Take It Easy

One day at a time.

Drug Links, Various

Pharmacology, Politics, and Recovery

* USA Today article on Opana abuse rivalling Oxy abuse.

* US Attorneys Crack Down on California Medical Marijuana Dispensaries.

* Downloadable reports from Alcohol Justice, an industry watchdog group.

* With regard to the approval of Lorcaserin as a diet pill, here's the saga of Phen-Fen--how a blockbuster diet pill died.

* Why the Dutch "weed pass" won't work.

* Cigars won't save you: Cigars cause your body similar problems as cigarettes.

* Playwright Sam Shepard on his stint in rehab: “I finally did AA down on Pico Boulevard. I said, 'Don’t put me in with Elton John or anything, just throw me to the lions.’”

* 4,848 and 390: number of medical marijuana providers in Montana in March 2011 and June 2012, respectively.

* Andrea Mitchell talks to NIDA's Nora Volkow

* Listen to the talking urinal cake: Don’t drive drunk

* Feds say celebrity psychiatrist Dr. Drew was paid by Glaxo to talk up antidepressant on TV.

* Reactions to Marc Ambinder's GQ piece on Obama and the Drug War

* Lengthy interview with Drug Czar Kerlikowske by Mike Guy at The Fix:


Graphics Credit: http://tucsonvelo.com

Interview with Deni Carise, Chief Clinical Officer of Phoenix House

Why addiction treatment works—if you let it.

This time around, our “Five-Question Interview” series features clinical psychologist Deni Carise, senior vice president and chief clinical officer at Phoenix House, a leading non-profit drug treatment organization with more than 100 programs in 10 states. Chances are, you may have seen or heard her already: Dr. Carise has been a guest commentator about drugs and addiction for Nightline, ABC’s Good Morning America, Fox News, and local New York media outlets. She is frequently quoted in US News and World Report and other periodicals, blogs at Huffington Post, and has also consulted for the U.N. Office on Drugs and Crime.

Dr. Carise earned her doctorate at Drexel University, and served as a post-doctoral fellow at the Center for Studies of Addiction at the University of Pennsylvania. Currently, she is also adjunct clinical professor in the University of Pennsylvania’s Department of Psychiatry. She has been involved with drug abuse treatment and research for more than 25 years, and has worked extensively in developing countries to integrate science-based drug treatments into local programs. She has worked with adults and adolescent populations including dually diagnosed clients, Native Americans, and with medical populations (including spinal cord-injured, cardiac care and trauma patients).

1. As chief clinical officer for Phoenix House Foundation, what's your job description?

Deni Carise: My main responsibility is to ensure that we provide the highest possible standard of care. This means making sure that treatment methods across our programs are consistent with the latest research, represent a variety of evidence-based practices, and are delivered with fidelity. I also collaborate on the implementation and evaluation of Phoenix House’s national and regional strategies to achieve clinical excellence. My home base is New York, but I work directly with all of our programs and regularly travel to our California, New England, Mid-Atlantic, Texas, and Florida regions. I also oversee the activities of our Family Services, Quality Assurance, Research, Workforce Development, and Training initiatives. Finally, I help Phoenix House spread awareness to the public about the need to reduce the stigma of addiction and to increase access to treatment services.

2. As a clinical psychologist, how did you become involved in drug and alcohol treatment and recovery?

Deni Carise: I actually became involved in the Substance Abuse Treatment (SAT) field prior to becoming a clinical psychologist. When I decided that I wanted to get sober, I got some help from a counselor. This counselor was so helpful to my recovery that I decided to become an SA counselor so that I could assist others on this journey. I was working as a model at that time, and there were a few aspects of that career that I didn’t like: First, it was very clear that I would become less valuable in my career as I got older; secondly, my value was exclusively based on appearance, not knowledge or skills; and finally, my work didn’t contribute to the greater good—that is, no one benefitted by my work. I wanted a new career where I would become more valuable as I got older and more experienced, and where my knowledge and skills would be of value. I also wanted to do something I felt was contributing to society. The SAT field seemed to fit all these criteria.

3. What makes it so difficult for people to accept the disease components of serious drug addiction?

Deni Carise: People have difficulty accepting the disease concept of addiction for three reasons. First, people believe addiction is self-induced; you wouldn’t have it if you didn’t use drugs, right? There is some truth to this, but of all those who try drugs, an estimated 5 to 10% (depending on the drug) will become addicted. There’s a reason why the other 90 to 95% don’t become addicted.

That brings us to reason #2: People generally don’t believe there is a genetic cause. It is now very clear that there is a genetic component to substance use disorders. For example, if a father is an insulin-dependent diabetic, the heritability estimates range from 70 to 90% likelihood that the man’s son will also be diabetic. For hypertension, the heritability estimates are from 25 to 50%, depending which study we look at. For alcohol, the estimates are 55 to 65% likelihood that a young man will be alcohol dependent if his father is. For opiate dependence, it’s 35 to 50%.

The third and probably most important reason is that people think calling addiction a disease absolves the substance abuser of responsibility for his or her actions. Nothing could be further from the truth. Those in recovery see the disease of alcoholism or addiction as a moral obligation to get well. If you know you have this disease and the only way to keep it under control is not to use alcohol or drugs, then that’s what you have to do.

4. Overall, treatment doesn't seem to be that effective. What's missing?

Deni Carise: I believe treatment is effective. We’re just expecting the wrong results. Substance abuse has the same characteristics as any chronic medical disorder. The problem is that we (society, families, even me) want addiction to respond to treatment as though it’s an acute medical problem, like a broken leg or appendicitis. If it were an acute problem, we could send our kids, loved ones, even ourselves to treatment for a set number of days (maybe 7, maybe 28) and leave the hospital or treatment facility with the condition cured—as we would after surgery for an appendicitis! I would love that.

Unfortunately, we’ve been measuring treatment success the same way we would for a surgical problem, even though substance abuse and dependence are, in fact, chronic problems. Think about this—substance abuse treatment success is often measured by symptoms, drug use, and life problems prior to treatment and again six months after treatment ends. Imagine if we measured success of diabetes treatment the same way. We would measure their blood sugar levels, weight, number of diabetic crises, and other related problems before treatment. Then we’d send them off to a treatment program where we would prescribe medications, maybe give them insulin, teach them about a good diet, discharge them (take away that treatment), and measure their blood sugar levels, weight, etc. six months after we stopped the medication. Do we really think that would work with diabetes? Then why would we think it would work with addiction?

As with all chronic disorders, there are no prolonged, symptom-free periods without continued attention and self-management of the illness. Just as some people with diabetes can manage their illness with behavioral changes such as making healthy decisions when offered cakes or cookies, or starting an exercise program, some people with substance abuse problems can control their symptoms by changing their behaviors. This means not being around others who use, making the right decisions when offered alcohol or drugs, etc. For those who can’t do this alone, there’s treatment to teach them how to manage their disease and there are medications to assist them. And I’m talking about the diabetic and the substance abuser.

So treatment can work, but, just like any chronic disease, there’s no quick fix.

5. You're committed to working with developing countries to bring scientifically valid treatment within reach of poorer populations. How is the effort going?

Deni Carise: I’ve been really lucky to be able to consult for numerous treatment systems, universities, and countries around the world—including training clinicians from Nigeria, Thailand, Egypt, Greece, Iran, Singapore, Brazil, China, Iraq, India, and other countries. It’s fascinating to see how different countries approach local substance abuse problems. Some countries have historically asserted that substance abuse is not a problem in their communities, so for them to offer treatment of any kind means they need to change their socipolitical stance. That doesn’t happen quickly. For one country, the diagnosis of AIDS among 7 substance abusers who had shared needles was the impetus to providing treatment.

Much of what I’ve done internationally involves cultural adaptations of standardized instruments or clinical tools (such as the Addiction Severity Index assessment tool) for use within various cultures. To do this, I typically meet with numerous staff who deliver direct services in the country. We go over each assessment question or worksheet item looking at what would make sense in their culture. Types of things that frequently need adapting are questions about education (not everyone has “high schools”), employment and income, demographic questions such as race categories, and all manner of expressions used to describe drugs and clinical symptoms. Then we pilot the new interview or service with some local clients and get their perspective and make a final version.

Much of this work has been funded by the United Nations Office on Drug Use and Crime, the National Institute on Drug Abuse and Office of National Drug Control Policy.

Interview with Howard Shaffer of the Division on Addiction at Cambridge Health Alliance

Defining addiction, making research more transparent, and dealing with the DSM-V

(The “Five-Question Interview” series.)

Like many incredibly busy people, Dr. Howard J. Shaffer, associate professor of psychology at Harvard Medical School, is generous with his time. This paradox works to the advantage of Addiction Inbox readers, as Dr. Shaffer, the director of the Division on Addiction at the Cambridge Health Alliance, a Harvard Medical School teaching affiliate, has graciously consented to be the next participant in our “Five-Question Interview” series. In addition to maintaining a private practice, Dr. Shaffer has been a principal or co-principal investigator on a wide variety of research projects related to addiction, including the Harvard Project on Gambling and Health, and a federal research project focusing on psychiatric co-morbidity among multiple DUI offenders. He is the past editor of the Journal of Gambling Studies and the Psychology of Addictive Behaviors.


1. Addiction is not like most medical/mental disorders. If you have cancer or schizophrenia, for example, you can’t recover by abstaining from certain things. What’s your response to those who say that the disease model of addiction is misleading?

We should remember that the concept of disease is difficult to define. This makes deciding whether addiction is a disease most difficult. However, I think most people accept the idea that addiction reflects a kind of dis-ease. Whenever people get into this disease model debate, it’s useful to remember that most models of addiction are misleading, and the disease model is no exception. The map is not the territory, the menu is not the meal, and the diagnosis is not the disorder.

Scientific models are simplified representations of complex phenomena. Models of addiction focus our attention to certain features of addiction and blind us to other potentially important aspects of the disorder.1 For example, the moral model of addiction suggested that bad judgment was the cause and piety was the solution. Some neurobiological models of addiction suggest that molecular activity is the cause and medication is the solution. Both of these views are simplifications.

Rather than trying to fit addiction into a particular box, I prefer to think of addiction as a complex multidimensional syndrome – with interactive biological, psychological, and social causes. In this way addiction is similar to other medical, mental and behavioral disorders than we previously have considered. My colleagues and I have been developing a syndrome model of addiction 2-4 that suggests people are vulnerable because of biological, psychological and social influences. When vulnerable people are exposed to a social context that reliably and robustly shifts their subjective state in a desirable direction, they are at the highest risk for developing addiction. What I like about this kind of model is that it holds the potential to help us determine who is at most risk so that we can predict the development of addiction – just like we can predict who is at risk for cardiovascular and other diseases. This kind of etiological model will help us establish primary and secondary prevention programs that can reduce the onset of addiction.

2. You have a book coming out soon about problem gambling and how it can be managed. Is gambling a legitimate addiction?

Gambling, as well as most other behavior patterns, can become excessive, lead to adverse consequences, and squeeze out many previously important and healthy behavior patterns. 5,6 Some behavior patterns like eating broccoli rarely lead to addiction, but other improbable behaviors like listening to music, or playing video games might.

I don’t think about the idea of a “legitimate” addiction anymore, though I used to. Now I think about addiction as a unitary disorder that has a variety of expressions. For example, AIDS is a syndrome with many different expressions. Syndromes like AIDS and addiction are complex because not all of the signs and symptoms associated with the disorder are present all of the time. Gambling addiction is more rare than alcohol dependence. However, the characteristics of different expressions of addiction and the sequelae across sufferers are more similar than different. Further, the treatments – including the medications – that are effective with one expression of addiction often work with another expression. Scientific evidence suggests that behaviors, such as excessive gambling, and substance use, such as cocaine, have similar effects on the neurocircuitry of reward – how the brain processes information to produce the experience of pleasure.

For a pattern of behavior, whether substance involved or not, to be considered as an addiction, it must reliably and robustly shift subjective experience in a desirable direction, lead to adverse consequences, and be associated with identifiable underlying biological and psychological features, for example, genetic influences and trauma.

3. You host the Transparency Project. What is it and why did you create it?

The Transparency Project is the world’s first data repository for addiction-related industry-funded research. Most people don’t realize that private industry funds the majority of scientific research. This particular funding stream is important. However, tobacco industry funded research properly encouraged people to worry that private funding can adversely influence research. In fact, I think observers should worry about the potential bias that might accompany any research, including research supported by public funding sources. There is no warranty that can assure unbiased research, except sound methods and careful data analysis reflecting sound scientific principles. Furthermore, critics shouldn’t presume that research is biased just because it has a particular kind of funding source. We are encouraging scientists who have received industry funding to send their data to the Transparency Project so that others can download and use their data. This should magnify the value of the data by having others analyze it similarly or differently from the original research. This strategy also should help observers both confirm and question findings, thereby leading to important dialogues about the central issues that are so very important to the advance of scientific knowledge.

4. What’s going on right now at the Division on Addiction that you are particularly excited about?

During 2012, we are celebrating our 20th anniversary at the Division on Addiction. The syndrome model is emerging as an important conceptual guide to our work going forward; we are very excited to see that others are similarly interested in this perspective. Very soon, for example, the American Psychological Association will be releasing another of our new books, the APA Addiction Syndrome Handbook. I am also very excited about our DUI research 7-11 as well as our efforts to develop new technology that will help lay interviewers—those often staffing DUI treatment programs—to assess complex psychiatric disorders and triage patients into the care they so desperately need. This is our Computer Assessment and Referral System or CARS project. Lots of people around the world are expressing interest in coming to the Division to study and conduct research focusing on addiction. For me, it is very satisfying to see young people come to the field of addiction with a sense of curiosity, wonder and scientific rigor that have not always been present in this area of interest.


5. How do you feel about the proposed DSM-V changes regarding addiction?

By now, most people interested in addiction are aware that the American Psychiatric Association has expressed some interest in moving Pathological Gambling from the impulse control disorder category to a new Addiction and Related Disorders category. This would represent the first time that the term “addiction” appears in the DSM. If this happens, it is a big deal and, in my opinion, represents a step forward. In many ways it reflects a syndrome model perspective toward addiction. Although pathological gambling has clinical, epidemiological, etiological, physiological, and treatment commonalities with substance use disorders, my colleague Ryan Martin and I have noted that these similarities also exist among the substance use disorders and a variety of other behavioral expressions of addiction (e.g., excessive shopping). A relatively large literature evidences these commonalities. Consequently, we think that the DSM-V work group should avoid creating a long list of addictions and related disorders/diagnoses organized by the objects of addiction. Instead, the syndrome model of addiction encourages an addiction diagnosis that is independent of the objects of addiction, other than as a clinical feature. Diagnostic systems need to identify the core features of addiction and then illustrate these with substance-related and behavioral expressions of this diagnostic class. Conceptualizing addiction this way avoids the incorrect view that the object causes the addiction and shifts the diagnostic focus more sharply toward patient needs.

References

1. Kuhn TS. The structure of scientific revolutions. Second ed. Chicago: University of Chicago Press; 1970.
2. Shaffer HJ, LaPlante DA, LaBrie RA, Kidman RC, Donato AN, Stanton MV. Toward a syndrome model of addiction: multiple expressions, common etiology. Harvard Review of Psychiatry 2004;12:367-74.
3. Shaffer HJ, LaPlante DA, Nelson SE, eds. The APA Addiction Syndrome Handbook. Washington, D.C.: American Psychological Association Press; in press.
4. Shaffer HJ, LaPlante DA, Nelson SE, eds. The APA Addiction Syndrome Handbook. Washington, D.C.: American Psychological Association Press; in press.
5. Shaffer HJ, Martin R. Disordered Gambling: Etiology, Trajectory, and Clinical Considerations. Annual Review of Clinical Psychology 2011;7:483-510.
6. Shaffer HJ, Korn DA. Gambling and related mental disorders: a public health analysis. In: Fielding JE, Brownson RC, Starfield B, eds. Annual Review of Public Health. Palo Alto: Annual Reviews, Inc.; 2002:171-212.
7. Albanese MJ, Nelson SE, Peller AJ, Shaffer HJ. Bipolar disorder as a risk factor for repeat DUI behavior. Journal of Affective Disorders in press.
8. LaPlante DA, Nelson SE, Odegaard SS, LaBrie RA, Shaffer HJ. Substance and psychiatric disorders among men and women repeat driving under the influence: offenders who accept a treatment-sentencing option. Journal of Studies on Alcohol and Drugs 2008;69:209-17.
9. Nelson SE, Laplante DA, Peller A, Labrie RA, Caro G, Shaffer HJ. Implementation of a Computerized Psychiatric Assessment Tool at a DUI Treatment Facility: A Case Example. Administration and Policy in Mental Health and Mental Health Services Research 2007;34:489-93.
10. Peller AJ, Najavits LM, Nelson SE, LaBrie RA, Shaffer HJ. PTSD Among a Treatment Sample of Repeat DUI Offenders. Journal of Traumatic Stress in press.
11. Shaffer HJ, Nelson SE, Laplante DA, Labrie RA, Albanese M, Caro G. The epidemiology of psychiatric disorders among repeat DUI offenders accepting a treatment-sentencing option. Journal of Clinical and Consulting Psychology 2007;75:795-804.

New Addiction/Recovery Web Site

Daily news blog is part of "The Fix."

I’m pleased to announce that I'll be writing and editing a new blog, “This Just In,” for the recently-launched addiction and recovery site, The Fix. Some top-notch writers are involved, like Susan Cheever and Walter Armstrong. Big take-down of Narconon in the current issue. I encourage you to take a look.

Addiction Inbox will continue to appear without change. Apologies in advance if the pace of posting tends to slow a bit in the immediate future.

The Ghost in the Receptor

The “spiritual” thing.

It often seems as if the proponents of the biological view are offering a take-it-or-leave-it view of human nature and behavior. The gene proposes and the neuropeptide disposes. But one important attribute of the brain’s receptor systems is that they are not static. The number and density of receptor fields, the sensitivity of individual receptors, and the “stickiness” of the cell membranes themselves all differ at different times.

We have come a long way in our understanding of “unconscious” bodily processes. Yogis demonstrated decades ago that such internal states as breathing rate, blood pressure, and the generation of certain brain waves, once thought to be impervious to volitional control, could in fact be “mentally” influenced. With the proper five-minute introduction, most people can learn to change the surface temperature of their hands by a few degrees using simple biofeedback techniques. Many spiritual growth techniques center on breathing exercises, for the same reason that diet and dietary restrictions are frequently emphasized: Such activities release different neurotransmitters in the brain, the gut, and the respiratory center, and these changes can alter consciousness. Many spiritual techniques that are physical in nature were designed to produce specific changes in brain state. We do not need to soar into the metaphysical to see the wide-ranging role of neurotransmitters. Neurotransmission via receptors is clearly an evolutionary strategy well preserved in the larger scheme of things.

Nonetheless, from A.A. to Ibogaine, alternative treatments are frequently suffused with spirituality, if not outright religiosity. All the way out there, on the edge of speculation, is the notion that a disordered reward pathway might be the impetus for the religious quest, the search for existential meaning, the artistic struggle to create. God is a neuropeptide, Candace Pert once mischievously suggested. Was Martin Luther serotonin- and dopamine-deficient? How about Joan of Arc? Or Michelangelo? Is love, or hate, any less real for having neuropharmacological substrates, microscopic chemical correlates, in the brain and body?

This all sounds funny, or blasphemous, or nonsensical—but it may be the metaphorical key to A.A.’s modest successes over the years. We know with certainty that depression and addiction are deeply linked disorders. What has begun to emerge at the edges of depression and addiction literature is that religious faith, or a spiritual belief system of some kind, can sometimes be of value in the battle against depression, drugs, and drink. This does not mean that any sort of correlation between recovery and prayer, or between decreased depression and frequency of church attendance has emerged. Nevertheless, feelings are not just feelings. Emotions influence our health, our evolutionary fitness, our learning, and our decision-making. There is the recurrent suggestion in some of the work that the additional factor at play is something researchers have referred to as “intrinsic religiosity.” People recover from all sorts of mental and physical afflictions and frequently give credit to their religious beliefs. Whatever we choose to call it, successful recovery from serious illnesses of the mind and body frequently seem to call for a fundamental shift in mental processes. Sometimes the emotional impulse that kicks off a successful recovery comes in a form identified as “spiritual.”

As Andrew Newberg and Eugene D’Aquili conclude in “Why God Won’t Go Away,” “It only means that humans have a genetically inherited talent for entering unitary states, and that many of us interpret these states as the presence of a higher spiritual power.”

Graphics Credit: http://www.theaddictionrecoverypage.com/

Book Review: Thinking Simply About Addiction

Of bicycles, swimming, and drugs.

Back when I first became interested in the science of addiction, I was fascinated by an article in Parabola magazine by Dr. Richard Sandor, a Los Angeles psychiatrist with many years of experience treating alcoholics and other drug addicts. In the article, Sandor suggested that a good deal of addictive behavior could profitably be viewed as a form of dissociation. I quoted from that article in my book about addiction, and now he has published a book of his own.

Thinking Simply About Addiction: A Handbook for Recovery, focuses on the current controversy over Alcoholics Anonymous and its 12-Step variants, and takes a reasoned, thoughtful approach to the so-called spiritual aspects of recovery.

Happily, this is not another southern California feel-good self-help tome, though the author does not shy away from tweaking the neuroscience establishment for “delving deeper and deeper into the biochemistry of the alcoholic and drug-addicted brain, endless promising a ‘cure’ and yet never quite delivering the goods.”

While acknowledging that addiction is “correctly understood as a disease,” Sandor diverges a bit from the mainstream disease theory of addiction, believing that addictions are “diseases of automaticity—automatisms—developments in the central nervous system that cannot be eliminated but can be rendered dormant.”

As examples of simple automatisms, Sandor cites bicycle riding and swimming, two behaviors it is impossible to “unlearn.” Consider swimming: If, for some reason, it became extremely dangerous for you to swim (pollution, a heart condition, sharks), the problem is that “you literally cannot choose not to swim. Your only reliable choice is to stay out of the water, to become abstinent.”

Much of the confusion over addiction, the author maintains, is that “we miss the essential quality that defines addiction as a disease: Something someone has rather than something they’re doing.”

What his addicted patients frequently tell him, Sandor writes, is that “the core experience of being addicted is powerlessness, the experience of having lost control over the use of alcohol or a drug.” As one addiction expert put it, addicts “have lost the freedom to abstain.” Like other forms of rehabilitation, says Sandor, “treatment doesn’t work or not work. The patient works. It seems obvious. If the very nature of addiction is automaticity—the loss of control—then recovery is the restoration of choice, not handing choices over to someone else.”

On controlled drinking, or a return to social drinking, Sandor writes that “studies that have followed reliably diagnosed alcoholics for long enough periods of time reveal what clinicians and AAs have known for a long time: Abstinence is necessary for recovery…. If you follow true alcoholics for years, you discover that those who continue to drink get worse and those who remain abstinent don’t. Presumably, the same is true for all other addictions.”

Problem drinkers who do return to moderate drinking “were people who had had enough problems with drinking to land in treatment but who were never physically addicted and therefore didn’t have to become abstinent in order to stop the progression of the disease.”

Where does the “Higher Power” concept fit into all this? Sandor endorses the wider view taken by many psychologists and thinkers, from Gregory Bateson to C.G. Jung. In line with his theme of keeping it simple, Sandor suggests that thinking about a Higher Power may mean coming to realize that “the body’s capacity to restore itself is part of something much larger than our operations and medications… If you like, it comes from God. If you don’t like, it comes from a Higher Power, from Nature, from five billion years of the evolution of life on Earth, from the created universe, from whatever you want to call it.”

It is the simplest of simple ideas: “We all belong to something beyond ourselves.”

Graphics Credit: www.thesecondroad.org