From an article about a new report on medications for opiate treatment:
The report also examined studies that evaluated buprenorphine, methadone, injectable naltrexone, and oral naltrexone and concluded a benefit in patient outcomes as well as costs.
“I can say with no hint of opinion here, it’s simple fact, they are all effective,” McLellan said. “They’re effective not just in reducing opioid use, they’re effective in so many other ways that are important to societies and families.”
Effective. It’s a fact. No opinion here. Hmmm.
Effective at what? These drugs are effective at reducing opiate use. If that outcome is all one wants, they may be a good option.
The problem is that it’s a palliative response, when we know that full recovery is possible if the right resources are made available. (Of course these treatment approaches are not the ones physicians choose for themselves and their peers.)
Let’s see what the report says about another outcome that might speak more directly to quality of life, say, employment [emphasis mine]:
These studies have also measured various types of related outcomes such as reductions non-opioid drug use, employment and criminal activity. Here the literature is quite mixed and appears to be a result of the particular patient population, the clinical approach of the methadone maintenance program and the available counseling and social services provided.
As with methadone, the literature is quite mixed with regard to reducing non-opioid drug use, improving employment and reducing crime.
He also found improvements within the methadone maintenance group across various time periods on HIV risk behaviors, employment and criminal justice involvement. [My note: In this study, employment increased from approximately 21% to approximately 31%*.]
So…while there’s little doubt that these medications reduce opiate use and overdose deaths, the quality of life evidence is considerably weaker.
With the increases in opiate ODs, I understand families and individuals struggling with these decisions. I struggle to come up with the best analogy for informed consent. Maybe something like this?
Maybe the choice is something like a person having incapacitating (socially, emotionally, occupationally, spiritually, etc.) and life-threatening but treatable cardiac disease. There are 2 treatments:
- A pill that will reduce death and symptoms, but will have marginal impact on QoL (quality of life). Relatively little is known about long term (years) compliance rates for this option, but we do know that discontinuation of the medication leads to “near universal relapse“, so getting off it is extremely difficult. The drug has some cognitive side-effects and may also have some emotional side effects. It is known to reduce risk of death, but not eliminate it.
- Diet and exercise can arrest all symptoms, prevent death and provide full recovery, returning the patient to a normal QoL. This is the option we use for medical professionals and they have great outcomes. Long-term compliance is the challenge and failure to comply is likely to result in relapse and may lead to death. However, we have lots of strategies and social support for making and maintaining these changes.
The catch is that you can’t do both because option 1 appears to interfere with the benefits of option 2.
CORRECTION: This post originally stated that the Anglin study found an increase in employment from 21% to 21%. It has been corrected to 21% to 31%.
UPDATE: I added the following to option 1 – but we do know that discontinuation of the medication leads to “near universal relapse“, so getting off it is extremely difficult.
- Not available? (addictionandrecoverynews.wordpress.com)