Archive for the ‘History of Opioid Addiction’ Category

Cotton Fever

An addict still using heroin recently asked me what “cotton fever” was, and how he could tell if he was sick with it.

 Cotton fever is caused by bacteria commonly found on cotton plants, initially named Enterobacter agglomerans, later changed to Pantoea agglomerans. Most intravenous drug addicts filter heroin through cotton filters, to remove particles that could clog both their injection needle and their veins. Sometimes fibers of cotton break off from the filter, carrying the bacteria with it. These bacteria in the bloodstream cause fever and chills, but in a healthy person, this usually resolves on its own. It’s rare to see it cause serious infection. However, doctors still recommend addicts with cotton fever seek medical care and receive appropriate antibiotics. (1)

At least one study isolated an endotoxin produced by this bacteria, so it’s possible that the fever is actually caused by this toxin, released from the bacteria, and not from an actual infection.

 Enterobacter species, while found in feces of both animals and humans, are also found in the plant world. Usually, these bacteria aren’t a particularly vicious, which is why they rarely cause sepsis (overwhelming infection) unless the individual has an impaired ability to fight infection. In the 1970’s, some medical products (blood, IV fluids) were found to be infected with this species, and caused significant infections, but this was probably due to a large amount of the bacteria infused into patients.

 Cotton filters become more fragile with use, so addicts using new filters probably have a lower risk of cotton fever. After cotton filters are used, they remain moist and can become colonized with all sorts of bacteria, especially if they are kept warm, as happens when they are stored in a pocket, close to the body. This bacteria can cause infection when injected. Cotton filters can transmit hepatitis C and possibly other infections, if they are shared with other drug users. (2)

 Filters also retain some of the injected drug, making them of some value in the world of intravenous addicts. It’s considered a gesture of generosity to offer another addict your “cottons” because the addict will get some small amount of the drug. (3)

 Even in view of all of the above, it’s still better to use a filter than to use unfiltered heroin. A new cotton cigarette filter has been shown to remove up to 80% of particulates in heroin, and reduces the risk of thrombosis of the vein from particles. Other makeshift filters are made from clothing, cotton balls, and even tissue paper.

 Syringe filters are manufactured for medical and laboratory use. They can be designed to filter particles down to 5 micrometers. Besides being more expensive and difficult to obtain, studies show these filters retain more of the drug than other makeshift filters, making them less desirable to some addicts. (2)

 Cotton fever itself usually isn’t fatal. The biggest challenge is knowing if the addict has cotton fever or something worse, like sepsis. Sepsis is an infection of the blood stream, and even heart valves can become infected, causing serious and life-threatening problems. 

I asked a former IV drug addict about his experience with cotton fever.

 Me: What does cotton fever feel like?

 Former Addict: You get a fever that kind of feels like withdrawal. You know there’s something bad wrong, and you don’t know what to do about it. I’ve laid on the floor and thought I was going to die. A lot of times people get it when they’re rinsing, and that means they’re coming down anyway. When the dope got short and I was rinsing cottons, that’s when I got it.

 Me: How long does it last?

 FA: It seems like it lasts a long time, but the intensity is bad maybe an hour or two. You shake, you sweat; it feels just like the flu.

 Me: Ever go to the hospital with cotton fever?

 FA: No, no! (said emphatically) I was usually wanted by the police. Only time I went to the hospital is with severe trauma.

Me: I don’t understand what you mean by rinsing.

 FA: Rinsing’s when you squeeze that last little bit of drug out of the cotton [filter]. You rinse the spoon and cotton with a little water. I would save all my cottons. That was my rathole for when the dope ran out. I would actually load the cottons into the barrel of a syringe then draw water in to the barrel of syringe, then squeeze until they were bone dry. I squirted that on to a spoon, and used a new cotton to draw that into a syringe.

 Me: Why do you use cotton filters? Do you use it with every drug you injected?

 FA: I used cotton to strain any dirt that may be in the product, that might get up in the syringe. I didn’t want no dirt. Didn’t have to be cotton. [If you don’t use a filter, you] shoot a bunch of trash up in yourself, and get trash fever.

 I used an itty bitty cotton. Some people would use a quarter of cigarette butt. That was wasteful to me. It got too saturated, could hold too much residue, or dope.

 I didn’t have to use cotton with quarter gram morphine or Dilaudid. Not enough trash to stop it up. If there’s trash in the syringe, I used a cotton.

 Thankfully, this person has been in recovery from addiction for more than thirteen years. When I asked him how he was able to stop, he said Narcotics Anonymous meetings.

 Recovery is the best way to avoid cotton fever. You never have to go through that again.

  1. Rollinton, F; Feeney, C; Chirurgi, V; Enterobacter agglomerans-Associated Cotton Fever,  Annals of Internal Medicine 1993; 153(20): 2381-2382.
  2. Pates, R; McBride, A; Arnold, K; Injecting Illicit Drugs, (Oxford, UK, Blackwell Publishing, 2005) pp. 41-43.
  3. 3.       Bourgois, Phillippe; Schonberg, Jeff; Righteous Dopefiend,(Berkeley, California, University of California Press, 2009) pp8-9, 83-84.

Top Ten Books for Methadone Counselors

I have a fair number of methadone counselors who read my blog. I’m often asked by these counselors what books I recommend, which is like asking me what kind of dessert is good. The list is so long. But here are the ones all methadone counselors should read:

  1.  Medication-assisted Treatment for Opioid Addiction in Opioid Treatment Programs, by the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration. This is better known as “TIP 43,” because it’s the 43rd book in the series of treatment improvement protocols published by SAMHSA. You can get any book in the series for FREE! Yes, this book and several others are free resources. The website is: http://store.samhsa.gov. While you’re there, order TIP 40: Clinical Guidelines for the Use of Buprenorphine in the Treatment of Opioid Addiction, and TIP 35: Enhancing Motivation for Change in Substance Abuse Treatment. Then browse around, and see what else interests you. This is a great website, and all addictions counselors should be very familiar with it. There’s great material for counselors and their clients.
  2.   Pain Pill Addiction: Prescription for Hope, by….me. Hey, it’s my blog, so of course I’m gonna list my book. At least I didn’t put it at number one. But seriously, I do think my book describes what opioid addiction is, why this country is having such problems with opioid addiction now, and the available treatments for this addiction. I focus on medication-assisted treatments, which means treatments with methadone or buprenorphine, better known as Suboxone. After reading my book, any substance abuse counselor should be able to talk intelligently with patients and their families about the pros and cons of medication-assisted treatment. I tried hard to base this book on available research and not my own opinions, though I do state some of my opinions in the book. My book also has summaries of the major studies done using medication-assisted treatments, so that if you need resources to prove why methadone works, you’ll have them. OK. I’m done blathering. Order it on EBay and you’ll save some money.
  3.      Motivational Interviewing by William Miller and Stephen Rollnick. This is a book all addiction counselors should have… and read. I’ve learned so much about how to interact with people as they consider if, how, and when to make changes in their lives by reading this book. The authors demonstrate how the Stages of Change model easily fits with this style of counseling. There are some solid examples of how to incorporate MI techniques.
  4.      Cognitive Therapy of Substance Abuse, by Aaron Beck et. al. This is a venerable text describing cognitive therapy as it applies to substance abuse. The book is relatively concise, but it’s still dense reading. Get out your underliner because you’ll want to find some parts to read again. The dialogues in the book that serve as examples are instructive. This book has been around for some time, as texts go, since it was published in 2001.
  5.     Narcotics Anonymous Basic Text, by Narcotics Anonymous World Service. Now in its sixth edition, this is one of the books that serve as a foundation for 12-step recovery in Narcotics Anonymous. If you are a counselor who’s in recovery, you’ve probably already read it. If you’re not, you need to get it, read it, and be able to talk intelligently about the 12-step recovery program of this 12-step group. The AA “Big Book,” which is AA’s version of a basic text, has much of the original old-time words and phrases, and speaks mostly of alcohol. For these reasons, some addicts won’t like the Big Book as well as the NA Basic Text. However, the Big Book does have a certain poetry that will appeal to others. (….trudge the road of happy destiny…) You can order it at http://na.org or go to that site and download it as a pdf.
  6.  The Treatment of Opioid Dependence, by Eric Strain and Maxine Stitzer. Written in 2005, this is an update to a similar title written in the 1990’s. This book reviews the core studies underpinning our current treatment recommendations for patients in medication-assisted treatment of opioid addiction. I don’t know why more people haven’t read this book, because it’s relatively easy to understand. Don’t make the mistake of assuming it will be too advanced for you. Get it and read it.
  7. Addiction and Change: How Addictions Develop and Addicted People Recover, by Carlo DiClemente. This book describes the paths people follow as they become addicted and as they recover. It’s focused on the transtheoretical model of the stages of change, so named because it can be used with many counseling theories. I think this is a practical book, and easier to understand than some texts.
  8.  Diagnosis Made Easier: Principles and Techniques for Mental Health Technicians, by James Morrison M.D. This is an improvement of his earlier book, DMS IV Made Easy, written in 1992. At any work site, addictions counselors will have to be familiar with the criteria used to diagnose mental illnesses. Since around 30 – 50% of addicts have another co-occurring mental illness, you need to be familiar with the criteria used to diagnose not just addiction, but these other illnesses as well. And this book makes learning relatively painless. It’s practical and easy to read, and based on common sense. It contains many case examples, which keep it interesting.
  9. The American Disease: Origins of Narcotic Control, by David Musto. This book has been updated and is on its third edition, but so much has happened since this last edition in 1999 that the author needs to write an update. This is an interesting book, and it moves fairly quickly. This information puts our present opioid problem into the context of the last century or so. As an alternative, you can read Dark Paradise: A History of Opiate Addiction in America, by David Courtwright in 2001. I included this book, but be warned it’s heavier reading. This author is an historian, so maybe his writing style didn’t resonate with me as much. Still, he has much good information. You can’t go wrong with either book. You could also read The Fix by Michael Massing, which is another book about the history of addiction and its treatment in the U.S… This last book doesn’t focus on just opioid addiction, but still gives all the pertinent history. This book is written by a journalist and will keep your interest. It was written in 2000.
  10.  Hooked: Five Addicts Challenge Our Misguided Drug Rehab System, by Lonnie Shavelson. This book, written by a journalist, follows five addicts through the labyrinth of addiction treatment. You’ll see the idiotic obstructions addicts seeking help are asked to negotiate in our present healthcare system. I was angry as I read the book, seeing obvious simple solutions that couldn’t be enacted for one administrative reason or another. Let this book make you angry enough to demand change from our system. Be an advocate for addicts seeking treatment.

 Have I left out any? Let me know which book have helped you be a better counselor or therapist.

The Pain Management Movement

 In the late 1990’s, organizations like the American Pain Society and the American Academy of Pain Management declared that doctors in the U.S. were doing a lousy job of treating pain, and were under-prescribing opioid pain medications, due to a misguided fear of causing addiction. As a result, there was a national push to treat pain more aggressively. Some states even passed pain initiatives, mandating treatment for pain. Lawsuits were brought against doctors who didn’t adequately treat pain. The Joint Commission on the Accreditation of Healthcare Organizations (JACHO), the organization that inspects hospitals to assess their quality of care, made the patient’s level of pain the “fifth vital sign,” after body temperature, blood pressure, heart rate, and respiratory rate. Pain management specialists encouraged more liberal prescribing of pain medication. These experts told their primary care colleagues that the chance of developing addiction from opioids prescribed for pain was about one percent.

With these limited facts, the pain management movement was off and running. Many pain management specialists, some of whom were paid speakers for the drug companies that manufactured powerful opioid pain medications, spoke at seminars about the relative safety of opioids, used long term for chronic pain. Pain management specialists taught these views to small town family practice and general medicine doctors, who were relatively inexperienced in the treatment of either pain or addiction.

The problem was…the specialists were wrong.

These specialists, in their well-intentioned enthusiasm to relieve suffering, used flawed data when reciting the risk for addiction. The one percent figure came from a study looking at patients treated in the hospital for acute pain, which is quite different from treating outpatients with chronic non cancer pain. (1) In other words, they compared apples to oranges.

To many addiction specialists, an addiction risk of only one percent seemed improbable, since the general population has an addiction risk estimated from six to twelve percent. Surely, being prescribed pain pills would not lessen the risk for addiction. Yet the one percent figure was often cited by many pain management professionals, as well as by the representatives of the drug companies selling strong opioids. 

Some pain management specialists even took a scolding tone when they spoke of some primary care physicians’ reluctance to prescribe strong opioids. They often muddied the waters, and grouped patients with cancer pain, acute pain, and chronic non-cancer pain together, and spoke of them as one group. This can feel insulting to doctors who, though reluctant to prescribe opioids endlessly for a patient with chronic non cancer pain, are adamant about treating end-of-life cancer pain aggressively with opioids. No compassionate physician limits opioids for patients with cancer pain or with acute, short term pain. However, chronic non-cancer pain is different, with different outcomes than acute pain or cancer pain.

 We didn’t learn from history, or we would have learned that when many people have access to opioids, many will develop addiction.  We are scientifically more advanced than one hundred years ago, but we still have the same reward pathway in the brain. The human organism hasn’t changed physiologically. The present epidemic of opioid addiction is reminiscent of the early part of the twentieth century, just after the Bayer drug company released heroin, which for a short period of time was sold without a prescription, before physicians recognized that over prescription of opioids caused iatrogenic addiction.

 Few pain patients intended to become addicted. Some addicted people blame their doctors for causing their opioid addiction, but most doctors were conscientiously trying to treat the pain reported by their patient, and the pain management experts had told these doctors the risk of addiction was so low they didn’t have to worry about it.

Certainly many patients made bad choices to misuse their medications, either from curiosity or peer influence, pushing them farther over the line into addiction. Patients need to recognize their own contribution to their addiction. But with opioid addiction, as the disease progresses, the addict loses the power of choice that he once had. If the addict is fortunate enough to have a moment of clarity, before the disease progresses too far, he may be able to stop on his own, without treatment.

 By their very nature, opioids produce pleasure. Any time doctors prescribe something that causes pleasure, we should expect addiction to occur. Some people, for whatever reason, feel more pleasure than others when they take opioids, and seem to be at higher risk for addiction. As discussed in previous chapters, genetics, environment, and individual factors all influence this risk.

Opioids treat pain – both physical and emotional. Many of the neuronal pathways in the brain for sensing and experiencing pain are the same for both physical and psychological pain. For example, the brain pathways activated when you drop a hammer on your toe are much the same as when you have to tell your spouse you spent the rent money while gambling. Opioids make both types of pain better. Chronic pain patients with psychological illnesses are at increased risk for inappropriate use of their pain medications.

 In a recent study, the rate of developing true opioid addiction in patients taking opioids for chronic pain was found to be increased fourfold over the risk of non-medicated people. (2) Instead of a one percent incidence, as estimated by pain medicine specialists in the past, it now appears eighteen to forty-five percent of patients maintained long-term on opioids develop true addiction, not mere physical dependency. (3) If this information had been available in the late 1990’s, doctors may have taken more precautions when they prescribed strong opioids for chronic pain.

 Researchers have identified the risk factors for addiction among patients who take opioids long-term (more than three months) for chronic pain. Studies now show that a personal past history of addiction is the strongest predictor of future problems with addiction, as would be expected.  A patient with a family history of addiction is also at increased risk for addiction, as are patients with psychiatric illness of any kind, and younger patients. (4)

However, at the height of the pain control movement, there were no good studies of the addiction risk when opioids were used for more than three months. The little information that did exist was misused, resulting in an incredible underestimation of the risk of addiction in patients with chronic pain, who were treated with opioid medications for more than three months.

 With the momentum of the movement for better control of pain, both acute and chronic, the number of prescriptions for opioid pain pills increased dramatically. In the years from 1997 through 2006, prescription sales of hydrocodone increased 244%, while oxycodone increased 732% during that same time period. Prescription sales for methadone increased a staggering 1177%. (5)

It’s not just patients who are at risk for abuse and addiction. The increased amount of opioids being prescribed meant there was more opioid available to be diverted to the black market. When an addicting drug is made more available, it will be misused more often.

  1. Porter and Jick, New England Journal of Medicine, 302 (2) (Jan. 10, 1980) p. 123.
  2. Michael F. Fleming, Stacey L. Balousek, Cynthia L. Klessig, et al. “Substance Use Disorders in a Primary Care Sample Receiving Daily Opioid Therapy,” Journal of Pain, 207; Vol. 8, issue 7: 573-582.
  3. 7. Steven Passik M.D., Journal of Pain and Symptom Management, Vol. 21 No. 5, (May 2001), pp.359 – 360.
  4. Chou, R, Fanciullo, G, Fine, P, et. al., “Opioid Treatment Guidelines: Clinical guidelines for the use of Chronic Opioid Therapy in chronic, non-cancer pain.” The Journal of Pain, 2009, Vol. 10, No. 2. pp. 113-130

5. Andrea Trescott, MD, Stanford Helm, MD, el. al., “Opioids in the Management of Chronic Non-cancer Pain: An Update of American Society of the Interventional Pain Physicians’ Guidelines,” Pain Physician 2008: Opioids Special Issue: 11:S5 – S 62.

Tennessee, the State of Malignant Denial

 

For the last ten years, local officials in the small towns of Eastern Tennessee have been denying the presence of opioid addiction in their midst. Ironically, as the map shows, Eastern Tennessee has one of the very highest rates of opioid addiction in all of the U.S.

National Survey of Drug Use and Health

   

Over the last ten years, various treatment centers, wanting to treat these addicts with methadone and/or buprenorphine programs, have tried to open in this area. In a show of NIMBY (Not in My Back Yard), town officials vote for zoning changes meant to make it essentially impossible to get approval to open such clinics. Tennessee officials say it will bring drug addicts to the area.

From the Kingsport, Tennessee Times-News, 3/18/09,

“The Church Hill Board of Mayor and Aldermen unanimously approved the first reading Tuesday of an ordinance which, in essence, makes it almost impossible for a methadone clinic to locate within the city limits.

Earlier this month, the Planning Commission recommended the ordinance, which restricts methadone clinics and drug treatment facilities to areas of the city that are zoned M-1 (manufacturing). Without the ordinance, methadone clinics and drug treatment facilities would be permitted in any area of the city zoned to allow medical uses.”

“I think we’re all in the consensus that we don’t want it anywhere,” the alderman said (name deleted).

Similar laws have been passed in Johnson City, Tennessee.

So what happens to untreated pain pill addicts?

There aren’t any studies following pain pill addicts long-term, but we do have studies of heroin addicts.

They die.

Methadone maintenance has been shown to reduce death rates by factors ranging from three fold to sixty-three fold. (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6)

In one study, heroin addicts enrolled in methadone treatment were one-quarter as likely to die by heroin overdose or suicide as were heroin addicts not in methadone treatment. This study followed 296 heroin addicts for more than 15 years. In another study, a group of heroin addicts were followed over twenty years. One-third died within that time. Of the survivors, 48% were enrolled in a methadone program for treatment. The authors of the study concluded that heroin addiction is a chronic disease with a high fatality rate, and that methadone maintenance offered a significant benefit.

We suspect, but don’t know for sure, that pain pill addicts will have similar rates of death, since both groups are addicted to opioids. Studies are being done now, following pain pill addicts to see if their outcome will be similar to heroin addicts.

The young addicts of Eastern Tennessee are paying a heavy price for the denial of local officials.

  1. Caplehorn JR, Dalton MS, et. al., Methadone maintenance and addicts’ risk of fatal heroin overdose. Substance Use and Misuse, 1996 Jan, 31(2):177-196. In this study of heroin addicts, the addicts in methadone treatment were one-quarter as likely to die by heroin overdose or suicide. This study followed two hundred and ninety-six methadone heroin addicts for more than fifteen years.
  2. Clausen T, Waal H, Thoresen M, Gossop M; Mortality among opiate users: opioid maintenance therapy, age and causes of death. Addiction 2009; 104(8) 1356-62. This study looked at the causes of death for opioid addicts admitted to opioid maintenance therapy in Norway from 1997-2003. The authors found high rates of overdose deaths both prior to admission and after leaving treatment. Older patients retained in treatment died from medical reasons, other than overdose.
  3.  Goldstein A, Herrera J, Heroin addicts and methadone treatment in Albuquerque: a year follow-up. Drug and Alcohol Dependence 1995 Dec; 40 (2): p. 139-150. A group of heroin addicts were followed over twenty years. One-third died within that time, and of the survivors, 48% were on a methadone maintenance program. The author concluded that heroin addiction is a chronic disease with a high fatality rate, and methadone maintenance offered a significant benefit.
  4. Gronbladh L, Ohlund LS, Gunne LM, Mortality in heroin addiction: Impact of methadone treatment, Acta Psychiatrica Scandinavica Volume 82 (3) p. 223-227. Treatment of heroin addicts with methadone maintenance resulted in a significant drop in mortality, compared to untreated heroin addicts. Untreated addicts had a death rate 63 times expected for their age and gender; heroin addicts maintained on methadone had a death rate of 8 times expected, and most of that mortality was from diseases acquired prior to treatment with methadone.
  5. Scherbaum N, Specka M, et.al., Does maintenance treatment reduce the mortality rate of opioid addicts? Fortschr Neurol Psychiatr, 2002, 70(9):455-461. Opioid addicts in continuous treatment with methadone had a much lower mortality rate (1.6% per year) than opioid addicts who left treatment (8.1% per year).
  6. Zanis D, Woody G; One-year mortality rates following methadone treatment discharge. Drug and Alcohol Dependence, 1998: vol.52 (3) 257-260. Five hundred and seven patients in a methadone maintenance program were followed for one year. In that time, 110 patients were discharged and were not in treatment anywhere. Of these patients, 8.2% were dead, mostly from heroin overdose. Of the patients retained in treatment, only 1% died. The authors conclude that even if patients enrolled in methadone maintenance treatment have a less-than-desired response to treatment, given the high death rate for heroin addicts not in treatment, these addicts should not be kicked out of the methadone clinic.

The New OxyContin Formulation

Over the last three weeks, at least five of the opioid addicts I’ve admitted to treatment said they wanted help because they couldn’t abuse the new form of OxyContin.

 And I say: Hallelujah! It’s about time!!

 This new tablet, approved by the FDA in April of this year, appeared recently on the black markets of this area, replacing the older, more easily abused OxyContin. The new tablet is bioequivalent to the older tablet, meaning the same amount of oxycodone, the active ingredient, is available to the body when swallowed whole, as it’s meant to be. In other words, the same amount of pain reliever is given to the body. However, it’s more difficult to crush for the purpose of snorting or injecting, because it turns into a gummy ball.

Purdue Pharma, the drug company that makes OxyContin, admits this new formulation isn’t abuse-proof, but hopes it will be more resistant to abuse.

The patients I’ve talked to say the new tablet is a big disappointment. One patient, who usually chews her pill to get a faster high, said it was like trying to chew a jelly bean. Other patients said they could crush the tablet, but got a kind of gelatinous mess that was impossible to snort or inject.

 For pain relief, the opioid in OxyContin lasts much longer when it’s taken as directed and swallowed whole. Addicts prefer to crush and snort or inject because of the quick high they feel with this route of administration. But when used in this way, it leaves the body faster, and the addict usually needs to find more opioid within six to eight hours to avoid withdrawal.

Before I applaud Purdue Pharma for this change, my cynical mind asks a few questions: Why didn’t the company make this change earlier?

In 2002, a Purdue Pharma representative testified before congress, saying that the company was working on a re-formulation of OxyContin, to make it harder to use intravenously. This representative said they expected to have the re-formulated pill on the market within a few years. (1)  But it took eight more years.

Sterling, the drug company that makes Talwin, another opioid pain medication, was able to re-formulate their drug within a few years when they discovered it was being abused frequently. This was in the 1980s, when, presumably, medication technology wasn’t as advanced as today. Sterling added naloxone, an opioid blocker that’s inactive when taken by mouth, but puts an addict into withdrawal when it’s crushed and injected. It worked great. Talwin isn’t a commonly abused drug.

 I’m assuming that Purdue Pharma holds the patent for this new formulation that makes their tablet gummy when crushed. Purdue probably teaches its sales staff to market the new OxyContin as a safer option than older versions, perhaps available in cheaper generics. So did they wait to re-formulate until their patent was ready to expire? I don’t know, but time will tell.

At any rate, this drug is now just a little bit safer, for now. People with addictions are often clever and creative. I won’t be surprised if soon there’s a way to defeat this new technology.

Just think what addicted people could do, if they directed their talent and intelligence in ways that would help and not hurt them. There would be no stopping them.

1. United States Senate. Congressional hearing of the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions, on Examining the Effects of the Painkiller OxyContin, 107th Congress, Second Session, February, 2002.

The Narcotic Farm: A Bit of History

We don’t have to keep re-inventing the wheel.

We can investigate the success rates of addiction treatment methods used over the past century, see what worked, and what didn’t work. We can use programs of proven benefit or we can continue to spend money on programs repeatedly shown to have little benefit.

From 1935 until 1962, drug addicts were treated at a unique facility, part jail and part treatment hospital. Initially named the United States Narcotic Farm, it was later changed to the U.S. Public Health Service Narcotics Hospital. Even after this name change, most people still called it the Narcotic Farm.

This facility was located on twelve acres of Kentucky farmland. The facility was created by the Public Health Service and the Bureau of Prisons, meant to serve a dual purpose. It was a treatment hospital, where drug addicts could voluntarily be admitted for treatment of their addiction, and it was also a federal prison, where drug offenders were sent to serve their sentences. About two thirds of the inpatients were prisoners and the other third were addicts, voluntarily seeking help for opioid addiction. Both types of patients were treated side by side. For over forty years, it was the main drug addiction treatment center in the United States, along with a similar facility in Ft. Worth, Texas, which opened in 1937.

            The Narcotic Farm was a massive institution for its time. It had fifteen-hundred beds, and housed tens of thousands of patients over its forty years of operation. It was located in a rural area of Kentucky, which gave it space for numerous operations to engage the prisoners – now called patients – in all types of job training. (1)

             The Narcotic Farm really was a farm. Besides growing many types of vegetables, there was a working dairy, and livestock including pigs and chickens. These operations provided food for the patients and staff of the facility and provided work for the patients. The patients provided the labor to keep the farm going and it was hoped they would simultaneously learn useful trades. In addition to farming, they learned skills in sewing, auto repair, carpentry, and other trades. Besides teaching new job skills, it was hoped that fresh air, sunshine, and wholesome work would be beneficial to the addicts. (1)

            For its time, the Narcotic Farm was surprisingly progressive in its willingness to try multiple new treatments. For the forty years it operated, many different treatments were tried for opioid addicts. It offered individual and group talk therapies, job training, psychiatric analysis, treatment for physical medical issues, Alcoholics Anonymous meetings, art therapy, shock therapy, music therapy, and even hydrotherapy, with flow baths to soothe the nerves. Despite these options, the Farm apparently retained many of the characteristics of a prison, with barred windows and strict security procedures. (1)

             The Narcotic Farm had its own research division, the Addiction Research Center (ARC), which became the forerunner of today’s National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA). The Narcotic Farm did pioneering work, using methadone to assist patients through withdrawal, and helped establish the doses used to treat opioid addiction. Methadone was used only short term, for the management of withdrawal symptoms, and not for maintenance dosing at the Narcotic Farm. The Farm also trained a dedicated group of doctors and nurses, who were pioneers in the field of addiction treatment. It provided new information on the nature of addiction.

             Admission to the Narcotic Farm allowed an opioid addict some time to go through opioid withdrawal, eat regular meals, work in one of the farm’s many industries, and have some form of counseling. However, after leaving the hospital, the addicts were entirely released from care and supervision, with no assistance to help re-enter their communities. Most times, they returned to their same living situation and old circumstances encouraged relapse back to drug use and addiction. As a result, two follow up studies of the addicts treated at the Narcotic Farm showed a ninety-three percent and ninety-seven percent relapse rate within six months, with most of the relapses occurring almost immediately upon returning home. Many addicts cycled through the Public Health Hospital multiple times. (1)       

            The Narcotic Farm was eventually turned over to the Bureau of Prisons in 1974, as the treatment for addiction was de-centralized. Since the studies found high relapse rates for addicts returning to their previous communities, it was hoped by moving treatment centers into communities, these addicts could have ongoing support after they left inpatient treatment.

  1. Nancy P. Campbell, The Narcotic Farm: The rise and fall of America’s first prison for drug addicts, (New York, Abrams, 2008)

 

This is an excerpt from my new book, “Pain Pill Addiction: Prescription for Hope.” 

Available at http://prescriptionforhope.com

 and on Amazon and Ebay

and many bookstores

A little bit of history

Until the early twentieth century, physicians had few effective medications to treat diseases, so they tended to overuse opioids. Even if no cures were produced, the patient felt better. Those physicians who freely prescribed opioids were more popular than their more cautious colleagues with parsimonious prescribing habits. However, opium products, as well as marijuana and cocaine, could be obtained without a prescription at the local druggist’s.
In addition to their legitimate use, for the treatment of pain, cough, and diarrhea, opioids were also used to treat nervous conditions of all sorts, asthma, gynecological disorders, skin rashes, hiccups, and masturbation. The drugs were of questionable or of no value for such disorders, and exposed those patients to the risk of addiction.

Morphine, named for Morpheus, the Greek god of dreams, was first produced commercially in 1827, and soon was used for many painful conditions. Like the original opioids, morphine products could be purchased without a prescription, in the patent medicines of that era. Commercial morphine was a breakthrough because it had a higher potency than previously available opioids, and came in pill form, in predictable doses. When the hypodermic was invented, around the time of the Civil War, it was an ideal drug, as injections of morphine provided quick pain relief for injured soldiers. Civil War veterans were given morphine for relatively long periods of time. The public thought so many Civil War veterans were addicted to opioids that it was called, “the soldiers’ disease.”
In reality, the middle and upper classes, especially women, had the highest addiction rate of any demographic group in the late 1800’s and early 1900’s. Women went to doctors more frequently than men, especially if they could afford to do so. Many of these women were diagnosed with “nervous ailments,” requiring opioids. Opioids did relieve anxiety, temporarily, but carried the risk of opioid addiction. Here we see the beginnings of iatrogenic (caused by a doctor or medical treatment prescribed by a doctor) addiction.
By the turn of the century, the average addict was a middle aged, middle class white female, found in greatest relative numbers in the South. This group of addicts was nearly inconspicuous, as they quietly continued their opioid addictions in the home, with over the counter, prescription, or patent medications containing opioids.
Chinese immigrants brought the habit of smoking opium with them, as they emigrated to the United States. Since these young immigrant males were of the lower social status, their addiction was viewed with alarm and disgust, while the war veterans and middle class female addicts were viewed with more compassion for their plight. The latter groups were perceived as more sympathetic, because they developed the disease of opioid addiction from medication prescribed by a doctor, and not through their own fault.

In the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, patent medicines affected opioid addiction rates. Prior to the passage of the Pure Food and Drug Act, in 1906, manufacturers of non-prescription tonics or elixirs could legally include addictive substances into their potions, without disclosing the contents. Many Americans unknowingly took patent medications containing opioids, usually either morphine or opium. Some patent medications also contained alcohol and cocaine, which made them understandably popular. As a result, people using patent medicines developed addictions. The poor, less able to afford a visit to the doctor, were more likely to use, and become addicted to, these patent medicines.

…to be continued…

Naltrexone to Treat Opioid Addiction

Opioid antagonists (blockers)

Opioid antagonists are drugs that firmly attach to the opioid receptors, but don’t activate these receptors. Antagonists prevent other opioids from reaching and activating the receptors. They also remove opioids from the receptors, so if antagonists are given to an actively using opioid addict, the addict will become sick with immediate withdrawal. This is called “precipitated withdrawal” because it was caused, or precipitated, by a medication.

Naltrexone is the most common oral opioid blocker that is used. It’s taken orally, in pill form. It’s started after an opioid addict has completed opioid withdrawal. It can be a difficult medication to start. Because it is a blocker, it may also block endorphins, our own naturally made opioids. Some patients complain of headache, muscle aches, and fatigue while taking naltrexone. Many times these unpleasant symptoms will subside with more time on the medication. The medication can be started at a half dose for the first week or so, then increased to the full dose, for better tolerability.

Naltrexone has been used in this country mainly for relapse prevention, particularly for addicted professionals. Many professionals such as doctors and pharmacists, who have been treated for opioid addiction, are started on naltrexone when they return to work. These professionals may need to work around opioids, and if they relapse while taking naltrexone, the illicit opioids will have no effect. The antagonist thus serves as extra insurance against a relapse. Many licensing boards for impaired professionals insist they take naltrexone as a condition of being allowed to return to work in their career fields.

Naltrexone works well – but only if the patient takes it every day. If the addict “forgets” to take her dose for one or two days, it is then possible for her to get high from ingested opioids. Because of this, the medication is also available in an implantable form. Pellets containing naltrexone are placed just under the skin and the medication is released into the body over three months. With this method, compliance is ensured, unless the addict wants to dig the pellets out to be rid of the blocking drug.

Naloxone is the intravenous form of an opioid antagonist, better known by its brand name Narcan. It’s injected to rapidly reverse the effects of opioids. Emergency workers often carry Narcan with them to use if they encounter a person who has overdosed with opioids. This medication can be life-saving, but it also puts the opioid addict into immediate withdrawal.

Sometimes people get confused, and think that this drug will alleviate opioid cravings. It doesn’t. Sadly, those cravings are still present, but opioid blockers can be an added bit of insurance against an opioid relapse.