Archive for the ‘Books for addiction counselors’ Category

New Book About the War on Drugs

aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaChasing-the-Scream

I’ve got a great new book to recommend to anyone interested in the U.S.’s failed war on drugs. It’s “Chasing the Scream: The First and Last Days of the War on Drugs,” by Johann Hari. Published in 2015, I heard about this book at an Addiction Medicine conference when it was highly recommended by one of my colleagues.

As the title implies, the first part of the book describes how the war on drugs was initiated, not by the Reagans, but by Harry Anslinger, our first drug war general, back in the 1930’s. Anslinger is portrayed as an arrogant man, close-minded, filled with hubris, and lacking in compassion. He played on the public’s worst prejudices in order to get draconian drug laws passed, and showed no mercy enforcing them. He fanned the flames of public fears of drug-intoxicated minorities in order to expand his scope of power and prestige. His statements, preposterous from a medical point of view, still echo in the mouths of politicians today.

The author says Anslinger helped to create U.S.’s first drug lord, Arnold Rothstein, who is only the first of many ruthless gangsters to follow. Demand for drugs in the face of strict drug laws creates irresistible opportunities for criminals. The book describes how the war on drugs re-incarnated Anslinger and Rothstein with each generation; the names change but the tactics and destruction remain the same.

It’s an interesting concept.

Part Two of the book describes the lives of drug addicts. The author shows how people with addiction are forced to behave like sociopaths in order to maintain their supply of drugs. For example, many addicts deal drugs on a small scale to help finance their own drug use, an action they would be unlikely to undertake without the strong motivation of their own addiction.

The author goes on to illustrates how police crackdowns on drug dealers actually lead to increased gang violence. When top drug-dealing gang members are jailed, it creates a power vacuum, which leads to increased violence as rival gang members jockey for positions of power. Ultimately, the amount of drug dealing remains the same.

His reasoning does make sense, and is backed by interviews from urban bystanders in the violence of drug wars, both in the U.S. and Mexico.

This section of the book also discusses the inequalities of the drug war. The war on drugs is really a war on people who use drugs, and minorities are much more likely to targets of the drug war. Black drug dealers are more likely to be arrested than white dealers. People with money and influence aren’t targeted, while police go after the downtrodden, less likely to mount legal defenses if treated unfairly. Police do this in order to meet arrest quotas with less trouble from those targeted.

I could believe this, but then in the same section, the author also accuses police of expanding their budgets by confiscating high-dollar cars and homes from the rich people caught in the drug wars. So that was a little contradictory.

The author points out how a youngster who gets arrested for a drug offense is unemployable for the rest of his life, and how he can’t get student loans or public housing. To me that sounded a little overblown, since I know people who have managed to go to school, get their GED, then get a college education and even an advanced degree. I’m sure having a crime in one’s background makes this more difficult, but not impossible. That makes me question the accuracy of the author’s other assertions. For example, I have no idea if a drug charge eliminates all possibility of public housing.

Part three of the book is hard to read. In it, the author describes inhumane treatment of addicts who have been jailed. Arizona is noted for being a particularly brutal state for addicted inmates.
Inmates in general in the U.S. are treated horribly but no one seems to care, since few people have compassion for criminals.

This same section of the book also describes the horrible violence in Mexico brought about by the U.S. demand for illicit drugs. With so much profit to be made, drug cartels become ruthless. The author says in order to make sure other potential rivals stay in fear, dealers must engage in ever-increasing violence and depravity.

The fourth section of the book presents interesting ideas. First of all, the author claims the desire to get high is nearly universal. Far from being a deviant desire, the author advances the theory that the desire for intoxication is found in all humans in all civilizations at all times of human existence. He questions the goal of eliminating all drug use, and says it isn’t realistic.

I agree with him. The desire for euphoria is hard-wired into humans. When that urge runs amok, we may seek to satisfy that desire incessantly with drugs or other destructive behaviors.

The author then describes how life events affect the risk of addiction as if this were something new, but we’ve known for years that stress affects addiction risk. People who have experienced abuse and deprivation as children are more susceptible. But then the book connects our society’s present method of dealing with addiction, which is to shame addicts and cause them more pain. This approach is, predictably, counterproductive.

He says the more drug addicts are stressed, forced to live in poverty, are ostracized and shamed, the less likely they are to be able to find recovery.

Then the book goes into a weird tangent, saying that opioid withdrawal really isn’t all that bad, and the withdrawal is mostly mental in nature. He quotes some scientists who say that people living interesting and productive lives don’t get addicted, because they are happy. The book implies that the biological model has been overblown and scientists ignore the psychosocial components that cause addiction.

He’s wrong. Experts in addiction and its treatment haven’t forgotten the psychosocial components of addiction. But for decades, people have argued addiction is just bad behavior. They say addicts need punishment, rather than coddling in treatment programs. These people completely denied scientific components of the disorder. As a result, scientists interested in treating addiction poured money, time, and energy into proving the scientific portion of the disease. But now the same people who said there was no science to support addiction as a disease complain that scientists ignore the role of psychosocial factors that cause addiction.

In reality, both biologic AND psychosocial factors influence who becomes addicted. It isn’t either/or but both/and. It isn’t productive to argue about which is more important, because both types of causative factors need to be addressed in the disease of addiction.

The fifth part of the book is the most interesting. Chapters in this section describe the changes that occurred when drug addiction was treated more as a public health problem and less like a crime.

In a grass roots organization in Vancouver, Canada, a heroin addict managed to mobilize people to approach heroin addiction in a completely new way. This addict unified addicts and the people who care about them to create political pressure. This group attended town meetings, protested, and organized people who cared about the marginalized addicts of Downtown Eastside of Vancouver. Eventually, this organization managed to create such a stink that the mayor of Vancouver met with this addict-leader, and was so impressed by the insights and arguments that he authorized the establishment of a safe injection house.

Ultimately, Vancouver had one of the most progressive and harm-reduction oriented policies on drug addiction. Their overdose death rate plummeted. Health status of addicted people improved.

Similar harm reduction policies were enacted in Great Britain and in Switzerland, with similar reduction in overdose death rates and in improved health status for drug addicts. In Great Britain, physicians could legally prescribe heroin for opioid addicts for a period of time, from the mid-1980’s until 1995, when this program was ended. All of the health gains – reduced overdose deaths, reduced crime, reduced gang activity, and improved physical health for the addicts – were instantly reversed as soon as the program was stopped.

An entire chapter is dedicated to the changes seen in Portugal, where drugs are now decriminalized, but not legalized. This means thought drug use is not a crime, selling these drugs is still illegal. This chapter describes the changes that happened in Portugal, where harm reduction and public health strategies were enacted beginning in 2001. The nation has one of the lowest rates of illicit drug use in the world, though it’s important to understand that heroin has traditionally been the main drug of this country. Addicts’ lives are more productive and death rates are down. Crime rates dropped, and now the whole country supports these harm reduction strategies to the draconian drug laws that Portugal had in the past.

Near the end of the book is a chapter about what is happening in Uruguay, a small South American country where drugs are now not only decriminalized but legalized.

Anyone interested in the creation of a sound drug policy needs to read this book. It’s extensively researched, and the author spoke with many of the key individuals responsible for changes in drug policy all over the world. I haven’t critically researched all data he quotes in his book about the results of drug decriminalization and legalization, but he gives references for much of what’s contained in the book so that any interested reader can do so.

This book is uniquely interesting because the author combines data and statistics with personal stories of various addicts and their families. This technique combines the power of individual story with the facts of a more objective and detached view.

I don’t agree with all of the authors conclusions. For example, when he tries to say addiction is more about a person’s socioeconomic and emotional status rather than about the drugs…nah. Addiction is not all about the addictive nature of the drug itself, but it is a major factor. When you discount the euphoric attraction of opioids, cocaine, and the like, you risk misunderstanding a huge part of addiction. When a substance produces intense pleasure when ingested, it’s more likely to create addiction. After all, we don’t get addicted to broccoli…

It’s important to know this author has been in hot water in the past, accused of plagiarism. Knowing this made me a little distrustful of his interviews with people throughout the book, but I think the ideas illustrated by the interviews are still valid.

It’s a book filled with food for thought.

Harm Reduction

aaaaaaaaaaaaaharm

I just read a wonderful book, “Coming to Harm Reduction Kicking and Screaming: Looking for Harm Reduction in a 12-Step World,” by Dee-Dee Stout. The book is as delicious as its title. The first part of the book describes a little bit about what harm reduction is, and the latter parts of the book are interviews of treatment professionals. Half are from the “old timers” of harm reduction, including Bill Miller of Motivational Interviewing fame, and the famous Alan Marlatt. The other half of the interviews are from “12-stepping harm reductionists.”

It’s a fascinating read. These professionals describe their mental journey from believing abstinence-only recovery should be the goal for every addicted person, to believing whatever works is a much more practical approach. I’ve made a similar journey in my own mind, so I can relate.

Lately I’ve been reading, thinking, and talking to other professionals about harm reduction. This is an interesting topic because it inspires very strong feelings on both sides. Indeed, just the fact that there are two sides is somewhat remarkable. Who wouldn’t be enthusiastic about harm reduction?

It turns out that these two innocent words are laden with veiled meaning. A harm reductionist’s definition of the term may be something like, “Strategies for drug users and drug addicts, intended to reduce the harm caused by drug use.” But an anti-harm reductionist may see the term to mean, “Strategies which may reduce some harm to drug addicts, but that also prevent them from finding real recovery from drug addiction.”

The desire to get into recovery exists on a continuum. Some addicts want to stop all drugs and learn to live life drug-free. Those patients may embrace abstinence-only addiction treatment and feel comfortable with that approach. Other people may want to stop problematic use of one drug, but see no need to stop another. I see this often at my opioid treatment program. Some people want to quit opioids because of all the negative consequences, but don’t have any desire to stop marijuana, since they can’t see that it causes them any problems.

Other addicts don’t wish to stop using drugs at all, but prefer not to develop some of the negative consequences.

Here are some examples of harm reduction strategies:
 Needle exchange programs (NEPs). Clean needles are distributed to intravenous addicts, sometimes exchanged for used needles. NEPs have been shown to reduce transmission of HIV, and of other infectious diseases. Additionally, patients are less likely to get skin infections like cellulitis and abscesses when new needles are used
 Distributing information about safe injection practices. This can involve things like telling IV addicts about strategies like never using alone, and staggering injection times so that if one person has an overdose, the other one can summon help or use naloxone. It may include instructions on how to use a test dose, in case the product is higher purity than expected.
 Safe injection sites. You won’t find these in the US, but Canada and European nations have sites staffed with medical personnel where intravenous users can come to inject. If they have an overdose, personnel are immediately available to revive them.
 Naloxone kits. These kits can revive people who have had opioid overdoses. I have written much about them in the past, and it’s becoming more main stream to distribute these kits to opioid addicts and their families. Some pain management doctors and OTP doctors also prescribe these kits for their patients, in case of an overdose.

An astute observer will notice I did not list medication-assisted treatment among harm reduction strategies. This is because treatment of opioid addiction with methadone and buprenorphine should be considered a primary and definitive treatment of opioid addiction, not merely as one stop along the road of recovery. Some patients may wish to transition to drug-free recovery in the future, but it shouldn’t be required. Many patients will do better with less risk of relapse if they stay on MAT.

A false dichotomy between the ideas of “abstinence-only” and “harm reduction” proponents has been set up. Instead, we should view all treatment options as complementary to each other. All evidence-based addiction treatment options should offer improved quality of life for the people who use them.

Why not offer options to people who want to reduce the risk of drug use?

As a person with a strong twelve-step background, I found it difficult to embrace all of the harm reduction measures when I entered this field ten-plus years ago. Time, experience, and the medical literature have been my teachers, along with vivid human examples. Most of all, my patients have revealed to me how recovery from addiction rarely happens in a miraculous flash. Mostly, it involves small changes over long periods of time, with some setbacks along the way.

Book Review: “Her Best Kept Secret: Why Women Drink-and How they can Regain Control,” by Gabrielle Glaser

aaaaaaaaaaaaaaa

This book disappointed me. The title suggests a book of interesting research and conjecture about the reasons women drink. I was hoping for new insights that I could use in my practice with patients who drink alcohol. As it turned out, most of the book wasn’t about what the title implied. That topic was lightly touched on in the beginning, and there was a bit of summary at the end, but way too much of the book was about why AA sucks and why women don’t get the right treatment.

I liked the first third of the book, as it was basically history of alcohol and history of addiction treatment. She wrote about the shame women feel about having alcohol addiction, but that was brief. Overall, that portion of the book was mildly interesting, if a little tedious.

Then the next third of the book felt like an attack on AA. I admit I’m sensitive to AA bashing. I know AA works for many people, and I also know AA has never claimed to be the answer for every problem drinker. Given AA’s stance of “we will help you if you want help,” I don’t think it’s productive to berate the organization if you don’t want to go to their meetings.

My own opinion is that if you don’t like AA or don’t think it works for you, then fine. Take your ass on out of the meetings and go find another way that helps you. After all, AA members are under no obligation to help anyone; they help only because they want to, because it helps keep them sober. They don’t recruit new members, and they don’t ask for any money.

The author’s logic isn’t consistent. First she says AA isn’t helpful for women because it tells them they have to admit powerlessness and that interferes with women’s recovery process, rather than helping it. She says it’s insulting for women to be told that “your best thinking got you here,” and the slogans are too trite or hackneyed to help intelligent female problem drinkers who have problems with alcohol. She says women should be told they do have the power to make changes and stop drinking.

But then the next section, she says women are often victimized by men in meetings who have more time in sobriety, and thus more able to take sexual advantage of the fragile newcomer women. So which is it? Are the newcomer women tender blossoms with have no idea how to thwart a creepy man’s advances? Or are these women so powerful and capable that the simplicity of AA is insulting to their intelligence and capabilities?

Alcoholic Anonymous is made up of humans. Humans with drinking problems. It seems disingenuous to expect these humans to behave better than people in other human organizations (Catholic Church, for example). Also, I suspect some alcoholic women may have encountered creepy male advances in bars.

What kind of treatment does this author say works best? She correctly champions cognitive behavioral therapy and Motivational Enhancement therapy.

As an example, she describes an excellent treatment program that consists of treatment sessions from two therapists, with the addition of other services as needed (primary care consult, mental health provider). This treatment is done as an outpatient, where the person stays in a nice hotel close to the therapists’ office.

It costs ten grand. Ten thousand dollars.

This author gushes about how these therapists are so caring and dedicated that they even eat lunch with the patient. I would hope so. If I were paying ten thousand dollars for a few weeks of therapy, I’d expect my therapists not only to eat lunch with me, but also tuck me in at night and tell me a bedtime story!

So overall, I don’t think the ideas in this book extend to any new territory. Twelve step bashing has been done by many authors, so that’s dull. I found much of the book to be derivative, containing ideas from earlier books about women and addiction. Plus, I was surprised by how little time this author spent describing real barriers many women face when they are seeking help for alcohol addiction. For example, women are the primary caregivers for their children. Male partners may not want to take over childcare responsibilities while the woman gets treatment. Many times the woman’s partner is also in active addiction, and seeks to deter or undermine her efforts to get help and to stay in recovery. Transportation is a big problem, especially in rural areas with no public transportation. She may not have a car she can drive to treatment each day.

These issues were not addressed at any depth.

If you want to read a book about women and addiction, I highly recommend you read, “Substance and Shadow,” by Stephen Kandall, or “Women Under the Influence,” by the CASA program. Both are better written and with more information.

We Must Educate Substance Abuse Counselors!!

aamat

I was just reading an email thread about an appalling opinion piece published in the Baltimore Sun newspaper. I’m not going to give a link, because it was full of misinformation about methadone and its use treating opioid addiction. For example, the author of this piece of tripe talks about “numb souls…on amazingly high doses of 120mg to 180mg…drool and stagger as they try to get their bearings…” It would be laughable were it not so damaging to real patients in real recovery on methadone.

The point of the email exchange is that the author is, as she claims in the first sentence of this drivel, a “long-time certified counselor in the chemical dependency field.” Sadly, some of the worst and least informed critics of medication-assisted treatment of opioid addiction are in the counseling field!

Why don’t people working in the field of addiction treatment know the data about medication-assisted treatment of opioid addiction with methadone and buprenorphine? The answer is unfortunately the same as why doctors and other medical professionals don’t know the same set of facts: lack of education.

Anyone who reads this blog knows I frequently lament the lack of education I received in medical school and residency about opioid addiction and its treatment. In a recent blog, I described the harm done to opioid-addicted patients I saw in my residency. (December 7, 2014) My experience is too common, and though some medical schools and residencies are adding educational programs about addiction and its treatment, it’s still not enough.

The same conditions befall colleges and universities where people are learn to be counselors. There’s not enough education about medication-assisted treatment. With all of the evidence to support MAT, that’s incredible and ridiculous.

I see some positive signs, though. Not all universities and colleges neglect this important education. For example, over the past four or five years, I’ve been asked to give lectures at both Appalachian State University in Boone, NC, and at University of North Carolina at Charlotte about MAT. I’ve now done this several times at both universities.

The heads of both of those counseling programs are well-educated treatment professionals and leaders in their field. These counseling programs take pains to educate their students about opioid addiction in general and MAT specifically.

After each talk at these campuses, students had hard questions. Some of the students challenged what I was saying about MAT, and I congratulated them on objective thinking. I told them not to take my word for MAT; go look at the literature for yourself and make up your own mind. A university education should teach you to think for yourself and come to your own conclusions.

I told them the data on MAT in treatment of opioid addiction will withstand their inquiry, and I gave all the students references to back up what I was saying. I had a good feeling that answering in this way gave me more credibility than saying, “Just believe what I’m saying because I’m right,” as so many MAT opponents do.

Maybe ASAM doctors around the country need to offer their services to colleges and universities who offer counseling degrees. We can make sure we give accurate information, so there will be fewer of those awful opinion pieces like the Baltimore Sun ran.

And what about fact checking? Don’t newspapers still do that? Maybe since it was an opinion piece no fact checking was done.

Early last year, our local paper, the Wilkes Journal-Patriot, asked to interview the program director and me about the treatment we provide at the opioid treatment program where we work. Some people told us not to give the interview, since papers frequently distort facts for sensationalism to sell papers. But we felt sure we could make ourselves understood.

I was impressed by the journalist. He asked good questions to get clarification about what we told him. He talked to other sources as well, and I felt the result was balanced and accurate:

http://www.journalpatriot.com/news/article_dbd0f6e8-aa0c-11e3-8435-001a4bcf6878.html

So let’s keep talking about MAT facts, and keep educating anyone who will listen. Thankfully we don’t have to couch what we say as opinion, since we stand atop a mountain of facts gleaned from a half century of studies.

Bibliotherapy: Women and Addiction

aaaaaaaaagood book

I’m sorry to post another re-run this week, but i just moved, and my time and energy have been taken up with unpacking. I haven’t made time to write a fresh blog entry this week. Meanwhile, here’s an entry from a few years ago:

If you’ve looked at my blog before, you’ve likely seen that I like to recommend books. I prescribe books as medicine. Looking over my sagging bookshelves, I saw a number of my favorite titles that are specific for women and addiction. While some are a bit dated by now, even those contain information that’s helped me better understand how women, especially pregnant women, have unique needs in their recovery from addiction.

For example, in the past, when I talked to a pregnant patient who was still using drugs, I would tell her every awful thing her drug use could possibly be doing to the fetus. I thought I could scare her into sobriety.

Studies show this approach is associated with a worse outcome for baby and mother than a compassionate and hopeful approach. Pregnant addicts carry a tremendous burden of shame and guilt, as arguably the most stigmatized people in our society. Even other addicts look down on pregnant addicts. So when physicians add to their shame, they tend to run. They leave treatment (physically or mentally), and everyone suffers. With a gentler approach, these women tend to participate in their own treatment.

Duh. Don’t we all do better with gentler approaches?

Anyway, here’s a list of books about women and addiction. Some I have mentioned before, like Women Under the Influence, by the National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse at Columbia. This is maybe the most comprehensive book, full of references, about addiction in women. Happy Hours by Devon Jersild is more conversational, with excerpt from interviews with women addicted to alcohol, but it also contains solid information. One of the most entertaining, because it is a well-written story told by a female alcoholic is Drinking: A Love Story, by the late Caroline Knapp.

Parched, by Heather King, is similar to Ms. Knapp’s writing, and also worth a read. This book is a well-written, entertaining documentation of an intelligent woman’s descent into alcohol addiction. Thankfully, she also describes her recovery. This is a better-than-average addiction memoir, and hasn’t gotten the recognition it deserves.

Using Women: Gender, Drug Policy, and Social Justice, by Nancy Campbell, written in 2000, is an unusual and fascinating book. It describes how society has viewed female addicts throughout history and how they are frequently judged more harshly than male addicts. Throughout the decades, addicted women don’t do what’s expected of them by their society, and society’s expectations often shaped U.S. drug policies. The author contends that female addicts cause more outrage because they stray so far from assumed female roles. The book is filled with cool black and white photos of sensationalized news stories from the girl addicts of the 1950’s to the crack moms of the 1990’s.

Women, Sex, and Addiction: A Search for Love and Power, by Charlotte Davis Kasl, PhD, 1989, focuses more on the way the inequities of power in relationships shape female behavior with sex and drug use and addiction. The author discusses all sorts of addiction, not just sex or drug addictions. For many female addicts, codependency and sex are strongly intertwined. The book also has sections of lesbian and bisexual lifestyle and addiction, and male codependency and addiction. Some sections were interesting and helpful, and others…not so much. The author uses older terminology, from the time when codependency was more in vogue.

Women on Heroin, by Marsha Rosenbaum, 1981. This book follows the careers of 100 female addicts in a street study. The author talked with a hundred women of many ages and various races to hear what their lives are like, being addicted to heroin. One theme of the book is that initially, drug use gives the illusion of empowering the women, but eventually the need to support their habit steals their power. Women resort to criminal means to support their habits, and this is more difficult for women caring for small children. Treatment programs often don’t consider children can be a strong motivating factor for a woman to get clean, but not if she loses her kids while she goes off to treatment. Lots of quotes from the women she interviews are scattered through the book.
All counselors working with female patients need to read this book to more fully understand how effectively to engage women into treatment. Besides containing useful information, it’s just a really interesting book.

Crack Mothers: Pregnancy, Drugs, and the Media, by Drew Humphries, 1999. Here’s a book bound to stir controversy. The book describes how the “crack baby” was a media invention, not a medical reality. While some children born to women addicted to cocaine had medical issues, we now know these kids didn’t grow up to be the permanently and hopelessly damaged human beings as conjured by the media. This book talks about the racist prosecution of pregnant minority addicts, and how they tended to be the ones to be jailed, while middle and upper class pregnant addicts were able to use their resources to avoid prosecution. In some cases, pregnant women had asked for treatment but were turned away because it wasn’t financially accessible, and they were jailed instead. I thought this book was very interesting and I read it in just a few days.

Substance and Shadow: Women and Addiction in the United States, by Stephen Kandall, The author is a renowned neonatologist, and this book is scholarly, filled with references. I’m reviewing the book from memory, since I loaned it to a friend and I can’t remember who has it. The author talks about the paternalistic methods of physicians in previous centuries, and how their attitudes increased the risk for female addiction to opioids. Then he traces the history of drug policy in the U.S., paying special attention to how women were treated – or not treated – differently. This book is a bit more intense, and not as light or quick reading as most of the others listed.

A Woman’s Way Through the Twelve Steps, and A Woman’s Way Through the Twelve Steps Workbook, by Stephanie Covington, 2000. Compared to the method of working the twelve steps outlined in either AA’s Big Book, or NA’s Step Working Guide, this workbook is a little “fluffy.” It’s a softer way of looking at the steps, and may be quite beneficial for women who have been traumatized by abuse in the past. For some women, harsh rhetoric occasionally heard in 12-step meetings can triggers memories of abuse, verbal or physical. For women who are turned off by more traditional steps guides, this book and workbook offer an alternative. I liked the book better than the workbook. For some people, this could be a great resource.

The Benzodiazepine Dilemma: New Guidelines for Opioid Treatment Programs from IRETA

aaabenzos

I’ve written about benzodiazepines before in this blog (See my post of November 3, 2012). I worry about overdose deaths and other complications in patients for whom I prescribe methadone who are also taking benzodiazepines, prescribed or illicit.

Now doctors at OTPs have help from the Institute for Research, Education and Training in Addiction (IRETA). This well-respected organization located in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania just issued an evidence-based document titled, “Management of Benzodiazepines in Medication-Assisted Treatment.” You can access this document at IRETA’s website: http://ireta.org/

I love IRETA for tackling this subject. There’s much misinformation about the use of benzodiazepines, even for patients without addiction. But for patients with addiction, benzodiazepines can be deadly when combined with opioids including methadone and buprenorphine.

IRETA’s document first describes how and why these guidelines were created. Opioid treatment programs often have patients who also use benzodiazepines, both by prescription and illicitly. Physicians at OTPs have widely varying responses to these patients. Some programs have zero tolerance, meaning they won’t allow anyone on benzodiazepines to be in their opioid treatment program. Other physicians at OTPs actually prescribe benzodiazepines for their patients when they feel it’s clinically indicated. IRETA wanted to delve into actual scientific literature and consult a panel of experts for interpretation of that data. This IRETA document describes in detail how the literature search was done. It also goes into exhaustive detail about how each statement in the set of guidelines was vetted by experts.

This paper’s guidelines fall into seven categories:

General guidelines
Assessment for MAT
Addressing benzodiazepine use
MAT for patients with concurrent benzodiazepine use
Noncompliance with treatment agreement
Risk management/Impairment assessment
Special circumstances

Here are the general guidelines, taken directly from the document:

CNS depressant use is not an absolute contraindication for either methadone or buprenorphine, but is a reason for caution because of potential respiratory depression. Serious overdose and death may occur if MAT is administered in conjunction with benzodiazepines, sedatives, tranquilizers, anti-depressants, or alcohol.
People who use benzodiazepines, even if used as a part of long-term therapy, should be considered at risk for adverse drug reactions including overdose and death.
Many people presenting to services have an extensive history of multiple substance dependence and all substance abuse, including benzodiazepines, should be actively addressed in treatment. MAT should not generally be discontinued for persistent benzodiazepine abuse, but requires the implementation of risk management strategies.
Clinicians should ensure that every step of decision-making is clearly documented.
Clinicians would benefit from the development of a toolkit about the management of benzodiazepines in methadone treatment that includes videos and written materials for individuals in MAT.

Please note that under the third point of the general guidelines, it says patients shouldn’t be taken off MAT because of repeated benzo use, but need “risk management strategies.” That’s a little vague, but IRETA guidelines go into more detail later in the document.

IRETA’s second section of guidelines is about assessment for MAT. The guidelines say all of the usual things; for example, they say a doctor should do a complete evaluation of a patient presenting for treatment, as described in SAMHSA’s TIP (Treatment Improvement Protocol) 40 and 43. The evaluation should include the patient’s history of medical problems and history of all drug use, even over the counter medication. A mental status assessment and a drug screen should also be included.

Also under the assessment section, IRETA suggests adding patient education about the dangers of mixing benzos with methadone or buprenorphine. I like this idea, and I do something similar. When I ask about past drug use, I always warn patients about the potential bad outcome of mixing benzos and alcohol with the medication I’m going to prescribe, and I repeat the warning at the end of our interaction.

IRETA suggest doctors go farther, and give patients information not only about overdose risk, but also about the other problems benzodiazepines can cause. Benzodiazepines are associated with a greater risk of depression and suicide. Having a prescription for benzodiazepines doubles a patient’s risk for an auto accident, and increases the risk for other accidents, like falls. Taking a benzodiazepine prescription is associated with an increased risk for hip fracture.

The IRETA guidelines remind us that there is “Substantial and growing literature that suggests long term use of benzodiazepines (especially in large doses) leads to cognitive decline.” (page 16 of the report) the guidelines also say that benzodiazepines are associated with emotional blunting, and long-term sleep and mood disturbances. Even more relevant, studies show that patients on benzodiazepines have worse outcomes in medication-assisted treatment.

The third section of IRETA’s guidelines is about addressing benzodiazepine use. They say that a patient should be willing to address their benzo addiction. IRETA says that uncontrolled use of benzodiazepines is a contraindication to treatment with methadone or buprenorphine because of the “extremely high risk for adverse drug reaction involving overdose and/or death during the induction process.”

I’m in the “amen” corner for that one! But it’s hard for me to know which patients use benzos occasionally to help opioid withdrawal, and which patients use benzos heavily in an uncontrolled manner. Most patients, seeing me for admission to MAT, minimize their use of benzodiazepines, knowing it’s a big issue. If they’re getting benzodiazepine prescriptions in large amount from multiple doctors, I can see that on our state’s prescription monitoring program. If the patient is taking benzos illicitly, I may not have a way to know this. Information from family members and friends can sometimes help, if the patient will allow. Or family members and friends may be as heavily involved in addiction as the patient presenting for treatment.

The IRETA guidelines remind us that patients on long-term benzodiazepine therapy are at risk for adverse drug reactions which can include overdose and death. The guidelines say that central nervous system depressants are not absolutely contraindicated with methadone, but also put patients at risk for overdose and death. I assume at this point in the document, its authors are referring to other non-benzo central nervous system depressants like carisopradol (Soma), zolpidem (Ambien), and the other “z” sleep medications, and perhaps pregabalin (Lyrica).

IRETA’s benzodiazepine guidelines for OTPs are extensive, so I’m going to split my review of the contents over two blog entries. Stay tuned…or even better, go read them for yourself:
http://ireta.org/sites/ireta.org/files/Best%20Practice%20Guidelines%20for%20BZDs%20in%20MAT%202013_0.pdf

1. Thomas et al, “Benzodiazepine use and motor vehicle accidents. Systematic review of reported association.” Canadian Family Physician, 1998 April;44:799-808.
2. Smink et al, “The relationship between benzodiazepine use and traffic accidents: A systematic literature review.” CNS Drugs, 2010 Aug.24(8)6390653.

A Really Good Book – For Free

aaaaaabook

If you haven’t read CASA’s (Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse, at Columbia University) masterpiece publication from June, 2012, titled “Addiction Medicine: Closing the Gap between Science and Practice,” you should do so. This publication can be downloaded for free, and has essential information about addiction and its treatment. http://www.casacolumbia.org/addiction-research/reports/addiction-medicine

Casa also has other free and informative publications about other issues, like how to reduce the risk of addiction in teens (“The Importance of Family Dinners” series), the cost and impact of untreated addiction on society (“Shoveling Up”), substance abuse and the U.S. prison population (“Behind Bars” series), and the availability of drugs on the internet ( “You’ve got Drugs” series). All of these contain useful and thought-provoking data.

“Addiction Medicine: Closing the Gap between Science and Practice” outlines all aspects of what is wrong with addiction treatment in the U.S., along with recommendations about how we can fix this broken system. When it was published in June of 2012, I thought it would be would be widely read and discussed. However, I’ve only heard it mentioned once, and that was at an ASAM meeting. I wish popular press, so eager to write sensationalistic pieces about addiction, would write more fact-based information.

Every politician should read it. Every parent should read it. Physicians and treatment center personnel should read it. Anyone who is concerned about the extent of addiction and its poor treatment in the U.S. should read it.

CASA describes their key findings of the drawbacks of the U.S. system – or non-system – of addiction treatment. This nation is doing many things wrong, to the detriment of people afflicted with addiction, their families and their communities. Our mistakes are based on ignorance, misperceptions, and prejudice. All of these impede our ability to help our people with addiction. The CASA report describes these factors and how they have contributed to our present situation.
Our nation hasn’t waged a war on drugs, but rather on people who use drugs.

The CASA report describes how public opinion about addiction isn’t based on science. Science proves addiction is a brain disease, yet this fact is still debated. We know that continued use of addicting substances alters the structure and function of the brain, affecting judgment and behavior about the continued use of drugs even when bad consequences occur. We know that half of the risk for developing addiction is determined by genetic makeup. Yet surveys show that about a third of U.S. citizens still feel addiction is due to lack of willpower and self-control. Why are public attitudes so disconnected from science?

Addiction is a complicated diagnosis, existing as it does at the end of the continuum from occasional drug use to regular use to compulsive use. People often compare a drug user with a drug addict. They say that since the drug user was able to stop when he wanted that the drug addict should be able to stop when he wanted. This compares apples to oranges. If someone can comfortably stop using drugs when given a good enough reason to do so, this person isn’t an addict. They may be a drug abuser, a problem user, and at high risk for addiction, but they haven’t crossed the line into uncontrollable use.

The CASA report pointed out that most addiction treatment and prevention isn’t done by physicians and health professionals. Most addiction treatment is provided by counselors who, for the most part, aren’t required to have any medical training. Only six states require a bachelor’s degree to become an addiction counselor, and only one (Alabama, go figure) requires a master’s degree.

Even when physicians are involved in the treatment of addiction, most of us have very little, if any, training in medical school or residencies about addiction prevention or treatment. Ironically, most of our training focuses on treating the consequences of addiction.

In medical school and residency, I spent countless hours learning about the proper treatment of cirrhosis, gastritis, anemia, pancreatitis, dementia, and peripheral neuropathy from alcohol addiction. I had little if any training about how to treat alcohol addiction, and none about how to prevent it.

We know brief interventions by physicians during office visits can reduce problem drinking and are an effective way to prevent problems before they occur. Yet few physicians are trained to do this brief intervention. Even if they are trained, primary care physicians and physician extenders are being asked to do more and more at each visit with patients, and asked to do it with less and less time. Primary care providers may not be adequately paid for screening and brief intervention for problem drinking and drugging, and valuable opportunities are lost. Yet that same patient may consume hundreds of thousands of healthcare dollars during only one hospital admission for medical consequences of problem alcohol use.

When I practiced in primary care, I often thought about how I never got to the root of the problem. I would – literally – give patients with serious addiction strikingly absurd advice. “Please stop injecting heroin. You got that heart valve infection from injecting heroin and you need to quit.” I could see it was ineffective, but I didn’t know any better way at the time. I assumed if there was a better way to treat addiction, I’d have learned about it in my training.

Wrong. The doctors who trained me couldn’t teach what they didn’t know themselves.

In my Internal Medicine residency, I admitted many patients to the hospital for endocarditis (infected heart valve) contracted from IV heroin use. Each time, this required six month of intravenous antibiotics. Back then we kept such patients in the hospital the whole time. You can imagine the cost of a six week hospital stay, not that these addicts had any money to pay. Just a fraction of that amount could have paid for treatment at a methadone clinic, the most effective way to treat heroin addiction, and prevent dozens of medical problems.

But I never referred them to the methadone clinic available in that city. I didn’t know anything about methadone or the medical-assisted treatment of opioid addiction, and apparently my attending physicians, responsible for my training, didn’t know about it either. It was a shame, because in those years, the late 1980’s, we were making new diagnoses of HIV almost daily among IV drug users. Since then, a study showed a patient using IV heroin drops his risk of contracting HIV by more than threefold if he enrolls in a methadone clinic.

I didn’t learn about the evidence-based treatment of opioid addiction until I agreed to work at a methadone clinic for a few days, covering for a friend of mine when he wanted to go on vacation. I was amazed to learn about decades of evidence showing the benefits of such treatment.

Most addiction-related medical expenses are paid for from public funds. In fact, over ten percent of all federal, state, and local government dollars are spent on risky substance use and addiction problems. Sadly, over 95% of this money is spent on the consequences of drug use and abuse. Only 2% is spent on treatment or prevention.

Untreated addiction costs mightily. People with untreated addiction incur more health care costs than nearly any other group. An estimated one third of all costs from inpatient medical treatment are related to substance abuse and addiction. Untreated addicts (I include alcohol addicts with drug addicts) go to the hospital more often, are admitted for longer than people without addiction, and require more expensive heath care than hospitalized non-addicts. The complications these people suffer could be from underlying poor physical health and lack of regular preventive healthcare, but most of the cost is incurred treating the medical problems directly caused by addiction and risky substance use.

Family members of people with untreated addiction have higher health costs, too. Families of people with addiction have 30% higher health care costs than families with no addicted member. I presume that’s from the stress of living and dealing with a loved one in active addiction. Often family members are so caught up in trying to control the chaos caused by active addiction that they don’t take time for routine health visits.

The costs of untreated addiction aren’t only financial. Addiction and risky drug use are the leading causes of preventable deaths in the U.S. Around 2.9 million people died in 2009, and well over a half million of these deaths were attributable to tobacco, alcohol, and other drugs. Overdose deaths alone have increased five-fold since 1990.

We know addiction is a chronic disease, yet we spend far less on it than other chronic diseases.
For example, the CASA report says that in the U.S., around 26 million people have diabetes, and we spend nearly 44 billion dollars per year to treat these patients. Similarly, just over 19 million have cancer, and we spend over 87 billion for treatment of that disease. In the U.S., 27 million people have heart disease, and we spend 107 billion dollars on treatment.

But when it comes to addiction, we spend only 28 billion to treat the estimated 40.3 million people with addiction, and that includes nicotine!

Most of the money we do spend is paid by public insurance. For other chronic diseases, about 56% of medical expenses are covered by private payers, meaning private insurance or self-pay. But for addiction treatment, only 21% of expenses are paid from private insurance or self-pay. This suggests that private insurance companies aren’t adequately covering the expense of addiction treatment. Indeed, patients being treated with private insurance for addiction are three to six times less likely to get specialty addiction treatment than those with public insurance such as Medicaid or Medicare. Hopefully we will see a change since the parity law was passed. (which told insurance companies they had to cover mental health and substance addiction to the same degree they cover other health problems)

In the U.S., we don’t treat addiction as the public health problem that it is. Some people still don’t believe it’s an illness but rather a moral failing. Doctors, not knowing any better, often have an attitude of therapeutic nihilism, feeling that addiction treatment doesn’t work and it’s hopeless to try.

Families and medical professionals often expect addiction to behave like an acute illness. We may mistakenly think addiction should be resolved with a single treatment episode. If that episode fails, it means treatment is worthless. Families want to put their addicted loved one into a 28-day treatment program and expect them to be fixed forever when they get out. They’re disappointed and angry if their loved one relapses.

This reminds me of an elderly man I treated for high blood pressure many years ago. I gave him a month’s prescription of blood pressure medication, and when he came back, his blood pressure was good. I was pleased, and I wanted to keep him on the medication. He was angry. He said he was going to find another doctor. He thought the one prescription should have cured his high blood pressure so that he would never have to take pills again, and was disappointed with my treatment.
If we keep our same attitude toward addiction treatment, we are doomed to be as disappointed as my patient with high blood pressure. Addiction behaves like a chronic disease, with period of remission and episodes of relapse.

We have a lot of work to do. As this CASA publication shows, we have to change public attitudes with scientific information and do a much better job of training physicians and other health care providers. We should pay for evidence-based, high-quality addiction treatment, rather than spend billions on the medical problems caused by addiction as we are now doing.

Check out this landmark publication at CASA’s website: http://www.casacolumbia.org

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 592 other followers