Tag: naltrexone

  • The Hidden Deaths Of The COVID Pandemic

    A recent analysis predicted as many as 75,000 people might die from suicide, overdose or alcohol abuse, triggered by the uncertainty and unemployment caused by the pandemic.

    BROOMFIELD, Colo. — Sara Wittner had seemingly gotten her life back under control. After a December relapse in her battle with drug addiction, the 32-year-old completed a 30-day detox program and started taking a monthly injection to block her cravings for opioids. She was engaged to be married, working for a local health association and counseling others about drug addiction.

    Then the COVID-19 pandemic hit.

    The virus knocked down all the supports she had carefully built around her: no more in-person Narcotics Anonymous meetings, no talks over coffee with a trusted friend or her addiction recovery sponsor. As the virus stressed hospitals and clinics, her appointment to get the next monthly shot of medication was moved back from 30 days to 45 days.

    As best her family could reconstruct from the messages on her phone, Wittner started using again on April 12, Easter Sunday, more than a week after her originally scheduled appointment, when she should have gotten her next injection. She couldn’t stave off the cravings any longer as she waited for her appointment that coming Friday. She used again that Tuesday and Wednesday.

    “We kind of know her thought process was that ‘I can make it. I’ll go get my shot tomorrow,’” said her father, Leon Wittner. “‘I’ve just got to get through this one more day and then I’ll be OK.’”

    But on Thursday morning, the day before her appointment, her sister Grace Sekera found her curled up in bed at her parents’ home in this Denver suburb, blood pooling on the right side of her body, foam on her lips, still clutching a syringe. Her father suspects she died of a fentanyl overdose.

    However, he said, what really killed her was the coronavirus.

    “Anybody that is struggling with a substance abuse disorder, anybody that has an alcohol issue and anybody with mental health issues, all of a sudden, whatever safety nets they had for the most part are gone,” he said. “And those are people that are living right on the edge of that razor.”

    Sara Wittner’s death is just one example of how complicated it is to track the full impact of the coronavirus pandemic — and even what should be counted. Some people who get COVID-19 die of COVID-19. Some people who have COVID die of something else. And then there are people who die because of disruptions created by the pandemic.

    While public health officials are trying to gather data on how many people test positive for the coronavirus and how many people die from the infection, the pandemic has left an untold number dying in the shadows, not directly because of the virus but still because of it. They are unaccounted for in the official tally, which, as of June 21, has topped 119,000 in the U.S.

    But the lack of immediate clarity on the numbers of people actually dying from COVID-19 has some onlookers, ranging from conspiracy theorists on Twitter all the way to President Donald Trump, claiming the tallies are exaggerated — even before they include deaths like Wittner’s. That has undermined confidence in the accuracy of the death toll and made it harder for public health officials to implement infection prevention measures.

    Yet experts are certain that a lack of widespread testing, variations in how the cause of death is recorded, and the economic and social disruption the virus has caused are hiding the full extent of its death toll.

    How To Count

    In the U.S., COVID-19 is a “notifiable disease” — doctors, coroners, hospitals and nursing homes must report when encountering someone who tests positive for the infection, and when a person who is known to have the virus dies. That provides a nearly real-time surveillance system for health officials to gauge where and to what extent outbreaks are happening. But it’s a system designed for speed over accuracy; it will invariably include deaths not caused by the virus as well as miss deaths that were.

    For example, a person diagnosed with COVID-19 who dies in a car accident could be included in the data. But someone who dies of COVID-19 at home might be missed if they were never tested. Nonetheless, the numbers are close enough to serve as an early-warning system.

    “They’re really meant to be simple,” Colorado state epidemiologist Dr. Rachel Herlihy said. “They apply these black-and-white criteria to often gray situations. But they are a way for us to systematically collect this data in a simple and rapid fashion.”

    For that reason, she said, the numbers don’t always align with death certificate data, which takes much more time to review and classify. And even those can be subjective. Death certificates are usually completed by a doctor who was treating that person at the time of death or by medical examiners or coroners when patients die outside of a health care facility. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention guidelines allow for doctors to attribute a death to a “presumed” or “probable” COVID infection in the absence of a positive test if the patient’s symptoms or circumstances warrant it. Those completing the forms apply their individual medical judgment, though, which can lead to variations from state to state or even county to county in whether a death is attributed to COVID-19.

    Furthermore, it can take weeks, if not months, for the death certificate data to move up the ladder from county to state to federal agencies, with reviews for accuracy at each level, creating a lag in those more official numbers. And they may still miss many COVID-19 deaths of people who were never tested.

    That’s why the two methods of counting deaths can yield different tallies, leading some to conclude that officials are fouling up the numbers. And neither approach would capture the number of people who died because they didn’t seek care — and certainly will miss indirect deaths like Wittner’s where care was disrupted by the pandemic.

    “All those things, unfortunately, are not going to be determined by the death record,” says Oscar Alleyne, chief of programs and services for the National Association of City and County Health Officials.

    Using Historical Data To Understand Today’s Toll

    That’s why researchers track what are known as “excess” deaths. The public health system has been cataloging all deaths on a county-by-county basis for more than a century, providing a good sense of how many deaths can be expected every year. The number of deaths above that baseline in 2020 could tell the extent of the pandemic.

    For example, from March 11 to May 2, New York City recorded 32,107 deaths. Laboratories confirmed 13,831 of those were COVID-19 deaths and doctors categorized another 5,048 of them as probable COVID-19 cases. That’s far more deaths than what historically occurred in the city. From 2014 through 2019, the city averaged just 7,935 deaths during that time of year. Yet when taking into account the historical deaths to assume what might occur normally, plus the COVID cases, that still leaves 5,293 deaths not explained in this year’s death toll. Experts believe that most of those deaths could be either directly or indirectly caused by the pandemic.

    City health officials reported about 200 at-home deaths per day during the height of the pandemic, compared with a daily average 35 between 2013 and 2017. Again, experts believe that excess is presumably caused either directly or indirectly by the pandemic.

    And nationally, a recent analysis of obituaries by the Health Care Cost Institute found that, for April, the number of deaths in the U.S. was running about 12% higher than the average from 2014 through 2019.

    “The excess mortality tells the story,” said Dr. Jeremy Faust, an emergency medicine physician at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston. “We can see that COVID is having a historic effect on the number of deaths in our community.”

    These multiple approaches, however, have many skeptics crying foul, accusing health officials of cooking the books to make the pandemic seem worse than it is. In Montana, for example, a Flathead County health board member cast doubt over official COVID-19 death tolls, and Fox News pundit Tucker Carlson questioned the death rate during an April broadcast. That has sowed seeds of doubt. Some social media posts claim that a family member or friend died at home of a heart attack but that the cause of death was inaccurately listed as COVID-19, leading some to question the need for lockdowns or other precautions.

    “For every one of those cases that might be as that person said, there must be dozens of cases where the death was caused by coronavirus and the person wouldn’t have died of that heart attack — or wouldn’t have died until years later,” Faust said. “At the moment, those anecdotes are the exceptions, not the rule.”

    At the same time, the excess deaths tally would also capture cases like Wittner’s, where the usual access to health care was disrupted.

    A recent analysis from Well Being Trust, a national public health foundation, predicted as many as 75,000 people might die from suicide, overdose or alcohol abuse, triggered by the uncertainty and unemployment caused by the pandemic.

    “People lose their jobs and they lose their sense of purpose and become despondent, and you sometimes see them lose their lives,” said Benjamin Miller, Well Being’s chief strategy officer, citing a 2017 study that found that for every percentage point increase in unemployment, opioid overdose deaths increased 3.6%.

    Meanwhile, hospitals across the nation have seen a drop-off in non-COVID patients, including those with symptoms of heart attacks or strokes, suggesting many people aren’t seeking care for life-threatening conditions and may be dying at home. Denver cardiologist Dr. Payal Kohli calls that phenomenon “coronaphobia.”

    Kohli expects a new wave of deaths over the next year from all the chronic illnesses that aren’t being treated during the pandemic.

    “You’re not necessarily going to see the direct effect of poor diabetes management now, but when you start having kidney dysfunction and other problems in 12 to 18 months, that’s the direct result of the pandemic,” Kohli said. “As we’re flattening the curve of the pandemic, we’re actually steepening all these other curves.”

    Lessons From Hurricane Maria’s Shifting Death Toll

    That’s what happened when Hurricane Maria pummeled Puerto Rico in 2017, disrupting normal life and undermining the island’s health system. Initially, the death toll from the storm was set at 64 people. But more than a year later, the official toll was updated to 2,975, based on an analysis from George Washington University that factored in the indirect deaths caused by the storm’s disruptions. Even so, a Harvard study calculated the excess deaths caused by the hurricane were likely far higher, topping 4,600.

    The numbers became a political hot potato, as critics blasted the Trump administration over its response to the hurricane. That prompted the Federal Emergency Management Agency to ask the National Academy of Sciences to study how best to calculate the full death toll from a natural disaster. That report is due in July, and those who wrote it are now considering how their recommendations apply to the current pandemic — and how to avoid the same politicization that befell the Hurricane Maria death toll.

    “You have some stakeholders who want to downplay things and make it sound like we’ve had a wonderful response, it all worked beautifully,” said Dr. Matthew Wynia, director of the University of Colorado Center for Bioethics and Humanities and a member of the study committee. “And you’ve got others who say, ‘No, no, no. Look at all the people who were harmed.’”

    Calculations for the ongoing pandemic will be even more complicated than for a point-in-time event like a hurricane or wildfire. The indirect impact of COVID-19 might last for months, if not years, after the virus stops spreading and the economy improves.

    But Wittner’s family knows they already want her death to be counted.

    Throughout her high school years, Sekera dreaded entering the house before her parents came home for fear of finding her sister dead. When the pandemic forced them all indoors together, that fear turned to reality.

    “No little sister should have to go through that. No parent should have to go through that,” she said. “There should be ample resources, especially at a time like this when they’re cut off from the world.”

    View the original article at thefix.com

  • Using Naltrexone During Pregnancy Can Benefit Infants, Moms

    Using Naltrexone During Pregnancy Can Benefit Infants, Moms

    A new study found that naltrexone was more effective than buprenorphine at preventing overdose during pregnancy.

    Using naltrexone to treat pregnant women who have opioid use disorder can benefit both mother and child and reduce the chances of neonatal abstinence syndrome (NAS), according to a study released this week. 

    The study, published in the journal Clinical Therapeutics, compared outcomes for mothers and babies when the mothers were treated with naltrexone (known by the brand name Vivitrol), compared with a group of mothers who were treated with buprenorphine.

    Naltrexone vs. Buprenorphine

    The study was small, with just six mothers treated with naltrexone and 12 treated with buprenorphine. However, the results were powerful. They showed that none of the infants whose mothers had been treated with naltrexone experienced neonatal abstinence syndrome.

    On the other hand, 92% of the infants whose mothers used buprenorphine showed signs of neonatal abstinence syndrome, and 46% required medications to treat their withdrawal symptoms. 

    Eighty-three percent of mothers treated with naltrexone were able to initiate breastfeeding. 

    The study also found that naltrexone was more effective at preventing overdose during pregnancy, which is one of the biggest risk factors for the health of women and their fetuses.

    All of the women taking naltrexone abstained from illicit opioid use during their pregnancy, but 23% of the women being treated with buprenorphine relapsed during their pregnancy. The authors noted in a news release that the most important aspect of treating opioid use disorder during pregnancy is keeping the mothers stable on their medication to decrease any risk of relapse.

    “While these study results are preliminary, the outcomes we observed for both mother and baby when naltrexone is used to treat opioid use disorder during pregnancy are promising,” said study author Dr. Elisha Wachman, a neonatologist at Boston Medical Center. 

    Wachman said that there needs to be more study that compares long-term outcomes.

    “Our findings support the need for a larger multi-center study examining the long-term maternal and child safety and efficacy outcomes of naltrexone during pregnancy,” she said. “If those studies yield positive outcomes for both mother and baby, continuing women on naltrexone during their pregnancy could be another safe approach to treat opioid use disorder.”

    Over the past 10 years, the number of babies born dependent on opioids has increased five-fold. For these infants, the symptoms of neonatal abstinence syndrome appear in the first few days of life, and can include trouble eating, muscle rigidity, and an inability to be soothed.

    Up to 80% of babies born with neonatal abstinence syndrome require medications—including morphine, methadone and buprenorphine—to treat their symptoms. 

    View the original article at thefix.com

  • Actress Claudia Christian’s On A Mission To Spread The Word About Naltrexone

    Actress Claudia Christian’s On A Mission To Spread The Word About Naltrexone

    Christian founded the C Three Foundation to educate the public and medical professionals about the alcohol treatment method. 

    June 12 marks the first ever Global Sinclair Method Awareness Day, a method for the treatment of alcohol addiction that TV actress Claudia Christian swears by. Christian, best known for her role in the sci-fi series Babylon 5, founded the C Three Foundation after struggling with alcoholism for years and finding a solution in what is commonly called The Sinclair Method (TSM).

    TSM involves the use of naltrexone—a medication for treating alcohol or opioid use disorder—one to two hours before drinking. Doing this on a regular basis breaks the behavior-reward cycle that is key to addiction disorders by disrupting the endorphin reward system, blocking the pleasant intoxication when alcohol is consumed. 

    “Naltrexone does not make one ill from drinking. Instead, the drug removes the incentive to drink, helping the addicted brain to unlearn previous harmful behaviors over time,” says a press release from the C Three Foundation. “’Drink yourself sober,’ is how Christian and others describe the method because one must drink alcohol with naltrexone for the treatment to work.”

    According to the foundation, TSM was found to have a 78% success rate after “120 peer-reviewed clinical trials” tested the method. Naltrexone can be purchased in generic form for $1-2 per pill, making it much more affordable than inpatient detox and rehab.

    However, the method comes into conflict with traditional addiction treatment methods, which often emphasize abstinence as a necessity and work under the assumption that addiction cannot be “cured” or unlearned.

    The problem with TSM, as described by someone who tried it, is that there is always the temptation to skip the pill.

    “The problem is that, as someone who loves getting drunk, this begins to take on the connotation of, ‘You aren’t going to be able to have as good of a time tonight if you take this pill,’” wrote Joe Ricchio for The Fix. “For a while, I continue to fire them down the hatch immediately to nip this thought process in the bud as soon as it begins—but eventually my lust for alcohol, the reason I began this process in the first place, takes over and I decide that I will have a few ‘snow days’ from the pill.”

    The C Three Foundation’s goal, however, is simply to educate both medical professionals and the general public on TSM so that people with addiction can make an informed choice.

    Abstinence and 12-step programs have come under increasing scrutiny as relapse rates reach 40-60%, and an increasing number of people are seeking out alternatives. The foundation believes TSM should be a better-known alternative for alcohol addiction treatment.

    “Right now, no one but C Three Foundation is out there educating these medical professionals,“ said C Three Foundation Executive Director Jenny Williamson. “This is one of our biggest challenges to gaining mainstream adoption of TSM.”


    View the original article at thefix.com

  • How AA Hijacked Addiction Science and Came to Dominate Treatment: An Interview with Joe Miller

    How AA Hijacked Addiction Science and Came to Dominate Treatment: An Interview with Joe Miller

    The scientists at Yale liked what AA did, but they did not by any stretch think that AA was a cure-all for alcoholism. Neither, by the way, did Bill Wilson.

    Back when he was struggling to control his drinking, Joe Miller failed on a nightly basis. He would get stumbling drunk every evening, and suffer through every day. His treatment providers all delivered the same message:

    “Go to Alcoholics Anonymous.”

    That was hardly surprising advice — AA has long dominated alcoholism treatment in the United States. But Miller, an English professor at Columbus State University in Georgia, eventually learned that numerous other options were available to him at the time, such as Naltrexone, SMART Recovery, and Moderation Management. Why hadn’t anybody mentioned them?

    That is the question that Miller sets out to answer in The Us of AA, a slender, provocative book that tells the story of how Alcoholics Anonymous grew into the gargantuan organization that we know today, even though some evidence suggests that other treatments may be more effective.

    Miller is not “anti-AA.” He believes that there is little to be lost — and perhaps much to be gained — by trying 12-step solutions. But he adds that alcoholism is more complex than the AA model suggests. Miller holds that problem drinkers should explore an array of potential strategies, not just one. Though he writes with powerful indignation, The US of AA is not a tendentious or overly polemical book; it is based on careful analysis of a huge and diverse range of sources.

    I had the pleasure of speaking to Joe by phone on May 11, 2019. This interview is lightly edited for length and clarity.

    Many people know a bit about how Bill Wilson helped start Alcoholics Anonymous, but you argue that Marty Mann may have played a more pivotal role in building AA. What do we need to know about her?

    Absolutely, I think she is largely responsible for our nationwide concept of alcoholism as a disease, and our idea that AA is the go-to cure for alcoholism. She ran one of the most brilliant PR campaigns of the 20th century. She helped build a huge network with local chapters across the country, which distributed information at the individual level and the community level, [then progressed] to lobbying in state houses, and eventually, the federal government.

    Alcoholics Anonymous has the 11th Tradition, which states, “Our public relations policy is based on attraction rather than promotion.” But Mann started out being a spokesperson for AA in the New York area — she was an excellent public speaker — and during that process, she developed a vision for a national campaign that would bring about a new understanding of alcoholism.

    You say in the book Marty Mann, and others in AA, were adamant that alcoholism should be understood as a disease.

    Yes. From the beginning, that was part of AA’s cure mechanism. AA said that alcoholism is not a moral failing. Rather, it’s an indication that something is wrong with you physiologically or psychologically (or some combination of the two). It’s beyond your control. You need to believe this is a disease.

    One thing Marty Mann did was reach out to a scientist at Yale, named Bunky Jellinek, who was kind of an odd character. (There’s some mystery about whether he had even earned a college degree.) But, by all accounts, he was an extremely energetic person, really passionate about the problem of alcoholism, and he seized upon Mann’s idea. He says, “Okay, we can have this PR campaign and it will help shore up our scientific research. We’ll sell the public on alcoholism as a medical problem and not a moral failing, and this will help us.”

    To boil this whole story down, the scientists got the cart before the horse. They didn’t have the money to research their theory that alcoholism was a physiological disease, but they got behind that idea, so the money would come. Then, when the money came, they learned that alcoholism was far more complex than the model they were using. The scientists at Yale liked what AA did, but they did not by any stretch think that AA was a cure-all for alcoholism. Neither, by the way, did Bill Wilson.

    That was something I learned in your book. I was surprised by Bill Wilson’s intellectual humility.

    All throughout his career, he could see that AA was not working for everybody. He worried about AA beliefs hardening into dogma, and he said “Just because something works for us, that doesn’t mean it will work for everyone.” Some of his later work was devoted to trying to find ways to get people other types of help.

    All along, the folks who were not beholden to AA’s story — i.e., the scientists who weren’t — had the sense that alcoholism is this really complex problem, which could be approached in numerous ways. At Yale, when Marty Mann was doing her campaign, researchers were developing treatment programs in Connecticut — some pilot programs. And AA was just one small part of them. It was very much like what science nowadays says is the way to go: You’ve got to use an array of different approaches to tackle alcoholism. It’s different for everybody.

    Today, many treatment programs are rooted in AA doctrine. And you say in the book that some forces in the treatment industry actively tried to suppress other approaches to helping people.

    It actually goes back to the 1960s. This psychiatrist in England, named D. L. Davies, found that a significant number of patients who went through alcoholic treatment programs later resumed drinking at levels he described as “normal.” He wrote a paper on his findings, and a number of big players in the AA movement disputed the study. One of them was Marvin Block, a doctor from Buffalo who had spearheaded the AMA’s (American Medical Association) campaign to recognize alcohol as an illness. Block said, “Well, the [people who learned to drink normally] must not be real alcoholics,” even though these men had been hospitalized for severe drinking problems.

    Another example is Mark and Linda Sobell. They did a study where they trained people in moderate drinking, and they found that a significantly higher number of them fared better [after practicing controlled drinking] than those in AA. Afterward, there was a fierce attack against them, which was publicized on 60 Minutes. It almost cost them their jobs, and it really set back any work in the area.

    My pet theory is that sobriety spreads in AA through “social contagion.” If a person who is discouraged about their drinking walks into an AA meeting, they’re likely to find a large group of people who have enjoyed substantial periods of sobriety, and who are willing to help them. I think people in AA are mimicking each other’s behaviors and attitudes – just like we do in other phases of life.

    I’ve had two quite long stretches of sobriety in AA, one when I was in college, in Boulder, Colorado, and another for about seven years in the 2000s, in Kansas City. In both cases, it was because I had strong social connections, and healthy routines. In Boulder, the meetings were almost a pretext for us to go out and socialize afterward. For the most part, I found the AA meetings in Kansas City to be insufferable. But there was a meditation house nearby, and after meditating, we’d go out for Mexican food afterwards. And that was enough to help me stay sober.

    But AA itself did not work for me. Especially after going through the steps, and really working them hard — and I really freaking worked them hard! — and hearing people say, “After you do that fourth, boy, it really changes your life.” And hearing them say that, over and over again. I just thought, “No. I do not believe this. It’s fine for you, but I just don’t believe in it.”

    In a recent New York Post article, you talked a bit about your drinking habits now. You practice moderation, but you say it takes some effort. Can you explain?

    It’s going well. I don’t take Naltrexone anymore, but that drug really helped disrupt my drinking patterns. I would take it and almost magically, I would drink about 50 percent less in a night.

    I combined that with that an app called CheckUp & Choices, which was developed by a psychologist, Reid Hester. That’s a kind of cognitive behavioral therapy app, where you do a very extensive questionnaire that gets you thinking about the situations in which you get triggered, and when you drink, and how much you drink. It helps you keep track of your frame of mind about drinking. Exercise is also a key part of my program. Having my spouse on board with this is also huge — evidence suggests this can make a difference, if you have spousal support.

    If you were to find out down the road that this approach does not work for you — if, heaven forbid, you fall back into full-blown alcoholism — are you confident you’ll be willing to revisit your approach?

    Yes. But I don’t see that happening. I see the opposite. I see, down the road, no drinking at all. That’s the direction we’re going. The direction is continually toward drinking less.

    I share many of your thoughts about AA. Sometimes I even have doubts about its strict emphasis on total abstinence and continuous sobriety. I heard a segment on NPR last week suggesting that AA’s chip system may even be counterproductive, because it can cause people who slip up in the program — or who drink very occasionally — to feel demoralized and ashamed. And as any treatment provider will tell you, those are precisely the feelings that may lead to even more drinking.

    That said, I think AA’s line about alcoholism being “cunning, baffling and powerful” is spot-on. People who struggle with addiction or alcoholism are prone to rationalization and self-deception. Everyone is a bit different, but it is obvious that some people should simply never drink under any circumstances whatsoever. If they do drink, the consequences can be devastating. This seems to me a difficult and tricky subject.

    I think the best answer to this is something one of the psychologists I interviewed said to me: if AA works for you, that’s the easiest and most effective solution. Similarly, with moderation, many people find in time that it’s much simpler to just stay away from that first drink than it is to try to control drinking.

    But if you look at large-scale statistics on drinking and recovery, most problem drinkers do not follow the traditional AA path of complete abstinence forever. Even those who are in AA for a while, working the steps and staying sober — statistics show that many will one day have another drink. What’s most dangerous in these cases, I think, is the belief that one drink will lead automatically to alcoholic behavior. That might be true for any given individual, but it’s not the truth for all, and studies have shown that believing it’s true tends to make it true.

    Purchase US of AA: How the Twelve Steps Hijacked the Science of Alcoholism on Amazon. For more about the book and its author, check out Joe Miller’s website.

    View the original article at thefix.com

  • Why Aren't More Doctors Embracing Medication-Assisted Treatment?

    Why Aren't More Doctors Embracing Medication-Assisted Treatment?

    A new op-ed suggests that concerns about “branding” may deter many doctors from offering medication-assisted treatment (MAT) for opioid use disorder.

    A new op-ed on STAT News highlights a troubling concern in regard to medication-assisted treatment (MAT).

    Author David A. Patterson Silver Wolf, PhD, opined that the reason why methadone, buprenorphine and naltrexone aren’t more widely used to treat opioid use disorders (OUDs) may be due to “branding”—specifically, concern on the part of primary care physicians about the stigma associated with OUDs and its effect on their practice.

    But as Silver Wolf noted, the toll taken by the opioid epidemic on individuals and families all but required physicians to undertake the necessary steps to prescribe MAT, despite any qualms they may have.

    In the article, Silver Wolf, an associate professor at Washington University in St. Louis, Missouri and faculty member for training programs funded by the National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA), wrote that he came to his opinion after participating in a national panel of addiction experts that produced “Medications for Opioid Use Disorder Save Lives,” a report from the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine.

    In the report, he and his fellow experts noted that while the need for medication-assisted treatment is sizable, and drugs like methadone and Suboxone have been approved as safe and effective treatments for OUD by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), only a small number of physicians have signed up for the necessary training by the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) to be able to prescribe it.

    Silver Wolf also cited another STAT opinion piece, which speculated on some of the reasons why more physicians haven’t been lining up to prescribe MAT. One deterrent may be the process for receiving a federal waiver and the specialized training required to administer this treatment.

    But he also suggested that concern over the perception of those with substance use disorders by other patients may also color certain medical professionals’ opinions, who fear that the inclusion of such individuals to a patient base may negatively impact business.

    “Physicians whose practices focus on patients with opioid use disorder don’t have to worry about their ‘brand’ being harmed because it is tied to this treatment and this patient population,” Silver Wolf wrote. “But a typical primary care physician in Manhattan or suburban Atlanta or rural Nevada might worry about the potential trouble that patients with addictions might cause in their waiting rooms.” 

    The answer, according to Silver Wolf, is for more physicians to look past financial concerns and stigma, and take the steps to make medication-assisted treatment a part of their practice—even though, he adds, that many will not.

    But if individuals and families impacted by the addiction crisis—what the National Academies committee has come to view as an “all-hands-on-deck” situation—then Silver Wolf believes that physicians need to do the same.

    View the original article at thefix.com

  • Can Ketamine Use Trigger Opioid-Like Dependency?

    Can Ketamine Use Trigger Opioid-Like Dependency?

    Researchers investigated whether ketamine works on depression by acting like an opioid in the brain.

    Though ketamine has gained the support of some mental health professionals as a possible therapy for depression, a new study suggests that the drug’s anti-depressive qualities may also have a hidden and potentially dangerous side effect: ketamine may offer relief from depressive symptoms by activating the body’s opioid system, which in turn may make some users dependent upon it, like an opioid.

    In an editorial that accompanied the study, Dr. Mark George, professor of psychiatry, radiology and neuroscience at the Medical University of South Carolina, wrote, “We would hate to treat the depression and suicide epidemics by overusing ketamine, which might unintentionally grow the third head of opioid dependence.”

    The study, conducted by researchers from Stanford University and published in the August 2018 edition of the American Journal of Psychiatry, was comprised of a double-blind crossover of 30 adults with treatment-resistant depression, which was defined as having tried at least four antidepressants and receiving no benefit from them.

    The authors looked at 14 of the patients—of which 12 had received, in randomized order, two doses of 0.5 mg of ketamine—once after receiving 50 mg of naltrexone (or Vivitrol) which blocks the brain’s opiate receptors and diminishes cravings for opioids; and once after receiving a placebo instead of the naltrexone—with the injections occurring about a month apart. 

    The goal of the study was to determine whether the naltrexone and ketamine combination would reduce the latter drug’s antidepressant qualities, or its dissociative or opioid-like response.

    The authors’ analysis found that when patients received the placebo/ketamine combination, they experienced what Live Science called a “dramatic reduction” of their depressive symptoms. But the naltrexone/ketamine combination appeared to have no effect on their symptoms.

    Additionally, those participants who received naltrexone experienced the dissociative effects of ketamine, which include hallucinations, which prompted the authors to cut the study short to avoid exposing more participants to a “clearly ineffective and noxious combination treatment,” as the study noted.

    The scope of the study was small, and as George (who was not involved in the study) noted, additional research is required in order to determine if the ketamine’s antidepressant qualities are caused by its impact on opioid receptors or another receptor. He ultimately expressed caution in regard to using ketamine for the treatment of depression.

    “Ketamine clinics that do not focus on accurate diagnosis, use proper symptom rating instruments and discuss long-term treatment options are likely not in patients’ best interests,” he wrote in the editorial. “We need to better understand ketamine’s mode of action and how it should be used and administered.”

    View the original article at thefix.com