Evidence Hub

Effects of opioid antagonism on functional MRI correlates of explicit and implicit threat processing in healthy volunteers

Huneke NTM, van Steenbergen H, Fagan HA, Molteni L, Midveris A, Phillips N, Darekar A, van der Wee NJA et al.

The British journal of psychiatry : the journal of mental science, 2026

38 participants

Abstract

Background: We need to identify novel, tractable therapeutic targets for anxiety disorders. Converging evidence suggests the endogenous opioid system plays a role in modulating affective processing, but its contribution to regulation of threat processing in humans remains unclear.

Aims: We investigated the neural correlates of non-specific opioid antagonism on explicit and implicit regulation of threatening stimuli in healthy volunteers, using functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI).

Method: In a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, crossover design, 38 healthy participants received the opioid antagonist naltrexone (50 mg) or placebo before completing two tasks during fMRI: (a) a cognitive emotional reappraisal task probing explicit regulation and (b) a face-viewing task probing implicit processing.

Results: Contrary to our hypothesis, we found naltrexone reduced distress ratings during the reappraisal task (p = 0.044) without impairing regulation success. Explicit regulation in the reappraisal task engaged lateral prefrontal regions similarly across drug conditions. However, naltrexone attenuated ventromedial prefrontal cortex, thalamus and caudate activation when viewing negative images. Naltrexone additionally altered ventromedial prefrontal cortex activity and in task-positive regions including right premotor area and frontal pole compared with placebo when viewing emotional faces. In particular, naltrexone increased left middle frontal gyrus activity when…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a randomized trial, done in people. Its evidence level is 2 of 5 (High · randomized trial). Randomized trials of a reasonable size are the strongest single-study design. Reported size: 38 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free