Archive for the ‘Prevention of Drug Addiction’ Category

Check Out CASA’s New Free Publication

If you’ve never browsed CASA’s website, you need to do so. CASA, which stands for Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse, at Columbia University, has helpful information about addiction and its treatment that you can download for free. They have information about how to reduce the risk of addiction in teens (“The Importance of Family Dinners” series), information about the cost and impact of untreated addiction on society ( “Shoveling Up”), in formation about substance abuse and the U.S. prison population (“Behind Bars” series), and the availability of drugs on the internet (the “You’ve got Drugs” series). All of these contain useful and thought-provoking data.

This summer, they published a masterpiece: “Addiction Medicine: Closing the Gap between Science and Practice.” I’ve read most of this book, and admire the clarity and call to action it presents. This publication outlines all aspects of what is wrong with addiction treatment in the U.S., and how to fix it.

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 clearly describes these factors, saying they all contributed to our present situation. We have declared a war on people who use drugs, not on drugs.

The CASA report describes how public opinion about addiction isn’t based on science. We now have science that proves addiction is a brain disease. 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 at least half of the risk for developing addiction is determined by one’s 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 illuminates what addiction medicine physicians have been saying for years: addiction treatment and prevention isn’t treated 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. Often, primary care providers aren’t paid to do brief interventions, and an opportunity for prevention is lost. Yet that same patient may consume hundreds of thousands of healthcare dollars during only one hospital admission for the consequences of with alcohol addiction.

When I practiced in primary care, I often thought about how I never got to the root of the problem. I felt like I was slapping Band-Aids on gaping wounds. I would – literally – give patients with 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 thought if there was a better way to treat patients, I’d have learned about it in my training.

Wrong. Instead, I learned about this vast body of scientific literature about addiction treatment by accident, when I worked at an addiction treatment center for a few days, covering for a doctor friend of mine.

In coming blogs, I’ll outline more of the points made by this timely publication. In the meantime, read it for yourself at  http://www.casacolumbia.org

Information from the ASAM Conference: the CDC

At the recent ASAM conference, Dr. Ileana Arias, Deputy Director for the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, spoke at a plenary session, explaining the public health impact of our epidemic of prescription drug abuse and addiction. She did a great job explaining how bad the problem of opioid addiction has become in the U.S. She also had some great slides. The above slide shows how by 2008, poisonings overtook motor vehicle accidents as the number one cause of death in the U.S. Overwhelmingly, the poisonings were drugs, and the vast majority of these drug overdose deaths involved opioids. Dr. Arias explained the ice berg phenomenon, where for each person who dies from opioid overdose death, an estimated 118 are estimated to meet the diagnosis for opioid abuse and dependency. She presented information showing that the amount of prescription opioids sold quadrupled between 1999 and 2010.

Dr. Arias spoke at our conference to encourage us and to let us know the CDC was committed to help solve our nation’s prescription opioid addiction problem.

She outlined some of the measures the CDC is taking to help prevent opioid addiction and overdose deaths.  She explained the new lock-in programs now being used by some insurance companies, where the patient can have only one doctor and one pharmacy to prescribe and fill medications. The CDC is advocating for all states to have prescription monitoring programs, and for those state programs to be linked, so that a doctor can access medications filled in other states.

Dr. Arias mentioned the progress being made in Florida, where pill mills are being shut down. Unfortunately, some pill mills have moved to other states like Georgia, Texas, Louisiana, Ohio, and – my favorote state to criticize – Tennessee.

She also spoke of the success of medication take-back days, where people drop off old medication for appropriate disposal so that it doesn’t fall into the wrong hands, and she described many other actions the CDC has started.

This was all great information, familiar to those of us treating opioid addiction over the past five to ten years. I’m grateful the CDC has joined the effort to quelch this problem. Their resources and experience can help a great deal. I just wish all doctors in the country could hear her message.

The addiction medicine doctors had a chance to make comments and further suggestions to the CDC through Dr. Arias, and I was pleased to see how carefully she listened.

One of the suggestions I liked the best addressed the expense of maintaining state prescriptoin monitoring programs. Apparently these can cost around a million dollars a year to administer. One doctor said why not have the pharmaceutical companies that make and sell controlled substances pay or help pay for the monitoring programs? These companies are the main entities that have benefitted from the sales and diversion of their products; why not ask them to bear at least some of the cost for detecting the problems they cause? Genius, though it would be hard to mandate the pharmaceutical companies to do this.

One doctor suggested that law enforcement personnel be educated about the types of treatment available to opioid addicts, so they can stop being barriers toward effective treatments, namely medication-assisted treatments using buprenorphine and methadone.

Another doctor suggested the CDC promote the naloxone programs that provide kits to reverse fatal opioid overdoses. Why not help fund these projects and/or help create more? The Harm Reduction Coalition estimates there are around 155 naloxone programs in the U.S. Some are government-funded and some are privately funded, but around 10,000 fatal opioid overdoses have been reversed. Like Project Lazarus in North Carolina, many of these programs started at a grass roots level because citizens got involved.

Another doctor made the extremely common sense suggestion that the best way to allow more patients into suboxone treatment would be to allow doctors to treat more than one hundred patients at a time. At present, suboxone doctors are allowed to have no more than thirty patients on buprenorphine in their first year prescribing, and no more than one hundred after the first year. This would cost next to nothing for the government to implement, and expand treament dramatically.

One of our past ASAM presidents endorsed mandatory physician education as a requirement for maintaining medical license.

One person compared the prescription opioid addiction to HIV infection in past years, and commended the CDC on its past efforts to reduce the stigma associated with having HIV. This person asked the CDC to make public service announcements to help reduce the stigma of addiction, and encourge people to get treatment.

Another doctor asked the CDC to produce public service announcements telling people to lock up their medications, to prevent medication diversion to a teen or other person for whom it was not prescribed. This doctor also said that patients need to know that not all pain conditions require prescription opioids. He recommended telling the general public the true risks of opioid addiction, which have been downplayed. In the past, pain medicine experts underestimated the incidence of addiction in patients prescribe opioids for chronic pain for more than three months.

The CDC representative, Dr. Arias, confirmed that the CDC already has plans to make PSAs about pain pills and pain pill addiction, much like their present (and very successful) anti-smoking television PSAs.

All great information, and now let’s get the word out to all physicians, and the public too.

New Opioids

I’ve blogged about states that have passed new laws addressing the prescribing of opioids, but the manufacturers of prescription opioids medications also have made changes to help reduce the potential for medication misuse. Of course, opioids will never be misuse-proof, but at least it’s a little harder to misuse some of the newer ones.

Oxecta is a new immediate-release brand of the drug oxycodone. It’s formulated so that it breaks into chunks when crushed, instead of a powder. When it’s mixed with water, it forms a gel so that it can’t be injected. This pill contains sodium laurel sulfate, a substance that irritates the nose if snorted.

Lazanda is a new delivery form of a very potent opioid, fentanyl. This brand is designed to be used as a nasal spray, which I would expect to be very addictive. The preparation itself has no anti-abuse features, but in order to distribute, dispense, prescribe, or be prescribed this medication, parties have to sign an agreement and be enrolled with the drug company. This extra scrutiny is hoped to deter diversion by distributor, pharmacy, doctor, or patient. Physicians must take a training program specific for this brand, and be enrolled with the drug company as a prescriber, or pharmacies can’t dispense to the patient.

Patients also need to complete a patient-prescriber agreement. Many people (like me) think doctors aren’t likely to jump through these extra hoops to prescribe this particular brand, when other brands of the same medication are already on the market, though not in the form of nasal spray.

Remoxy, another brand of oxycodone, hasn’t yet been FDA approved. Supposedly, it’s resistant to injection or snorting, and also has been formulated to be resistant to alcohol extraction.

Drug companies are now required by the FDA to have plans to evaluate and mitigate the risks associated with the opioid drugs they manufacture, particularly if they make sustained release or long-acting opioid preparations. This cooperation by drug manufacturers is a necessary part of turning the tide of opioid addiction in this country.

Last year, Purdue Pharma re-formulated OxyContin, making it more difficult to crush to snort or inject.  I noticed a sudden drop-off in patients entering treatment for pain pill addiction who said OxyContin was their drug of choice. During the years 2002 through 2007, nearly all of the opioid addicts I admitted to treatment said OxyContin was their preferred drug. It became obvious that the re-formulation made a big difference.

Addicts can and will still abuse these medications orally to get high, but the new formulations really do reduce abuse by making pills less likely to be snorted or injected.

Reducing the risk of drug addiction

We can influence some of the risk factors for addiction, but not all of them.  With alcohol addiction (alcoholism), about half of the risk is due to genetic makeup. This leaves the other half to be determined by environmental factors.

Parent who give strong and consistent anti-drug messages to their children help reduce their risk for addiction, while overly permissive or overly authoritarian parenting styles increase their risk. Involving children in drug use rituals, like fetching beers or mixing drinks, increases the risk of earlier experimentation and thus the risk of addiction.  The younger a child is when he or she begins drug experimentation, the more likely it is that addiction will develop.

Children of parents who divorce have higher risks of alcohol and drug use, and high levels of conflict in the family home increases risk for drug experimentation and addiction. Older siblings can have a strong influence on their younger brothers and sisters, both in positive and negative ways. Older siblings can reduce their younger sibling’s risk by endorsing and enacting anti-drug attitudes, or can increase their younger siblings’ risk by using drugs and being permissive toward drug use by their younger siblings. In some cases, sibling influence may be stronger than parental influence.

Outside of the home, peer group use of drugs and alcohol is one of the strongest predictors of drug use by an adolescent. With younger children, parents have more influence over drug experimentation and addiction, but in older adolescents, peers are usually the stronger influence.

School experiences can either increase or decrease risk: academic failure increases risk of drug use, as can an attitude that school is unimportant. Conversely, performing well in school decreases the risk of developing addiction, and having friends who support anti-drug attitudes can be a protective factor.

Children with high levels of participation in religious activities have lower rates of drug addiction.

Young adults with after school jobs have higher rates of addiction, likely because they have more disposable income, and come into contact with older people who already use drugs.

When we know facts such as these, we can make better choices about regulations affecting access to drugs and alcohol in our communities.

Sources:

  • Jean Kinney, Loosening the Grip: A Handbook of Alcohol Information, (Boston, McGraw-Hill, 2009) p 478
  • Richard K. Ries, David A. Fiellin, Shannon C. Miller, and Richard Saitz, Principles of Addiction Medicine, 4th ed. (Philadelphia, Lippincott, Williams, and Wilkins, 2009) ch.99, pp1383-1389.