Trial reportBMJ open2019
Treating gambling disorder with as needed administration of intranasal naloxone: a pilot study to evaluate acceptability, feasibility and outcomes.
Trial report in BMJ open, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Testing the acceptability and feasibility of the lower-risk gambling guidelines in Finland.Journal of behavioral addictions · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issuedCorrection:2019
Authors and funding
7 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND
aimThere is growing interest in the use of medication-assisted treatments for gambling disorder (GD). Opioid receptor antagonists are hypothesised to blunt the craving associated with gambling. This study was designed to assess the feasibility of using an intranasal naloxone spray to treat GD.
designAn 8-week, open-label, uncontrolled pilot study.
settingA single study site in the capital region of Finland. SUBJECTS: Twenty problem gamblers (nine men) were randomised into two groups. Group A (n=10) took one dose into one nostril (2 mg naloxone), as needed, with a maximum of 4 doses/day (max. 8 mg/day). Group B (n=10) took one dose into each nostril (4 mg naloxone) as needed, with a maximum of 4 doses/day (max. 16 mg/day).
interventionNaloxone hydrochloride nasal spray. MEASURES: Acceptability and feasibility of the intervention were assessed. Use of study medication, adverse events, gambling frequency and gambling expenditure were recorded in a mobile diary. Problem gambling: South Oaks Gambling Screen (SOGS), depressive symptoms: Beck Depression Inventory (BDI) and alcohol use: Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test were recorded.
resultsStudy completion rate was 90%. Acceptability and feasibility scores were high. Group B used intranasal naloxone more frequently than group A, and consequently used more naloxone. No serious adverse events were reported. The postintervention SOGS scores were lower (median=4 (IQR=3.75) versus preintervention scores (median=12 (IQR=4.75)). Depressive symptoms were reduced during the trial (preintervention BDI median=9, IQR=9 vs postintervention BDI median=6, IQR=6).
conclusionsThe acceptability and feasibility of using intranasal naloxone were high, and no serious adverse events were reported. Preliminary results suggest mixed results in terms of gambling behaviour (ie, reduced frequency but not expenditure) and decreased depressive symptoms. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: EudraCT2016-001828-56.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion 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 OpenQuestion graph.