The duration dilemma in opioid agonist therapy.

OBJECTIVE: Studies dating back to 1964 consistently support the effectiveness of methadone as a maintenance treatment for opioid use disorder (OUD), and since 2003, the effectiveness of buprenorphine. Short-term detoxification has not proven to be an effective treatment, as it results in high relapse rates when compared with maintenance treatment with an opioid agonist therapy (OAT). The question about the duration of maintenance treatment for OUD has been debated with recommendations ranging from a minimum of 1 year, 2 years, to indefinitely. Other factors such as misconceptions, regulations, and insurance barriers also have an impact on the duration dilemma of OAT. DESIGN: There were no a priori criteria for article inclusion and this is not a structured literature review. It is a review of articles of convenience from 1964 to 2018. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: This paper aims to address the dilemma of the ideal duration of OAT and to discuss the factors that could affect this decision. RESULTS: Sustained OAT has had significantly better long-term outcomes than short-term detoxification or time limited maintenance. Optimal outcomes are dependent on adequate treatment duration. CONCLUSIONS: Addiction is a chronic brain disease and its treatment should be similar to the treatment of other chronic medical and psychiatric diseases. Long-term, sometimes lifetime, continuation of OAT for the treatment of OUD results in optimal outcomes when measuring morbidity and mortality. The accumulated evidence does not support any arbitrary limitation to the duration of OAT.

Language Matters: It Is Time We Change How We Talk About Addiction and its Treatment.

The way we communicate about addiction, its treatment, and treatment outcomes matters to individuals affected by addiction, their families, and communities. Stigmatizing language can worsen addiction-related stigma and outcomes. Although non-professional terminology may be used by individuals with addiction, the role of clinicians, educators, researchers, policymakers, and community and cultural leaders is to actively work toward destigmatization of addiction and its treatment, in part through the use of non-stigmatizing language. Role-modeling better approaches can help us move away from the inaccurate, outdated view of addiction as a character flaw or moral failing deserving of punishment, and toward that of a chronic disease requiring long-term treatment. Non-stigmatizing, non-judgmental, medically-based terminology and the adoption of person-first language can facilitate improved communication as well as patient access to and engagement with addiction care. Person-first language, which shifts away from defining a person through the lens of disease (eg, the term "a person with addiction" is recommended over the terms "addict" or "addicted patient"), implicitly acknowledges that a patient's life extends beyond a given disease. While such linguistic changes may seem subtle, they communicate that addiction, chronic pain and other diseases are only one aspect of a person's health and quality of life, and can promote therapeutic relationships, reduce stigma and health and disparities in addiction care. This article provides examples of stigmatizing terms to be avoided and recommended replacements to facilitate the dialogue about addiction in a more intentional, therapeutic manner.

Chronic Pain, Chronic Opioid Addiction: a Complex Nexus.

Over the past two decades, there has been a significant increase in the prescribing of opioids, with associated increases in opioid addiction and overdose deaths. This article reviews the evidence for the effectiveness and risk of developing an opioid use disorder (OUD) in those patients treated with chronic opioid therapy (COT) for chronic non-cancer pain (CNCP). Rates of development of OUD range from 0-50 %, and aberrant drug related behaviors (ADRBs) are reported to be 20 %. Health care providers must properly assess, screen, and carefully monitor patients on COT utilizing evidence-based tools.

Methadone Medical Maintenance: An Early 21st-Century Perspective.

Methadone medical maintenance is the treatment of stable methadone-maintained patients in primary care physicians' offices under an exemption from federal methadone regulations. Reports from seven such programs in six states show high retention and low frequencies of illicit drug use. Patients and physicians indicate high levels of satisfaction. Although methadone maintenance has a long history of safety and efficacy, most methadone medical maintenance programs are no longer operating or accepting new patients. Federal regulations for standard methadone clinics allow some features of methadone medical maintenance, and advocacy for state approval of these changes is strongly recommended.

Safe methadone induction and stabilization: report of an expert panel.

OBJECTIVES: Methadone is a well-studied, safe, and effective medication when dispensed and consumed properly. However, a number of studies have identified elevated rates of overdose and death in patients being treated with methadone for either addiction or chronic pain. Among patients being treated with methadone in federally certified opioid treatment programs, deaths most often occur during the induction and stabilization phases of treatment. To address this issue, the federal Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration invited the American Society of Addiction Medicine to convene an expert panel to develop a consensus statement on methadone induction and stabilization, with recommendations to reduce the risk of patient overdose or death related to methadone maintenance treatment of addiction. METHODS: A comprehensive literature search of English-language publications (1979-2011) was conducted via MEDLINE and EMBASE. Methadone Action Group members evaluated the resulting information and collaborated in formulating the consensus statement presented here, which subsequently was reviewed by more than 100 experts in the field. RESULTS: Published data indicate that deaths during methadone induction occur because the initial dose is too high, the dose is increased too rapidly, or the prescribed methadone interacts with another drug. Therefore, the Methadone Action Group has developed recommendations to help methadone providers avoid or minimize these risks. CONCLUSIONS: Careful management of methadone induction and stabilization, coupled with patient education and increased clinical vigilance, can save lives in this vulnerable patient population.

Statement of the American Society Of Addiction Medicine Consensus Panel on the use of buprenorphine in office-based treatment of opioid addiction.

OBJECTIVES: Opioid addiction affects over 2 million patients in the United States. The advent of buprenorphine and the passage of the Drug Addiction Treatment Act in 2000 have revolutionized the opioid treatment delivery system by granting physicians the ability to administer office-based opioid treatment (OBOT), thereby giving patients greater access to treatment. The purpose of this consensus panel was to synthesize the most current evidence on the use of buprenorphine in the office-based setting and to make recommendations that will enable and allow additional physicians to begin to treat opioid-addicted individuals. METHODS: Literature published from 2000 to 2009 was searched using the PubMed search engine and yielded over 375 articles published in peer-reviewed journals, including some that were published guidelines. These articles were submitted to a consensus panel composed of researchers, educators, and clinicians who are leaders in the field of addiction medicine with specific expertise in the use of OBOT. The panel discussed results and agreed upon consensus recommendations for several facets of OBOT. RESULTS: : On the basis of the literature review and consensus discussions, the panel developed a series of findings, conclusions, and recommendations regarding the use of buprenorphine in office-based treatment of opioid addiction. CONCLUSIONS: Therapeutic outcomes for patients who self-select office-based treatment with buprenorphine are essentially comparable to those seen in patients treated with methadone programs. There are few absolute contraindications to the use of buprenorphine, although the experience and skill levels of treating physicians can vary considerably, as can access to the resources needed to treat comorbid medical or psychiatric conditions--all of which affect outcomes. It is important to conduct a targeted assessment of every patient to confirm that the provider has resources available to meet the patient's needs. Patients should be assessed for a broad array of biopsychosocial needs in addition to opioid use and addiction, and should be treated, referred, or both for help in meeting all their care needs, including medical care, psychiatric care, and social assistance. Current literature demonstrates promising efficacy of buprenorphine, though further research will continue to demonstrate its effectiveness for special populations, such as adolescents, pregnant women, and other vulnerable populations. Since the time of this review, several new studies have provided new data to continue to improve our understanding of the safety and efficacy of buprenorphine for special patient populations.

Transitioning stable methadone maintenance patients to buprenorphine maintenance.

OBJECTIVES: Little data exists on psychosocially stable patients maintained long term on methadone maintenance treatment who attempt to transition their maintenance treatment to buprenorphine. The aims of this study were (1) to determine whether there is a correlation between baseline methadone maintenance dose and final buprenorphine maintenance dose, (2) to investigate subjective and objective outcomes over time in psychosocially stable opioid-dependent patients who transitioned their long-term maintenance treatment from methadone to buprenorphine. METHODS: In this retrospective study, 104 such patients on dosages of methadone 5 to 80 mg/d were offered the opportunity to convert their maintenance treatment to buprenorphine, of which 25 accepted. RESULTS: All patients (n = 25, 100%) who readily attempted transition to buprenorphine succeeded. A low-moderate association was found between patients' pretransfer methadone dose and posttransfer buprenorphine dose (Spearman correlation coefficient ρ = 0.46, P = 0.02). At a mean 30.3 months duration (SD 16.5), 22 patients (88%) remained on buprenorphine maintenance, 1 patient (4%) tapered off buprenorphine under clinician supervision, 1 patient (4%) died of hepatitis C, and 1 patient (4%) relapsed to cocaine and was lost to follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: The results demonstrate a low to moderate association between methadone and buprenorphine maintenance doses, and that buprenorphine is a viable maintenance treatment for opioid dependence for psychosocially stable patients on long-term methadone maintenance dosages up to 80 mg/d.

Outcomes of buprenorphine maintenance in office-based practice.

Buprenorphine is an efficacious treatment for opioid dependence recently approved for office-based medical practice. The purpose of the study was to describe the background characteristics, treatment process, outcomes and correlates of outcomes for patients receiving buprenorphine maintenance in "real world" office-based settings in New York City, without employing the many patient exclusion criteria characterizing clinical research studies of buprenorphine, including absence of co-occurring psychiatric and non-opioid substance use disorders. A convenience sample of six physicians completed anonymous chart abstraction forms for all patients who began buprenorphine induction or who transferred to these practices during 2003-2005 (N = 86). The endpoint was the patient's current status or status at discharge from the index practice, presented in an intent-to-treat analysis. The results were: male (74%); median age (38 yrs); White, non-Hispanic (82%); employed full-time, (58%); HCV+ (15%); substance use at intake: prescription opioids (50%), heroin (35%), non-opioids (49%); median length of treatment (8 months); median maintenance dose (15 mg/day); prescribed psychiatric medication (63%). The most frequent psychiatric disorders were: major depression, obsessive-compulsive and other anxiety, bipolar. At the endpoint: retained in the index practice (55%); transferred to other buprenorphine practice (6%); transferred to other treatment (7%); lost to contact or out of any treatment (32%). Outcomes were positive, in that 2/3 of patients remained in the index practice or transferred to other treatment. Patients living in their own home or misusing prescription opioids (rather than heroin) were more likely, and those employed part-time were less likely, to be retained in the index practice. At the endpoint, 24% of patients were misusing drugs or alcohol. Co-occurring psychiatric disorders and polysubstance abuse at intake were common, but received clinical attention, which may explain why their effect on outcomes was minimal.