105

CURRENT AND EXPERIMENTAL

THERAPEUTICS FOR THE
TREATMENT OF OPIOID ADDICTION
PAUL J. FUDALA
GEORGE E. WOODY

Currently, numerous effective pharmacologic and behav- ing treatment have been addicted to heroin or other opioids
ioral therapies are available for the treatment of opioid ad- for 2 to 3 years, some for 30 years or more. Thus, treatment
diction, and these two types of therapies often are combined usually involves changes in patients’ lifestyles. Although
to optimize patient management. Newer therapeutic op- generally ineffective in producing sustained remission unless
tions may take various forms. For example, methadone combined with long-term pharmacologic, psychosocial, or
maintenance is an established treatment modality, whereas behavioral therapies, detoxification alone continues to be
the use of buprenorphine and naloxone in an office-based widely used and studied. It is sometimes the only option
setting represents a new variation on that theme. Clonidine available for patients who do not meet United States Food
has been used extensively to ameliorate opioid withdrawal and Drug Administration (FDA) criteria for, do not desire,
signs, whereas lofexidine is a structural analogue that ap- or do not have access to agonist medications such as metha-
pears to have less hypotensive and sedating effects. The done or methadyl acetate (L-␣-acetylmethadol or LAAM).
depot dosage form of naltrexone, currently under develop- The detoxification process may include use of opioid
ment, may increase compliance with a medication that has agonists (e.g., methadone), partial agonists (e.g., buprenor-
been an effective opioid antagonist but that has been un- phine), antagonists (e.g., naloxone, naltrexone), or nonopi-
derused secondary to patient nonacceptance. In almost oid alternatives such as clonidine, benzodiazepines, or non-
every treatment episode using pharmacotherapy, it is com- steroidal antiinflammatory agents. In many cases, one or
bined with some type of psychosocial or behavioral treat- more medications are combined, such as naloxone with
ment. Recent research has documented the value of these clonidine and a benzodiazepine. The choice of detoxifica-
additional treatments and has provided insight into the ones tion medication and the duration of the process depend
that are the most effective. This chapter reviews current on numerous factors including patient preference, clinician
and experimental treatments for opioid addiction with an expertise and experience, type of treatment facility, li-
emphasis on some of the newer, more promising, and inter- censing, and available resources. Ultimately, however, the
esting therapies. goal of detoxification is the achievement (and maintenance)
of a drug-free state while minimizing withdrawal. Unfortu-
nately, however, detoxification for some patients appears to
be used in a punitive manner or as an expedient means to
TREATMENT PARADIGMS achieve a drug-free state rapidly with no follow-up pharma-
Long-Term, Short-Term, Rapid, and cologic or behavioral therapy.
Ultrarapid Opioid Detoxification Opioid detoxification paradigms are frequently catego-
rized according to their nominal duration: long-term (typi-
Detoxification from opioids, for most patients, is only the cally 180 days), short-term (up to 30 days), rapid (typically
first phase of a longer treatment process. Most patients seek- 3 to 10 days), and ultrarapid (1 to 2 days). These temporal
modifiers provide only a coarse description of the paradigm;
they do not provide other important information such as
Paul J. Fudala: Department of Psychiatry, University of Pennsylvania, the medications used or whether postdetoxification pharma-
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; Department of Behavioral Health Service, Veter- cologic (e.g., naltrexone maintenance), psychosocial, or be-
ans Affairs Medical Center, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
George E. Woody: Substance Abuse Treatment Unit, VA Medical Center, havioral therapy is provided. However, some general guide-
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. lines typically apply.
1508 Neuropsychopharmacology: The Fifth Generation of Progress

The most common detoxification protocols, and those sible to know the overall effectiveness of this type of inter-
for which the most data are available, are the long-term vention.
(typically 180 days) and short-term (up to 30 days) para- A major concern regarding ultrarapid detoxification in
digms involving the use of methadone. Unfortunately, these particular is the occurrence of potentially serious adverse
strategies have not generally been associated with acceptable effects, such as respiratory distress (7), or other pulmonary
treatment response using relapse to opioid use as an out- and renal complications (8), during or immediately after
come criterion. For example, one study reported that more the procedure. A high frequency of vomiting has also been
than half the patients participating in a 180-day detoxifica- reported (9). The degree to which serious adverse effects
tion program were using opioids illicitly during the medica- occur has not yet been determined; however, there have
tion-taper phase of the protocol (1). Six-month follow-up been press reports of sudden death occurring shortly after
indicated that 38.5% of the urine samples (n ⳱ 26) tested the procedure that were not caused by relapse to opioid use
negative for illicit opioids, only three of 31 patients reported and overdose.
remaining free of illicit opioids for the entire 6 months In spite of the emerging evidence about serious adverse
before follow-up, and 22 participated in some other form effects, ultrarapid detoxification may be appropriate for
of treatment (2). Results from more rapid detoxification highly selected patients based on considerations of previous
evaluations using short- or even intermediate-term (up to treatment history, economic factors, and patient choice.
70 days) medication-tapering protocols are even less encour- However, patients seeking this treatment must be thor-
aging and have an unfortunately low success rate. However, oughly informed that serious adverse effects, including sud-
provision of additional services such as counseling, behav- den unexpected deaths, have occurred in association with
ioral therapy, treatment of underlying psychopathologies, this procedure, and its use should probably be limited to
job skills training, and family therapy to address concomi- inpatient settings where monitoring by anesthesiologists and
tant treatment needs can improve outcome, although suc- other highly trained staff is available.
cess rates remain low, even with these services (3). Buprenorphine, a ␮-opioid partial agonist, has also been
Rapid detoxification involves the use an opioid antago- used as a detoxification agent. Results from inpatient
nist, typically naltrexone or naloxone, in combination with (10–12) and outpatient (13,14) studies have shown that it
other medications (such as clonidine and benzodiazepines) is safe and well tolerated, and it mitigates opioid withdrawal
to mitigate the precipitated withdrawal syndrome. The pro- signs and symptoms over a range of doses and detoxification
schedules. Clonidine, an ␣2-adrenergic agonist, has been
cedure is intended to expedite and compress the withdrawal
shown to suppress many of the autonomic signs and symp-
process to minimize discomfort and to decrease treatment
toms of opioid withdrawal. It can cause pronounced seda-
time. Ultrarapid detoxification also uses other medications,
tion and hypotension but has been used with few problems
along with an opioid antagonist, to moderate withdrawal
when appropriate monitoring is available. It does not sup-
effects. However, rather than being awake as they are during
press the subjective discomfort of withdrawal, and probably
the rapid detoxification process, patients are placed under
for that reason, it is not well accepted by most opioid ad-
general anesthesia or, alternatively, are deeply sedated. A
dicts.
comprehensive review of the rapid and ultrarapid detoxifica- Other ␣2-adrenergic agonists have also been evaluated
tion literature (identifying 12 and 9 of each type study, to find agents that are equally or more effective, but produce
respectively) has been published (4). Rapid detoxification less sedation and hypotension than clonidine. Lofexidine,
studies were conducted in inpatient facilities, outpatient a medication that was originally promoted as an antihyper-
substance abuse treatment settings, and outpatient primary tensive, has been the most thoroughly studied. When com-
care facilities; ultrarapid ones were confined to inpatient pared with clonidine, it was found to suppress autonomic
settings. Patients included those who were heroin depen- signs and symptoms of opioid withdrawal equally, but with
dent as well as those in methadone maintenance treatment. less sedation and hypotension (15–17). When compared
Only four of the studies reviewed provided follow-up with methadone dose tapering, lofexidine detoxification was
beyond the initial detoxification. Retention on postdetoxifi- associated with opioid withdrawal effects that peaked
cation naltrexone maintenance in one rapid detoxification sooner, but resolved to negligible levels more rapidly (18).
study was 53% at 1 month and 82% in another at 3 months. In another study (19), an accelerated 5-day lofexidine treat-
Only one of the ultrarapid detoxification studies provided ment regimen attenuated opioid withdrawal symptoms
follow-up information indicating that all patients (11 of 11) more rapidly than 10 days of either lofexidine or metha-
were taking naltrexone 30 days after detoxification (5). A done, with similar blood pressure responses observed for
more recently published study (6), in which ultrarapid de- the two lofexidine groups. Data regarding the potential ef-
toxification was followed by naltrexone maintenance and fectiveness of guanabenz and guanfacine have also been re-
supportive psychotherapy, indicated that 49 of 72 patients ported, but further studies are required to assess the poten-
were opioid abstinent 12 months after detoxification. All tial utility of these medications for detoxification treatment.
these studies involved self-selected patients; thus, it is impos- In summary, recent studies have shown that lofexidine is
 Chapter 105: Treatment of Opioid Addiction 1509

likely to be a useful opioid detoxification agent whose effi- by most health insurance plans. The overall effect has been
cacy approximates that of clonidine but with fewer side a widening gap between treatment need and availability,
effects. and lost treatment opportunities.
As a result, the Institute of Medicine and the National
Institutes of Health each made recommendations for regula-
Opioid Agonist Pharmacotherapy
tory reform (23,24). Many of these recommendations are
Methadone maintenance was developed by Dole and Nys- in the process of being carried out and include an overall
wander and has become the most commonly used pharma- reduction in regulations and transfer of oversight to accredi-
cotherapy for opioid dependence (20). Methadone acts as tation bodies that are approved by the Center for Substance
the ␮-opioid receptor, and its ability to suppress opioid Abuse Treatment, rather than the FDA. Other recommen-
withdrawal for 24 to 36 hours after a single oral dose makes dations include allowing long-term, stable patients to be
it an ideal medication for this purpose. Another ␮-opioid treated in settings other than methadone clinics where they
agonist, LAAM, received FDA approval for maintenance can receive up to 30 days of take-home medications (medical
treatment in 1993. LAAM is a long-acting congener of maintenance), allowing take-home doses for LAAM, and
methadone that suppresses withdrawal for 48 to 72 hours allowing more clinical judgment in determining dosages and
and thus has the advantage of requiring less frequent clinic take-home schedules. Procedures to prevent diversion in-
visits than methadone, which must be taken daily. A third clude careful screening of patients who receive medical
medication, buprenorphine, is far advanced in the FDA maintenance, return to directly observed medication admin-
approval process. It was mentioned earlier as a detoxification istration if illicit drug use or diversion is detected, random
agent and is discussed later and in more detail because it urine testing, and call-back procedures in which patients
has unique properties that are likely to result in its being will be required to report to the medical treatment setting
used with fewer regulatory controls than methadone and and to produce the remaining, unused take-home con-
LAAM. tainers.
Both methadone and LAAM are Schedule II controlled The appropriate agonist medication dosage has been a
substances and can be used only for maintenance and detox- subject of both federal and state regulations, although there
ification in programs that are licensed and regulated by the has been a gradual shift toward allowing more clinical judg-
FDA and the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA). ment in its determination. Numerous studies have been
The regulations specify who is eligible for treatment, proce- conducted since the mid-1970s to determine the optimal
dures that are required for its administration, the number dose, and, although it is clear that some patients do well
of take-home doses permitted, and the type of medication on low doses of methadone or LAAM (about 20 to 50 mg),
storage security needed. Treatment programs have been in- studies have consistently shown that most patients need
spected approximately every 3 years for the past 30 years, higher doses if they are to achieve maximum benefit from
and violations have resulted in sanctions ranging from ad- agonist treatment (25). The results of these methadone dose
ministrative citations to criminal prosecution. comparison studies are generally supportive of the guide-
The combination of FDA and DEA regulations has re- lines originally proposed by Dole and Nyswander, who rec-
sulted in a treatment system that is separated from the main- ommended doses in the 80- to 120-mg per day range (20).
stream of other medical care and that consists almost en- Clear relationships between methadone blood levels and
tirely of specially licensed and inspected clinics. Clinics are clinical response have not been observed consistently. One
often located in old buildings that have been converted to study found significant correlations between oral dose and
comply with regulations but that were never intended for methadone concentration, but only among patients who
medical use. At the present time, it is estimated that approxi- complained of low dosing (26). These findings suggest that
mately 179,000 patients are being maintained on metha- some patients may be more sensitive to dosage changes and
done or LAAM at 940 or more sites, and this number repre- that clinical response, including subjective complaints, is a
sents only about 20% of the opioid addicts in the United more important guide to adequate dose levels than specific
States (21). blood levels. No controlled studies have been done examin-
This treatment-program regulatory system has been ing doses higher than 120 mg; thus, the upper limits of
under increasing criticism since the early 1990s. Criticism dosing effectiveness are not well understood.
has come from both patients and treatment providers who Perhaps the most important pending regulatory change
believe that the current regulations impose unnecessary bur- is to amend the Controlled Substances Act with respect
dens and expenses, have done little to improve the quality to registration requirements for practitioners using drugs
of treatment, and impede access to care. The importance approved for detoxification or maintenance that are in
of these criticisms has been underlined by the recent increase Schedules III, IV, and V (27). Physicians who choose to
in heroin addiction (22), by evidence that methadone main- treat persons with opioid dependence under the new regula-
tenance reduces the incidence of hepatitis and HIV infec- tions will need to notify the Secretary of Health and Human
tion, and by the lack of coverage for agonist maintenance Services in writing of their intent and to show that they
1510 Neuropsychopharmacology: The Fifth Generation of Progress

are qualified to provide addiction treatment by virtue of prenorphine for its own positive subjective effects (33,34).
certification or experience. No physician would be allowed Only one study published to date has characterized the be-
to treat more than 30 patients at one time without special havioral and physiologic effects of a wide range of buprenor-
approval, according to the legislation as it is now proposed. phine analgesic doses in nonusers of opioids (35). The re-
This change in the regulations will be especially impor- sults indicated that buprenorphine, given intravenously, has
tant for buprenorphine and the buprenorphine-naloxone a low abuse liability in this population.
combination (discussed later), because it will provide better Buprenorphine, in combination with naloxone, has less
access to treatment for persons who are unwilling or unable potential for abuse than buprenorphine alone (36,37). The
to be treated in the current methadone or LAAM system. therapeutic utility of combining naloxone with buprenor-
The overall intent of the proposed regulatory reform is to phine derives from the low sublingual bioavailability of nal-
better integrate maintenance treatment into the mainstream oxone compared with buprenorphine. Parenteral misuse of
of medical care, to make it more readily available, and to the combination by persons addicted to opioids would be
improve its quality. expected to produce antagonist-like effects; thus, most opi-
As mentioned earlier, these changes are likely to influence oid addicts would not be likely to inject the combination
the ways in which buprenorphine is used in opioid addiction more than once. The use of the buprenorphine-naloxone
treatment. Buprenorphine is marketed internationally as an combination product in an office-based setting represents
analgesic (both without naloxone and with naloxone to an innovative alternative to the restrictive methadone or
deter abuse) and as a treatment for opioid addiction. The LAAM maintenance paradigm described previously. The
most widespread use of buprenorphine is in France, where use of this new drug combination should expand the avail-
it was approved for the latter indication in 1996. In the ability of agonist maintenance treatment with a relatively
United States, buprenorphine is currently approved only low risk for abuse or diversion. In addition, the partial ago-
as an analgesic for parenteral administration; approval for nist activity of buprenorphine results in a much lower risk of
opioid addiction treatment is pending. Buprenorphine has overdose death than is the case with methadone or LAAM.
been used almost exclusively sublingually in addiction treat-
ment because of its poor oral bioavailability. Most of the Antagonist Maintenance
early clinical trials used a sublingual solution of buprenor-
phine formulated in a hydroethanolic vehicle, although a Naltrexone is the prototypical opioid antagonist used in
more commercially suitable sublingual tablet formulation abstinence maintenance therapy; this drug blocks the effects
is now used. of heroin and other opioids through competitive receptor
The greatest advantage of buprenorphine compared with inhibition. Naltrexone has no opioid agonist effects and is
full agonists such as methadone and LAAM is the plateau a competitive opioid antagonist. It is orally effective and
effect of ␮-agonist activity. Parenteral doses as high as 12 can block opioid effects for 24 hours when administered as
mg intravenously (28) have been given to opioid-intolerant a single daily dose of 50 to 60 mg. Higher doses usually
patients with only limited adverse effects (e.g. sedation, irrit- will not block opioid effects for 48 to 72 hours though
ability, nausea, itching). Numerous large trials have con- they will provide more cross tolerance to heroin and other
firmed the utility of buprenorphine for agonist maintenance opioids during the 24-hour dosing period (38). Despite a
therapy. These studies have included comparisons of bu- favorable adverse event profile (nausea is typically the most
prenorphine with placebo (29,30), a buprenorphine-nalox- common side effect), naltrexone is generally not favored by
one combination with placebo (30), and a multiple-dose opioid addicts because, unlike opioid agonists and partial
comparison study (31). In one of the most recent trials (32), agonists, it produces no positive, reinforcing effects. Fur-
buprenorphine (given three times weekly) was compared thermore, it may be associated with the precipitation of an
with LAAM (given three times weekly) and methadone opioid withdrawal syndrome if it is used too soon after
(given daily) in a 17-week study. Mean retention in treat- opioid use stops, an effect that can be minimized by admin-
ment was higher for buprenorphine, LAAM, and high-dose istering a naloxone challenge test before giving naltrexone.
methadone groups compared with low-dose methadone and Although the literature on naltrexone treatment spans
for high-dose methadone compared with LAAM. Opioid- more than 25 years, work continues on increasing medica-
positive urine samples decreased most for the LAAM-treated tion compliance and improving outcomes. Some of these
group and least for low-dose methadone. Patient self-reports more recent efforts include work to develop a depot form
of opioid use did not differ among the groups, but they that will block opioid effects for 14 to 28 days. This dosage
showed decreases of about 90% over the course of the study. form is currently in phase II clinical trials. At present, a
Buprenorphine has the potential to be abused and can patient treated with naltrexone has only to stop the medica-
produce addiction. However, most persons who abuse bu- tion for 1 to 3 days to experience the full effects of subse-
prenorphine initiated opioid use with other drugs. Abuse quent opioid use. A depot dosage form of naltrexone would
may take the form of using greater than prescribed dosages provide more time for patients to overcome ambivalence
for analgesia, using buprenorphine in place of a more de- about stopping opioid use and could result in more long-
sired but less available opioid such as heroin, or using bu- term success than has currently been the case. Another var-
 Chapter 105: Treatment of Opioid Addiction 1511

iant on antagonist treatment is nalmefene, an orally effective weeks or months of treatment with reductions in frequency
but somewhat longer-acting (about 48 hours at dosages of to biweekly or monthly depending on progress. The fre-
50 to 100 mg per day) opioid antagonist that has been quency of counseling can vary widely depending on the
effective for alcohol treatment that may have advantages severity of the patient’s problems, clinic requirements, and
over naltrexone due to its longer duration of action. The counselor workload.
problem will be that addicts may not take it, as has generally The importance of regular counseling was clearly demon-
been the case with naltrexone (39,40). strated in a study by McLellan and co-workers (43), in
which patients were randomly assigned to minimal counsel-
Psychosocial and Behavioral Treatment ing (one 5- to 10- minute session per month), standard
counseling (one 45-minute session per week), or enhanced
Research has called attention to the finding that, as in other counseling (standard plus on-site referral to psychiatric,
substance use disorders, most patients with opioid depen- medical, and family or social services). Results showed a
dence and abuse are ambivalent about stopping drug use dose–response relationship with the minimal condition
(41,42). This ambivalence presents a therapeutic challenge doing significantly worse than standard and enhanced coun-
because it contributes to varying levels of motivation to seling doing the best overall; however, about 30% of pa-
enter and remain in treatment, to early dropout, and to tients did well in the minimal counseling condition. This
partial or (in some cases) nontreatment response. Studies study clearly demonstrated the positive benefits achieved by
have emphasized that treatment providers must be aware of drug counseling and showed that, for most patients, coun-
this ‘‘normal’’ ambivalence and make reasonable efforts to seling is necessary to bring out the maximum benefits of
resolve it in favor of treatment participation and cessation agonist maintenance.
of drug use (42). Suggestions have been made regarding Most counseling is individual, one on one, but some
initial steps to maximize the chances for engagement in programs use group therapy exclusively. However, most
treatment and cessation of drug use. These include avoiding programs use groups only for selected patients with focal
unnecessary delays in entering treatment, expressing a hope- problems such as HIV disease, posttraumatic stress disorder,
ful and nonjudgmental attitude, performing a comprehen- homelessness, loss of close personal relationships, or not at
sive evaluation, and developing a treatment plan that is re- all. Many programs encourage patients to participate in self-
sponsive to patients’ self-identified goals (41). help groups, but ask them to be careful to select a group
In addition to challenges related to ambivalence, patients that accepts persons who are receiving opioid agonist main-
often have serious problems with nonopioid substance abuse tenance treatment. Some programs have self-help groups
or with medical, psychiatric, legal, employment, and family that meet regularly on site. Counselors, like psychothera-
or social issues that preexist or result from the addiction. pists, can vary widely in the results they achieve (45). This
Research has found that addressing these additional prob- variability seems more related to the ability to form a posi-
lems can be helpful, but they are complex and require coor- tive, helping relationship with the patient than to specific
dination between agonist pharmacotherapy staff and other techniques (46).
medical and psychosocial services (43,44). Contingency management techniques are always in-
The most common type of psychosocial service in opioid cluded in drug counseling, if for nothing else than to fulfill
agonist treatment is individual drug counseling. Counselors regulations about requiring progress in treatment as a condi-
are typically persons at the masters level or below who de- tion of providing take-home doses, and studies have shown
liver a behaviorally focused treatment aimed to identify spe- that they can be very helpful. For example, an opportunity
cific problems, to help the patient access services that may to receive take-home medications in return for drug-free
not be provided in the clinic (e.g., medical, psychiatric, urine tests is a powerful motivator for many patients (47).
legal, family or social), to stop substance use, and to improve Such a contingency strategy is an example of research with
overall adjustment. Functions that counselors perform in- a clear use in general clinical practice because it is easily
clude monitoring methadone and LAAM doses and request- applied and costs little or nothing beyond standard program
ing changes when needed, reviewing urine test results, re- costs. More flexibility in dispensing take-home doses as con-
sponding to requests for take-homes doses, assisting with tingencies for positive behaviors could be a positive effect
family problems, assessing and responding to crises, writing of the regulatory reforms described earlier.
letters for court or social welfare agencies, recommending Another contingency that is easily applicable and that
inpatient treatment when necessary, and providing support some programs have used with positive results is requiring
and encouragement for a drug-free lifestyle. a negative alcohol breath test before dispensing the daily
Counseling usually addresses both opioid and nonopioid dose of methadone or LAAM. This contingency can be
use. Although nicotine (tobacco) use is not always included, especially useful for patients with alcohol abuse or depen-
the increased emphasis on adverse health effects of smoking dence. Maintenance, counseling, and contingency manage-
has resulted in more attention to stop smoking at all levels, ment are often combined in complex ways, as seen in the
including drug counseling. Counselors and patients typi- following vignette:
cally have weekly, 30- to 60-minute sessions during the first A 42-year-old man presented for his sixth episode of
1512 Neuropsychopharmacology: The Fifth Generation of Progress

methadone maintenance. He had a long history of alcohol- contract. One study done in Philadelphia (49) found that
ism and was using cocaine regularly. He had done fairly among 110 patients who were administratively discharged
well on methadone as far as illicit opioid use was concerned, or dropped out of a Veterans Affairs (VA) maintenance
but his clinic attendance and ability to comply with clinic program, 8.2% (nine of 110) died within the following year
rules, especially regarding take-home doses, were severely as compared with only 1% (four of 397) who remained in
compromised by alcohol use. In the past, he would remain treatment. Among the 43 patients (from among the 110)
in treatment for about a year, then become angry over his who were discharged for failing to adhere to a treatment
inability to obtain take-home doses because of positive contract, five (11.6%) died within a year. None of these
breathalyzer tests, drop out, and have a relapse to opioid five patients were in treatment at the time of death, and all
use. He had frequently been offered inpatient detoxification died as a result of overdoses. No overdose deaths occurred
for alcoholism but always refused because ‘‘alcohol’s not my among patients remaining in treatment, and, interestingly,
problem, heroin’s the problem,’’ and he could not take time there were no deaths in those patients who were suspended
off from work (as a stockperson in a liquor store). When he for violating program rules (mainly drug dealing or giving
presented for treatment most recently, he was unemployed a false urine specimen). These results are consistent with
(secondary to alcohol problems) and living with his parents, data from New South Wales, Australia, where there has
who were threatening to put him out because of drug use. been a sharp rise in heroin-related deaths. Although it is
He agreed that, as part of his treatment plan, he would go estimated that 20% to 30% of the heroin addicts in New
into the hospital for alcohol detoxification and stabilization South Wales are receiving methadone maintenance, only
on methadone and then be discharged to maintenance ther- 3% of the 953 heroin-related fatalities occurred among pa-
apy. After inpatient discharge, he attended AA-style coun- tients receiving methadone maintenance (50). These data
seling, requested daily alcohol breath tests, and turned down emphasize the fine line between contingencies maintained
an offer to return to his job at the liquor store. He remained in programs and the dangers associated with program dis-
stable for 3 years on 65 mg per day of methadone with no missal.
urine samples positive for opioids (but occasionally positive The foregoing data, when considered along with studies
for cocaine), and he enrolled (and continued) in school. showing a protective effect of maintenance on acquiring
It is clear that in such a complex but relatively typical HIV infection (51), have made some clinicians increasingly
case, a single intervention was not enough. Rather, a series hesitant to suspend patients from maintenance treatment
of coordinated steps was necessary to achieve a positive treat-
for positive urine test results alone. This caution may be
ment response. Although not demonstrated in this vignette,
especially relevant in environments where the potency of
family therapy is another intervention that can be combined
heroin is high, such as Philadelphia, where the average ‘‘bag’’
with agonist therapy and other psychosocial interventions,
of heroin is now 71% pure (22).
and studies have shown that it can be useful as well (48).
Therapeutic communities are another psychosocial ap-
Although counseling and other services are effective en-
proach that is often useful for opioid addicts who have a
hancements of agonist treatment, adherence is often an
long history of addiction and a strong motivation to become
issue, and clinics vary in the way they respond to this prob-
lem. Some remind patients of appointments, others do not drug free. These programs are very selective, self-governing,
permit patients to be medicated unless they keep appoint- long-term (6 to 18 months) residential settings where pa-
ments, and others suspend patients who miss appointments. tients share responsibilities for maintaining the treatment
For nonadherent patients, a very powerful contingency is milieu (cleaning, cooking, and leading group therapy). Con-
requiring certain behaviors for patients to remain on the frontation of denial and behaviors such as lying and ‘‘con-
program, a procedure that is often formalized in a treatment ning,’’ combined with group support for healthy, positive
contract. Here, the patient is given an option of stopping change, is used to restructure character and the addictive
unprescribed drug use, keeping regular counseling appoint- lifestyle. Medications such as methadone, LAAM, or nal-
ments, looking for work, or correcting other behaviors that trexone are rarely used; however, medications for specific
need improvement as a condition for remaining in treat- psychiatric or medical conditions are usually available after
ment. Patients who fail are administratively detoxified, sus- careful screening and evaluation. Patients who enter thera-
pended for months to years, and referred to another pro- peutic communities are often referred by the criminal justice
gram, although the referrals are not always successful. system. Some patients have tried, but not responded, to
The long-term effects of this form of contingency man- agonist maintenance on repeated occasions. Although drop-
agement have not been well studied. For example, relatively out rates are high, studies have shown that more than 80%
little is known about negative effects on patients who may of patients who complete a course of treatment in a thera-
have improved with methadone and counseling, but not peutic community have a sustained remission and demon-
to the degree required by the contingency, and who are strate significant improvement in psychiatric symptoms,
subsequently discharged for failing to adhere to a treatment employment, and criminal behavior (52,53).
 Chapter 105: Treatment of Opioid Addiction 1513

Addressing Comorbidity disorders. Others are treated with methadone, counseling,

and the same antipsychotic or antimanic medications used
Patients seeking treatment for opioid dependence are typi-
for nonaddicted patients with similar disorders. Although
cally dependent on one or more other substances (cocaine, studies evaluating the outcome of combining opioid agonist
alcohol, benzodiazepines, amphetamines, marijuana, nico- treatment with antipsychotic or antimanic medications have
tine), and have additional problems in the psychiatric, medi- not been done, there is little controversy that these medica-
cal, family or social, employment, or legal areas. In fact, it tions are useful for opioid addicts with psychotic disorders,
is rare to find a person with only opioid dependence and and most programs use them with little hesitation.
no other substance abuse or without a psychiatric, medical, Women opioid addicts can present special challenges be-
or family or social problem. The presence of these problems, cause many have been sexually abused as children, have
perhaps with the exception of nicotine dependence, tends other psychiatric disorders, and are involved in difficult fam-
to magnify the severity of the opioid dependence and makes ily or social situations (60). Abusive relationships with ad-
the patient more difficult to treat. dicted men are common, sometimes characterized by situa-
Among the psychiatric disorders seen in persons with tions in which the man exerts control by providing drugs.
opioid dependence, antisocial personality disorder is one of These complex psychiatric and relationship issues have em-
the most common (54). Diagnostic studies of persons with phasized the need for comprehensive psychosocial services
opioid dependence have typically found rates of antisocial that include psychiatric assessment and treatment and access
personality disorder ranging from 20% to 50%, as com- to other medical, family, and social services.
pared with less than 5% in the general population. Posttrau- Medical comorbidity is a major problem among opioid
matic stress disorder is also seen with increased frequency. addicts; HIV infection, AIDS, and hepatitis B and C have
Opioid-dependent persons are especially at risk for the become some of the most common illnesses. Sharing injec-
development of brief depressive symptoms and for episodes tion equipment, including ‘‘cookers’’ and rinse water, and
of mild to moderate depression that meet symptomatic and engaging in high-risk sexual behavior are the main routes
duration criteria for major depressive disorder or dysthymia. of infection. Sexual transmission appears to be a more com-
These syndromes represent both substance-induced mood mon route for HIV transmission among women than men
disorders as well as independent depressive illnesses. Brief because the HIV virus is spread more readily from men to
periods of depression are especially common during chronic women than from women to men. Females patients who
intoxication or withdrawal or in association with psychoso- are intravenous drug users and who also engage in prostitu-
cial stressors that are related to the dependence. Insomnia is tion or other forms of high-risk sexual behavior are at ex-
common, especially during withdrawal; sexual dysfunction, tremely high risk of HIV infection (60). Cocaine use has
especially impotence, is common during intoxication. De- been found to be a significant risk factor as a single drug
lirium or brief, psychotic-like symptoms are occasionally of abuse or when used in combination with heroin or other
seen during opioid intoxication (54). opioids (61).
The data on psychiatric comorbidity among opioid ad- As mentioned earlier, mortality is high, and studies have
dicts and its negative effect on outcome (55) have stimulated found annual death rates of approximately 10 per 1,000 or
research on the effect of combining psychiatric and sub- greater, which is substantially higher than demographically
stance abuse treatment. Several studies have now shown matched samples in the general population (62). Common
that tricyclic antidepressants can be useful for chronically causes of death are overdose, accidents, injuries, and medical
depressed opioid addicts who are treated with methadone complications such as cellulitis, hepatitis, AIDS, tuberculo-
maintenance (56). Two studies have shown that profes- sis, and endocarditis. The cocaine and alcohol dependence
sional psychotherapy can be useful for psychiatrically im- that is often seen among opioid-dependent persons contrib-
paired, methadone-maintained opioid addicts, although an- utes to medical morbidity by cirrhosis, cardiomyopathy,
other study found no psychotherapy effect (57–59). The myocardial infarction, or serious cardiac arrhythmias.
main result in most pharmacotherapy and psychotherapy Tuberculosis has become a particularly serious problem
studies with methadone-maintained addicts has usually among intravenous drug users, especially heroin addicts. In
been a reduction in psychiatric symptoms such as depres- most cases, infection is asymptomatic and is evident only
sion, although some studies have shown reductions in sub- by the presence of a positive tuberculin skin test. However,
stance use as well (56,57). many cases of active tuberculosis have also been found, espe-
Fewer than 5% of persons with opioid dependence have cially among those who are infected with HIV who may
psychotic disorders such as bipolar illness or schizophrenia; have a newly acquired infection or reactivation of a prior
however, these patients can present special problems because infection as a result of impaired immune function.
programs typically have few psychiatric staff members. As After rising rapidly in the late 1970s and early 1980s,
a result, these patients are sometimes excluded from metha- the incidence of new HIV infections among intravenous
done treatment because of the severity of their psychotic drug users, of whom opioid-dependent persons constitute
1514 Neuropsychopharmacology: The Fifth Generation of Progress

a large proportion, decreased (63). However, as a result of mediately after delivery also appears to reduce the incidence
high levels of needle sharing and other risky behavior in the of HIV infection.
early phases of the epidemic, the prevalence of HIV infec- An important line of research resulting from the data on
tion among heroin addicts reached as high as 50% in some comorbidity has been studies on the effects of integrating
areas of the United States (64). Because of the long incuba- psychiatric and medical care within agonist and other sub-
tion period before the development of AIDS, it is expected stance abuse treatment programs (70). Clinical experience
that future years will continue to see high levels of morbidity and National Institute on Drug Abuse demonstration
and mortality associated with HIV infection, although the projects have shown that integration of these services with
advent of new pharmacotherapies for HIV has extended agonist maintenance can be done, and with very positive
many lives. results, because patients are seen frequently and treatment
Studies done over the last several years have identified retention is high (44). Related to this line of research are
several important interactions between methadone and studies that have shown improved compliance with directly
drugs used to treat HIV infection. Information is not com- observed antituberculosis pharmacotherapy (71). These
plete, however, and more studies are needed to map out findings have important implications for tuberculosis con-
the extent of these interactions completely. One important trol policies in methadone programs because intravenous
interaction is that methadone increases plasma levels of zi- drug users are at very high risk of tuberculosis infection and
dovudine; the associated symptoms resemble methadone because maintenance programs provide settings in which
withdrawal. There have been instances in which methadone directly observed therapy can be easily applied. Similar prin-
doses have been increased in response to complaints of with- ciples apply to administration of psychotropic medication
drawal, with increasing doses compounding the problem. in noncompliant patients with schizophrenia or other major
Another important interaction involves decreased metha- axis I disorders.
done blood levels secondary to nevirapine administration
that may be associated with mild to moderate withdrawal.
Harm Reduction
This interaction can be important if the patient discontinues
either of these two drugs while taking methadone, because Harm reduction is concerned with minimizing various nega-
the result may be a sudden rise in methadone blood levels tive consequences of addiction. As such, the focus is shifted
with signs and symptoms of overmedication (65,66). away from drug use to the consequences of use and its atten-
Other medical complications of heroin dependence are dant behaviors (72). Examples of harm reduction include
seen in children born to opioid-dependent women. Perhaps needle exchange programs, efforts directed at reducing drug-
the most serious is premature delivery and low birth weight, use-associated behaviors that may result in the transmission
a problem that can be reduced if the mother is receiving of HIV, and making changes in policies (including increas-
methadone maintenance and prenatal care (67). Another is ing treatment availability) that reduce heroin use and the
physiologic dependence on opioids, seen in about half the criminal behavior associated with drug procurement. Harm
infants born to women maintained on methadone or depen- reduction refers to reducing harm not only to the individual
dent on heroin or other opioids. Effective treatments for addict, but also to family, friends, and society generally.
neonatal withdrawal are available, and long-term adverse Other terms sometimes used synonymously with harm re-
effects of opioid withdrawal have not been demonstrated. duction include harm minimization, risk reduction, and risk
Adverse neonatal effects associated with LAAM or bupren- minimization (73).
orphine have not been observed, but few studies have been Some authors have identified the limitations of harm
done because neither medication is approved for use in preg- reduction when it is used as a sole strategy to combat the
nancy. adverse effects of addiction. For example, Reuter and
The possibility that breast-feeding may cause adverse ef- Caulkins pointed out the benefit of integrating drug use
fects in infants of methadone-maintained mothers was stud- reduction and harm reduction components into a single
ied. It was found that methadone was present in the breast framework (74), because total harm may be lowered by re-
milk of women maintained on doses as high as 180 mg, ducing either component. Roche and colleagues proposed
but the concentration was very low, and no adverse effects a model for an integrated addiction treatment strategy that
were observed in the infants (68). HIV infection is seen in incorporates harm reduction and use reduction with absti-
about one-third of infants born to HIV-positive mothers, nence and nonuse (75), in addition to other critical elements
but this incidence can be reduced to about 10% if HIV- such as factors related to culture and gender. Additionally,
positive pregnant women are given zidovudine before deliv- MacCoun provided a template for integrating harm reduc-
ery (69). HIV can also be transmitted by breast-feeding, tion with prevalence reduction (discouraging the engage-
and thus infant formula feeding is recommended for babies ment in drug use) and quantity reduction (encouraging the
of HIV-positive mothers, except in some developing coun- reduction in frequency or extent of drug use) (76).
tries, where formula is unavailable or unaffordable. Thor- With regard to opioids, much of the health-related harm
ough washing of infants born to HIV-infected mothers im- from their improper or illicit use is secondary to elements
 Chapter 105: Treatment of Opioid Addiction 1515

other than the substances themselves (77). Sequelae of un- ment programs in many locations. Funds saved from these
hygienic methods of administration and poor injection cost reductions have often not been invested in outpatient
technique are typically more serious than the constipation treatment. A good example is the VA, which administers
or other side effects of the drugs themselves, acute overdoses the largest network of substance abuse treatment programs
notwithstanding. With regard to opioid addiction treat- in the United States. Since the application of managed care
ment, medications such as methadone, LAAM, and bupre- policies, the overall amount spent on substance abuse treat-
norphine, among others (including supervised heroin sub- ment declined by 41%, from $597 million in 1993 to $351
stitution) used for maintenance agonist treatment, may be million in 1999. Measured as a percentage of overall VA
considered harm reduction measures. All have the potential health care costs, specialized substance abuse care decreased
to reduce morbidity, mortality, and crime associated with from 4.2% in 1993 to 2.3% in 1999. In contrast, overall
the addict lifestyle. However, in this sense they are no differ- VA health care expenditures increased 10% between 1993
ent from other medical therapies such as those used for the and 1999 (85). Most of these reductions were achieved by
treatment of hypertension, diabetes, or asthma. reducing inpatient beds, with the funds saved allocated to
Needle or syringe exchange represents one of the most other areas but not to reinvestment in other substance abuse
controversial strategies in harm reduction. Research indi- treatment services. The result has been an overall reduction
cates that these types of programs may have beneficial effects in the total number of veteran patients treated and in the
in numerous areas, including a reduction in the spread of amount of drug counseling provided. As a result, no new
blood-borne infectious disease such as hepatitis and HIV, methadone programs were opened in the VA despite the
and acting as a conduit to more comprehensive drug-abuse recent increase in heroin addiction, evidence of waiting lists
treatment services (78). In one study (79), the initiation for methadone treatment, and cities (such as Portland, Ore-
and continuation of syringe exchange program participation gon) with serious heroin problems but no agonist mainte-
among high-risk injection drug users were independently nance programs in spite of recent increases in heroin over-
associated with a cessation of syringe sharing. In another dose deaths.
study (80), participation in a needle exchange program was A focused review of substance abuse programs by the
associated with patients’ entering detoxification treatment United States Senate Committee on Veterans Affairs found
for both HIV-infected and noninfected groups. Not all that changes in resource allocation have caused programs
findings have been positive, however. In a study designed to become vulnerable to service disruptions, poor morale,
to assess the association between risk behaviors and HIV burnout, and reduced motivation and quality of perfor-
seroprevalence and incidence among injection drug users, mance and characterized by failures to maintain service lev-
risk elevations for HIV associated with needle exchange pro- els in accord with the mandates of law (86).
grams were substantial and consistent despite adjustment Managed care strategies have also made it very difficult
for confounding factors (81). However, an examination of to integrate medical and psychiatric services into agonist
potential bias in nonrandomized comparisons (82) sug- maintenance programs. Thus, both old and new pharmaco-
gested that injection drug users participating in needle ex- therapies for opioid addiction described earlier are un-
change programs at a given point may include a high pro- derused in the VA, the largest substance abuse treatment
portion of persons whose pattern of drug use puts them system. There is every indication that penetration of these
at greater risk for blood-borne viral infections. Further, a new treatments into the opiate treatment field at large has
prospective cohort study found no evidence of a causal asso- also been slow.
ciation between needle exchange program participation and
transmission of HIV (83).
Harm reduction related to psychoactive substance abuse
has gone through numerous stages. The current phase has SUMMARY
been described as the development of an integrated public
health perspective for all drugs in which a multifaceted, New pharmacotherapies, behavioral therapies, and treat-
strategic approach is taken (84). The direction of this ap- ment strategies are being developed for opioid addiction.
proach will be guided, in part, by whether biases against a This continued development is important, because more
harm reduction philosophy can be overcome by those who treatment options will encourage treatments that are more
see it as synonymous with acceptance of drug abuse or legali- individualized and balanced across important dimensions
zation, and how harm reduction objectives relate to an over- such as patient response, adverse effects, treatment costs,
all strategy to improve public health. comorbidity, living situations, and overall adjustment. As
described earlier, various treatments can be combined to
IMPACT OF MANAGED CARE produce better patient outcomes. However, the overall ef-
fect of these developments on addiction treatment and pub-
Efforts to control costs by managed care have resulted in a lic health is very dependent on funding support, which has
marked reduction in use of inpatient or residential treat- become a serious problem. Parity legislation may help to
1516 Neuropsychopharmacology: The Fifth Generation of Progress

solve funding problems and result in the expansion of treat- 19. Bearn J, Gossop M, Strang J. Accelerated lofexidine treatment
ment to meet patient needs, but the details of how and regimen compared with conventional lofexidine and methadone
treatment for in-patient opiate detoxification. Drug Alcohol De-
when more investment in substance treatment may occur pend 1998;50:227–232.
are unclear as of this writing. 20. Dole VP, Nyswander M. Successful treatment of 750 criminal
addicts. JAMA 1968;26:2708–2710.
21. Addict Treat Forum 2000;9:2.
22. Community Epidemiology Work Group. Epidemiologic trends in
REFERENCES drug abuse: advance report. Washington, DC: NIDA, Dept. of
Health and Human Services, 1999.
1. Banys P, Tusel DJ, See KL, et al. Low (40mg) versus high (80mg) 23. Fulco DR, Liverman CT, Earley LE, eds. The development of
dose methadone in a 180-day heroin detoxification program. J medications for the treatment of opiate and cocaine addictions: issues
Subst Abuse Treat 1994;11:225–232. for the government and private sector. Washington, DC: Institute
2. Reilly PM, Banys P, Tusel DJ, et al. Methadone transition treat- of Medicine, National Academy Press, 1995.
ment: a treatment model for 180–day methadone detoxification. 24. NIH Consensus Statement. Effective medical treatment of opiate
Int J Addict 1995;30:387–402. addiction. Rockville, MD: National Institutes of Health,
3. Kleber HD. Opioids: detoxification. In: Galanter M, Kleber HD, 1997.
eds. Textbook of substance abuse treatment, second ed. Washing- 25. Ball JC, Ross A. The effectiveness of methadone maintenance treat-
ton, DC: American Psychiatric Association, 1999:251–269. ment. New York: Springer-Verlag, 1991.
4. O’Connor PG, Kosten TR. Rapid and ultrarapid opioid detoxifi- 26. Hiltunen AJ, Beck O, Hjemdahl P, et al. Rated well-being in
cation techniques. JAMA 1998;279:229–234. relation to plasma concentrations of l- and d-methadone in satis-
5. Legarda JJ, Gossop M. A 24–h inpatient detoxification treatment fied and dissatisfied patients on methadone maintenance treat-
for heroin addicts: a preliminary investigation. Drug Alcohol De- ment. Psychopharmacology 1999;143:385–393.
pend 1994;35:91–93. 27. House Resolution 2634. United States House of Representatives,
6. Hensel M, Kox WJ. Safety, efficacy, and long-term results of 2000.
a modified version of rapid opiate detoxification under general 28. Umbricht-Schneiter A, Huestis MA, Cone EJ, et al. Safety of
anesthesia: a prospective study in methadone, heroin, codeine, buprenorphine: ceiling for cardio-respiratory effects at high IV
and morphine addicts. Acta Anaesthesiol Scand 2000;44: doses. NIDA Res Monogr 1998;179:225.
3226–3233. 29. Johnson RE, Eissenberg T, Stitzer ML, et al. A placebo controlled
7. San L, Puig M, Bulbena A, et al. High risk of ultrashort noninva- trial of buprenorphine as a treatment for opioid dependence.
sive opiate detoxification. Am J Psychiatry 1995;152:956. Drug Alcohol Depend 1995;40:17–25.
8. Pfab R, Hirtl C, Zilker T. Opiate detoxification under anesthesia: 30. Fudala PJ, Bridge TP, Herbert S et al. A multisite efficacy evalua-
no apparent benefit but suppression of thyroid hormones and tion of a buprenorphine/ naloxone product for opiate dependence
risk of pulmonary and renal failure. J Toxicol Clin Toxicol 1999; treatment. NIDA Res Monogr 1998;179:105.
37:43–50. 31. Ling W, Charuvastra C, Collins JC, et al. Buprenorphine mainte-
9. Cucchia AT, Monnat M, Spagnoli J, et al. Ultra-rapid opiate nance treatment for opiate dependence: a multicenter, random-
detoxification using deep sedation with or midazolam: short- and ized clinical trial. Addiction 1998;93:475–486.
long-term results. Drug Alcohol Depend 1998;52:243–250. 32. Johnson RE, Chutuape MA, Strain EC, et al. A comparison of
10. Cheskin LJ, Fudala PJ, Johnson, RE. A controlled comparison levomethadyl acetate, buprenorphine, and methadone as treat-
of buprenorphine and clonidine for acute detoxification from ments for opioid dependence. N Engl J Med 2000;343:
opioids. Drug Alcohol Depend 1994;36:115–121. 1290–1297.
11. Parran TV Jr, Adelman CL, Jasinski DR. A buprenorphine stabi- 33. Baumevieille M, Haramburu F, Bégaud B. Abuse of prescription
lization and rapid-taper protocol for the detoxification of opioid medicines in southwestern France. Ann Pharmacother 1997;31:
dependent patients. Am J Addict 1994;3:306–313. 847–850.
12. Vignau J. Preliminary assessment of a 10–day rapid detoxifica- 34. Dore GM, Hargreaves G, Niven BE, et al. Dependent opioid
tion programme using high dosage buprenorphine. Eur Addict users assessed for methadone treatment in Otago: patterns of
Res 1998;4:29–31. drug use. NZ Med J 1997;110:162–165.
13. O’Connor PG, Carroll KM, Shi JM, et al. Three methods of 35. Zacny JP, Conley K, Galinkin J. Comparing the subjective, psy-
opioid detoxification in a primary care setting: a randomized chomotor and physiological effects of intravenous buprenorphine
trial. Ann Intern Med 1997;127:526–530. and morphine in healthy volunteers. J Pharmacol Exp Ther 1997;
14. Diamant K, Fischer G, Schneider C, et al. Outpatient opiate 282:1187–1197.
detoxification treatment with buprenorphine: preliminary inves- 36. Fudala PJ, Yu E, Macfadden W, et al. Effects of buprenorphine
tigation. Eur Addict Res 1998;4:198–202. and naloxone in morphine-stabilized opioid addicts. Drug Alcohol
15. Kahn A, Mumford JP, Rogers GA, et al. Double-blind study of Depend 1998b;50:1–8.
lofexidine and clonidine in the detoxification of opiate addicts 37. Mendelson J, Jones RT, Welm S, et al. Buprenorphine and nalox-
in hospital. Drug Alcohol Depend 1997;44:57–61. one combinations: the effects of three dose ratios in morphine-
16. Lin SK, Strang J, Su LW, et al. Double blind randomized con- stabilized, opiate-dependent volunteers. Psychopharmacology
trolled trial of lofexidine versus clonidine in the treatment of 1999;141:37–46.
heroin withdrawal. Drug Alcohol Depend 1997;48:127–133. 38. Lee MC, Wagner HN, Tanada S, et al. Duration of occupancy
17. Carnwath T, Hardman J. Randomised double-blind comparison of opiate receptors by naltrexone. J Nucl Med 1988;29:1207–
of lofexidine and clonidine in the out-patient treatment of opiate 1211.
withdrawal. Drug Alcohol Depend 1998;50:251–254. 39. Mason BJ, Ritvo EC, Morgan, RO, et al. A double-blind, pla-
18. Bearn J, Gossop M, Strang J. Randomized double-blind compari- cebo-controlled pilot study to evaluate the efficacy and safety of
son of lofexidine and methadone in the in-patient treatment of oral nalmefene HCl for alcohol dependence. Alcohol Clin Exp
opiate withdrawal. Drug Alcohol Depend 1996;43:87–89. Res 1994;18:1162–1167.
 Chapter 105: Treatment of Opioid Addiction 1517

40. Jones HE, Johnson RE, Fudala PJ, et al. Nalmefene: blockade tion: impact of methadone treatment. Acta Psychiatr Scand 1990;
of intravenous morphine challenge effects in opioid abusing hu- 82:223–227.
mans. Drug Alcohol Depend 2000;60:29–37. 63. Seage G, Holte SE, Metzger DS, et al. Are US populations appro-
41. Miller WR, Rollnick S. Motivational interviewing: preparing peo- priate for HIV vaccine trials? The HIVNET Vaccine Prepared-
ple to change addictive behavior. New York: Guilford, 1991. ness Study Am J Epidemiol 2001;153:619–627.
42. Rollnick S, Mason P, Butler C. Health behavior change: a guide 64. DesJarlais D, Marmor M, Friedmann P, et al. HIV Incidence
for practitioners. New York: Churchhill Livingstone, 1999. among injection drug users in New York City, 1992–1997: evi-
43. McLellan AT, Arndt IO, Metzger DS, et al. The effects of psycho- dence for a declining epidemic. Am J Public Health 2000;90:
social services in substance abuse treatment. JAMA 1993;269: 352–359.
1953–1959. 65. Altice FL, Friedland GH, Cooney EL. Nevirapine induced opiate
44. Umbricht-Schneiter A, Ginn DH, Pabst KM, et al. Providing withdrawal among injection drug users with HIV infection re-
medical care to methadone clinic patients: referral vs on-site care. ceiving methadone. AIDS 1999;13:957–962.
Am J Public Health 1994;84:207–210. 66. Otero, MJ, Fuentes, A, Sanchez, R, et al. Nevirapine-induced
45. McLellan AT, Woody GE, Luborsky L, et al. Is the counselor withdrawal symptoms in HIV patients on methadone mainte-
an ‘‘active ingredient’‘ in substance abuse treatment? J Nerv Ment nance programme; an alert. AIDS 1999;13:1004–1005.
Dis 1988;176:423–430. 67. Finnegan, LP. Treatment issues for opioid-dependent women
46. Luborsky L, McLellan AT, Woody GE, et al. Therapist success during the perinatal period. J Psychoactive Drugs 1991;23:
and its determinants. Arch Gen Psychiatry 1985;42:602–611. 191–201.
47. Iguchi, MY, Lamb, RJ, Belding, MA, et al. Contingent reinforce- 68. McCarthy JJ, Posey BL. Methadone levels in human milk. J Hum
ment of group participation versus abstinence in a methadone Lactation 2000;16:115–120.
maintenance program. Exp Clin Psychopharmacol 1996;4: 69. Connor, EM, Sperling, RS, Gelber R, et. al. Reduction of mater-
315–321. nal-infant transmission of human immunodeficiency virus type
48. Stanton MD, Todd T. The family therapy of drug abuse and addic- 1 with zidovudine treatment. N Engl J Med 1994;331:1173–
tion. New York: Guilford, 1982.
1180.
49. Zanis DA, Woody GE. One-year mortality rates following meth-
70. Kessler RC, Nelson CB, McGonagle KA, et al. The epidemiology
adone treatment discharge. Drug Alcohol Depend 1998;52:
of co-occurring addictive and mental disorders: implications for
257–260.
prevention and service utilization. Am J Orthopsychiatry 1996;
50. Darke S, Ross J, Zador D, et al. Heroin-related deaths in New
66:17–31.
South Wales, Australia, 1992–1996. Drug Alcohol Depend 2000;
71. Chaulk CP, Moore-Rice K, Rizzo R, et al. Eleven years of com-
60:141–15.
munity-based directly observed therapy for tuberculosis. JAMA
51. Metzger DS, Navaline H, Woody GE. Drug abuse treatment as
AIDS prevention. Public Health Rep 1998;113S:97–106. 1995;274:945–951.
52. Inciardi JA, Martin SS, Butzin CA, et al. An effective model of 72. Marlatt GA. Harm reduction: come as you are. Addict Behav
prison-based treatment for drug-involved offenders. J Drug Issues 1996;21:779–788.
1997;27:261–278. 73. Riley D, Sawka E, Conley P, et al. Harm reduction: concepts
53. DeLeon G. Therapeutic communities. In: Galanter M, Kleber and practice. A policy discussion paper. Subst Use Misuse 1999;
HD, eds. Textbook of substance abuse treatment. Washington, DC: 34:9–24.
American Psychiatric Association, 1999:447–462. 74. Reuter P, Caulkins JP. Redefining the goals of national drug
54. First MB, Pincus HA, eds. Diagnostic and statistical manual of policy: recommendations from a working group. Am J Public
mental disorders, fourth ed (text revision: DSM-IV-TR). Wash- Health 1995;85:1059–1063.
ington, DC: American Psychiatric Association, 1999. 75. Roche AM, Evans KR, Stanton WR. Harm reduction: roads less
55. McLellan AT, Luborsky L, Woody GE, et al. Predicting response travelled to the Holy Grail. Addiction 1997;92:1207–1212.
to alcohol and drug abuse treatments: role of psychiatric severity. 76. MacCoun RJ. Toward a psychology of harm reduction. Am Psy-
Arch Gen Psychiatry 1983;40:620–625. chologist 1998;53:1199–1208.
56. Nunes EV, Quitkin FM, Donovan S, et al. Imipramine treatment 77. Kalant H. Differentiating drugs by harm potential: the rational
of opiate dependent patients with depressive disorders: a placebo- versus the feasible. Subst Use Misuse 1999;34:25–34.
controlled trial. Arch Gen Psychiatry 1998;55:153–160. 78. Normand J, Vlahov D, Moses L, eds. Preventing HIV transmis-
57. Woody GE, McLellan AT, Luborsky L, et al. Psychiatric severity sion: the role of sterile needles and bleach. Washington, DC: Na-
as a predictor of benefits from psychotherapy the Penn-VA study. tional Research Council, Institute of Medicine. National Acad-
Am J Psychiatry 1984;141:1172–1177. emy Press, 1995.
58. Woody GE, Mercer DE. Individual psychotherapy for substance 79. Bluthenthal RN, Kral AH, Gee L, et al. The effect of syringe
use disorders. In: Gabbard GO, ed. Treatments of psychiatric disor- exchange use on high-risk injection drug users: a cohort study.
ders, third ed. Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Associa- AIDS 2000;14:605–611.
tion, 2001:849–861. 80. Strathdee SA, Celentano DD, Shah N, et al. Needle-exchange
59. Rounsaville BJ, Glazer W, Wilber CH, et al. Short-term interper- attendance and health care utilization promote entry into detoxi-
sonal psychotherapy in methadone maintained opiate addicts. fication. J Urban Health 1999;76:448–460.
Arch Gen Psychiatry 1982;39:161–166. 81. Bruneau J, Lamothe F, Franco E, et al. High rates of HIV infec-
60. Blume SB. Addiction in women. In: Galanter M, Kleber HD, tion among injection drug users participating in needle exchange
eds. Textbook of substance abuse treatment. Washington, DC: programs in Montreal: results of a cohort study. Am J Epidemiol
American Psychiatric Association, 1999:485–494. 1997;146:994–1002.
61. Booth RE, Kwiatkowski CF, Chitwood DD. Sex related HIV 82. Hagan H, McGough JP, Thiede H, et al. Volunteer bias in non-
risk behaviors: differential risks among injection drug users, crack randomized evaluations of the efficacy of needle-exchange pro-
smokers, and injection drug users who smoke crack . Drug Alcohol grams. J Urban Health 2000;77:103–112.
Depend 2000;58:219–226. 83. Schechter MT, Strathdee SA, Cornelisse PG, et al. Do needle
62. Gronbladh L, Ohlund LS, Gunne LM. Mortality in heroin addic- exchange programmes increase the spread of HIV among injec-
1518 Neuropsychopharmacology: The Fifth Generation of Progress

tion drug users? An investigation of the Vancouver outbreak. treatment in the Department of Veterans Affairs. 1993–1999:
AIDS 1999;13:F45–F51. report from the Health Economics Resource Center and the Center
84. Erickson PG. Introduction: the three phases of harm reduction. for Health Care Evaluation. Menlo Park, CA: VA Palo Alto
An examination of emerging concepts, methodologies, and cri- Health Care System, 2000.
tiques. Subst Use Misuse 1999;34:1–7 86. Rockefeller JD. Minority staff review of VA programs for veterans
85. Chen S, Wagner TH, et al. Expenditures for substance abuse with special needs. United States Senate, 1999.

Neuropsychopharmacology: The Fifth Generation of Progress. Edited by Kenneth L. Davis, Dennis Charney, Joseph T. Coyle, and
Charles Nemeroff. American College of Neuropsychopharmacology 䉷 2002.