Vaccine Halts Heroin Addiction in Rats

Needle1“A vaccine to treat heroin addiction has proven effective in keeping drug-addicted rats from relapsing in a preclinical trial, according to a study published this week in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. Researchers from the Scripps Research Institute in California say the vaccine is now ready for human trials.

Initial research into the vaccine in 2011 found that it could effectively keep rats from becoming addicted to heroin without affecting the pain relief they experienced from other opiates. This study built on those results using rats that were already addicted, finding that the vaccine could keep them from resuming compulsive drug-taking behavior even after they experienced withdrawal.”

http://www.popsci.com/science/article/2013-05/vaccine-halts-heroin-addiction-rats

Source: PopSci.com – May 7, 2013

2013 National Drug Control Strategy Released

White HouseThe White House Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP) released the 2013 National Drug Control Strategy on April 24. Highlights of the Strategy include:

Make Access to Treatment a Reality for Millions of Americans

  • Details actions to implement the Affordable Care Act, which – for the first time in history – ends discrimination against people with substance use disorders by requiring insurance companies to cover treatment for substance use disorders as they would for any other chronic disease;
  • Work to expand treatment and reentry services for those incarcerated; and
  • Target expansion of care for populations with an unmet need for substance abuse treatment, including veterans, college and university students, and Native Americans.

Give a Voice to Americans in Recovery

  • Work to lift the stigma associated with addiction by partnering with the recovery community to speak out about their successes and encourage others to seek treatment; and
  • Review and reform laws and regulations that unfairly target those with substance use disorders and impede recovery from addiction, including those laws and regulations that restrict access to housing, employment, and attaining a driver’s license or student loan.

The news release highlighting the new strategy is available at: http://www.whitehouse.gov/ondcp/news-releases/2013-national-drug-policy-strategy-release

A fact sheet on the new strategy is available at: https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/2876748/ireta/National%20Drug%20Control%20Strategy%20Fact%20Sheet.pdf

The full 2013 National Drug Control Strategy is at: http://www.whitehouse.gov//sites/default/files/ondcp/policy-and-research/ndcs_2013.pdf

Source: WhiteHouse.gov – April 24, 2013

Good Samaritan Overdose Response Laws: Lessons Learned from Washington State

“In summary, Washington’s Good Samaritan overdose law has coincided with a great deal of progress on overdose education efforts throughout the state without any major negative consequences. We have found that collaboration among diverse stakeholders is critical to spreading the word about overdose prevention and response.  The Good Samaritan law in Washington was an important catalyst for this progress, and we encourage other states to involve public health, law enforcement, medical and treatment professionals, and advocacy organizations in spreading the word about the need for overdose education and the protections provided by Good Samaritan overdose laws.  Other states also may wish to consider cost-neutral ways of explicitly identifying an agency or standing work group to convene a multi-agency task force to help implement overdose-related laws in their legislation.”

http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2013/03/29/good-samaritan-overdose-response-laws-lessons-learned-washington-state

Source: WhiteHouse.gov – March 29, 2013

From the Editor – Maine Continuing to Push for Caps on Medication-Assisted Treatment

hour glass1First, Maine imposed two-year caps on methadone and buprenorphine treatment, if paid for by MaineCare, the state’s Medicaid program. The caps were due to take effect January 1, but treatment advocates were able to work out a medical-necessity exemption, which said that as long as patients were doing well, they could stay past the two-year limit.

Never mind that this made no sense—patients who are not doing well should be kicked off treatment—to go where, the streets? In any event, it was better than nothing. But in March, a new bill was introduced that would have eliminated even the medical necessity exemption. Two years on treatment, and that’s it.

Mark Publicker, MD, president of the Northern New England Society of Addiction Medicine, who helped lead the advocates’ battle for the medical necessity exemption, is “back in the saddle”—pressing the state legislature and the regulators for a reasonable approach.

Under the proposed bill, as of January 1, 2015 no patient would be allowed to be on methadone or buprenorphine for more than two years, if paid for by Medicaid.

“It’s outrageous,” he told AT Forum.

Heroin: Small Cities, Even Rural Towns Face Growing Problems

“For years, heroin was considered an affliction mainly of poor urban neighborhoods. But these days, the drug is becoming popular in affluent suburbs, small cities, and even rural towns—especially among young people.

From Arizona to New Jersey, many communities that never imagined they would have a heroin problem now face a rising toll of addiction, overdoses, and even deaths.

“You would have to go pretty remote to find a place that didn’t have this,” says Kathleen Kane-Willis, a researcher at Roosevelt University in Chicago who has tracked heroin use since 2004. “It’s just everywhere”.

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Society/2013/0125/Heroin-Small-cities-even-rural-towns-face-growing-problems#.UQPfGQBSZ9g.email

Source: ChristianScienceMonitor.com – January 25, 2013

OTPs Can Now Dispense Buprenorphine Take-Homes with No Waiting Periods

As of January 7, 2013, opioid treatment programs (OTPs) can now dispense buprenorphine take-homes, with no predetermined waiting period for stable patients. The Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA) at last issued its final rule giving OTPs the welcome flexibility this past November, and the rule was published in the Federal Register December 6, 2012. Fears of diversion were probably the driving force behind the delay in the final rule; the proposed rule was issued in June 2009.

Because Schedule III substances—like buprenorphine—have a lower potential for abuse compared to Schedule II substances—like methadone—there is justification for the less-restrictive rules on dispensing buprenorphine, according to SAMHSA.

Of course, states can have stricter rules. Some require OTPs to be open 7 days a week, and the idea of buprenorphine take-homes isn’t even on their radar screens. Still, the final rule is a very important first step for OTPs and their patients.

Most OTP physicians (80 percent) have already completed the DATA training and obtained the required waivers, according to SAMHSA. OTPs will not have a cap on how many patients they can treat with either buprenorphine or methadone. However, for take-homes, OTPs will still be “required to assess and document each patient’s responsibility and stability to handle opioid drug products, including buprenorphine products,” SAMHSA said in the final rule.

At this important juncture in the history of OTPs, accompanying articles in this issue take a look back at the development of buprenorphine and methadone for treating patients with opioid use disorders, and the differences between the two medications. We also report thoughts from leaders in the field as to what the new rule is likely to mean to OTPs and their patients.

Buprenorphine vs. Methadone

Buprenorphine and methadone, both being opioids, activate the opioid (mu) receptors on nerve cells. And both drugs have long half-lifes, meaning that they’re long-acting medications. The half-life can vary from 24 to 60 hours for buprenorphine, and from 8 to 59 hours for methadone. (The half-life is the amount of time a drug stays in the body before its concentration in the plasma drops by half. A drug’s half-life can vary from patient to patient.)

The long half-lifes of buprenorphine and methadone account for their usefulness in treating opioid dependence. Simply put, these drugs lack the peaks and troughs that are associated with short-term opioids, like heroin—swings in drug plasma levels that can cause overdose and withdrawal symptoms.

But there are key differences between buprenorphine and methadone.

Full Agonist vs. Partial Agonist

Buprenorphine is a partial agonist; methadone, like heroin, is a full agonist. It is by their actions on opioid receptors that opioids achieve their analgesic (pain-killing) as well as their addictive effects.

Methadone, as a full mu opioid agonist, continues to produce effects on the receptors until either all receptors are fully activated, or the maximum effect is reached.

Buprenorphine, as a partial agonist, does not activate mu receptors to the same extent as methadone. Its effects increase until they reach a plateau. At that level, opioid-addicted patients can discontinue opioid use without experiencing withdrawal. Buprenorphine reaches its ceiling effect at a moderate dose, which means that its effects do not increase after that point, even with increases in dosage.

Like all opioids, buprenorphine can cause respiratory depression and euphoria, but its maximal effects are less than those of full agonists. The benefits of this from an overdose perspective constitute the safety profile of buprenorphine—a lower risk of abuse, addiction, and side effects than with full agonists.

For people who are not addicted to or dependent on opioids, the effects of partial (buprenorphine) and full (methadone) agonists are indistinguishable. However, at a certain point, the increasing effects of partial agonists reach maximum levels. For this reason, people who are dependent on high doses of opioids are better suited to treatment with a full agonist, such as methadone.

Buprenorphine, like methadone, has a serious potential for drug-drug interactions. It must be used cautiously with other medications, in particular benzodiazepines, other sedatives, opioid antagonists like naltrexone, and opioid agonists.

Buprenorphine

Methadone

Heroin

Partial agonist Full agonist Full agonist
Long half-life (24 to 60 hours) Long half-life (8 to 59 hours) Short half-life
Ceiling effect; good safety profile No ceiling effect (useful in patients dependent on high doses of opioids) No ceiling effect

Formulations of Buprenorphine

In October 2002, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved the buprenorphine monotherapy product, Subutex, and a buprenorphine/naloxone combination product, Suboxone, for treating opioid addiction.

Subutex is no longer sold in this country. It has been replaced by generic buprenorphine. Suboxone, a sublingual tablet (designed to dissolve under the tongue), comes in two dosage forms. Suboxone film was approved by the FDA in 2010. The sublingual film dissolves faster than the tablet, and is individually wrapped in unit-dose, child-resistant pouches. According to the manufacturer, Reckitt Benckiser, Suboxone film is clinically interchangeable with the tablet.

Last fall, Reckitt Benckiser voluntarily removed its Suboxone tablets from the market, citing a few pediatric overdoses. But it protected its hold on the Suboxone market by retaining the film formulation. The patent on the tablets had long expired; the patent on the film runs until 2023. Patients, of course, had to be switched to the film, unless their physicians wanted to switch them to generic buprenorphine. At the same time that Reckitt pulled the tablets, it filed a Citizen’s Petition with the FDA, calling on all buprenorphine products to be sold in childproof packaging.

The effect of these moves by Reckitt on the buprenorphine marketplace are not clear, said Nicholas Reuter, MPH, who was senior public health analyst with SAMHSA’s Center for Substance Abuse Treatment (CSAT) when this story was written (he retired on January 31, 2013). “Submitting a Citizen’s Petition doesn’t mean the FDA has to accept it,” he said. In addition, in November 2012 the FDA accepted Orexo’s New Drug Application for Zubsolv, a buprenorphine-naloxone combination. Zubsolv could well be the first generic competition to Suboxone. And on December 17, 2012, Titan licensed Probuphine, its buprenorphine implant, to Braeburn Pharmaceutical for exclusive commercialization in the U.S. and Canada. “The buprenorphine marketplace is looking at different formulations,” noted Mr. Reuter. “There could be a generic competitor [for Suboxone] tomorrow.”

Making the Decision: Methadone vs. Buprenorphine

Aside from the dosage issue, there is no “cookie-cutter” approach for deciding what patient gets buprenorphine and what patient gets methadone. Philip L. Herschman, PhD, chief clinical officer of CRC Health Group, pointed out that different patients react differently to different medications. “Some feel better on buprenorphine, some feel better on methadone,” he said. CRC has been using generic buprenorphine in its OTPs on the same basis as methadone. The extent to which CRC will be able to give buprenorphine take-homes will depend in large part on state regulations—just because the federal government has approved the plan doesn’t mean states will.

“Buprenorphine is great, but it’s not for everybody,” said Walter Ginter, CMA, project director of the Medication Assisted Recovery Support (MARS) project. He doesn’t think the final rule is going to make a big difference for most patients. He noted that few patients go to methadone maintenance as their first course of treatment.

In fact, Mr. Ginter can speak as an expert on subjective effects in a personal way: he has been maintained on both medications—buprenorphine during its development in the 1990s, when he was a study subject, and then methadone. He has been on a high dose of methadone for years, and says “I don’t think I’m clouded out.” Indeed, he is one of the most energetic and articulate advocates in the field. It comes down to a matter of personal preference, he said. “With methadone, you’re never sick and you’re never high, but you do get the serum peaking four hours after the dose,” he said. “I think Suboxone is too much the same, with no ups or downs.”

Still, there are OTPs that do switch patients from methadone to buprenorphine, titrating very carefully downward for patients on doses of 80 milligrams or more of methadone before switching to buprenorphine, said Mark Parrino. MPA, president of the American Association for the Treatment of Opioid Dependence (AATOD). In general, if a patient has been using opioids for a longer period, or has a higher tolerance, methadone would be more appropriate. The reason is that buprenorphine’s ceiling limits those higher-dose equivalents.

Publishers Note: Nicholas Reuter, MPH joined Reckitt Benckiser in February 2013 as a Treatment Manager.

The December 2012 issue of Heroin Addiction and Related Clinical Problems is Now Available Online

Heroin Addiction and Related Clinical Problems, the official journal of EUROPAD (European Opiate Addiction Treatment Association), is a peer-reviewed publication for professionals wanting to stay informed of research and opinion on opioid misuse treatment in Europe and around the world. A particular emphasis is on medication-assisted treatments for opioid addiction. Articles in this issue include:

  • Quality of Care Provided to Patients Receiving Opioid Maintenance Treatment in Europe: Results from the EQUATOR analysis
  • Outcomes of opioid-dependence treatment across Europe: identifying opportunities for improvement
  • Assessing the current state of public-health-related outcomes in opioid dependence across Europe: data from the EQUATOR analysis
  • Barriers to treatment access and informed patient choice in the treatment of opioid
    dependence in Europe
  • Aggressive behaviour and heroin addiction
  • Post-traumatic stress spectrum and maladaptive behaviour (drug abuse included) after catastrophic events: L’Aquila 2009 earthquake as case study

The PDF file is available for download at: http://atforum.com/documents/HeroinDecember2012.pdf

Study: Distributing Naloxone Injection Kits Could Help Addicts Reverse Heroin Overdoses

Distributing a drug that reverses drug overdoses in heroin users would save lives and be cost-effective, according to a new analysis.

U.S. researchers, who published their findings in the Annals of Internal Medicine on Monday, calculated that one death may be prevented for every 164 naloxone injection kits they distribute to heroin users. That, the researchers say, works out to be a few hundred dollars for every year of healthy life gained.

“The great news here is these overdose deaths can be prevented, it’s cost effective to do so, and may even be cost saving,” said Dr. Phillip Coffin, the study’s lead author from the San Francisco Department of Public Health.

http://medcitynews.com/2012/12/study-distributing-naloxone-injection-kits-could-help-addicts-reverse-heroin-overdoses/

Source: MedCityNews.com – December 31, 2012

U.S. Military Working on Combination Anti-Heroin/HIV Vaccine

A scientist at the Walter Reed Army Institute of Research is developing a vaccine designed to treat heroin addiction while at the same time prevent HIV infection. This project is one of a number of research initiatives around the world that are working toward new vaccines to fight addiction.

The National Institute on Drug Abuse recently pledged $5 million toward Dr. Gary Matyas’ work on the new dual vaccine. The goal of the vaccine is to fight heroin abuse and the high risk of HIV infection among heroin users who inject the drug.

 http://www.drugfree.org/join-together/addiction/u-s-military-working-on-combination-anti-heroinhiv-vaccine

Source:  JoinTogether.org – November 30, 2012

The Beginning of the End of the Abstinence Rule?

“The reaction to the news last week that Hazelden will be using medication-assisted treatment—including the maintenance drug, buprenorphine (Suboxone), potentially indefinitely for some patients—has been intense. “Hell froze over,” one tweeter responded, expressing shock that the granddaddy of abstinence-based treatment could make such a big change. “It’s about time,” said Dr. Charles O’Brien, director of the University of Pennsylvania’s prestigious Center for Studies on Addiction, and one of the field’s most eminent researchers. The head of the National Institute on Drug Abuse, Dr. Nora Volkow, also praised the decision.”

http://www.thefix.com/content/hazelden-maintenance-suboxone-opiate-painkiller8546

Source: TheFix.com – November 8, 2012

Commentary by Dr. Joseph Shrand: Drug Addiction is Not a Moral Failing

“There is an unfortunate tradition of being angry and disgusted at people who are addicted to heroin. Seeing addiction as a moral failing, these folks become outraged that our government spends their tax dollars on treating people who knew from the start they were using an addictive drug, in essence telling them they were on their own and we should not be spending a dime to help them. Their addiction was their fault and they were stuck with it. If those repelled by the addict had their way, all of these people would be cast aside to rot.”

http://www.patriotledger.com/lifestyle/health_and_beauty/x1671793946/DR-JOSEPH-SHRAND-Drug-addiction-is-not-a-moral-failing

Source: Patriotledger.com – November 17, 2012

September 2012 Issue of Heroin Addiction and Related Clinical Problems is Now Available Online

Heroin Addiction and Related Clinical Problems, the official journal of EUROPAD (European Opiate Addiction Treatment Association), is a peer-reviewed publication for professionals wanting to stay informed of research and opinion on opioid misuse treatment in Europe and around the world. A particular emphasis is on medication-assisted treatments for opioid addiction. Articles in this issue include:

  •  Assessing the current state of opioid-dependence treatment across Europe: methodology of the European Quality Audit of Opioid Treatment (EQUATOR) project
  • Is substance use disorder with comorbid adult attention deficit hyperactivity disorder and bipolar disorder a distinct clinical phenotype?
  • Economic evaluation of opioid substitution treatment in Greece
  •  The journey into injecting heroin use
  • Cognitive behavioural coping skills therapy in cocaine using methadone maintained patients: a pilot randomised controlled trial

The September issue can be accessed at: Heroin Addiction and Related Clinical Problems September 2012 (2.12 MB, 116pp)

New Report: The U.S. Drug Policy Landscape Insights and Opportunities for Improving the View

This new report from RAND Corporation provides a nonpartisan primer that should be of interest to those who are new to the field of drug policy, as well as those who have been working in the trenches. It begins with an overview of problems and policies related to illegal drugs in the United States, including the nonmedical use of prescription drugs. It then discusses the efficacy of U.S. drug policies and programs, including long-standing issues that deserve additional attention. Next, the paper lists the major funders of research and analysis in the area and describes their priorities. By highlighting the issues that receive most of the funding, this discussion identifies where gaps remain.

The press release can be accessed at: http://www.rand.org/news/press/2012/09/18.html

The report can be accessed at: http://www.rand.org/pubs/occasional_papers/OP393.html

Source: RAND Corporation – September 18, 2012

Blocker for Heroin Addiction? A Cautionary Tale About Press Hype and Truth

If you were paying attention to news about successful treatments for opioid addiction you probably fell out of your chair when you saw a stream of headlines one mid-month morning proclaiming that a way to “block” addiction to heroin had been found. All of the articles were based on one of two press releases, both of which were issued by the institutions where the lead authors of an animal study work (University of Colorado and University of Adelaide). The study was published in the August 15 issue of the Journal of Neuroscience.

In fact, the study was about how a promising new immune system component can contribute to pain relief with lower amounts of opioids. It was not about addiction.

Thanks to SciCurious, a Scientific American blogger, the truth got out pretty fast. But it was too late for the hundreds of articles that have already been published—with no retractions or corrections that we can find.

This is a cautionary tale about journalists who, instead of going to the easily-findable study itself, rely on the press release.

What the headline of the actual article says: “Opioid Activation of Toll-Like Receptor 4 Contributes to Drug Reinforcement.”

What the press release headline from the University of Colorado says: “New study involving CU-Boulder shows heroin, morphine addiction can be blocked.”

What the press release headline from the University of Adelaide says: “Scientists can now block heroin, morphine addiction; clinical trials possible within 18 months.”

This major disconnect between press release and study—and the authors appear to have willingly participated in it because they are quoted in the press releases as saying their study shows addiction can be blocked—was dutifully perpetuated by the press.

What Fox News said: “Researchers find way to block heroin, morphine addiction.”

From BusinessWeek: “Heroin Immune Cell Seen as Hope for 21 Million Abusers.”

And don’t blame it only on the lay media. The internet is full of websites like “Medical News Daily” which ran its write-up of the press release under this headline: “Morphine and Heroin Addiction Can be Bed by Targeting Immune System.”

For those who are interested, here’s how the abstract begins: “Opioid action was thought to exert reinforcing effects solely via the initial agonism of opioid receptors. Here, we present evidence for an additional novel contributor to opioid reward: the innate immune pattern-recognition receptor, toll-like receptor 4 (TLR4), and its MyD88-dependent signaling. Blockade of TLR4/MD2 by administration of the nonopioid, unnatural isomer of naloxone, (+)-naloxone (rats), or two independent genetic knock-outs of MyD88-TLR4-dependent signaling (mice), suppressed opioid-induced conditioned place preference. (+)-Naloxone also reduced opioid (remifentanil) self-administration (rats), another commonly used behavioral measure of drug reward. Moreover, pharmacological blockade of morphine-TLR4/MD2 activity potently reduced morphine-induced elevations of extracellular dopamine in rat nucleus accumbens, a region critical for opioid reinforcement. Importantly, opioid-TLR4 actions are not a unidirectional influence on opioid pharmacodynamics, since TLR4−/− mice had reduced oxycodone-induced p38 and JNK phosphorylation, while displaying potentiated analgesia.” (For the entire abstract, go to http://www.jneurosci.org/content/32/33/11187.abstract.)

Maybe this is too difficult for your average journalist to understand. But the average journalist should at least know to call an addiction treatment expert to find out if such a thing is possible, and there must be health care journalists who have heard of methadone and buprenorphine.

What SciCurious said:

“1. Is this paper good? Oh yes! Really neat! Cool new mechanism!
2. Does it “block” heroin addiction? No.”

The study was funded by the National Institute on Drug Abuse and the Australian Research Council. The NIDA press office didn’t respond to a request for an explanation about whether this study actually shows a way to block addiction.

SciCurious explains (and we paraphrase): For the study, rats self-administered remifentanil – a form of fentanyl, highly reinforcing – very quickly because it made them feel good. Then they were given (+)-naloxone, a mirror isomer of naloxone, immediately prior to self-administration of remifentanil. They did not self-administer it at all. So it did block the rewarding effects of the drugs. But, as SciCurious wrote, “these rats were not addicts, and they did not look at things like reinstatement for drug-seeking behavior or other measures.” She added, “there’s a big difference between blocking the effects in a rat that’s only had a few days experience, and blocking them in a years-long addict.”

Should (+)-naloxone be tested? Yes, said SciCurious. But she noted that there have been many drugs that block self-administration for morphine, but these drugs haven’t worked in patients.

What (+)-naloxone does do—and what the study shows it does—is potentiate the effects of pain relief. This was tested by measuring the length of time it takes for a mouse to remove its tail from a hot plate. When the mouse is on remifentanil, it takes longer to remove its tail because it can’t feel the pain. When it’s on (+)-naloxone and remifentanil, it takes even longer.  “(+)-naloxone has not cured addiction,” writes SciCurious. “But it could do great things with pain.”

For the Scientific American blog, go to http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/scicurious-brain/2012/08/15/stop-the-presses-we-cured-heroin-addiction/

Alison Knopf for AT Forum

Site last updated May 13, 2013 @ 4:22 pm