Author Topic: research says  (Read 1611 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Anonymous

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 164653
  • Karma: +3/-4
    • View Profile
research says
« on: December 26, 2004, 02:14:00 PM »
© 2004 Psychiatric Times. All rights reserved.
 
Addiction Is a Disease
by John H. Halpern, M.D.
Psychiatric Times  October 2002  Vol. XIX  Issue
Perhaps, then, "choice" has little to do with the decision to continue tobacco use. Cigarette smokers are so concerned about their drug use that each year some 1 million of them attempt to quit; but, sadly, less than 15% succeed in abstinence for a full year (Rose, 1996). Despite understanding that risks outweigh perceived benefits, addicted individuals compulsively continue their drug use in a chronic, relapsing fashion. It is not that these individuals are devoid of any choice when engaging in behaviors that support and reinforce continued drug use; rather, we must accept that not all choices are equally easy to make, especially when there exists a host of genetic, environmental and non-environmental factors supporting continued drug use.

Clinical research reveals that some individuals may be more vulnerable to drug dependence than others due to genetic and developmental risk factors. The best-validated risks are family history and male gender (Hyman, 2001). Studies of separated, adopted twins, for example, have found the risk for alcoholism and other addictive drugs is greater for those twins whose biological parents also had drug dependence, regardless of drug use status in the adoptive parents (Cadoret et al., 1995; Kendler et al., 2000; Tsuang et al., 1996). Drug craving and relapse are triggered by exposure to drug-related cues (e.g., photos of drugs and paraphernalia), as well as stress. Neuroimaging studies of former cocaine-dependent individuals have, for example, identified neural correlates of cue-induced craving for cocaine (Childress et al., 1999; Wexler et al., 2001).

Preclinical studies also indicate that repeated exposure to highly addictive substances alters, perhaps permanently, a number of molecular and neurochemical indices, thereby changing physiologic homeostasis. In other words, even after detoxification, an individual may be sensitized to relapse because of changes in the brain from prior repeated use. We know the molecular targets in the central nervous system for most of the addictive drugs. As examples, opioids are agonists at µ opioid receptors; alcohol is an agonist at g-alphabutyric acid-A (GABA-A) receptors and an antagonist at -methyl-D-aspartate (NMDA) glutamate receptors; and tobacco's nicotine is an agonist at nicotinic acetylcholine receptors (Hyman, 2001). We also know that the principal CNS pathway for processing reward, punishment and reinforcement extends from the ventral tegmental area (VTA) to the nucleus accumbens (NAc), mediated, in particular, by the release of the neurotransmitter dopamine (Spanagel and Weiss, 1999). Preclinical evidence supports the "final common pathway" theory that addictive drugs, despite discordant molecular targets, all result in an increased release and dysregulation of synaptic dopamine in this region of the brain (Nestler, 2001). For example, the same dose of cocaine administered weekly to monkeys results in increased extracellular release of dopamine in the CNS, a phenomenon called neurochemical sensitization. When a second dose of cocaine is administered after the first dose is wearing off, a decreased release of extracellular dopamine is found in the CNS, a phenomenon called acute tolerance (Bradberry, 2000). As tolerance builds, increased amounts of the drug are ingested in an attempt to achieve the same rewards, which, in turn, will also further drive molecular changes in the brain. Drug dependence, then, is reinforced at the cellular level as the CNS adjusts to continued drug exposure. Such conditioning may be unmasked by abrupt cessation of drug use, resulting in a period of observable and reproducible symptoms of withdrawal.

Chronic exposure to addictive substances also shifts signal transduction pathways within neurons, thereby altering gene expression (Matsumoto et al., 2001; Walton et al., 2001). New or different concentrations of regulatory proteins, in turn, are synthesized, directing neurons to form new synaptic branches and altered concentrations of cellular receptor density. Cocaine, for example, has been found to increase spine density and dendritic branching of neurons in the NAc and prefrontal cortex of rats (Robinson and Kolb, 1999). The remodeling of neurons involved with the maintenance of the brain's reward center also may continue long after drug use has ceased (Hyman and Malenka, 2001; Ungless et al., 2001). There are probably hundreds of transcription factors involved in gene regulation; already the cyclic-AMP response-element-binding protein (CREB) and FosB are implicated in addiction (Nestler, 2001). Interestingly, biochemically modified isoforms of FosB appear only slightly after acute drug exposure, but they accumulate over time with repeated drug administration. Other regulatory proteins of the Fos family rapidly break down after synthesis, but FosB is highly stable, persisting for months after drug withdrawal. Here, then, is one example of a molecular mechanism for drug-induced changes in gene expression persisting long after last use. Preclinical models reveal that chronic, but not acute, administration of cocaine, amphetamine, phencyclidine, alcohol, nicotine and opiates induces FosB release in the NAc and dorsal striatum (Kelz and Nestler, 2000).

In short, both human and preclinical data converge to suggest that addiction is associated with frank biological abnormalities that cannot be easily explained by a simple hypothesis of "choice." It is a strange set of societal circumstances that people may still consider the ingestion of some drugs as outside the purview of physicians, when clearly the practice of medicine deals with the impact of exogenous substances upon the human body and mind. Those individuals who abuse drugs do so absent the legal mechanisms for which society provides, i.e., a prescription or recommendation from a physician. Whether legal or not, all addictive substances should be carefully reviewed with our patients precisely because physicians must obtain all information that may assist in the diagnosis and treatment of disease and in the improved preventive health of patients.

Drug dependence changes the lives of users and those around them. Tobacco, for example, is the single greatest cause of preventable death in the United States (CDC, 2001). Certainly, then, tobacco is a menace to public health and its continued popularity supports nicotine dependence as a chronic, relapsing disease in which volitional choice becomes but one negotiable variable in the struggle to achieve good health throughout the life cycle.

Moral rejectionists mislabel drug dependence as a failure of volition only and, thereby, claim a right to assign judgment and blame. The absurdity of looking through such a narrow lens is that if addiction really were merely a choice, people would stop after experiencing more harm than perceived benefits!

Accepting drug dependence as another mental illness does not typically abrogate responsibility for an addict's actions: Thousands each year are arrested, prosecuted and sentenced to serve jail time for simple drug possession, and, as for mental illness in general, consider that the two psychiatric inpatient facilities in the United States in which the largest numbers of patients reside are the Los Angeles County Jail and New York City Rikers Island Prison (Geller, 2000; Torrey, 1999; Watson et al., 2001). Obviously, such individuals' moment-to-moment decision-making can have long-term consequences that were never wished for or accurately anticipated.

Not all choices can be equally entertained at every given moment either, and sometimes other options are not even known. For example, a young woman, supporting herself and her drug habit through prostitution, may not know of the different "ethical" choices available to her, especially when as a child she had been introduced to both drugs and her career by her mother's example. The reasons for experimenting with addictive drugs, then, may be quite different from the motivations fueling continued use. Relapse is not due to an absolute loss of volitional control but rather to loss of a perspective that cherishes good health and mental well-being above other, less healthy choices. In high-risk situations, this long-term desire for maintaining better health through abstinence is overwhelmed by the cued wish to re-experience a known, anticipated "high" available at that moment.

Stigmatization of illness continues against many patients afflicted with brain pathology. Substance dependence is particularly stigmatized by those who wish to make this illness a debate over volition while denying the biological underpinnings of behavior. Moreover, demands for precise linguistic definitions of addiction and disease, as if they must forever be hermetically sealed within specific denotations of legalese and ethics, is of little value to physicians charged with the observation and treatment of pathology. History reveals many examples of debates over illness versus individual responsibility: Hansen's disease ("leprosy" from Mycobacterium leprae), seizure disorders ("epilepsy"), cancer and major depression are some examples of medical disorders now vindicated with the discovery of effective medications and procedures. Physicians, and psychiatrists in particular, are needed now more than ever to stand up and explain to the lay public how substance abuse and dependence can significantly alter brain function and physical health and that a variety of treatment modalities are available.

Effective management of drug dependence requires a medical model so as to tailor therapy according to the condition of the individual. Faith-based support groups, Alcoholics Anonymous and its affiliates, and long-term residential programs have a long history of assisting people in achieving and maintaining abstinence via a combination of direct therapy, education, cognitive skill-building exercises, expanded non-drug social supports and providing a drug-free environment. Contingency management skills can be taught to provide individuals with extra time to anticipate the high-risk situations and emotions for relapse and then, hopefully, re-script behavior to minimize such exposures (Carroll et al., 2001). This helps individuals learn to avoid night clubs or other users because such settings and people may make the choice for continued abstinence appear less valuable than the immediate reward anticipated with use.

Current pharmacotherapy for drug dependence includes screening for an underlying psychiatric condition after the patient has successfully completed detoxification. People may choose to self-medicate with an addictive drug, all the while unaware that they have a treatable psychiatric illness. For example, rates for alcoholism and other drug abuse are much higher in people with untreated bipolar disorder and depression. For motivated individuals, disulfiram (Antabuse) may particularly aid in maintaining sobriety from alcohol. Smoking tobacco while on the antidepressant buproprion (Zyban, Wellbutrin) is another aversive treatment, as the drug induces an undesirable taste when some smokers relapse. Agonist replacement medications assist with detoxification and/or offer a stable, safer maintenance therapy for those who repeatedly fail pure abstinence (e.g., methadone for opiate dependence, nicotine gum or patch for tobacco dependence). Many new medications are also in development including more opiate antagonists for the treatment of alcoholism and opiate dependence and NMDA antagonists such as acamprosate [Campral] for alcoholism (Tempesta et al., 2000). One day, perhaps there will even be a vaccine to confer natural immunity against cocaine (Schabacker et al., 2000). As Krystal et al. (2001) reported regarding the efficacy of naltrexone (ReVia), an opioid antagonist, in the treatment of alcoholism, sometimes medications do not prove to be as effective as promised. Evidence still suggests, however, that naltrexone may be quite effective if taken intermittently on the days that the individual feels at greater risk for relapse, rather than ingesting it every day (Boening et al., 2001).

Whether addiction is a disease or merely a choice, the utility of the medical model is needed to address resultant risks to public and individual health. A careful review of this growing body of scientific literature should offer hope that real solutions are possible. All other models for addressing drug dependence have, to date, proven to be costly failures, and doctors are not going to ignore viable treatment options for healing those suffering with drug dependence. Defining addiction as a choice only abdicates our responsibility for seeking health and true healing for our patients and, instead, leaves crushed lives dehumanized by a chronic relapsing condition with no hope for cure. As every doctor knows, "Remember to do some good" should quickly follow the first rule to "do no harm."

Dr. Halpern is an instructor in psychiatry at Harvard Medical School and on staff at McLean Hospital and Brigham & Women's Hospital. He is the recipient of a Career Development Award (K23) from the National Institute on Drug Abuse for ongoing research at McLean Hospital's Alcohol and Drug Abuse Research Center.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »

Offline Anonymous

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 164653
  • Karma: +3/-4
    • View Profile
research says
« Reply #1 on: December 27, 2004, 01:09:00 AM »
The previous article stated in conclusion:
"Whether addiction is a disease or merely a choice, the utility of the medical model is needed to address resultant risks to public and individual health. A careful review of this growing body of scientific literature should offer hope that real solutions are possible. All other models for addressing drug dependence have, to date, proven to be costly failures, and doctors are not going to ignore viable treatment options for healing those suffering with drug dependence. Defining addiction as a choice only abdicates our responsibility for seeking health and true healing for our patients and, instead, leaves crushed lives dehumanized by a chronic relapsing condition with no hope for cure. As every doctor knows, "Remember to do some good" should quickly follow the first rule to "do no harm."

On the other hand, the harm done by seeking to save people from themselves, criminalizes the 80-90% of drug users who are not susceptible to addiction, to save the 10-20% of those who are.  Most N. American doctors are afraid to prescribe the most effective pain killers known to man because they are afraid of making people into addicts -- hence people seek methods of self-medication --  If someone is truly an addict, why not provide him state supported injections -- it sure beats getting it off the street -- that stuff can kill you.

then:
AMA TO VOICE CONCERNS TO DEA OVER PAIN MEDICATION PRESCRIBING POLICY

The American Medical Association will work with the Drug Enforcement Administration to address physician concerns that an interim policy statement published by the agency in November could interfere with the way doctors prescribe opioid analgesic medications to some patients.  Doctors worry that the statement could make it illegal to write multiple pain medication prescriptions for a patient on the day of a visit and evaluation.  Physicians also worry that they no longer could legally write directions for dispensing additional medication on future, specified dates.  At the AMA's Interim Meeting in Atlanta this month, delegates called on the Association to support interpreting federal law in a way that would let doctors continue to write pain medication prescriptions for patients in need, while letting the government provide oversight and regulation to minimize risks to patients' health and safety.  
http://www.ama-assn.org/public/journals ... /edlet.htm
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »

Offline Hamiltonf

  • Posts: 188
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
research says
« Reply #2 on: December 27, 2004, 02:19:00 AM »
Actually, I agree with much of what Halpern has to say, particularly when it comes to dealing with people who might have a dual diagnosis .. (addiction/mental illness)
he says:
Current pharmacotherapy for drug dependence includes screening for an underlying psychiatric condition after the patient has successfully completed detoxification. People may choose to self-medicate with an addictive drug, all the while unaware that they have a treatable psychiatric illness.

Does AARC screen for underlying psychiatric condition after a child has "successfully completed detoxification"  I doubt it.

And I HAVE REFERRED EVERY ONE OF MY CLIENTS THAT HAS HAD A DRUG PROBLEM FOR A SCREENING.  
1.  Client abusing cocaine and alcohol-- thought she might be bipolar  -- voluntarily into Alberta Hospital -- Bipolar confirmed.  released on course of medication and support groups.  Successful rehabilitation.
2.  Meth addict convicted for trafficking .. psychological assessment confirmed improperly or misdiagnosed ADHD on earlier tests.  Successful rehabilitation through the Anchorage program.
3.  Client severely depressed after he was jilted  and defrauded by his boyfriend.  Required a "curative discharge".  Previously had been the AA route but his underlying bipolar condition had remained undiagnosed.  Successfully following a recommended  "harm reduction" course based on the dual diagnosis.  Relapses becoming less serious  over time as he becomes more empowered in dealing with  his mental illness.
4.  18 year old meth addict from impoverished background  with  serious depression.  Again, undiagnosed ADHD.    Sobbing uncontrollably when  first seen.  Referred to harm-reduction specialist  who worked with probation officer to build his self esteem and confidence.  Confronted father who had abandoned him as a child and is now in full time employment where he had had no hope before.

Not to mention the several schizophrenics I have had contact with over the years.

Certainly, the science will often show a correlation between mental illness and drug dependance.  But again, the problem is one of establishing causality. Did the mental illness cause the drug - dependance, or did the drug cause the mental illness? Or are they inter-related Remember Reefer Madness? Well there are many psychiatrits who will readily give a diagnosis of "drug-induced psychosis" being of the school that still confuses cause and effect.  Remember the post hoc, ergo proctor hoc fallacy?  After it therefore because of it?
Could it be that schizophrenics might like marijuana because it helps to calm their mental turmoil?  I know one schizophrenic who is definitely better off with pot than with the valium her GP had prescribed her to reduce anxiety.  No drug-induced psychosis there!
If a person is able to gain sufficient insight into their mental state, I would suggest it is entirely possible for them to determine what is an appropriate level of a particular drug to take.  When our friend talks of self-medication, the name of Winston Churchill comes to mind.  Undiagnosed as Bipolar, he drank very heavily.  (Also the big cigars)  When Manic, his drinking slowed him down.    I also know a diagnosed Manic depressive who drinks when in a manic phase and in this sense is self medicating.  

There are some real breakthroughs coming with dual diagnoses.  BUT AARC IS NOT PART OF THAT PROCESS.
If anything AARC is the very antithesis of the science we have here described.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »
uote of the Year
The Bush administration has succeeded in making the United States one of the most feared and hated countries in the world. The talent of these guys is unbelievable. They have even succeeded at alienating Canada. I mean, that takes ge

Offline Anonymous

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 164653
  • Karma: +3/-4
    • View Profile
research says
« Reply #3 on: December 28, 2004, 12:52:00 PM »
"Does AARC screen for underlying psychiatric condition after a child has "successfully completed detoxification" I doubt it."

"There are some real breakthroughs coming with dual diagnoses. BUT AARC IS NOT PART OF THAT PROCESS.
If anything AARC is the very antithesis of the science we have here described. "

You are wrong. While I was in treatment at AARC a client was assessed for auditory and visual delusions, put on medication, and given counseling by a psychatrist not affiliated in any way with AARC. He and his family were given a great deal of assistance by other client families and the staff, and went on to graduate the program.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »