AT Forum Volume 24, #1 Winter 2014 Newsletter

From the Publisher—Special Issue on Recovery From Opioid Addiction

people-sunlight

For six decades methadone maintenance has been an approved treatment for opioid addiction. People who are taking methadone are no different from those who manage their diabetes by taking insulin: they are in recovery. Yet some policymakers—and even some medical, and yes, some addiction authorities—don’t believe it. Although that may change as more and more professionals buy into the scientific fact that addiction is a brain disease, and therefore it can be treated, and people can recover from it.

The federal government, from the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA) to the Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP), states that medication-assisted treatment (MAT) is recovery. In this issue, we write about a comprehensive literature review funded by SAMHSA demonstrating the efficacy of MAT. And we cover an article by William L. White describing the stigma and other obstacles methadone patients face when joining 12-step groups—and the important role these groups could play in helping patients in recovery. We also interview Walter Ginter, peer, patient, and advocate, who spoke before the ONDCP in December on the topic of recovery and MAT. Mr. Ginter, a methadone patient in long-term recovery, is an articulate spokesman for methadone and for patients, helping to guide peer services across the country from his position at MARS, in New York City. We also interview Zac Talbott, based in the less-welcoming South, about his work as an advocate.

Not all of the news is good: In New Jersey, a state that strongly endorses methadone as a treatment for opioid-dependent pregnant women, a woman is facing child abuse and neglect charges simply for being in a methadone program while pregnant. The Supreme Court is due to hear the case, and legal and medical authorities are hopeful that the court will not in effect ban MAT for pregnant women. The woman was in recovery, doing the right thing for herself and her baby, yet was reported, and was held by a lower court to have committed child abuse and neglect by being on methadone while pregnant. On the bright side, the best legal and medical minds who know about MAT have filed a friend of the court brief on the mother’s behalf.

In Philadelphia, where AT Forum attended the AATOD conference last fall, recovery transformation is happening in a solid way, moving from treating addiction as an acute episode to a continuum instead, in which someone enters recovery as a person, not a patient. Roland Lamb discusses efforts to help opioid treatment programs (OTPs) provide what is needed for recovery, with more of a focus on the person than on the dosage and the monitoring. Methadone is a way to recovery—that’s why it was created—but the person taking it is the point of recovery.

Finally, a new evidence-based document from ASAM provides guidance for safe methadone induction and stabilization in OTP patients. This is the first time this vital information has been brought together in one place. Our article by Stewart Leavitt is recommended reading for everyone interested in methadone maintenance treatment.

I hope you enjoy this issue, and we look forward to your comments and feedback.

Sue Emerson
Publisher

MAT With Methadone or Buprenorphine: Assessing the Evidence for Effectiveness

evidenceIt’s not surprising that a thorough review of the efficacy of medication-assisted treatment (MAT) with methadone or buprenorphine reveals  a high level of evidence for the positive impact of MAT in keeping patients in treatment and reducing or eliminating illicit opioid use.

What is surprising is that the stigma against MAT persists—even though evidence suggests that methadone maintenance treatment (MMT) has a positive impact on drug-related HIV risk behaviors and criminal activity—and thus could make clinic neighborhoods safer, rather than less desirable.

The research findings on MMT and buprenorphine or buprenorphine-naloxone maintenance treatment (BMT) were published in November 2013 in two peer-reviewed articles (see References) as part of the Assessing the Evidence Base (AEB) Series sponsored by the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA).

The Assessing the Evidence Base Series

SAMHSA sponsored the AEB Series to help guide providers’ decisions about which behavioral health services public and commercially funded plans should cover. The Affordable Care Act (ACA) greatly expands health care coverage and provides the opportunity “for federal and state agencies to work with private and nonprofit sectors to transform the American health care system” by developing a comprehensive set of community-based, recovery-oriented, and evidence-based services for people with mental and substance use disorders. The ACA doesn’t specify specific treatments, leaving the decision to federal, state, and local agencies, managed care organizations, and commercial and private insurers.

Deciding which services have verified effectiveness isn’t an easy task. To help in the decision-making process, the AEB Series provides a literature evaluation for 14 behavioral health services. For people with substance use disorders, they include, in addition to MMT and BMT, residential treatment, peer-recovery support, and intensive outpatient programs. The goal of the AEB Series is “to provide a framework for decision makers to build a modern addictions and mental health service system for the people who use these services and the people who provide them.”

The Studies

Authors of the MMT and BMT studies searched major databases and other sources to review meta-analyses, reviews, and individual studies from 1995 through 2012.

In brief, the studies found that with adequate dosing, MMT (> 60 mg) and BMT (16 mg-32 mg) caused a similar reduction in illicit opioid use, but MMT was associated with better treatment retention and BMT with a lower risk of adverse events. In pregnancy, MMT and BMT (without naltrexone) showed similar efficacy, but MMT was better than BMT in retaining pregnant women in treatment, and BMT was associated with improved maternal and fetal outcomes, compared to no MAT.

MMT and BMT showed similar occurrence rates of neonatal abstinence syndrome, “but symptoms were less severe for infants whose mothers were treated with BMT.” BMT is associated with a lower risk of adverse events, and has the advantage of greater availability (office facilities improve access and provide earlier care). MMT may be needed for patients who require high doses of opioid agonist treatment, and has the advantage of a possible positive effect on mortality, drug-related HIV risk behaviors, and criminal activity.

The authors advise that MMT “should be a covered service available to all individuals,” and that BMT “should be considered for inclusion as a covered benefit.”

Sprinkled within the two articles are qualifiers such as “possible,” “associated with,” and “suggestive.” That’s because the statistical significance shown in some large, well-designed studies tends to disappear when data from individual studies are merged. Merging changes drug dosages, length of treatment, patient characteristics of the group, and other data; these changes may make reaching statistical significance impossible.

Areas for Future Research

The authors identified several areas where additional data would be helpful. For methadone, these include the impact of MMT on secondary outcomes, the efficacy and safety tradeoffs of doses > 100 mg, and confirmation of results of interim treatment for improved outcome. (In interim treatment, patients receive methadone daily under supervision for up to 120 days, and emergency counseling, while awaiting placement in a program.)  Another research area: the use of MMT in subpopulations—racial and ethnic minority groups, and people who misuse prescription drugs.

For buprenorphine, suggested research areas include the impact of BMT on secondary outcomes, appropriate dosing to enhance outcomes, and confirmation of stepped-care results. (Stepped-care involves gradually increasing buprenorphine doses to 32 mg—higher doses “do not provide additional efficacy;” patients requiring more medication are switched—“stepped-up”—to high-dose methadone.) Other research areas: the use of BMT in subpopulations (described above), and improved induction protocols to minimize retention problems.

A box in each publication summarizes the authors’ findings for each treatment. We reproduce them below, as they appeared in print.

 

Evidence for the effectiveness of MMT: high

Evidence clearly shows that MMT has a positive impacta on:

  • Retention in treatment
  • Illicit opioid use

Evidence is less clear but suggestive that MMT has a positive impact on:

  • Mortality
  • Illicit drug use (non-opioid)
  • Drug-related HIV risk behaviorsb
  • Criminal activity

Evidence suggests that MMT has little impact on:

  • Sex-related HIV risk behaviorsc

 

a Compared with placebo, detoxification, drug-free rehabilitation, or wait-listing
b Sharing injection equipment.
c Having unprotected sexual relations.

 

Evidence for the effectiveness of BMT: high

Evidence clearly shows that BMT has a positive impact compared with placebo on:

  • Retention in treatment
  • Illicit opioid use

Evidence is mixed for its impact on:

  • Non-opioid illicit drug use

 

Regarding retention in treatment and illicit opioid use, BMT had a positive effect compared to placebo, while MMT had a positive effect compared to placebo, detoxification, drug-free protocols, or wait-listing protocols.

Closing Statements

The authors note the importance of MAT, especially considering the poor success rates of abstinence-based treatments, and recognize both MMT and BMT as important treatment options. Below are summaries of their closing statements.

Methadone: The authors point out the need for educating providers, consumers, and family members about the benefits of MMT and ways to avoid the significant adverse events that can occur (referring to respiratory depression and cardiac arrhythmias). They also note the need for education about “appropriate doses to improve efficacy” and “appropriate initiation to minimize adverse events.”

They close with: Because of MMT’s relative efficacy, efforts should be made to increase access to MMT for all individuals who struggle with opioid use disorders. Directors of state mental health and substance abuse agencies and community health organizations should look for methods to increase access to MMT, and purchasers of health care services should cover appropriately monitored MMT.”

Buprenorphine: Noting the key advantage of buprenorphine—its availability—and the “limited access to and more restrictive safety profile of MMT,” the authors consider BMT an important treatment for opioid dependence. “Policy makers have reason to promote access to BMT for patients in substance use treatment who may wish to choose BMT as a potentially safer alternative to MMT.

They close with: “Administrators of substance use treatment programs, community health centers, and managed care organizations and other purchasers of health care services, such as Medicare, Medicaid, and commercial insurance carriers, should give careful consideration to BMT as a covered benefit.”

#     #     #

References

Fullerton CA, Kim M, Thomas CP, et al. Medication-assisted treatment with methadone: assessing the evidence. Psychiatric Services in Advance. November 18, 2013; doi: 10.1176/appi.ps.201300235.

Thomas CP, Fullerton CA, Kim M, et al. Medication-assisted treatment with buprenorphine: Assessing the Evidence. Psychiatric Services in Advance. November 18, 2013; doi: 10.1176/appi.ps.201300256.

Dougherty RH, Lyman DR, George P, Ghose SS, Daniels AS, Delphin-Rittmon ME.

Assessing the Evidence Base for Behavioral Health Services: Introduction to the Series.

Psychiatric Services. 2014; doi: 10.1176/appi.ps.201300214

http://ps.psychiatryonline.org/article.aspx?articleID=1759202

Walter Ginter on the Importance of Peers in Recovery With Medication-Assisted Treatment

walterStigma is a common theme among people seeking recovery from the disease of opioid addiction, but it’s particularly poignant for people in medication-assisted treatment (MAT), because stigma can itself prevent recovery from taking place. People who don’t understand MAT—and that’s a big group, including many employers, politicians, and even friends and family members—don’t believe methadone or buprenorphine treatment means being in recovery. But it does. And that’s the message that Walter Ginter, CMA, project director of Medication- Assisted Recovery Services (MARS), and the country’s foremost patient advocate, brings to patients. On December 9, he brought this message to the first White House drug policy conference.

Sponsored by the Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP), the conference included a panel that focused on stigma and drug addiction. Michael Botticelli, deputy director of the ONDCP, and himself in recovery, invited Mr. Ginter to participate. “He called me himself to ask me to be on that panel, and afterwards I got a nice handwritten note from him thanking me for participating,” said Mr. Ginter.  Mr. Botticelli, formerly the official in charge of substance use disorder services for Massachusetts, is a strong supporter of MAT. “This direction and focus that we are seeing from the Obama Administration is encouraging,” continued Mr. Ginter “It would strengthen that effort to see Mr. Botticelli promoted and the recovery community is hopeful that he will fill the opening as director of the ONDCP.”

 Stigma Impedes Recovery

The main stigma patients face in terms of methadone comes from believing what people who know nothing about MAT tell them. They learn to believe the myth that methadone is a substitute drug, and that they aren’t really in recovery. What peer recovery support services can do for patients is to help them eliminate feelings of stigma by helping them understand that they are in treatment with a medication, just like someone with any other disease. “If people come into treatment with the idea that methadone is just substituting one addiction for another,” said Mr. Ginter, “that attitude makes them feel as if recovery isn’t an option, for them. This discouraging prospect sets the stage for a less than optimal outcome. They ask themselves what difference does it make if they use a little benzodiazepines or smoke a little pot, if recovery isn’t an option anyway? That is how stigma stops patients from achieving recovery.”

 Peers Believe Peers

Peers—other people who are in MAT—can help support patients’ recovery in a way that nobody else—not a physician and not other people who are not taking methadone—can. “In the recovery community, you always hear people say they ‘support all pathways to recovery,’” said Mr. Ginter, “but often this is just lip service and not really an endorsement, with too many anti-MAT people weighing in and adding to the stigma. A lot of people support it and understand it’s evidence based practice, but still they don’t accept it as a legitimate pathway.”

At the MARS project, patients learn from peers that methadone and buprenorphine are “not substitute drugs, they’re medications,” said Mr. Ginter. “And suddenly, that person is a candidate for recovery. Before that, they never had a choice.”

When people are given the option of being in recovery, they choose it. Once they realize that taking methadone or buprenorphine is not the same as using, they stop using other drugs and alcohol. Yes, they were in treatment, but neither the opioid treatment program nor the physician could convince them that they were in recovery—it took another person in MAT to do that. “Peers believe things from other peers that they would not believe from anyone else,” said Mr. Ginter.

 Feeling Good

One of the magical things about erasing stigma is this: Once people start to feel good about themselves, the community starts to look at them differently. That’s why one exercise patients can use is to write down three nice things that happen each day.“ At the end of a few weeks, people start to feel better,” said Mr. Ginter. “For us to do well in recovery, we have to feel good about ourselves.”

Calling addiction a brain disease—which it is—takes away a lot of guilt, said Mr. Ginter. That internal feeling of guilt is magnified by stigma coming from the outside world.

In some ways, stigma from the outside world isn’t getting any better. “There are these nice dissertations out there about your rights, but if you’re in jail because you got picked up outside your methadone clinic, you can’t tell the cop he’s wrong,” said Mr. Ginter. It would help if drug courts and parole officers saw more patients for whom treatment is working, and not just those for whom it isn’t, he added.

Finally, fear of stigma keeps people from even saying that they are on buprenorphine or methadone. Thousands of people are doing well in treatment—not just the few, like Mr. Ginter, who publicly identify themselves.

As an anecdote illustrating this, Mr. Ginter related that visitors from overseas at the MARS booth at the AATOD conference last fall were amazed that two of the people working at their display booth were patients. “They couldn’t believe that peer recovery support services were provided by ‘real’ methadone patients,” he said.

 Other Participants

The ONDCP half-day meeting also featured panels on public health approaches to drug policy, being “smart on crime” instead of “tough on crime,” with an emphasis on drug courts using MAT, and a screening of The Anonymous People. Mr. Ginter related that the drug court speaker, magistrate Alby Zweig from Denver, was shocked to hear that many of his colleagues require participants to stop using methadone or buprenorphine before they can be admitted.

Note: MARS is a project of the National Alliance of Medication-Assisted (NAMA) Recovery. NAMA chapters are small groups of individuals who organize around advocacy to teach patients about their rights and to support them in their rights. Patient advocates are not the same as peer recovery support.

For more information, go to www.marsproject.org.

Interview: Zac Talbott on Being a Patient and Certified Advocate for Medication-Assisted Treatment

Zac 2-9-14Patients and other individuals who are advocates are a growing force in medication-assisted treatment (MAT) for opioid dependence, providing information and support to patients as well as assistance to opioid treatment programs (OTPs). Advocates also are an essential link between patients and OTPs. They are not as well known as they should be, there aren’t enough of them, and they are in dire need of funding.

In January, Zac Talbott, a patient who is the director of the Tennessee Statewide and Northwestern Georgia chapter of the National Alliance for Medication Assisted Recovery (NAMA Recovery), shared his experiences with addiction, treatment, recovery, and patient advocacy with AT Forum.

 Getting Started in Advocacy: The CMA

Patients and others who want to be advocates need to first have a good knowledge of advocacy and the various issues surrounding MAT. Taking the CMA (Certified Medication Assisted Treatment Advocate) course and obtaining certification gives both patients and health care professionals the basic grounding for advocacy. Certification is essential to being a credible advocate. “There are patients out there who often are well-meaning, who claim to be advocates, but who can do harm,” he said. “A lot of folks without training do not realize that advocates have a code of ethics, and one of the main ethical guidelines is confidentiality. It goes to the heart of our professional credibility. There has never once been a case of a patient’s confidentiality being violated by a CMA working with NAMA-R.”

The second crucial skill that CMAs have is knowing how to communicate with OTPs on behalf of a patient. “You can make things worse for the patient you’re trying to help if you come off like an attack dog. Patients and OTPs agree on more than 90 percent of the issues, and that should always remain the primary focus. It’s also important to remember that the job of a patient advocate is to advocate for what the patient wants. We can’t take off and start a crusade without that patient wanting us to,” he said.

NAMA-R developed the CMA training course with no funding, which was a tremendous challenge. However, the course has been strongly supported by the American Association for the Treatment of Opioid Dependence (AATOD), and the federal Center for Substance Abuse Treatment (CSAT).

 Volunteering and Funding

Some NAMA-R chapters could do significantly more if their expenses were paid. Members are committed people who largely volunteer their time and give of themselves without any compensation.

NAMA Recovery chapters do need funding. NAMA-R is a 501c3 non-profit organization, so donations are tax-deductible. All other industrialized countries fund organizations like NAMA-R, said Mr. Talbott. “The United States is the exception. This leaves NAMA-R dependent on donations from patients, for-profit OTPs, and the pharmaceutical industry.”

In Tennessee—and in many other states—Medicaid won’t currently pay for MAT with methadone. “It’s all cash down here,” he said. The fee for patients is $300 to $400 a month—frequently all the money a patient has.

Mr. Talbott hopes NAMA Recovery can partner with OTPs for funding and support. “We had a wonderful meeting with Chief Operating Officer Jerry Rhodes and the regional managers of CRC Health Group during the AATOD Conference in Philadelphia this past November,” he said. “They recognize that advocacy is extremely important.”

 Insurance and the ACA

Whether the Affordable Care Act (ACA) will help fund MAT is still unclear, said Mr. Talbott. “It’s supposed to, but insurance companies are good at finding loopholes.” Implementation and enforcement are still problematic.

In Tennessee, for example, the state is making it impossible for new OTPs to open, which means that facilities are opening up across the state border. “Programs in other states are treating the patients that Tennessee isn’t,” said Mr. Talbott. If Tennessee Medicaid were to say that patients had to be treated in a Tennessee facility, that might make it more attractive for programs to open in Tennessee.

Even though his organization is in Tennessee, most of Mr. Talbott’s calls come from outside the state—just because there are so many patients, especially in nearby southern states, who need help. NAMA-R has always had difficulty recruiting individuals willing to make a commitment to advocacy and start a chapter. Stigma, prejudice, and just plain fear have been barriers in southeastern states.

 From Pain Medication to Heroin

Mr. Talbott’s addiction started—as with many people—with a prescription for hydrocodone for a chronic painful condition. Most people feel sick when they take opioids, but Mr. Talbott is part of the 10 percent of the population that is susceptible to addiction. “I loved them,” he said of opioids. His addiction sent him to buying pills from a pill mill and eventually to the street, where he also bought heroin. “This was in the late 90s,” he recalled. “Within eight years I went from a couple of prescribed hydrocodone a day to 25 prescribed 30-milligram doses of oxycodone.” He became an intravenous drug user within four years of initially starting the pills.

“The opposite of the stereotypical drug user,” Mr. Talbott had two college degrees when he first became addicted to opioids, and came from a well-known and well-respected family—“church folks,” he explained.

 Recovery

Then, there was treatment. “I went for all the wrong reasons—I didn’t go because I was seeking recovery,” Mr. Talbott said of his treatment in an OTP. “People who are drug users think that there’s no withdrawal, and that you might even get a little buzz.” But six months after entering the OTP and starting methadone, he found that he was in recovery—by accident. “I had no craving. I stopped using the needle. I was thinking about my life again—by accident. The person I was prior to the addiction quickly started to re-emerge. That’s the beauty of methadone.”

After that, it took Mr. Talbott a year to focus on recovery and life. “There’s so much you need to do, straightening out your credit, fixing everything you did when that disease is active.” When his addiction was at its height, he was in the middle of his masters’ in clinical social work. Ultimately, the addiction took over and he left the program. But even before his addiction, he had always wanted to be in a helping profession—a mental health counselor, an Episcopal priest, or a lawyer. “I wanted to help people,” he said. “Once I was in recovery, that part of me came back quickly.”

He found NAMA Recovery because his counselor recommended it as an alternative to driving to the clinic for four group meetings during his induction period in treatment. “I had to drive more than two hours one way to the OTP because I was so rural. So my counselor said to go to the website—methadone.org—print out, read, and bring in one of the Education Series to discuss ‘and that will count as one of your groups.’” Ultimately, he wrote to the NAMA-R chapter coordinator and said a NAMA Recovery chapter was needed in Tennessee.

NAMA Recovery’s main goal is advocacy, and that is where Mr.Talbott saw his life heading. “It’s a natural fit,” he said. “To be a MAT advocate is to advocate for the patient in treatment, but we’re not patient advocates only or specifically. ‘The patient comes first,’ as Rokki [Roxanne Baker, NAMA-R president] often says.”

 Partnership With OTPs

Patient advocates can have a lot of power, not only on behalf of patients, but on behalf of providers. When onerous restrictions are imposed by states, especially states that don’t have an AATOD chapter, providers call NAMA Recovery. “We are more than just patient advocates, we are MAT advocates,” said Mr. Talbott. “We advocate for the entire modality.”

About a third of the calls he gets—Tennessee joined AATOD just last fall—are from OTPs, said Mr. Talbott. “Sometimes patients and providers don’t have the best relationship. Some OTPs view advocates as whistleblowers and troublemakers, and sometimes the OTPs get defensive as soon as advocates call them. Several of us are trying to stress to OTPs and patients that we’re all on the same team.”

Technically, the provider advocacy organization is AATOD. But when there is an issue that draws both patient and provider complaints, Mr. Talbott reaches out to consult with AATOD president Mark Parrino or the state chapter of AATOD. “We can strategize together,” he said. Sometimes the approach involves filing a complaint with the Department of Justice or SAMHSA’s CSAT, which regulates OTPs. Often, OTPs haven’t even heard of NAMA Recovery, and sometimes haven’t heard of AATOD either, he said.

“The way to go is moving away from patient advocacy specifically and toward MAT advocacy as a modality,” said Mr. Talbott. And patients who are certified advocates can be of immense help to OTPs, whether they are testifying before the legislature or making a complaint to the Department of Justice. Patients and providers aren’t always going to agree, but ultimately they’re fighting the same battles and striving for the same goals.

Recovery Transformation in Philadelphia OTPs: Person-centered, not Patient-centered

RecoveryOver a decade ago, Philadelphia’s public health system moved toward recovery for mental health and addiction services. On the mental health side, there had been a belief that recovery wasn’t possible, especially for people with serious mental illness. On the addiction side, recovery was already in wide parlance, but the system was set up to treat the disorder as if it was acute, with no long-term or continuous follow-up care, resulting in relapses. Now, Philadelphia has taken great steps to bring along its providers in adopting a recovery-based framework. We caught up with Roland Lamb, director of addiction services for the Philadelphia Department of Behavioral Health and Intellectual disAbility Services (DBHIdS) to get an update on the recovery transformation as it affects patients in medication-assisted treatment (MAT).

“The good news is that we have moved towards more of a person-centered perspective in MAT,” Mr. Lamb said. In other words, providers are learning to look at people as people, not patients.

“We have the richest environment for MAT, with all levels of care,” he told AT Forum. He added that not only is there outpatient methadone, but there is medication-assisted treatment in all levels of care, and there are efforts to reach out to the 144 physicians in the system who are certified to dispense buprenorphine, and to provide access to those they are seeing to all of the treatment resources in Philadelphia.

The Medication ‘Culture’

But, because of the oversight and stigma, it has been a struggle to get providers to focus on the fact that people are people first, and not patients to be “dosed and monitored,” Mr. Lamb said. “The bad news is that we still have to work to overcome the stigma-driven culture of managing the medication, instead of treating addiction and focusing on recovery.”

This medication “culture” isn’t completely the fault of the opioid treatment programs (OTPs), Mr. Lamb noted. “It’s the most regulated form of treatment—in health care—that there is,” he conceded. The preoccupation with regulations, one drug after another, and the diagnosis, is at the cost of focusing on treating the addiction and supporting recovery and other needs. “People lose sight of managing the addiction.” Yes, methadone maintenance is part of recovery, but the medication isn’t the only part of it. “This treatment was created to help people get into recovery, but recovery is more than the medication alone.”

Buprenorphine—the medication—is not on the DBHIDS formulary, said Mr. Lamb. “But we do pay for all the services that surround it—the physical exams, counseling, and the drug screens.”

But whether those in care are taking methadone or buprenorphine, the focus has to be on the individual, said Mr. Lamb. “We are making sure that our providers have what they need—good assessment instruments, evidence-based practices, and psychiatric supports.”

There is a high prevalence of co-occurring mental illness in the MAT population, said Mr. Lamb. “We know a lot of what has happened with those co-occurring illnesses to those in care, who in many cases are self-medicating the very illnesses that they need help with.”

The DHBIdS meets with MAT providers every two months. These include inpatient and outpatient MAT providers, and the state licensing authority and the Drug Enforcement Administration are present as well.

No Involuntary Discharges

One of the key patient-centered initiatives in Philadelphia is this: “We say we don’t want involuntary discharging going on,” said Mr. Lamb, noting that “noncompliance” in addiction treatment is no worse than it is in treatment for high blood pressure or type II diabetes, and that terminating treatment is no solution. The reason for discharge may be violence, or threats of violence, for example, but many times this behavior is a result of untreated mental illness, said Mr. Lamb. Other reasons for discharge are drug dealing on the premises, or, of course, noncompliance with the treatment plan, but aren’t they some of the very reasons treatment is needed?

“We see ourselves as being in a partnership in terms of trying to overcome these issues,” said Mr. Lamb. The person in recovery, the providers, the regulators, and the payers all need to be at the recovery table to make this work.

Another point about person-centered care: OTPs should treat people based upon their need. For example, Pennsylvania requires two and a half hours a month of counseling—but patients should get more if they need it, said Mr. Lamb. “The issue for us is that we want to see counseling based upon the needs of the person.” That’s why the DBHIdS pays based on how much counseling is given. “We track the counseling separately.”

Training in CBT, Other Modalities

“The real challenge for us is to get staff to rethink what they’re doing,” said Mr. Lamb. “We’ve been doing it one staffer at a time.” Staffers are getting training in cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT), dialectal behavioral therapy (DBT), trauma, and the sanctuary model, he said. “All of these are evidence-based practices that we’ve been paying our providers to get trained in.”

There are 11 providers operating 13 OTPs in Philadelphia, treating a total of 5,000 patients a day. “When you think about it, that’s approximately 400 people coming in every day,” said Mr. Lamb. “It would be better if we could have smaller numbers of people in each facility, and more facilities.” He noted that community complaints about traffic would then go down. Of course, for that to happen, there would have to be community cooperation in siting clinics. “There is still so much stigma,” said Mr. Lamb, noting that this comes from the “outside” community and from the drug-addiction treatment community itself.

“Through a recovery focus we have a chance to change the usual ‘down with methadone’ discussion to a discussion about solutions for long-term opioid dependence and long-term recovery,” Mr. Lamb said. This is especially important now, with the burgeoning cohort of people becoming addicted via the non-medical use of prescription opioids, and their conversion to heroin. We need to do a better job of reaching out to, engaging, and retraining this population if we are going to impact the growing number of overdose deaths we are seeing, said Mr. Lamb. “We also need to evolve the recovery focus to one of wellness, and the need for those who are actively recovering to take better care of their health.”

Patients in Methadone Maintenance Treatment Face Obstacles and Stigma When Joining 12-Step Groups

recovery winter 2014 jpegIt’s ironic—and disappointing—that patients in methadone maintenance treatment (MMT) who join mainstream addiction recovery groups face considerable stigma and daunting obstacles from professionals and from other patients, rather than the helping hand they might reasonably hope for and expect.

This became evident in the first in-depth survey detailing the experiences and perceptions of MMT patients in Narcotics Anonymous (NA), Alcoholics Anonymous (AA), and other support groups. Although most of the 323 MMT patients surveyed participated in support groups and found them helpful, patients’ rates of taking part in socializing, speaking at meetings, and other functions were much lower, because of negative experiences.

Key interfering factors include restrictions on MMT patients at 12-step meetings, and obstacles that spring from stigma and professional attitudes.  Yet more MMT patients take part in 12-step programs than might be expected, given the problems encountered.

The OTP Survey

The survey took place at Partners in Drug Abuse Rehabilitation and Counseling (PIDARC), an opioid treatment program (OTP) in Washington, DC. Founded in 1971 as a private, not-for-profit facility, PIDARC today has more than 650 patients and 24 counselors, nurses, physicians, and support personnel. Most patients are poor and African American, and report long-term involvement with the criminal justice system. Many have a history of addiction treatment failures and current medical problems.

The Journal of Groups in Addiction and Recovery published the PIDARC article last November. The lead author is William L. White, MA, a prolific writer and a pioneer in the addiction treatment field. Two of the survey’s coauthors, Howard A. Hoffman, MD, and Brian Crissman, are affiliated with PIDARC.

Enrollees’ Characteristics

Volunteers who were at the OTP at a randomly selected time were enrolled in the survey. Characteristics of the 323:

  • 55% male
  • Average age, 53 years; range, 21 to 79 years
  • Average time in continuous MMT: 2 ¾ years
  • Average percentage of days in the past year abstinent from use of alcohol and non-prescribed drugs: about 70%
  • Primary support affiliation: NA, 68%; other (usually church or PIDARC group), 11%; AA, 7%

Participation in Mainstream Groups

PIDARC doesn’t hold 12-step meetings, but a nonclinical staff person, an NA member, strongly encourages involvement in NA meetings.

Most patients (66 percent) took part in NA/AA programs, and most (about 75 percent) found the programs helpful. Yet most didn’t participate in activities:

Activities of MMT Patients
Who Joined Outside 12-Step Programs

Characteristic  Percent Participating
Have a home group 50
Have a sponsor 26
Sponsor others 13
Attend 12-step social events 23
Take active part in step work 21

 

Patients enjoyed the social aspects of NA and AA. Some liked AA because it “provided more structure and had a stronger spiritual base than NA.” Others identified with NA’s drug-focused fellowship; many never had problems with alcohol.

Problems Encountered

One-fourth of participants encountered a serious problem being an MMT patient within NA or AA. An extreme example: At an NA meeting, a patient who mentioned being in MMT was asked to leave and not return.

Problems MMT Patients Encountered in NA/AA

Problem Approximate Percent
Recipient of negative comments
about methadone use
45
Pressured to stop taking methadone 35
Pressured to reduce their dose 25
Denied the right to speak at a meeting 15
Denied the right to be a sponsor or chair a meeting 10

 

Cautioning against generalizing about patients’ negative experiences, the authors pointed out the considerable variation in “the attitudes of NA and AA groups towards medication-assisted treatment [MAT] of addiction in general and methadone maintenance treatment for opioid addiction in particular.”

Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell

It’s hardly surprising that only 34 percent of patients surveyed disclosed their MMT status at NA or AA meetings, and only about 25 percent did so to their sponsor.

A Lost Opportunity

For patients seeking long-term recovery, “12-Step fellowships and other recovery mutual aid groups may provide a source of critical support,” the authors believe. So lack of support is a squandered opportunity to welcome fellow patients into the recovery circle.

Patients need that support, given their long-term outlook. The common idealized view is that MMT is lifelong therapy, but the fact is that most patients do leave treatment, and they do so without support.

To bring reality home, the authors compiled a list of seven “stark realities” that challenge the idealized views of the optimal time in medication-assisted treatment:

  • 80%-100% of surveyed patients expect to end MMT at some point
  • One-year retention rates in MMT are less than 50%
  • Few patients end treatment in a planned manner (11%, in one study)
  • Post-treatment monitoring, support, and early re-intervention are not standard practices
  • Most discharged patients eventually return to illicit opioid use
  • Patients who end MMT face a significantly increased risk of infectious disease and death
  • Most MMT patients who choose to taper don’t successfully complete the process as planned

The authors note that these realities underscore “the more specific role participation in recovery mutual aid groups could potentially play in long-term recovery from opioid addiction.”

12-step approaches to MMT have a history of encountering obstacles. According to the authors, “The stigma and discrimination MMT patients face when seeking participation within mainstream recovery mutual aid groups are, in part, expressions of the larger professional and cultural stigma attached to MMT in the United States.”

In 1991, MMT patients’ negative experiences in support groups led to the creation of Methadone Anonymous (MA), but, according to the authors, MA “is not widely available in the U.S. at the present time.”

What OTPs Can Do

The authors said that because MMT is a substance-specific treatment, but addiction is not a substance-specific disorder, OTPs and other groups need to address patients’ complex patterns of concurrent and sequential drug use. “Increasing patient participation in recovery mutual aid groups may prove helpful in addressing patterns of multiple drug dependencies.”

The authors suggested ways for OTPs to help patients establish links with other mutual aid groups:

  • Develop relationships with NA service committees
  • Host NA meetings
  • Coach OTP patients about taking part in NA/AA
  • Establish protocols for linking with mutual aid groups
  • Co-host programs on MAT and recovery with mutual aid groups
  • Encourage development of local MA meetings and other recovery-support meetings for patients in medication-assisted recovery

In closing, the authors emphasize that support groups may be able to reach out to MMT patients if they falter during the crucial period when they face the “stark realities” of life after they leave the OTP “on current doses of methadone without planned tapering and support for the transition to recovery maintenance without medication support.” They note again that “the risk of relapse is great under these circumstances and remains a lifelong risk; 12-Step fellowships and other recovery mutual aid groups may provide a source of critical support for patients seeking stable long-term recovery during and following discharge from OTPs.”

Reference

White WL, Campbell MD, Shea C, Hoffman HA, Crissman B, DuPont RL. Co-participation in 12-Step Mutual Aid Groups and Methadone Maintenance Treatment: A Survey of 322 Patients. J Groups Addict Recovery.  2013;8(4):294-308. Published online Nov. 8, 2013. doi 10.1080/1556035X.2013.836872.

Is Maternal Methadone Treatment Child Abuse and Neglect? New Jersey Supreme Court to Weigh In

pregnant woman jpegOne year after the New Jersey Supreme Court ruled that a pregnant woman did not commit child abuse just because she tested positive for cocaine, the state has brought a similar case to the court: that of a pregnant woman who was in methadone treatment in an opioid treatment program (OTP).

This January, experts in addiction treatment and maternal and fetal health filed a friend of the court brief before the New Jersey Supreme Court, urging it to overturn a lower court ruling in which a pregnant woman in a methadone treatment program was charged with child abuse and found guilty.

In the cocaine case, on February 6, 2013, the New Jersey Supreme Court unanimously held that the state’s child protection laws don’t give child welfare authorities control over pregnant women, and that positive drug test results alone on pregnant women and newborns do not establish neglect. That case involved positive test results for cocaine. The Supreme Court held that those positive test results did not by themselves show maternal neglect.

Here’s the situation now: The state wants to call it child abuse if a woman takes prescribed methadone while pregnant. This is despite the fact that the state has a robust system in which methadone is recommended for pregnant women.

The case involves a woman—YN—who was dependent on opioid pain relievers when she learned she was pregnant. Her medical providers recommended that she obtain methadone treatment and other care, which she did, and she subsequently gave birth to a healthy baby. The baby was successfully treated for neonatal abstinence syndrome (NAS), a predictable treatable and transitory, possible side effect of maternal methadone treatment.

But because of the NAS, YN was reported to the Division of Child Protection and Permanency (DCPP, formerly the Division of Youth and Family Services), and was judged by the lower court to have abused or neglected her child. In effect, the lower court is rewriting the law by applying child abuse statutes to pregnant women and their fetuses, according to the friend of the court brief.

Advocates hope that the Supreme Court will rule, as it did last year, in favor of the mother. Lawrence S. Lustberg, of Gibbons P.C., co-counsel for the amici, said that “the New Jersey Supreme Court has been a national leader in recognizing that when cases raise scientific, medical, or other technical issues, the evaluation of these issues must be informed by existing scientific knowledge, including expert testimony.” He added, “This case should not be an exception, yet, the decision in the lower court was reached without the input of a single medical expert and without considering the established science addressing the value of methadone treatment to maternal, fetal, and child health, and other key health and social welfare issues in the case.”

“As a matter of medicine and health care, it is simply nonsensical to regard methadone treatment as a form of child abuse,” said Robert Newman, MD, one of the experts represented in the brief. “Decades of research unequivocally demonstrate the benefits of treating a pregnant woman’s addiction to opioids with methadone, an extraordinarily well-studied medication whose benefits to the mother as well as the baby unquestionably outweigh the treatable and transitory side effects that are sometimes seen in the newborns.” He noted that “It is not recommended that women simply stop using opiates during pregnancy” and that “methadone and other related treatments are acknowledged by national and international governmental, academic, and clinic authorities to be the best choice for maternal, fetal, and child health, reducing risks of miscarriage, stillbirth, and premature birth.”

The bottom line: YN was in recovery. But unless the lower court’s ruling is reversed, New Jersey will effectively be the first state in the country to ban pregnant women from receiving methadone treatment, said Lynn Paltrow, Executive Director of National Advocates for Pregnant Women (NAPW) and co-counsel representing the experts. Not only do the DCPP’s actions “fly in the face of the recommendations of the World Health Organization and the U.S. government, but New Jersey itself, which, through collaborations between the New Jersey Department of Mental Health and Addiction Services and DCPP, provides methadone treatment to pregnant women and families in the child welfare system.”

The Legal Action Center signed on to the amicus brief and strongly supports the NAPW.  “It is wrong, counterproductive, and dangerous to charge a pregnant woman with child abuse simply because she is in a methadone maintenance program,” Sally Friedman, legal director for the Legal Action Center, told AT Forum. “Singling out pregnant women receiving methadone maintenance treatment also can violate anti-discrimination laws.” Ms. Friedman added that child welfare authorities “need to act on the basis of medical evidence, not myths.” The best way for OTPs to make sure that their patients aren’t reported is to educate, added Ms. Friedman.

The mother, YN, is represented by Clara S. Licata and T. Gary Mitchell.

For the friend of the court brief filed January 9, go to http://advocatesforpregnantwomen.org/briefs/DYFS%20v.%20YN%20-%20Amended%20Supplemental%20Brief%20and%20Appendices.pdf

Guidance Provided for Safe Methadone Induction and Stabilization in OTP Patients By Guest Author Stewart B. Leavitt

doctor and patient jpeg winter 2014Expert opinion from ASAM stresses safety during MMT start-up   

For roughly half a century, methadone dispensed in federally certified opioid treatment programs (OTPs) in the United States has been a well-studied, effective, and relatively safe addiction therapy. Yet, there have been ongoing incidents of methadone-associated overdoses and deaths, largely due to its widespread prescription and frequent misuse as a pain reliever, but also to a lesser extent in patients attending OTPs.

When properly prescribed and used in OTPs, methadone has a favorable safety profile; however, there can be special risks of overdose and death from methadone during start up and early phases of treatment. To address these concerns, the U.S. Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA) invited the American Society of Addiction Medicine (ASAM) to convene an expert panel to develop a consensus statement on methadone induction and stabilization, which provides recommendations for reducing risks of overdose or death related to the methadone maintenance treatment (MMT) of addiction.

Methadone Start-Up Takes Time and Caution

A distinguished panel of 10 experts in the MMT field—the “Methadone Action Group,” including Drs. Louis Baxter, Anthony Campbell, Michael DeShields, Petros Levounis, Judith Martin, Laura McNicholas, Tom Payte, Ed Salsitz, and Trusandra Taylor, along with Bonnie Wilford, MS—conducted a comprehensive literature search spanning 1979-2011. The group evaluated the resulting information and collaborated in formulating a best practices consensus document, which was subsequently reviewed and commented on by more than 100 experts in the addiction treatment field.

The final document, published in the November/December edition of ASAM’s Journal of Addiction Medicine [Baxter et al. 2013; PDF here], extensively focuses on safety during the 3 most critical phases of starting MMT: A. methadone induction (weeks 1-2); B. early stabilization (weeks 3-4); C. late stabilization (weeks 5+).

According to the medical literature examined by the expert panel, overdoses and deaths during methadone induction most commonly may occur either because 1) the initial dose is too high, 2) the dose is increased too rapidly, or 3) the prescribed methadone interacts with another drug. Therefore, the panel developed recommendations that help methadone providers avoid or minimize these risks.

When it comes to the initial methadone dosing at MMT start-up, the panel stresses the traditional advice to “start low, go slow.” Acknowledging the difficulties of accurately assessing a new patient’s opioid tolerance—and, therefore, a definitely “safe” methadone dose—the initial dose of methadone should typically range between 10 mg to 30 mg per day. An additional 5-10 mg/day is allowed if necessary to help relieve persistent withdrawal symptoms; however, the standard in the U.S. is that the total daily dose should not exceed 40 mg.

There are a number of high-risk situations to consider that may prompt low initial dosing. These include patient age >60 years, recent use of sedating drugs (e.g., benzodiazepines), alcohol abuse or dependence, concurrent physical disorders (e.g., respiratory or cardiac disease, sleep apnea, central nervous system depression, and others), or taking medications that either increase or decrease methadone metabolism.

It is essential to medically assess patients at intake and closely monitor their response to therapy. It may take several weeks before an optimal methadone dose can be safely achieved, during which time symptoms of withdrawal may persist to some degree, especially late in the day or during the night.

The ASAM panel states that the first day’s methadone dose may be increased “every five or more days in increments of 5 mg or less” [note that this dose increase is at the low end of what previous guidance has recommended]. Because methadone levels accumulate gradually before reaching a steady state, whereby opioid withdrawal is prevented throughout a 24-hour period, patients should be carefully assessed and they often need more time for full effects to be realized rather than more daily methadone during the induction period.

The first 2 weeks of MMT are a critical period from a safety standpoint, and the ASAM expert panel discusses the many subtle factors that may influence a patient’s therapeutic response to methadone and also affect clinical impressions of overmedication. For example, individual patient differences in metabolism may alter the duration of methadone effects; furthermore, in some cases, overmedication may be marked by unexpected feelings of excess energy, with or without euphoria.

Beyond the first 2 weeks—during early and late stabilization—the objective is to achieve a methadone maintenance dose allowing the patient to live a better life free of withdrawal symptoms, drug intoxication or excessive sedation, or troublesome drug craving. Various factors may upset this process—e.g., changes in physical health, psychological distress, continued substance abuse, etc.—so ongoing patient assessments and methadone dose adjustments may be necessary in some cases for an extended period of time. The ASAM expert panel does not comment on what optimal methadone dosing eventually might be, other than to note that “some patients require doses larger than 120 mg/day” for blocking euphoric effects of self-administered (e.g., illicit) opioids.

This new evidence-based document from ASAM is the first time all of this vital information has been so extensively brought together in one place; so, it is recommended and important reading for all persons involved or interested in MMT. At the same time, the principles and best practices described are not entirely new; indeed, this topic was previously discussed, although more briefly, in past AT Forum articles [see Special Report 2003 and ATF fall 2006]. Additionally, in 2007, a methadone induction instruction handout for patients and significant others was made available to AT Forum readers by Tom Payte, MD (who also is one of the Methadone Action Group panel members) [PDF here].

Education and Preparedness Are Essential

Methadone overdose can have a deceptive and slow onset, and the ASAM panel stresses the importance of patient and family education beginning with intake into MMT. Involvement of family [or significant others, and presumably with patient consent] can be a critical safety measure by helping to ensure that they understand the lengthy process of methadone induction and stabilization, as well as the signs/symptoms of overmedication and overdose to watch for along the way. Being able to recognize therapeutic risks and potential problems, and knowing appropriate actions to take if problems do occur, are essential for OTP staff, patients, and patients’ families.

Unfortunately, in the ASAM document there is only a single mention of naloxone, which is an effective and safe antidote for methadone overdose. It states, “Opioid treatment programs should establish protocols for emergency response to and management of patient overdoses, including onsite availability of naloxone and any necessary support and education for families.”

Indeed, there appears to be growing interest in the U.S. (and in other countries) in making naloxone more widely available to patients, their families, and others for helping to reverse opioid overdose in an emergency—whether involving prescribed or illicit opioid agents. For example, Washington State has an aggressive program of naloxone distribution [see StopOverdose.org] and the ASAM expert panel references an “Opioid Overdose Prevention Toolkit” from SAMHSA [PDF here]  that discusses how to identify overdose and the use of lifesaving naloxone. Methadone overdose in MMT—what to know; how to prevent it; what to do if it happens (including naloxone) —was the theme of a past edition of AT Forum [Summer 2007 PDF].

In sum, careful management of methadone induction and stabilization, coupled with patient/family education and increased clinical vigilance by staff, can be lifesaving measures during MMT. According to Louis Baxter, MD—ASAM immediate Past-President and chair of the expert panel—in a press release [PDF here], “The use of methadone to treat addiction has saved countless lives in the last 50 years, but it also has an increased risk of toxicity and adverse events for the patient during the medication’s induction and stabilization phases. The protocols designed by the ASAM expert panel could dramatically decrease these negative outcomes if all clinicians prescribing methadone would follow them.”

References

Baxter LE, Campbell A, DeShields M, Levounis P, Martin JA, McNicholas L, Payte JT, Salsitz EA, Taylor T, Wilford BB. Safe Methadone Induction and Stabilization: Report of an Expert Panel. J Addiction Med. 2013(Nov/Dec);7(6):377-386. PDF available at: http://www.asam.org/advocacy/find-a-policy-statement/view-policy-statement/public-policy-statements/2013/11/26/safe-methadone-induction-and-stabilization. Access checked 1/29/2014.

Leavitt SB. Methadone Dosing & Safety. AT Forum [special report]. 2003 (September). PDF available at: http://www.atforum.com/SiteRoot/pages/addiction_resources/DosingandSafetyWP.pdf. Accessed 1/27/2014.

Methadone Overdose in MMT. AT Forum. 2007(Summer);16(3). PDF available at: http://atforum.com/pdf/Summer07_news.pdf. Access checked 1/29/2014.

Payte JT. Methadone induction instructions to patients and significant others. CMG Induction Handout v7; 2007. PDF available at: http://atforum.com/pdf/PayteSafetyInstructions.pdf. Accessed 1/29/2014.

Safely starting methadone in MMT. AT Forum. 2006(Fall);15(4). PDF available at: http://atforum.com/SiteRoot/pages/current_pastissues/2006Fall.pdf Accessed 1/27/2014.

SAMHSA (Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration). Opioid Overdose Prevention Toolkit. Rockville, MD: HHS Publication No. (SMA) 13-4742; 2013. PDF available at: http://store.samhsa.gov/shin/content//SMA13-4742/Overdose_Toolkit_2014_Jan.pdf. Access checked 1/29/2014.

StopOverdose.org. University of Washington Alcohol & Drug Abuse Institute. 2013. Website at: http://www.stopoverdose.org/pharmacy.htm. Access checked 1/29/2014.

————————————————————————————
Stewart B. Leavitt, MA, PhD, is a former editor of Addiction Treatment Forum and most recently was director/editor of Pain Treatment Topics.

Events

eventsNAADAC 2014 Advocacy in Action Conference
March 2-4, 2014
Alexandria, Virginia
Contact: http://naadac.org/advocacyconference

 

American Academy of Pain Medicine (AAPM) 30th Annual Meeting
March 6-9, 2014
Phoenix, Arizona
Contact: http://www.painmed.org/annualmeeting/main.aspx


American Counseling Association (ACA) Annual Conference and Expo
March 27-30, 2014
Honolulu, Hawaii
Contact: http://www.counseling.org/conference/hawaii-aca-2014

 

American Psychiatric Association (APA) 167th Annual Meeting
May 3-7, 2014
New York, New York
Contact: http://annualmeeting.psychiatry.org/

 

National Council for Behavioral Health 43rd National Mental Health and Addictions Conference
May 5-7, 2014
Washington, DC
Contact: http://www.thenationalcouncil.org/cs/conference

 

20th Annual National Treatment Accountability for Safer Communities (TASC) Conference on Drugs Crime and Reentry
May 7-9, 2014
Birmingham, Alabama
Contact: http://www.nationaltasc.org/2013conference/2014-conference1/

 

National Association of Addiction Treatment Providers (NAATP) Annual Conference
May 17-20, 2014
Charlotte, North Carolina
Contact: https://www.naatp.org/

Site last updated March 28, 2014 @ 7:50 am