The opioid antagonist, naltrexone, is reported, in single centre studies, to improve the clinical outcome of individuals with alcohol dependence participating in outpatient psychosocial programmes. This is the first multicentre controlled study to evaluate the efficacy and safety of naltrexone as adjunctive treatment for alcohol dependence or abuse. Patients who met criteria for alcohol dependence (n = 169) or alcohol abuse (n = 6) were randomly assigned to receive double-blind oral naltrexone 50 mg daily (n = 90) or placebo (n = 85) for 12 weeks as an adjunct to psychosocial treatment. The primary efficacy variable was time to first episode of heavy drinking; secondary efficacy assessments included time to first drink, alcohol consumption, craving, and changes in the serum biological markers gamma-glutamyl transferase (GGT), and aspartate and alanine aminotransferases. Compliance was assessed by tablet counts and, in the naltrexone-treated group, by measurement of urinary concentrations of 6-ss-naltrexol. Forty-nine (58%) patients randomized to placebo and 53 (59%) randomized to naltrexone did not complete the study. In intention-to-treat analyses, there was no difference between groups on measures of drinking. The median reduction from baseline of serum GGT (P: < 0.05) and the reductions in alcohol craving (Obsessive and Compulsive Drinking Scale: OCDS) were greater in the naltrexone group (P: < 0.05), from approximately half-way through the study. Of 70 patients (35 placebo; 35 naltrexone) who met an a priori definition of compliance (80% tablet consumption, attendance at all follow-up appointments), those allocated to naltrexone reported consuming half the amount of alcohol (P: < 0.05), had greater median reduction in serum GGT activity (P: < 0.05), and greater reduction in alcohol craving (OCDS total score: P: < 0.05; Obsessive subscale score: P: < 0.05), compared to patients in the placebo group. Use of naltrexone raised no safety concerns. Naltrexone is effective in treating alcohol dependence/abuse in conjunction with psychosocial therapy, in patients who comply with treatment.

No abstract

Objective To compare the risk of non-fatal self harm and suicide in patients taking selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) with that of patients taking tricyclic antidepressants, as well as between different SSRIs and different tricyclic antidepressants. Design Nested case-control study. Setting Primary care in the United Kingdom. Participants 146 095 individuals with a first prescription of an antidepressant for depression. Main outcome measures Suicide and non-fatal self harm.Results 1968 cases of non-fatal self harm and 69 suicides occurred. The overall adjusted odds ratio of non-fatal self harm was 0.99 (95% confidence interval 0.86 to 1.14) and that of suicide 0.57 (0.26 to 1.25) in people prescribed SSRIs compared with those prescribed tricyclic antidepressants. We found little evidence that associations differed over time since starting or stopping treatment. We found some evidence that risks of non-fatal self harm in people prescribed SSRIs compared with those prescribed tricyclic antidepressants differed by age group (interaction P = 0.02). The adjusted odds ratio of non-fatal self harm for people prescribed SSRIs compared with users of tricylic antidepressants for those aged 18 or younger was 1.59 (1.01 to 2.50), but no association was apparent in other age groups. No suicides occurred in those aged 18 or younger currently or recently prescribed tricyclic antidepressants or SSRIs. Conclusion We found no evidence that the risk of suicide or non-fatal self harm in adults prescribed SSRIs was greater than in those prescribed tricyclic antidepressants. We found some weak evidence of an increased risk of non-fatal self harm for current SSRI use among those aged 18 or younger. However, preferential prescribing of SSRIs to patients at higher risk of suicidal behaviour cannot be ruled out.

A 6-month randomized controlled study of acamprosate versus placebo in preventing relapse following withdrawal from alcohol was undertaken in 20 centres throughout the UK. Patients diagnosed as alcohol-dependent and detoxified within the preceding 5 weeks were randomly assigned to treatment with either acamprosate (A) 666 mg three times/day or identical placebo (P). A total of 664 patients were screened; 581 were entered into the treatment phase. One-third were episodic drinkers, 84% were male, 44% were unmarried and 48% were unemployed. Medication was first taken on average 24 days after the start of detoxification; 32% of patients had already relapsed by this time. The 6-month study period was completed by 35% of patients; adverse events led to withdrawal of a further 14% (A) and 9% (P) respectively. Compliance was poor in that, by the end of the second week, only 57% of patients were judged to be taking at least 90% of their tablets. The mean total of abstinent days achieved was 77 (A) and 81 (P). Complete abstinence for 6 months was achieved by 12% (A) and 11% (P); drinking remained within controlled limits in a further 3% (A) and 6% (P). An effect of acamprosate on consumption was not seen when subgroups, including those defined by the Lesch typology, were analysed separately. However, the mean percentage reduction in craving for alcohol measured on a visual analogue scale was greater in the acamprosate, than placebo, patients at week 2 and week 4 (P<0.001) and the mean decrease in the Hamilton Anxiety score at the 4th week was greater in the acamprosate than placebo patients (P = 0.017). In comparison with other published trials of acamprosate, patients started study medication after a longer time following detoxification, had more often recommenced drinking before medication was started and had a higher drop-out rate, and this might have contributed to the lack of a treatment effect in this study.

Disulfiram is known to cause hepatitis, which is sometimes fatal. The best estimate of the frequency of disulfiram-induced fatal hepatitis is 1 case in 30,000 patients treated/year. Its appears to be more common in patients given disulfiram for the treatment of nickel sensitivity. Frequent blood testing for liver function is probably not necessary, but patients taking disulfiram should be in regular contact with a physician. There are rare reports of psychosis and confusional states in conjunction with disulfiram treatment and peripheral neuropathy and optic neuritis have been reported; these effects are dose-related. Psychiatric complications appear to be more common with the use of disulfiram in India than in Western countries. Of the less serious adverse effects, tiredness, headache and sleepiness are the most common. Deaths from the disulfiram-alcohol (ethanol) interaction have not been reported in recent years, possibly because the dosages used are lower than those used 40 years ago, and patients with cardiac disease are now excluded from treatment. There is no evidence to suggest that disulfiram causes cancer. Of note, there are drug interactions with compounds that utilise the cytochrome P450 enzyme system. Disulfiram can be viewed as a drug with a moderate record of adverse effects. Alcohol dependence, for which it can be a helpful treatment, is associated with a high morbidity and mortality.