March 4th, 2012
I teach a class on the psychology of addiction (Psych 477 at California State University in Long Beach) and as I have been preparing the lectures something has become very clear to me – textbooks patently gloss over important details about the addiction research they cite. One of the most obvious gaps I’ve noticed this semester concerns the population of research subjects most addiction research is conducted on. An example will clarify:
A student group in my class had to read a study assessing the residual effects of methamphetamine on mood and sleep. They were amazed that no changes in mood were observed and that participants slept a full 6-8 hours the night after being administered meth! Would you have been surprised with these results given that we all have been told that crystal meth improves mood and causes insomnia?
Would it matter at all if I told you that the participants in the study were current meth abusers who use an average of 4 times every week?
For anyone not aware of the tainted history of health research in the U.S. (I’m including psychological research in this group), go ahead and read about the Tuskegee Syphilis Experiment and Stanford Prison Experiment (video here). There are other examples including Stanley Milgram‘s obedience studies, and more but as exciting as the discussion of these studies is, it’s time to get back to my main point.
It is mostly due to the ethically-questionable, psychologically damaging, research above that research institutions are now required to vet proposed research studies using Institutional Review Boards (IRBs) to assure that human participants in studies are consenting to participate of their own free will, are not coerced, and are not suffering undue damage. This is also true of addiction research. Rarely does the public consider this fact however when they are being reported on research relevant to addiction. I know this because the kids in my class never gave it a second thought.
Nearly all addiction research, especially studies utilizing “hard” drugs like cocaine, meth, opiates, etc., are required to make use of a very limited part of society – drug using individuals with a history of use of the specific drug of interest who are specifically not interested in treatment. Individuals who have never tried the drug or who want to be treated for drug abuse or dependence (addiction) are excluded due to ethical concerns. In most studies, participants can not qualify if they are addicted to drugs other than those being studies (except smoking, for which exceptions are usually made since we’d be able left with no participants otherwise) or have any associated mental health disorders, which are very common among addicted individuals. I would further assert that for at least a substantial portion of these research participants, the term “addicts” may not be appropriate since many addicts would not willingly give up using their favorite substance for a week or two to be replaces with a hospital bed and an experimenter controlled dose of drug or placebo. Taken together, our research subjects are pretty obviously not representative of all drug users, or all addicts, or all anything else. They make up a very specific group – less than perfect, but what we have to work with.
In some studies that attempt to make a direct comparison between controls (or drug naive participants) and drug users, this is likely less of an issue. This can happen when researchers try to examine brain structure differences, or performance on a specific psychological or physical test. In such cases researchers can at least statistically identify contributions of length of use, method of use, and other relevant data on differences between people who use and those that don’t. There are probably still some serious differences between “true” addicts, recreational users, and semi-chronic users that would be important to understand here, but we can’t so we don’t. But when it comes to assessing mood effects, or indeed any of a number of subjective effects of drugs, drug cravings, and withdrawal, this limitation in the population to be studied is something that often needs to be made explicitly clear to most public consumers of research. Since we can’t assess changes in mood, absorption rate, anxiety, or any other such measure (some exceptions for very low doses in very specific circumstances) among people who are new to the drug, we end up assessing them among people with a lot of experience, but not enough of a problem to want addiction treatment. Again, this should be considered a pretty specific type of drug user in my opinion.
There are other types of studies – those conducted with abstinent ex-users or addiction treatment intervention studies utilizing addicts who want, or who reported to, treatment on their own or in response to advertisements. While these studies make use of populations that can be considered at least closer to the individuals they are specifically aimed at – assessing the return of cognitive function after short or long term abstinence or testing a new intervention on those who want treatment – they still bring on limitations that need to be specifically considered.
An important point – most researchers recognize these issues and make them explicitly part of their research publications, in a specific section called “Limitations” but what seems troubling is that the public doesn’t have any awareness of these issues. So when someone tells you that “they just found out meth doesn’t actually make people lose sleep,” take a second to ask “for who?”
|Posted in: Education
Tags: addiction, addiction research, anxiety, Brain, cocaine, cravings, drug, drug use, insomnia, mental health, meth, milgram, mood, opiates, psychology, research, studies, treatment, tuskegee, withdrawal
December 4th, 2011
The second leading cause of accidental death in the US is drug overdose (JAMA 2007). Prescription painkiller overdose deaths (opioid analgesics like OxyContin, Vicodin and methadone) account for nearly half of the 36,450 total fatal overdoses with 15,000 deaths that have claimed a number of celebrity lives including famous actor Heath Ledger (CDC 2011).
With so much concern over illegal drugs, it seems silly not to focus on a problem that is at least as deadly but far more accepted.
Drug overdose deaths increasing quickly
We’ve reported on this phenomenon before, so for the regular A3 readers this report might not seem new. But what’s staggering is just how quickly these numbers are moving up.
In 2004 there were 19,838 total accidental overdose deaths, with about 9,000 caused by prescribed drugs, and 8,000 more caused by illegal drugs like cocaine, heroin, and methamphetamines (Paulozzi, LJ, Budnitz 2006). That signals a near doubling in about 7 years, and when you look at numbers from 1999, we’re talking about triple the accidental drug overdose deaths in just over a decade! Fastest growing cause of death in our country ladies and gentlemen.
SAMHSA Reports that use of prescription pain relievers (opioid analgesics) have increased since 2002 from 360,000 to 754,000 people in 2010. That means that people are twice as likely to use these drugs now, which would be fine if 5% of the users weren’t dying every year. A study I talked about on ABC’s Good Morning America earlier this year (see here) reported that people taking heavy doses are especially likely to die and that this might be at least partially due to additional opioid use over and above the prescribed regimen.Time to get this under control prescribers!!!
This increase in usage opioid analgesics like Oxycontin, Vicodin, and methadone has made them the some of the most deadly drugs in the USA (Paulozzi, LJ, Budnitz 2006). In 1999 to 2004 prescription overdose related to opioid analgesics increased from 2,900 to at least 7,500, this equates to 160% increase in just 5 years (Paulozzi).
A JAMA study conducted between 1999 to 2004 reported that white women showed a relative increase in unintentional drug related deaths of 136.5% followed by young adults aged 15-24 years (113.3%). But the latest report from the CDC suggest that Men and middle aged individuals are most likely to be affected by this growing epidemic. The bottom line is this problem is either moving around or is universal enough affect essentially every major group of Americans. One of the scariest findings from this most recent CDC study may be the conclusion that states are generally unprepared to deal with this growing epidemic.
What can we do about overdose deaths?
First of all, it is seriously time that we had more consistent state and federal computer systems keeping track of prescriptions for heavily controlled drugs in this country. We can keep track of packages moving across state lines with no problem, why is it so damn hard to watch pills that lead to 35,000 deaths? Most states have them in place but they’re not heavily used and there’s nothing at all that looks at cross federal prescription patterns.
Second, we wrote about some harm-reduction methods to reduce overdose deaths, things like intranasal naloxone, safe injection sites, and more. As far as I’m concerned, we need to get off our national moral horse and start acting responsibly when it comes to saving lives. If we have simple solutions that have been shown to reduce deaths while not increasing abuse, I say let’s implement!!! Anything else is simply wrong.
Paulozzi, LJ, Budnitz, DS, Xi, Y. Increasing deaths from opioid analgesics in the United States. Pharmacoepidemiology Drug Safety 2006; 15: 618-627. (originally published in 2006 and recently updated)
|Posted in: Education
Tags: A3, accidental death, analesics like oxycontin, analgesics, CDC, cocaine, death, deaths opioid analgesics, drug overdose, heath ledger, heroin, JAMA, methadone, methamphetamine, opioid, opioid analgesics, overdose, overdose deaths, oxycontin, vicodin
October 30th, 2011
A recent development (check it out here) might lead the way to a quicker, more easily administered drug test. Instead of the lab analysis of urine, blood, or other fluids, this recent technology might allow first responders, such as EMTs, to assess a person’s exposure to drugs (prescription and otherwise) by simply dipping this device (think pregnancy test) into their saliva.
As of right now, the researchers have been able to demonstrate the success of the technology with cocaine, but it shouldn’t be too long before they can provide similar devices for many different drugs.
Now, it’s true that I usually focus on abused drugs in this blog, but this technology could help medical professionals identify dangerous drug interactions common to many prescribed, properly taken, medications. Given the huge increases in prescription medication abuse in the United States, that could be extremely useful and might save some of the 12,000 lives annually lost to accidental overdoses.
Maybe when these devices get cheap enough they can be used in addiction treatment centers to provide more immediate testing results.
Who knows, one day, the technology might be widespread enough to make home drug-testing a simple reality. Whether that’s a good or bad thing should probably be left to another post…
|Posted in: Education
Tags: cocaine, devices, drug, drug test, Drugs, emergency, EMT, Medications, prescription, prescription drug abuse, rehab, saliva, technology, treatment
October 17th, 2011
Researchers are attacking the issue of drug addiction from multiple angles, and the results seem to be more and more ways to help. Some promising new developments in pharmacological (as in medication) therapies include a new cocaine-vaccine, as well as expanded use of Buprenorphine, for the treatment of opiate (heroin, morphine) addiction.
- These medications are best used along with behavioral treatment in order to increase to probability of treatment success.
- By reducing cravings, as well as reducing the effects of the drugs themselves, these medications can increase the length of time that patients will stay in treatment, which is the most reliable way of producing better treatment outcomes.
What else is new aside from medications?
There are also some exciting developments in the behavioral treatment, including Contingency Management (CM), a treatment method that tries to reteach addicts positive, drug-free behaviors by reinforcing those over the use of drugs. While some people still have problems with programs that use CM because of the notion of rewarding drug addicts for not using drugs, I say use whatever works!
Lastly, as early as 2003, researchers have noted that proper drug treatment may take longer than the 14-30 day programs that are currently being offered (1). In fact, while the article I’m referring too speaks specifically about methamphetamine addiction, we now know that the long use of many drugs, including cocaine, leads to long lasting brain changes that can take up to a year to show significant recovery.
I personally think that proper drug treatment for long time addicts (anyone with more than a year or so of heavy use) should take on the order of 6 months to a year, and should be supplemented by some outpatient post-care for an extended period of time (I’m far from the only one calling for this, see article 2). It’s the only sensible thing to do given the long term changes that such drug use creates in the brain…
I think it’s about time that insurance companies step up the plate and recognize that the huge cost of drug problems for our society (estimated at more than $100 billion annually) can be vastly reduced by providing sound, scientifically based, medical treatment options for those who need it.
(1) Margaret Cretzmeyer M.S.W, Mary Vaughan Sarrazin Ph.D., Diane L. Huber Ph.D., R.N., FAAN, CNAAc, Robert I. Block Ph.D. & James A. Hall Ph.D., LISW( 2003) Treatment of methamphetamine abuse: research findings and clinical directions. Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment Volume 24.
(2) A. Thomas McLellan, PhD; David C. Lewis, MD; Charles P. O’Brien, MD, PhD; Herbert D. Kleber, MD (2000). Drug Dependence, a Chronic Medical Illness: Implications for Treatment, Insurance, and Outcomes Evaluation. Journal of the American Medical Association, Volume 284, pp. 1689-1695.
Question of the day:
Do you know anyone who’s been through residential drug treatment?
How long were they in for?
How many times?
Did it help?
|Posted in: Drugs, Drugs, Education, Medications, Treatment
Tags: Buprenorphine, cocaine, contingency management, drug treatment, Drugs, heroin, medical treatment, medication, residential treatment
October 15th, 2011
By the time I was done with my addiction to crystal meth, I had racked up 4 arrests, 9 felonies, a $750,000 bail, a year in jail, and an eight year suspended sentence to go along with my 5 year probation period. Though I think education is important to keep getting the message out about addiction and drug abuse, there is no doubt that addiction stories do a great job of getting the message across, so here goes.
My crystal meth addiction story
The kid my parents knew was going nowhere, and fast. That’s why I was surprised when they came to my rescue after 3 years of barely speaking to them. My lawyer recommended that I check into a rehab facility immediately; treating my drug abuse problem was our only line of legal defense.
I had long known that I had an addiction problem when I first checked myself into rehab. Still, my reason for going in was my legal trouble. Within 3 months, I was using crystal meth again, but the difference was that this time, I felt bad about it. I had changed in those first three months. The daily discussions in the addiction treatment facility, my growing relationship with my parents, and a few sober months (more sobriety than I had in years) were doing their job. I relapsed as soon as I went back to work in my studio, which was a big trigger for me, but using wasn’t any fun this time.
I ended up being kicked out of that facility for providing a meth-positive urine test. My parents were irate. I felt ashamed though I began using daily immediately. My real lesson came when I dragged myself from my friend’s couch to an AA meeting one night. I walked by a homeless man who was clearly high when the realization hit me:
I was one step away from becoming like this man.
You see, when I was in the throes of my crystal meth addiction, I had money because I was selling drugs. I had a great car, a motorcycle, an apartment and my own recording studio. After my arrest though, all of that had been taken away. I just made matters worse by getting myself thrown out of what was serving as my home, leaving myself to sleep on a friend’s couch for the foreseeable future.
Something had to change.
I woke up the next morning, smoked some meth, and drove straight to an outpatient drug program offered by my health insurance. I missed the check-in time for that day, but I was told to come back the next morning, which I did. I talked to a counselor, explained my situation, and was given a list of sober-living homes to check out.
As I did this, I kept going to the program’s outpatient meetings, high on crystal meth, but ready to make a change. I was going to do anything I could so as not to end up homeless, or a lifetime prisoner. I had no idea how to stop doing the one thing that had been constant in my life since the age of 15, but I was determined to find out.
When I showed up at the sober-living facility that was to be the place where I got sober, I was so high I couldn’t face the intake staff. I wore sunglasses indoors at 6 PM. My bags were searched, I was shown to my room, and the rest of my life began.
I wasn’t happy to be sober, but I was happier doing what these people told me than I was fighting the cops, the legal system, and the drugs. I had quite a few missteps, but I took my punishments without a word, knowing they were nothing compared to the suffering I’d experience if I left that place.
Overall, I have one message to those struggling with getting clean:
If you want to get past the hump of knowing you have a problem but not knowing what to do about it, the choice has to be made clear. This can’t be a game of subtle changes. No one wants to stop using if the alternative doesn’t seem a whole lot better. For most of us, that means hitting a bottom so low that I can’t be ignored. You get to make the choice of what the bottom will be for you.
You don’t have to almost die, but you might; losing a job could be enough, but if you miss that sign, the next could be the streets; losing your spouse will sometimes do it, but if not, losing your shared custody will hurt even more.
At each one of these steps, you get to make a choice – Do I want things to get worse or not?
Ask yourself that question while looking at the price you’ve paid up to now. If you’re willing to go even lower for that next hit, I say go for it. If you think you want to stop but can’t seem to really grasp just how far you’ve gone, get a friend you trust, a non-using friend, and have them tell you how they see the path your life has taken.
It’s going to take a fight to get out, but if I beat my addiction, you can beat yours.
By now, I’ve received my Ph.D. from UCLA, one of the top universities in the world. I study addiction research, and publish this addiction blog along with a Psychology Today column and a number of academic journals. I also have my mind set on changing the way our society deals with drug abuse and addiction. Given everything I’ve accomplished by now, the choice should have seemed clear before my arrest – but it wasn’t. I hope that by sharing addiction stories, including mine, we can start that process.
|Posted in: Addiction Stories, Alcohol, Cocaine, Drugs, Drugs, Education, Marijuana, Meth, Sex, Sex
Tags: addiction, addiction recovery, addiction stories, arrest, bail, choice, cocaine, crystal, crystal meth, crystal meth addiction, drug abuse, drug use, felony, homeless, ice, jail, marijuana, meth, meth addict, my addiction, outpatient, parole, prison, probation, problem, recovery, rehabs, sober, sober-living, Speed, stealing, substance abuse
October 15th, 2011
In a recent post the notion that “loss of control” is an addiction myth was raised by our contributing author, Christopher Russell, a thoughtful graduate student studying substance abuse in the U.K. Though I obviously personally believe in control- and choice-relevant neurological mechanisms playing a part in addiction, this conversation is a common one both within and outside of the drug abuse field. Therefore, I welcome the discussion onto our pages. I’d like to start out by reviewing some of the more abstract differences between my view and the one expressed by Christopher and follow those with some evidence to support my view and refute the evidence brought forth by him.
Addiction conceptualization – Philosophical and logical differences and misinterpretations
One of the first issues I take with the argument against control as a major factor in drug addiction is the interpretation of the phrase “loss of control” as meaning absence, rather than a reduction, in control over addiction and addictive behavior. Clearly though, one of the definitions of loss is a “decrease in amount, magnitude, or degree” (from Merriam-Webster.com) and not the destruction of something. Science is an exercise in probabilities so when scientists say “loss”, they mean a decrease and not a complete absence in the same way that findings showing that smoking cigarettes causes cancer do not mean that if an individual smokes cigarettes they will inevitably develop cancerous tumors. Similarly, the word “can’t” colloquially means having a low probability of success and not the complete inability to succeed. Intervention that improve the probability of quitting smoking (like bupropion or quitlines for smoking) success are therefore said to cause improvements in the capacity for quitting.
Next, Christopher wants scientists to identify the source of “will” in the brain but I suggest that “will” itself is simply a term he has given a behavioral outcome – the ability to make a choice that falls in line with expectations. In actuality, “will” is more commonly used as a reference to motivation, which while measurable, isn’t really the aspect of addiction involved in cognitive control. Instead, what we’re talking about is “capacity” to make a choice. The issue is a significant, not semantic one, since the argument most neuroscientists make about drug abuse is that addicts suffer a reduced capacity to make appropriate behavioral choices, especially as they pertain to engaging in the addictive behavior of interest. If someone is attempting to get into a car but repeatedly fails, we say they can’t get in the car (capacity), not that they don’t want to (will). Saying that they simply “don’t” get in the car doesn’t get at either capacity or will but instead is simply descriptive. I don’t believe that science is, or should be, merely descriptive but instead that it allows us to form conclusions based on available information.
That there is a segment of individuals who develop compulsive behavioral patterns tied to alcohol and drug use and who attempt to stop but fail is, to my mind, evidence that those individuals have a difficulty (capacity) in stopping their drug use. Their motivation (will) to quit is an aspect that has been shown to be associated with their probability of success but the two are by no means synonymous. It is important to note, and understand, that the attribution for the performance should not fall squarely on the shoulders of the individuals. We humans are so prone to making that mistake that it has a name, “The fundamental attribution error,” and indeed, individuals who show compulsive, addictive, behavior do so because of neuropharmacological, environmental, and social reasons in addition to the complex interactions between them all. But no one is disputing that and in fact, the article used by Christopher to point out the notion of a “tipping point” in addiction directly points out that fact in the next paragraph (Page 4), which he chose not to reference or acknowledge.
“Of course, addiction is not that simple. Addiction is not just a brain disease. It is a brain disease for which the social contexts in which it has both developed and is expressed are critically important… The implications are obvious. If we understand addiction as a prototypical psychobiological illness, with critical biological, behavioral, and social-context components, our treatment strategies must include biological, behavioral, and social-context elements.” (Lashner, 1997)
Lastly, Christopher’s philosophical musings are interesting, but they seem to stray away from trying to find an explanation for behavior and instead simply deconstruct evidence. In a personal communication I explained that while most addiction researchers understand that addiction, like most other mental health disorders is composed of a continuum of control ranging from absolute control over behavior to no control whatsoever (with most people fitting somewhere in the middle and few if any at the extreme ends), categorization is a necessary evil of clinical treatment. The same is true for every quantitative measure from height (Dwarfism is sometimes defined as adults who are shorter than 4’10”) to weight (BMI greater than 30 kg/m²). I think it’s equally as tough to argue that someone with a BMI of 29.5 is distinctly different from an individual with a BMI of 30 as it is to argue that there is no utility in the classification. Well, the same applies for drug addiction, although some people categorically object to classification and believe it has no utility or justification.
Now for the evidence – “Choice” and “control” are not the same as “will”
Some people quit, even without help – Christopher and a number of the people he cites in support (Peele, Alexander), suggest that because some people do stop using that it can’t be said that there is a problem with any individuals’ capacity to stop. The problem with that argument is that it supposes that everyone is the same, a fact that is simply false. As an example I would like to suggest that we compare cognitive control with physical control and use Huntington’s Disease (HD or Huntington’s Chorea) as an example.
HD patients suffer mental dementia but the physical symptoms of the disease, an inability to control their physical movement resulting in flailing limbs often referred to as the Huntington Dance, are almost always the first noticeable symptoms. Nevertheless, HD sufferers experience a number of debilitating symptoms that originate in brain dysfunction (specifically destruction of striatum neurons, the substantia nigra, and hippocampus) and that alter their ability (capacity) to control their movements and affect their memory and executive function leading to problems in planning and higher order thought processes. So, while it is true that most people can control their arm movements, here is an example of individuals who progressively become worse and worse at doing so due to a neurophramacological disorder. There is currently no cure for HD but some medications that help treat it no doubt restore some of the capacity of these patients to control their movements. If a cure is found it would be difficult to say, as Christopher suggests of addiction, that the cure does not affect the capacity of HD patients to control what they once could not. I chose HD for its physiological set of symptoms but a similar example could easily be constructed for schizophrenia and a number of other mental health disorders (including ADHD and drug addiction). Importantly, cognitive control is a function of brain activity, activity that can become compromised as the set of experiment I will discuss next show.
An experiment conducted at UCLA (1) has shown that cocaine administrations reduced animals’ ability to change their behavior when environmental conditions called for it. Even more meaningful was the finding that once animals are exposed to daily doses of drugs, the way their learning systems function is altered even when the drugs themselves are no longer on board and even when the learning has nothing to do with drugs per se.
In the experiment, conducted by Dr. David Jentsch and colleagues, monkeys were given either a single dose (less than the equivalent of a tenth of a gram for a 150lb human) or repeated doses (1/8 to 1/4 of a gram equivalent once daily for 14 days) of cocaine. The task involved learning an initial association between the location of food in one of three boxes and then learning that the location of the food has changed. We call this task reversal learning since animals have to unlearn an established relationship to learn a new one.
Obviously, the animals want the food, and so the appropriate response once the location is changed is to stop picking the old location and move on to the new one that now holds the coveted food. This sort of thing happens all the time in life and indeed, during addiction it seems that people have trouble adjusting their behavior when taking drugs is no longer rewarding and is, in fact, even troublesome (as in leading to jail, family breakups, etc.).
In the experiment, animals exposed to cocaine had trouble (when compared to control animals that got an injection of saline water) learning to reverse their selection when tested 20 minutes after getting the drug, which is not surprising but still an example of how drug administration can causally affect an individual’s ability to make appropriate choices. As pointed above, the most interesting finding had to do with the animals that got a dose of cocaine every day for 14 days. Even after a full week of being off the drug, these animals showed an interesting effect that persisted for a month – while their ability to learn that initial food-box association, they had significant trouble changing their selection once the conditions changed. Remember, this effect was present with no cocaine in their system and with learning conditions that had nothing whatsoever to do with cocaine.
If that’s not direct evidence that having drugs in your system can alter the way your brain makes choices, I don’t know what is.
Another study conducted by Calu and colleagues with rats found similar (or even more pronounced) reversal learning problems after training the animals to take cocaine for themselves, clarifying that it is the taking of cocaine and not the method that causes the impairments.
Another entire set of studies has shown that stimuli (also known as cues or triggers) that have become associated with drugs can bring back long-forgotten drug-seeking behavior once they are reintroduced. This was shown in that Calu paper I mentioned above and in so many other articles that it would be wasteful to go through all the evidence here. Importantly, this evidence shows that drug associated cues direct behavior towards drug seeking in a way that biases behavior regardless of any underlying will. My own research has shown that animals who respond greatly to drugs (nicotine in our case) likely learn to integrate more of these triggers than animals who show a reduced response, indicating once again that these animals bias their behavioral selection towards drug-seeking more than usual. While we have more studies to conduct, we believe that genetic differences relevant to dopamine and possibly other neurotransmitters important for learning (like Glutamate) are responsible for this effect.
While we can’t do these kinds of experiments with people (research approval committee’s just won’t let you give drugs to people who haven’t used them before), there is quite a bit of evidence showing an association between trouble in reversal learning and chronic drug use in humans (see citation 3 for example) as well as research showing very different brain activity among addicted individuals to drug-associated versus non-drug cues (like seeing a crack pipe versus a building). All this evidence suggests that drug users are different in the way they learn generally, and more specifically about drugs, than individuals not addicted to drugs. When it comes to genetics, we know quite a bit about the association between substance abuse and specific genes, especially when it comes to dopamine function. As expected, genetic variation in dopamine receptor subtypes important in learning about rewards (D4 and D2) has been revealed to exist between addicts and non addicts. Without getting into the techniques and analysis methods involved in these genetic studies, their sheer number and the relationship between substance abuse and other impulse disorders points to a direct relationship between drug use disorders (and possibly other addictive disorders) and a reduced capacity to exert behavioral control. Less capacity for control is what researchers have found sets addict apart from non-addicts.
Summary, conclusions, and final thoughts
In closing, there are undoubtedly imperfections about the ways we diagnose addiction (drug addiction and others). It would probably be nice if we could figure out a way to incorporate what we know about the continuous nature of the disorder with the need for clinical delineation of who requires addiction treatment and who doesn’t. Addiction researchers are far from the only ones who wonder about this question though (the same issues are relevant for schizophrenia, depression, and nearly every mental health disorder) and I am certain that better and better solutions will emerge.
However, the discussion of stigma in this context needs to allow us to discuss the reality of addiction without having to resort to blaming and counter-blaming. If I describe the Toyota Prius as being slow but incredibly efficient I am no more stigmatizing than if I describe a Ferrari as being incredibly fact but wasteful in terms of fuel. The same applies, or should apply, to health and mental health diagnoses – Just because an individual is less able to exert cognitive control over impulses should not by definition call into question their standing as a human being. We are complex machines and by improving our understanding of the nuts and bolts that make us function we can only, in my opinion, improve our ability to make the best use of our capabilities while understanding our relative strengths and weaknesses. Any other way of looking at it seems to me to be either wishful (I can do anything if I want it badly enough) or defeatist (I will never be anything because I’m not good at X) and neither seem like good options to me.
1) Jentsch, Olausson, De La Garza, and Tylor (2002): Impairments of Reversal Learning and Response Perseveration after Repeated, Intermittent Cocaine Administrations to Monkeys. Neuropsychopharmacology, Volume 26, Issue 2, Pages 183-190
2) Calu et al (2007) Withdrawal from cocaine self-administration produces long-lasting deficits in orbitofrontal-dependent reversal learning in rats. Learning & Memory, 14, 325-328.
3) Some evidence in humans from Trevor Robbins’ group: Reversal deficits in current chronic cocaine users.
|Posted in: Education
Tags: addiction, addictive, ADHD, Brain, capacity, cocaine, cognitive control, compulsive, control, depression, dopamine, drug, drug use, genetic differences, glutamate, hd, hippocampus, huntington's disease, learning, mental health, mental health disorders, motivation, obesity, peele, reversal learning, schizophrenia, science, striatum, substance abuse, substnatia nigra, treatment, triggers, UCLA, will
September 11th, 2011
You may not have realized it, but men and women are different. Really.
Though the statement may seem like the most unnecessary, obvious, expression since the dawn of time, it’s surprising how rarely the importance of these differences comes up when we talk about addiction. Still, there’s little doubt that if our hormones, brain development, and even our reaction the to exact same stories aren’t the same, the way we react to drugs, or to addiction treatment, are likely gender specific as well. In fact, while men are almost twice as likely to meet criteria for addiction, women seem to move from casual use to addiction more quickly. Let’s explore some addiction research findings that may tell us why.
Social stress, drug use, and addiction
If you’ve gone through high-school, you know that boys and girls have different sort of social interactions. Women develop tightly knit cliques that aim to protect them from being fully ostracized while keeping out those who may cause trouble within the fold.
Indeed, when researchers compared cocaine using men and women, they found much greater neural activation in the drug-seeking brain regions of women during social stress (things like exclusion, being put down, and such) than were found for men or for women who didn’t use drugs. Similar findings have been reported for a neuroprotective hormone called DHEAS, which was found to be lower in women and in cocaine addicts, signaling their increased vulnerability to stress-induced immune problems. It’s hard to tell which came first, but social stress “triggered” these women’s systems a lot more than it did men. And the differences change behaviors too – Research in monkeys found that while male monkeys used more cocaine if they were “losers” (lower on the social ladder), female monkeys who were “leaders” were found to use more cocaine when given a chance.
Obviously, social standing and events mean different things, and bring about different reactions to drugs, for men and women.
Drug use, the brain, and gender
Not only do men and women act differently when it comes to drugs, but differences have been found in the specific brain changes associated with drug exposure between the sexes!
Research in rats has shown that brain changes following prenatal (before birth) exposure to cocaine are different between males and females and that they interact with exposure to social stimulation. In humans, researchers found differences in brain volume, and its association with early trauma, emotional, and physical, neglect between boys and girls at risk for substance abuse problems. Other work found that the prenatal cocaine exposure was more greatly associated with memory problems in women than men.
Sex (gender) and drugs – the takeaway
So, men and women are not the same. Not a big surprise I know, but the specific ways in which the two sexes react to the intake of drugs and the differences in their responses to stress that may motivate them to use at different times can become important factors to consider both in prevention AND in addiction treatment setting. For instance, it seems that we’d want to look at the possibility that drug prevention efforts should look at social-standing among adolescents when determining might need the most attention. Also, if exposure to drugs affects the brain differently in the different sexes because of differences in the concentration of protective hormones, it’s possible that the specific aspects of treatment that require focus might be different too.
Some food for thought…
|Posted in: Education
Tags: addiction, boys girls, Brain, brain changes, cocaine, different, Drugs, men, men women, neuroprotective, social, social stress, stress, trauma, treatment, women