via Medline, Biosis, Psycinfo and other databases was carried out.

Results: Naltrexone has been used in the treatment of opiate addicts in a variety of settings. A number of methods of induction onto naltrexone of recently abstinent addicts have been used in different settings. Naltrexone has had a wide range of outcome success with different populations and associated treatment regimes.

Conclusions: The benefits of naltrexone can be compared with alternatives such as methadone maintenance and therapeutic communities. Naltrexone can be made more effective in the general population of opiate addicts with the use of adjunctive therapies.