Another PSA On Pain, Opioids, and Addiction

It turns out that Twitter is an inadequate forum for discussing the issue.  Twitter is an ideal format for discovering if a poster knows anything at all about the problem.  A lot of people don't and they seem to just be there to argue.  I don't have a lot of time to waste on political approaches to medicine.  Political approaches to medicine typified by managed care companies, pharmaceutical benefit managers, and government guidelines that are supposed to improve care but don't are the reasons we have an expensive, fragmented and inefficient health care system.

The apparent political factions on Twitter consist of pain specialists who take the position that pain care and access to opioids is now being rationed and their pain patients are being unjustly treated.  They claim there is a faction of addiction specialists making various claims that they take offense to.  But my experience there is the past few days is that these are all basically red herring arguments.  A few of those claims include the idea that addiction specialists would consider pain patients "drug seekers", would recommend treating pain with only acetaminophen, are calling pain specialists "quacks", and of course that addiction specialists have some interest in distorting and overplaying the dangers of opioids.  In some cases the arguments have gotten to the absurd claim that the pain advocates (or more appropriately anti-addiction contingent) claims that most heroin users start using heroin directly rather than using legitimately prescribed or diverted pain medications first.

Where is the reality in all of this distortion?  The reality centers like most things in medicine in primary care settings.  The hundreds of thousands of internists and family physicians who provide the bulk of care for almost all problems in the US.  As I have posted on this blog many times, the evidence from both the CDC and CMS is that the majority of these physicians do a good job with opioids.  Only a fraction of their number prescribes a disproportionate amount of opioids.  Many of these physicians have a bias to underprescribing if anything.  That means the bulk of physician punitive legislation about mandatory course for opioid prescribing for these physicians will be just that - punitive toward most physicians who already know about prescribing these medications.  That legislation is also untested in terms of whether it will have any impact on the physicians who are overprescribers.

The other facet of the problem is overprescribing in general.  Part of the quality problem in medicine today is that the business and governmental management systems are focused on a brief physician-patient encounter where some medication gets prescribed.  That is the focus of the encounter. Patients expect that and come in the door with a medication request.  That results in predictable overprescriptions of medications from many classes.  The classes that reinforce their own use - opioids, stimulants, and benzodiazepines are more problematic than the rest.

At the extremes of this landscape are the pain specialists on one end and addiction specialists on the other.  Both have a broad spectrum of quality settings from state of the art to nonexistent.  These specialists know this and they know there is very little that can be done about it except to mind your own business and do the best job possible.  There are pain clinics that are "pill mills" where there is an understanding that a cash exchange with a prescriber will get you a script that can be filled on site for opioids.  That prescription is then sold in the parking lot for diversion.  There are other pain clinics where no attention is paid to addiction, psychiatric comorbidity, polypharmacy or the functional capacity of the patient being treated.  There are similarly low quality addiction treatment facilities where people are warehoused with no active treatment.  Where there is no therapeutic environment because nobody in the program is willing to consider that they may have an addiction.  There are programs where there is no medical supervised detoxification.  There are programs where there is no medication assisted treatment for opioids or alcohol use.  There are programs that do not address psychiatric comorbidity.  There are programs based on some sketchy ideas that have no proven relevance in treating addictions.  The houses of both pain and addiction specialists are not perfect because of these serious flaws.  And let's face it - the regulators of every state in the union are to blame for having so many low quality pain and addiction treatment facilities open for business and accepting reimbursement for shoddy services.   

For a moment - let's return to the idealistic world of the Twitter protagonist where the position seems to be "I am all knowing and do a perfect job."  The realities will  differ based on whether you are on the addiction or pain specialist end of the spectrum.  To illustrate, I am on the addiction end and 100% of the people are see have addictions or substance use problems.  On any given day the problematic substances average out to about 30% alcohol, 30% opioids, 20% mixed, 15% stimulants, and 5% cannabis.  Of the opioid users 30-50% have chronic pain problems.  In every case, I have a detailed discussion with the patient about how their substance use problem evolved and what keeps it going.  Over the years I see thousands of people with these problems and in that process come to know a lot about the associated issues.  My opinion is not based on my personal experience or politics.  My opinion is based on understanding the problems of thousands of people that I am supposed to help.  For example, when somebody tells me that the "average" heroin user in this country starts using heroin rather than prescription painkillers - I can say that is unequivocally wrong.  I have heard all of the details about how heroin use begins and it is almost always with a prescribed or diverted pain medication.  When somebody tells me that taking a person who is addicted to opioids and who has chronic pain off of opioids is cruel - I can also say that they are wrong.  I have had those same people tell me that they have never felt better and in less pain in years.   I can also say the following based  both on research, theory and clinical experience:

 1.  A significant portion of the population is predisposed to addiction - 

My estimate would be about 40%.  When a genetically predisposed person uses an intoxicant their reaction to it is markedly different from a person who lacks that predisposition. Opioid users report an energetic hypomanic felling where they have mental clarity like they have never experience before.  In some cases they will say that they felt like they had become the person they always thought that they could be.  This is a highly reinforcing state that leads to more opioid use.

2.  If the population predisposed to addiction is significant - the only limiting factor is access or availability -

This is the basic reality of the current opioid epidemic and of course very drug epidemic (methamphetamine, cocaine) that the US has seen over the past 200 years.  It is quite easy to look down from the high perch of a low availability area with low addiction rates to a high availability area with high addiction rates and conclude that "there is something wrong with those people".  The usual conclusion has been that they are morally defective.  This is how addiction services have been rationed, poorly researched, and fragmented over the years.  Even if you subscribe to a top health plan in the country - it is likely that you will have poor access to quality addiction care because of these attitudes.

3.  The burden of prescribing medications that reinforce their own use falls squarely on the prescriber - 

It is above all else an informed consent issue.  The patient needs to know that the medication they are taking is not a panacea and that there are significant risks up to and including addiction and death.  They also need to know that these medications can have cognitive side effects and affect their day-to-day functioning.  They should not be prescribed solely out of the notion that the physician feels like they need to do something for the patient.  There needs to be a pain diagnosis and treatment plan.  In the case of chronic pain the patient needs to know that there is no known medication that completely alleviates chronic pain and therefore continued dose escalation of opioids is not a solution.  The treatment plan needs to contain more elements than taking the opioid prescription.

An associated prescriber issue is polypharmacy.  Chronic pain is frequently associated with anxiety, depression, and insomnia.  That can lead to a contraindicated polypharmacy environment that includes a benzodiazepine, a z-drug, or a sedating antidepressant used with the opioid.  It can also lead to the patient taking alcohol or diverted sedatives on their own initiative with the opioid.

4.  Chronic pain patients taking opioids need thorough evaluations if possible -  

Some people in the Twitter debate seemed shocked by the idea that opioids are taken for reasons other than pain relief.  I suppose they would be even more shocked if they heard that there are people that take them who get no pain relief at all from them.  They taken them strictly because of the positive euphorigenic effects.  There are also people who take them despite the side effects for the same reason.  The first thing a physician needs to do is step back from the indication - prescription mode that most American physicians have been trained in to take a look at the entire prescribing landscape.

That means that is a person has come to idealize a medication or abusable substance they will start to use it for anything - insomnia, anxiety, depression, or "just to feel right to get through the day."  As many people tell me: "Look doc - if you can't get rid of this depression I know what I can take to feel OK for a couple of hours."  On Twitter and some other blogs readers are incensed that these behaviors exist and yet they are documented in the literature (see paragraph 6).

When I say if possible I am more aware of the fact that patients lie to physicians than non-addiction specialists.  I have had an endless number of patients tell me that they can get whatever addictive medication they want out of one physician or another.  The Mayo clinic had an addiction medicine conference three years ago and one of the presenters was a patient in recovery who basically talked about how he systematically lied to physicians to get opioids for years.  He talked about how he could identify a physician who would give him the script that he wanted and who would not.  In the case of the latter he would just move on to another clinic.

Many non-addiction specialists consider it to be poor form to suggest that patients lie.  That denies the basic reality that everybody lies.  It also denies the reality of addiction, that you are transformed into a person who is dishonest and a person that you never thought that you would become.  In the addiction field it is critical to acknowledge this to help people deal with guilt and shame so that they can recover.  The worst thing that can happen is to collude with dishonesty when the final result is the prescription of an addictive drug.  I do not consider it to be an issue that I can get this history when the physicians being approached for the medication cannot. It is all part of the illness of addiction.  On the other hand, if you are the opioid prescribing physician - the amount of information that you can get asking the direct questions about problematic use is not known until you try it.   

All things considered it is possible to treat people with chronic non-cancer pain with opioids.  I have been involved in that treatment before I switched to seeing only patients with addictions.  I consulted with some of the top pain experts in the state.  All the limits in this post need to be acknowledged and cautiously addressed.  The treatment of chronic pain is not perfect, I know that because I see a lot of the failures.  Addiction treatment is not perfect either.  The treatment needs to be highly individualized.

I wish that I could provide more clear guidance to the patients involved.  As an individual I cannot just start pointing fingers at the places (pain clinics and addiction treatment) that I think should be shut down.  I think that you need to depend a lot on your primary care physician referring you to places that he or she knows will do good work.  On either the addiction or pain end of the spectrum - there has to be more going on than the prescription of medications.

Even the most basic psychological models suggest that other cognitive, emotional, affiliative, spiritual and reconditioning changes need to occur.


George Dawson, MD, DFAPA 

  








   

The Surgeon General's Report on Addiction

Last week, the current Surgeon General Vivek H. Murthy, MD came out with the first report from that office on addiction.  The full text is available on line at this link.  The document is 428 pages long but it is full of a lot of unnecessary text.  As an example the first 64 pages are essentially an introduction and a listing of personnel who worked on the report as well as references.  The last 85 pages are references and appendices.  I don't know the chain of command but both the US Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) and the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA) have their imprint on it and that is not necessarily a good thing.  The Surgeon General came out with a letter earlier this fall about how to stop the opioid epidemic that I commented on.  That letter was brief, to the point, and could have been expanded into a more concise document than the current report.

There is a lot wrong with this report.  Just from an administrative side, it is clear that the report sends a strong public relations message about what the government is doing to advance the treatment of addiction and a lot of that message is flat out spin.  I am always interested in detoxification from addictive drugs so I naturally searched on that and found this paragraph:

 "Until quite recently, substance misuse problems and substance use disorders were viewed as social problems, best managed at the individual and family levels, and sometimes through the existing social infrastructure—such as schools and places of worship, and, when necessary, through civil and criminal justice interventions. In the 1970s, when rates of substance misuse increased, including by college students and Vietnam War veterans, most families and traditional social services were not prepared to handle this problem. Despite a compelling national need for treatment, the existing health care system was neither trained to care for nor especially eager to accept patients with substance use disorders." (p 1-19).

That is really not what happened.  It is not even close.  Services to treat addiction were rationed just like services to treat mental illnesses.  With the federal and state governments giving carte blanche to managed care companies - hospitalizations that required detoxification could be denied even if the patient had a significant psychiatric disorder.  Trauma surgeons were also affected by this discrimination.  People with serious traumatic injuries who also had positive toxicology for drugs or alcohol were denied payment for a hospitalization that required extensive surgery and prolonged hospital stays.  The very thin system of care for addictions and mental illness were outside of the funding stream of mainstream medicine because that is exactly where the government and the business world placed it.  In the entire document there is one reference to prior-authorization (p. 6-24) and then only to say that it is one of many strategies used by states to ration Medicaid resources used for treating addictions.

On the issue of training, in about 1992 I had accumulated a series of cases that involved inpatient detoxification that were denied payment by a managed care intermediary representing the state government.  All of these denials have appeal processes that are stacked against physicians and patients.  In this case I was told I would need to argue all of them in front of an administrative law judge.  I took a vacation day and was ready to do that.  On the day before the hearing, I was notified that the judge had made a summary decision in favor of the managed care company and I did not have to show up for the hearing.  This is obviously not a training issue when I am doing detoxification, a managed care company is telling me to discharge patients (2/3 of whom also have significant mental illnesses), and the state is backing them up.

In the entire document there are 4 paragraphs on detoxification - referred to as "Acute Stabilization and Withdrawal Management". (p. 4-12 - 4-13).  It really minimizes the medical aspects of detoxification and the potential complexity of the situation to the degree that it seems to have been written by a nonphysician.  The clear intent is to stress that detoxification by itself is not treatment for an addiction but only a necessary first step.  In the process it also minimizes the medical and nursing expertise necessary to get people through the detoxification phase.  After an entire chapter on neurobiology there is no mention of the craving and dysphoria that often prevent people from completing detoxification or cause them to immediately relapse afterwards.  There is no mention of the medical comorbidity that needs to be addressed along with the detoxification process.  There is no mention of the complexity involved in detoxifying people from multiple addictive substances - a common scenario these days.  There is no mention of why allowing people to detoxify themselves at home with addictive substances may or may not be a good idea.  There is no mention of why "social detoxification" in non-medical detox centers run by municipalities may or may not be a good idea.  There is no mention of the psychological aspects of detoxification and why it presents one of the most significant obstacles to care in the treatment of addiction.  In short, detoxification would seem to have a much more prominent role in a report about facing addiction than it does in this report.  The treatment of addiction would have been better served if all of these issues would have been addressed and the minimum medical requirements for detoxification could have been established.  

On the less wrong but not perfect side of things, there is a lot of neurobiology in the report, both in terms of basic science and medication assisted treatment.  The neurobiology is fairly intense for the average reader who is part of the target audience.  Even at the level of physicians who I lecture to and train the concept of the extended amygdala is comprehended by very few people.  I could probably say the same thing about the amygdala.  In fact, I attended a course of brain dissection by one of the pioneers of this concept Lennart Heimer, MD.  At the end of that two day course, in a room of highly motivated and interested people I think that few understood the importance of the concept.  My point in all of this is the old adage - you can know just enough neurobiology to be dangerous.  At some point all of these names just become pseudo-explanations, especially for people with a poor understanding of science.  I have talked with people who knew all of the jargon and started to explain their own addictions with it.  That was not a good scientific or clinical approach and I wonder if the public may have been better served by an approach that focuses on the conscious state of the addict.  We still do not know how that is derived from the underlying neurobiology - even though the neurobiological explanations make it seem like we do.  

Criticism aside, there are some things that the report does well.  It provides a fair outline of the NIDA based continuum of care guidelines for addiction treatment for people with severe addictions.  The specific section can be found starting on  page 4-13 and the section: Principles of Effective Treatment And Treatment Planning.  The average person or family interested in seeking treatment for someone with an addiction is often faced with a staggering array of treatment services and a lot of associated politics.  The news media is often a source of increasing confusion rather than clarity.  A recent example is the rise of certain treatment methods that claim very high rates of success, or that are critical of more traditional treatment approaches like 12-step recovery (AA, NA, TSF (Twelve-Step Facilitation Therapy) and residential treatment.  Managed care companies continue to ration residential treatment 1 or 2 or 5 or 7 days at a time.  From the report:

"A typical progression for someone who has a severe substance use disorder might start with 3 to 7 days in a medically managed withdrawal program, followed by a 1- to 3-month period of intensive rehabilitative care in a residential treatment program, followed by continuing care, first in an intensive outpatient program (2 to 5 days per week for a few months) and later in a traditional outpatient program that meets 1 to 2 times per month. For many patients whose current living situations are not conducive to recovery, outpatient services should be provided in conjunction with recovery-supportive housing."  (p. 4-18).

That recommendation on the continuum of care should be kept in mind by anyone who is seeing an addiction specialist from any discipline in their office on an outpatient basis and finds that they are not able to stop using drugs or alcohol.  That would include physicians or other prescribers who are providing medications and possibly making the situation more dangerous because of the combination of prescribed and addictive drugs.  There is a temptation to say that with new innovations in medication assisted treatments that all that is necessary is seeing a physician and getting medications to treat the addiction.  A close read of any of the FDA approved package inserts on these medications addresses the complexity and points out that psychosocial treatments like the ones in the above paragraph are necessary.  There is no strictly medical cure for addiction.

It is also fairly common these days to see Alcoholics Anonymous and their principles being bashed in various forums like the popular media or web sites that seek to aggregate professionals.  They appeal to people who don't like the model for various reasons, consider it antiquated, or claim more success using some other treatment.  Some of these sources are also confused, often by neurobiology or an ignorance of the treatment literature and claim that there is no evidence that 12-step recovery works.  The report provides solid evidence to the contrary.  TSF is listed as a treatment intervention with a solid evidence basis and results as good as any and it works as a stand-alone intervention or in combination with other treatment modalities (p. 4-28 to 4-30) that are often suggested as competing treatment models.

That's my overall take on the report.  Like most government documents it is a lot of unnecessary reading so I may have missed something and I can't comment on everything.  It is clearly the product of committees, meetings, and bureaucrats.  Documents like these serve a variety of purposes in addition to the stated purposes of educating the public and establishing public health policy.  As a person who lived through it, this is also a serious rewrite of history.  That history is decades of what has been called "health care reform".  In this country that means hiring proxies to ration healthcare.  When that happens the most disenfranchised patients get the most rationing.  Those patients have always been people with addictions and mental illnesses.   The real intervention needed in the addiction treatment landscape is establishing some controls on companies who are set to profit from denying care for addiction treatment and the governments that encourage it.

That is the single-most powerful intervention that we need in the addiction treatment field and it was nowhere in the report.


George Dawson, MD, DFAPA


References:

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), Office of the Surgeon General, Facing Addiction in America: The Surgeon General’s Report on Alcohol, Drugs, and Health. Washington, DC: HHS, November 2016.


Disclosure:

I have no connection with any of the parties of agencies who wrote this report.  I am obviously a psychiatrist with a life long commitment to treating mental illness and addiction and extensive personal experience with the rationing of these treatment services.  I am currently employed at a treatment center that uses most of the treatment modalities specified in this report including medication assisted therapies (MAT).

Medicine to Psychiatry to Parking Lot: The Evolution Of Detox Over The Past 30 years

There is probably no better indicator of discriminatory rationing in the business run era of health care than the way substance users, alcoholics, and addicts are treated.  If you think about it - this is the ideal population to discriminate against.  In the severe situations where hospital detoxification is needed most of these folks are isolated and they have burned a lot of bridges.  They don't have a lot of friends and family members advocating for medical resources.  Most are unconcerned about their own health and many have significant medical morbidity associated with the addiction.  With any addiction, the tendency to continue the addicted states governs decision making so they enthusiastically leave medical facilities without addressing the problem as soon as a physician gives them clearance to go.  They are quite happy to keep bed occupancy and length of stay to the very minimum.  That is if they get admitted at all these days.

Back when I was in training as a medical student, I was fortunate to get most of my clinical training in large public facilities like county hospitals or VA hospitals.  In those days, patients with alcoholism or addictions who needed detoxification were admitted to Internal Medicine Services.  This was a great idea for several reasons.  Many people with addictions have significant medical comorbidity either independent of the addiction or due to it.  I saw many cases of acute pneumonia, pneumonia and meningitis, acute hepatitis, cirrhosis, pancreatitis, hepatic encephalopathy, delirium tremens, withdrawal seizures, and Wernicke's encephalopathy.  I don't think there is any better place in a hospital to address those problems than under the care of Internal Medicine specialists.  Until you have seen enough people critically ill and in withdrawal - it is difficult to appreciate the life-threatening aspects of intoxication or withdrawal from an addictive substance.  At some point in the mid to late 1980s, the detoxification landscape changed dramatically.  Suddenly a large number of those patients needing detox were sent to psychiatry services.  Only the obviously ill and delirious could get admitted to Medicine.  After the triage decision in the Emergency Department (ED) it was up to Psychiatry to sort out the problems and treat them as well as doing the detoxification.  There was also the development of county detox units, basically as a safer environment than the street, but offering little to no medical detoxification services.  If a patient went to a county detox unit and had a seizure there or became delirious - they could always be sent back to the ED.

A few years into my inpatient career. utilization reviewers started to deny the cost of care for anyone on my unit getting detox services.  That included people with the highest risk profile - depression, alcoholism, and suicidal ideation or behavior.  The primary rationale of these reviewers was that the patient did not require detoxification on an inpatient unit - even if they were in active withdrawal, taking high doses of detox medications, and had been discovered attempting suicide prior to admission.  The denial was based on an addiction or alcoholism and the fact that managed care companies had mandated that it was no longer an acceptable reason to treat somebody in a hospital.  The year was about 1990 and it was clear that this was a blanket denial of anyone with an addiction.  That had the predictable effect of inpatient psychiatry no longer being a resource for safe medical detoxification.  We are still dealing with the fallout from these business decisions 26 years later.  The fallout takes several forms including:

1.  A loss of infrastructure - there are no longer a significant number of Internists or Psychiatrists who routinely diagnose and treat withdrawal states and the associated addictions.  Most hospitals in any state do not have these services with the exception of the occasional person who is agitated or delirious in the ED and requires intubation and ICU support.  One of the frequent suggestions I hear about the current opioid epidemic is whether or not physicians are adequately trained in addictions.  With the loss of a detoxification infrastructure, I doubt that medical students and residents are seeing anywhere near the number of patients with addictions that they need to see relative to 30 years ago.

2.  A proliferation of inadequate detoxification facilities - a lot of the current facilities are run by counties and there is no medical aspect to treatment.  Decisions to get medical assistance may be made by someone with no medical background.  These facilities do not have environments that are managed to provide a calm and non-threatening atmosphere.  Many people admitted to them are fearful of the other patients and see the detoxification as a penalty.  They leave as soon as possible - even if they are still experiencing withdrawal symptoms.  Some of the facilities will only accept patients with a positive blood alcohol level by breathalyzer, and they discharge people when their estimated blood alcohol content reaches a certain level.  If you need detoxification from a sedative hypnotic or an opioid or several compounds -  you are out of luck.

City and county jails also double as detox facilities, in the same way that they double as psychiatric hospitals.  A common history is a patient on methadone or buprenorphine maintenance who is incarcerated, not given their usual maintenance medications and who is forced to go into acute withdrawal.  People who have been taking sedative hypnotics or using alcohol can also go into acute withdrawal that is potentially more serious.  Correctional facilities need systems in place to assure adequate and safe care for incarcerated individuals to prevent these acute withdrawal syndromes.  There are always a number of people with alcohol and drug use problems who die while they are incarcerated and as far as I can tell - these deaths are never investigated to determine if they received adequate medical and psychiatric care.

3.  A proliferation of "outpatient detox" - I can't really pinpoint when it became acceptable for patients with uncontrolled alcohol or drug use to suddenly manage their own detoxification using addictive drugs, but it is a common scenario these days.  Go into the ED with alcohol withdrawal and leave with a benzodiazepine to take on a scheduled basis.  Nobody should be too surprised if that medication is ingested at a higher than directed rate.  At times the entire bottle is taken on day 1.

4.  A disrupted spectrum of addiction care - apart from preventing life-threatening complications, the main reason for detoxification is to disrupt the cycle of addiction so that the affected person can get past all of the negative reinforcement (cravings, preoccupation, physical withdrawal symptoms) that keep the addiction going.  Without this modality, people are at home trying to cautiously taper off a drug or alcohol.  Many will go on for years without any success and they will be frustrated by the lack of abstinence or sobriety and give up.  Some with leave a clinic or ED with a supply of medication in order to try to detoxify themselves and realize that they are not able to take that medication on the suggested schedule to complete a safe detox.  Many will feel guilty or ashamed about going to AA or NA meetings while they are still using drugs or alcohol and give up.  Adequate detox avoids all of these problems with a rapid and safe approach to the initial stage of recovery from addiction.  

5.  The myth that business managers know what is best - the managerial class in America continues to run medicine without any knowledge of measurement, statistics, or quality.  In this case the logic seems obviously wrong.  Since the need for medical detoxification is an emergency it should be difficult to deny coverage for this condition.  That denial has been more or less routine and the cumulative denial has led to a serious degradation of services available for alcohol and drug use problems.

When I think about how medical treatment is supposed to work, every health plan should have adequate residential or hospital detox services for quality, safety and continuity of care.  Those facilities need to be more than holding tanks.  The environment has to be respectful, quiet, and comfortable where every patient feels safe and like they are being provided adequate care.  Active psychiatric consultation needs to occur because of the high comorbidity of psychiatric problems with addiction.  The current opioid epidemic has precipitated a discussion of improving the infrastructure to treat addiction.  That would not be too difficult since a large part of that infrastructure has been rationed out of existence in the last 20 years.

This sequence of events also has implications for all of the ideas about mandated physician education about opioid prescribing.  In some states the requirement is extensive and in many at this point it is mandated for licensure.  These mandates are shortsighted without the necessary infrastructure.  Addiction and detox services require administrative support and not administrative rationing.  Mandated education for physicians in not likely to do much good as long as they are sending addicted patients out with a bottle of medications and they end up detoxing in the parking lot.

It is time to drastically improve the treatment of all patients with alcohol and substance use disorders and stop the long-standing discrimination against them.      


George Dawson, MD, DFAPA

"Junk" Neuroscience?

A recent comment on my observation that normal function of human memory could explain what he considered to be obvious lies prompted a reading suggestion.  The author suggested that I should read a book called "Junk Neuroscience" by Satel. The only book I could find with a similar title was  Brainwashed: The Seductive Appeal of Mindless Neuroscience.   I am reluctant to spend good money on a polemics when I can get as much polemic as I want by reading it for free on the internet.  It turns out I am familiar with the author's work from a Frontiers in Psychiatry series that I reviewed last year before presenting a CME course lecture on the neurobiology of addiction.  There are currently 19 papers collected there including Satel and Lilienfeld's.  It is somewhat ironic that the entire series is based on a what I would see as assumptions that have a faulty historical, medical and certainly neurobiological premise and that is:

"For much of the 20th Century, theories of addictive behavior and motivation were polarized between two models. The first model viewed addiction as a moral failure for which addicts are rightly held responsible and judged accordingly. The second model, in contrast, viewed addiction as a specific brain disease caused by neurobiological adaptations occurring in response to chronic drug or alcohol use, and over which addicts have no choice or control....."

The first few lines captures the main problem with debates about any topic but it is particularly pernicious when it comes to addiction and neuroscience.  It leads to a number of false observations that seem to be cropping up in the popular press at an increased frequency.  The observation that most addictions spontaneously remit is taken as evidence that they do not require treatment or that neurobiological factors do not need to be considered.  There is the idea that you can be a "heavy drinker" without being an alcoholic suggesting that "heavy drinking" is protective against the factors leading excessive mortality and morbidity in alcoholism.  Those same arguments lead back to the idea that addiction is either a choice or a bad habit.  Both are gross oversimplifications of how complex decision-making is affected in addictions.  One of the main diagnostic systems for addiction from the American Society of Addiction Medicine (ASAM) describes addiction as:  "Addiction is a primary, chronic disease of brain reward, motivation, memory and related circuitry".  It does not however suggest that addicts "have no choice or control".  In fact, much treatment of addiction depends on a 12-step recovery model that is designed to help learn new controls, improve social affiliation, and re-engineer living environments to remove triggers for relapse.  The learning, affiliation, cravings and relapse triggers all have neurobiological substrates.  Against that backdrop there are 19 papers offered and Satel and Lilienfeld's is one of them.

I happen to be fortunate enough to work at a residential center that specializes in treating addictions.  In addition to the clinical work I present a number of lectures to graduate students, physicians, and residents.  The residents are in primary care and psychiatry.  The two slides that follow are right out of my PowerPoint on the neurobiology of addiction.  The Theories of Addiction slide is intended as a rapid survey of addiction theories.  I put it out there as a warm up and free associate to the theories on the slide.  As an an example, I will look at the nutritional deficiency theory of alcohol or look at alcohol being considered a medicine by itself and how that correlates with per capita alcohol consumption in the US.  I can build on that point by looking at the cultural factors that affect per capita alcohol consumption int he US and the UK.  I might ask groups of physicians if Self Medication is a legitimate theory of addiction.  Practically all physicians have heard: "Listen doc, if you can't do something about my (pain, depression, anxiety, insomnia) - I know what I can do to make it go away for a few hours."  Everybody in the room also knows that in the long run, none of those symptoms/syndromes/disorders can be treated and in fact many become considerably worse as a result of the drug or alcohol use.  Even the example of availability proneness that I typically use only partially accounts for addiction.

Any approach to neurobiology has to account for pathways to recovery as well as pathways to addiction.  In treatment centers most of those pathways are based on learning interventions.  I digress to talk about the how learning occurs both in the addiction process and in the recovery process.  I start out with Kandel's example from his classic New England Journal of Medicine article on plasticity.  His original example talks about two people in a room during a psychotherapy session, and the brain changes that occur in both as a result of that session.  Both people leave the room and their brains have been changed by the discussion.  Experience dependent changes in the brain.  That brief introduction brings me to the four considerations of the neurobiology lecture.  They are listed in the second slide below.  

I think that these are all fairly basic starting points for a lectures on neurobiology and proceed to talk about a number of systems and structures that are thought to be important from a neurobiological standpoint.  I bring in the concept that nobody knows how it all works together by a brief discussion of Chalmers hard problem or the fact that we don't know how anyone's unique conscious state comes about and what that implies.  I am evolving to a new lecture that looks at complex decision making and its roots in the neuroanatomical structures that I discuss in this lecture.  Studying this field is what I consider to be fun.  It brings together a number of concepts from my previous scientific studies.  I would probably be focused on this if I was practicing clinical psychiatry or retired.  I will be the first to admit that I am not a trained neuroscientist, but I have been trained in science and worked in scientific research.

That brings me to Satel and Lilienfeld's paper.  I don't know either author.  If you read the paper it is definitely well written and it has 121 references.  There is a bolded statement before the text begins saying that this paper is excerpted from the book Brainwashed: The Seductive Appeal of Mindless Neuroscience.  As far as I know that is the book that would apparently straighten out my views about neuroscience.  The author's begin with: "The brain-disease model implies erroneously that the brain is necessarily the most important and useful level of analysis for understanding and treating addiction." and build rapidly to a second: "In short, the brain-disease model obscures the dimension of choice in addiction, the capacity to respond to incentives, and also the essential fact people use drugs for reasons (as consistent with a self-medication hypothesis)."

Working at an addiction treatment center and talking with thousands of people in my career with severe addictions leads me to have an explosion of associations whenever I see broad generalizations about the problem.  I don't know that the concept of disease means that an affected organ system is necessarily "the most important and useful level of analysis."  There seem to me to be many diseases where that is not true.  On the issue of "reasons to take drugs" it is seldom as rational as the author's suggest.  A classic example is one that I frequently use when lecturing about the current opioid epidemic.  A significant portion of the population is prone to get a hypomanic euphorigenic effect from taking opioids.  For nonpsychiatrists, that mean the person becomes extremely euphoric, energetic, productive, and socially outgoing.  On the initial night or two, they may engage in work or creative activities at a rate that surprises them.  Many will say: "I thought I had become the person I always wanted to be."  Carefully interviewing that person several months later will get the description that they developed a tolerance to that effect.  Now they were taking the opioid "just to stay well" or prevent withdrawal symptoms.  Koob has described this cycle as  "a chronic relapsing syndrome that moves from an impulse control disorder involving positive reinforcement to a compulsive disorder involving negative reinforcement."  Consistent with this definition is that the drug has both positive (euphoria) and negative (prevents withdrawal) reinforcing effects.  The reason to take the drug is an addiction or the specific match of drug effects on a specific nervous system.  Even in a case when addictive drugs are taken for other reasons (there is a long list) it often is due to the fact that the drug is perceived as having magical qualities or as a rationalization for continuing the addiction.

I could make similar arguments for all of the main points in this paper that I have laid out in the following table.  The authors provide ample details examples to support their contentions.  Part of the problem is that the concept of disease is complex.  When you try to dissect it the problems become apparent.  The other problem is that if this is a disease, it is a disease of complex decision making and very few people focus on that.  

What after all is considered a disease?  Any reader can come up with conditions that they consider diseases for many of the ten points above.  That is easiest for the points involving the clearest comparisons with disease (1, 2, 6, 10).  In other cases (4), their point seems to be somewhat arbitrary.  With any chronic illnesses it is usually possible to function with limited incapacity due to the illness until the late stages.   In some cases the critique has more to do with the unique capacity of the organ than anything else.  For example in point (3), emergent properties that are less obvious can be considered a property an any electrical tissue.  Cardiac tissue can produce electrical patterns of decreasing complexity as a heart ages or is affected by disease.  The brain can produce a very similar pattern (see Supplementary 1).  The only difference is that heart tissue is unable to produce a conscious state.  Two of the points (5, 9) minimize the role of a systems involved in complex decision-making.  This is no trivial matter because it is associated with addictive behaviors that lead most people to classify alcohol and drug use disorders as diseases.  Common examples include people who are unable to stop using drugs and alcohol despite life threatening illnesses, repeated pleas from family members, or repeated problems with relationships, employment or the law.  Deaths due to addiction are common and they impact on a large population.  You are much more likely to see a condition as a disease if you know it has killed somebody.  Point (7) is a curious argument.  In the past several years, I have attended seminars showing for example that in some trials of buprenorphine maintenance for opioid use disorders that the addition of counseling adds nothing to the outcome beyond the medication.   I don't personally believe that, but I am used to seeing people with severe addiction who cannot stop until they are taken out of their using environment.  In every residential treatment center that I am aware of, the main focus is on "personal agency" whether that is 12-step recovery (Alcoholics Anonymous, Narcotics Anonymous) or other methods for psychological change.  As part of that process there is often a focus on neurobiology not as an excuse but as an explanation for how people can become somebody that they never thought they could become and how that process can be reversed.  The other reason for a focus on neurobiology is medication assisted treatment and a discussion of how those medications might work as part of both informed consent and interest on the part of the patients.

I wonder if the best characterization of what is going on here has more to do with philosophy than neuroscience.  As I previously pointed out in a critique of a philosopher's attack on psychiatry - a straw man approach was used.  He suggested that something was true about the field and then proceeded with his attack as if it was true.  When confronted with that single fact and asked about any evidence to support the contention - the people supporting that contention drew an apparent blank.  To this day as far as I know there is no rational way to argue that the APA has an implicit position in the DSM-5 that teaches people how to live their lives.  Even as I write it on the page it is absurd and yet that was the form of the argument.   The current paper is much more sophisticated than that.   It points out the limitations of the disease concept and how that can be used rhetorically but then proceeds to eschew what they refer to as a "neurocentric view" of addiction.  I don't think that argument carries the day largely because there is very little evidence that the people who know neuroscience have the adverse effects that the authors suggest.  There is plenty of evidence that the neuroscientist-clinicians are focused on multiple levels of care.  I have a lot more to say about what is a disease and diseases of complex decision-making but I am going to stop here.  Look for those topics to be addressed in individual posts in the future.  In the meantime, read about the neuroscience of addiction.  The field has added more to brain neuroscience than just about any other discipline in the past three decades.  

I think an additional explanation of my intent in the reply is necessary.  I use the term "political" a lot when referring to editorials, rhetoric, and other polemics.  People who should know better seem to respond to a lot of these articles as though they are either the "truth" or the "facts" that happen to support their viewpoint.  I like my science very dry.  I ascribe to Pigliucci's observation that science is a process and if there is a truth it only occurs at the end of a very long process or a series of approximations.

Seeing it any other way shuts down that process and we are left with something that is ideologically based and no longer science.

George Dawson, MD, DFAPA

1: Satel S, Lilienfeld SO. Addiction and the brain-disease fallacy. Front Psychiatry. 2014 Mar 3;4:141. doi: 10.3389/fpsyt.2013.00141. eCollection 2013.   Review. PubMed PMID: 24624096


Supplementary 1:

I attached these graphics to illustrate that electrically active tissue can have emergent properties that are really unknown by either looking at the tissue or doing other kinds of biological analyses.  That is true for both the brain and the heart.  I don't have the heart graphs but could probably find them.  They are identical.  I do have the graphs of brain activity from a patient with Alzheimer's Disease and a normal control patient.  Recordings are from a single parietal electrode in the delta frequency and show the degree of variability over the same time interval.

Single Electrode EEG - Control

Single Electrode EEG - Alzheimer's Disease

Clinical Care - The Hype Versus the Reality

As noted in recent posts, I was a participant in a conference that focused on the clinical care of patients with addictions.  The intended audience was primary care physicians.  One of the advantages of a course like this is that there is a lot of cross talk between the presenters and those attending the conference.  After a three hour segment about the treatment of opioid addiction and chronic pain, I was approached by a physician who updated me on the state of treatment of addictive disorders and psychiatric disorders in primary care.  One of the recommendations by our speakers was to suggest that drug and alcohol counselors in their own clinics might provide very useful approaches to treatment that could not be provided by the primary care physicians.  It is difficult to see how busy primary care physicians could suddenly take an hour or two to do group therapy for patients addicted to opioids or benzodiazepines.  Taking breaks from the productivity based schedule to do indicated psychotherapy for patients with histories of trauma is even less likely.  After all, isn't this the medical home model?

This physician was very aware of those constraints.  He had tried to implement these modalities in his clinic, but they were rejected outright by administrators.  We discussed some of my experiences in managed care settings as a consultant to internists in managed care settings.  I had an internist call me and say that he had a patient who was addicted to opioids and needed detox prior to surgery.  I called my boss about the resources available for that.  He told me that we did not have the time available to do detox from high dose opioids.  That problem has continued to worsen.  This physician was also not having any luck with getting detox for pre-op patients.  The opinion at the conference by speakers was that slow and gradual detoxification from opioids and benzodiazepines was the exception rather than the rule.  It is theoretically possible in highly motivated individuals with a relatively unlimited time frame.  The best approach seems to be fairly rapid detox with adequate protection (in the case of benzodiazepines and alcohol) against seizures.  Attempts at "outpatient detox" range from handing the patient a bottle of benzodiazepines in the emergency department to "social detox" in holding areas that monitor people and send them back to the emergency department if it looks like they are going into worsening withdrawal.  There are no acknowledged standards in the area.  Nobody complains about this inadequate care for addiction most likely due to the stigma of addiction and the general plan of many places to "get rid of" addicts rather than providing them with any kind of treatment that might be useful.

The evidence-based psychosocial treatments discussed at the conference highlight further deficiencies in the system of care.  The National Institute of Drug Abuse and their Principles of Drug Addiction Treatment: A Research-Based Guide (Third Edition) was referenced.  Even a cursory look at these guidelines shows that there is probably no managed care system in the country that adheres to these guidelines.  A couple of examples:

"Research indicates that most addicted individuals need at least 3 months in treatment to significantly reduce or stop their drug use and that the best outcomes occur with longer durations of treatment."  (Principle number 5).

There are certainly plans that offer no coverage for addiction at the extreme end.  Many plans that do, follow utilization review protocols that frequently review the treatment being provided with an eye toward providing the least expensive care.  In some cases people with severe problems and no significant withdrawal or medical problems are discharged.  The default position is that the patient must fail, in many cases several times before treatment is funded.  In many cases there is a focus on whether the addiction or the psychiatric disorder is "primary" in order to shuffle the patient from one pool of money to another (addiction <-> psychiatry).  All of this financial gaming leaves the addicted patient out in the cold.  That starts with inadequate to nonexistent detox to treatment that lacks the necessary intensity to be successful.  It can also create a very negative and counterproductive attitude by the system of care to the patient with the problem.

"Sanctions or enticements from family, employment settings, and/or the criminal justice system can significantly increase treatment entry, retention rates, and the ultimate success of drug treatment interventions." (Principle number 11).

When insured patients are incarcerated or committed for problems associated with an addiction there is usually a strong push to get the patient into public systems of care.  That includes state hospitals, public clinics, and public mental health problems.  The strategy is clear - shift the cost of treating addiction and mental health problems to government run systems.  Most states have taken a page out of managed care and responded by decreasing available treatment centers and hospitals.

All of these business manipulations do not bode well for people who need care for even moderately complex problems.  Certainly the detoxification and treatment of an otherwise healthy 25 year old is much different from a 60 year old with cirrhosis and diabetes.  But the system of care is currently not set up to provide necessary care for the least complex patient.  At a policy conference in Hawaii in 2011, I asked the policy wonks who were there to tell us how the "medical home" would revolutionize care for addictions: "What would keep a managed care company from doing a screening exam and leaving it at that."  His response was: "nothing".  It appears that I am able to predict the behavior of managed care systems much better than the policy wonks.

What would help?

The same thing that many professional organizations have failed to do over the past three decades.  Physician organizations like the American Society of Addiction Medicine (ASAM) need to promote adequate treatment guideline, make them publicly available, and embarrass these companies into using them.  ASAM currently has a complex matrix that is supposed to correspond with levels of care.  They are largely ignored by managed care companies.   ASAM should talk about the heavy drinker coming into the emergency department and walking out with a bottle of lorazepam.  It is rather ironic that NIDA does not step up and say what standards should apply, but any regulation needs to consider the Congressional sausage factory and their negative impact on quality care.

The negative impact of business on quality care is most obvious in the areas of psychiatric services and addiction.  Following the status quo and even going as far as endorsing managed care tactics is good for business, but not for people trying to recover from addiction.  From a policy standpoint, this is a much bigger problem than any issue with pharmaceutical companies, conflict of interest, or even perceived problems with psychiatry.  Denying that basic truth may be the result of three decades of ignoring this problem, but complaining about less important issues will not change the skewed health care landscape or get necessary treatment for people with psychiatric and addictive disorders.

George Dawson, MD, DFAPA