0
We're unable to sign you in at this time. Please try again in a few minutes.
Retry
We were able to sign you in, but your subscription(s) could not be found. Please try again in a few minutes.
Retry
There may be a problem with your account. Please contact the AMA Service Center to resolve this issue.
Contact the AMA Service Center:
Telephone: 1 (800) 262-2350 or 1 (312) 670-7827  *   Email: subscriptions@jamanetwork.com
Error Message ......
Review Article |

Treating Opioid Dependence:  Growing Implications for Primary Care FREE

Mori J. Krantz, MD; Philip S. Mehler, MD
[+] Author Affiliations

From the Department of Medicine, University of Colorado Health Sciences Center, and Denver Health, Denver. The authors have no relevant financial interest in this article.


Arch Intern Med. 2004;164(3):277-288. doi:10.1001/archinte.164.3.277.
Text Size: A A A
Published online

Almost 3 million Americans have abused heroin. The most effective treatment for this concerning epidemic is opioid replacement therapy. Although, from a historical perspective, acceptance of this therapy has been slow, growing evidence supports its efficacy. There are 3 approved medications for opioid maintenance therapy: methadone hydrochloride, levomethadyl acetate, and buprenorphine hydrochloride. Each has unique characteristics that determine its suitability for an individual patient. Cardiac arrhythmias have been reported with methadone and levomethadyl, but not with buprenorphine. Due to concerns about cardiac risk, levomethadyl use has declined and the product may ultimately be discontinued. These recent safety concerns, specifics about opioid detoxification and maintenance, and new federal initiatives were studied. Opioid detoxification has a role in both preventing acute withdrawal and maintaining long-term abstinence. Although only a minority of eligible patients are engaged in treatment, opioid maintenance therapy appears to offer the greatest public health benefits. There is growing interest in expanding treatment into primary care, allowing opioid addiction to be managed like other chronic illnesses. This model has gained wide acceptance in Europe and is now being implemented in the United States. The recent Drug Addiction Treatment Act enables qualified physicians to treat opioid-dependent patients with buprenorphine in an office-based setting. Mainstreaming opioid addiction treatment has many advantages; its success will depend on resolution of ethical and delivery system issues as well as improved and expanded training of physicians in addiction medicine.

Figures in this Article

The lifetime prevalence of heroin use has again increased in the past decade; almost 3 million Americans have used heroin.1 The most effective treatment appears to be opioid replacement therapy, currently serving more than 200 000 patients in the United States.2 There are more than 1000 opioid treatment programs (OTPs) in operation, although services are not currently available in Montana, Mississippi, Wyoming, and the Dakotas. Primary care providers should become increasingly familiar with opioid addiction because these specially licensed programs currently reach only an estimated 14% of opioid-dependent patients.3 A potentially important way to narrow this gap is to mainstream the treatment of opioid dependence into primary care.

It is estimated that intravenous drug abuse and all of its sequelae have a health care cost of close to $100 billion annually.4 The risk of fatal overdose and the infectious complications of intravenous drug abuse are substantial. The prevalence of hepatitis C in heroin users enrolled in OTPs is estimated at 90%.57 This subgroup of 150 000 patients with hepatitis C are potential interferon and liver transplantation applicants.8,9 Moreover, heroin abuse accounts for nearly half of the annual total number of cases of human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) infection in the United States.1012 Acute bacterial infections leading to costly hospitalizations are common in this population, and many of these episodes are attributable to acute bacterial endocarditis.13,14 The magnitude of the problem is illustrated by the fact that 5% of primary care patients report current substance abuse.15

Heroin abusers frequently have psychiatric comorbidities, which play an important role in their poor outcome.1618 Antisocial personality disorder is one of the most common disorders, along with major depression and anxiety disorders.1922 Opioid-dependent patients with Axis I psychiatric comorbidity often need significantly higher methadone doses. In addition, there is an eating disorder–opioid abuse connection in bulimic patients.23 Complicating matters, entrants to methadone treatment are often dually addicted to heroin and cocaine.24 Most users of illicit opioids also smoke cigarettes25 and suffer a devastatingly high tobacco-related mortality.26,27

In the early part of the 20th century, physicians faced with persons addicted to narcotic drugs prescribed heroin and morphine. In 1914 the Harrison Act was passed, and as a result addiction was viewed primarily as a criminal problem rather than a medical concern. The Harrison Act resulted in significant trepidation among physicians treating narcotic addicts. Treatment for addiction was essentially unavailable until 1935 when US Public Health Services started a hospital in Lexington, Ky. The treatments were entirely detoxification-based. Interest in narcotic management began to rise again with the 1955 publication of a position paper by the New York Academy of Medicine.28 In 1963, the New York Academy of Sciences recommended that clinics be established to dispense narcotics to opioid-dependent patients.28

During the 1960s, heroin addiction was the leading cause of death in African American men in New York City.29 In response to this growing epidemic, Vincent Dole, MD, and Marie Nyswander, MD, from the Rockefeller Institute, New York, pioneered the use of the synthetic opioid methadone for treating heroin addicts. They found oral morphine to be unsuccessful because patients alternated between feelings of intoxication and withdrawal. Methadone, because of its long half-life, could avert this problem if given once daily.30 The initial efforts of these two physicians guided development of the methadone maintenance treatment paradigm.31

In 1972, the US Food and Drug Administration created stringent regulations governing methadone. This reduced the amount of flexibility for practitioners caring for opioid-dependent patients. The 1974 Narcotic Treatment Act established guidelines that limited methadone to opioid addicts. States added their own rules, which further complicated care delivery. Some experts have suggested that the current system emphasizes regulatory process more than medical judgment.32 In part because of these restrictions, many heroin addicts had limited access to methadone maintenance, resulting in a significant treatment gap nationwide.

The Office of National Drug Control Policy subsequently made changes in the 1995 Federal Regulations of Methadone Treatment to encourage the development of a less restrictive approach33 and give physicians more latitude in prescribing methadone.34 In 1997 a National Institutes of Health consensus conference published its support for methadone and recommended the medicalization of treatment.35 The new accreditation process is no longer administered by the Food and Drug Administration; the Department of Heath and Human Services will oversee the 2-year period in which the nation's OTPs have to achieve accreditation.36 This new regulatory structure is depicted in Figure 1. Recent evidence suggests that the accreditation process improves adherence to guidelines for optimal dosing practices.37 The accreditation process, it is hoped, will enhance access to quality care and integrate narcotic treatment into traditional medical practice.

Place holder to copy figure label and caption

Post–Food and Drug Administration regulatory oversight of opioid agonist therapy for addiction. JCAHO indicates Joint Commission on Accreditation of Healthcare Organizations; CARF, Commission on Accreditation of Rehabilitation Facilities; and COA, Council on Accreditation for Children and Family Services. Washington State and Missouri refer to the Divisions of Alcohol and Substance Abuse in those states.

Graphic Jump Location

The shift toward less restrictive access to care is predicated not only on the aforementioned treatment gap but also on strong scientific evidence supporting the efficacy of opioid replacement therapy. There appears to be a specific neurologic basis for the compulsive use of heroin. Chronic heroin abusers end up with an endogenous opioid deficiency because of down-regulation of opioid production. This creates an overwhelming craving, which necessitates effective treatments that shift the addicted patient's interests from obsessive preoccupation with the timing and dose of an illicit substance to more ordinary topics and less dangerous behaviors.38

The early observations of Dole and Kreek39 were sentinel in this regard, namely that the essential feature of successful maintenance treatment is patient stabilization through opioid receptor occupation. Previous attempts using morphine maintenance had failed because the narcotic receptor did not remain continuously occupied. In addition, neuroendocrine studies have shown normalization of stress hormone responses after several months of stabilization with methadone. Similarly, positron emission tomography has demonstrated that only 25% to 35% of brain opioid receptors are occupied during steady-state methadone maintenance. This suggests that these unoccupied opioid receptors, which were disrupted during cycles of opioid abuse, could normalize during methadone maintenance.40 Moreover, minimal euphoria is realized from illicit heroin abuse if the long-acting opioid is bound to the receptors and blocks heroin's reinforcing nature. Thus, the steady-state perfusion of the synthetic opioid at the specific µ-opioid receptors, which prevents abstinence symptoms and eliminates craving, in concert with classic deconditioning due to the lack of euphoric effects of heroin, are the basis for the effectiveness of opioid agonists in decreasing abuse.

Long-term opioid agonist treatment also appears to have an important positive impact on public health. Before the introduction of methadone maintenance, the annual death rate from opioid dependence was 21 per 1000. After the introduction of methadone, the death rate decreased to 13 per 1000. Similarly, the death rate for opioid-dependent persons in methadone treatment has consistently been 30% less than for those not in treatment.41 Studies have also demonstrated that treatment with opioid agonists reduces the rate of criminal activity.42,43

Hepatitis C is the most common cause of chronic hepatitis in the United States44 and is endemic in patients undergoing methadone maintenance.45 Most heroin injectors contract hepatitis C early in their injection drug use.46 The presumption is that since hepatitis C is spread by the same percutaneous route as HIV, methadone might represent an effective way of preventing this disease.

Methadone treatment has assumed particular importance in view of the HIV epidemic.47 In 1996, the total number of AIDS cases reported to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention was 513 000; of those, 184 000 (36%) were associated with injection drug use.48 Methadone maintenance dramatically reduces the frequency of injection drug use and has also been shown to decrease sexually related high-risk behaviors.4951 Consequently, there are much lower HIV seroprevalence rates in those enrolled in methadone treatment and for those with longer amounts of time in treatment compared with untreated addicts.5255 Methadone maintenance has also been found to be a cost-effective intervention, with a cost of $8200 per quality-adjusted life-year gained.56 It is estimated that the 6-month costs are about $21 000 for an untreated drug abuser, $20 000 for an incarcerated drug abuser, and $1750 for a patient enrolled in a methadone maintenance program.57

Heroin-dependent patients have 3 major approaches available to treat their addiction: opioid detoxification, agonist maintenance, and antagonist maintenance. Naltrexone is the only available antagonist agent; in contrast to opioid agonist therapy, naltrexone has been relatively unsuccessful in treatment retention and in reduction of illicit substance abuse.58 This may be due to dysphoria related to blockade of endogenous opioids with naltrexone.59 Currently, there are 3 approved opioid agonists therapies: methadone hydrochloride, levomethadyl acetate, and buprenorphine hydrochloride.

Methadone

Methadone is a long-acting µ-opioid receptor agonist, introduced in the 1960s, after being developed in Germany at the end of World War II.60 It has an onset of action within 30 minutes6163 and an average duration of action of 24 to 36 hours. Its oral bioavailability is excellent and approaches 90%. These unique pharmacologic properties ideally lend themselves to once-daily dosing for maintenance therapy, although, when used to treat chronic pain, methadone is generally dosed 3 times daily. When the dosage is judiciously titrated, methadone-treated patients generally do not experience euphoria or sedation, nor do they suffer impairment in the ability to perform mental tasks. One of the most important advantages of methadone is that it relieves narcotic craving, which is the primary reason for relapse. Similarly, methadone blocks many of the narcotic effects of heroin,64 which helps reinforce abstinence. Once a therapeutic dose is achieved, patients frequently can be maintained for many years with the same dose.65

Methadone hydrochloride is available in 5- and 10-mg tablets as well as a 40-mg dispersible wafer. However, it is most frequently used for maintenance in a 10-mg/mL liquid concentrate. An intravenous solution is also available but has been linked with bradycardia when administered for sedation.66 Methadone is metabolized extensively in the liver,67 and its excretion rate can be accelerated by urinary acidification.68 Elimination is slower in women.69 Mild adverse effects observed include sweating, decreased libido, weight gain, constipation, and irregular menstrual periods. Most adverse effects occur during the initial stabilization process (Table 1). As with any potent narcotic, serious consequences such as debilitating sedation and fatal overdose may occur. Tolerance to the narcotic properties of methadone, such as sedation, develop within 4 weeks, but tolerance to its autonomic effects such as constipation may take longer, and many patients continue to experience chronic constipation. Doses as low as 20 mg may improve treatment retention, but higher doses are often necessary to suppress illicit drug use.70 The minimal effective dose is usually 50 mg, but some individuals need much larger doses.71,72 Because methadone is metabolized via the cytochrome P450 pathway, phenytoin, carbamazepine, barbiturates, isoniazid, and certain HIV protease inhibitor medications can reduce plasma methadone levels.7375 Conversely, medications such as cimetidine, erythromycin, and fluvoxamine maleate will increase levels. Opioid agonist-antagonist medications such as pentazocine will cause withdrawal symptoms in patients receiving methadone maintenance and should be avoided. The medications that most commonly interact with methadone are listed in Table 2. Liver disease may increase the half-life of methadone, but renal failure does not.76

Table Graphic Jump LocationTable 1. Adverse Effects of Methadone
Table Graphic Jump LocationTable 2. Selected Methadone Drug Interactions

There have been rare cases of torsade de pointes in patients receiving very-high-dose methadone hydrochloride therapy (mean dosage, approximately 400 mg/d; range, 60-1000 mg/d) for opioid dependency and chronic pain.77 It is important to emphasize that most cases occurred with methadone doses higher than those often encountered in clinical practice. Furthermore, these cases frequently occurred in the setting of additional proarrhythmic factors such as hypokalemia. Preliminary data suggest that this ventricular arrhythmia may be mediated through inhibition of the rapidly activating component of the delayed rectifier potassium current in cardiac tissue.78 Blockade of this ion channel has been shown to be an important mediator of drug-related torsade de pointes.79,80

Levomethadyl

Development of new opioid substitution pharmacotherapies, designed to build on the strengths and improve on the weakness of methadone, has resulted in 2 alternative opioid agonist agents, levomethadyl and buprenorphine. Levomethadyl, a more potent derivative of methadone, actually has very little opioid effect in its parent form and is functionally a "prodrug." It is extensively metabolized by the liver into 4 major metabolites.81 Nor-levomethadyl and dinor-levomethadyl are the major active metabolites.82 Nor-levomethadyl is most active, being about 100 times more potent in vitro and 10 times more potent in vivo than its parent compound.83,84 Like methadone, levomethadyl is metabolized primarily by the hepatic P450 isozyme CYP3A4.85 In addition, methadone and levomethadyl share the same protein binding sites in plasma.86 Because of this, methadone and levomethadyl when taken concurrently may have additive effects. Therefore, patients generally receive one or the other agent, but not a combination, for maintenance therapy.

Levomethadyl is a synthetic µ-opioid receptor agonist that is commercially available in a liquid suspension. It is rapidly absorbed from the gastrointestinal tract, although its oral bioavailability is somewhat lower than that of methadone.87 Because of these properties, the opioid effect of levomethadyl is somewhat slower in onset than that of methadone (90 minutes), but it has a much longer duration of action (48-72 hours) and is therefore able to be dispensed 3 times per week. The comparative pharmacologic effects of levomethadyl, methadone, and buprenorphine are outlined in Table 3. Other potential advantages of levomethadyl's longer duration of action include reduced dispensing time and less opportunity for illegal diversion. Similar to methadone, it suppresses symptoms of withdrawal and produces cross-tolerance. Adverse effects of levomethadyl are infrequent and, when they occur, are the same as those for methadone. The average daily dose is 75 to 115 mg given 3 times per week. Treatment centers that are not open 7 d/wk dispense a larger dosage of levomethadyl before the 48-hour weekend period.

Table Graphic Jump LocationTable 3. Pharmacotherapy of Heroin Addiction

As with methadone, there have been a small number of reported cases of torsade de pointes in patients receiving levomethadyl.88,89 Because of this, the manufacturer has recommended that a baseline electrocardiogram be obtained to exclude significant prolongation of the QT segment before levomethadyl therapy is initiated.90 A follow-up electrocardiogram should be obtained between 2 and 4 weeks after initiation, when steady-state dosing has been attained.

Buprenorphine

Buprenorphine is a long-acting partial opioid agonist91,92 that is classified as a Schedule III narcotic, in contrast to methadone and levomethadyl, which are Schedule II. Its potential advantages include a higher degree of safety than with methadone, coupled with an ameliorated withdrawal syndrome. This is due to its partial agonist property at the µ-receptor along with its being a weak antagonist at the κ-receptor.9395 It is available in a tablet form for sublingual administration and in parenteral form. Buprenorphine is metabolized through the cytochrome P450 pathway.96,97 The brand name for the buprenorphine monotablet is Subutex, and the combination buprenorphine hydrochloride–naloxone hydrochloride tablet is Suboxone (both Reckitt Benckiser Pharmaceuticals, Richmond, Va). Both formulations come in strengths of 2 and 8 mg. The combination product contains 0.5 mg of the opioid antagonist naloxone hydrochloride and is designed to decrease the potential for abuse. Suboxone is also likely to have limited "street value," reducing its diversion potential. Because buprenorphine has minimal oral bioavailability, sublingual administration is the primary route of delivery for treating opioid dependence. The average daily dose is 8 to 16 mg. Issues of cost and comparative efficacy will determine whether buprenorphine will play a central role in maintenance therapy in OTPs, although it will likely have a significant impact on office-based addiction treatment.

The central goal of opioid dependency treatment is to reduce illicit drug use and its attendant health risks. Other targeted outcomes for maintenance treatment include a reduction in unsafe sexual practices, improvement in vocational and psychosocial functioning, and an enhanced quality of life. The types and intensity of available substance abuse treatments cover a wide range of services including office-based therapy, intensive outpatient services, and inpatient rehabilitation. Presently, successful opioid treatment is most often achieved through long-term maintenance programs that prescribe methadone, levomethadyl, or buprenorphine.

Methadone Maintenance

Methadone is the most inexpensive and well-validated agent for opioid maintenance, which leads to 1-year treatment retention rates of 80% with concomitant reductions in illicit opioid use.98 One study randomly assigned 179 opioid-dependent patients to either methadone maintenance or a psychosocially enriched detoxification program, and it showed that methadone maintenance resulted in greater treatment retention and lower rates of illicit heroin use than did detoxification.99 Many additional studies have corroborated the efficacy of methadone maintenance,100 including the Drug Abuse Treatment Outcome Study, which showed a decline from 89% to 28% in illicit heroin abuse.101

Treatment is initiated with 25 to 30 mg of methadone hydrochloride once daily. A lower starting dose may be prudent in patients with less severe opioid habits and those with significant hepatic or pulmonary disease. The dose is gradually titrated in 5- to 10-mg increments per day to a dose range of 60 to 120 mg, which provides relief from abstinence symptoms, usually without perceptible sedation effects. There is no arbitrary ceiling dose. The issue of adequate methadone dosing is very pertinent because low-dose treatment has been associated with worse outcomes. Moreover, as heroin availability and purity increase, the issue of optimal methadone dose is more important. A recent trial examined moderate-dose (40-50 mg) vs high-dose (80-100 mg) methadone treatment and found both doses to be effective for retention of patients in treatment, but the higher-dose group had less illicit opioid use.102 Previously, these authors had shown that low-dose methadone maintenance (20 mg) was associated with both more illicit drug use and less treatment retention compared with a moderate dose (50 mg).103 Other studies have corroborated the increased efficacy of high-dose methadone maintenance.104 Accordingly, the Center for Substance Abuse Treatment has defined the therapeutic dosage for methadone maintenance treatment as being between 80 and 120 mg/d.

There has been some interest in correlating the daily methadone dose and serum concentration to predict optimal doses.105 In general, a trough serum methadone concentration of 400 ng/mL is considered an effective target in methadone maintenance, although there is no compelling evidence that serum monitoring is superior to "symptom-guided" dose titration.106 As a rule, there has been inconsistent correlation between serum methadone concentration and clinical stability; the best and most cost-effective solution therefore remains individualized therapeutic monitoring.

The question of what type and intensity of ancillary services are optimal for methadone maintenance programs remains open. Individual and group counseling are the main ancillary therapies provided in most treatment programs. In addition, several psychotherapeutic methods including cognitive-behavioral and supportive-expressive techniques may be useful adjuncts in opioid-dependent patients. These services require the availability of a trained psychologist or psychiatrist. Some studies have suggested that "more is better," with more intensive psychosocial services having better outcomes.107 Others have questioned the effectiveness of these enhanced programs.108 It may be that only patients identified as being the most difficult to treat need to be referred for intensive services. A more intensive approach with daily staff contact is often invoked for patients with persistent illicit heroin use. Ultimately, detoxification leading to termination from a program may be pursued if the OTP staff believes that there has been no positive response to methadone or other opioid agonist therapy. Program termination should be used as a last resort given the significant harm reduction afforded by methadone maintenance therapy.

Levomethadyl Maintenance

Although methadone maintenance programs have been effective, clinical experience has demonstrated some shortcomings. Daily clinic visits for supervised medications may impact employment opportunities. The provision of take-home medications to reduce clinic visits may promote illegal methadone diversion and result in community dissatisfaction. Moreover, the fact that only a minority of heroin addicts are enrolled in OTPs may in part reflect patient displeasure with methadone treatment. Therefore, there has been a need to develop new substitution pharmacotherapies. Levomethadyl, approved in 1993, has been demonstrated to be effective in retention of patients in maintenance programs as well as in reducing illicit heroin use. In controlled clinical trials, long-term treatment with levomethadyl was comparable to methadone with respect to these 2 measures.109 Levomethadyl acetate dosages in the range of 60 to 100 mg 3 times a week have been shown to reduce opioid use comparably to therapy with 50 to 100 mg of methadone hydrochloride daily.110 Seventy-five milligrams of levomethadyl acetate provides opioid blockade and withdrawal suppression for up to 96 hours.111 A recent meta-analysis also found levomethadyl and methadone maintenance to be comparable with regard to ongoing illicit drug use.112

From a practical standpoint, levomethadyl's niche may be in patients perceived by clinicians to benefit from reduced frequency of visits, whereas methadone might be more appropriate for patients in need of the intensive support from daily clinic visits. In addition, persons with transportation or scheduling problems, those with a history of previous methadone failure, and those with a desire to avoid methadone maintenance because of either social stigma or negative myths may find levomethadyl useful. Some patients receiving maintenance treatment believe that levomethadyl stabilizes opioid cravings better than methadone113 and has less perceptible opioid-agonist effects, allowing them to feel more normal. Patients can be inducted directly into levomethadyl treatment from either methadone or heroin. In general, an initial dose of 30 mg suffices; if the patient is switching from methadone, the recommended initial dose of levomethadyl acetate is 1.2 to 1.3 times the methadone dose.

Yet, despite all of the aforementioned potential advantages plus its minimal street value, levomethadyl is currently available in less than 10% of opioid agonist treatment centers.114 Levomethadyl has had very limited availability in OTPs because of its higher cost and requirement for electrocardiogram monitoring. Heightened concerns regarding arrhythmia risk and subsequent underutilization have led the manufacturer of levomethadyl to begin phasing it out of production during 2004.115 Opioid treatment programs should consider transitioning levomethadyl patients to methadone therapy. The daily methadone dose should be approximately 80% that of the prior levomethadyl dose and should be administered no sooner than 48 hours after the patient's last levomethadyl dose.

Buprenorphine Maintenance

Buprenorphine has some advantages over methadone, including milder withdrawal symptoms after abrupt cessation, lower risk of overdose, and a longer duration of action, which allows alternate-day dosing.116 Patients with a less chronic form of heroin addiction might be better served with buprenorphine than by a full opioid agonist like methadone or levomethadyl. Alternatively, patients with very high levels of physical dependence may be more optimally treated initially with methadone or levomethadyl. Ideal candidates for buprenorphine would be those who are motivated to comply with treatment and willing to follow safety precautions given the limited oversight inherent in office-based opioid maintenance.

One maintenance study found less illicit heroin use with buprenorphine compared with methadone, although a better retention rate was noted in the methadone group.117 Another study showed high-dose methadone to be more efficacious than 8 mg of buprenorphine hydrochloride concerning retention and ongoing opioid use.118 A recent double-blind randomized trial using an average dose of buprenorphine (10 mg/d) vs methadone (70 mg/d) demonstrated a higher retention rate with methadone, but equal efficacy in reducing illicit usage of heroin.119 Another report demonstrated the utility of buprenorphine in opioid-dependent patients with concurrent cocaine abuse.120 Most studies of buprenorphine have been based on daily doses. Johnson et al102 recently reported a trial of buprenorphine administered 3 times weekly and found it to be similar to levomethadyl in terms of retention and similar to methadone in terms of reducing heroin use. These studies support buprenorphine as a viable alternative for opioid maintenance therapy.

There are a number of logistic considerations for buprenorphine induction and maintenance. In contrast to methadone and levomethadyl, buprenorphine is a mixed agonist antagonist and may precipitate opioid withdrawal. Because of this potential, patients transferring from short-acting opioids, such as heroin, should be instructed to abstain from illicit opioid use a minimum of 4 hours and preferably 12 to 24 hours before administering the first buprenorphine dose. If there is any question about the accuracy of the patient's drug history, or if there are any signs of acute opioid use, the first dose should be delayed until the patient manifests signs of withdrawal or reports abstinence symptoms. Induction into buprenorphine treatment from long-acting opioids such as methadone and levomethadyl presents a challenge because of their long half-lives.

Defining the specific subgroup that may benefit more from buprenorphine, levomethadyl, or methadone maintenance therapy has not been fully elucidated. However, it is clear that not all opioid abusers are alike. Therefore, the concept of matching patients to the most appropriate maintenance treatment should be attempted in clinical practice to optimize outcomes.

The third approach available to treat opioid addiction is detoxification. "Medically supervised withdrawal" is the preferred phrase to describe the process of tapering opioid-dependent patients from agonist therapy, but it may be used interchangeably with "detoxification." This critical process must be exercised slowly and cautiously to avoid a marked abstinence syndrome. Although untreated alcohol withdrawal is potentially more dangerous, opioid withdrawal causes intensely disturbing symptoms. Withdrawal symptoms begin 3 to 6 hours after the last use of heroin, but they may not begin for a number of days after abrupt discontinuation of methadone, levomethadyl, or buprenorphine, given their longer half-lives. Symptoms include gastrointestinal distress (diarrhea and cramping), marked anxiety, irritability, insomnia, pathognomonic skin piloerection, and an influenza-like syndrome characterized by rhinorrhea, lacrimation, and myalgias. This syndrome may last 5 to 10 days and must be carefully managed to prevent immediate heroin relapse. In addition, a protracted abstinence phase may last for months and is characterized by asthenia, depression, and hypotension.121

There are 3 main treatment modalities used for detoxification during the initial treatment of opioid-dependent patients: (1) those using opioid agonists, (2) those using nonopioid medications, and (3) the newest modalities of rapid and ultrarapid opioid detoxification. For opioid-based detoxification, methadone is frequently used because it can be given once daily. Initially, methadone hydrochloride is given in a dosage range of 10 to 30 mg/d, depending on the size of the opioid habit.122 Additional methadone may be necessary if signs of abstinence appear. The methadone dose is then tapered by 10% to 20% per day for inpatients after an initial day or two of stabilization.123 For outpatients, the dose is tapered 5% to 10% per week.124 A slower rate of reduction may be associated with decreased illicit opioid use.125 Although these regimens result in successful detoxification in 80% of inpatients and 40% of outpatients, long-term recidivism rates after detoxification remain high. Outpatient detoxification can be performed only through specially licensed OTPs, although any licensed physician can coordinate this in the inpatient setting. Some OTPs are licensed for 21- and 180-day detoxification protocols for patients with less extensive addiction histories, while others provide only maintenance services. Buprenorphine has also been used in several experimental studies of opioid withdrawal. Most studies have found it to be equivalent to methadone when tapered over 4 to 6 weeks.126,127

Non–opioid-based detoxification using clonidine was described in the late 1970s.128 The purported explanation was that clonidine blocked activation of the noradrenergic locus ceruleus nucleus, which is involved with opioid withdrawal. Clonidine in initial dosages of 0.1 to 0.2 mg every 4 hours with careful monitoring of blood pressure eliminates most commonly reported withdrawal symptoms.129131 Some withdrawal symptoms such as anxiety and myalgias are resistant to clonidine; benzodiazepines and nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory agents may be necessary adjuncts to treat these symptoms. Clonidine may be preferable for outpatient detoxification because it is not a controlled substance and is therefore more widely available than methadone, and it may shorten the detoxification period to 1 to 2 weeks.132 Clonidine has been combined with the opioid antagonist naltrexone, in a dose of 12.5 to 50 mg, as a successful detoxification regimen of even shorter duration.133 Lofexidine, another α2-adrenergic agonist, has been used experimentally with some success.134

During the past several years, there has been a proliferation of protocols encompassed by the expression "rapid opioid detoxification."135,136 Its development is attributable to the prolonged period currently needed for opioid and nonopioid detoxification approaches. The rapid approach shortens the detoxification process to 3 to 5 days by precipitating withdrawal through the administration of opioid antagonists such as naloxone or naltrexone.137 Ultrarapid detoxification is a variant that is performed with the patient under general anesthesia over 24 hours.138 Because the patient is anesthetized during the acute phase of withdrawal, he or she does not consciously experience the unpleasant acute opioid withdrawal syndrome. Most of the rapid protocols use clonidine along with an opioid antagonist, as well as adjuvant benzodiazipines and antiemetics to treat the withdrawal syndrome.139 Many of these protocols maintain the rapidly detoxified patients with naltrexone.140 Specific details of this emerging science are beyond the intended scope of this review, but physicians should be aware of its potential utility for individuals who have been unsuccessful with traditional opioid tapered programs,141 and in highly motivated patients without extensive histories of opioid abuse. Issues related to long-term effectiveness remain unresolved. One disadvantage of ultrarapid opioid detoxification is its inability to adequately address the psychological aspects of opioid dependency. More integration of counseling and relapse prevention strategies may enhance the effectiveness of these protocols.

Regardless of the method used for detoxification, maintenance of abstinence is essential to the overall treatment strategy. While drug-free substance abuse treatment for detoxified opioid-dependent patients is still a possibility, the lessons from the early part of the 20th century indicate that this will often be unsuccessful. This is especially so for those with unstable social situations and those in whom detoxification treatments have previously failed; for this large majority, opioid maintenance remains the preferred method of treatment. There is little research supporting the long-term efficacy of detoxification-based protocols followed by a treatment geared to result in the discontinuation of all opioid use. Although some have criticized the practice of methadone and levomethadyl maintenance, wherein there is substitution of one opioid for another, the clinical benefits strongly support this paradigm.

Because of both the success of opioid agonist therapy and the small number of OTPs compared with the number of opioid addicts, there is growing interest in expanding treatment into primary care physicians' offices. Prescribing opioid agonist maintenance therapy is one of the most scrutinized areas of medicine. As opposed to other Schedule II narcotics, methadone (when used to treat addiction) can only be dispensed from facilities that have an OTP license issued by the Drug Enforcement Agency and must comply with numerous regulatory requirements. In response, the 1998 National Consensus Panel for Opiate Addiction strongly endorsed the need to repeal unnecessary regulations and expand the availability of treatment.142 Cogent arguments that would allow use of levomethadyl and methadone in office-based, primary care addiction treatment have been articulated.143 At the same time, there have been many articles published that urge primary care providers to take a more proactive role in treating substance abuse.144,145

Methadone maintenance has already been extended into primary care settings outside of the United States. In Scotland, 70% of primary care providers prescribe methadone,146 and 60% of injection drug users are enrolled in methadone treatment through these providers.147 Australia and Switzerland have also expanded access to treatment.148,149 A less restrictive approach to opioid-dependence treatment has been adopted by the Canadian government, which has increased the number of patients receiving methadone maintenance by 200% between 1993 and 1997.150

This medical maintenance model has also been tested in the United States. A first report of outcomes, from a group of patients receiving methadone maintenance in general practice settings in New York City, showed an 82% retention rate.151 A follow-up report showed that office-based treatment was highly beneficial compared with methadone maintenance.152 Similarly, the care of a cohort of former heroin addicts treated with methadone maintenance was successfully transitioned to primary care physicians.153 As this process continues to evolve, there are a variety of important philosophical, ethical, and system issues that must be addressed, not the least of which is ensuring adequate patient safety.154

In addition to improved access, shifting the treatment of opioid addiction into physicians' offices has the potential to enhance health care provision. Intravenous drug users are less likely to be offered and to receive appropriate HIV treatment than other HIV-infected patients.155,156 The requirements for medical care of HIV-infected drug users have increased with the use of antiretroviral therapies.157,158 Moreover, creating linkages between primary care and addiction medicine should improve the receipt of preventive care by these individuals.159 Without this improved access, there is increased reliance on emergency services.160,161 Primary care–based opioid treatment might therefore improve access to comprehensive medical care for these vulnerable patients.

With the passage of the Drug Abuse Treatment Act of 2000, buprenorphine has become available to treat opioid addiction in a physician's office without requiring participation in OTPs.162 Primary care physicians interested in treating opioid-dependent patients can qualify by submitting a notification of intent to the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, which will then provide a waiver. Qualified physicians must have active state and Drug Enforcement Agency licenses, agree to treat no more than 30 patients, and have the capacity to provide or refer patients for ancillary psychosocial services. Physicians must complete 8 hours of training (through the American Society of Addiction Medicine, the American Medical Association, the American Osteopathic Association, or the American Psychiatric Association). Those with board certification in addiction medicine or who have participated in clinical trials of narcotic treatment may be exempt from this training requirement. In general, physicians are expected to keep a supply of buprenorphine in a locked compartment with limited access and maintain a dispensing record. Alternatively, patients may fill prescriptions by using a coupon and return to the office for induction. Initial results with buprenorphine in a private practice setting have been very encouraging163,164 and, it is hoped, will be supported by longer-term data.

When providing opioid maintenance therapy in the primary care setting, clinicians should recognize that a supervening illness or injury might necessitate the use of additional analgesics. In treating acute pain in patients receiving buprenorphine maintenance, nonopioid analgesics are preferred. Because patients develop tolerance to long-acting opioids, analgesia is not realized from their regular opioid dose. Therefore, relief of acute pain is dependent on both maintaining their baseline long-acting opioid and providing additional analgesics. For severe acute pain, it may be appropriate to use opioids, although the dose of short-acting opioid analgesic may need to be increased because of cross-tolerance.

Drug addiction is a chronic disease. Mainstreaming addiction treatment will help eliminate some of the damaging stigma associated with opioid maintenance.165 The advantages of office-based treatment include being more conducive to employment, enhancing patient privacy, and providing ready access to medical care. Combining regular outpatient medical care and drug abuse care reduces the rate of subsequent hospitalization.166 Treating opioid dependence as part of a medical practice may also eliminate some of the isolation addicted patients believe is inherent in our nation's OTPs. The recent success in France with buprenorphine should serve as an impetus for more active participation of US primary care physicians in opioid-dependency treatment.167 With generalization of maintenance treatments in France, there was an increase in the number of opioid-dependent patients undergoing maintenance and a reduction in the number of intravenous users. Further evidence that integration of addiction treatment into primary care is feasible is based on the fact that medical maintenance programs in Washington and Connecticut were recently granted exemptions from key Food and Drug Administration regulations.168 The movement to expand opioid treatment into primary care practice now appears to be gaining momentum.169

An integral part of this medicalization effort is improved and expanded training of physicians in the treatment of opioid dependence. A fundamental understanding of the pharmacology of opioid agonist therapy will enable primary care physicians to safely and effectively treat a growing population of patients. Unfortunately, the current level of physician training in the United Sates concerning addiction medicine leaves much to be desired.170,171 Only 8% of US medical schools offer a required course in substance abuse.172,173 A recent national survey demonstrated that most primary care physicians inadequately screen for or intervene in diagnosed cases of substance abuse.174

In conclusion, illicit heroin abuse causes a number of complex health care needs. Opioid agonist therapy has been shown to offer substantial public health, medical, social, and economic benefits. A national effort is under way to promote improved access to opioid treatment. The primary care provider will likely have a major role to play in optimizing the health of opioid-dependent patients. Future initiatives to promote primary care physician education and involvement with illicit drug abuse treatment, coupled with the recent reorganization of federal regulations, should improve outcomes in this vulnerable population.

Corresponding author and reprints: Mori J. Krantz, MD, Cardiology Division, Denver Health, 777 Bannock St, MC 0960, Denver, CO 80204 (e-mail: mkrantz@dhha.org).

Accepted for publication March 31, 2003.

We thank William Baker, MD, for reviewing the manuscript; Leslie Amass, PhD, for helpful suggestions; and Adriana Padget for administrative assistance.

National Institute on Drug Abuse, Heroin Abuse and Addiction, Research Report Series.  Washington, DC National Institutes of Health October1997;
US Department of Health and Human Services, Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA). Opioid agonist therapy (OAT) with methadone or LAAM. Available at: http://dpt.samhsa.gov/001025optx.htm. Accessed February 26, 2003
Rounsaville  BJKosten  TR Treatment for opioid dependence: quality and access. JAMA. 2000;2831337- 1339
PubMed Link to Article
Harwood  HJFountain  DLivermore  G Economic costs of alcohol abuse and alcoholism. Recent Dev Alcohol. 1998;14307- 330
PubMed
Alter  MJMoyer  LA The importance of preventing hepatitis C virus infection among injection drug users in the United States. J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr Hum Retrovirol. 1998;18 ((suppl 1)) S6- S10
PubMed Link to Article
Chetwynd  JBrunton  CBlank  MPlumridge  EBaldwin  D Hepatitis C seroprevalence amongst injecting drug users attending a methadone programme. N Z Med J. 1995;108364- 366
PubMed
McCarthy  JJFlynn  N Hepatitis C in methadone maintenance patients: prevalence and public policy implications. J Addict Dis. 2001;2019- 31
PubMed Link to Article
Koch  MBanys  P Liver transplantation and opioid dependence. JAMA. 2001;2851056- 1058
PubMed Link to Article
Stephenson  J Former addicts face barriers to treatment for HCV. JAMA. 2001;2851003- 1005
PubMed Link to Article
Holmberg  SD The estimated prevalence and incidence of HIV in 96 large US metropolitan areas. Am J Public Health. 1996;86642- 654
PubMed Link to Article
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, HIV/AIDS Surveillance Report.  Atlanta, Ga Centers for Disease Control and Prevention1998;
Rosenberg  PSBiggar  RJ Trends in HIV incidence among young adults in the United States. JAMA. 1998;2791894- 1899
PubMed Link to Article
Murphy  J Infections of the heart. Mayo Clinic Cardiology Review. Philadelphia, Pa Lippincott Williams & Wilkins2000;412- 413
Stein  MD Medical complications of intravenous drug use. J Gen Intern Med. 1990;5249- 257
PubMed Link to Article
Manwell  LBFleming  MFJohnson  KBarry  KL Tobacco, alcohol, and drug use in a primary care sample: 90-day prevalence and associated factors. J Addict Dis. 1998;1767- 81
PubMed Link to Article
Brooner  RKKing  VLKidorf  MSchmidt  CW  JrBigelow  GE Psychiatric and substance use comorbidity among treatment-seeking opioid abusers. Arch Gen Psychiatry. 1997;5471- 80
PubMed Link to Article
Darke  SRoss  J Polydrug dependence and psychiatric comorbidity among heroin injectors. Drug Alcohol Depend. 1997;48135- 141
PubMed Link to Article
Maremmani  IZolesi  OAglietti  M  et al.  Methadone dose and retention during treatment of heroin addicts with Axis I psychiatric comorbidity. J Addict Dis. 2000;19 ((2)) 29- 41
PubMed Link to Article
Khantzian  EJTreece  C DSM-III psychiatric diagnosis of narcotic addicts: recent findings. Arch Gen Psychiatry. 1985;421067- 1071
PubMed Link to Article
Woody  GEMcLellan  ATLuborsky  LO'Brien  CP Sociopathy and psychotherapy outcome. Arch Gen Psychiatry. 1985;421081- 1086
PubMed Link to Article
Rounsaville  BJWeissman  MMKleber  HWilber  C Heterogeneity of psychiatric diagnosis in treated opiate addicts. Arch Gen Psychiatry. 1982;39161- 168
PubMed Link to Article
Magura  SKang  SYRosenblum  AHandelsman  LFoote  J Gender differences in psychiatric comorbidity among cocaine-using opiate addicts. J Addict Dis. 1998;1749- 61
PubMed Link to Article
Vastag  B What's the connection? no easy answers for people with eating disorders and drug abuse. JAMA 2001;2851006- 1007
PubMed Link to Article
Kosten  TRGawin  FHRounsaville  BJKleber  HD Cocaine abuse among opioid addicts: demographic and diagnostic factors in treatment. Am J Drug Alcohol Abuse. 1986;121- 16
PubMed Link to Article
Richter  KPAhluwalia  JS A case for addressing cigarette use in methadone and other opioid treatment programs. J Addict Dis. 2000;1935- 52
PubMed Link to Article
Hurt  RDOfford  KPCroghan  IT  et al.  Mortality following inpatient addictions treatment: role of tobacco use in a community-based cohort. JAMA. 1996;2751097- 1103
PubMed Link to Article
Clemmey  PBrooner  RChutuape  MAKidorf  MStitzer  M Smoking habits and attitudes in a methadone maintenance treatment population. Drug Alcohol Depend. 1997;44123- 132
PubMed Link to Article
Kreek  MJ Methadone-related opioid agonist pharmacotherapy for heroin addiction: history, recent molecular and neurochemical research and future in mainstream medicine. Ann N Y Acad Sci. 2000;909186- 216
PubMed Link to Article
Stimmel  B Heroin addiction and methadone maintenance: when will we ever learn? J Addict Dis. 1999;181- 4
PubMed Link to Article
Dole  VPNyswander  M A medical treatment for diacetylmorphine (heroin) addiction: a clinical trial with methadone hydrochloride. JAMA. 1965;193646- 650
PubMed Link to Article
Zweben  JEPayte  JT Methadone maintenance in the treatment of opioid dependence: a current perspective. West J Med. 1990;152588- 599
PubMed
Fiellin  DAO'Connor  PG New federal initiatives to enhance the medical treatment of opioid dependence. Ann Intern Med. 2002;137688- 692
PubMed Link to Article
Institute of Medicine, Federal Regulation of Methadone Treatment.  Washington, DC National Academy of Medicine1995;
Cooper  JR Including narcotic addiction treatment in an office-based practice. JAMA. 1995;2731619- 1620
PubMed Link to Article
National Consensus Development Panel on Effective Medical Treatment of Opiate Addiction, Effective medical treatment of opiate addiction. JAMA. 1998;2801936- 1943
PubMed Link to Article
Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, Health and Human Services: opioid drugs in maintenance and detoxification treatment of opioid addiction: final rule. 66, Federal Register 40762001;
D'Aunno  TPollack  HA Changes in methadone treatment practices: results from a national panel study, 1988-2000. JAMA. 2002;288850- 856
PubMed Link to Article
Kreek  MJ Opioid receptors: some perspectives from early studies of their role in normal physiology, stress responsivity, and in specific addictive diseases. Neurochem Res. 1996;211469- 1488
PubMed Link to Article
Dole  VPKreek  MJ Methadone plasma level: sustained by a reservoir of drug in tissue. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1973;7010
PubMed Link to Article
Kreek  M Clinical update of opioid agonist and partial agonist medications for the maintenance treatment of opioid addiction. Semin Neurosci. 1997;9140- 157
Link to Article
Simpson  DSells  S Effectiveness of treatment for drug abuse. Adv Alcohol Subst Abuse. 1982;27- 29
Link to Article
Yoast  RWilliams  MADeitchman  SDChampion  HC Report of the Council on Scientific Affairs: methadone maintenance and needle-exchange programs to reduce the medical and public health consequences of drug abuse. J Addict Dis. 2001;2015- 40
PubMed Link to Article
McGlothlin  WHAnglin  MD Long-term follow-up of clients of high- and low-dose methadone programs. Arch Gen Psychiatry. 1981;381055- 1063
PubMed Link to Article
Alter  MJMargolis  HSKrawczynski  K  et al. , the Sentinel Counties Chronic non-A, non-B Hepatitis Study Team, The natural history of community-acquired hepatitis C in the United States. N Engl J Med. 1992;3271899- 1905
PubMed Link to Article
Edlin  BRSeal  KHLorvick  J  et al.  Is it justifiable to withhold treatment for hepatitis C from illicit-drug users? N Engl J Med. 2001;345211- 214
PubMed Link to Article
Garfein  RSVlahov  DGalai  NDoherty  MCNelson  KE Viral infections in short-term injection drug users: the prevalence of the hepatitis C, hepatitis B, human immunodeficiency, and human T-lymphotropic viruses. Am J Public Health. 1996;86655- 661
PubMed Link to Article
Des  JMarmor  MFriedmann  P  et al.  HIV incidence among injection drug users in New York City, 1992-1997: evidence for a declining epidemic. Am J Public Health. 2000;90352- 359
PubMed Link to Article
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, HIV/AIDS Surveillance Report. Atlanta, Ga: Centers for Disease and Control and Prevention; 1999;11 ((2))
Grella  CEAnglin  DAnnon  JJ HIV risk behaviors among women in methadone maintenance treatment. Subst Use Misuse. 1996;31277- 301
PubMed Link to Article
Strathdee  SAGalai  NSafaiean  M  et al.  Sex differences in risk factors for HIV seroconversion among injection drug users: a 10-year perspective. Arch Intern Med. 2001;1611281- 1288
PubMed Link to Article
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, HIV/AIDS Report. Vol 6-2. Washington, DC Dept of Health and Human Services1995;
Camacho  LMBartholomew  NGJoe  GWCloud  MASimpson  DD Gender, cocaine and during-treatment HIV risk reduction among injection opioid users in methadone maintenance. Drug Alcohol Depend. 1996;411- 7
PubMed Link to Article
Novick  DMJoseph  HCroxson  TS  et al.  Absence of antibody to human immunodeficiency virus in long-term, socially rehabilitated methadone maintenance patients. Arch Intern Med. 1990;15097- 99
PubMed Link to Article
Magura  SRosenblum  ARodriguez  EM Changes in HIV risk behaviors among cocaine-using methadone patients. J Addict Dis. 1998;17 ((4)) 71- 90
PubMed Link to Article
Abbott  PJMoore  BAWeller  SBDelaney  HD AIDS risk behavior in opioid dependent patients treated with community reinforcement approach and relationships with psychiatric disorders. J Addict Dis. 1998;1733- 48
PubMed Link to Article
Zaric  GSBarnett  PGBrandeau  ML HIV transmission and the cost-effectiveness of methadone maintenance. Am J Public Health. 2000;901100- 1111
PubMed Link to Article
Kraft  MKRothbard  ABHadley  TRMcLellan  ATAsch  DA Are supplementary services provided during methadone maintenance really cost-effective? Am J Psychiatry. 1997;1541214- 1219
PubMed
San  LPomarol  GPeri  JMOlle  JMCami  J Follow-up after a six-month maintenance period on naltrexone versus placebo in heroin addicts. Br J Addict. 1991;86983- 990
PubMed Link to Article
Crowley  TJWagner  JEZerbe  GMacdonald  M Naltrexone-induced dysphoria in former opioid addicts. Am J Psychiatry. 1985;1421081- 1084
PubMed
Inturrisi  CEColburn  WAKaiko  RFHoude  RWFoley  KM Pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of methadone in patients with chronic pain. Clin Pharmacol Ther. 1987;41392- 401
PubMed Link to Article
Verebely  KVolavka  JMule  SResnick  R Methadone in man: pharmacokinetic and excretion studies in acute and chronic treatment. Clin Pharmacol Ther. 1975;18180- 190
PubMed
Inturrisi  CEPortenoy  RKMax  MBColburn  WAFoley  KM Pharmacokinetic-pharmacodynamic relationships of methadone infusions in patients with cancer pain. Clin Pharmacol Ther. 1990;47565- 577
PubMed Link to Article
Isbell  HVogel  V The addiction liability of methadone and its use in the treatment of the morphine abstinence syndrome. Am J Psychiatry. 1949;105909- 912
Dole  VPNyswander  MEKreek  MJ Narcotic blockade—a medical technique for stopping heroin use by addicts. Trans Assoc Am Phys. 1966;79122- 136
PubMed
Lowinson  JMarion  IJoseph  HDole  V Methadone maintenance. In: Lowinson J, Ruiz P, Millman B, Langrod J, eds. Substance Abuse: A Comprehensive Textbook. Baltimore, Md: Williams & Wilkins; 1992;550- 561
Karir  V Bradycardia associated with intravenous methadone administered for sedation in a patient with acute respiratory distress syndrome. Pharmacotherapy. 2002;221196- 1199
PubMed Link to Article
Kreek  MJGarfield  JWGutjahr  CLGiusti  LM Rifampin-induced methadone withdrawal. N Engl J Med. 1976;2941104- 1106
PubMed Link to Article
Kreek  MJ Plasma and urine levels of methadone: comparison following four medication forms used in chronic maintenance treatment. N Y State J Med. 1973;732773- 2777
PubMed
de Vos  JWGeerlings  PJvan den Brink  WUfkes  JGvan Wilgenburg  H Pharmacokinetics of methadone and its primary metabolite in 20 opiate addicts. Eur J Clin Pharmacol. 1995;48361- 366
PubMed Link to Article
Goldstein  A Blind dosage comparisons and other studies in a large methadone program. J Psychedelic Drugs. 1971;4177- 181
Link to Article
Strain  ECStitzer  MLLiebson  IABigelow  GE Dose-response effects of methadone in the treatment of opioid dependence. Ann Intern Med. 1993;11923- 27
PubMed Link to Article
Preston  KLUmbricht  AEpstein  DH Methadone dose increase and abstinence reinforcement for treatment of continued heroin use during methadone maintenance. Arch Gen Psychiatry. 2000;57395- 404
PubMed Link to Article
Kreek  MJ Drug interactions with methadone in humans. NIDA Res Monogr. 1986;68193- 225
PubMed
O'Connor  PGFiellin  DA Pharmacologic treatment of heroin-dependent patients. Ann Intern Med. 2000;13340- 54
PubMed Link to Article
Malaty  LIKuper  JJ Drug interactions of HIV protease inhibitors. Drug Saf. 1999;20147- 169
PubMed Link to Article
Ling  WRawson  RACompton  MA Substitution pharmacotherapies for opioid addiction: from methadone to LAAM to buprenorphine. J Psychoactive Drugs. 1994;26119- 128
PubMed Link to Article
Krantz  MJLewkowiez  LHays  HWoodroffe  MARobertson  ADMehler  PS Torsade de pointes associated with very-high-dose methadone. Ann Intern Med. 2002;137501- 504
PubMed Link to Article
Katchman  ANMcGroary  KAKilborn  MJ  et al.  Influence of opioid agonists on cardiac human ether-a-go-go–related gene K(+) currents. J Pharmacol Exp Ther. 2002;303688- 694
PubMed Link to Article
Vincent  GM Long QT syndrome. Cardiol Clin. 2000;18309- 325
PubMed Link to Article
Viskin  S Long QT syndromes and torsade de pointes. Lancet. 1999;3541625- 1633
PubMed Link to Article
Kaiko  RFInturrisi  CE Disposition of acetylmethadol in relation to pharmacologic action. Clin Pharmacol Ther. 1975;1896- 103
PubMed
Ling  WCompton  P Opiate maintenance therapy. In: Stine S, Kosten T, eds. New Treatment for Opiate Dependence. New York, NY: Guilford Press; 1997;286- 300
Oda  YKharasch  ED Metabolism of levo-alpha-acetylmethadol (LAAM) by human liver cytochrome P450: involvement of CYP3A4 characterized by atypical kinetics with two binding sites. J Pharmacol Exp Ther. 2001;297410- 422
PubMed
Borzelleca  JFEgle  JL  JrHarris  LSBelleville  JA Toxicological evaluation of µ-agonists, part II: assessment of toxicity following 30 days of repeated oral dosing of male and female rats with levo-α-noracetylmethadol HCl (NorLAAM). J Appl Toxicol. 1995;15339- 355
PubMed Link to Article
Moody  DEAlburges  MEParker  RJCollins  JMStrong  JM The involvement of cytochrome P450 3A4 in the N-demethylation of L-α-acetylmethadol (LAAM), norLAAM, and methadone. Drug Metab Dispos. 1997;251347- 1353
PubMed
Toro-Goyco  E Binding of L-α-acetylmethadol and its metabolites to blood constituents. Biochem Pharmacol. 1980;291897- 1902
PubMed Link to Article
Henderson  GLNorth-Root  HKuttab  SH Metabolism and disposition of L-α-acetylmethadol in the rat. Drug Metab Dispos. 1977;5321- 328
PubMed
Deamer  RLWilson  DRClark  DSPrichard  JG Torsades de pointes associated with high dose levomethadyl acetate (ORLAAM). J Addict Dis. 2001;207- 14
PubMed Link to Article
European Agency for the Evaluation of Medicinal Products, EMEA public statement to suspend the marketing authorization for Orlaam (Levacetylmethadol) in the European Union.  April19 2001;EMEA/8776/01. Available at: http://www.emea.eu.int/pdfs/human/press/pus/877601en.pdf. Accessed August 1, 2002
Not Available, Orlaam. [package insert].  Columbus, Ohio Roxane Laboratories Inc2002;
Johnson  REJaffe  JHFudala  PJ A controlled trial of buprenorphine treatment for opioid dependence. JAMA. 1992;2672750- 2755
PubMed Link to Article
Compton  PWesson  DCharuvastra  VLing  W Buprenorphine as a pharmacotherapy for opiate addiction. Am J Addict. 1996;5220- 230
Jasinski  DRPevnick  JSGriffith  JD Human pharmacology and abuse potential of the analgesic buprenorphine: a potential agent for treating narcotic addiction. Arch Gen Psychiatry. 1978;35501- 516
PubMed Link to Article
Bickel  WKAmass  L Buprenorphine treatment of opioid dependence. Exp Clin Psychopharmacol. 1995;3477- 489
Link to Article
Tracqui  AKintz  PLudes  B Buprenorphine-related deaths among drug addicts in France: a report on 20 fatalities. J Anal Toxicol. 1998;22430- 434
PubMed Link to Article
Kosten  TRSchottenfeld  RZiedonis  DFalcioni  J Buprenorphine versus methadone maintenance for opioid dependence. J Nerv Ment Dis. 1993;181358- 364
PubMed Link to Article
Segal  DSchuster  C Buprenorphine: Combating Drug Abuse With a Unique Opioid.  New York John Wiley & Sons1995;
Simpson  DJoe  GDansereau  DChatham  C Strategies for improving methadone treatment process and outcomes. J Drug Issues. 1997;27239- 260
Sees  KLDelucchi  KLMasson  C  et al.  Methadone maintenance vs 180-day psychosocially enriched detoxification for treatment of opioid dependence: a randomized controlled trial. JAMA. 2000;2831303- 1310
PubMed Link to Article
Martin  JPayte  JTZweben  JE Methadone maintenance treatment: a primer for physicians. J Psychoactive Drugs. 1991;23123- 133
PubMed Link to Article
Hubbard  RCraddock  SFlynn  PAnderson  JEtheridge  RM Overview of one-year follow up outcomes in the Drug Abuse Treatment Outcome Study (DATOS). Psychol Addict Behav. 1997;11261- 278
Link to Article
Johnson  REChutuape  MAStrain  ECWalsh  SLStitzer  MLBigelow  GE A comparison of levomethadyl acetate, buprenorphine, and methadone for opioid dependence. N Engl J Med. 2000;3431290- 1297
PubMed Link to Article
Strain  ECBigelow  GELiebson  IAStitzer  ML Moderate vs high-dose methadone in the treatment of opioid dependence: a randomized trial. JAMA. 1999;2811000- 1005
PubMed Link to Article
Ball  JRoss  A The Effectiveness of Methadone Maintenance Treatment.  New York, NY Springer-Verlag1991;
Eap  CBBourquin  MMartin  J  et al.  Plasma concentrations of the enantiomers of methadone and therapeutic response in methadone maintenance treatment. Drug Alcohol Depend. 2000;6147- 54
PubMed Link to Article
Hiltunen  AJLafolie  PMartel  J  et al.  Subjective and objective symptoms in relation to plasma methadone concentration in methadone patients. Psychopharmacology (Berl). 1995;118122- 126
PubMed Link to Article
McLellan  ATArndt  IOMetzger  DSWoody  GEO'Brien  CP The effects of psychosocial services in substance abuse treatment. JAMA. 1993;2691953- 1959
PubMed Link to Article
Avants  SKMargolin  ASindelar  JL  et al.  Day treatment versus enhanced standard methadone services for opioid-dependent patients: a comparison of clinical efficacy and cost. Am J Psychiatry. 1999;15627- 33
PubMed
Blaine  JDRenault  PLevine  GLWhysner  JA Clinical use of LAAM. Ann N Y Acad Sci. 1978;311214- 231
PubMed Link to Article
Freedman  RRCzertko  G A comparison of thrice weekly LAAM and daily methadone in employed heroin addicts. Drug Alcohol Depend. 1981;8215- 222
PubMed Link to Article
Houtsmuller  EJWalsh  SLSchuh  KJJohnson  REStitzer  MLBigelow  GE Dose-response analysis of opioid cross-tolerance and withdrawal suppression during LAAM maintenance. J Pharmacol Exp Ther. 1998;285387- 396
PubMed
Glanz  MKlawansky  SMcAullife  WChalmers  T Methadone vs. L-α-acetylmethadol (LAAM) in the treatment of opiate addiction: a meta-analysis of the randomized, controlled trials. Am J Addict. 1997;6339- 349
PubMed
Eissenberg  TBigelow  GEStrain  EC  et al.  Dose-related efficacy of levomethadyl acetate for treatment of opioid dependence: a randomized clinical trial. JAMA. 1997;2771945- 1951
PubMed Link to Article
Rawson  RAHasson  ALHuber  AMMcCann  MJLing  W A 3-year progress report on the implementation of LAAM in the United States. Addiction. 1998;93533- 540
PubMed Link to Article
Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, US Food and Drug Administration, Product discontinuation notice for ORLAAM (levomethadyl hydrochloride acetate) oral solution, 10 mg/mL, 23 August 2003. Available at: http://www.fda.gov/cder/whatsnew.htm. Accessed October 12, 2003.
Bickel  WKStitzer  MLBigelow  GELiebson  IAJasinski  DRJohnson  RE A clinical trial of buprenorphine: comparison with methadone in the detoxification of heroin addicts. Clin Pharmacol Ther. 1988;4372- 78
PubMed Link to Article
Fischer  GGombas  WEder  H  et al.  Buprenorphine versus methadone maintenance for the treatment of opioid dependence. Addiction. 1999;941337- 1347
PubMed Link to Article
Ling  WWesson  DRCharuvastra  CKlett  CJ A controlled trial comparing buprenorphine and methadone maintenance in opioid dependence. Arch Gen Psychiatry. 1996;53401- 407
PubMed Link to Article
Petitjean  SStohler  RDeglon  JJ  et al.  Double-blind randomized trial of buprenorphine and methadone in opiate dependence. Drug Alcohol Depend. 2001;6297- 104
PubMed Link to Article
Schottenfeld  RSPakes  JROliveto  AZiedonis  DKosten  TR Buprenorphine vs methadone maintenance treatment for concurrent opioid dependence and cocaine abuse. Arch Gen Psychiatry. 1997;54713- 720
PubMed Link to Article
Martin  WRJasinski  DR Physiological parameters of morphine dependence in man—tolerance, early abstinence, protracted abstinence. J Psychiatr Res. 1969;79- 17
PubMed Link to Article
Jackson  AHShader  RI Guidelines for the withdrawal of narcotic and general depressant drugs. Dis Nerv Syst. 1973;34162- 166
PubMed
Fultz  JMSenay  EC Guidelines for the management of hospitalized narcotics addicts. Ann Intern Med. 1975;82815- 818
PubMed Link to Article
Margolin  AKosten  T Opioid detoxification with blocking agents. Miller  Ned.Comprehensive Handbook of Drug and Alcohol Addiction. New York, NY Marcel Dekker Inc1991;1127- 1141
Senay  ECDorus  WGoldberg  FThornton  W Withdrawal from methadone maintenance: rate of withdrawal and expectation. Arch Gen Psychiatry. 1977;34361- 367
PubMed Link to Article
Kosten  TRKleber  HD Buprenorphine detoxification from opioid dependence: a pilot study. Life Sci. 1988;42635- 641
PubMed Link to Article
Amass  LBickel  WKHiggins  STHughes  JR A preliminary investigation of outcome following gradual or rapid buprenorphine detoxification. J Addict Dis. 1994;1333- 45
PubMed Link to Article
Gold  MSRedmond  DE  JrKleber  HD Clonidine blocks acute opiate-withdrawal symptoms. Lancet. 1978;2599- 602
PubMed Link to Article
Washton  AMResnick  RB Clonidine for opiate detoxification: outpatient clinical trials. Am J Psychiatry. 1980;1371121- 1122
PubMed
Charney  DSSternberg  DEKleber  HDHeninger  GRRedmond  DE  Jr The clinical use of clonidine in abrupt withdrawal from methadone: effects on blood pressure and specific signs and symptoms. Arch Gen Psychiatry. 1981;381273- 1277
PubMed Link to Article
O'Connor  PGWaugh  MECarroll  KMRounsaville  BJDiagkogiannis  IASchottenfeld  RS Primary care–based ambulatory opioid detoxification: the results of a clinical trial. J Gen Intern Med. 1995;10255- 260
PubMed Link to Article
Kleber  HDRiordan  CERounsaville  B  et al.  Clonidine in outpatient detoxification from methadone maintenance. Arch Gen Psychiatry. 1985;42391- 394
PubMed Link to Article
Vining  EKosten  TRKleber  HD Clinical utility of rapid clonidine-naltrexone detoxification for opioid abusers. Br J Addict. 1988;83567- 575
PubMed Link to Article
Lin  SKStrang  JSu  LWTsai  CJHu  WH Double-blind randomised controlled trial of lofexidine versus clonidine in the treatment of heroin withdrawal. Drug Alcohol Depend. 1997;48127- 133
PubMed Link to Article
Simon  DL Rapid opioid detoxification using opioid antagonists: history, theory and the state of the art. J Addict Dis. 1997;16103- 122
PubMed Link to Article
Kasser  C Current and future prospects for rapid opioid detoxification with opioid antagonists. J Addict Dis. 1997;161- 4
PubMed Link to Article
O'Connor  PGKosten  TR Rapid and ultrarapid opioid detoxification techniques. JAMA. 1998;279229- 234
PubMed Link to Article
Albanese  APGevirtz  COppenheim  BField  JMAbels  IEustace  JC Outcome and six month follow up of patients after ultra rapid opiate detoxification (UROD). J Addict Dis. 2000;1911- 28
PubMed Link to Article
Seoane  ACarrasco  GCabre  L  et al.  Efficacy and safety of two new methods of rapid intravenous detoxification in heroin addicts previously treated without success. Br J Psychiatry. 1997;171340- 345
PubMed Link to Article
McDonald  TBerkowitz  RHoffman  WE Plasma naltrexone during opioid detoxification. J Addict Dis. 2000;1959- 64
PubMed Link to Article
O'Connor  PG Treating opioid dependence—new data and new opportunities. N Engl J Med. 2000;3431332- 1334
PubMed Link to Article
NIH Consensus Conference, Effective medical treatment of opiate addiction. JAMA. 1998;2801936- 1943
PubMed Link to Article
Lewis  DC The role of the generalist in the care of the substance-abusing patient. Med Clin North Am. 1997;81831- 843
PubMed Link to Article
McLellan  ATLewis  DCO'Brien  CPKleber  HD Drug dependence, a chronic medical illness: implications for treatment, insurance, and outcomes evaluation. JAMA. 2000;2841689- 1695
PubMed Link to Article
Weaver  MFJarvis  MASchnoll  SH Role of the primary care physician in problems of substance abuse. Arch Intern Med. 1999;159913- 924
PubMed Link to Article
Greenwood  J Six years experience of sharing the care of Edinburgh's drug users. Psychiatr Bull R Coll Psychiatr. 1996;208- 11
Link to Article
Weinrich  MStuart  M Provision of methadone treatment in primary care medical practices: review of the Scottish experience and implications for US policy. JAMA. 2000;2831343- 1348
PubMed Link to Article
Klingemann  HK Drug treatment in Switzerland: harm reduction, decentralization and community response. Addiction. 1996;91723- 736
PubMed Link to Article
Caplehorn  JBatey  R Methadone maintenance in Australia. J Drug Issues. 1992;22661- 679
Lewis  DC Access to narcotic addiction treatment and medical care: prospects for the expansion of methadone maintenance treatment. J Addict Dis. 1999;185- 21
PubMed Link to Article
Novick  DMJoseph  H Medical maintenance: the treatment of chronic opiate dependence in general medical practice. J Subst Abuse Treat. 1991;8233- 239
PubMed Link to Article
Senay  ECBarthwell  AGMarks  RBokos  PGillman  DWhite  R Medical maintenance: a pilot study. J Addict Dis. 1993;1259- 76
PubMed Link to Article
Novick  DMJoseph  HSalsitz  EA  et al.  Outcomes of treatment of socially rehabilitated methadone maintenance patients in physicians' offices (medical maintenance): follow-up at three and a half to nine and a fourth years. J Gen Intern Med. 1994;9127- 130
PubMed Link to Article
Herman  MGourevitch  MN Integrating primary care and methadone maintenance treatment: implementation issues. J Addict Dis. 1997;1691- 102
PubMed Link to Article
Solomon  LStein  MFlynn  C  et al.  Health services use by urban women with or at risk for HIV-1 infection: the HIV Epidemiology Research Study (HERS). J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr Hum Retrovirol. 1998;17253- 261
PubMed Link to Article
Stein  MDPiette  JMor  V  et al.  Differences in access to zidovudine (AZT) among symptomatic HIV-infected persons. J Gen Intern Med. 1991;635- 40
PubMed Link to Article
O'Connor  PGSelwyn  PASchottenfeld  RS Medical care for injection-drug users with human immunodeficiency virus infection. N Engl J Med. 1994;331450- 459
PubMed Link to Article
Stein  MDUrdaneta  MEClarke  J  et al.  Use of antiretroviral therapies by HIV-infected persons receiving methadone maintenance. J Addict Dis. 2000;1985- 94
PubMed Link to Article
Himmelstein  DUWoolhandler  S Care denied: US residents who are unable to obtain needed medical services. Am J Public Health. 1995;85341- 344
PubMed Link to Article
French  MTMartin  RF The costs of drug abuse consequences: a summary of research findings. J Subst Abuse Treat. 1996;13453- 466
PubMed Link to Article
Zechnich  ADHedges  JR Community-wide emergency department visits by patients suspected of drug-seeking behavior. Acad Emerg Med. 1996;3312- 317
PubMed Link to Article
Schnoll  SH Treatment of opioid addiction in physicians' offices: it's about time. J Addict Dis. 2001;20 ((2)) 1- 3
PubMed Link to Article
Resnick  RBGalanter  MResnick  EPycha  C Buprenorphine treatment of heroin dependence (detoxification and maintenance) in a private practice setting. J Addict Dis. 2001;20 ((2)) 75- 83
PubMed Link to Article
O'Connor  PGOliveto  AHShi  JM  et al.  A randomized trial of buprenorphine maintenance for heroin dependence in a primary care clinic for substance users versus a methadone clinic. Am J Med. 1998;105100- 105
PubMed Link to Article
McCaffrey  BR Methadone treatment: our vision for the future. J Addict Dis. 2001;20 ((1)) 93- 101
PubMed Link to Article
Laine  CHauck  WWGourevitch  MNRothman  JCohen  ATurner  BJ Regular outpatient medical and drug abuse care and subsequent hospitalization of persons who use illicit drugs. JAMA. 2001;2852355- 2362
PubMed Link to Article
Thirion  XMicallef  JBarrau  K  et al.  Recent evolution in opiate dependence in France during generalisation of maintenance treatments. Drug Alcohol Depend. 2001;61281- 285
PubMed Link to Article
Dole  VP On federal regulation of methadone treatment. JAMA. 1995;2741307
PubMed Link to Article
Merrill  JOJackson  R Treatment of heroin dependence. Ann Intern Med. 2001;134165- 166
PubMed Link to Article
Negrete  JC The role of medical schools in the prevention of alcohol-related problems. CMAJ. 1990;1431048- 1053
PubMed
Schneekloth  TDMorse  RMHerrick  LMSuman  VJOfford  KPDavis  LJ  Jr Point prevalence of alcoholism in hospitalized patients: continuing challenges of detection, assessment, and diagnosis. Mayo Clin Proc. 2001;76460- 466
PubMed Link to Article
Fleming  MBarry  KDavis  AKropp  SKahn  RRivo  M Medical education about substance abuse: changes in curriculum and faculty between 1976 and 1992. Acad Med. 1994;69362- 369
PubMed Link to Article
Not Available, Medical school education on abuse of alcohol and other psychoactive drugs. JAMA 1972;2191746- 1749
PubMed Link to Article
Friedmann  PDMcCullough  DChin  MHSaitz  R Screening and intervention for alcohol problems: a national survey of primary care physicians and psychiatrists. J Gen Intern Med. 2000;1584- 91
PubMed Link to Article

Figures

Place holder to copy figure label and caption

Post–Food and Drug Administration regulatory oversight of opioid agonist therapy for addiction. JCAHO indicates Joint Commission on Accreditation of Healthcare Organizations; CARF, Commission on Accreditation of Rehabilitation Facilities; and COA, Council on Accreditation for Children and Family Services. Washington State and Missouri refer to the Divisions of Alcohol and Substance Abuse in those states.

Graphic Jump Location

Tables

Table Graphic Jump LocationTable 1. Adverse Effects of Methadone
Table Graphic Jump LocationTable 2. Selected Methadone Drug Interactions
Table Graphic Jump LocationTable 3. Pharmacotherapy of Heroin Addiction

References

National Institute on Drug Abuse, Heroin Abuse and Addiction, Research Report Series.  Washington, DC National Institutes of Health October1997;
US Department of Health and Human Services, Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA). Opioid agonist therapy (OAT) with methadone or LAAM. Available at: http://dpt.samhsa.gov/001025optx.htm. Accessed February 26, 2003
Rounsaville  BJKosten  TR Treatment for opioid dependence: quality and access. JAMA. 2000;2831337- 1339
PubMed Link to Article
Harwood  HJFountain  DLivermore  G Economic costs of alcohol abuse and alcoholism. Recent Dev Alcohol. 1998;14307- 330
PubMed
Alter  MJMoyer  LA The importance of preventing hepatitis C virus infection among injection drug users in the United States. J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr Hum Retrovirol. 1998;18 ((suppl 1)) S6- S10
PubMed Link to Article
Chetwynd  JBrunton  CBlank  MPlumridge  EBaldwin  D Hepatitis C seroprevalence amongst injecting drug users attending a methadone programme. N Z Med J. 1995;108364- 366
PubMed
McCarthy  JJFlynn  N Hepatitis C in methadone maintenance patients: prevalence and public policy implications. J Addict Dis. 2001;2019- 31
PubMed Link to Article
Koch  MBanys  P Liver transplantation and opioid dependence. JAMA. 2001;2851056- 1058
PubMed Link to Article
Stephenson  J Former addicts face barriers to treatment for HCV. JAMA. 2001;2851003- 1005
PubMed Link to Article
Holmberg  SD The estimated prevalence and incidence of HIV in 96 large US metropolitan areas. Am J Public Health. 1996;86642- 654
PubMed Link to Article
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, HIV/AIDS Surveillance Report.  Atlanta, Ga Centers for Disease Control and Prevention1998;
Rosenberg  PSBiggar  RJ Trends in HIV incidence among young adults in the United States. JAMA. 1998;2791894- 1899
PubMed Link to Article
Murphy  J Infections of the heart. Mayo Clinic Cardiology Review. Philadelphia, Pa Lippincott Williams & Wilkins2000;412- 413
Stein  MD Medical complications of intravenous drug use. J Gen Intern Med. 1990;5249- 257
PubMed Link to Article
Manwell  LBFleming  MFJohnson  KBarry  KL Tobacco, alcohol, and drug use in a primary care sample: 90-day prevalence and associated factors. J Addict Dis. 1998;1767- 81
PubMed Link to Article
Brooner  RKKing  VLKidorf  MSchmidt  CW  JrBigelow  GE Psychiatric and substance use comorbidity among treatment-seeking opioid abusers. Arch Gen Psychiatry. 1997;5471- 80
PubMed Link to Article
Darke  SRoss  J Polydrug dependence and psychiatric comorbidity among heroin injectors. Drug Alcohol Depend. 1997;48135- 141
PubMed Link to Article
Maremmani  IZolesi  OAglietti  M  et al.  Methadone dose and retention during treatment of heroin addicts with Axis I psychiatric comorbidity. J Addict Dis. 2000;19 ((2)) 29- 41
PubMed Link to Article
Khantzian  EJTreece  C DSM-III psychiatric diagnosis of narcotic addicts: recent findings. Arch Gen Psychiatry. 1985;421067- 1071
PubMed Link to Article
Woody  GEMcLellan  ATLuborsky  LO'Brien  CP Sociopathy and psychotherapy outcome. Arch Gen Psychiatry. 1985;421081- 1086
PubMed Link to Article
Rounsaville  BJWeissman  MMKleber  HWilber  C Heterogeneity of psychiatric diagnosis in treated opiate addicts. Arch Gen Psychiatry. 1982;39161- 168
PubMed Link to Article
Magura  SKang  SYRosenblum  AHandelsman  LFoote  J Gender differences in psychiatric comorbidity among cocaine-using opiate addicts. J Addict Dis. 1998;1749- 61
PubMed Link to Article
Vastag  B What's the connection? no easy answers for people with eating disorders and drug abuse. JAMA 2001;2851006- 1007
PubMed Link to Article
Kosten  TRGawin  FHRounsaville  BJKleber  HD Cocaine abuse among opioid addicts: demographic and diagnostic factors in treatment. Am J Drug Alcohol Abuse. 1986;121- 16
PubMed Link to Article
Richter  KPAhluwalia  JS A case for addressing cigarette use in methadone and other opioid treatment programs. J Addict Dis. 2000;1935- 52
PubMed Link to Article
Hurt  RDOfford  KPCroghan  IT  et al.  Mortality following inpatient addictions treatment: role of tobacco use in a community-based cohort. JAMA. 1996;2751097- 1103
PubMed Link to Article
Clemmey  PBrooner  RChutuape  MAKidorf  MStitzer  M Smoking habits and attitudes in a methadone maintenance treatment population. Drug Alcohol Depend. 1997;44123- 132
PubMed Link to Article
Kreek  MJ Methadone-related opioid agonist pharmacotherapy for heroin addiction: history, recent molecular and neurochemical research and future in mainstream medicine. Ann N Y Acad Sci. 2000;909186- 216
PubMed Link to Article
Stimmel  B Heroin addiction and methadone maintenance: when will we ever learn? J Addict Dis. 1999;181- 4
PubMed Link to Article
Dole  VPNyswander  M A medical treatment for diacetylmorphine (heroin) addiction: a clinical trial with methadone hydrochloride. JAMA. 1965;193646- 650
PubMed Link to Article
Zweben  JEPayte  JT Methadone maintenance in the treatment of opioid dependence: a current perspective. West J Med. 1990;152588- 599
PubMed
Fiellin  DAO'Connor  PG New federal initiatives to enhance the medical treatment of opioid dependence. Ann Intern Med. 2002;137688- 692
PubMed Link to Article
Institute of Medicine, Federal Regulation of Methadone Treatment.  Washington, DC National Academy of Medicine1995;
Cooper  JR Including narcotic addiction treatment in an office-based practice. JAMA. 1995;2731619- 1620
PubMed Link to Article
National Consensus Development Panel on Effective Medical Treatment of Opiate Addiction, Effective medical treatment of opiate addiction. JAMA. 1998;2801936- 1943
PubMed Link to Article
Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, Health and Human Services: opioid drugs in maintenance and detoxification treatment of opioid addiction: final rule. 66, Federal Register 40762001;
D'Aunno  TPollack  HA Changes in methadone treatment practices: results from a national panel study, 1988-2000. JAMA. 2002;288850- 856
PubMed Link to Article
Kreek  MJ Opioid receptors: some perspectives from early studies of their role in normal physiology, stress responsivity, and in specific addictive diseases. Neurochem Res. 1996;211469- 1488
PubMed Link to Article
Dole  VPKreek  MJ Methadone plasma level: sustained by a reservoir of drug in tissue. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1973;7010
PubMed Link to Article
Kreek  M Clinical update of opioid agonist and partial agonist medications for the maintenance treatment of opioid addiction. Semin Neurosci. 1997;9140- 157
Link to Article
Simpson  DSells  S Effectiveness of treatment for drug abuse. Adv Alcohol Subst Abuse. 1982;27- 29
Link to Article
Yoast  RWilliams  MADeitchman  SDChampion  HC Report of the Council on Scientific Affairs: methadone maintenance and needle-exchange programs to reduce the medical and public health consequences of drug abuse. J Addict Dis. 2001;2015- 40
PubMed Link to Article
McGlothlin  WHAnglin  MD Long-term follow-up of clients of high- and low-dose methadone programs. Arch Gen Psychiatry. 1981;381055- 1063
PubMed Link to Article
Alter  MJMargolis  HSKrawczynski  K  et al. , the Sentinel Counties Chronic non-A, non-B Hepatitis Study Team, The natural history of community-acquired hepatitis C in the United States. N Engl J Med. 1992;3271899- 1905
PubMed Link to Article
Edlin  BRSeal  KHLorvick  J  et al.  Is it justifiable to withhold treatment for hepatitis C from illicit-drug users? N Engl J Med. 2001;345211- 214
PubMed Link to Article
Garfein  RSVlahov  DGalai  NDoherty  MCNelson  KE Viral infections in short-term injection drug users: the prevalence of the hepatitis C, hepatitis B, human immunodeficiency, and human T-lymphotropic viruses. Am J Public Health. 1996;86655- 661
PubMed Link to Article
Des  JMarmor  MFriedmann  P  et al.  HIV incidence among injection drug users in New York City, 1992-1997: evidence for a declining epidemic. Am J Public Health. 2000;90352- 359
PubMed Link to Article
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, HIV/AIDS Surveillance Report. Atlanta, Ga: Centers for Disease and Control and Prevention; 1999;11 ((2))
Grella  CEAnglin  DAnnon  JJ HIV risk behaviors among women in methadone maintenance treatment. Subst Use Misuse. 1996;31277- 301
PubMed Link to Article
Strathdee  SAGalai  NSafaiean  M  et al.  Sex differences in risk factors for HIV seroconversion among injection drug users: a 10-year perspective. Arch Intern Med. 2001;1611281- 1288
PubMed Link to Article
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, HIV/AIDS Report. Vol 6-2. Washington, DC Dept of Health and Human Services1995;
Camacho  LMBartholomew  NGJoe  GWCloud  MASimpson  DD Gender, cocaine and during-treatment HIV risk reduction among injection opioid users in methadone maintenance. Drug Alcohol Depend. 1996;411- 7
PubMed Link to Article
Novick  DMJoseph  HCroxson  TS  et al.  Absence of antibody to human immunodeficiency virus in long-term, socially rehabilitated methadone maintenance patients. Arch Intern Med. 1990;15097- 99
PubMed Link to Article
Magura  SRosenblum  ARodriguez  EM Changes in HIV risk behaviors among cocaine-using methadone patients. J Addict Dis. 1998;17 ((4)) 71- 90
PubMed Link to Article
Abbott  PJMoore  BAWeller  SBDelaney  HD AIDS risk behavior in opioid dependent patients treated with community reinforcement approach and relationships with psychiatric disorders. J Addict Dis. 1998;1733- 48
PubMed Link to Article
Zaric  GSBarnett  PGBrandeau  ML HIV transmission and the cost-effectiveness of methadone maintenance. Am J Public Health. 2000;901100- 1111
PubMed Link to Article
Kraft  MKRothbard  ABHadley  TRMcLellan  ATAsch  DA Are supplementary services provided during methadone maintenance really cost-effective? Am J Psychiatry. 1997;1541214- 1219
PubMed
San  LPomarol  GPeri  JMOlle  JMCami  J Follow-up after a six-month maintenance period on naltrexone versus placebo in heroin addicts. Br J Addict. 1991;86983- 990
PubMed Link to Article
Crowley  TJWagner  JEZerbe  GMacdonald  M Naltrexone-induced dysphoria in former opioid addicts. Am J Psychiatry. 1985;1421081- 1084
PubMed
Inturrisi  CEColburn  WAKaiko  RFHoude  RWFoley  KM Pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of methadone in patients with chronic pain. Clin Pharmacol Ther. 1987;41392- 401
PubMed Link to Article
Verebely  KVolavka  JMule  SResnick  R Methadone in man: pharmacokinetic and excretion studies in acute and chronic treatment. Clin Pharmacol Ther. 1975;18180- 190
PubMed
Inturrisi  CEPortenoy  RKMax  MBColburn  WAFoley  KM Pharmacokinetic-pharmacodynamic relationships of methadone infusions in patients with cancer pain. Clin Pharmacol Ther. 1990;47565- 577
PubMed Link to Article
Isbell  HVogel  V The addiction liability of methadone and its use in the treatment of the morphine abstinence syndrome. Am J Psychiatry. 1949;105909- 912
Dole  VPNyswander  MEKreek  MJ Narcotic blockade—a medical technique for stopping heroin use by addicts. Trans Assoc Am Phys. 1966;79122- 136
PubMed
Lowinson  JMarion  IJoseph  HDole  V Methadone maintenance. In: Lowinson J, Ruiz P, Millman B, Langrod J, eds. Substance Abuse: A Comprehensive Textbook. Baltimore, Md: Williams & Wilkins; 1992;550- 561
Karir  V Bradycardia associated with intravenous methadone administered for sedation in a patient with acute respiratory distress syndrome. Pharmacotherapy. 2002;221196- 1199
PubMed Link to Article
Kreek  MJGarfield  JWGutjahr  CLGiusti  LM Rifampin-induced methadone withdrawal. N Engl J Med. 1976;2941104- 1106
PubMed Link to Article
Kreek  MJ Plasma and urine levels of methadone: comparison following four medication forms used in chronic maintenance treatment. N Y State J Med. 1973;732773- 2777
PubMed
de Vos  JWGeerlings  PJvan den Brink  WUfkes  JGvan Wilgenburg  H Pharmacokinetics of methadone and its primary metabolite in 20 opiate addicts. Eur J Clin Pharmacol. 1995;48361- 366
PubMed Link to Article
Goldstein  A Blind dosage comparisons and other studies in a large methadone program. J Psychedelic Drugs. 1971;4177- 181
Link to Article
Strain  ECStitzer  MLLiebson  IABigelow  GE Dose-response effects of methadone in the treatment of opioid dependence. Ann Intern Med. 1993;11923- 27
PubMed Link to Article
Preston  KLUmbricht  AEpstein  DH Methadone dose increase and abstinence reinforcement for treatment of continued heroin use during methadone maintenance. Arch Gen Psychiatry. 2000;57395- 404
PubMed Link to Article
Kreek  MJ Drug interactions with methadone in humans. NIDA Res Monogr. 1986;68193- 225
PubMed
O'Connor  PGFiellin  DA Pharmacologic treatment of heroin-dependent patients. Ann Intern Med. 2000;13340- 54
PubMed Link to Article
Malaty  LIKuper  JJ Drug interactions of HIV protease inhibitors. Drug Saf. 1999;20147- 169
PubMed Link to Article
Ling  WRawson  RACompton  MA Substitution pharmacotherapies for opioid addiction: from methadone to LAAM to buprenorphine. J Psychoactive Drugs. 1994;26119- 128
PubMed Link to Article
Krantz  MJLewkowiez  LHays  HWoodroffe  MARobertson  ADMehler  PS Torsade de pointes associated with very-high-dose methadone. Ann Intern Med. 2002;137501- 504
PubMed Link to Article
Katchman  ANMcGroary  KAKilborn  MJ  et al.  Influence of opioid agonists on cardiac human ether-a-go-go–related gene K(+) currents. J Pharmacol Exp Ther. 2002;303688- 694
PubMed Link to Article
Vincent  GM Long QT syndrome. Cardiol Clin. 2000;18309- 325
PubMed Link to Article
Viskin  S Long QT syndromes and torsade de pointes. Lancet. 1999;3541625- 1633
PubMed Link to Article
Kaiko  RFInturrisi  CE Disposition of acetylmethadol in relation to pharmacologic action. Clin Pharmacol Ther. 1975;1896- 103
PubMed
Ling  WCompton  P Opiate maintenance therapy. In: Stine S, Kosten T, eds. New Treatment for Opiate Dependence. New York, NY: Guilford Press; 1997;286- 300
Oda  YKharasch  ED Metabolism of levo-alpha-acetylmethadol (LAAM) by human liver cytochrome P450: involvement of CYP3A4 characterized by atypical kinetics with two binding sites. J Pharmacol Exp Ther. 2001;297410- 422
PubMed
Borzelleca  JFEgle  JL  JrHarris  LSBelleville  JA Toxicological evaluation of µ-agonists, part II: assessment of toxicity following 30 days of repeated oral dosing of male and female rats with levo-α-noracetylmethadol HCl (NorLAAM). J Appl Toxicol. 1995;15339- 355
PubMed Link to Article
Moody  DEAlburges  MEParker  RJCollins  JMStrong  JM The involvement of cytochrome P450 3A4 in the N-demethylation of L-α-acetylmethadol (LAAM), norLAAM, and methadone. Drug Metab Dispos. 1997;251347- 1353
PubMed
Toro-Goyco  E Binding of L-α-acetylmethadol and its metabolites to blood constituents. Biochem Pharmacol. 1980;291897- 1902
PubMed Link to Article
Henderson  GLNorth-Root  HKuttab  SH Metabolism and disposition of L-α-acetylmethadol in the rat. Drug Metab Dispos. 1977;5321- 328
PubMed
Deamer  RLWilson  DRClark  DSPrichard  JG Torsades de pointes associated with high dose levomethadyl acetate (ORLAAM). J Addict Dis. 2001;207- 14
PubMed Link to Article
European Agency for the Evaluation of Medicinal Products, EMEA public statement to suspend the marketing authorization for Orlaam (Levacetylmethadol) in the European Union.  April19 2001;EMEA/8776/01. Available at: http://www.emea.eu.int/pdfs/human/press/pus/877601en.pdf. Accessed August 1, 2002
Not Available, Orlaam. [package insert].  Columbus, Ohio Roxane Laboratories Inc2002;
Johnson  REJaffe  JHFudala  PJ A controlled trial of buprenorphine treatment for opioid dependence. JAMA. 1992;2672750- 2755
PubMed Link to Article
Compton  PWesson  DCharuvastra  VLing  W Buprenorphine as a pharmacotherapy for opiate addiction. Am J Addict. 1996;5220- 230
Jasinski  DRPevnick  JSGriffith  JD Human pharmacology and abuse potential of the analgesic buprenorphine: a potential agent for treating narcotic addiction. Arch Gen Psychiatry. 1978;35501- 516
PubMed Link to Article
Bickel  WKAmass  L Buprenorphine treatment of opioid dependence. Exp Clin Psychopharmacol. 1995;3477- 489
Link to Article
Tracqui  AKintz  PLudes  B Buprenorphine-related deaths among drug addicts in France: a report on 20 fatalities. J Anal Toxicol. 1998;22430- 434
PubMed Link to Article
Kosten  TRSchottenfeld  RZiedonis  DFalcioni  J Buprenorphine versus methadone maintenance for opioid dependence. J Nerv Ment Dis. 1993;181358- 364
PubMed Link to Article
Segal  DSchuster  C Buprenorphine: Combating Drug Abuse With a Unique Opioid.  New York John Wiley & Sons1995;
Simpson  DJoe  GDansereau  DChatham  C Strategies for improving methadone treatment process and outcomes. J Drug Issues. 1997;27239- 260
Sees  KLDelucchi  KLMasson  C  et al.  Methadone maintenance vs 180-day psychosocially enriched detoxification for treatment of opioid dependence: a randomized controlled trial. JAMA. 2000;2831303- 1310
PubMed Link to Article
Martin  JPayte  JTZweben  JE Methadone maintenance treatment: a primer for physicians. J Psychoactive Drugs. 1991;23123- 133
PubMed Link to Article
Hubbard  RCraddock  SFlynn  PAnderson  JEtheridge  RM Overview of one-year follow up outcomes in the Drug Abuse Treatment Outcome Study (DATOS). Psychol Addict Behav. 1997;11261- 278
Link to Article
Johnson  REChutuape  MAStrain  ECWalsh  SLStitzer  MLBigelow  GE A comparison of levomethadyl acetate, buprenorphine, and methadone for opioid dependence. N Engl J Med. 2000;3431290- 1297
PubMed Link to Article
Strain  ECBigelow  GELiebson  IAStitzer  ML Moderate vs high-dose methadone in the treatment of opioid dependence: a randomized trial. JAMA. 1999;2811000- 1005
PubMed Link to Article
Ball  JRoss  A The Effectiveness of Methadone Maintenance Treatment.  New York, NY Springer-Verlag1991;
Eap  CBBourquin  MMartin  J  et al.  Plasma concentrations of the enantiomers of methadone and therapeutic response in methadone maintenance treatment. Drug Alcohol Depend. 2000;6147- 54
PubMed Link to Article
Hiltunen  AJLafolie  PMartel  J  et al.  Subjective and objective symptoms in relation to plasma methadone concentration in methadone patients. Psychopharmacology (Berl). 1995;118122- 126