Cited by 700Opioid Use Disorder TreatmentSubstance Abuse Treatment and OutcomesPain Management and Opioid Use

Comparative effectiveness of extended-release naltrexone versus buprenorphine-naloxone for opioid relapse prevention (X:BOT): a multicentre, open-label, randomised controlled trial

Open access
Lee, Joshua D, Nunes, Edward V, Novo, Patricia, Bachrach, Ken, Bailey, Genie L, Bhatt, Snehal, Farkas, Sarah, Fishman, Marc +15 more·2018·The Lancet

Abstract

Background Extended-release naltrexone (XR-NTX), an opioid antagonist, and sublingual buprenorphine-naloxone (BUP-NX), a partial opioid agonist, are pharmacologically and conceptually distinct interventions to prevent opioid relapse. We aimed to estimate the difference in opioid relapse-free survival between XR-NTX and BUP-NX.Methods We initiated this 24 week, open-label, randomised controlled, comparative effectiveness trial at eight US community-based inpatient services and followed up participants as outpatients. Participants were 18 years or older, had Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders-5 opioid use disorder, and had used non-prescribed opioids in the past 30 days. We stratified participants by treatment site and opioid use severity and used a web-based permuted block design with random equally weighted block sizes of four and six for randomisation (1:1) to receive XR-NTX or BUP-NX. XR-NTX was monthly intramuscular injections (Vivitrol; Alkermes) and BUP-NX was daily self-administered buprenorphine-naloxone sublingual film (Suboxone; Indivior). The primary outcome was opioid relapse-free survival during 24 weeks of outpatient treatment. Relapse was 4 consecutive weeks of any non-study opioid use by urine toxicology or self-report, or 7 consecutive days of self-reported use. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02032433.Findings Between Jan 30, 2014, and May 25, 2016, we randomly assigned 570 participants to receive XR-NTX (n=283) or BUP-NX (n=287). The last follow-up visit was Jan 31, 2017. As expected, XR-NTX had a substantial induction hurdle: fewer participants successfully initiated XR-NTX (204 [72%] of 283) than BUP-NX (270 [94%] of 287; p<0·0001). Among all participants who were randomly assigned (intention-to-treat population, n=570) 24 week relapse events were greater for XR-NTX (185 [65%] of 283) than for BUP-NX (163 [57%] of 287; hazard ratio [HR] 1·36, 95% CI 1·10-1·68), most or all of this difference accounted for by early relapse in nearly all (70 [89%] of 79) XR-NTX induction failures. Among participants successfully inducted (per-protocol population, n=474), 24 week relapse events were similar across study groups (p=0·44). Opioid-negative urine samples (p<0·0001) and opioid-abstinent days (p<0·0001) favoured BUP-NX compared with XR-NTX among the intention-to-treat population, but were similar across study groups among the per-protocol population. Self-reported opioid craving was initially less with XR-NTX than with BUP-NX (p=0·0012), then converged by week 24 (p=0·20). With the exception of mild-to-moderate XR-NTX injection site reactions, treatment-emergent adverse events including overdose did not differ between treatment groups. Five fatal overdoses occurred (two in the XR-NTX group and three in the BUP-NX group).Interpretation In this population it is more difficult to initiate patients to XR-NTX than BUP-NX, and this negatively affected overall relapse. However, once initiated, both medications were equally safe and effective. Future work should focus on facilitating induction to XR-NTX and on improving treatment retention for both medications.Funding NIDA Clinical Trials Network.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/s0140-6736(17)32812-x

Cites

24 of 24 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Lee, J. D., Nunes, E. V., Novo, P., Bachrach, K., Bailey, G. L., Bhatt, S., Farkas, S., Fishman, M., Gauthier, P., Hodgkins, C. C., King, J., Lindblad, R., Liu, D., Matthews, A. G., May, J., Peavy, K. M., Ross, S., Salazar, D., Schkolnik, P., Shmueli-Blumberg, D., Stablein, D., Subramaniam, G., & Rotrosen, J.
Affiliations
  • New York University (US)
  • Columbia University Irving Medical Center (US)
  • NYU Langone Health (US)
  • Tarzana Treatment Centers (US)
  • Brown University (US)
  • University of New Mexico (US)
  • Johns Hopkins University (US)
  • Gateway Community Services (United States) (US)
  • Emmes (United States) (US)
  • National Institutes of Health (US)
Corresponding author
Lee, Joshua D
Venue
The Lancet
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2018-01
Volume
391
Issue
10118
Pages
309-318
ISSN
  • 0099-5355 (ISSN-L)
  • 0140-6736
OpenAlex
W2768214444
Cited by
700
References
24
Citations by year
2026: 45 · 2025: 66 · 2024: 67 · 2023: 77 · 2022: 78 · 2021: 98 · 2020: 99 · 2019: 96 · 2018: 69 · 2017: 4
FWCI
68.72
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • The Lancet (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
Funders
NIDA National Drug Abuse Treatment Clinical Trials Network (U10DA013046, UG1/U10DA013035, UG1/U10DA013034, U10DA013045, UG1/U10DA013720, UG1/U10DA013732, UG1/U10DA013714, UG1/U10DA015831, U10DA015833, HHSN271201200017C, and HHSN271201500065C) and K24DA022412 (EVN Jr))
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Opioid Use Disorder Treatment
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Epidemiology › Substance Abuse Treatment and Outcomes
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine › Pain Management and Opioid Use
Keywords
extended-release naltrexone, buprenorphine/naloxone, opioid use disorder, relapse-free survival, opioid antagonists, partial opioid agonists, treatment initiation, treatment retention, medication adherence, outpatient care, comparative effectiveness, harm reduction
MeSH terms
Buprenorphine, Naloxone Drug Combination, Administration, Oral, Adult, Delayed-Action Preparations, Female, Humans, Injections, Intramuscular, Male, Naltrexone, Narcotic Antagonists, Opioid-Related Disorders, Research Design

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review