Tag: pharmacotherapy

  • We Need Harm Reduction for All Drugs, Not Just Opioids

    We Need Harm Reduction for All Drugs, Not Just Opioids

    While we’ve made great strides with harm reduction for people who use opioids, we’re slow to provide non-abstinence-based treatment for people who use other drugs.

    A quick glance at the news reveals the catastrophic effects of opioids across the nation: around 120 people a day die from opioid-related overdoses. It’s so devastating that the nation is calling it an opioid epidemic. Yet even as we watch this tragedy unfold, we’re missing the point.

    By focusing exclusively on opioids, we’re overlooking the harm caused by other deadly drugs. How can we highlight harm reduction resources if we only focus our efforts on people who use one class of drug?

    The Problem with the Opioid “Epidemic”

    According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, more than 700,000 people died from a drug overdose between 1999 and 2017. Sixty-eight percent of those deaths in 2017 involved an opioid — approximately 70,200. However, that’s not the 100 percent that the “epidemic” coverage would have us believe.

    While I’m not arguing that the opioid-related deaths shouldn’t be covered — they should! — I am saying the problem with zeroing in on the opioid epidemic is that we are focusing too narrowly on the harms caused by one drug and are blinding ourselves to the impact of other deadly drugs. We should be reporting on those, too.

    A more accurate picture of drug-related deaths in 2017, according to the CDC, looks like this:

    • Alcohol was responsible for the deaths of 88,000 people
    • Cocaine misuse killed 13,942 people
    • Benzodiazepine misuse was responsible for 11,537 deaths
    • Psychostimulant misuse, including methamphetamines, was responsible for 10,333 deaths.

    Those aren’t insignificant numbers, so why are they being overlooked? I asked recovery activist Brooke Feldman for her perspective.

    “The sensationalized and narrow focus on opioids fails to account for the fact that people who develop an opioid use disorder typically used other drugs before and alongside opioids,” Feldman said. “So, we really have a polysubstance use situation, not merely an opioid use situation.”

    She continues, “Focusing on opioids only had led to the erection of an opioid-only infrastructure that will be useless for the next great drug binge and is barely relevant to address the deadliest drug used, which is alcohol.”

    The Deadliest Drug: Alcohol

    Alcohol is responsible for more deaths than any other drug. But we overlook it for two reasons: because it’s legal, and because it’s a socially acceptable drug. Not only that, but advertising actively promotes its use — you only have to look on Instagram or Etsy to see how widely excessive use of alcohol is normalized — especially among mothers and millennials. These advertisers have been smart to market alcohol as a means of self-care — encouraging drinking to help unwind from the stresses of the week — and as a means of coping with motherhood

    Social media reinforces the message that alcohol is a tool to cope with stress and something that should be paired with our favorite stress-relieving activities, like yoga. Captions on Instagram read like “Vino and vinyasa,” “Mommy’s medicine,” “Mommy juice,” “It’s wine o’clock,” “Surviving motherhood one bottle at a time,” and “When being an adult starts to get you down, just remember that now you can buy wine whenever you want.”

    Perhaps what is most insidious about alcohol is that it heavily impacts marginalized and oppressed communities. For example, Black women over 45 are the fastest-growing population with alcohol use disorder. And the LGBTQ+ community is 18 percent more likely to have alcohol use disorder than the general population.

    Alcohol aside, looking at the harm done by other drugs, we can see that opioids are no longer the leading cause of drug-related death in some states. In Oregon, statistics show, deaths related to meth outnumber those that involve one of the most common opioids, heroin. In fact, there has been a threefold increase in meth-related deaths over the last ten years, despite the restriction on pseudoephedrine products, which now require a prescription. 

    Similarly, in Missouri, which was ground zero for home-based meth labs 20 years ago, the recent spotlight on opioids has overshadowed an influx of a stronger, purer kind of methamphetamine. Deaths related to the new and improved drug are on the rise.

    Oregon’s state medical examiner Karen Gunson speaks to this disparity of focusing on opioids over other deaths and the damage that those other drugs cause. “Opioids are pretty lethal and can cause death by themselves, but meth is insidious. It kills you in stages and it affects the fabric of society more than opioids. It just doesn’t kill people. It is chaos itself.”

    Abstinence Is Not Attainable for Everyone

    Our approach to recovery has been too one-dimensional, stating that complete abstinence is the goal. But this perspective is outdated. Abstinence isn’t attainable for everyone. If it were, then more people would be in recovery. However, harm reduction is attainable. It reduces deaths, treats medical conditions related to drug use, reduces the transmission of diseases, and provides options for treatment services. In fact, people who use safe injection sites are four times more likely to access treatment.

    “Whether it is with problematic use of alcohol, tobacco, cocaine, methamphetamine, etc. use, centering harm-reduction principles and practices would likely engage more people than an abysmal 1 out of 10 people who could use but do not receive SUD (Substance Use Disorder) treatment,” Feldman explains. “Requiring immediate and total abstinence rather than seeking to address overall well-being and quality of life concerns is a barrier to engagement — and sadly, it is placing the focus more on symptom reduction than it is on what is causing the symptom of chaotic drug use in the first place.”

    Harm Reduction for All Drugs Means Fewer Deaths

    Our focus on the opioid crisis has helped improve harm reduction resources — like the increased availability of naloxone to reverse overdoses, and the more accepted use of pharmacotherapy and medication-assisted treatment (which has now been endorsed as a primary treatment by the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration), and some safe injection sites — but it has also meant we aren’t concentrating as much on research, funding, and education devoted to harm reduction practices for other harmful drugs. The result is that we have fewer resources and less awareness when it comes to keeping people who use non-opioid drugs safe.

    We need to look at reducing harm across the spectrum of drug use to reduce all deaths. More safe usage sites, clean tools, safe disposal bins, medical assistance, education, referral to other support services, and access to pharmacotherapy (including drugs to treat or mitigate harms of alcohol use disorder and the development of new medications for help with other substances). Specialized treatment other than abstinence should be accessible for people who use all drugs — not just opioids. 

    View the original article at thefix.com

  • What Is Evidence-Based Addiction Treatment?

    What Is Evidence-Based Addiction Treatment?

    12-step programs are an incomplete approach and do not meet the requirements for evidence-based treatment because they lack biomedical and psychological components, and they use a one-size-fits-all approach.

    When looking for treatment for addiction, there is a lot of information out there and countless opinions. Friends, family, doctors, researchers, and people in recovery all have their own beliefs about what you need to do to get well. Unlike in other areas of healthcare, addiction treatment is often deemed “effective” based on anecdotal reports. In fact, most people who seek or are forced into treatment do not receive health care that is aligned with evidence-based practice.

    A frequently-cited definition comes from a 1996 article in the BMJ Medical Journal: evidence-based “means integrating individual clinical expertise with the best available external clinical evidence from systematic research.” Other definitions also include the patient’s individual circumstances, preferences, expectations, and values.

    These variables are not necessarily constant, and there is no one-size-fits-all solution; any list of evidence-based treatments is going to include a wide variety of approaches.

    What is Addiction?

    In the United States, addiction is still treated more as a crime than as a chronic illness or disorder. Until that perspective changes, treatments will not meet their full potential and will not be as effective as they could be. Addiction, or substance use disorder (SUD), is a chronic medical condition that has remissions, relapses, and genetic components.

    Are Relapses Normal?

    A relapse is not a failure but a symptom. The brain of a person with SUD has gone through neurobiological changes that increase the risk of relapse because the damaged reward pathways stick around much longer than the substances stay in the body. Stressful events and other painful life experiences can trigger that maladaptive coping mechanism and cause a relapse.

    For other chronic illnesses we would consider a relapse to be an unfortunate symptom of the disease, and we might call it a recurrence instead of a relapse. When successfully managed, the condition is considered to be in remission. Remission is a term that is relatively new in addition treatment; substance use disorder was not always believed to be a disease but rather a moral failing and a problem of willpower. We now understand that addiction is a chronic medical condition and that remission is the goal of treatment. Remission, as defined by the American Society of Addiction Medicine, is “a state of wellness where there is an abatement of signs and symptoms that characterize active addiction.”

    What Is Successful Addiction Treatment?

    Let’s take a look at what it means to have an effective treatment outcome in terms of addiction. The primary goal is usually abstinence or at least a “clinically meaningful reduction in substance use.” To measure effectiveness, we must look at how and if treatment improves the quality of life for the patient. Improving quality of life is the aim when treating all chronic conditions that have no cure.

    Evidence-based therapies do not support the notion of “hitting bottom.” As with any chronic disease, early intervention is going to provide the best outcomes. Even more effective than early intervention is prevention because SUDs are both preventable and treatable.

    Pharmacotherapies to Treat Substance Use Disorders

    Addiction is an overstimulation of the brain’s reward pathways, and as the condition progresses, the brain becomes less sensitive to the rewarding effects of a drug and requires more of the substance to get the same effect. This overstimulation can play tricks on memory recall, turning experiences that were not good into ones that seem better than they actually were. It creates false memories to encourage re-indulging in the addictive substance or behavior.

    From a medical standpoint, this disparity needs to be interrupted and corrected. Akikur Mohammad, the author of The Anatomy of Addiction, argues that successful treatment of addiction “must first address the biological component and correct the brain’s chemical imbalance in the process.”

    Pharmacotherapy is used in medication-assisted treatment and recovery. Depending on the patient’s individual drug history, different medications may be used to mitigate the brain’s compulsive race to stimulate the reward loop.

    Therapy for Substance Use Disorders

    Most research on therapy for substance use disorders has been done on cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT)—a form of typically short-term psychotherapy that combines talk therapy with behavioral therapy. Patients are taught how to adjust their negative thought patterns into positive thoughts. There is clinical evidence that CBT can be as effective as medications for many types of depression and anxiety. For treating SUD, CBT has been shown to have a “small but statistically significant treatment effect” but doesn’t necessarily have a long-lasting effect. As it’s a chronic illness, it stands to reason that SUD requires further maintenance beyond any short-term treatment.

    Are 12-Step Programs Evidence Based?

    Alcoholics Anonymous and other 12-step programs use a social model of recovery. They are built on the basic notion of peer support in a safe environment. There is research on the efficacy of 12-step programs, which shows it works for some people and that there are benefits to this social model of recovery. The steps, or rather the principles of the steps, must be internalized into a person’s psyche in order for the person to achieve lasting abstinence. 12-step programs are an incomplete approach and do not meet the requirements for the classification of evidence-based treatment because they lack biomedical and psychological components, and they use a one-size-fits-all approach.

    One central tenet of the 12-step solution requires turning one’s will over to the care of a higher power. Certainly, letting go of the notion that force of will can change the trajectory of addiction is necessary for any treatment. It’s a disease, and willpower will no sooner cure addiction than it will cure diabetes or heart disease. An evidence-based approach could mean that a doctor recommends a patient attend a 12-step program, or other support group, as part of a maintenance regime.

    The addiction treatment world is overrun with rehabs that primarily utilize 12-step programs, which are touted as the only treatment for addiction. That simply isn’t true. Addiction researchers have found that individually, cognitive and behavioral therapies, including social supports like 12-step programs, are incomplete treatment for a chronic disease that is both physiological and genetic in origin. From a treatment perspective that is grounded in evidence-based practice, involvement in a support group would be merely one piece of the puzzle.

    Holistic Care

    In evidence-based practice, the treatment process individualizes care and uses a holistic perspective to see what combination of resources will work best for a particular patient. The combination of treatment tools depends on a clinician’s specialized knowledge, the patient’s values and preferences, and the best research evidence. We need more specially trained addiction clinicians who can help people with SUDs make informed treatment decisions.

    Are you in recovery from addiction? What worked for you? Tell us in the comments!

    View the original article at thefix.com

  • Language Matters: A Recovery Scientist Explains the Impact of Our Words

    Language Matters: A Recovery Scientist Explains the Impact of Our Words

    If a person has internalized the negative stereotypes associated with being “an addict,” are they more likely to have a fixed mindset and believe they cannot improve or change?

    Over 21 million Americans have substance use disorder and fewer than 3.8 million individuals receive treatment each year. 28 percent of the individuals who need treatment, but do not receive it, report stigma as a major barrier to accessing care. If we want to destigmatize addiction — a highly stigmatized disorder — then we need a unified language.

    The words we use have been shown by researchers to not only negatively influence our attitudes toward people in recovery and people who use substances — to the extent of suggesting that a health condition is a moral, social, or criminal issue — but they also impact access to health care and recovery outcomes.

    This article isn’t a mandate for everyone to start policing language, but it was motivated by a genuine desire to look at the evidence: how we speak to someone with substance use disorder matters. In the midst of a public health crisis, we can’t dismiss the use of language as just semantics, trivial, or being overly politically correct. We don’t have that luxury when 64,000 Americans die from drug overdoses each year and over 88,000 die from alcohol-related causes.

    Building upon an already existing foundation of work in this field, recovery scientist and researcher Robert Ashford and colleagues conducted a larger study of the general public measuring both implicit and explicit bias elicited by certain common words and phrases, which was published in June. I was fortunate to speak with him about the study, the impact of language, and how we can apply this information to help fight stigma.

    The Fix: Let’s say you’re among peers in recovery and you refer to yourself by a term which your study has shown to be a derogatory, like “addict,” “alcoholic,” or “substance abuser.” How does that contribute towards the stigma those in recovery face?

    Robert Ashford: This is an interesting question, and one from an evidence perspective, we don’t have exact answers on. Anecdotally, we believe that even though it is probable that this type of language has an impact on things like self-stigma, self-esteem, and a sense of self-worth, it is more important that people have the right to label themselves as they choose, especially as it concerns the recovery community. The fact is that the use of pejorative labels has had a decades-long place in popular mutual-aid programs like AA and trying to tell the mutual aid recovery community what to do isn’t a goal, nor should it be in our minds. At the end of the day though, it is important for people in recovery to understand that the use of such labels may become internalized over time, leading to decreases in self-esteem and such. However, without more evidence, it is merely hypothetical at this point.

    In what ways does it impact their lives? For example: their access to, and quality of, healthcare?

    Generally, the use of terms such as “substance abuser,” “addict,” and others have been found to be highly associated with negative attitudes (i.e. bias) in the general public, among behavioral health professionals, and in medical professionals. These negative associations ultimately lead to all types of stigma (social and professional) and ultimately to very explicit discrimination. On a personal level, we know that just over 25% of individuals with a severe substance use disorder don’t seek treatment each year due to the belief that they will be stigmatized or discriminated against by their friends, neighbors, or employers. Additionally, this type of bias has also been found to decrease the willingness and efficacy of medical services delivered to patients that have a severe substance use disorder. Access and the quality of treatment in the United States has many barriers and enhancing those barriers through the use of language is an easy fix – just by changing the way we talk!

    What would be an alternative, less-stigmatizing term?

    Any term that puts the focus on the individual as a human is bound to be less stigmatizing. For example, individuals are not “addicts” or “substance abusers,” but rather, “people with a severe substance use disorder” or a “person who uses substances.” Language changes constantly, but the one commonality in terms of bias and stigma seems to be that when we can restore or focus on the humanity of an individual through our language, we will be speaking from a better place.

    How might that term be more empowering to the individual, and in what ways?

    As a person in recovery, I can speak personally that when using terms that are rooted in humanity, I get a better sense of myself and the conditions that I have either lived with or am living through. Often times when we are in the midst of a severe substance use disorder, faced with a constant barrage of language that is meant to disempower and dehumanize, we began to internalize those labels. While it is possible in certain settings that these terms are used as a reminder of a previous identity – intending to provide some sense of catharsis in the recovery process, or a mechanism for not returning to a previous state – I think it is equally plausible that we can be reminded and have that benefit by using terms that don’t immediately degrade our very essence as people.

    I’m curious how a growth mindset versus a fixed mindset might inform our choices of words? Corollary, how does each mindset inform how we interpret what we hear from others?

    This an interesting question, especially in applying the growth and fixed mindset theories from childhood development and education to the field of substance use and recovery. The theory suggests that those who believe they can improve or change (growth mindset) are more likely to engage in activities that allow them to grow, and those that believe they cannot improve or change (fixed mindset) or less likely to do so. In the context of recovery and substance use, this has immense potential to inform how language truly does impact individuals in or initiating recovery. If a person has internalized the negative stereotypes associated with being “an addict,” are they more likely to have a fixed mindset? While there are surely myriad reasons for the challenges faced by people with a severe substance use disorder, mindset may indeed be a big part of it.

    You’ve done an incredible amount of work in educating both those in recovery and clinicians about the importance of the language we use. Some of your research features infographics about negative language and presents a positive alternative (below). For those who may need further clarification, what is the difference between pharmacotherapy (or medication to treat substance use disorders) and medication-assisted recovery?

    The infographics we made from our results have sure inspired a lot of conversation – which is exactly what we hoped for as scientists! One of the constant topics has been around “medication-assisted treatment,” “pharmacotherapy,” and “medication-assisted recovery.”

    Pharmacotherapy is the use of medications to treat a disorder/disease/ailment – specific to our field, this would imply treating a substance use disorder with medications. The term had significantly more positive associations than a similar term, “medication-assisted treatment” from our tests and we wanted to make the suggestion to use it instead.

    “Medication-assisted recovery” on the other hand can be considered the use of substance use disorder medications, combined with the use of recovery support services such as MARS recovery meetings, engaging with a peer recovery support specialist, utilizing a recovery community organization, or attending a MAR-friendly 12-step meeting. The biggest difference is that not everyone who uses substance use disorder pharmacotherapy wants, or would consider themselves, in recovery. Keeping the two terms separate gives people an option, and from a research prospective, both terms are associated with the positive and their use isn’t likely to elicit implicit bias among the general public.

    Figure: Suggested Recovery dialects


    View the original article at thefix.com