The Myth of "Cross-Addiction" Debunked

For decades, the conventional wisdom and clinical lore in rehab facilities and recovery communities has warned against the risks of so-called "cross-addiction". "Be careful," they say, "you're at-risk of picking up a new addiction now that you've kicked one habit." Heroin addicts are warned against developing an addiction to alcohol, and cocaine addicts are warned against developing an addiction to opiates, Cross-addiction can even occur to things like exercise or sugar, according to pamphlets and even therapists who have worked in the field for years and years.

But is it even true? Is the notion of cross-addiction supported by empirical evidence - or does it fall on its face under scientific scrutiny?

According to a new report, published September 10 in JAMA Psychiatry, the answer is a resounding, "No."

The study, "Testing the Drug Substitution Switching-Addictions Hypothesis," analyzed data from the National Epidemiological Study on Alcohol and Related Conditions (NESARC) to investigate whether participants developed new-onset substance use disorders (SUD) after remission from a previous SUD. These data were then compared against people with a SUD who did not achieve remission but also developed a new-onset SUD.

The authors discovered that, "As compared with those who do not remit from an SUD, remitters have less than half the risk of developing a new SUD. Contrary to clinical lore, achieving remission does not typically lead to drug substitution but rather is associated with a lower risk of new SUD onsets."

This is probably the best evidence to-date that addresses the concept of cross-addiction. Will counselors and agencies begin to pull back from this concept - or will clients still be subjected to homework assignments and lectures warning against it?

Here's the abstract from JAMA Psychiatry (found here: http://archpsyc.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=1901525):

Importance  Adults who remit from a substance use disorder (SUD) are often thought to be at increased risk for developing another SUD. A greater understanding of the prevalence and risk factors for drug substitution would inform clinical monitoring and management.

Objective  To determine whether remission from an SUD increases the risk of onset of a new SUD after a 3-year follow-up compared with lack of remission from an SUD and whether sociodemographic characteristics and psychiatric disorders, including personality disorders, independently predict a new-onset SUD.

Design, Setting, and Participants  A prospective cohort study where data were drawn from a nationally representative sample of 34 653 adults from the National Epidemiologic Survey on Alcohol and Related Conditions. Participants were interviewed twice, 3 years apart (wave 1, 2001–2002; wave 2, 2004–2005).

Main Outcomes and Measures  We compared new-onset SUDs among individuals with at least 1 current SUD at wave 1 who did not remit from any SUDs at wave 2 (n = 3275) and among individuals with at least 1 current SUD at wave 1 who remitted at wave 2 (n = 2741).

Results  Approximately one-fifth (n = 2741) of the total sample had developed a new-onset SUD at the wave 2 assessment. Individuals who remitted from 1 SUD during this period were significantly less likely than those who did not remit to develop a new SUD (13.1% vs 27.2%, P < .001). Results were robust to sample specification. An exception was that remission from a drug use disorder increased the odds of a new SUD (odds ratio [OR] = 1.46; 95% CI, 1.11-1.92). However, after adjusting for the number of SUDs at baseline, remission from drug use disorders decreased the odds of a new-onset SUD (OR = 0.66; 95% CI, 0.46-0.95) whereas the number of baseline SUDs increased those odds (OR=1.68; 95% CI, 1.43-1.98). Being male, younger in age, never married, having an earlier age at substance use onset, and psychiatric comorbidity significantly increased the odds of a new-onset SUD during the follow-up period.

Conclusions and Relevance  As compared with those who do not remit from an SUD, remitters have less than half the risk of developing a new SUD. Contrary to clinical lore, achieving remission does not typically lead to drug substitution but rather is associated with a lower risk of new SUD onsets.

What Aren't More Docs Prescribing Buprenorphine?

On the heels of recent coverage over the "dangers" of the medication buprenorphine, researchers are seeking to better understand what keeps doctors from using one of the two the most effective tools for opioid use disorders at their disposal. The most recent study, "Barriers to Primary Care Physicians Prescribing Buprenorphine", was published in the Annals of Family Medicine and is available in-full online - for free. The study came out of the Rural Opioid Addiction Management in Washington state, during which 120 physicians were trained in opioid addiction and buprenorphine prescribing. Disappointingly, of the 78 respondents who were analyzed for the study, 50 went on to obtain a DATA waiver, yet a mere 22 doctors ever went on to prescribe the medication to anyone. It begs the question: why aren't more docs prescribing buprenorphine?

Here's the breakdown from the piece of perceived barriers to prescribing:

Among the barriers cited by the doctors in the study, "Lack of psychosocial support" was cited as the number one barrier by both prescribers and non-prescribers, despite the lack of evidence that behavioral adjuncts or additional counseling improve outcomes. (Granted, the authors point out that in order to get reimbursed by a number of payers, additional counseling must be offered to patients.)

A quick scan across the literature leads us to another important and common driver of physician attitudes toward this medication: institutional support. It appears that study after study cite the impact of the hospital/clinic/practice culture on the subsequent interest. training and prescription of buprenorphine by its docs. In the present study, "resistance from practice partners" and "lack of institutional support" were commonly cited as barriers. A recent article from the March issue of the Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment described how important "A strong leader championing the new treatment" was to the implementation of buprenorphine prescribing across a large system. 

What do you think? How can we be more effective at impacting change at the prescriber level? If culture plays an important role, how do we improve the culture around this proven tool?

Maintenance, not abstinence, will save addicts' lives

Read Dr W's Op-Ed in this week's Star Tribune:

http://www.startribune.com/opinion/commentaries/246619891.html

Researchers Take a Novel Approach to Vivitrol Induction

Researchers and clinicians at Duke University performed a small, open label study to test a new induction protocol for opioid detoxification in an outpatient setting. Much has been written about the pros and cons of antagonist medication for opioid dependence, with most evidence supporting agonist medications like buprenorphine or methadone. One of the most difficult aspects of maintenance antagonist treatment is the detoxification and induction phases of treatment, considering the intolerability of the experience to most patients - especially those in outpatient settings. So, the authors of a new study, published recently in Drug and Alcohol Dependence, sought to make this experience a little more tolerable. The administered increasing doses of naltrexone and decreasing doses of buprenorphine to treatment-seeking opioid addicts until their first dose of extended-release injectable naltrexone (Vivitrol). The results were encouraging:

Abstract

BACKGROUND

The approval of extended release injectable naltrexone (XR-NTX; Vivitrol®) has introduced a new option for treating opioid addiction, but studies are needed to identify its place within the spectrum of available therapies. The absence of physiological opioid dependence is a necessary and challenging first step for starting XR-NTX. Outpatient detoxification gives poor results and inpatient detoxification is either unavailable or too brief for the physiological effects of opioids to resolve. Here we present findings from an open label study that tested whether the transition from opioid addiction to XR-NTX can be safely and effectively performed in an outpatient setting using very low dose naltrexone and buprenorphine.

METHODS

Twenty treatment seeking opioid addicted individuals were given increasing doses of naltrexone starting at 0.25 mg with decreasing doses of buprenorphine starting at 4 mg during a 7-day outpatient XR-NTX induction procedure. Withdrawal discomfort, craving, drug use, and adverse events were assessed daily until the XR-NTX injection, then weekly over the next month.

RESULTS

Fourteen of the 20 participants received XR-NTX and 13 completed weekly assessments. Withdrawal, craving, and opioid or other drug use were significantly lower during induction and after XR-NTX administration compared with baseline, and no serious adverse events were recorded.

CONCLUSIONS

Outpatient transition to XR-NTX combining upward titration of very low dose naltrexone with downward titration of low dose buprenorphine was safe, well tolerated, and completed by most participants. Further studies with larger numbers of subjects are needed to see if this approach is useful for naltrexone induction.

Mean opioid withdrawal and craving scores during induction and after naltrexone extended release administration (Days 1-9), using SOWS (Subjective Opioid Withdrawal Scale), COWS (Clinical Opioid Withdrawal Scale) and VAS (Visual Analog Scale) for craving. Time point scores are the results of the mean score of each day of treatment, error bars represent + -1 SEM. Number of participants is reported on the X-axis.

In-treatment proportion of opioid positive urine samples (Day1-9, N = 20).

Source:

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0376871614000568

Vermont Governor Devotes Entire State of the State Address to Drug Addiction

From yesterday's NY Times:

In Annual Speech, Vermont Governor Shifts Focus to Drug Abuse

In a sign of how drastic the epidemic of drug addiction here has become, Gov. Peter Shumlin on Wednesday devoted his entire State of the State Message to what he said was “a full-blown heroin crisis” gripping Vermont.

“In every corner of our state, heroin and opiate drug addiction threatens us,” he said. He said he wanted to reframe the public debate to encourage officials to respond to addiction as a chronic disease, with treatment and support, rather than with only punishment and incarceration.

“The time has come for us to stop quietly averting our eyes from the growing heroin addiction in our front yards,” Governor Shumlin said, “while we fear and fight treatment facilities in our backyards.”

...

Read the rest of the story here: 

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/09/us/in-annual-speech-vermont-governor-shifts-focus-to-drug-abuse.html

Study: Looking for the uninsured in Massachusetts? Check opioid dependent persons seeking detoxification

An interesting study from Drug and Alcohol Dependence cites the rate of uninsurance at a large Massachusetts detox program as 23% in the 2013 sample they observed (five years after the insurance mandate). That's nearly five times higher than the state average of 4.8%. The authors highlight correlates of being uninsured (table below), which include being young and being male (expected), but also having a higher level of education (unexpected). Finally, more than half of the uninsured participants in the study had been so for more than one year, highlighting the ongoing need for outreach and education about public programs.

Here is the abstract via ScienceDirect:

Abstract

Background

We examined the rate of uninsurance among persons seeking detoxification at a large drug treatment program in Massachusetts in 2013, five years after insurance mandates.

Methods

We interviewed three hundred and forty opioid dependent persons admitted for inpatient detoxification in Fall River, Massachusetts. Potential predictors of self-reported insurance status included age, gender, ethnicity, employment, homelessness, years of education, current legal status, and self-perceived health status.

Results

Participants mean age was 32 years, 71% were male, and 87% were non-Hispanic Caucasian. Twenty-three percent were uninsured. In the multivariate model, the odds of being uninsured was positively associated with years of education (OR = 1.22, 95%CI 1.03; 1.46, p < .05), higher among males than females (OR = 2.63, 95%CI 1.33; 5.20, p < .01), and inversely associated with age (OR = 0.94, 95%CI 0.90; 0.98, p < .01).

Conclusion

Opioid dependent persons recruited from a detoxification program in Massachusetts are uninsured at rates far above the state average. With the arrival of the Affordable Care Act, drug treatment programs in Massachusetts and nationally will be important sites to target to expand health coverage.

And here's a table from the report:

Correlates of Being Uninsured (n = 340).

Correlate	Unadjusted OR (95%CI)	Adjusted OR (95%CI)
Age	0.95** (0.91; 0.98)	0.94** (0.90; 0.98)
Gender (Male)	1.98* (1.07; 3.69)	2.63** (1.33; 5.20)
Non-Hispanic Caucasian (Yes)	2.48 (0.94; 6.54)	2.30 (0.83; 6.41)
Homeless (Yes)	0.38 (0.11; 1.29)	0.33 (0.09; 1.21)
Employed Part- or Full-Time (Yes)	1.09 (0.49; 2.42)	0.77 (0.32; 1.89)
Education (Years)	1.16* (1.01; 1.33)	1.22* (1.03; 1.46)
Pending criminal charges (Yes)	1.03 (0.58; 1.82)	0.92 (0.51; 1.65)
Perceived Health	0.71* (0.54; 0.93)	0.78 (0.58; 1.05)

* p < .05, **p < .01

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0376871613005322

Cochrane Releases New Reviews on MAT

The highly-respected Cochrane Library, known for its meticulous reviews of the current state of medical knowledge, has updated and released two reviews on medication-assisted treatment recently. The first, "Maintenance agonist treatments for opiate-dependent women", aims to " assess the effectiveness of any maintenance treatment alone or in combination with psychosocial intervention compared to no intervention, other pharmacological intervention or psychosocial interventions for child health status, neonatal mortality, retaining pregnant women in treatment and reducing the use of substances." The second, "Pharmacological interventions for drug-using offenders" aims to " assess the effectiveness of pharmacological interventions for drug-using offenders in reducing criminal activity and/or drug use." In both cases, the authors note the effectiveness of opioid medications in assisting patients to achieve desired outcomes (although the effect on criminal activity in the second study was significant, but less pronounced). However, they cautioned against generalizing the findings as the body of evidence of both topics is still too small.

Here are the abstracts, via Wiley:

Maintenance agonist treatments for opiate-dependent pregnant women

Abstract

Background

The prevalence of opiate use among pregnant women can range from 1% to 2% to as high as 21%. Heroin crosses the placenta and pregnant, opiate-dependent women experience a six-fold increase in maternal obstetric complications such as low birth weight, toxaemia, third trimester bleeding, malpresentation, puerperal morbidity, fetal distress and meconium aspiration. Neonatal complications include narcotic withdrawal, postnatal growth deficiency, microcephaly, neuro-behavioural problems, increased neonatal mortality and a 74-fold increase in sudden infant death syndrome.

Objectives

To assess the effectiveness of any maintenance treatment alone or in combination with psychosocial intervention compared to no intervention, other pharmacological intervention or psychosocial interventions for child health status, neonatal mortality, retaining pregnant women in treatment and reducing the use of substances.

Search methods

We searched the Cochrane Drugs and Alcohol Group Trials Register (September 2013), PubMed (1966 to September 2013), CINAHL (1982 to September 2013), reference lists of relevant papers, sources of ongoing trials, conference proceedings and national focal points for drug research. We contacted authors of included studies and experts in the field.

Selection criteria

Randomised controlled trials assessing the efficacy of any maintenance pharmacological treatment for opiate-dependent pregnant women.

Data collection and analysis

We used the standard methodological procedures expected by The Cochrane Collaboration.

Main results

We found four trials with 271 pregnant women. Three compared methadone with buprenorphine and one methadone with oral slow-release morphine. Three out of four studies had adequate allocation concealment and were double-blind. The major flaw in the included studies was attrition bias: three out of four had a high drop-out rate (30% to 40%) and this was unbalanced between groups.

Methadone versus buprenorphine: the drop-out rate from treatment was lower in the methadone group (risk ratio (RR) 0.64, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.41 to 1.01, three studies, 223 participants). There was no statistically significant difference in the use of primary substance between methadone and buprenorphine (RR 1.81, 95% CI 0.70 to 4.69, two studies, 151 participants). For both, we judged the quality of evidence as low. Birth weight was higher in the buprenorphine group in the two trials that could be pooled (mean difference (MD) -365.45 g (95% CI -673.84 to -57.07), two studies, 150 participants). The third study reported that there was no statistically significant difference. For APGAR score neither of the studies which compared methadone with buprenorphine found a significant difference. For both, we judged the quality of evidence as low. Many measures were used in the studies to assess neonatal abstinence syndrome. The number of newborns treated for neonatal abstinence syndrome, which is the most critical outcome, did not differ significantly between groups. We judged the quality of evidence as very low.

Methadone versus slow-release morphine: there was no drop-out in either treatment group. Oral slow-release morphine seemed superior to methadone for abstinence from heroin use during pregnancy (RR 2.40, 95% CI 1.00 to 5.77, one study, 48 participants). We judged the quality of evidence as moderate.

Only one study which compared methadone with buprenorphine reported side effects. For the mother there was no statistically significant difference; for the newborns in the buprenorphine group there were significantly fewer serious side effects.

In the comparison between methadone and slow-release morphine no side effects were reported for the mother, whereas one child in the methadone group had central apnoea and one child in the morphine group had obstructive apnoea.

Authors' conclusions

We did not find sufficient significant differences between methadone and buprenorphine or slow-release morphine to allow us to conclude that one treatment is superior to another for all relevant outcomes. While methadone seems superior in terms of retaining patients in treatment, buprenorphine seems to lead to less severe neonatal abstinence syndrome. Additionally, even though a multi-centre, international trial with 175 pregnant women has recently been completed and its results published and included in this review, the body of evidence is still too small to draw firm conclusions about the equivalence of the treatments compared. There is still a need for randomised controlled trials of adequate sample size comparing different maintenance treatments.

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/14651858.CD006318.pub3/abstract

 

Pharmacological interventions for drug-using offenders

Abstract

Background

The review represents one in a family of four reviews focusing on a range of different interventions for drug-using offenders. This specific review considers pharmacological interventions aimed at reducing drug use and/or criminal activity for illicit drug-using offenders.

Objectives

To assess the effectiveness of pharmacological interventions for drug-using offenders in reducing criminal activity and/or drug use.

Search methods

Fourteen electronic bibliographic databases (searched between 2004 and 21 March 2013) and five additional Web resources (searched between 2004 and 11 November 2011) were searched. Experts in the field were contacted for further information.

Selection criteria

Randomised controlled trials assessing the efficacy of any pharmacological interventions for reducing, eliminating or preventing relapse in drug-using offenders were included. Data on the cost and cost-effectiveness of interventions were reported.

Data collection and analysis

We used standard methodological procedures as expected by The Cochrane Collaboration.

Main results

A total of 76 trials across the four reviews were identified. After a process of prescreening had been completed, 17 trials were judged to meet the inclusion criteria for this specific review (six of the 17 trials are awaiting classification for the review). The remaining 11 trials contained a total of 2,678 participants. Nine of the eleven studies used samples with a majority of men. The interventions (buprenorphine, methadone and naltrexone) were compared to non pharmacological treatments (e.g., counselling) and other pharmacological drugs. The methodological trial quality was poorly described, and most studies were rated as 'unclear' by the reviewers. The biggest threats to risk of bias were generated through blinding (performance and detection bias) and incomplete outcome data (attrition bias). When combined, the results suggest that pharmacological interventions do significantly reduce subsequent drug use using biological measures, (three studies, 300 participants, RR 0.71 (95% CI 0.52 to 0.97)), self report dichotomous data (three studies, 317 participants, RR 0.42, (95% CI 0.22 to 0.81)) and continuous measures (one study, MD -59.66 (95% CI -120.60 to 1.28)) . In the subgroups analysis for community setting, (two studies, 99 participants: RR 0.62 (95% CI 0.35 to 1.09)) and for secure establishment setting, (one study, 201 participants: RR 0.76 (95% CI 0.52 to 1.10)), the results are no longer statistically significant. Criminal activity was significantly reduced favouring the dichotomous measures of re arrest, (one study, 62 participants, RR 0.60 (95% CI 0.32 to 1.14)), re-incarceration, (three studies, 142 participants, RR 0.33 (95% CI 0.19 to 0.56)) and continuous measures (one study, 51 participants, MD -74.21 (95% CI -133.53 to -14.89)). Findings on the effects of individual pharmacological interventions on drug use and criminal activity show mixed results. Buprenorphine in comparison to a non pharmacological treatment seemed to favour buprenorphine but not significantly with self report drug use, (one study, 36 participants, RR 0.58 (95% CI 0.25 to 1.35)). Methadone and cognitive behavioural skills in comparison to standard psychiatric services, did show a significant reduction for self report dichotomous drug use (one study, 253 participants, RR 0.43 (95% CI 0.33 to 0.56)) but not for self report continuous data (one study 51 participants) MD -0.52 (95% CI -1.09 to 0.05)), or re incarceration RR 1.23 (95% CI 0.53 to 2.87)). Naltrexone was favoured significantly over routine parole and probation for re incarceration (two studies 114 participants, RR 0.36 (95% CI 0.19 to 0.69)) but no data was available on drug use. Finally, we compared each pharmacological treatment to another. In each case we compared methadone to: buprenorphine, diamorphine and naltrexone. No significant differences were displayed for either treatment for self report dichotomous drug use (one study, 193 participants RR 1.23 (95% CI 0.86 to 1.76)), continuous measures of drug use MD 0.70 (95% CI -5.33 to 6.73) or criminal activity RR 1.25 (95% CI 0.83 to 1.88)) between methadone and buprenorphine. Similiar results were found for comparisons with Diamorphine with no significant differences between the drugs for self report dichotomous drug use for arrest (one study, 825 participants RR 1.25 (95% CI 1.03-1.51)) or Naltrexone for dichotomous measures of re incarceration (one study, 44 participants, RR 1.10 (95% CI 0.37 to 3.26)), and continuous outcome measure of crime MD -0.50 (95% CI -8.04 to 7.04)) or self report drug use MD 4.60 (95% CI -3.54 to 12.74)).

Authors' conclusions

Pharmacological interventions for drug-using offenders do appear to reduce overall subsequent drug use and criminal activity (but to a lesser extent). No statistically significant differences were displayed by treatment setting. Individual differences are displayed between the three pharmacological interventions (buprenorphine, methadone and naltrexone) when compared to a non pharmacological intervention, but not when compared to each other. Caution should be taken when interpreting these findings, as the conclusions are based on a small number of trials, and generalisation of these study findings should be limited mainly to male adult offenders. Additionally, many studies were rated at high risk of bias because trial information was inadequately described.

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/14651858.CD010862/abstract

Is Florida Turning a Corner?

According to a brand new study, published online this week in the journal, Pharmacoepidemiology and Drug Safety, Florida's recent legislative actions to 1.) strengthen the state's prescription drug monitoring program, and 2.) toughen the regulation of the state's pain clinics, seem to be having the desired effect: drug diversion has been dropping steadily since 2011. In addition, according to the state's commission of medical examiners, prescription opioid overdose deaths are dropping too. Here's the abstract from the article and a figure of the models of longitudinal change, according to each drug: 

Reductions in prescription opioid diversion following recent legislative interventions in Florida

Surratt, et al., 2013

Purpose
Florida has been at the center of the nation's ongoing prescription opioid epidemic, with largely unregulated pain clinics and lax prescribing oversight cited as significant contributors to the opioid problem in the state.

Methods
In an effort to mitigate prescription opioid abuse and diversion in Florida, legislative interventions were implemented during 2010 and 2011, which included two primary elements: (i) comprehensive legislation to better regulate the operation of pain clinics; and (ii) a statewide prescription drug monitoring program to promote safer prescribing practices. Using systematic longitudinal data collected on a quarterly basis from law enforcement agencies across Florida, this report examined changes in prescription opioid diversion rates following implementation of these regulatory initiatives. Quarterly diversion rates for buprenorphine, fentanyl, hydrocodone, hydromorphone, methadone, morphine, oxycodone, and tramadol were calculated, and subsequently, hierarchical linear models were fit to test for differences in diversion rates over the 15 quarter period of interest.

Results
Significant declines in diversion rates were observed for oxycodone, methadone, and morphine; hydrocodone displayed a marginally significant decline.

Conclusions
This study documented reductions in statewide opioid diversion rates following implementation of Florida's pain clinic and prescription drug monitoring program legislative interventions. Although these initial findings appear promising, continued surveillance of diversion is clearly warranted. Copyright © 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

New Findings in Medication-Assisted Treatment

Some interesting new studies are showing promising results for patients all over the world:

Turns out, Quality of Life improvements aren't just for the wealthy:
Quality of Life (QoL) scores significantly improved in ALL four domains (psychological, physical, social and environmental) of the WHO QoL scale in patients in low and middle income countries, according to the authors of a systematic review of 13 studies involving over 1800 participants. The findings, published online last week in the Journal of Drug and Alcohol Dependence, show that despite the apparent lack of resources in these countries, opiate replacement therapy with methadone or buprenorphine can be an effective treatment tool - with scores increasing along with the length of time at followup - and offering outcomes comparable to those seen in high income countries.
You can read the abstract of the study by Feelemeyer, et al., here: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0376871613004225

The methadone of methamphetamine?:
In encouraging news for stimulant users, a small study has shown methylphenidate (Ritalin) to both improve symptoms and reduce use episodes, in a cohort of criminal justice-involved stimulant users with co-occurring ADHD. Similar findings have been published supporting mixed-amphetamine salts (Adderall) plus topiramate (Topamax) for the treatment of cocaine dependence, and more recently topiramate by itself. The authors of the small study note the high prevalence of ADHD among stimulant users in the criminal justice population and in their research used dosages that were high enough to be therapeutically effective for patients with a history of substance use disorders (a flaw, they argue, in previous studies of this kind). Could it be that we are getting closer to an accepted agonist maintenance treatment for stimulant use disorders? Read the results of the Swedish study by Konstenius, et al., published online this month in the journal Addiction:
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/add.12369/abstract

Groups could improve access to AUD medications:
And finally, in a new study in the Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment, researchers have shown that group pharmacotherapy is an effective intervention for patients on medication-assisted treatment of alcohol use disorders. The authors provide a brief description of this novel approach and their experiences implementing the program. They note that, for many clinicians, providing ongoing monitoring of these effective medications can create a barrier to implementation. What the team found however, was that a "medication group" was not only feasible, but it actually increased their patients' access to meds like disulfiram (Antabuse), naltrexone and acamprosate (Campral). Read the abstract from the report by Dr Shannon Robinson and a team at San Diego's VA Health Care System here: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0740547213001347

Buprenorphine: 4 Counseling: 0

It hasn’t been a good couple years for counseling in the buprenorphine treatment literature. Yet another study, authored by a team led by the venerable Walter Ling, and currently available in Addiction Journal’s “early view” section online, has shown that counseling adds nothing to buprenorphine maintenance, in terms of measured outcomes. By our count, this makes four consecutive studies to show basically the same thing: counseling, while by no means harmful, has not been shown to add anything to buprenorphine maintenance in opioid-dependent patients without significant co-occurring psychiatric disorders.

Ling, et al.’s study is arguably the most convincing study yet. The team performed a randomized control trial in which patients were randomized to one of four behavioral treatment conditions, as adjuncts to buprenorphine maintenance: cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT), contingency management (CM), both CBT and CM, and no behavioral treatment. Counselors were master’s-level trained counselors who met with patients weekly for the initial phase of the study.

The results showed no differences in opioid use after the behavioral treatment phase, during the second (medication-only) phase, or at follow-ups at weeks 40 or 52. In addition, there were no statistically-significant differences in any of the secondary measures (retention, other drug use, withdrawal and craving, addiction severity index ratings, and adverse events).

Interestingly, there were differences in reported treatment satisfaction ratings. While the majority of participants reported being “very satisfied” with treatment, and 85% reported Suboxone was “very effective”, just 60% reported that their behavioral treatment was “very effective”. On the other hand, 21% of the no-treatment group reported that their behavioral treatment was “not effective”, compared to 3% of the CBT group and 0% of the CBT + CM group.

As a student of behavioral health counseling, this science is particularly hard to swallow. However, it does seem to affirm the fact that, for patients with opioid-use disorders, ensuring easy and affordable access to maintenance medications is currently our best and most important tool for their treatment.

What do you think?