Medication Assisted Treatment: A Standard of Care. An interview with Elinore McCance-Katz, MD, PhD, Chief Medical Officer, SAMHSA

Edit-Dr.M-KNote: This interview was issued by SAMHSA’s HRSA Center for Integrated Health Solutions in their February 2014 eSolutions newsletter.

“We have a huge need in our country to treat mental health and substance use concerns, and we have a chronic shortage of specialty care programs with enough capacity to treat everyone with a substance use concern. It is our responsibility to expand access to this care in a way that allows greater choice of where individuals can receive treatment.

With the Affordable Care Act, the treatment of substance use disorders is now an essential benefit. Individuals with multiple complex healthcare needs, including mental health and substance use concerns, can be seen in integrated care settings and health homes.

We are going to see more and more integrated care. All healthcare providers, whether in primary care, mental health, or substance use treatment, will need to learn how to provide treatment for disorders they may not have historically treated. Providers who are not used to treating patients with certain types of problems may not feel confident about providing care. When that happens, the individual is less likely to get the care they need. Primary care providers especially will need to be ready to assess and provide treatment for clients who present with mental health and substance use concerns.

The Need for Medication Assisted Treatment

Medication assisted treatment (MAT) is a standard of care. There are a variety of medications that have been shown to be effective in treating substance use disorders and that can be used safely. Specifically, there are a number of FDA-approved medications for tobacco, alcohol and opioid abuse treatments.

MAT is an effective form of care, when medication is taken as prescribed, used properly, and the individual is engaged with other supports and services. With opioid use disorders, studies show that clients who get medical detoxification only have a greater than 90% relapse rate.

We have to think about how effective the treatment is, what the alternative is if not treated, and where an individual is in their recovery. Individuals with chronic relapsing diseases should have access to MAT. It’s just the standard of care. We cannot diminish the importance of that.

Substance use disorders are not simply treated by taking a medication. In fact, taking medications can be part of the problem. Just giving someone medication is not enough. Psychosocial interventions, counseling, and other services are absolutely necessary and will always be very important.

Integrated care providers are going to have to learn about how to use these medications. Many medications can be used within primary care. We’re going to see a spectrum of severity with clients in primary care. Some may need referral to specialty care and others can be treated at the primary care organization.”

The interview can be accessed at: http://www.atforum.com/addiction-resources/documents/SAMHSA-MAT-A-Standard-of-Care-Feb-2014.pdf

Source: The Substance Abuse Mental Health Services Administration – February 2014

Buprenorphine Prescribing ‘Disappointingly Low’

Buprenorphine Prescribing ‘Disappointingly Low’

“Few family doctors who complete the required training to prescribe buprenorphine for opioid-addicted patients actually do, new research shows.

A study conducted by researchers at the University of Washington in Seattle showed that following completion of training, fewer than a third of physicians reported prescribing buprenorphine to treat addiction.”

“It’s actually quite frustrating because the problem of opioid addiction has grown enormously in the US over the last 15 years, to the extent that unintentional lethal overdoses from opioids now exceed the number of deaths from car accidents,” study investigator Roger A. Rosenblatt, MD, MPH, of the Department of Family Medicine, University of Washington, told Medscape Medical News.”

A one-time free registration is required to view the article.
http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/821902

The study was published online March 10 in Annals of Family Medicine.

Source: Medscape.com - March 13, 2014

From NIDA Notes: Medications That Treat Opioid Addiction Do Not Impair Liver Health

A trial that compared buprenorphine/naloxone (Bup/Nx) to methadone produced no evidence that either medication damages the liver. Researchers concluded that Bup/Nx and methadone are equally safe for the liver, and Bup/Nx may be considered a first line alternative to the more established medication for treating opioid addiction.

Dr. Andrew Saxon at the Veterans Affairs Puget Sound Health Care System in Seattle, and Dr. Walter Ling at the University of California, Los Angeles Integrated Substance Abuse Program, conducted the trial with colleagues in the NIDA Clinical Trials Network. Dr. Saxon’s team randomly assigned 1,269 new patients in 8 U.S. opioid treatment programs to therapy with either Bup/Nx or methadone. The study findings reflect the experiences of 731 patients who provided blood samples for liver function tests at baseline, completed the 24 weeks of active treatment, and submitted blood for at least 4 of 8 scheduled tests of liver function during treatment. These tests include measuring the levels of two enzymes (alanine aminotransferase and aspartate aminotransferase) that the liver releases when it is injured.

Most trial participants maintained enzyme levels that indicate healthy liver function throughout the study. In 15.5 percent, enzyme levels increased to higher than twice the upper end of the normal range, indicating some ongoing liver injury. A few patients developed extreme elevations to 10 times the upper limit of normal or had other laboratory signs of severe liver injury.

The percentages of Bup/Nx and methadone patients who experienced each outcome were so close as to be statistically equivalent, warranting the conclusion that both medications were similarly safe. Although the researchers could not definitively rule out the possibility that the medications contributed to some of the observed worsening of liver function, their analysis produced no evidence to this effect. Instead, they say the changes most likely resulted from hepatitis, the toxicity of illicit drugs, and impurities in those drugs. Infection with hepatitis B or C doubled a patient’s odds of a significant change in enzyme levels and was the only predictor of worsening liver function. Most extreme increases in enzyme levels occurred when a patient seroconverted to hepatitis B or C, or used illicit drugs during the study.

The researchers note that about 44 percent of those screened for the study did not meet its enrollment criteria, suggesting that the participant group was healthier than many who visit clinics for addiction treatment. The ineligible population was also older, had a higher rate of stimulant use, and was less likely to be white than patients in the enrolled group, suggesting that the evaluable patient group might not be representative of all opioid-dependent patient groups.

Graphs available at: http://www.drugabuse.gov/news-events/nida-notes/2013/12/medications-treat-opioid-addiction-do-not-impair-liver-health

Source: National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA) Notes – December 2013

Q & A – Methadone or Buprenorphine for Maintenance Therapy of Opioid Addiction: What’s the Right Duration?

question boxQuestion: How long should patients with opioid addiction be treated with methadone or buprenorphine?

Response from Michael G. O’Neil, PharmD Professor, Department of Pharmacy Practice; Consultant, Drug Diversion and Substance Abuse, South College School of Pharmacy, Knoxville, Tennessee

“Data supporting positive long-term outcomes after definitive discontinuation of methadone or buprenorphine in a predetermined time frame for all patients are lacking. Prudent clinical practice dictates that duration of therapy should be individualized by well-trained addiction specialists, taking into account a disease treatment history that includes such factors as relapse, individual patient characteristics, evidence-based literature, patient adherence, socioeconomic characteristics, and environmental considerations until long-term evidence-based studies prove otherwise.

In summary, the complexities of the disease of opioid addiction have created a frustrating situation for practitioners and patients alike. Basic practice principles for chronic diseases, such as hypertension or schizophrenia, should be applied to patients who are unable to stay in recovery using abstinence programs alone. Strict discontinuance of opioid maintenance therapy solely on the basis of duration of treatment is not clinically justifiable at this time. Individualization of treatment for opioid addiction with methadone or buprenorphine by qualified specialists is necessary for many suffering patients, in conjunction with counseling, community support, or behavioral interventions. Treatment cultures for opioid addiction need to continue to evolve, as does education of the general public.”

The article can be accessed at: http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/819875

Source: www.Medscape.com - February 3, 2014

SAMHSA’s New Report Tracks the Behavioral Health of America

 

samhsa“A new report from the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA) illuminates important trends – many positive — in Americans’ behavioral health, both nationally and on a state-by-state basis.

SAMHSA’s new report, the “National Behavioral Health Barometer” (Barometer), provides data about key indicators of behavioral health problems including rates of serious mental illness, suicidal thoughts, substance abuse, underage drinking, and the percentages of those who seek treatment for these disorders. The Barometer shows this data at the national level, and for each of the 50 states and the District of Columbia.

The Barometer indicates that the behavioral health of our nation is improving in some areas. For example, the rate of prescription pain reliever abuse has fallen for both children ages 12-17 and adults ages 18-25 from 2007 to 2011 (9.2 percent to 8.7 percent and 12.0 percent to 9.8 percent respectively).

In the United States, only 14.8% of persons aged 12 or older with illicit drug dependence or abuse (an estimated 1.1 million individuals) in 2012 received treatment for their illicit drug use within the year prior to being surveyed.

The Barometer also shows more people are getting the help they need in some crucial areas. A case in point is that the number of people getting buprenorphine treatment for a heroin addiction has jumped 400 percent from 2006 to 2010. In 2012 the number of people who received buprenorphine as part of their substance abuse treatment was 39, 223. The number of people who received methadone as part of their substance abuse treatment was 311,718 in 2012.

The data in the Barometer is drawn from various federal surveys and provides both a snapshot of the current status of behavioral health nationally and by state, and trend data on some of these key behavioral health issues over time. The findings will be enormously helpful to decision makers at all levels who are seeking to reduce the impact of substance abuse and mental illness on America’s communities.

“The Barometer is a dynamic new tool providing important insight into the “real world’ implications of behavioral health issues in communities across our nation,” said SAMHSA’s Administrator, Pamela S. Hyde.”Unlike many behavioral health reports, its focus is not only on what is going wrong in terms of behavioral health, but what is improving and how communities might build on that progress.”

The Barometer also provides analyses by gender, age group and race/ethnicity, where possible, to further help public health authorities more effectively identify and address behavioral health issues occurring within their communities, and to serve as a basis for tracking and addressing behavioral health disparities.”

To view and download copies of the national or any state Behavioral Health Barometer, please visit the SAMHSA web site at http://store.samhsa.gov/product/SMA13-4796?from=carousel&position=1&date=0130214

http://www.samhsa.gov/newsroom/advisories/1401301041.aspx

Source: – Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration – 1/31/14

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.

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.”

The Joint Commission: Revised Requirements for Opioid Treatment Programs (OTPs)

Joint CommissionOn January 15 the Joint Commission issued for prepublication revised requirements for opioid treatment programs that will become effective March 23. The requirements address four areas:

  • Care, Treatment, and Services
  • Information Management
  • Medication Management
  • Rights and Responsibilities of the Individual

The prepublication requirements can be accessed at:

http://www.jointcommission.org/assets/1/18/Opioid_BHC.pdf

Source: The Joint Commission – January 15, 2014

Open Access Journal Article: Advancing Service Integration in Opioid Treatment Programs for the Care and Treatment of Hepatitis C Infection

liverABSTRACT

It is estimated that approximately 200 million people globally are infected with the hepatitis C virus and that roughly half of these people live in Asia. Without treatment, it is estimated that roughly twenty percent of those infected with hepatitis C virus progress to chronic liver disease, then subsequently, end-stage liver disease. Thus, access to hepatitis C testing and subsequent care and treatment of chronic hepatitis C infection are essential to address the global burden of disease.

In the United States, the Center for Disease Control and Prevention estimates that 60% of new cases of hepatitis infection are due to injection drug use. Opioid Treatment Programs (OTP’s) dispense methadone and buprenorphine under specific federal regulations to injection drug users diagnosed with opioid dependence. OTPs are developing comprehensive care and treatment model programs that integrate general medical and infectious disease-related medical care with substance abuse and mental health services. Integrating hepatitis care services and treatment in the substance abuse treatment settings fosters access to care for patients with hepatitis C infection, many who otherwise would not receive needed care and treatment.

This may serve as a national model for highly cost-efficient healthcare that has a measurable outcome of improved public health with reduced hepatitis C prevalence.

http://www.scirp.org/journal/PaperInformation.aspx?PaperID=42589#.Uul-AJtALzZ

Source: International Journal of Clinical Medicine – January 2014

Dr. Jana Burson Blog: Who Should NOT Be in Medication-Assisted Therapy with Either Methadone or Buprenorphine?

“I spend much time and effort explaining how medication-assisted treatment for opioid addiction works for many addicts. It occurred to me that I should explain who isn’t a good candidate for such treatment.

I enthusiastically support medication-assisted treatment (MAT) of opioid addiction, but no treatment works for everyone. MAT doesn’t work for every opioid addict.” Dr. Burson offer ten reasons a patient may not be suitable for MAT including:

  • The patient isn’t addicted to opioids.
  • The patient takes opioids for pain, but has never developed the disease of addiction.
  • The opioid addict presenting for treatment has been physically dependent for less than one year.
  • The opioid addict has the ability to go to a prolonged inpatient residential treatment program for his addiction.

All this is to say that the goal of entering an opioid treatment program isn’t necessarily to
get off the treatment medication.

So if a patient seeks to enter methadone treatment but also expresses a desire to be off buprenorphine or methadone within weeks to months, I tell them their expectations aren’t realistic. These medications don’t work like that. If the patient wants to get off all medications quickly, they need referral to an inpatient program. This way, patients can’t later say they were mislead, and they feel like they have liquid handcuffs, chained forever to methadone, with its many regulations for treatment.’

http://janaburson.wordpress.com/2014/01/05/who-should-not-be-in-medication-assisted-therapy-with-either-methadone-or-buprenorphine/

Source: Jana Burson – MD  – January 5, 2014

CRC Health Group Announces Acquisition of Nation’s Fourth Largest Opiate Addiction Treatment Network Habit OPCO

“CRC Health Group, the nation’s largest provider of addiction treatment and related behavioral health services, announced the acquisition of Habit OPCO, the nation’s fourth largest provider of opiate addiction treatment clinics. Founded in 1985, Habit OPCO has 22 treatment locations in Massachusetts, Vermont, New Hampshire, New Jersey and Pennsylvania. The acquisition increases CRC Health’s total number of comprehensive treatment centers to 80. The deal is expected to close in the first quarter of 2014.”

http://www.digitaljournal.com/pr/1632400

 Source: DigitalJournal.com – December 10, 2013

 

New Resource: The Partnership at Drugfree.org Launches Innovative Tool to Help Parents Understand Lifesaving Benefits of Medication-Assisted Treatment for Opiate Addiction

The Partnership at Drugfree.org, a national nonprofit working to find evidence-based solutions to adolescent substance use, has launched a  new digital resource that helps parents better understand the potential life-saving benefits of medication-assisted treatment. The online tool is comprised of videos, testimonials and an e-book to help parents make an informed choice when they are looking for treatment options to help a teen or young adult recover from an addiction to prescription pain medications, heroin or other opiates.

http://www.itnewsonline.com/showprnstory.php?storyid=302031

 Source: ITNewsOnline.com – December 12, 2013

Jana Burson Blog Inspired at AATOD – Supplemental Study of the MOTHER Trial

 

baby“Yesterday at the AATOD conference, I heard a lecture by one of the main authors of the MOTHER (Maternal Opioid Treatment: Human Experimental Research) trial, Dr. Karol Kaltenbach. I’ve posted blogs about this trial (see Dec 16, 2010, March 23, 2013), which randomized opioid-addicted pregnant women to treatment with either methadone or buprenorphine. The goal was to compare outcomes of the babies born to moms maintained on methadone versus buprenorphine.

From the MOTHER study we learned that babies born to moms on buprenorphine have about the same risk of withdrawal, called neonatal abstinence syndrome (NAS), as babies born to moms on methadone. In both groups, fifty percent of the babies had NAS severe enough to need medication to treat opioid withdrawal. The babies were scored on the Finnegan scale, which grades the babies on many signs of withdrawal to indicate when treatment is needed.

Now for the exciting part: a supplemental study of these children is being completed. This data hasn’t yet been published, but Dr. Kaltenbach says it will show that kids of moms on methadone and buprenorphine were compared and assessed at three months, six months, twelve, twenty-four, and thirty-six months. A standardized scoring system for infant development called the Bayley Scale was used to study these children, and the groups were compared to scores for normal children.

Dr. Kaltenbach says there are no differences between the babies born to methadone versus buprenorphine, and better yet – both groups showed scores in the normal ranges on this scale. The scale measured things like language and motor skills, cognitive abilities, and conceptual and social skills.”

http://janaburson.wordpress.com/2013/11/14/inspired-at-aatod/

Source: Jana Burson – November 14, 2013

 

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