SynthesisPsychopharmacology bulletin2026
Comparative Effectiveness of Naltrexone Formulations in Alcohol Use Disorder: An Updated Meta-Analysis.
Synthesis in Psychopharmacology bulletin, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
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.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.