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

Who Benefits from Additional Drug Counseling among Prescription Opioid Dependent Patients on Suboxone?

In a secondary analysis of the Prescription Opioid Addiction Treatment Study (POATS), the original study's author, Roger Weiss, and colleagues parse the data to determine if there are common characteristics among those who benefited from additional opioid dependence counseling (ODC) - above and beyond the standard medical management (SMM) and buprenorphine-naloxone medication. It is a very good question, considering the host of recent studies which found no additional benefit to counseling in terms of measured outcomes, including the large and highly-regarded POATS.

In searching for an answer, the authors looked at two sources of variability - patient characteristics, and adherence to treatment. Specifically, the authors sought to answer three questions: 1) Did participants with more severe problems have better outcomes with SMM + ODC than with SMM alone (N=360)? 2) Among participants with adequate adherence to treatment, were those assigned to SMM + ODC more likely to have successful outcomes than those receiving SMM alone, regardless of severity (n = 266)? And 3), among participants with adequate adherence to treatment, were those with more severe problems more likely to succeed with additional counseling than with standard medical management only (n = 266)?

In response to question 1, the analysis found that "the association between severity and outcome did not vary by treatment condition for any of the three severity measures." Those without past use of heroin had more favorable outcomes across the entire study. Regarding question 2, "adequate adherence" was defined as attending at least 60% of scheduled scheduled sessions in both treatment conditions, and most participants (73.9%) attended at least 60% of sessions. Subjects in the SMM-only condition were more likely meet this criterion but, once again, outcomes did not differ by treatment condition. Finally, in answering question 3, the authors found that, "Among participants who had ever used heroin, those assigned to SMM + ODC were more likely to succeed than those in SMM only (66.7% vs. 35.0%, n = 70, χ2(1) = 6.88, p=.016)."

 Table 1

Likelihood of successful opioid use outcomes at Phase 2, weeks 9–12. ^a

	OR	95% CI      p Value
(a) All participants ( n= 360)
Main effects
Heroin	2.0	1.3–3.3      .004
Chronic pain	1.3	0.8–2.0      .240
Drug severity	2.9	0.2–58.2    .484
Interaction with Phase 2 treatment
Heroin	1.6	0.6–4.2      .342
Chronic pain	0.6	0.2–1.4      .218
Drug severity	0.2	0.0–76.8    .585	.
(b) Participants with adequate adherence to treatment ( n= 266)
Main effect of Phase 2 treatment	0.7	0.4–1.1     .107
Interaction with Phase 2 treatment
Heroin	3.7	1.1–11.8     .03
Chronic pain	0.5	0.2–1.5      .213
Drug severity	1.5	0.001–4023.5   .915

^a All models were adjusted for Phase 1 treatment condition.

Treatment outcomes did not appear to differ among those who had never used heroin, suggesting that prescription opioid-addicted patients with a history of heroin use may be the participants who are most likely to benefit from additional counseling in suboxone treatment. Importantly, those patients had to also attend enough sessions (and receive an adequate "dose" of counseling) in order to see their outcomes improve to rates similar to those without a history of heroin use.

So, do these results line up with the experience of the readers of this blog? Are there populations with whom you believe counseling is especially important? Or, do the results simply reinforce the lessons of past studies? Let us know

Wacky Progressives and Scientific Illiteracy

In a disturbing article in the New York Times, Amy Harmon chronicles the tale of a brave county councilman on the island of Kona, Hawaii, who refused to be steamrolled by those who categorically believe that genetically modified organisms (GMOs) are dangerous and should be banned across the board. He actually took the time to look into the scientific research, to consult with scientists who know about this, and he attempted to draw a reasonable conclusion. He is faced, however, with a group of true believers, who keep repeating obscure claims based on long-discredited "research." They shout down their opponents and make outlandish claims that have no scientific basis or rationale. They demonize their opponents, and constantly shift the arguments when faced with scientific facts. Most disturbing of all was the refusal of his fellow council members to even allow scientists to testify, instead giving the floor repeatedly to unqualified zealots who continued to make broad, unsupportable statements. 

It turns out, then, that it's not only climate-change deniers and birthers who maintain passionately held beliefs that have no scientific basis. Worse, it shows how repeating false claims becomes a sort of echo chamber for those with similar beliefs. Finally it shows that such behavior is not limited to Tea Party fanatics or religious zealots, but applies equally to so-called progressives on the left side of the political spectrum. I write about this because it applies as well to too much in the fields of psychotherapy, behavior change and addiction treatment.

We tolerate too much of this type of thinking in our field. How many treatment centers offer "holistic" therapies such as yoga, energy field work, Reiki, or massage, or worse, "nutritional treatment" that is not only unsupported, but may well be harmful? Why are state agencies still allowing such centers to obtain licensure? Why are people paying for brain scans or quantitative EEGs or neurofeedback? And, of course, why do so many people cling to the fiction that 90x90 is effective for most people, or that 12-step approaches are 100% effective if you follow directions? (What treatments for human maladies, short of penicillin for strep throat, can claim 100% effectiveness?)

I'm not arguing that an absence of evidence of effectiveness is evidence of ineffectiveness. There is lots we all do that hasn't been studied well, simply because it is impossible to conduct a large randomized controlled trial on every possible therapy. However, in addiction treatment we have a very large and very strong evidence base from which to draw. It's actually far better than in many other areas of health care. In order to include an approach in a licensed program, at the least, we should require 1) a scientifically plausible rationale for a treatment, 2) that unsupported treatments should not be likely to cause significant harm or cost a significant amount of money, 3) that there is not significant evidence that the approach is not effective, and 4) that there is not a well-supported approach already available.

I'm also not suggesting that yoga, meditation, Reiki, energy field work, reflexology, acupuncture, massage, etc., may not be experienced as beneficial to some people. I recently underwent Rolfing, for example, which I found to be very helpful (if painful). But I didn't expect my health insurance to pay for it, and I reject any large claims concerning what it and similar approaches might accomplish. Such approaches might be made available to clients (at their own expense), but not as presented as a scientifically based health practice.

I have been surprised at how trendy the psychotherapy community is in general, not just in addiction treatment. One current example is the spread of dialectical behavior therapy (DBT) beyond its proven focus on borderline personality disorder. It seems that it's being applied to anyone and for every condition short of psychosis. Another trend is "trauma informed therapy" using eye-movement desensitization and reprocessing therapy (EMDR), DBT, prolonged exposure, or mindfulness. All of a sudden, everyone has "trauma" for which these are appropriate treatments, even though many do not meet criteria for post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD.) What was psychoanalysis if not focused on trauma? For that matter, "mindfulness" is another trendy approach, with practitioners charging for something the Buddha gave away 2600 years ago and which can be had for free at your local Buddhist meditation center.

At the same time, I seldom encounter high quality cognitive-behavior therapy (CBT) being applied to co-existing anxiety or depressive disorders, in spite of a mountain of evidence supporting their effectiveness. And too many in our field still believe that "I don't believe in it" is an adequate reason to not support anti-relapse medications that also have a strong evidence base. When we have such well-supported therapies, why aren't we using them? Why are we instead embracing half-baked ideas and approaches? Why do we tolerate so much scientific ignorance? Why do we tolerate lack of informed consent, where clients are not given information about what the evidence supports and what it does not, but instead receive biased and incorrect information that deprives them of the opportunity to make an informed decision?

Advice for Mental Health Clinicians

A clinician recently sent me this email:

Dr. Willenbring,

I read an article in the New York Times from early this year discussing Effective Addiction Treatment that in part highlighted your comments and Alltyr's mission to be a 21st century model for addictions treatment.

As a therapist in an outpatient practice not specializing in addictions treatment--but who nevertheless encounters co-morbidity with substance abuse on a pretty regular basis--it can be confusing to know how to approach the psychosocial aspects of treatment. I believe in a multimodal approach for chronic forms of addiction but there are tons of options out there for my part in that process:  motivational enhancement therapy, cognitive-behavioral, contingency management interventions/motivational incentives, the matrix model, 12-step, DBT, family behavior therapy, interpersonal neurobiology, etc. There is so much out there it's dizzying, and I feel overwhelmed. There are some that seem more indicated for alcohol, others that seem better for stimulants, another for opioids. I've worked for agencies that are sold on one particular treatment for every type of substance abuser, and others that turn their therapists loose to use whatever they think best.

I want to use the best, empirically validated approaches and everyone seems to have an opinion on what that is. Where would you recommend I start, particularly for treatment options?

Here's my reply:

Hi Jxxxx,

It is indeed a confusing landscape out there, both for non-specialist clinicians and for patients and families. 

A good place to start is with the ASAM textbook on treatment of addictive disorders. It's coming out with a new edition (or it has just come out). Also, the American Psychiatric Association textbook is pretty good as an overall summary of evidence-based practice.

On an individual clinician level though it can be confusing. Here are some thoughts:

First, there is no ONE RIGHT WAY to overcome addictions. There are many different pathways. Our job is to help each person find his or her own best way.

Second, a skilled clinician is usually effective no matter the specific technique, as long as the clinician is focused on the patient, not the technique or path. Focus on general skills, such as empathy, reflective listening, unconditional positive regard, and instilling hope. There is no evidence that a specific technique is more effective than another, except in specific circumstances. The relationship is more important.

Third, be patient oriented. Take them where they are. Find out what they want, help them clarify their goals and how to reach them. Help them learn skills to achieve their goals, while also gently helping them realize that the ideal goal (use without consequences) is out of reach.

Finally, be patient and let them teach you about their disorder and its nature. Recovery is a two-steps-forward, one-step backward process. Trying and failing is a necessary step for most people, and the important thing is to accept that, learn from each step back, and then look forward. Persistence is the key. 

A couple of other things.

Never use the words denial, codependency, or enabling. Don't threaten, cajole or berate. Don't share your own experience unless it is (very) clearly in the best interests of the patient (it usually isn't). 

Never question their motivation to get better. I've never met an addict who liked being addicted. They all want to feel better, but sometimes it takes awhile to figure what the way forward is. 

Accept that you can't help everyone. Why should we be able to universally help everyone with a complex human affliction? Be humble, but hopeful and available. Never blame the patient/client for the failure of our treatments, which are modestly effective at best. People die of this disease, and too often we can't stop it or know how to help them. People die from all sorts of illnesses. It's no different to die of a dysregulation in our brain than in our heart, immune system or pancreas. We need to get over ourselves a little bit. We don't need to blame the person with the disease in order to protect ourselves from our inability to stop it. 

And keep working, and trying, and stay hopeful and alive and open hearted. That does the most of all.

Thanks for writing,

MW

We Still Have a Ways to Go

Very excited to feature a post written by Paula DeSanto, Founder and President of Minnesota Alternatives and a leader in the movement to bring paradigm change to chemical dependency and mental health treatment in Minnesota. Thank you, Paula

We Still Have a Ways to Go

Four years ago I was inspired to open a clinic to help people with substance use issues because of the many, many stories I was hearing about ineffective and often times, harmful treatment.

While we are making progress with embracing more person-centered, stage matched interventions; I continue to have experiences that affirm how far we still have to go.  For example:

I was training a large group of clinicians and practitioners about person-centered care, and we were having a very spirited discussion about why drug and alcohol counselors seem compelled to report their clients use to probation officers.  I have worked as a mental health professional for over 2 decades and mental health clinicians don’t share this compulsion.   In fact, I can’t recall any MH worker ever thinking that this was their professional responsibility.

As this discussion progressed, a man raised his hand and offered a useful perspective.  He commented, “I worked as a probation officer for over 8 years, and throughout that time, we always thought of addiction providers as extensions of us.  There was a strong sense of “we – they” and the counselors job entailed trying to catch the clients using.”

Why do drug and alcohol clinicians think their job includes the role of a correctional officer?

No wonder clients “go underground” in treatment and say whatever they think others want to hear.

Another example:

I was interviewing a young woman who smoked a large quantity of cannabis daily and her parents were very concerned about her well-being.  She had been in treatment previously including some very prominent programs.   I asked this young woman why she smoked pot but before she had a chance to answer her mother jumped and stating, “She smokes because she has a brain disease, and her disease is controlling of her life”.

I again asked the young woman why she smokes, and she proceeded to explain that she smokes to relax especially at night before bed. What unfolded was a discussion about other motives for use and exploration as to whether this young woman even thought she had a problem.

A few days later her mother called me and shared this comment:

“My daughter has been in some of the best programs in the state and I have never heard anyone ever ask her why she uses.  She has always been told that she has a brain disease and they have the fix for it.”

“Kudos to you for asking.”

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?