Archive for November, 2011

Recovery

Saturday, November 19th, 2011

Recently I had a conversation with a colleague who asked for a recommendation for a therapist for one of his patients with addiction who was having family problems. I responded by asking how vigorous of a recovery program she was working? His response was something like this, “Oh, she’s in recovery. But the problem is that some people have intraspsychic conflicts and interpersonal deficits that make it difficult for them to engage support networks.” That really didn’t answer my question, or maybe it did.

My colleague doesn’t see the difference between being in recovery from an illness and working an addiction recovery program. Yes she’s not using; yes, she’s attending her appointments; yes, she even goes to a few meetings; but she’s not working a recovery program.

Recovery, as the word is used in 12-step fellowships, means a great deal more than going to meetings and not using. It involves work and so is most spoken of as “working a recovery program.” Of course there are people who don’t work a program who consider themselves in recovery, but they are missing out on some of the best things recovery has to offer. So what is it to work a recovery program? We’ll take 12-step recovery as an example.

In 12-step recovery, it is the steps that are worked, not just once, but on a daily basis. We can break that down, and I have in other writings, so I won’t repeat it here. But what is important to reveiw is some of what happens when someone works the steps.

The first thing that generally happens is that the person stops trusting the thinking that got them into trouble. They start to uncenter themselves as the driving force in their life and start opening up to others. They start to gain friends and fellows whom they trust and with whom they gain trust by being honest on a consistent basis. They have many methods to deal with day to day feelings and start to trust the universe that things will work out now that they aren’t running the show. They stop being afraid of things and can face their challenges honestly.

I thought about that when my colleague told me that his patient had become depressed and non-functional after her husband left her, that she felt alone and was moving in with her father to be taken care of. I thought of the family difficulties that I’d seen handled by people in recovery and how they responded. I thought of situations like his patient’s that I’d seen in people in recovery. I thought of the bands of recovering women I know who support each other, and I couldn’t imagine how someone in recovery could be alone. I imagined what would happen to the women I knew in recovery if such a thing had happened.

They would have known from working the steps what was theirs and what was their husband’s and would not take his selfishness personally. They would express their feelings with their friends and would be surrounded by their recovery community. They would have worked the steps on their anger and their fear and found relief and peace. Of course they would still have feelings, but they’d have many tools and methods of dealing with them. They would not be helpless, alone, or unable to function.

So what about those that can’t get into a 12-step recovery program? When the symptoms of the illness prevent the person from engaging in 12-step recovery, we work with medications to aleviate those symptoms. Rather than decrease participation in recovery, I have found that correct application of medication increases participation in recovery. Once symptoms are relieved, we use cognitive approaches to help people change their point of view about the illness and the barriers they have to working a recovery program. Finally, for some, the 12-step approach is a barrier. They just won’t work that method. For them, we recommend other forms of recovery.

I’ve watched people get the same benefit from these other forms of recovery. What good recovery programs have in come is this: a reliance on taking life on its own terms rather than self will, a community without a hierarchy, a mentor who serves rather than bosses, honesty and confession, personal amends, helping others. If a recovery program has those things, the person working the program will likely get the same benefits.

Most of those benefits are spiritual. There is a calm that comes with acceptance of how the world works. When we are running the show, there’s a constant fear that we’ll mess up or that someone will figure out that we can’t do it. We’re alone and isolated, spending our energy to erect and maintain a false self that we present to the world. When we are working a recovery program, we can relax, because we aren’t running the show. We don’t have to be afraid of others or the universe. It doesn’t mean that we’ll get our way or that everything will work out well, just that we’ll stop making things worse. We find that the world isn’t nearly so scary when we aren’t at the wheel.

There are neurobiological benefits as well, especially for the person with addiction. When we are running the show and feeling isolated or afraid of being found out, we actually lose dopamine receptors. We feel less of our brain’s own dopamine. Working a recovery program literally makes us feel better. That’s why people in recovery don’t use drugs or compulsive behaviors; not because it’s wrong, but because they don’t need to. In addition, studies have shown a lot of other health benefits of a spiritual life from less brain loss with age to lower blood pressure.

As someone who treats addiction, I don’t think stopping drug use is sufficient as an endpoint. It’s a necessary beginning. The real endpoint isn’t a point or an end at all. The real goal of treatment is to create a person who is working a recovery program. Once that’s done, most other psychological treatment becomes unnecessary.

© Howard C Wetsman MD FASAM

A Brief Look at a Famous SNP

Tuesday, November 15th, 2011

The SNP rs1799971 (also called A118G) is famous. Well, if you hangout with addiction doctors or genetics people it is. I promise.

It’s famous for being the mutation of the mu opioid receptor that is most closely associated with addiction, especially to opioids and alcohol. If you have the mutation you’re more likely to have increased cravings for alcohol and more likely to have alcohol or opioid dependence says the medical literature. A well known addiction medication, naltrexone, seems to work better for stopping drinking if you have the mutation. I’ve been looking at genetic testing results now for over a year and just haven’t found it helpful so I decided to take a quick statistical look. First, some background on the “research,” if we can call it that.

Every patient entering my treatment program is given the option of getting free genetic testing. None have turned it down. They all signed informed consent to have their data kept anonymously along with non-identifying clinical data and to allow it to be used in pooled anonymized analysis. A local IRB approved the use off this database as exempted.

The database consisted of 221 sequential admissions to a private for profit Intensive Outpatient Program level of care for addiction. The population is 62% male, >90% caucasian, and the average age is 35. While all subjects were admitted for treatment of addiction, they each identified a primary “drug” that was their Most Effective Reward (MER). The frequency of those drugs as MERs were: opioids 51%, alcohol 31%, cocaine 6%, cannabinoids 6%, amphetamines 5%, and the other one percent divided between overeating and co-dependency.

If rs1799971 is important in causing addiction we should see it more frequently in an addicted population than in a general population. Of course this isn’t a population of people with addiction, but rather a population of people with addiction seeking outpatient treatment. The frequency may be different in those not seeking treatment, but this is the population I have to work with.

The allele frequency at rs1799971 in a caucasian population is A84% and G16% where G is the risk allele for addiction. Rather than finding a higher frequency of G in our population, the frequencies were A90% and G10%. It doesn’t seem to fit. So I looked at the association of having G with most effective reward. I’d have expected that G would be over represented in people whose MER is opioids or alcohol.

In fact, just he opposite. Those with G were no more likely to have listed opioids as their MER (38% of Gs said opioid were MER while 54% of non-G subjects said another drug, p=.09). So I combined alcohol and opioids in a single class to see if G was associated with either rather than one or the other. Again, not as expected (72% of the G carriers said MER was opioids or alcohol while 85% of the non G carriers said the same, p=.09). In addition, I was not able to replicate the finding that G carriers had the paradoxical stimulating response to opioids most commonly seen in opioid dependent people. About 65% of both G and non-G carriers experienced getting energy from opioids (p=NS).

I have no doubt that people with opioid system mutations have a predisposition to addiction with MER of opioids or alcohol, but rs1799971 doesn’t appear to be the smoking gun. Of course there could be a lot of reasons why I don’t see the association. The population I’m looking at may be very different in some way from those where the association was seen.

This kind of work needs to be repeated in a more rigorous format of course, but with the increasing availability of GWAS genetic testing data, much more can be determined from multiple site studies than could have been done at much greater expense before in academic centers.

© Howard C Wetsman MD FASAM