Alltyr Clinic Featured on NPR's Weekend Edition!

Alltyr Clinic is featured on NPR's Weekend Edition Sunday today, June 8, 2014. We are positioned as an alternative to traditional rehab, in this case Hazelden. One of our patients, Shane Linehan, was brave enough to share his experience with both Hazelden (where he went first) and Alltyr Clinic (where he is being treated now.) I want to thank him and applaud his courage for speaking out. (For the record, Alltyr Clinic gave him no incentive; we simply offered the opportunity to many of our patients.) We are honored to be compared to arguably the best known traditional rehab in the country (if not the world.)

Unfortunately, in the summary on the program's landing page, our approach is described as being almost totally oriented around prescribing anti-relapse medications. Although we use every proven anti-relapse medication, we also use every evidence-based behavioral/psychosocial approach. This includes individual and group therapy using motivational, cognitive-behavioral, coping skills, 12-Step Facilitation, EMDR, CRAFT, DBT, psychodynamic, community reinforcement, couples and family approaches. Which we use depends on the needs of the patient. Our team includes addiction psychiatrists, addiction medicine specialists, psychologists, social workers, counselors and recovery coaches.

Furthermore, we fully integrate treatment for any co-existing mental health disorder, such as anxiety, depression, PTSD, personality disorders, bipolar disorder, cognitive disorders, as well as medical problems such as insomnia and chronic pain. We really aim to be a "one-stop shop." If sober housing is needed we work with community partners to help our patients secure it. 

The bottom line is this: coming to Alltyr Clinic is like coming to a mental health clinic or any other health care service using a multi-disciplinary approach. Each patient receives a comprehensive individual evaluation upon which the treatment recommendations are based. Selecting from a large menu of services, a truly individualized treatment plan is arrived at by the patient, the treatment team, and if appropriate, the family. After treatment is started, the plan is modified as needed. The length and intensity of treatment is also completely individual and flexible. We do whatever we can and we stay with you as long as it takes. We aren't a program, we're a clinic.

At Alltyr Clinic, "We Don't Just Call Addiction a Disease, We Treat It Like One."TM

"First Controlled Study of LSD-Assisted Psychotherapy in More Than 40 Years"

Researchers from Switzerland and the Multidisciplinary Association for Psychedelic Studies have conducted what they are calling the first study of its kind in over 40 years: a randomized, double-blind, active placebo-controlled study of LSD-assisted psychotherapy. The participants, 12 patients with anxiety related to life-threatening illnesses like metastatic cancer, non-Hodgkin's lymphoma, Parkinson's disease, etc., participated in drug-free therapy sessions as well as 2 LSD-assisted psychotherapy sessions over the course of the study. Follow-up interviews were conducted at 2- and 12-months post-treatment and indicated lasting, statistically-significant improvements in anxiety. The study is posted in its entirety for free online via The Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease.

The main outcome measures were scores on the State-Trait Anxiety Inventory (STAI). Exclusion criteria included current drug or alcohol disorders, primary psychotic, dissociative or bipolar 1 disorders, neurocognitive impairment or pregnancy/nursing. Participants in the experimental arm participated in 2 full-day LSD-assisted psychotherapy sessions, 2 to 3 weeks apart, that were "embedded within an ongoing process of [six]drug-free psychotherapy sessions for preparatory and integrative purposes." Subjects received doses of 200 micrograms of pure LSD and the day-long sessions lasted 8 hours, or until the effects of the medication wore off. Participants in the active placebo group received the exact same set of psychotherapy sessions, but were given 20-microgram doses of LSD. After the 2-month follow-up interview, these participants were informed of their place in the control group and were offered the full, open-label intervention.

The results indicate statistically significant STAI scores for both state and trait anxiety at 2 and 12 months for the experimental groups. The active placebo did not produce statistically-significant improvements. The researchers calculate the effect size at 1.1 for trait anxiety, and 1.2 for state anxiety. They also, as you would imagine, call for more research with larger controlled studies. Importantly, neither the experimental drug nor the placebo produced any serious adverse effects, leading the authors to seem confident in the safety of this type of therapy.

Considering the research on LSD ground to a halt by the 1970s, do readers think it's time to revisit this(or other psychedelics, for that matter) as a therapeutic tool? If you have experience with this, it would be fascinating to hear your take, too.

Interested to hear readers opinions on the matter...

Source:
http://journals.lww.com/jonmd/Documents/90000000.0-00001.pdf

Study: Hallucinogen Use Predicts Reduced Criminal Justice Recidivism

In a potentially fascinating article, published in this month's Journal of Psychopharmacology, researchers identified a correlation between naturalistic hallucinogen use and reduced recidivism among substance-involved offenders under community corrections supervision. The sample is very large (n=25,622) and it appears the relationship remains after controlling for "an array of potential confounding factors." Given the report last year that lifetime psychedelic use was not associated with current mental health problems in an adult population, this study's implications could be especially interesting.

Unfortunately, my institution doesn't allow me access to this journal - if there are any readers who can access the full article, please let me know.

(Comment after the fact: Keep in mind that this shows a correlation and that correlation does not establish directionality. That it, it's at least equally plausible that people with a diagnosis of psychedelic use disorder (a tiny fraction of the population) are different in ways that statistical controls cannot compensate for, and are therefore less like to reoffend. This makes sense in that psychedelic drug use is minimally addictive, if at all, and craving and urges are not typical in this group. It seems highly implausible to me that hallucinogen use had a beneficial effect. The authors should never have been allowed to make that claim, a fault of the editor. In addition, use of LSD or psilocybin has never been associate with increased incidence of mental disorders, in contrast to MDMA or synthetic cannabinoids.)

Here's the abstract via SagePub:

Abstract

Hallucinogen-based interventions may benefit substance use populations, but contemporary data informing the impact of hallucinogens on addictive behavior are scarce. Given that many individuals in the criminal justice system engage in problematic patterns of substance use, hallucinogen treatments also may benefit criminal justice populations. However, the relationship between hallucinogen use and criminal recidivism is unknown. In this longitudinal study, we examined the relationship between naturalistic hallucinogen use and recidivism among individuals under community corrections supervision with a history of substance involvement (n=25,622). We found that hallucinogen use predicted a reduced likelihood of supervision failure (e.g. noncompliance with legal requirements including alcohol and other drug use) while controlling for an array of potential confounding factors (odds ratio (OR)=0.60 (0.46, 0.79)). Our results suggest that hallucinogens may promote alcohol and other drug abstinence and prosocial behavior in a population with high rates of recidivism.

Sources:
http://jop.sagepub.com/content/28/1/62.abstract
http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0063972

Update:
Thanks to Paul and Jason for sending the full piece. 
Treatment Accountability for Safer Communities (TASC)provided the authors access to de-identified records on 25,622 felony-charged individuals on community corrections supervision from  between 2002-2007. "Any hallucinogen use" was not a descriptor in the data, so they were confined to hallucinogen-use disorder, abuse or dependence, assuming that case workers would likely interpret any use as disordered. Interestingly, 73.6% of folks with a hallucinogen-use disorder in the sample were white/Caucasian. And, according to the researchers, hallucinogen-use disorder was the third strongest predictor of recidivism rates, behind cocaine- and cannabis-use disorder, respectively, which most strongly (but positively) predicted recidivism.The authors call for RCTs to explore hallucinogen-based therapies in the criminal justice population.

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.

MMT and 12-Step Groups: Stigma Persists

In his latest contribution to the academic literature, William L. White and colleagues turn their focus on 12-Step participation among patients in methadone maintenance treatment (MMT). Rates of self-reported Narcotics Anonymous (NA) and Alcoholics Anonymous (AA) attendance were very high; however, participants frequently reported that their MMT status prevented them from taking part in many of the "key ingredients" of the groups that most members take for granted. When asked about the experience, nearly half of all respondents who had attended NA or AA reported that they had "received negative comments about methadone use" and nearly "a quarter (24.4%) reported having had a serious problem within NA or AA related to their status as a methadone patient."

The following table from the report details the "frequency with which respondents faced particular challenges":

Table 4: NA and AA Responses to MMT Patient Status                                NA            AA

Response to MM Patient Status:                                                                         (n=228)     (n=142)

Received negative comments about methadone use                                                43.0%     45.1%

Were pressured to reduce the dose of methadone                                                  21.9%     23.2%

Were pressured to stop taking methadone                                                             32.9%     34.5%

Were denied the right to speak at a meeting because of being
in methadone treatment                                                                                         14.5%      14.1%

Were denied the right to become a sponsor because of being                                  8.8%        9.9%
in methadone treatment


White and colleagues implemented this small study at not-for-profit opioid treatment program (OTP) in the Northeastern US. A total of 322 respondents answered a 53-question survey about their participation in recovery support groups. Of the 322, 259 (80.4%) reported a primary affiliation with a recovery support group. Of these, 88.8% reported it to be in some way a 12-Step group. Importantly, 66% of respondents reported past-year NA/AA participation, with 88-89% reporting the group was "helpful".

Despite these figures, the authors found MMT patients had low rates of participation in the "key ingredients" that seem to be critical influencers of long-term recovery outcomes: having a home group (50%), having a sponsor (26%), sponsoring others (13%), attending 12-Step social events (23%), and active step work (21%).

Anecdotally, we see a lot of patients at Alltyr who have a hard time finding a place in the local 12-Step scene. We even began compiling a list of medication-friendly meetings in the Twin Cities as we learned about them, but the stigma associated with maintenance is still prevalent. Could it be that we are on the verge of another breakthrough in medication acceptance? After all, there was a time when you weren't considered "sober" if you were on antidepressant or antipsychotic medications (but now, as Dr W likes to say, you're more likely to be referred to the psychiatrist by your sponsor than by anyone else). We would be interested to hear reader stories about this experience - or opinions on the topic. Are things changing - or not?

See the full paper by White, et al., here: http://www.williamwhitepapers.com/pr/2013%20Co-participation%20in%2012-Step%20Groups%20and%20Methadone%20Maintenance.pdf

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

Relapse Prevention Strategies and Anti-Relapse Medications

A recent commenter asked these questions:

Anonymous has left a new comment on your post "Is Maintenance the Best Therapy for Opioid Addicti...": 

Dr. Willenbring,

Would you agree that a person in recovery should have a solid relapse prevention plan in place regardless of the recovery path they choose. For example a person could choose abstinence-based recovery (AA/NA, CBT, counseling, etc.), Medication Management, or a combination of those, in whatever multitude of variations. Isn't it still imperative that they stay away from their former lifestyle as much as possible?

-Stay away from the places you obtained your drug of choice?
-Stay away from the places you used your drug of choice?
-Stay away from the people that provided your drug of choice?
-Stay away from the people you used with?

What are your thoughts regarding these and other common relapse prevention measures with regard any treatment/recovery option available? 

The simplest answer is that yes, a relapse prevention plan is essential to recovery from any SUD. The examples this reader gives are common-sense strategies designed to reduce exposure to cues that might trigger urges, craving, preoccupation and, most importantly, opportunity. An old saying in AA is, "If you hang around a barber shop long enough, sooner or later you're going to get a haircut." I like the CBT approach of "Recognize, Avoid, Cope." First, do what you can to Recognize higher-risk situations, such as a social event that involves drinking (for someone with alcohol use disorder,) or where you are likely to be stressed or sleep-deprived (you have to work long hours for some reason, or a close family member is seriously ill.) For many people, a trip out of town to a work meeting, or, often worse, their spouse is going to be out of town (when the cat's away...) are high risk. Recognizing allows you to plan your strategy to reduce your risk of a recurrence. 

Second, Avoid the high-risk situation if you can. If a social event is going to involve a lot of drinking or drug use, and it's an optional event, skip it. Why put yourself in that situation? Why stress about it? Besides, one of the first things most people realize is that being sober while the other people are intoxicated isn't any fun. Although they (and you, in the past) may think that they're witty, charming and sexy, the reality is anything but. Typically, intoxicated people are dull and sometimes obnoxious. Unfortunately, avoiding intoxicated people too often means that you have to develop new friends, and you may have to endure some lonely times as that develops. Community support groups such as AA can help by providing you with a built-in social system to bridge that gap, but there are many other opportunities: book clubs, hiking clubs, bicycling organizations, volunteering, spiritual or religious activities, among many others. Be creative!

Finally, if you can't avoid the higher risk situation, develop strategies to Cope with it before you get there. Take a supportive friend, or identify another non-user within the group. Plan an early exit if possible. Practice drink/drug refusal skills. Take an anti-relapse medication (ARM). Remember, no one has any right to know your personal business, including whether you decide to use intoxicants or not. Have one or two stock phrases that 1) don't give a lot of information but don't lie, and 2) don't invite further questions. For example: "Hey, what's up? What's with you not drinking any more? Too stuck up for your bros? Let my buy you a drink, come on!" "No thanks. I just don't like the way I feel when I drink," or "You know, these days it pays to stay sharp, and I get too fuzzy headed if I drink." I'm sure you can come up with others. If the other person persists, you might retort, "Does my not drinking make you uncomfortable? What's the problem?"

One more thing, though, is that I think it's time to give up the false "abstinence-based recovery" vs. "medication-assisted treatment" dichotomy. It's a remnant of 1955. Is someone taking insulin for diabetes on "medication-assisted therapy" versus someone who tries to manage it by lifestyle changes alone? Is someone taking an antipsychotic or mood stabilizer "not abstinent?" My patients struggle at least as much with having to take medications for arthritis, MS, or depression as they do with taking anti-relapse medications. How about ARMs like naltrexone, or disulfiram (Antabuse), or topiramate (Topamax)? If you take those, are you "abstinent?" What if, by trying to "be abstinent," you are a miserable wretch with a high relapse risk, while if you take a medication such as buprenorphine (Suboxone), you are a happy, productive person with a low relapse risk? Why is "being abstinent" automatically thought to be superior, better, and to reflect more positively on you? Is it because we "should" be able to "do it ourselves?" Is it because "God should be enough?" Is it because it shows we are stronger, morally superior, more capable? Why "should" we be "able to recover without medications"? Who says? On what basis? This one idea kills more people with SUDs than almost any other, and I mean that quite literally. Get over it. The brain is flesh and blood. It gets dysregulated just like any other organ and sometimes it is incapable of healing or fixing itself. Sometimes it needs help with medication, as well as social support, psychotherapy, spirituality, exercise, and other non-medication supports and treatments. So what? 

Restricted Access to SUD Meds and the Lack of Informed Consent

by Ian McLoone

A recent study by Abraham, et al., published in the March Journal of Studies on Alcohol and Drugs, finds that patients receiving treatment at publicly-funded programs have significantly less access to potentially life-saving substance use disorder (SUD) medications like buprenorphine, disfulfiram, acamprosate, and naltrexone. Buried in the report, however, is the shocking statistic that a full 56.4% of the programs (publicly- or privately-funded) prescribed no medications whatsoever. Clearly, there are a whole lot of consumers not being informed of their full array of choices when it comes to managing their treatment.

The study analyzed nearly 600 treatment programs throughout the country - data originally part of the National Treatment Center Study – and looked for differences in physician access and SUD medication access. The authors found that 10.9% offered access to one medication, while 32.7% offered more than one medication. Fewer than 5% of programs offered access to all of the above medications.

The authors note that nearly 2/3 of all specialty SUD treatment programs in the US are publicly funded, relying on government block grants and state contracts for the money needed to provide treatment, while private funding tends to come from private insurance and self-paying patients.

When divided into publicly-funded and privately-funded categories, private programs were almost 15% more likely to have a physician on-staff and nearly 10% more likely to employ master’s-level counselors. And while publicly-funded treatment programs were almost 14% less likely to prescribe buprenorphine, only 32.5% of all programs offered the medication. Only 20.6% of programs offered disulfiram, 27% offered tablet naltrexone, 27% offered acamprosate, and a slim 13.1% of programs offered injectable naltrexone.

Among other findings, programs with a more professional workforce were positively correlated with the number of SUD medications offered, and programs with a physician on staff were more likely to offer higher numbers of SUD medications than programs with no access to physicians.

These findings beg the question: why are evidence-based practices so rare and why is this tolerated in addiction treatment but not in other professional treatments? (What if over half of American cardiologists prescribed no medications to their patients?) Sure, public programs offer fewer scientifically-supported therapies – but even people who are spending a fortune of their own money are often getting poor care. When patients are not informed of the full array of treatment options, the lack of informed consent becomes an ethical – and likely legal – issue.

New Studies Confirm – and Contradict – Conventional Wisdom on Chronic Pain

New Studies Confirm – and Contradict – Conventional Wisdom on Chronic Pain

by Ian McLoone

- Chronic pain patients have long been told it’s all in their heads. Well, a team at McGill University just submitted more proof. The researchers, led by Prof. Laura Stone, found that injuries resulting in chronic pain are associated with epigenetic changes in the brains of mice which can be observed 6 months after the date of injury. These heritable changes, called DNA methylation, have far-reaching consequences across the entire genome and can impact behavior and well-being – but were also shown to be reversible. “The implications of epigenetic involvement in chronic pain are wide reaching and may alter the way we think about pain diagnosis, research and treatment,” the authors say. Future considerations for treatment will likely include behavioral and pharmacological interventions that focus on reversing DNA methylation in brain.

- Think all addicts make risky chronic pain patients? Think again. For decades, the conventional wisdom has told us that addicts and alcoholics are constitutionally incapable of managing chronic pain with the help of opioid pain relievers – no matter what their drug of choice had been. However, a recent study suggests that this isn’t necessarily the case, and that risk factors for opioid misuse are dynamic and complex.   

The study, published this January in the Drug and Alcohol Dependence journal, found that the trait most significantly associated with risk for prescription opioid misuse was “pain catastrophizing” and that, “current substance use disorder [SUD] status was not a significant predictor [of risk].” While it’s been shown elsewhere that simply being prescribed opioids constitutes a significant risk factor for abuse and misuse behaviors, this study seems to suggest that by screening for past or current SUD, we may be missing the point.

Dr. Carlton Erickson, PhD, director of the Addiction Science Research and Education Center, tells me it’s an issue that’s “currently being hugely debated across the nation…mainly [by] pain medicine physicians and addiction medicine physicians.” Much like Dr Willenbring, he stresses the importance of an integrated and comprehensive approach to working with such patients and suggests ensuring access to, “a team consisting of an addiction medicine specialist, pain management specialist [and] counselor…who can guide the treatment while minimizing the likelihood of” misuse. On a related note, there was news last year that chronic pain patients on opioid therapy can be successfully converted to buprenorphine. Specifically, patients on a morphine equivalent dose of 100-199 mgs seemed to fare better than those on higher doses.

- Does the color of your skin affect your chronic pain treatment? A new study suggests it does. Leslie R Hausmann, PhD, led a team of researchers from the VA Pittsburgh Healthcare System to investigate whether racial disparities existed in the follow-up and monitoring of patients who were prescribed opioid medications over a two-year period. In adjusted comparisons, they found black patients were less likely to have their pain documented than white patients, less likely to be referred to pain specialists, and more likely to be referred to a substance abuse assessment. Also, among those patients who had at least one drug test, black patients were subjected to more drug testing than their white counterparts. Among the report’s conclusions, the authors suggest that, “Addressing disparities in opioid monitoring and follow-up treatment practices may be a previously neglected route to reducing racial disparities in pain management.”

Ian McLoone is a graduate student at the University of Minnesota’s Integrated Behavioral Health program, a Graduate Research Assistant at the Minnesota Center for Mental Health, as well as a clinical intern at Alltyr, Inc.