This article seems to suggest so...

http://www.medpagetoday.com/Psychiatry/Addictions/25400

Though looking at the results on this board, I think that both men and women have an equal chance of being helped by nal. What I have noticed though, is that women tend to have much stronger side effects than men, at least initially.

That article (and study) was worthless, in my opinion. Who cares about social drinkers? Social drinkers don't have a problem -- by definition -- and have no reason or incentive to reduce their intake. It does confirm
what we already know here personally, that Naltrexone diminishes the buzz somewhat for people who drink on it. And Hell yes, this is worthy of further study. In fact, researchers should be hailing TSM as the equivalent of the cure for cancer, but they are sleeping on it and it frustrates the hell out of me.

In fact, Naltrexone and the gender issue have been addressed extensively by pioneer members here, including Lena, HouTX and others. And when this board first started, there was a relatively high percentage that TSM did not work for, namely, pre-menopausal or menopausal women in their 50s, who had been drinking wine for 30 plus years. This is purely anecdotal evidence, but there were at least three women in this group who quit TSM for other methods back when this board first started. However, it has been well documented that Naltrexone does not work for everyone and that 20% or so, regardless of gender, are not impacted by Naltrexone because of their brain chemistry.

Hey Tambo - I'm sure we all agree with Nick that a study of Nal on social drinkers isn't particularly relevant to those of us who drink addictively. Still, thanks for your post. I don't know why but I had it in my head since I joined this board that Nal didn't work as well for women as the men on this board. Probably got that from the anecdotal evidence Nick is citing too. Now, I can glean at least a bit from the study that what really matters is it works. That's all that matters.

Oh, I hope I didn't sound dismissive of the fact you copied this study. I'm GLAD you did. I am always looking for TSM studies so this was a great post. But the study itself was worthless, IMO. I'm guessing it's part of the gutless society, afraid to study continued drinking by alcoholics. In fact, what is far riskier is the current system of encouraging deprivation followed by the inevitable binge/collapse.

There is hardly any credible research to go by one way or another. Your link is dead for me right now, so I can't see what it refers to. The only study I am aware of that addresses possible gender differences suggested that TSM maybe less effective for women:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19593174

Journal of Clinical Psychopharmacology. 2009 Aug;29(4):350-7. Targeted naltrexone for problem drinkers. Kranzler HR, Tennen H, Armeli S, Chan G, Covault J, Arias A, Oncken C.

Few notes: The study compared TSM and non-TSM, both placebo-controlled and attempted analysis of the results separately for men and women. The study lasted only 12 weeks, the patients were almost all of European descent and they were relatively lighgly addicted (DSM-IV score only 3.6 and 5 US units drinks on average).

Overall results indicate a very modest effect of Nal. 1) It was definitely better than placebo and 2) targeted (i.e., TSM) Nal was better than daily but under the best of it “the targeted naltrexone group drank 19% less on drinking days than the other groups”. I feel that this number should be higher for men because this study shows that NAL has statistically significant effect for men but no effect or a very small one for women. Quotes: “Women’s drinking was generally the same across study conditions”, “women treated with naltrexone showed no decrease in drinking over the course of the study”, “women treated with naltrexone showed no study week effect”.

Keep in mind that this is one study that is far from conclusive. Also, it is possible that Finnish alcoholics are genetically different from other Europeans and most non-Europeans. Also, even if the hint that TSM maybe less effective for women is correct (again, not certain!), it could only mean that smaller % of women respond to TSM treatment. You may very well be in the group that responds well no matter what. Unfortunately, the only way to find out is to stick to it for many months.

Here is the October 2010 thread where we discussed the Kranzler paper that includes the abstract. http://www.thesinclairmethod.net/community/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=1967&p=23276&hilit=kranzler&sid=1276b784a0bf7da5b070eb06699697e2&sid=1276b784a0bf7da5b070eb06699697e2#p23276

Nick, don't worry, I wasn't offended. I also feel that this study isn't relevant to us alcoholic drinkers. I'm just glad that anyone at all is doing research with nal.

I too am frustrated that TSM is not further studied. It should be much more well known as a viable alternative to treat alcoholism. I think a big part of it, at least for me is that I'm reluctant to spread the word and break anonymity because there is still such a stigma associated with this disease. I mean can you imagine any other disease where it is okay to advise a spouse or loved one to abandon their significant other so that they will hit rock bottom faster? It's unthinkable to treat cancer or diabetes patients this way, but for alcoholics it is acceptable and even encouraged. A lot of people think we're trash to be thrown away and to openly admit to being an alcoholic is scary. And to admit to people that we're still drinking when all they've heard their whole lives is that alcoholics cannot drink is even scarier.

Maybe in a few years I'll have the courage to publicly hail TSM, but for now it is something I keep on this board and with my close friends and family. I can't wait until the day that TSM is accepted in the mainstream.