Concord Seminar Tuesday 30 January 2007
Amphetamine/Stimulant Use: Presentations, complications, interventions.
Speakers: Dr Alex Wodak, Director of the Alcohol and Drug Service, and Ms Tarra Adam, Stimulant Treatment Program, Clinical Program Manager, St Vincent’s Hospital, Darlinghurst. Chaired by Dr Bob Batey.
Dear Colleagues,
Dr Wodak gave an overview of increasing amphetamine use around the world. In 2002, of 91 countries, 56 showed increasing "abuse" of amphetamines, and 11 showed a decrease. There was an increase in amphetamine labs in the years from 1998 to 2004 of 300 to 18,000, with production of Amphetamine Type Substances (ATS) rising from 312 tons to 480 (UNODCCP Global Illicit Drug Trends 2002). Among 15-64 year olds in 2006 there was a prevalence of ATS use in Asia of 0.6%, Oceania of 3%, and Global 0.6% (UNDCP 2006 World Drug Report).
Australian Institute of Health and Welfare statistics show an increase in admissions for amphetamine-related psychosis, from approximately 1000 in 1999/2000 to approximately 1600 in 2003/2004. There has probably been a further increase since then, however the increases have been patchy across the country, with increases in NSW and Victoria being less than other states (a large increase in the year 1999 can be attributed to the change from ICD 9 to ICD 10 definitions).
Recently there has been a trend away from plant based substances to chemical based drugs due to efforts to avoid both the vagaries of weather, and improved surveillance by air and satellite.
To get an idea of the size of the problem in economic terms Dr Wodak pointed out that the size of the illicit "drug industry" in the UK was about the same as British Airways.
Regarding the cost effectiveness of treatment, there have not been any studies specifically looking at amphetamines but it is more cost effective to spend money on cocaine drug treatment than on drug law enforcement (Rydell, Everingham. Controlling Cocaine: Supply Versus Demand Programs, RAND, 1994.) Because of similarities to cocaine, these conclusions may be also relevant to amphetamines.
In the words of the economist Milton Friedman: "So long as large sums of money are involved - and they are bound to be if drugs are illegal - it is literally hopeless to expect to end the traffic or even to reduce seriously its scope. In drugs, as in other areas, persuasion and example are likely to be far more effective than the use of force to shape others in our image."
Dr Wodak described typical presentations of amphetamine use: a psychosis that looks like schizophrenia; severe, even suicidal, depression; aggressive behaviour; strokes, hypertension, and arrhythmias; possibly risky sex including HIV risk; infections from injecting drug use including HCV, septicaemia, bacterial endocarditis; and general "social catastrophes" - financial problems, lost jobs and broken relationships, and gambling problems.
No specific regimen has been found to be better or worse than any other for withdrawal management, as amphetamine withdrawal is not well understood.
Cochrane reviews have found evidence about the treatment for amphetamine psychosis is limited: medications of interest are conventional antipsychotics, newer antipsychotics and benzodiazepines. An injection of "anti-psychotic drugs can help relieve the symptoms of amphetamine psychosis within an hour, but there is not enough evidence to show what can help after that".
Among psychosocial interventions for amphetamine dependence, motivational interviewing and cognitive behavioural therapy show promise. Most in the audience had not used the excellent recommended handbook by Baker, Kay-Lambkin, Lee, Claire and Jenner. “A Brief Cognitive Behavioural Intervention for Regular Amphetamine Users” Department of Health and Ageing 2003 - downloadable from the web: http://www.health.gov.au/internet/wcms/publishing.nsf/Content/health-pubhlth-publicat-document-cognitive_intervention-cnt.htm/$FILE/cognitive_intervention.pdf
Among non-agonist pharmacological treatments for amphetamine dependence, 30-40 different drugs have been evaluated but none really found to be helpful (see Cochrane Review).
Setting the context for agonist pharmacological treatments, Dr Wodak gave the following overview: some amphetamine, especially methamphetamine, users become very chaotic, very volatile, and some become violent. As they may develop paranoia or psychosis, so engaging patients often takes longer, and may be much harder than with other substance dependent patients. They need access to prompt, effective mental health support, and most respond very positively to psychosocial interventions. However a few people with severe intractable use may need Amphetamine Substitution Treatment (AST) in combination with psychosocial interventions.
We were pointed to two reviews of the numerous studies of Amphetamine Substitution Treatment (dating from Griffith Edward’s first study in the 1960s, which gave negative results).
· Shearer J, Sherman J, Wodak A, van Beek I. Substitution therapy for amphetamine users. Drug and Alcohol Review 2002; 21 (2), 179-185.
· Grabowski J, Shearer J, Merrill J, Negus S. Agonist-like replacement pharmacotherapy for stimulant abuse and dependence. Addictive Behaviors. 29 (2004); 1439-1464.
These reviews show that, comparable to the situation for methadone in the 1970s, there is reasonable evidence for the effectiveness and safety of AST. It may be not needed for as high a percentage, nor as long, as for heroin dependent people who need methadone.
Dr Wodak reminded us of the principles of drug substitution treatment:
1. to replace: a short acting drug with a longer action one; an illegal drug with a legal drug; an injectable drug with an oral drug; and
2. to stabilise, counsel, and then where ever possible wean off, as in nicotine replacement, and opioid substitution treatment.
The NSW Department of Health established Stimulant Treatment Programmes in November 2006 at St Vincent’s Hospital, Darlinghurst and in the Hunter New England region. These programmes offer psychosocial interventions but for severe and refractory cases which meet strict criteria, trials are using immediate release dexamphetamine, as slow release amphetamine (which would be preferable) is not yet licensed for use in Australia. There will be daily supervised dosing of 60mg maximum, only for people with severe intractable problems, with small numbers of about 30 per year in each centre. The programmes are being independently evaluated.
The selection criteria are very strict, as Dr Wodak believes it is wiser to start such a treatment with strict limits and later liberalise it if appropriate, rather than "let the genie out of the bottle" too soon.
The power of substitution treatment has been shown in Zurich, where there has been saturation treatment with methadone and other opioids (including prescribed heroin), accompanied by a marked decrease in heroin use, drug overdose, crime and heroin seizures by police, and an 82% reduction in new heroin users from 850 in 1990 to only 150 in 2002. (Nordt, Stohler. Lancet 2006 367 1830-34).
Another benefit may be if ATS acts like a carrot, getting people with problems to ask for help. A number of people on the waiting list for ATS at St Vincent’s Hospital have improved just with psychosocial interventions while being considered for pharmacotherapy.
Tarra Adam then spoke on her work with amphetamine users at Sydney’s St Vincent’s Hospital. She sees those that present at the hospital with problems related to amphetamine use, or who refer themselves.
Some present with aggression or violence which is out of character and worries them. Many have learnt to manage their use reasonably well, before seeking any treatment.
There is a perception that Alcohol and Drug Services are not for them, and historically these services may have had little to offer. ATS users are often suspicious of the service and whether the service can meet their needs, and may appear to be testing out the therapists, having a strong sense of what they want. Often they wish to be seen in a different area or using a separate entrance, because they are "not like the others".
Amphetamine users do tend to show a different profile, being less impoverished and more educated, motivated but hard to engage, often successful at work with a wide range of social contacts, and in better social circumstances than heroin users. Most are daily users, some injecting 3 times a day, some up to 9 times. The majority of people seen at the St Vincent’s Hospital Stimulant Treatment Program are smoking "crystal". Not many switch between amphetamines and cocaine.
A range of therapies is offered, including Motivational Interviewing, Cognitive Behavioural Therapy, and people may be referred to a “SMART Recovery” group. However CBT may be just too difficult for a person who is chaotic or paranoid, and often experience cognitive impairment during periods of use or whilst in withdrawal. In the early stages of treatment, some people find it difficult to concentrate and connect with how their thoughts and feelings influence their behaviour. In addition, talking about triggers and motivations to change with stimulant users has in our experience, increased people’s craving for the drug and can contribute to ongoing use and/ or relapse. Therefore we concentrate on addressing the wider impact of stimulant use on their sense of self, the impact of use on their relationships, rather than concentrating on the drug use itself.
Therefore, other approaches may be needed, with the aim of trying to engage the person.
Narrative Therapy is an example: here the emphasis is centred on people as the experts in their own lives. It views problems as separate from the person and holds that people come with many skills, beliefs, values and abilities that will assist them to reduce the influence of problems such as stimulants in their lives. People often present to therapy with a problem saturated story that dominates beliefs about themselves and influences the choices they make. Narrative conversations seek out the alternative/ preferred stories –stories that are identified by the person about how they would like to live their lives, what it would mean to them to make these changes and supports them to perform this meaning. The therapist seeks out examples of such stories in their lives which support people to break from the influence of the problems they are facing and create new possibilities for their future by increasing awareness of their skills, beliefs, values, and abilities to reduce the influence of stimulants in their lives. A reference for those interested to know more is "What is Narrative Therapy?" by Alice Morgan (can be ordered from the Dulwich Centre - the link for a summary of her book is: http://www.dulwichcentre.com.au/alicearticle.html)
In the second half, chaired by Dr Bob Batey, a range of case vignettes was discussed.
The first case was a woman who declared "I always shoot speed on my pension day, Doc. It is the only time I ever clean the house … but now all my veins are gone!"
Among the points raised were: possible causes of the exhaustion include following a binge, chronic hepatitis C, and depression. A question was raised about the safety of using antidepressants, including SSRIs, in people who use stimulants, including MDMA. Although this was a theoretical risk, given that these medications and drugs raise monoamine levels in synapses, the expected "epidemic of Serotonin Syndrome has not materialised", as one participant put it. It may be worth suggesting safer ways of administration, as a harm reduction measure, and may be appropriate to refer her for financial management assistance through Centrelink, which offers the Centrepay service for regular payments. It was generally agreed that she was not suitable for AST, given the intermittent nature of her use.
In the second case, a man announced "After I use crystal meth I turn into somebody else. I thought I knew how to fly and jumped off the balcony two storeys up to save using the stairs. Now I’m in plaster with two fractured heels and I can’t even get up those stairs".
Problems like this occur especially with use of other substances as well, such as benzodiazepines, and often end up in jail, or hospital. Once the person settles they may be able to look at their substance use, especially if they are laid up in hospital. An important question is how worried friends or family can help decrease the risk of harms like this: one response is that health professionals need to help "significant others" who seek help in the first instance by helping them look after themselves.
This was also true for the following case, where flatmates sought advice about a young man who had moved in recently from Darlinghurst where "it was too easy to go out every night". He regularly used "ecstasy", took Ritalin for ADD, also selegiline which he read on a web site was good for ADD. He was often up all night, constantly reorganising his room with his things strewn all over the yard. One day he declared angrily "I know you’ve been in my room snooping around. You let things slip that show that you did it. I wish I had video surveillance up there".
Tarra Adam said this was a typical presentation to the Alcohol and Drug Service at St. Vincent's Hospital, except that usually the person absolutely believes that others were doing the video surveillance.
A comment was that nothing could be taken at face value in this case: neither the ADD diagnosis, the precise substances used, nor any other psychiatric diagnosis.
In the next case, a 32 yo man, injecting ATS for 2 years, said: "I'm using ice every day and I can't pull up. Can you give me something to help me detox? Or can I go to a detox somewhere?" Even though the evidence about the amphetamine withdrawal syndrome is limited and there seems to be little benefit from medications, many "detox" facilities will admit amphetamine users. One rehab allows the person to sleep and then clean up, maintaining good hydrations being very important. As many ATS users prefer benzodiazepines to manage their withdrawal, a case could be made in community practice for dispensing a small amount of diazepam to encourage engagement with treatment in future.
The final case was a 34 yo man on MMT for 7 years, 11 years injecting, probably 10 years chronic HCV with fluctuating elevated ALT. His methadone dose was 110 mg and his total testosterone was 5.0 -7.2 mmol/L on repeated (morning) testing. He continued to inject ATS several times a week throughout MMT, saying otherwise he has no energy. He was little motivated to change his ATS use.
The reasons for this man's lack of energy could include hypogonadism (probably from opioids), chronic hepatitis C, depression, or the effect of amphetamines themselves. Among the approaches could be a trial of methadone reductions or androgen replacement (chronic viral hepatitis is not a contraindication for use of testosterone and its esters, which should be used in preference to synthetic androgens). One could offer antiviral treatment for hepatitis C, which may be a motivation to stop injecting drug use (injecting should not be a contraindication for hepatitis C treatment). a trial of antidepressants may be indicated. These strategies should probably be tried serially rather than simultaneously, to avoid diagnostic confusion in the event of an improvement in energy.
Written by Judith Meldrum and Richard Hallinan based on Dr Wodak’s talk.
http://www.redfernclinic.com/
31 January 2006
Adam Winstock and Richard Hallinan on driving safety.
Dr Adam Winstock, having chaired and presented at a session dedicated to this subject at the recent APSAD conference in November, gave the Concord Dependency Seminar Drugs, Alcohol and Driving on Tuesday 31st January 2006.
A whistlestop tour through the epidemiology of self-reported recent substance-affected driving in Australia showed prevalence to range from 3-9%, varying depending on such factors as substance availability, availability of other transport, and the age group and cultural mores. Preferred substances vary greatly, MDMA, cannabis and alcohol being most commonly used by clubbers, and stimulants by truck drivers. Illicit opioids are generally the least commonly used by drivers. Not surprisingly, young men are the group most likely to engage in substance-affected driving.
The risk of substance affected driving is not only due to intoxication, but also to more subtle effects such as altered judgement and risk perception, and post-use effects such as the alcohol 'hangover'. Other important factors include the behaviour of passengers (even when the designated driver is not substance affected), driver inexperience, road and vehicle conditions. Such factors tend to aggregate, as in ......a group of drunken teenage males in a rickety car hooning on a dirt road on a dark and stormy night.....
The legal concept of the 'culpability' of certain substances was defined: "If drugs contribute to road accidents then drivers found culpable for crashes will be more likely to have drugs in their bodies than drivers deemed non culpable". Culpability is clearly demonstrated with benzodiazepines and alcohol, but not for cannabis, opioids and stimulants.
The 'culpability' of alcohol is striking, with a dose-related risk of accidents with rising blood alcohol level (BAL). Permissible blood alcohol concentrations vary from zero (Bulgaria, Turkey), 0.02 = 20 mg/L (Sweden) and 0.08 = 80mg/L (UK, Austria, Spain). Dr Winstock deplored this high permitted level in the UK.
Driving under the influence of alcohol is strongly associated with other alcohol related problems, particularly dependence with rate of accidents being 0.5/year for all drivers, 2.5 for binge drinkers and over 3/year for those with alcohol dependence. Further, there is an overrepresentation of alcohol dependent drivers who are caught with very high BAL .
Driving simulator studies show impairment of driving skills by cannabis, however there is a wide variation between individuals. The impairment appears to be less in true on-road conditions, possibly because cannabis affected drivers are capable of adapting by driving more carefully. There is some evidence that chronic use of cannabis causes impairment of driving unrelated to current intoxication.
Gamma hydroxybutyrate (GHB), like alcohol, produces dose-related psychomotor impairment. It is especially prone to cause gross impairment (including vomiting and amnesia) owing to the narrow 'therapeutic window' of its desired effects. Testing for this drug is difficult as it may be detected in small amounts in the body as a normal metabolic product. We were told that it is used therapeutically in some countries for alcohol withdrawal management.
Stimulants such as amphetamines may possibly improve some aspects of driving by increasing vigilance and stamina, and reducing fatigue. However judgement may be impaired at higher doses, with over-confidence, risky or reckless behaviour. Depending on the dose and a person's reaction to the substance, stimulants may have other risks, including altered vision from dilated pupils, the possibility of perceptual disturbance or paranoia. MDMA has been shown to increase the rate of accidents on a driving simulator (De Waard 2002).
Given that Attention Deficit Disorder (ADD) is itself a risk for driving accidents, it is an interesting question whether people with this condition ought to be provided with stimulant drugs that might in some cases improve their safety on the road.
With prescription medicines, both the underlying condition as well as the effects of the medicine need to be considered, as well as interactions with other substances. An example is opioids, where the stabilised opioid-tolerant person will generally show no signs of psychomotor impairment from their medication. However there may be increased impairment when combined with alcohol or other sedative-hypnotics, and one needs also to consider any associated personality or other psychiatric disorders.
In Germany, it was reported, a patient on opioid replacement is considered impaired until proven otherwise and facilities exist for formal testing. In New South Wales, the situation is rather complicated, and Dr Winstock took us step by step through his experience of trying to achieve clarity about legal and professional responsibilities of the health professionals. A useful website for understanding these is www.austroads.com
In general it is, in the first instance, a driver's responsibility to report to the relevant Drivers Licensing Authority (DLA) any medical condition which may impair their ability to drive. In NSW, for example, the DLA is the Roads and Traffic Authority.
If a patient is "unable to appreciate the impact of their condition, or to take notice of the health professional's recommendations due to cognitive impairment or if driving continues despite appropriate counselling and is likely to endanger the public, the health professional should consider reporting directly to the Driver Licensing Authority" and "in the Australian Capital Territory, New South Wales, Queensland, Tasmania and Victoria ..... health professionals who make such ....without the patients consent but in good faith that a patient is unfit to drive, are protected from civil and criminal liability ".
This leaves the health professional with flexibility and at the same time a grey area of legal responsibility. It was pointed out that a family doctor may have very detailed knowledge of a person's psychosocial situation which may help making differentiated judgements but might also involve a conflict between the interests of their patient and society at large.
In general situations involving imminent risk and involving commercial drivers call for more decisive action from health professionals.
In determining whether to report someone to the Driver Licensing Authority, Dr Winstock advised considering:
· the risks associated with disclosure without the individual's consent or knowledge, balanced against the implications of non-disclosure;
· whether the circumstances indicate a serious and imminent treat to the health, life or safety of any person.
He reminded us of the formula: Risk = (likelihood of the event) x (the severity of consequences).
Unfortunately, anomalies do arise. Dr Winstock was advised by a NSW Roads and Traffic Authority spokesperson that a driver need only self-report a medical condition that was chronic, therefore the commencement of methadone treatment need not automatically be notified. However, if a person stayed on methadone treatment for over 12 months, notification would be appropriate. This is exactly the opposite of what an experienced clinician would advise - a patient early in methadone treatment should be advised not to drive until the dose is stabilised, a person stable on methadone maintenance can be expected to be perfectly fit to drive. In cases where illicit use compromises driving safety (regardless of the treatment status of the patient) notification by the patient should be recommended.
Dr Winstock's algorithm "What should do we do in practice ?" is based on the need to protect ourselves, the patient and the community where a driver has an impairment to driving.
1. Give feedback to the patient on the legal and financial obligations and implications for them, as well as your own legal/professional responsibility.
2. Invite the patient to notify the DLA, or inform them of your intention before you do so yourself.
3. Document your advice, including that you have told patient what they should do.
4. Request feedback and document patient's reported action/inaction re-driving at next appointment.
5. Assess immediate risk if patients continue to drive.
6. Document and seek second opinion from colleague/DLA.
7. Advise patient that unless they notify the DLA you will.
The case studies illustrated how these principles might be applied in practice.
In the first case, a patient on methadone maintenance developed psychotic depression and was commenced on risperidone and citalopram. The patient was notified to the DLA, and a subsequent medical report was that her akathisia did not affect her psychomotor skills and she was fit to drive. However, another doctor started her on large doses of diazepam for the akathisia. Interest centred on the inappropriateness of using diazepam for akathisia, but also the question of how a doctor best determine whether there was any impairment from this combination of medications. Suggestions included examination 3-4 hours after supervised methadone and diazepam dosing.
A second case study dealt with a patient on methadone maintenance known to use benzodiazepines who was observed to stop on the wrong side of the road then reverse across double lines to park on the correct side. He claimed that he did not usually drive as he was unlicensed and his car unregistered. Although the patient showed no signs of benzodiazepine intoxication, the behaviour could reasonably be described as disinhibited, and the responsible doctor chose to deal with this by giving very firm warnings, including a future possible notification of police or the Department of Community Services (responsible for the safety of children in NSW). Debate centred on whether the doctor should have confiscated the car keys, immediately informed the police, notified the DLA (even though it has no powers over unlicensed drivers) and the question of how best to follow up the patient for compliance with acceptable standards.
In another case a patient using a cocktail of medications including sedative hypnotics, tricyclic antidepressants, opioids and a major tranquilliser, was offered inpatient management of her problems. She agreed to be admitted but insisted she had first to drive home to cook dinner. In the face of this woman's signs of current intoxication, the doctor acted firmly to take her car keys (which the patient accepted in good spirit), justified by the immediate and serious risk to her and the public.
This led to discussion of possible protocols such as requiring anyone entering an alcohol detoxification treatment to agree to notify the DLA of their impairment. It was pointed out that draconian measures by health professionals could push a person out of the therapeutic relationship, losing the opportunity for constructive engagement.
Finally, some public health challenges including road side drug testing were discussed:
· Legal status of drugs is unrelated to driving risk.
· Nor does the mere presence of drugs imply impairment.
· Limitations of road side testing, including the number of false negatives
· Visible, frequent, random testing may maximise exposure to enforcement and testing may alter perception of risk and lead to a positive impact on people's decision whether to drive.
Office tests such as heel-toe, past-pointing, Rombergs and examination for lateral gaze nystagmus are good for alcohol but much less good for other causes of impairment (the latter is a good party trick as well). Dr Winstock briefly described other more sensitive measures of impairment such as head sway measures that may become more widely used in the future.
A telling note was struck when Dr Winstock asked how many participants at the seminar routinely asked about driving in every clinical drug and alcohol assessment. At the end of the seminar participants were left with a heightened awareness of this need and a practical framework for acting to protect themselves, the patient and the public.
Summary by Richard Hallinan, with contributions from Adam Winstock and Andrew Byrne.
A whistlestop tour through the epidemiology of self-reported recent substance-affected driving in Australia showed prevalence to range from 3-9%, varying depending on such factors as substance availability, availability of other transport, and the age group and cultural mores. Preferred substances vary greatly, MDMA, cannabis and alcohol being most commonly used by clubbers, and stimulants by truck drivers. Illicit opioids are generally the least commonly used by drivers. Not surprisingly, young men are the group most likely to engage in substance-affected driving.
The risk of substance affected driving is not only due to intoxication, but also to more subtle effects such as altered judgement and risk perception, and post-use effects such as the alcohol 'hangover'. Other important factors include the behaviour of passengers (even when the designated driver is not substance affected), driver inexperience, road and vehicle conditions. Such factors tend to aggregate, as in ......a group of drunken teenage males in a rickety car hooning on a dirt road on a dark and stormy night.....
The legal concept of the 'culpability' of certain substances was defined: "If drugs contribute to road accidents then drivers found culpable for crashes will be more likely to have drugs in their bodies than drivers deemed non culpable". Culpability is clearly demonstrated with benzodiazepines and alcohol, but not for cannabis, opioids and stimulants.
The 'culpability' of alcohol is striking, with a dose-related risk of accidents with rising blood alcohol level (BAL). Permissible blood alcohol concentrations vary from zero (Bulgaria, Turkey), 0.02 = 20 mg/L (Sweden) and 0.08 = 80mg/L (UK, Austria, Spain). Dr Winstock deplored this high permitted level in the UK.
Driving under the influence of alcohol is strongly associated with other alcohol related problems, particularly dependence with rate of accidents being 0.5/year for all drivers, 2.5 for binge drinkers and over 3/year for those with alcohol dependence. Further, there is an overrepresentation of alcohol dependent drivers who are caught with very high BAL .
Driving simulator studies show impairment of driving skills by cannabis, however there is a wide variation between individuals. The impairment appears to be less in true on-road conditions, possibly because cannabis affected drivers are capable of adapting by driving more carefully. There is some evidence that chronic use of cannabis causes impairment of driving unrelated to current intoxication.
Gamma hydroxybutyrate (GHB), like alcohol, produces dose-related psychomotor impairment. It is especially prone to cause gross impairment (including vomiting and amnesia) owing to the narrow 'therapeutic window' of its desired effects. Testing for this drug is difficult as it may be detected in small amounts in the body as a normal metabolic product. We were told that it is used therapeutically in some countries for alcohol withdrawal management.
Stimulants such as amphetamines may possibly improve some aspects of driving by increasing vigilance and stamina, and reducing fatigue. However judgement may be impaired at higher doses, with over-confidence, risky or reckless behaviour. Depending on the dose and a person's reaction to the substance, stimulants may have other risks, including altered vision from dilated pupils, the possibility of perceptual disturbance or paranoia. MDMA has been shown to increase the rate of accidents on a driving simulator (De Waard 2002).
Given that Attention Deficit Disorder (ADD) is itself a risk for driving accidents, it is an interesting question whether people with this condition ought to be provided with stimulant drugs that might in some cases improve their safety on the road.
With prescription medicines, both the underlying condition as well as the effects of the medicine need to be considered, as well as interactions with other substances. An example is opioids, where the stabilised opioid-tolerant person will generally show no signs of psychomotor impairment from their medication. However there may be increased impairment when combined with alcohol or other sedative-hypnotics, and one needs also to consider any associated personality or other psychiatric disorders.
In Germany, it was reported, a patient on opioid replacement is considered impaired until proven otherwise and facilities exist for formal testing. In New South Wales, the situation is rather complicated, and Dr Winstock took us step by step through his experience of trying to achieve clarity about legal and professional responsibilities of the health professionals. A useful website for understanding these is www.austroads.com
In general it is, in the first instance, a driver's responsibility to report to the relevant Drivers Licensing Authority (DLA) any medical condition which may impair their ability to drive. In NSW, for example, the DLA is the Roads and Traffic Authority.
If a patient is "unable to appreciate the impact of their condition, or to take notice of the health professional's recommendations due to cognitive impairment or if driving continues despite appropriate counselling and is likely to endanger the public, the health professional should consider reporting directly to the Driver Licensing Authority" and "in the Australian Capital Territory, New South Wales, Queensland, Tasmania and Victoria ..... health professionals who make such ....without the patients consent but in good faith that a patient is unfit to drive, are protected from civil and criminal liability ".
This leaves the health professional with flexibility and at the same time a grey area of legal responsibility. It was pointed out that a family doctor may have very detailed knowledge of a person's psychosocial situation which may help making differentiated judgements but might also involve a conflict between the interests of their patient and society at large.
In general situations involving imminent risk and involving commercial drivers call for more decisive action from health professionals.
In determining whether to report someone to the Driver Licensing Authority, Dr Winstock advised considering:
· the risks associated with disclosure without the individual's consent or knowledge, balanced against the implications of non-disclosure;
· whether the circumstances indicate a serious and imminent treat to the health, life or safety of any person.
He reminded us of the formula: Risk = (likelihood of the event) x (the severity of consequences).
Unfortunately, anomalies do arise. Dr Winstock was advised by a NSW Roads and Traffic Authority spokesperson that a driver need only self-report a medical condition that was chronic, therefore the commencement of methadone treatment need not automatically be notified. However, if a person stayed on methadone treatment for over 12 months, notification would be appropriate. This is exactly the opposite of what an experienced clinician would advise - a patient early in methadone treatment should be advised not to drive until the dose is stabilised, a person stable on methadone maintenance can be expected to be perfectly fit to drive. In cases where illicit use compromises driving safety (regardless of the treatment status of the patient) notification by the patient should be recommended.
Dr Winstock's algorithm "What should do we do in practice ?" is based on the need to protect ourselves, the patient and the community where a driver has an impairment to driving.
1. Give feedback to the patient on the legal and financial obligations and implications for them, as well as your own legal/professional responsibility.
2. Invite the patient to notify the DLA, or inform them of your intention before you do so yourself.
3. Document your advice, including that you have told patient what they should do.
4. Request feedback and document patient's reported action/inaction re-driving at next appointment.
5. Assess immediate risk if patients continue to drive.
6. Document and seek second opinion from colleague/DLA.
7. Advise patient that unless they notify the DLA you will.
The case studies illustrated how these principles might be applied in practice.
In the first case, a patient on methadone maintenance developed psychotic depression and was commenced on risperidone and citalopram. The patient was notified to the DLA, and a subsequent medical report was that her akathisia did not affect her psychomotor skills and she was fit to drive. However, another doctor started her on large doses of diazepam for the akathisia. Interest centred on the inappropriateness of using diazepam for akathisia, but also the question of how a doctor best determine whether there was any impairment from this combination of medications. Suggestions included examination 3-4 hours after supervised methadone and diazepam dosing.
A second case study dealt with a patient on methadone maintenance known to use benzodiazepines who was observed to stop on the wrong side of the road then reverse across double lines to park on the correct side. He claimed that he did not usually drive as he was unlicensed and his car unregistered. Although the patient showed no signs of benzodiazepine intoxication, the behaviour could reasonably be described as disinhibited, and the responsible doctor chose to deal with this by giving very firm warnings, including a future possible notification of police or the Department of Community Services (responsible for the safety of children in NSW). Debate centred on whether the doctor should have confiscated the car keys, immediately informed the police, notified the DLA (even though it has no powers over unlicensed drivers) and the question of how best to follow up the patient for compliance with acceptable standards.
In another case a patient using a cocktail of medications including sedative hypnotics, tricyclic antidepressants, opioids and a major tranquilliser, was offered inpatient management of her problems. She agreed to be admitted but insisted she had first to drive home to cook dinner. In the face of this woman's signs of current intoxication, the doctor acted firmly to take her car keys (which the patient accepted in good spirit), justified by the immediate and serious risk to her and the public.
This led to discussion of possible protocols such as requiring anyone entering an alcohol detoxification treatment to agree to notify the DLA of their impairment. It was pointed out that draconian measures by health professionals could push a person out of the therapeutic relationship, losing the opportunity for constructive engagement.
Finally, some public health challenges including road side drug testing were discussed:
· Legal status of drugs is unrelated to driving risk.
· Nor does the mere presence of drugs imply impairment.
· Limitations of road side testing, including the number of false negatives
· Visible, frequent, random testing may maximise exposure to enforcement and testing may alter perception of risk and lead to a positive impact on people's decision whether to drive.
Office tests such as heel-toe, past-pointing, Rombergs and examination for lateral gaze nystagmus are good for alcohol but much less good for other causes of impairment (the latter is a good party trick as well). Dr Winstock briefly described other more sensitive measures of impairment such as head sway measures that may become more widely used in the future.
A telling note was struck when Dr Winstock asked how many participants at the seminar routinely asked about driving in every clinical drug and alcohol assessment. At the end of the seminar participants were left with a heightened awareness of this need and a practical framework for acting to protect themselves, the patient and the public.
Summary by Richard Hallinan, with contributions from Adam Winstock and Andrew Byrne.
6 April 2004
Cocaine deaths/Take-away doses. 6th April 2004
Concord Dependency Seminar. Tues 6th April. Cocaine; take-away doses.
Session 1 "At their peril: Cocaine-related deaths in NSW."
Prof Shane Darke, National Drug and Alcohol Research Centre
Session 2 "Forum on takeaway doses."
Prof James Bell, The Langton Centre.
Chair Dr Gary Swift
Shane Darke spoke on his findings from coroner's records in NSW from 1993 to 2002 of nearly 150 deaths in which cocaine was a cause of death (86%) or a contributing factor. He contrasted the use of cocaine in Australia and America. Ours is very Sydney-based and mostly injected. In the US, cocaine is ubiquitous and it is usually smoked as ‘crack’ or ‘freebase’. He told us that of all sudden deaths in New York, 25% had cocaine in the body. This may make it a contributing factor in some cases, but it may equally be that it reflects the widespread use of cocaine in those dying from other causes.
We were told of the different ‘cliques’ of users: snorting, non-dependent ‘middle class’ users to injecting addicts who may swap from one drug to another (speed, coke, heroin, pills, etc). The mixing of drugs and alcohol was the major risk factor in 146 deaths reported from NSW, 96% being poly-drug overdoses. Heroin was the most common accompanying drug (79% as morphine), with alcohol coming second (36%). The medium alcohol level was 0.07%. Others had a variety of other drugs such as cannabis, etc. The actual cause of death appears more complex than with opioids where respiratory depression and hypoxia kill victims, usually within an hour or two. Stimulants are more varied in their effects on the nervous and cardiovascular systems with cardiac and cerebrovascular accidents (stroke) most common reported causes of death.
The time of death found weekends over-represented but there was no strong ‘payday peak’ as with heroin deaths. The place of death was a home in 53% of cases with a higher proportion of inner city deaths occurring in hotels. Over a third of all cocaine related deaths in NSW occurred in Kings Cross or Surry Hills postal areas (2010, 2011). Only three deaths occurred outside of Sydney. This does not accord at all with heroin deaths which were much more widespread in suburban Sydney as well as in nearly all rural areas. [It does, however, fit well with a common manner of drug spread early in an epidemic as described by Frischer and others.]
Half of the overdose victims in Darke’s study were in paid employment with half of them in professional positions. This is in contrast to heroin deaths which mostly occur in the unskilled and unemployed. Nearly all cocaine deaths occurred in males. The mean age was almost 35 which we were told may reflect an on-going pathogenic process such as arteriosclerosis in some cases or in a lack of resistance as drug users approach middle age.
Despite giving some very helpful pointers, Professor Darke said that as a researcher, regarding clinical matters he would defer to his audience. Questions from the large audience centred around just what we as clinicians can do. Education of our patients was the most obvious answer amongst the many other less obvious manoeuvres. Should we advise our own patients to use the Kings Cross injecting room? Should we recommend non-injecting routes of administration? It would seem that basic therapeutic tenets should be strengthened - ‘engagement’ with the drug user, specific drug ‘education‘, sympathetic enquiry into coexisting psychosocial disorders, etc, etc. For those on methadone or other dependency treatment, these need to be optimised in the usual ways and if necessary, a second opinion sought.
In the second half of the Concord Seminar, Associate Professor James Bell gave a talk on the issues surrounding take-away provision for methadone and buprenorphine in New South Wales. He discussed the 'anguish' in delicate decisions regarding how we all entrust take-away doses to patients.
We were reminded about the clinical methadone audit performed in 2001. Dr Bell said that such information was not likely to be released by the current authorities but that he personally understood that those who provided the data (pharmacists, doctors, nurses, patients, etc) were entitled to expect some feedback on the audit. Some doctors have apparently received critical feed-back, but no averages, ranges or recommended figures have been released. Dr Bell said that one figure from his own research showed 12 month retention rates which were 37% and were the same in private and public sectors.
During some discussion with the audience it was agreed that official Guidelines had numerous benefits in dependency practice. (1) They assist doctor say ‘no’ when patients may be unfairly demanding. (2) They save time in preventing undue and lengthy arguments over numbers and timing of such doses, so that, as Dr Bell pointed out, we can spend more time on ‘caring’. (3) They demarcate unambiguous boundaries or limits. (4) They assist busy GPs who may be inexperienced in dependency matters by providing a simple ‘recipe’ for governing take away provisions based on times in treatment, defined stability and in some cases, dose levels (exceptions may be tolerated at 40mg daily or less according to the current methadone take-away guidelines which were promulgated in November 2004).
It was agreed by the speaker and the audience that buprenorphine was a safer drug for take-home doses and that the new guidelines should reflect that fact. This was also a finding of the buprenorphine forum held in October 2002.
Dr Bell pointed out that to free up places for new patients, there needs to be regular movement of patients from the public to the private sector. Currently, one of the few incentives would seem to be the provision of more take-away doses. It is still not clear if this ‘works’ as many public patients are long term. However, NSW is unique in looking after such folk who are often indigent or homeless, sometimes indefinitely, in the public sector without cost to the individual. One wonders what happens to such folk in other states when money for pharmacies and/or the exigencies of private practice, appointments etc may preclude continued maintenance pharmacotherapy.
Andrew Byrne pointed out that most long-term stable patients in the NSW private sector are currently treated perfectly adequately with four take-away doses weekly (eg. Mon, Wed, Fri attendance). Such patients need to clearly document their stability on a regular basis and it is always the prescriber’s responsibility to elicit and record such details. This includes attendance history, work record, family responsibilities, vein condition, urine testing, etc. For experienced doctors, this should involve no anguish, just good clinical acumen and routine practices which most doctors are used to.
Finally, it was pointed out that regular buprenorphine take-away doses are currently permitted for certain stable patients in NSW under certain conditions… as well as for emergencies and pregnancy. Despite this, most doctors in the room had not authorised such doses, possibly due to a lack of communication, hence the utility of seminars such as this … and thanks go to Professor Bell for his participation.
summaries by Richard Hallinan and Andrew Byrne.
contact: 75 Redfern St, Redfern, 2016. (02) 9319 5524
Session 1 "At their peril: Cocaine-related deaths in NSW."
Prof Shane Darke, National Drug and Alcohol Research Centre
Session 2 "Forum on takeaway doses."
Prof James Bell, The Langton Centre.
Chair Dr Gary Swift
Shane Darke spoke on his findings from coroner's records in NSW from 1993 to 2002 of nearly 150 deaths in which cocaine was a cause of death (86%) or a contributing factor. He contrasted the use of cocaine in Australia and America. Ours is very Sydney-based and mostly injected. In the US, cocaine is ubiquitous and it is usually smoked as ‘crack’ or ‘freebase’. He told us that of all sudden deaths in New York, 25% had cocaine in the body. This may make it a contributing factor in some cases, but it may equally be that it reflects the widespread use of cocaine in those dying from other causes.
We were told of the different ‘cliques’ of users: snorting, non-dependent ‘middle class’ users to injecting addicts who may swap from one drug to another (speed, coke, heroin, pills, etc). The mixing of drugs and alcohol was the major risk factor in 146 deaths reported from NSW, 96% being poly-drug overdoses. Heroin was the most common accompanying drug (79% as morphine), with alcohol coming second (36%). The medium alcohol level was 0.07%. Others had a variety of other drugs such as cannabis, etc. The actual cause of death appears more complex than with opioids where respiratory depression and hypoxia kill victims, usually within an hour or two. Stimulants are more varied in their effects on the nervous and cardiovascular systems with cardiac and cerebrovascular accidents (stroke) most common reported causes of death.
The time of death found weekends over-represented but there was no strong ‘payday peak’ as with heroin deaths. The place of death was a home in 53% of cases with a higher proportion of inner city deaths occurring in hotels. Over a third of all cocaine related deaths in NSW occurred in Kings Cross or Surry Hills postal areas (2010, 2011). Only three deaths occurred outside of Sydney. This does not accord at all with heroin deaths which were much more widespread in suburban Sydney as well as in nearly all rural areas. [It does, however, fit well with a common manner of drug spread early in an epidemic as described by Frischer and others.]
Half of the overdose victims in Darke’s study were in paid employment with half of them in professional positions. This is in contrast to heroin deaths which mostly occur in the unskilled and unemployed. Nearly all cocaine deaths occurred in males. The mean age was almost 35 which we were told may reflect an on-going pathogenic process such as arteriosclerosis in some cases or in a lack of resistance as drug users approach middle age.
Despite giving some very helpful pointers, Professor Darke said that as a researcher, regarding clinical matters he would defer to his audience. Questions from the large audience centred around just what we as clinicians can do. Education of our patients was the most obvious answer amongst the many other less obvious manoeuvres. Should we advise our own patients to use the Kings Cross injecting room? Should we recommend non-injecting routes of administration? It would seem that basic therapeutic tenets should be strengthened - ‘engagement’ with the drug user, specific drug ‘education‘, sympathetic enquiry into coexisting psychosocial disorders, etc, etc. For those on methadone or other dependency treatment, these need to be optimised in the usual ways and if necessary, a second opinion sought.
In the second half of the Concord Seminar, Associate Professor James Bell gave a talk on the issues surrounding take-away provision for methadone and buprenorphine in New South Wales. He discussed the 'anguish' in delicate decisions regarding how we all entrust take-away doses to patients.
We were reminded about the clinical methadone audit performed in 2001. Dr Bell said that such information was not likely to be released by the current authorities but that he personally understood that those who provided the data (pharmacists, doctors, nurses, patients, etc) were entitled to expect some feedback on the audit. Some doctors have apparently received critical feed-back, but no averages, ranges or recommended figures have been released. Dr Bell said that one figure from his own research showed 12 month retention rates which were 37% and were the same in private and public sectors.
During some discussion with the audience it was agreed that official Guidelines had numerous benefits in dependency practice. (1) They assist doctor say ‘no’ when patients may be unfairly demanding. (2) They save time in preventing undue and lengthy arguments over numbers and timing of such doses, so that, as Dr Bell pointed out, we can spend more time on ‘caring’. (3) They demarcate unambiguous boundaries or limits. (4) They assist busy GPs who may be inexperienced in dependency matters by providing a simple ‘recipe’ for governing take away provisions based on times in treatment, defined stability and in some cases, dose levels (exceptions may be tolerated at 40mg daily or less according to the current methadone take-away guidelines which were promulgated in November 2004).
It was agreed by the speaker and the audience that buprenorphine was a safer drug for take-home doses and that the new guidelines should reflect that fact. This was also a finding of the buprenorphine forum held in October 2002.
Dr Bell pointed out that to free up places for new patients, there needs to be regular movement of patients from the public to the private sector. Currently, one of the few incentives would seem to be the provision of more take-away doses. It is still not clear if this ‘works’ as many public patients are long term. However, NSW is unique in looking after such folk who are often indigent or homeless, sometimes indefinitely, in the public sector without cost to the individual. One wonders what happens to such folk in other states when money for pharmacies and/or the exigencies of private practice, appointments etc may preclude continued maintenance pharmacotherapy.
Andrew Byrne pointed out that most long-term stable patients in the NSW private sector are currently treated perfectly adequately with four take-away doses weekly (eg. Mon, Wed, Fri attendance). Such patients need to clearly document their stability on a regular basis and it is always the prescriber’s responsibility to elicit and record such details. This includes attendance history, work record, family responsibilities, vein condition, urine testing, etc. For experienced doctors, this should involve no anguish, just good clinical acumen and routine practices which most doctors are used to.
Finally, it was pointed out that regular buprenorphine take-away doses are currently permitted for certain stable patients in NSW under certain conditions… as well as for emergencies and pregnancy. Despite this, most doctors in the room had not authorised such doses, possibly due to a lack of communication, hence the utility of seminars such as this … and thanks go to Professor Bell for his participation.
summaries by Richard Hallinan and Andrew Byrne.
contact: 75 Redfern St, Redfern, 2016. (02) 9319 5524
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)