The Bridges Network Blog

More than 25 states as well as Washington, D.C., are exploring alternative-sentencing methods and revamping probation and parole programs to cut the rising cost of keeping inmates in prison, the Washington Post reported July 13.

Governors and legislatures are particularly investing in drug courts, which offer low-level drug offenders treatment and weekly meetings with a judge as a way of keeping them from serving prison time.  States are also turning to the 500 courts nationwide designated for people arrested for driving under the influence, so that offenders will be sent to treatment programs and undergo random tests instead of being sent to jail.

Probation time in some states is also being reduced, as is the number of people sentenced to prison for minor violations such as failing to appear for scheduled court appointments.

“The economy is bringing a lot of states to the table,” said Adam Gelb, who directs the Pew Center on the States Public Safety Performance Project. “The research has pointed to a path for them to [provide] more public safety at less cost.”

The average cost to keep an inmate in prison is $79 per day, whereas the daily cost to monitor that person through probation or parole is $3.50, according to the Pew Center.

In an effort to reduce its prison spending, New York has eased mandatory-minimum drug laws enacted during the Rockefeller era, and Virginia is currently seeking sentencing alternatives for its nonviolent offenders.  President Barack Obama has requested more than $200 million from Congress for prisoner-reentry programs.

Posted July 24, 2009

From:

http://www.jointogether.org/news/headlines/inthenews/2009/states-exploring-drug-courts.html?log-event=sp2f-view-item&nid=53970334

  • Share/Save/Bookmark
Comment |

1.      Why do people involved in the criminal justice system continue abusing drugs?

The answer to this perplexing question spans basic neurobiological, psychological, social, and environmental factors.

The repeated use of addictive drugs eventually changes how the brain functions. Resulting brain changes, which accompany the transition from voluntary to compulsive drug use, affect the brain’s natural inhibition and reward centers, causing the addict to use drugs in spite of the adverse health, social, and legal consequences (Volkow, Fowler, Wang, et al., 1993; Volkow, Hitzemann, Wang, et al., 1992; Volkow and Li, 2004). Craving for drugs may be triggered by contact with the people, places, and things associated with prior drug use, as well as by stress. Forced abstinence without treatment does not cure addiction. Abstinent individuals must still learn how to avoid relapse, including those who have been incarcerated and may have been abstinent for a long period of time.
Addictive Drugs Can Cause Long-Lasting Changes in the Brain
Addictive Drugs Can Cause Long-Lasting Changes in the Brain
PET scans showing glucose metabolism in healthy brain and cocaine-addicted brains. Even after 100 days of abstinence, glucose metabolism has not returned to normal levels.

Potential risk factors for released offenders include pressures from peers and even family members to return to drug use and a criminal lifestyle. Tensions of daily life—violent associates, few opportunities for legitimate employment, lack of safe housing, even the need to comply with correctional supervision conditions—can also create stressful situations that can precipitate a relapse to drug use.

Research on how the brain is affected by drug abuse promises to help us learn much more about the mechanics of drug-induced brain changes and their relationship to addiction. Research also reveals that with effective drug abuse treatment, individuals can overcome persistent drug effects and lead healthy, productive lives.

2.     Why should drug abuse treatment be provided to offenders?

The case for treating drug abusing offenders is compelling. Drug abuse treatment improves outcomes for drug abusing offenders and has beneficial effects for public health and safety. Effective treatment decreases future drug use and drug-related criminal behavior, can improve the individual’s relationships with his or her family, and may improve prospects for employment.

Outcomes for substance abusing individuals can be improved when criminal justice personnel work in tandem with treatment providers on drug abuse treatment needs and supervision requirements. Treatment needs that can be assessed after arrest include substance abuse severity, mental health problems, and physical health. Defense attorneys, prosecutors, and judges need to work together during the prosecution and sentencing phases of the criminal justice process to determine suitable treatment programs that meet the offender’s needs. Through drug courts, diversion programs, pretrial release programs conditional on treatment, and conditional probation with sanctions, the offender can participate in community-based drug abuse treatment while under criminal justice supervision. In some instances, the judge may recommend that the offender participate in treatment while serving jail or prison time or require it as part of continuing correctional supervision postrelease.

3.     How effective is drug abuse treatment for criminal justice-involved individuals?

Treatment is an effective intervention for drug abusers, including those who are involved with the criminal justice system. However, the effectiveness of drug treatment depends on both the individual and the program, and on whether interventions and treatment services are available and appropriate for the individual’s needs. To amend attitudes, beliefs, and behaviors that support drug use, the drug abuser must engage in a therapeutic change process. Longitudinal outcome studies find that those who participate in community-based drug abuse treatment programs commit fewer crimes than those who do not participate.

4.     Are all drug abusers in the criminal justice system good candidates for treatment?

A history of drug use does not in itself indicate the need for drug abuse treatment. Offenders who meet drug dependence criteria should be given higher priority for treatment than those who do not. Less intensive interventions, such as drug abuse education or self-help participation, may be appropriate for those not meeting criteria for drug dependence. Services such as family-based interventions for juveniles, psychiatric treatment, or cognitive-behavioral “criminal thinking” interventions may be a higher priority for some offenders, and individuals with mental health problems may require specialized services (see FAQ Nos. 6 and 12).
Outcomes can be improved when criminal justice personnel work in tandem with treatment providers.

Low motivation to participate in treatment or to end drug abuse should not preclude access to treatment if other criteria are met. Motivational enhancement interventions may be useful in these cases. Examples include motivational interviewing and contingency management techniques, which often provide tangible rewards in exchange for meeting program goals. Legal pressure that encourages abstinence and treatment participation may also help these individuals by improving retention and catalyzing longer treatment stays.

Drug abuse treatment is also effective for offenders who have a history of serious and violent crime, particularly if they receive intensive, targeted services. The economic benefits in avoided crime and costs to crime victims (e.g., medical costs, lost earnings, and loss in quality of life) may be substantial for these high-risk offenders. Treating them requires a high degree of coordination between drug abuse treatment providers and criminal justice personnel to ensure that treatment and criminogenic needs are appropriately addressed.

5.     Is legally mandated treatment effective?

Legal pressure can increase treatment attendance and improve retention.

Often the criminal justice system can apply legal pressure to encourage offenders to participate in drug abuse treatment; or treatment can be mandated, for example, through a drug court or as a condition of pretrial release, probation, or parole. A large percentage of those admitted to drug abuse treatment cite legal pressure as an important reason for seeking treatment. Most studies suggest that outcomes for those who are legally pressured to enter treatment are as good as or better than outcomes for those who entered treatment without legal pressure. Those under legal pressure also tend to have higher attendance rates and to remain in treatment for longer periods, which can also have a positive impact on treatment outcomes.

6.     Are relapse risk factors different in offender populations? How should drug abuse treatment deal with these risk factors?

Often, drug abusing offenders have problems in other areas. Examples include family difficulties, limited social skills, educational and employment problems, mental health disorders, infectious diseases, and other medical problems. Treatment should take these problems into account, because they can increase the risk of drug relapse and criminal recidivism if left unaddressed.

Stress is often a contributing factor to relapse, and offenders who are re-entering society face many challenges and stressors, including reuniting with family members, securing housing, and complying with criminal justice supervision requirements. Even the many daily decisions that most people face can be stressful for those recently released from a highly controlled prison environment.
Returning to environments associated with drug use may trigger cravings and cause a relapse.

Other threats to recovery include a loss of support from family or friends, which incarcerated people may experience. Drug abusers returning to the community may also encounter family, friends, or associates still involved in drugs or crime and be enticed to resume a criminal and drug using lifestyle. Returning to environments or activities associated with prior drug use may trigger strong cravings and cause a relapse. A coordinated approach by treatment and criminal justice staff provides the best way to detect and intervene with these and other threats to recovery. In any case, treatment is needed to provide the skills necessary to avoid or cope with situations that could lead to relapse.

Treatment staff should identify the offender’s unique relapse risk factors and periodically re-assess and modify the treatment plan as needed. Generally, continuing or re-emerging drug use during treatment requires a clinical response—either increasing the “dosage” or level of treatment, or changing the treatment intervention.

7.     What treatment and other health services should be provided to drug abusers involved with the criminal justice system?

One of the goals of treatment planning is to match evidence-based interventions to individual needs at each stage of drug treatment. Over time, various combinations of treatment services may be required. Evidence-based interventions include cognitive-behavioral therapy to help participants learn positive social and coping skills, contingency management approaches to reinforce positive behavioral change, and motivational enhancement to increase treatment engagement and retention. In those addicted to opioid drugs, agonist/partial agonist medications can also help normalize brain function, and antagonist medications can facilitate abstinence. For juvenile offenders, treatments that involve the family and other aspects of the drug abuser’s environment have established efficacy.

Drug abuse treatment plans for incarcerated offenders can anticipate their eventual re-entry into the community by incorporating relevant transition plans and services. Drug abusers often have mental and physical health, family counseling, parenting, educational, and vocational needs, so medical, psychological, and social services are often crucial components of successful treatment. Case management approaches can be used to provide assistance in obtaining drug abuse treatment and community services.

Posted July, 23, 2009

From:  NIDA Information for Medical and Health Professionals

http://www.drugabuse.gov/PODAT_CJ/faqs/faqs1.html#1

  • Share/Save/Bookmark
Comment |

By Lori Whitten, NIDA NOTES Staff Writer

Telephone-based continuing care, in which an addiction counselor supports patient recovery with 15-minute calls once a week, can be as good as or better than face-to-face care at helping most patients maintain abstinence after intensive outpatient treatment (IOP). In a recent NIDA-funded study, the benefits of a telephone support protocol were evident nearly 2 years after the last call for all but the 20 percent of patients with severe addiction problems that did not resolve during IOP.

“Telephone-based continuing care does not require transportation or interfere much with work or childcare responsibilities, and this flexibility may help patients stay engaged in recovery and maintain the gains achieved during initial inpatient or outpatient treatment,” says Dr. James McKay, lead researcher of the study.

Dr. McKay and colleagues at the University of Pennsylvania, the Treatment Research Institute in Philadelphia, and Brandeis University worked with two Philadelphia-area outpatient addiction programs. Patients seeking treatment in these programs received about 9 hours of outpatient group therapy each week for 1 month, on average. The therapy concentrated on overcoming denial of substance abuse, learning about the addiction process and cues to relapse, and beginning self-help participation. Dr. McKay and colleagues recruited patients who “graduated” from therapy—that is, continued in the IOP and achieved abstinence in the last week—to receive 12 weeks of continuing care and followup for 2 years.

The patients, 359 men and women aged 18 to 65, were typical, in terms of demographics and problem severity, of individuals seeking treatment at publicly funded outpatient addiction programs. Half met the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 4th Edition (DSM-IV) criteria for co-occurring cocaine and alcohol dependence, 87 were dependent on cocaine only, and 91 were alcoholic. Thirty percent had met the criteria for a diagnosis of major depression at some time in their lives. When they began treatment, they reported 8 years of cocaine and 18 years of alcohol abuse, on average, and multiple attempts to quit.

Telephone Counseling Helps Outpatient Treatment
Graduates Stay Abstinent
Graph – Months after graduation     Two years after graduating from intensive outpatient treatment, more patients who participated in telephone-based continuing care (TELE) had maintained abstinence during the previous 3 months than those receiving standard group counseling (STND). The percentage of abstinent patients did not differ between TELE and relapse prevention (RP) continuing care.
Graph – Number of High-Risk Characteristics     Throughout the study, patients with four or more characteristics reflecting severe addiction were better able to maintain abstinence if they participated in STND compared with TELE.
Graph – Months after graduation     The percentage of cocaine-positive urine samples did not increase as quickly during the followup for TELE patients as it did for those who participated in RP, with a similar trend for TELE compared with STND.

All patients participated in 12 weeks of continuing care after completing a month of intensive outpatient treatment, and reported outcomes every 3 months during the 2-year followup.
Regular Contact With a Therapist Is Crucial

The investigators randomly assigned each patient to one of three continuing care therapies: a face-to-face therapy, either standard group (STND) or relapse prevention (RP); or telephone-based (TELE) counseling. In STND care, the most common approach to continuing care for addiction, 122 patients attended twice-weekly counseling sessions that emphasized overcoming denial and engaging in mutual and self-help activities. In RP therapy, 135 patients attended an individual session of cognitive-behavioral therapy and then group sessions once a week. In this approach, patients identify situations that prompt substance abuse and work to improve coping responses using structured activities and homework exercises.

In TELE care, 102 patients met with counselors in person the week before beginning the telephone phase to discuss the therapy and receive a workbook with exercises that structured subsequent calls. At a scheduled time each week, they telephoned counselors and talked for 15 to 20 minutes about progress during the previous week, any episodes of substance abuse, participation in self-help and other pro-recovery activities, plans for achieving the next week’s goals, and any concerns. Counselors contacted patients who did not call and discussed in a supportive way their reasons for not doing so. To ease the transition from outpatient to continuing care, therapists offered the TELE patients group counseling once a week for a month. Patients struggling with relapse at that point could continue with group sessions; more than a third (35 percent) exercised this option.

The researchers followed up with patients every 3 months throughout the study and contacted 86 percent 2 years after graduation from IOP. At this point, about two-thirds of TELE patients reported abstinence during the previous 3 months, compared with about half of those who had participated in STND. An analysis of urine samples from the cocaine-addicted patients showed an overall increase in the percentage of cocaine-positive samples during the followup period, but the increase was more rapid among RP participants than TELE participants. The TELE group had higher abstinence rates than STND throughout followup. Patients who participated in TELE maintained the gains of IOP even though they received about half as much therapeutic contact (428 minutes) as those receiving STND or RP (845 and 861 minutes, respectively).

“Continuing care benefits people in recovery in several ways, but regular contact with a therapist is crucial for patients with a chronic condition, and especially helps patients who have relapsed get back into treatment,” says Dr. Dorynne Czechowicz of NIDA’s Division of Clinical Neurosciences, Development and Behavioral Treatments. Although larger studies with more diverse patients are needed, Dr. McKay and his colleagues laid important groundwork, she says.
Face-to-Face Care for Severe Problems

Some patients need more contact with a counselor than telephone-based continuing care affords to maintain recovery. To identify these patients, Dr. McKay and his colleagues examined the link between outcomes and seven patient characteristics: co-occurring addiction to alcohol and cocaine at the beginning of IOP; any alcohol use, any abuse of cocaine, minimal attendance at self-help meetings, below-average social support during IOP; and a lack of commitment to complete abstinence, and low self-efficacy for recovery at the end of IOP.

Patients who demonstrated three or fewer of the characteristics—about 80 percent of the study population—did at least as well with TELE continuing care as with the other two approaches. But the remaining patients, those who met the criteria for co-occurring addiction at the beginning of treatment and did not achieve the main goals of IOP—abstinence from cocaine and alcohol during treatment, commitment to abstinence, and participation in self-help programs—were at high risk for relapse and showed better outcomes with STND continuing care, relative to TELE, during most of the followup. The findings suggest that TELE may be inappropriate for patients with more severe addiction problems until they demonstrate stable abstinence from drugs and alcohol, says Dr. McKay.
Flexible Continuing Care

“Some practitioners are developing flexible arrangements to engage and retain more patients in continuing care,” says Dr. McKay. Flexibility in the practical sense—the ability to call one’s counselor from any location—extends participation in continuing care, not only to busy people, but also to those living in rural areas or who have lost driver’s licenses.

Telephone-based care is one way that a treatment intervention can respond to each patient’s progress during recovery; it gives counselors the flexibility to intensify care if the patient is struggling to maintain abstinence. “Clinicians managing other chronic disorders—for example, hypertension and cancer—are using progress during initial treatment to determine subsequent care. It’s not a new therapeutic approach, but it is novel to addiction treatment,” Dr. McKay says.

Sources

* McKay, J.R.; Lynch, K.G.; Shepard, D.S.; and Pettinati, H.M. The effectiveness of telephone-based continuing care for alcohol and cocaine dependence. Archives of General Psychiatry 62(2):199-207, 2005. [Abstract]
* McKay, J.R., et al. Do patient characteristics and initial progress in treatment moderate the effectiveness of telephone-based continuing care for substance use disorders? Addiction 100(2):216-226, 2005. [Abstract]

By Lori Whitten

Posted July 21, 2009

From

http://www.nida.nih.gov/NIDA_notes/NNvol20N3/Telephone.html

Volume 20, Number 3 (October 2005)

  • Share/Save/Bookmark
Comment |

July 17, 2009

Local news media in Ciudad Juarez, Mexico, estimate that more and more of the nearly 700 people killed so far this year, were people with addictions seeking treatment at local centers, the Washington Post reported June 14.

Some local officials and addiction counselors said that they believed patients in the treatment centers may owe local drug dealers money, work for competing gangs, or have stolen drugs — or that the high rate of unsolved murders in the border town may have contributed.

“Many people sell drugs during the day and sleep at the centers during the night. That’s the problem. Their troubles come home with them,” said Victor Silerio, who runs a treatment center that — unlike most in the vicinity — restricts patients’ access to leave and re-enter the facility.

At least seven treatment centers have closed since receiving threats from local drug gangs, said Silerio.

Local officials said that when about 10,000 soldiers policed Ciudad Juarez for a few months earlier in the year, the number of murders per day decreased.

Posted July 21, 2009

From

http://www.jointogether.org/news/headlines/inthenews/2009/drugs-murder-inundate-border.html

  • Share/Save/Bookmark
Comment |

While each family member is responsible for his or her own recovery and no one can recover for another, the symptoms of addiction and co-addiction each impact upon the relapse potential of the other. Even if the alcoholic/addict is no longer drinking or using and no longer experiencing the alcohol/drug-related symptoms of the disease, the post acute withdrawal symptoms affect and are affected by co-addiction. Both the symptoms of post acute withdrawal and the symptoms of co-addiction are stress sensitive. Stress intensifies the symptoms and the symptoms intensify stress. As a result, the recovering addict and the co-addict can become a stress-generating team that unknowingly and unconsciously complicates each other’s recovery and create a high risk of relapse.
What can family members do to reduce the risk of their own relapse and the risk of relapse in the recovering addict? They can become informed about the addictive disease, recovery, and the symptoms that accompany recovery. They must recognize that the symptoms of post acute withdrawal are sobriety-based symptoms of addiction rather than character defects, emotional disturbances, or mental illness. At the same time they must accept and recognize the symptoms of co-addiction and become involved in Al-Anon and/or personal therapy as they develop plans for their own recovery.
Clinical experience with relapse prevention planning in a variety of treatment programs has indicated that the family can be a powerful ally in preventing relapse in the addict. In 1980, relapse prevention planning was modified to include the involvement of significant others including family members. This significantly increased effectiveness. With further clinical experience, however, other problems became apparent. Many family members refused to participate in relapse prevention planning. Other family members participated in a manner that was counterproductive.

In 1983 relapse prevention planning was expanded to include relapse prevention in both the addicted person and the co-addict. The newly designed relapse prevention planning protocol utilizes the family’s motivation to get the addict sober. As family members become involved in relapse prevention planning, a strong focus is placed upon co-addiction and its role in family relapse. Family members are helped to recognize their own co-addiction and become actively involved in their own treatment. Addiction is presented as a family disease that affects all family members requiring them to get treatment.

All members of an addicted family are prone to return to self-defeating behaviors that can cause them to become out of control. An acute relapse episode can occur with an addict or a co-addict family member. Like addicts who develop serious problems even though they never use alcohol or drugs, the co-addict often becomes dysfunctional even though the addict is sober and working an active recovery program.

It is important to protect the family from the stress that may be generated by the symptoms of post acute withdrawal experiences by the recovering person and to cooperate in plans to protect the recovering person from stress created by symptoms of co-addiction. Remember that none of you became ill overnight. Recovery will, likewise, take place over a long period of time. Develop a plan to prevent personal relapse and support relapse prevention plans for the recovering addict.

Family Relapse Prevention Planning is intended to help prevent acute relapse episodes in the recovering addict, to prevent crisis in the co-addict, to develop a relapse prevention plan for both the addict and co-addict and to develop an early intervention plan to interrupt acute relapse episodes in both the recovering addict and the co-addict. For the addict this involves interrupting problems that are caused both by Post Acute Withdrawal (PAW) Syndrome in the sober addict and by alcohol or drug use in the addict who has returned to drinking or using. For the co-addict this involves interrupting the co-addiction crisis. The family needs to work with a counselor to establish a formal relapse prevention plan that will allow them to support each other’s recovery and to help intervene if the relapse warning symptoms get out of control.

The family relapse prevention planning protocol consists of twelve basic procedures. These are:

1.Stabilization: The first step in relapse prevention planning is to stabilize both the addict and the co-addict. The addict is stabilized through the process of detoxification or treatment of post-acute withdrawal symptoms. The spouse is stabilized by treating the co-addict crisis, through detachment from the addicts crisis, by regaining a reality-based perspective, and the development of some basic personal strengths. This often requires attendance at Al-Anon and professional counseling.

2.Assessment: Prior to developing a relapse prevention plan it is necessary to evaluate the addict, the co-addicts, and the family system.The evaluation should assess the current problems of each family member, their willingness and ability to initiate a personal recovery program, and their willingness to become involved in a program of family recovery.

3.Education about Alcoholism, Co-addiction, and Relapse: Accurate information is the most powerful of all recovery tools. The addict and the family must learn about the disease of addiction, the condition of co-addiction, treatment, and relapse prevention planning. This education is best provided to the family as a unit in multiple family classes. It is helpful if separate group therapy programs accompany the education for each family member. The addict should enter an addict group, the adult co-addict should enter a spouse’s group, and the co-addict children should enter a children’s group. It is in these group treatment sessions that individual recovery of all family members is initiated.

4.Warning Sign Identification: Both the addict and the co-addict need to identify the personal warning signs that indicate that they are becoming dysfunctional. Again, this is best done in a group setting. The addict is better able to identify relapse-warning signs when working with other addicts. Co-addicts are best able to initially identify relapse-warning signs when working with other co-addicts. Relapse warning sign lists for addiction and co-addiction are useful guides for personal warning sign identification.

5.Family Validation of Warning Signs: After each family member has developed a personal list of warning signs and reviewed these in his or her group, a series of family sessions is scheduled. During these sessions all family members present their personal lists of warning signs and ask for feedback. Other family members discuss the warning signs, help assess fi they are specific and observable. New warning signs may be added to the list based upon the feedback of others. Since each family member has a list of warning signs that precede acute relapse episodes there is no identified patient. All participate from a position of equality. They essentially say to each other, “We have all been equally affected, in various ways, by addictive disease.”

6.The Family Relapse Prevention Plan: Family members discuss each of their warning signs, how the family has dealt with those warning signs in the past, and what strategies could be effectively used in the future. Future situations in which the warning signs are likely to be encountered are identified. Strategies for more effective management of the warning signs for each family member are discussed. During this process a great deal of role playing and problem solving occurs. Problems are often identified that are taken back to the separate therapy groups for further work.

7.Inventory Training: All member of the family receive training in how to complete a morning planning inventory and an evening review inventory. These focus heavily upon time structuring, realistic goal setting, and problem solving.

8.Communication Training: The family members must learn to communicate effectively in order for a Relapse Prevention Plan to work. The family is trained in the process of giving and receiving feedback in a constructive and caring manner.

9.Review of the Recovery Program: All family members will report to the family the recovery program that they have established for themselves. This focus here is, “How will you and I know that I am doing well in my recovery?” All are invited to express their recovery needs and point out their progress in treatment.

10.Denial Interruption Plan: Both addiction and co-addiction are diseases of denial. Most of the denial is unconscious. Neither the addict nor the co-addict realizes that they are in denial when it is happening. It is important to take the reality of denial into account early. Each family member should be asked the question, “What are other people in your family supposed to do if they give you feedback about concrete warning signs and you deny it, ignore the feedback, or become angry and upset?” Each family member should recommend specific plans for dealing with their own denial. This open discussion sets the stage for intervention should denial become a problem in the future.

11.The Relapse Early Intervention Plan: Addiction and co-addiction are prone to relapse. Relapse means becoming dysfunctional in recovery. For the recovering addict relapse may ultimately lead to alcohol and drug use, or it may simply mean that the person becomes so depressed, anxious, angry, or upset that he is dysfunctional in sobriety. For the co-addict relapse means the return to a state of co-addict crisis that interferes with normal functioning. Once family members enter an acute relapse episode they are out of control of their thoughts, emotions, judgements, and behavior. They often need the direct help of other family members to interrupt the crisis. Many times they resist this help. They act as if they do not want help even though they desperately need it. The family is instructed in the process of intervention. Intervention is a method of helping people who refuse to be helped. This intervention training has resulted in a radical decrease in the duration and severity of relapse episodes in family members.

12.Follow-up and Reinforcement: Addiction and co-addiction are life-long conditions. The symptoms can go into remission but they never totally disappear. They rest quietly, waiting for a lapse in the recovery program to become active again. It is important that the family maintain an ongoing recovery program including AA/NA, Al-Anon, and periodic relapse prevention checkups with a professional addiction counselor.

This Article is exerpted from “Staying Sober” By: Terence T. Gorski

Posted July16, 2009

From

http://www.recoverycrossroads.com/community/showthread.php?t=3912
Copies of the book can be obtained from CENAPS® Corp.
Copyright© 2000, All Rights Reserved to Author

  • Share/Save/Bookmark
Comment |

Family & The Relapse Syndrome


In many cases the addict is the first family member to seek treatment. Other family members become involved in order to help the alcoholic get sober. Many family members refuse to consider the fact that they also have a problem that requires specialized treatment. These family members tend to deny their role in their addicted family and scapegoat personal and family problems upon the addicted person. They develop unrealistic expectations of how family life will improve with their loved one getting abstinent. When these expectations are not met, they blame the addict for the failure, even though he or she may be successfully following a recovery program. Their attitudes and behaviors can become such complicating factors in the addict’s recovery that they can contribute to the process of relapse and even “set-up” the addict’s next “episode of use.”

On the other hand family members can be powerful allies in helping the addict prevent fully engaging the relapse process. Relapse Prevention Planning utilizes the family’s motivation to get the addict sober. As family members become involved in relapse prevention planning, a strong focus is placed upon co-addiction and its role in the family relapse process. Family members are helped to recognize their own co-addiction and become actively involved in their own treatment. Addiction is a family disease that affects all family members, requiring everyone to get involved in treatment. The addict needs treatment for addiction. Other family members need treatment for co-addiction.
The term “co-addiction” is sometimes used to refer only to the spouse of an addict and other terms are used to refer to other family members. We are using the term “co-addict” to refer to ANYONE WHOSE LIFE HAS BECOME UNMANAGEABLE AS A RESULT OF LIVING IN A COMMITTED RELATIONSHIP WITH AN ADDICTED PERSON.

Co-addiction is a definable syndrome that is chronic and follows a predictable progression. When persons in a committed relationship with an addicted person attempt to control drinking, drug use, or addictive behavior (over which they are powerless), they lose control over their own behavior (over which they can have power) and their lives become unmanageable.

When you try to control
What you are powerless over
You lose control
Over what you can manage.

The person suffering from co-addiction develops physical, psychological, and social symptoms as a result of attempting to adapt to and compensate for the debilitating effects of the stress of living with someone who is addicted. As the co-addiction progresses, the stress-related symptoms become habitual. The symptoms also become self-reinforcing; that is, the presence of one symptom of co-addiction will automatically trigger other co-addiction symptoms. The co-addiction eventually becomes independent of the addiction that originally caused it. The symptoms of co-addiction will continue even if the addicted person in the family becomes sober or joins AA/NA, or the co-addict ends the relationship.

The condition of co-addiction manifests itself in three stages of progression.

Early Stage: Normal Problem Solving and Attempts to Adjust
The normal reaction within any family to pain, to crisis, and to the dysfunction of one member of the family is to do what they can to reduce the pain, ease the crisis, and to assist the dysfunctional member however possible in order to protect the family. These responses do not make things better when the problem is addiction, because these measures deprive the addicted person of the painful learning experiences that bring an awareness that his/her addiction is creating problems. At this stage, co-addiction is simply a reaction to the symptoms of addictive disease. It is a normal response to an abnormal situation.

Middle Stage: Habitual Self-Defeating Responses
When the culturally prescribed responses to stress and crisis do no bring relief from the pain created by the addiction in the family, the family members TRY HARDER. They do the same things, only more often, more intensely, mores desperately. They try to be more supportive, more helpful, more protective. They take on the responsibilities of the addicted person, not realizing that this causes the addict to become more irresponsible.
Things get worse instead of better and the sense of failure intensifies the response. Family members experience frustration, anxiety, and guilt. There is growing self-blame, lowering of self-concept, and self-defeating behaviors. They become isolated. They focus on the addict’s addictive behavior and their attempt to control it. They have little time to focus on anything else. As a result they often lose touch with the normal world outside of their family.

Chronic Stage: Family Collapse and Stress Degeneration
The continued habitual response to addiction in the family results in specific repetitive, circular patterns of self-defeating behavior. These behavior patterns are independent and self-reinforcing and will persist even in the absence of the symptoms of addictive disease.
The things the family members have done in a sincere effort to help have failed. The resulting despair and guilt bring about confusion and chaos and the inability to interrupt dysfunctional behavior even when they are aware that what they are doing is not helping. The thinking and behavior of the co-addict is OUT OF CONTROL, and these thinking and behavior patterns will continue independent of the addiction.
Co-addict degeneration is bio-psycho-social. The ineffective attempts to control drinking and drugging behavior elevate chronic stress to the point of producing stress-related physical illnesses such as migraine headaches, ulcers, and hypertension. This chronic stress may also result in a nervous breakdown or other emotional illnesses. Out-of-control behavior itself is an addiction-centered lifestyle that pervades all life activity, even that which seems unrelated to the addiction. Social degeneration occurs as the addiction focus interferes with relationships and social activity. Spiritual degeneration results, as the focus on the problem becomes so pervasive that there is no interest in anything beyond it, particularly concerns and need related to a higher meaning of life.
Recovery from co-addiction means learning to accept and detach from the symptoms of addiction. It means learning to manage and control the symptoms of co-addiction. It means learning to focus on personal needs and personal growth, learning to respect and like oneself. It means learning to choose appropriate behavior. It means learning to be in control of one’s own life.
Because it is a chronic condition, co-addiction, like addiction, is subject to relapse. But a condition of co-addict relapse may be more difficult to identify. Without an ongoing recovery program and proper care of oneself, old feelings and behaviors thought to be under control may surface and become out of control. Life again becomes unmanageable; the co-addict is in relapse mode.

RELAPSE WARNING SIGNS FOR CO-ADDICTION
From the observation of counselors who have worked with recovering family members, relapse warning signs for the co-addicted significant other have emerged. The following list has been compiled from these observations.

1.Situational Loss of Daily Structure. The family member’s daily routine is interrupted by a temporary situation such as illness, the children’s schedule, the holidays, vacation, etc. After the event or illness, the significant other does not return to all of the activities of his or her recovery program.

2.Lack of Personal Care. The significant other becomes careless about personal appearance and may stop doing and enjoying small things that are “just for own personal enjoyment.” The person returns to taking care of others first and self second or third.

3.Inability to Effectively Set and Maintain Limits. The significant other begins to experience behavioral problems with the children or roommates. Limits that are being set tend to be too lenient or too rigid and result in more discipline problems.

4.Loss of Constructive Planning. The significant other begins to feel confused and overwhelmed by personal responsibilities. Instead of deciding what is most important and doing that, he or she begins to react by doing the first thing that presents itself, while more important jobs go undone.

5.Indecision. The significant other becomes more and more unable to make decisions related to daily life.

6.Compulsive Behavior. The significant other experiences episodes during which he or she feels driven to do more. Whatever has already been done does not seem to be enough.

7.Fatigue or Lack of Rest. He or she becomes unable to sleep the number of hours necessary to feel rested. When sleep does occur, it is fitful.

8.Return of Unreasonable Resentments. The significant other finds himself or herself mentally reviewing persons or events that have hurt, angered, or been generally upsetting. As these are reviewed, the significant other relives the old emotions and feels resentments about them.

9.Return of the Tendency to Control People, Situations, and Things. As the co-addicted significant other feels less control over life, he or she begins openly to try to control and manipulate other people or situations. The addicted person may be the prime target, but does not necessarily have to be.

10.Defensiveness. The co-addicted person may not totally approve of some of his or her own actions, but when challenged about them will openly justify the actions in a sharp or angry way.

11.Self-Pity. The co-addict begins to dwell on problems from the present or the past and in turn begins to magnify them. The significant other person may ask, “Why does everything always happen to me?”

12.Overspending/Worrying about Money. The significant other may be very concerned about the family finances, yet impulsively spends money in order to “feel better.” He or she becomes convinced that what was purchased was deserved, but ends up feeling guilty and even more trapped.

13.Eating Disorder. The significant other “loses” his or her appetite to the point that even favorite foods are not appealing. Or the significant other may begin to overeat, regardless of appetite, in order to feel better. The overeating satisfies for only a very short time, or not at all.

14.Scapegoating. There is an increasing tendency to place the blame on other people, places, and things. The co-addict looks outside of self for the reasons why he or she is feeling bad.

15.Return of Fear and General Anxiety. The significant other begins to experience periods of time when he or she is nervous. Situations that previously did not cause fear or anxiety are now causing those emotions. The significant other may not even know the source of the nervousness.

16.Loss of Belief in a Higher Power. The significant other begins to lose belief in a higher power, whatever it may be. There is a tendency to rely more on self-alone, or to turn to the addict for strength and the solutions.

17.Attendance at Al-Anon Becomes Sporadic. The significant other changes the pattern of Al-Anon meeting attendance. He or she may go to fewer meetings, thinking there isn’t time, the meetings aren’t helping, or are not needed.

18.Mind Racing. The significant other feels as though he or she is on a treadmill that is going too fast. In spite of attempts to slow down, the mind continues to race with the many things that are undone or the problems that are unsolved.

19.Inability to Construct a Logical Chain of Thought. The significant other tries to solve problems and gets stuck on something that would normally be simple. It seems that his or her mind does not work anymore, that it is impossible to figure out the world. As a result, he or she feels powerless and frustrated with life.

20.Confusion. The significant other knows they are feeling out-of-sorts, but don’t know what is actually wrong.

21.Sleep Disturbance. Sleeplessness or fitful nights become more regular. The more the person tries to sleep, the less he or she is able to. Sleep may come, but it is not restful. The significant other looks tired in the morning instead of rested.

22.Artificial Emotion. The co-addict significant other begins to exhibit feelings without a conscious knowledge of why. He or she may become emotional for no reason at all.

23.Behavioral Loss of Control. The co-addict begins to lose control of his or her temper especially around the addict and/or the children or roommates. Loss of behavioral control is exhibited in such ways as over-punishing the children, hitting and yelling at the addict, or throwing things and tantrums.

24.Uncontrollable Mood Swings. Changes in the co-addict’s moods happen without any warning. The shifts are dramatic. He or she no longer feels somewhat down or somewhat happy, but instead goes from feeling extremely happy to extremely low.

25.Failure to Maintain Interpersonal (Informal) Support Systems. The co-addict stops reaching out to friends and family. This may happen very gradually. He or she turns down invitations for coffee, misses’ family gatherings, and no longer makes or returns phone calls.

26.Feelings of Loneliness and Isolation. The co-addict begins to spend more time alone. He or she usually rationalizes this behavior – too busy, the children, school, job, etc. Instead of dealing with the loneliness, the co-addict becomes more compulsive and impulsive. The isolation may be justified by convincing him or herself that no one understands or really cares.

27.Tunnel Vision. No matter what the issue or situation might be, the co-addict focuses in on his or her opinion or decision and is unable to see other points of view. He or she may become close-minded.

28.Return of Periods of Free Floating Anxiety and/or Panic Attacks. The co-addict may begin to re-experience, or experience for the first time, waves of anxiety that seem to occur for no specific reason. He or she may feel afraid and not know why. These uncontrollable feelings may snowballto the point that he or she is living in fear of fear.

29.Health Problems. Physical problems begin to occur such as headaches, migraines, stomach aches, chest pains, rashes, or allergies.

30.Use of Medication or Alcohol as a Means to Cope. Desperate to gain some kind of relief from the physical and/or emotional pain, the co-addict may begin to drink, use drugs, or take prescription medications. The alcohol or drug use provides temporary relief from the growing problems.

31.Total Abandonment of Support Meetings and Therapy Sessions. Due to a variety of reasons (belief that he or she no longer needs the meetings, immobilizing fear, resentment, etc.), the co-addict completely stops going to support meetings or to therapy or both.

32.Inability to change self-defeating behaviors. While there is recognition by the co-addict that what is being done is not good for himself or herself, there is still the compulsion to continue the behavior in spite of that knowledge.

33.Development of an “I Don’t Care” Attitude. It is easier to believe that “I don’t care” than it is to believe that “I am out of control.” In order to defend self-esteem, the co-addict rationalizes, “I don’t care.” As a result, a shift in value system occurs. Things that were once important now seem to be ignored.

34.Complete Loss of Daily Structure. The co-addict loses the belief that an orderly life is possible. He or she begins missing (forgetting) appointments or meetings, is unable to have scheduled meals, to go to bed or get up on time. The co-addict is unable to perform simple acts of daily function.

35.Despair and Suicidal Ideation. The co-addict begins to believe that the situation is hopeless. He or she feels that options are reduced to two or three choices: going insane, committing suicide, or numbing out with medication, and/or alcohol, drugs or maladaptive, perhaps compulsive behavior.

36.Major Physical Collapse. The physical symptoms become so severe that medical attention is required. These can be any of a number of symptoms that become so severe that they render the co-addict dysfunctional (e.g., an ulcer, migraines, heart pains, or heart palpitations).

37.Major Emotional Collapse. Having seemingly tried everything to cope, the co-addict can conceive no way to deal with his or her unmanageable life. At this point the co-addict may be so depressed, hostile, or anxious that he or she is completely out of control.

  • Share/Save/Bookmark
Comment |

NIDAMED Helps Doctors Provide the Best in Medical Care

Washington, D.C. – The National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA), part of the National Institutes of Health, today unveiled its first comprehensive Physicians’ Outreach Initiative, NIDAMED, which gives medical professionals tools and resources to screen their patients for tobacco, alcohol, illicit, and nonmedical prescription drug use. The NIDAMED resources include an online screening tool, a companion quick reference guide, and a comprehensive resource guide for clinicians. The initiative stresses the importance of the patient-doctor relationship in identifying unhealthy behaviors before they evolve into life threatening conditions.

The NIDAMED tools – targeting primary care clinicians – were launched at a news conference at the National Press Club that featured NIDA Director Dr. Nora D. Volkow, Acting Director of the Office of National Drug Control Policy Ed Jurith, J.D., Sen. Carl Levin of Michigan, Acting Surgeon General Steven K. Galson, M.D., and representatives from the World Health Organization, the American Medical Association, and other organizations committed to helping patients who struggle with drug-related medical issues.

“Many patients do not discuss their drug use with their physicians, and do not receive treatment even when their drug abuse escalates,” said Dr. Volkow. “NIDAMED enables physicians to be the first line of defense against substance abuse and addiction and to increase awareness of the impact of substance use on a patient’s overall health.”

In 2007, an estimated 19.9 million Americans aged 12 or older (around 8 percent of the population) were current (past month) users of illegal drugs – nearly 1 in 5 of those 18 to 25 years old – and many more are current tobacco or binge alcohol users. The consequences of this drug use can be far-reaching – playing a role in the cause and progression of many medical disorders, including addiction. Yet only a fraction of people who need addiction treatment receive it.

“I have long worked with NIDA to increase access to effective treatment in the battle against addiction,” said Sen. Levin. “By encouraging physicians to consult with, screen and refer their patients who are in need of treatment, the NIDAMED initiative is a critical step towards achieving that goal. We must find ways to disseminate these important clinical tools, that can aid in mending lives and families, once torn asunder due to the scourge of addiction.”

The NIDAMED tools were developed because doctors are in a unique position to discuss drug-taking behaviors with their patients before they lead to serious medical problems. Research shows that screening, brief intervention, and referral to treatment by clinicians in general medical settings, can promote significant reductions in alcohol and tobacco use.

A growing body of literature also suggests potential reductions in illegal and nonmedical prescription drug use. Yet many primary care physicians express concern that they do not have the experience or diagnostic tools to identify drug use in their patients.

“Not only will these tools potentially help clinicians identify the use of drugs such as cocaine and heroin, they can also identify patients who are misusing prescription medications,” said Dr. Galson, a rear admiral in the U.S. Public Health Service. “In 2007, 16.3 million Americans age 12 and older had taken a prescription pain reliever, tranquilizer, stimulant, or sedative for nonmedical purposes at least once in the past year – behaviors that can lead to serious health problems, including addiction.”

“My doctor literally saved my life,” said Mink Rockmoore, a former Boston-area radio announcer who is a recovering heroin addict. “He worked hard to build my trust; he listened to my fears in a non-judgmental way; and he arranged for me to get both detox and treatment.”

NIDAMED’s screening tool was adapted from the Alcohol, Smoking and Substance Involvement Screening Test (ASSIST), developed, validated, and published by the World Health Organization (WHO) as an effective screening tool for identifying substance use. NIDA-modified ASSIST tools are specifically designed to fit into today’s busy clinical practices. Doctors can access the new tools at www.drugabuse.gov by clicking on the NIDAMED icon.

The online screening tool is an interactive Web site that guides clinicians through a short series of questions and, based on the patient’s responses, generates a substance involvement score that suggests the level of intervention needed. A physician can use this interactive tool during routine office visits. NIDAMED also includes an online resource guide with detailed instructions on how to implement the screening tool, discuss screening results, offer a brief intervention and make necessary referrals. In addition, a quick reference guide has been developed to serve as a prompt to medical professionals to initiate screening. This abbreviated guide provides a snapshot of the NIDA-modified ASSIST, briefly summarizing the questions, scoring and next steps.

Also included in the NIDAMED physician toolkit is a patient-tested postcard that encourages patients to “Tell Your Doctors About All the Drugs You Use” and offers Web links for further information. Doctors are encouraged to put the cards in their waiting rooms to be read by patients before their appointments.

NIDAMED was unveiled in conjunction with NIDA’s recently updated Principles of Drug Abuse Treatment: A Research Based Guide. This publication summarizes the 13 evidence-based principles of effective treatment, answers common questions, and describes types of treatment, providing examples of scientifically based and tested treatment components. The principles are based on three decades of scientific research and clinical practice that have yielded a variety of effective approaches to drug addiction treatment.

More information on all NIDAMED products and the Principles of Drug Abuse Treatment: A Research Based Guide can be found at www.drugabuse.gov/nidamed.



The National Institute on Drug Abuse is a component of the National Institutes of Health, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. NIDA supports most of the world’s research on the health aspects of drug abuse and addiction. The Institute carries out a large variety of programs to inform policy and improve practice. Fact sheets on the health effects of drugs of abuse and information on NIDA research and other activities can be found on the NIDA home page at www.drugabuse.gov. To order publications in English or Spanish, call NIDA’s new DrugPubs research dissemination center at 1-877-NIDA-NIH or 240-645-0228 (TDD) or fax or email requests to 240-645-0227 or drugpubs@nida.nih.gov.

The National Institutes of Health (NIH) – The Nation’s Medical Research Agency – includes 27 Institutes and Centers and is a component of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. It is the primary Federal agency for conducting and supporting basic, clinical and translational medical research, and it investigates the causes, treatments, and cures for both common and rare diseases. For more information about NIH and its programs, visit www.nih.gov.


For more information about any item in this Release Contact:

Download PDF [104 KB]


NIDA Home | Site Map | Search | FAQs | Accessibility | Privacy | FOIA (NIH) | Employment | Print Version


National Institutes of Health logo_Department of Health and Human Services Logo The National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA) is part of the National Institutes of Health (NIH) , a component of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Questions? See our Contact Information. Last updated on Wednesday, May 13, 2009. The U.S. government's official web portal
  • Share/Save/Bookmark
Comment |

NIDA InfoFacts: Treatment Statistics

According to the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration’s (SAMHSA’s) National Survey on Drug Use and Health in 2006, 23.6 million persons aged 12 or older needed treatment for an illicit drug or alcohol abuse problem (9.6 percent of the persons aged 12 or older). Of these, only 2.5 million—10.8 percent of those who needed treatment—received it at a specialty facility.

SAMHSA also reports characteristics of admissions and discharges from substance abuse treatment facilities in their Treatment Episode Data Set (TEDS). According to TEDS, in 2006 there were nearly 1.8 million admissions for treatment of alcohol and drug abuse to facilities that report to State administrative data systems.1,2 Most admissions (40 percent) were for alcohol treatment. Heroin and other opiates accounted for the largest percentage of drug-related admissions (18 percent), followed by marijuana (16 percent).

By Drug: Admissions to Publicly Funded
Substance Abuse Treatment Programs, 2006


Percentage
of Admissions*
Substance
or Drug
21.9 Alcohol
17.8 Alcohol + another drug
16.1 Marijuana
13.7 Heroin
9.9 Smoked cocaine (crack)
8.7 Stimulants
4.2 Opiates (not heroin) **
4.0 Other-than-smoked cocaine (e.g., cocaine powder)
0.4 Tranquilizers
0.2 PCP
0.2 Sedatives
0.1 Hallucinogens
0.1 Inhalants
0.5 Other drugs
2.4 None reported

About 59 percent of admissions were White, 21 percent were African-American, and 14 percent were Hispanic or Latino. Another 2.3 percent were Alaska Native or American Indian and 1 percent were Asian/Pacific Islander. The remaining 2 percent fell into the “Other” category.

By Race: Admissions to Publicly Funded
Substance Abuse Treatment Programs, 2006

Percentage
of Admissions
Race/Ethinicity
59.4 White
21.3 African-American
14.0 Hispanic Origin
2.3 American Indian or Alaska Native
1.0 Asian/Pacific Islander
2.0 Other

The majority of patients entering treatment were 20–24 years old (14.4 percent), followed by those 25 to 29 (14 percent) and 40 to 44 (13.9 percent).

By Age Group: Admissions to Publicly Funded
Substance Abuse Treatment Programs, 2006


Percentage
of Admissions
Age Group
14.4 20 – 24
14.0 25 – 29
13.9 40 – 44
13.1 35 – 39
11.3 30 – 34
11.1 45 – 49
10.4 15 – 19
9.0 50 – 59
1.3 younger than 15
1.0 60 – 64
0.6 65 or older

For other information on treatment trends, visit the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, Office of Applied Studies Web site at www.oas.samhsa.gov or visit the National Clearinghouse for Alcohol and Drug Information at www.health.org.

For information on treatment research findings, visit the NIDA web site at www.nida.nih.gov/DrugPages/Treatment.html.



1 Includes facilities that are licensed or certified by the State substance abuse agency to provide substance abuse treatment. In general, facilities that report data are those that receive State alcohol and/or drug agency funds for the provision of alcohol and/or drug treatment services.

2 Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, Office of Applied Studies. Treatment Episode Data Set (TEDS). Highlights – 2006. National Admissions to Substance Abuse Treatment Services, DASIS Series: S-40, DHHS Publication No. (SMA) 08-4313, Rockville, MD.


* May add up to more than 100 percent because of rounding.

** These drugs include codeine, hydrocodone, hydromorphone, meperidine, morphine, opium, oxycodone, pentazocine, propoxyphene, tramadol, and any other drug with morphine-like effects. Non-prescription use of methadone is not included.

Revised 6/08 This page has been accessed 1207581times since 11/5/99.

Recommended Reading

Other NIDA Web Sites


NIDA Home | Site Map | Search | FAQs | Accessibility | Privacy | FOIA (NIH) | Employment | Print Version


National Institutes of Health logo_Department of Health and Human Services Logo The National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA) is part of the National Institutes of Health (NIH) , a component of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Questions? See our Contact Information. Last updated on Wednesday, May 6, 2009. The U.S. government's official web portal
  • Share/Save/Bookmark
Comment |

New Insights Into Relapse

Director’s Column
Vol. 17, No. 3 (October 2002)



By Glen R. Hanson, Ph.D., D.D.S., NIDA Acting Director

NIDA Acting Director, Glen R. Hanson

Drug addiction is a chronic relapsing disorder. As when patients in treatment for hypertension or asthma temporarily lose control, relapse to drug abuse does not mean treatment does not work, or the patient is not making an effort, or he or she will never have a productive life with long-term freedom from disease. Nevertheless, relapse is perhaps the most frustrating and demoralizing feature of drug addiction, for those who have it and those who would help them.

Clinical observation and research tell us that three types of stimulus can trigger intense drug craving, leading to renewed abuse:

  • Priming: “Just one” exposure to the formerly abused substance — be it a cigarette, a drink, or an illegal drug — can precipitate rapid resumption of abuse at previously established levels or greater.
  • Environmental cues (people, places, or things associated with past drug use): One vivid illustration of the power of such cues is a negative one: A small percentage of American service personnel became addicted to heroin while overseas during the Vietnam War. When they were removed from that environment, the great majority, after detoxification, reported no further problems with opiates.
  • Stress: Both acute and chronic stress can contribute to the establishment, maintenance, and resumption of drug abuse. Patients and treatment providers alike point to stress as the most common cause of relapse. The impact of stress recently was highlighted when researchers documented increased rates of smoking and alcohol consumption by New Yorkers after the September 11, 2001, attacks.

Our knowledge of relapse is incorporated in science-based drug treatments. In cognitive-behavioral therapy, for example, patients learn to confront the consequences of their drug use, recognize the environmental cues and potentially stressful situations that trigger strong drug cravings, and develop strategies to steer clear or respond without relapsing. Recent research has shown that patients who benefit from cognitive-behavioral therapy may even show further improvement after treatment has ended and with passing time.

New research findings appear to shed light on one of the deepest mysteries involving drug relapse: What accounts for the extraordinary persistence of drug cravings?

Science-based medical treatments buffer patients against the craving that leads to relapse. Methadone and other opioid agonist agents block the euphoric effects of opioids and stabilize brain processes whose disruption is linked to craving. Naltrexone, an opioid antagonist, blocks opioid-induced euphoria and counters opioid craving with an aversive effect. Disulfiram (Antabuse) is used to treat alcohol abuse, and it is currently being tested to determine whether it also can offset cocaine craving. Antianxiety agents are prescribed to moderate stress.

New research findings appear to shed light on one of the deepest mysteries involving drug relapse: We know that former abusers of addictive drugs remain vulnerable to powerful drug cravings for months or years after establishing abstinence. What accounts for the extraordinary persistence of drug cravings?

Scientists have known for some time that addictive drugs hyperactivate key brain circuits that provide pleasure and are closely linked to motivation and memory. Research also has shown that drugs change brain cells in these circuits in numerous ways, some of which might be linked to craving. However, these changes generally last only as long as a drug is actually present, or a little longer. To explain how craving can recur after long abstinence, researchers need to show that the drugs change the cells in ways that change back slowly or not at all.

The natural place to look for long-lasting drug-induced alterations is in the same circuits that produce short-term effects. Key cells in these circuits are located in an area called the midbrain; they manufacture a chemical called dopamine and release it in a nearby area called the nucleus accumbens, where it produces powerful mood effects.

During the past 3 years, research teams at Yale and Texas Southwestern Universities demonstrated that repeated exposure to cocaine produces alterations in gene activity in the nucleus accumbens that can persist for weeks. Last year, researchers at the University of Michigan showed that cocaine self-administration changes the actual shape of these neurons — a change that is long-lasting or even permanent. Moreover, its specific nature — a proliferation of signal receptors — might be expected to contribute to craving by heightening the cells’ general reactivity.

Further research will tell whether these changes are critically important to long-term vulnerability to drug craving, or whether they play a relatively minor role. The studies were conducted with laboratory animals and cocaine, and we need to find out whether they also apply in humans and with other drugs. Although uncertainties remain, these new results provide powerful confirmation of the neurobiological and chronic nature of drug addiction, evidenced at still more fundamental levels of brain cell operation. The studies also demonstrate the power of new neuroscience tools to elucidate the underlying causes of drug abuse. Ultimately, we need approaches this powerful to gain the understanding necessary to solve the mysteries of craving and generate treatments that help all patients move beyond the reach of relapse.

Volume 17, Number 3 (October 2002)

NIDA Notes graphic

Search NIDA Notes

About NIDA Notes

Free Subscription
to NIDA Notes

Volumes:

For additional information about NIDA Notes, send e-mail to Information@nida.nih.gov


NIDA Home | Site Map | Search | FAQs | Accessibility | Privacy | FOIA (NIH) | Employment | Print Version


National Institutes of Health logo_Department of Health and Human Services Logo The National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA) is part of the National Institutes of Health (NIH) , a component of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Questions? See our Contact Information. Last updated on Monday, June 4, 2007. The U.S. government's official web portal
  • Share/Save/Bookmark
Comment |

Pursuing New Medications

NIDA Home > Publications > NIDA Notes > Vol. 19, No. 1 > Special Supplement
Developing Effective Addiction Treatments
Special Supplement
Vol. 19, No. 1 (April 2004)


Researcher

In recent years, people from all walks of life have sought treatment for addiction to powerful narcotic pain-relieving medications, such as OxyContin and Vicodin, that they have abused outside of a medical regimen. These medications share many properties with heroin, which currently ensnares more than a million people nationwide in the web of addiction. Those who become addicted to legal painkillers or street opiates now have a new medication to help them reclaim their lives. Approved by FDA in 2002, buprenorphine joins two other approved opiate treatment medications–methadone, used in long-term treatment, and the NIDA-developed opiate blocker naltrexone, used to help patients remain drug-free after they have stopped using opiates.

Buprenorphine is the first medication for opiate addiction treatment that can be prescribed by private physicians in offices and clinics. Use of this medication in mainstream medicine should help reduce the stigma still associated with drug abuse treatment, while encouraging more patients to seek treatment for addiction to heroin and other opiates. NIDA also is pursuing medications for cocaine and methamphetamine abuse and addiction, for which no medications are yet available. To fill this void, the Institute is applying the same scientific medications development methodologies that put effective opiate treatment medications into the hands of clinicians and their patients.

Researcher

On one research track, clinical researchers are screening medications previously approved to treat other disorders. In these small-scale trials, several agents have appeared to weaken the addictive cycle of drug-craving, drug-seeking, and drug-taking. Among them are amantadine (currently used for Parkinson’s disease), disulfiram (Antabuse), baclofen (an antispasticity agent), tiagabine and topiramate (antiepileptics), and modafinil (used in narcolepsy). Disulfiram and naltrexone, both effective in treating alcoholism, may fill a critical need for medications that can help cocaine-abusing individuals who also abuse alcohol. Propranolol, a medication used to lower blood pressure, may help substance abuse patients stay the course during the critical early days of treatment, by alleviating their unpleasant withdrawal symptoms. Researchers are now conducting larger, longer studies to confirm these encouraging results. Because the medications work by a variety of different mechanisms, some of which may complement each other, researchers also will examine whether they may be more effective in combination than alone. Some may also work optimally with specific behavioral therapies.

On another track, researchers in NIDA’s cocaine and methamphetamine treatment discovery programs are working to identify new chemical compounds whose pharmacological actions modulate the effects of psychostimulants on the brain and behavior. They already have shown that one compound that blocks a brain cannabinoid receptor can prevent animals from reinitiating cocaine use after exposure to drug-related cues and stressful events. Other compounds that curb the drug-induced flooding of the brain’s reward pathways with dopamine may be able to treat addiction to all abused drugs. Still other compounds counter psychostimulants’ ability to activate receptor molecules, nerve networks, and neurochemical mechanisms to create pleasure and craving.

NIDA Art CardNIDA uses art cards, displayed in restaurants and other public places, to warn smokers that nicotine, like other drugs, can be addictive.

Another NIDA initiative is focusing on new medications for treating nicotine addiction. Launched in the 1970s, NIDA’s basic research in this area provided the scientific basis for nicotine replacement therapies, such as the transdermal patch, that today help many patients overcome nicotine dependence. The Institute is now pursuing several approaches to medications that could intercept and neutralize nicotine, cocaine, and methamphetamine in the bloodstream before they can act in the brain. In one approach, vaccines containing the abused substance are linked with a larger carrier molecule and stimulate the body to produce antibodies to the drug. Another approach enhances the rate at which the body’s enzymes break down the drug molecules into inactive byproducts.

Identifying Effective Behavioral Therapies

Therapies that help drug abuse patients overcome erroneous thought patterns and behaviors that reinforce their abuse and addiction are critical in treating drug abuse and preventing its harmful consequences. Cognitive-behavioral therapies can stand alone as front-line interventions that help many patients stop using drugs and remain drug-free. And they can increase the effectiveness of treatment medications by boosting patients’ motivation to remain in treatment, take their medication as scheduled, and learn strategies to avoid relapse and lead drug-free lives. NIDA-supported research has demonstrated that combining medications, as available, with behavioral treatments is the best way to enhance success for most patients.

Man sitting on a couch

Over the last decade, NIDA’s Behavioral Therapies Development Program established a three-stage process to develop and introduce new behavioral approaches into clinical practice, similar to that required by the Food and Drug Administration to establish the safety and efficacy of medications. Building on research that suggests avenues for developing new therapies or refining existing ones, pilot studies explore the potential of each new or refined treatment. Those showing promise are then tested in research settings in small- and large-scale clinical trials. Finally, clinical trials can be done in community settings for those therapies that demonstrate therapeutic efficacy.

NIDA behavioral therapy researchers have designed several cognitive-behavioral therapies to help methamphetamine abusers. One innovative therapy gives patients a voucher each time they submit a drug-free urine sample. Vouchers may be exchanged for goods or services that provide pleasurable, legal alternatives to drug use or, as in methadone treatment programs, for special privileges, like reducing the number of required visits to a treatment clinic. Studies show that providing vouchers for drug-free urine tests can help patients stop cocaine and methamphetamine use and remain abstinent for extended periods. Variations of voucher-based therapies that use lower cost vouchers or involve family and other community resources in treatment can be matched to the resources of treatment programs and needs of cocaine-addicted individuals.

Ethnic FamilyFamily therapies tailored to the ethnicity or race of substance-abusing teens have proven successful.

In the last 10 years, behavioral treatments have demonstrated their potency in improving the health of diverse individuals with many types of drug abuse and other mental disorders. Proven treatments include individual cognitive-behavioral therapy, family therapies for Hispanic and African-American adolescent substance abusers, combination behavioral and medication therapies for adult smokers, and couples therapy for opiate-addicted men and women in methadone treatment programs. The benefits of many of these treatments endure long after treatment has ended. And with individual cognitive-behavioral therapy, the benefits appear to increase over time.

Volume 19, Number 1 (April 2004)

NIDA Notes graphic

Search NIDA Notes

About NIDA Notes

Free Subscription
to NIDA Notes

Volumes:

For additional information about NIDA Notes, send e-mail to Information@nida.nih.gov


NIDA Home | Site Map | Search | FAQs | Accessibility | Privacy | FOIA (NIH) | Employment | Print Version


National Institutes of Health logo_Department of Health and Human Services Logo The National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA) is part of the National Institutes of Health (NIH) , a component of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Questions? See our Contact Information. Last updated on Friday, May 19, 2006. The U.S. government's official web portal
  • Share/Save/Bookmark
Comment |

« Previous posts Next posts » Back to top