Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-c47g7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-17T11:08:12.721Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Authors' reply

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 January 2018

Nikolaj Kun⊘e
Affiliation:
Norwegian Centre for Addiction Research, Kirkeveien 166, NO-0407 Oslo, Norway. Email: nikolaj.kunoe@medisin.uio.no
Michael Gossop
Affiliation:
Norwegian Centre for Addiction Research, Oslo, Norway
Helge Waal
Affiliation:
National Addiction Centre, Maudsley Hospital, and Institute of Psychiatry, King's College London, UK
Philipp Lobmaier
Affiliation:
Norwegian Centre for Addiction Research, Oslo, Norway
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Type
Columns
Copyright
Copyright © Royal College of Psychiatrists, 2010 

We are happy to clarify. Of the 667 patients, 265 opioid-dependent patients entered in-patient treatment for induction onto agonist maintenance treatment and were therefore excluded. Also, patients who left their respective clinics prematurely were not eligible for participation (n = 193); 11 were excluded owing to psychotic symptoms, 8 owing to pregnancy, and 17 owing to extreme ALT/AST values.

This left 173 opioid-dependent patients satisfying inclusion criteria. However, the virtually complete novelty of naltrexone implant treatment in Norway at the time of recruitment probably means that these results are a poor basis upon which to base estimates of demand for this form of treatment.

The randomised trial period was followed by an implantation or re-implantation opportunity for all patients, meaning that the proportion of patients who entered in-patient treatment again at the end of the study to detoxify or stabilise is probably higher than it would be in future clinical samples. Reporting it as a result or as part of a figure could be regarded as misleading.

Submit a response

eLetters

No eLetters have been published for this article.