Substance dependence

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 64.203.115.44 (talk) at 22:05, 1 May 2014 (→‎Causes). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Substance dependence
SpecialtyPsychiatry, narcology, addiction medicine Edit this on Wikidata

Substance dependence, commonly called drug addiction, is a compulsive need to use drugs in order to function normally. When such substances are unobtainable, the user suffers from withdrawal.[1]

According to the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-IV), substance dependence is defined as:

When an individual persists in use of alcohol or other drugs despite problems related to use of the substance, substance dependence may be diagnosed. Compulsive and repetitive use may result in tolerance to the effect of the drug and withdrawal symptoms when use is reduced or stopped. This, along with Substance Abuse are considered Substance Use Disorders....[2]

Substance dependence can be diagnosed with physiological dependence, evidence of tolerance or withdrawal, or without physiological dependence. The DSM-IV does not use the word addiction at all.[2]

Causes

Drugs known to cause addiction include both legal and illegal drugs as well as prescription or over-the-counter drugs, according to the definition of the American Society of Addiction Medicine.[citation needed]

Although stimulants are generally classified as drugs that cause only a psychological addiction, mild physical symptoms might appear when a withdrawal from a stimulant is being done. For example, withdrawing from caffeine causes headaches for most people. But, unlike depressants, which cause heavy physical withdrawal symptoms when stopped, and may cause death when stopped abruptly, deaths from stimulant withdrawals are extremely rare.

Addictive drugs also include a large number of substrates that are currently considered to have no medical value and are not available over the counter or by prescription.

Several theories of drug addiction exist, some of the main ones being genetic predisposition, the self-medication theory, and factors involved with social/economic development. There are strong associations between poverty and addiction.[3] It is important to remember that people abuse substances for hundreds of different, individual, almost idiosyncratic reasons.[4][5]

Genetic factors

It has long been established that genetic factors along with social and psychological factors are contributors to addiction. A common theory along these lines is the self-medication hypotheses. Epidemiological studies estimate that genetic factors account for 40–60% of the risk factors for alcoholism. Similar rates of heritability for other types of drug addiction have been indicated by other studies.[6] Knestler hypothesized in 1964 that a gene or group of genes might contribute to predisposition to addiction in several ways. For example, altered levels of a normal protein due to environmental factors could then change the structure or functioning of specific brain neurons during development. These altered brain neurons could change the susceptibility of an individual to an initial drug use experience. In support of this hypothesis, animal studies have shown that environmental factors such as stress can affect an animal's genotype.[6]

Overall, the data implicating specific genes in the development of drug dependence is mixed for most genes. One reason this may be the case is due to a focus of current research on common variants. Many addiction studies focus on common variants with an allele frequency of greater than 5% in the general population, however when associated with disease, these only confer a small amount of additional risk with an odds ratio of 1.1-1.3. On the other hand, the rare variant hypothesis states that genes with low frequencies in the population (<1%) confer much greater additional risk in the development of disease.[7]

GWAS studies represent the newest exploration into discovering associations between dependence, addiction, and drug use. These studies employ an unbiased approach to finding genetic associations with specific phenotypes and give equal weight to all regions of DNA, including those with no ostensible relationship to drug metabolism or response. Surprisingly, these studies very infrequently identify genes from proteins previously described via animal knockout models and candidate gene analysis. Instead, large percentages of genes involved in processes such as cell adhesion are commonly identified. This is not to say that previous findings, or the GWAS findings, are erroneous. The important effects of endophenotypes are typically not capable of being captured by these methods. Furthermore, genes identified in GWAS for drug dependence may be involved either in adjusting brain wiring prior to drug experiences, subsequent to them, or both. [8]

Addictive potential

The addictive potential of a drug varies from substance to substance, and from individual to individual. Dose, frequency, pharmacokinetics of a particular substance, route of administration, and time are critical factors for developing a drug addiction.

An article in The Lancet compared the harm and addiction of 20 drugs, using a scale from 0 to 3 for physical addiction, psychological addiction, and pleasure to create a mean score for addiction. Selected results can be seen in the chart below.[9]

Drug Mean Pleasure Psychological dependence Physical dependence
Heroin 3.00 3.0 3.0 3.0
Cocaine 2.39 3.0 2.8 1.3
Barbiturates 2.01 2.0 2.2 1.8
Alcohol 1.93 2.3 1.9 1.6
Benzodiazepines 1.83 1.7 2.1 1.8
Amphetamine 1.67 2.0 1.9 1.1
Tobacco 2.21 2.3 2.6 1.8
Cannabis 1.51 1.9 1.7 0.8
LSD 0.90 1.3 1.1 0.3
Ecstasy 1.13 1.5 1.2 0.7

Addiction rates

The number of drug users who become addicted to their respective drug.[10]

Drug Average User Young User
Cannabis 9% 17%

Pathophysiology

Researchers have conducted numerous investigations using animal models and functional brain imaging on humans in order to define the mechanisms underlying drug addiction in the brain. Changes to several areas of the brain are thought to be involved.

Acute effects

Different types of drugs produce these effects by different methods. Dopamine (DA) is known to play an important role. DA binds to the D1 receptor, a postsynaptic dopamine receptor (as opposed to D2sh, which is presynaptic), triggering a signaling cascade within the cell. cAMP-dependent protein kinase (PKA) phosphorylates cAMP response element binding protein (CREB), a transcription factor, which induces the transcription of certain genes including C-Fos.[11]

Mesocorticolimbic pathway

When examining the biological basis of drug addiction, one must first understand the pathways in which drugs act and how drugs can alter those pathways. The reward pathway, known as the mesolimbic pathway or its extension, the mesocorticolimbic pathway, is characterized by the interaction of several areas of the brain.

  • The ventral tegmental area (VTA) consists of dopaminergic neurons which respond to glutamate. These cells respond when stimuli indicative of a reward are present. The VTA supports learning and sensitization development and releases dopamine (DA) into the forebrain.[12] These neurons also project and release DA into the nucleus accumbens,[13] through the mesolimbic pathway. Virtually all drugs causing drug addiction increase the dopamine release in the mesolimbic pathway,[14] in addition to their specific effects.
  • The nucleus accumbens (NAcc) consists mainly of medium-spiny projection neurons (MSNs), which are GABA neurons.[15] The NAcc is associated with acquiring and eliciting conditioned behaviors and involved in the increased sensitivity to drugs as addiction progresses.[12]
  • The prefrontal cortex, more specifically the anterior cingulate and orbitofrontal cortices,[11] is important for the integration of information which contributes to whether a behavior will be elicited. It appears to be the area in which motivation originates and the salience of stimuli are determined.[16]
  • The basolateral amygdala projects into the NAcc and is thought to be important for motivation as well.[16]
  • More evidence is pointing towards the role of the hippocampus in drug addiction because of its importance in learning and memory. Much of this evidence stems from investigations manipulating cells in the hippocampus alters dopamine levels in NAcc and firing rates of VTA dopaminergic cells.[13]

Role of dopamine

Dopamine is the primary neurotransmitter of the reward system in the brain. It plays a role in regulating movement, emotion, cognition, motivation, and feelings of pleasure.[17] Natural rewards, like eating, as well as recreational drug use cause a release of dopamine, and are associated with the reinforcing nature of these stimuli.[17][18] Nearly all addictive drugs, directly or indirectly, act upon the brain’s reward system by heightening dopaminergic activity.[19]

Abuse of drugs results in repeated release of high amounts of dopamine, which in turn affects the reward pathway in multiple ways. Abnormally high levels of dopamine in the synaptic cleft can induce prolonged, heightened postsynaptic receptor activity, resulting in receptor downregulation. Downregulation of mesocorticolimbic dopamine receptors can result in a decrease in the sensitivity to natural reinforcers.[17]

Stress response

See also: Stress response

In addition to the reward pathway, it is hypothesized that stress mechanisms also play a role in addiction. Koob and Kreek have hypothesized that during drug use, the corticotropin-releasing factor (CRF) activates the hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal axis (HPA) and other stress systems in the extended amygdala. This activation influences the dysregulated emotional state associated with drug addiction. They have found that as drug use escalates, so does the presence of CRF in human cerebrospinal fluid (CSF). In rat models, the separate use of CRF antagonists and CRF receptor antagonists both decreased self-administration of the drug of study. Other studies in this review showed a dysregulation in other hormones associated with the HPA axis, including enkephalin which is an endogenous opioid peptide that regulates pain. It also appears that the µ-opioid receptor system, which enkephalin acts on, is influential in the reward system and can regulate the expression of stress hormones.[20]

Behavior

Understanding how learning and behavior work in the mesolimbic pathway can help understand the action of addictive drugs. Drug addiction is characterized by strong, drug seeking behaviors in which the addict persistently craves and seeks out drugs, despite the knowledge of harmful consequences.[11][20] Addictive drugs produce a reward, which is the euphoric feeling resulting from sustained dopamine concentrations in the synaptic cleft of neurons in the brain. Operant conditioning is exhibited in drug addicts as well as laboratory mice, rats, and primates; they are able to associate an action or behavior, in this case seeking out the drug, with a reward, which is the effect of the drug.[12] Evidence shows that this behavior is most likely a result of the synaptic changes which have occurred due to repeated drug exposure.[11][12][20] The drug seeking behavior is induced by glutamatergic projections from the prefrontal cortex to the NAc. This idea is supported with data from experiments showing the drug seeking behavior can be prevented following the inhibition of AMPA glutamate receptors and glutamate release in the NAc.[11]

Psychological drug tolerance

The reward system is partly responsible for the psychological part of drug tolerance.

The CREB protein, a transcription factor activated by cyclic adenosine monophosphate (cAMP) immediately after a high, triggers genes that produce proteins such as dynorphin, which cuts off dopamine release and temporarily inhibits the reward pathway. In chronic drug users, a sustained activation of CREB thus forces a larger dose to be taken to reach the same effect. In addition it leaves the user feeling generally depressed and dissatisfied, and unable to find pleasure in previously enjoyable activities, often leading to a return to the drug for an additional "fix".[21]

A similar mechanism, interfering also with the dopamine system, but relying on a different transcription factor, CEBPB, has also been proposed. In this case dopamine release onto the nucleus accumbens neurons would trigger the increased synthesis of substance P which, in turn, would increase the dopamine synthesis in the VTA. The effect of this positive feedback is suggested to be dampened by repeated substance abuse.[22]

Sensitization

Sensitization is the increase in sensitivity to a drug after prolonged use. The proteins ΔFosB (Delta-FosB)and regulator of G-protein Signaling 9-2 (RGS9-2) are thought to be involved:

The ΔFosB transcription factor is thought to activate genes that, counter to the effects of CREB, actually increase the user's sensitivity to the effects of the substance. ΔFosB slowly builds up with each exposure to the drug and remains activated for weeks after the last exposure—long after the effects of CREB have faded. The hypersensitivity that it causes is thought to be responsible for the intense cravings associated with drug addiction, and is often extended to even the peripheral cues of drug use, such as related behaviors or the sight of drug paraphernalia. There is some evidence that ΔFosB even causes structural changes within the nucleus accumbens, which presumably helps to perpetuate the cravings, and may be responsible for the high incidence of relapses that occur in treated drug addicts.[23][24][25][26][27][28][29][30][31][32][33][34][35]

Regulator of G-protein Signaling 9-2 (RGS9-2) has recently been the subject of several animal knockout studies. Animals lacking RGS9-2 appear to have increased sensitivity to dopamine receptor agonists such as cocaine and amphetamines; over-expression of RGS9-2 causes a lack of responsiveness to these same agonists. RGS9-2 is believed to catalyze inactivation of the G-protein coupled D2 receptor by enhancing the rate of GTP hydrolysis of the G alpha subunit which transmits signals into the interior of the cell.[36][37][38][39][40][41][42][43]

Individual mechanisms of effect

The basic mechanisms by which different substances activate the reward system are as described above, but vary slightly among drug classes.[44]

Depressants

Depressants such as alcohol, barbiturates, and benzodiazepines work by increasing the affinity of the GABA receptor for its ligand; GABA. Narcotics such as morphine and heroin work by mimicking endorphins—chemicals produced naturally by the body which have effects similar to dopamine—or by disabling the neurons that normally inhibit the release of dopamine in the reward system. These substances (sometimes called "downers") typically facilitate relaxation and pain relief.

Stimulants

Stimulants such as amphetamines, nicotine, and cocaine increase dopamine signaling in the reward system either by directly stimulating its release, or by blocking its absorption (see "Reuptake"). These substances (sometimes called "uppers") typically cause heightened alertness and energy. They cause a pleasant feeling in the body and euphoria, known as a high. Once this high wears off, the user may feel depleted of energy and/or depressed. This can increase the urge for the user to redose, possibly increasing the risk for addiction.

Management

Addiction is a complex but treatable disease. It is characterized by compulsive drug craving, seeking, and use that persists even if the user is aware of severe adverse consequences. For some people, addiction becomes chronic, having periodic relapses even after long periods of abstinence. As a chronic, relapsing disease, addiction may require continued treatments to increase the intervals between relapses and diminish their intensity. While some with substance issues recover and lead fulfilling lives, others require ongoing additional support. The ultimate goal of addiction treatment is to enable an individual to manage their substance misuse; for some this may mean abstinence. Immediate goals are often to reduce substance abuse, improve the patient's ability to function, and minimize the medical and social complications of substance abuse and their addiction; this is called Harm Reduction.

Treatments for addiction vary widely according to the types of drugs involved, amount of drugs used, duration of the drug addiction, medical complications and the social needs of the individual. Determining the best type of recovery program for an addicted person depends on a number of factors, including: personality, drug(s) of choice, concept of spirituality or religion, mental or physical illness, and local availability and affordability of programs.

Many different ideas circulate regarding what is considered a "successful" outcome in the recovery from addiction. Programs that emphasize controlled drinking exist for alcohol addiction. Opiate replacement therapy has been a medical standard of treatment for opioid addiction for many years.

Treatments and attitudes toward addiction vary widely among different countries. In the USA and developing countries, the goal of commissioners of treatment for drug dependence is generally total abstinence from all drugs. Other countries, particularly in Europe, argue the aims of treatment for drug dependence are more complex, with treatment aims including reduction in use to the point that drug use no longer interferes with normal activities such as work and family commitments; shifting the addict away from more dangerous routes of drug administration such as injecting to safer routes such as oral administration; reduction in crime committed by drug addicts; and treatment of other comorbid conditions such as AIDS, hepatitis and mental health disorders. These kinds of outcomes can be achieved without eliminating drug use completely. Drug treatment programs in Europe often report more favourable outcomes than those in the USA because the criteria for measuring success are functional rather than abstinence-based.[45][46][47] The supporters of programs with total abstinence from drugs as a goal believe that enabling further drug use just means prolonged drug use and risks an increase in addiction and complications from addiction.[48]

It is sometimes difficult to convince people with substance dependencies to engage in any form of treatment. Family Interventions have been highly successful in helping these people accept the help they need.[citation needed]

Residential

Residential drug treatment can be broadly divided into two camps: 12 step programs or Therapeutic Communities. 12 step programs have the advantage of coming with an instant social support network, though some find the spiritual context not to their taste. In the UK drug treatment is generally moving towards a more integrated approach with rehabs offering a variety of approaches. These other programs may use a Cognitive-Behavioral Therapy approach, such as SMART Recovery, that looks at the relationship between thoughts, feelings and behaviors, recognizing that a change in any of these areas can affect the whole. CBT sees addiction as a behavior rather than a disease and subsequently curable, or rather, unlearnable. CBT programs recognize that for some individuals controlled use is a more realistic possibility.[49]

One of many recovery methods is the 12 step recovery program, with prominent examples including Alcoholics Anonymous, Narcotics Anonymous, Drug Addicts Anonymous[50] and Pills Anonymous. They are commonly known and used for a variety of addictions for the individual addicted and the family of the individual. Substance-abuse rehabilitation (or "rehab") centers offer a residential treatment program for some of the more seriously addicted in order to isolate the patient from drugs and interactions with other users and dealers. Outpatient clinics usually offer a combination of individual counseling and group counseling. Frequently a physician or psychiatrist will prescribe medications in order to help patients cope with the side effects of their addiction. Medications can help immensely with anxiety and insomnia, can treat underlying mental disorders (cf. Self-medication hypothesis, Khantzian 1997) such as (manic-)depression, and can help reduce or eliminate withdrawal symptomology when withdrawing from physiologically addictive drugs. Some examples are using benzodiazepines for alcohol detoxification, which prevents delirium tremens and complications; using a slow taper of benzodiazepines or a taper of phenobarbital, sometimes including another antiepileptic agent such as gabapentin, pregabalin, or valproate, for withdrawal from barbiturates or benzodiazepines; using drugs such as baclofen to reduce cravings and propensity for relapse amongst addicts to any drug, especially effective in stimulant users, and alcoholics (in which it is nearly as effective as benzodiazepines in preventing complications); using clonidine, a benzodiazepine, and loperamide for opioid detoxification, for first-time users or those who wish to attempt an abstinence-based recovery (90% of opioid users relapse to active addiction within 8 months and/or are "multiple relapse patients"); or replacing an opioid that is interfering with or destructive to a user's life, such as illicitly-obtained heroin, Dilaudid, or oxycodone, with an opioid that can be administered legally, reduces or eliminates drug cravings, and does not produce a high, such as methadone or buprenorphine - opioid replacement therapy - which is the gold standard for treatment of opioid dependence in developed countries, reducing the risk and cost to both user and society more effectively than any other treatment modality (for opioid dependence), and shows the best short-term and long-term gains for the user, with the greatest longevity, least risk of fatality, greatest quality of life, and lowest risk of relapse and/or legal issues including arrest and incarceration.

In a survey of treatment providers from three separate institutions (the National Association of Alcoholism and Drug Abuse Counselors, Rational Recovery Systems and the Society of Psychologists in Addictive Behaviors) measuring the treatment provider's responses on the Spiritual Belief Scale (a scale measuring belief in the four spiritual characteristics AA identified by Ernest Kurtz); the scores were found to explain 41% of the variance in the treatment provider's responses on the Addiction Belief Scale (a scale measuring adherence to the disease model or the free-will model addiction).[51]

Anti-addictive drugs

Other forms of treatment include replacement drugs such as suboxone/subutex (both containing the active ingredient buprenorphine) and methadone; these are used as substitutes for illicit opiate drugs.[52][53] Although these drugs perpetuate physical dependence, the goal of opiate maintenance is to provide a clinically supervised, stable dose of a particular opioid in order to provide a measure of control to both pain and cravings. This provides a chance for the addict to function normally and to reduce the negative consequences associated with obtaining sufficient quantities of controlled substances illicitly, by both reducing opioid cravings and withdrawal symptomology. Once a prescribed dosage is stabilized, treatment enters maintenance or tapering phases. In the United States, opiate replacement therapy is tightly regulated in methadone clinics and under the DATA 2000 legislation. In some countries, other opioid derivatives such as levomethadyl acetate,[54] dihydrocodeine,[55] dihydroetorphine[56] and even heroin[57][58] are used as substitute drugs for illegal street opiates, with different drugs being used depending on the needs of the individual patient. Baclofen has been shown successful in attenuating cravings for most drugs of abuse - stimulants, ethanol, and opioids - and also attenuates the actual withdrawal syndrome of ethanol. Many patients have stated they "became indifferent to alcohol" or "indifferent to cocaine" overnight after starting baclofen therapy.[59] It is possible that one of the best, albeit relatively unexplored, treatment modalities for opioid addiction - notoriously the most difficult addiction to treat (and to recover from), having relapse rates of around 60% at four weeks and 97% at twelve months if not on maintenance therapy with a mu-opioid agonist[59] - would be to combine an opioid maintenance agent, such as methadone or buprenorphine, to block withdrawal symptomology, with baclofen, to attenuate cravings and the desire to use, in people who find that they are still using or still craving drugs while on methadone or buprenorphine maintenance.

Substitute drugs for other forms of drug dependence have historically been less successful than opioid substitute treatment, but some limited success has been seen with drugs such as dextroamphetamine to treat stimulant addiction,[60][61] and clomethiazole to treat alcohol addiction.[62] Bromocriptine and desipramine have been reported to be effective for treatment of cocaine but not amphetamine addiction.[63]

Other pharmacological treatments for alcohol addiction include drugs like naltrexone, disulfiram, acamprosate and topiramate,[64][65] but rather than substituting for alcohol, these drugs are intended to reduce the desire to drink, either by directly reducing cravings as with acamprosate and topiramate, or by producing unpleasant effects when alcohol is consumed, as with disulfiram. These drugs can be effective if treatment is maintained, but compliance can be an issue as alcoholic patients often forget to take their medication, or discontinue use because of excessive side effects.[66][67] Additional drugs acting on glutamate neurotransmission such as modafinil, lamotrigine, gabapentin and memantine have also been proposed for use in treating addiction to alcohol and other drugs.[68]

Opioid antagonists such as naltrexone and nalmefene have also been used successfully in the treatment of alcohol addiction,[69][70] which is often particularly challenging to treat. Some have also attempted to use these drugs for maintenance treatment of former opiate addicts with little success. They cannot be started until the patient has been abstinent for an extended period - unlikely with opioid addicts who are not on maintenance with a full or partial mu-opioid agonist - or they will trigger acute opioid withdrawal symptoms. No study has found them to be efficacious treatments in preventing relapse. They do nothing to block craving, and block endorphin and enkephalin, two natural neurotransmitters that regulate one's sense of well-being. An addict must discontinue the drug for just eighteen hours in order to use again.[71]

Treatment of stimulant addiction can often be difficult, with substitute drugs often being ineffective, although newer drugs such as nocaine, vanoxerine and modafinil may have more promise in this area, as well as the GABAB agonist baclofen.[72][73] Another strategy that has recently been successfully trialled used a combination of the benzodiazepine antagonist flumazenil with hydroxyzine and gabapentin for the treatment of methamphetamine addiction.[74]

Another area in which drug treatment has been widely used is in the treatment of nicotine addiction. Various drugs have been used for this purpose such as bupropion, mecamylamine and the more recently developed varenicline. The cannaboinoid antagonist rimonabant has also been trialled for treatment of nicotine addiction but has not been widely adopted for this purpose.[75][76][77]

Ibogaine is a hallucinogen (psychotomimetic) that some claim interrupts addiction and reduces or eliminates withdrawal syndromes, specifically in regards to opioids.[78] Its mechanism of action is unknown, but likely linked to nAchR α3ß4 antagonism. In one animal trial, it was shown to slightly reduce self-administration of cocaine.[79] Another uncontrolled trial showed it reduced tremor by a mild to moderate degree during morphine withdrawal in rats.[80] These finding can not be extrapolated to human beings with any certainty. Research is complicated by the fact that ibogaine is illegal in many developed countries, and a Schedule I substance in the US, and as a result no controlled human trials have ever been performed. A semi-synthetic analogue of ibogaine, 18-methoxycoronaridine was developed, in an attempt to reduce the toxic (ibogaine is significantly cardiotoxic, and several deaths have been reported from its use; because of its illegal, underground nature, it is impossible to know how toxic the drug is) and psychotomimetic effects of the drug.

Behavioral programming

Behavioral programming is considered critical in helping those with addictions achieve abstinence. From the applied behavior analysis literature and the behavioral psychology literature, several evidenced based intervention programs have emerged: (1) behavioral marital therapy; (2) community reinforcement approach; (3) cue exposure therapy; and (4) contingency management strategies.[81][82] In addition, the same author suggest that Social skills training adjunctive to inpatient treatment of alcohol dependence is probably efficacious. Community reinforcement has both efficacy and effectiveness data.[83] In addition, behavioral treatment such as community reinforcement and family training (CRAFT) have helped family members to get their loved ones into treatment.[84][85]

Alternative therapies

Alternative therapies, such as acupuncture, are used by some practitioners to alleviate the symptoms of drug addiction. In 1997, the American Medical Association (AMA) adopted as policy the following statement after a report on a number of alternative therapies including acupuncture:

There is little evidence to confirm the safety or efficacy of most alternative therapies. Much of the information currently known about these therapies makes it clear that many have not been shown to be efficacious. Well-designed, stringently controlled research should be done to evaluate the efficacy of alternative therapies.[86]

Acupuncture has been shown to be no more effective than control treatments in the treatment of opiate dependence.[87] Acupuncture, acupressure, laser therapy and electrostimulation[disambiguation needed] have no demonstrated efficacy for smoking cessation.[88]

Important phases in treating substance dependence include establishing coping mechanisms to deal with the hardships of withdrawal symptoms. Additionally, precautions should be established with the patient to avoid relapse by designing a treatment plan around the patient's lifestyle. With the correct approaches, the patient can live a healthier life.[89]

Online websites have been a resource to aid in helping people to overcome addictions. These websites act as ways for struggling addicts, family members of addicts, and people who are in the recovery stage to confide in each other (anonymously if they so choose). They provide an alternative way for these people to seek help, support and information. Sites typically include chat rooms, forums, and blogs for members to interact.[citation needed]

Evolutionary considerations

Background on substance dependence from an evolutionary perspective

An association between the dopamine receptor D2 gene and alcoholism supports a genetic predisposition for alcoholism.[90] There is an association between low rates of alcoholism in Asian populations and a single gene nucleotide change slowing the rate of alcohol breakdown.[91] Speculation on this correlation suggests this single gene nucleotide change may be an adaptation against alcoholism.[91]

Addiction as the result of an evolutionary mismatch

Substance dependence is hypothesized to be a result of an evolutionary mismatch between the environment to which human hominin ancestors adapted (typically referred to as the environment of evolutionary adaptedness or EEA) and the current environment.[92][93][94] Evidence suggests it was unlikely that prevalence of psychoactive substances was high enough in the EEA to exert selective pressures.[93][94] Thus, psychoactive substances in the current environment hijack the reward pathway in the brain adapted to reinforce certain behaviors.[93][94] These behaviors activate pleasure systems in the brain that reinforce their fitness benefits.[91][93][94] Through repeated usage, drugs displace other rewards, and the reward pathway can no longer distinguish between the positive and negative effects of rewards.[93][94]

The mismatch theory has been explored specifically for alcoholism.[95][96] Alcoholics exhibit traits that are beneficial in some environments but are serious risk factors for alcohol abuse in a modern context.[95][96] Type 1 alcoholism results from abusing alcohol to relieve anxiety.[95][96] In another context, anxiety leading to reward-seeking behavior could be adaptive.[95][96] For instance, anxiety leads primate infants to stay close to their mothers who provide protection and food.[95][96][97] Type 2 alcoholism results from antisocial behavior and impulsivity.[95][96] When food is scarce, solitary behavior can be favored because an individual can forage independently and receive more resources.[95][96] Impulsivity can be favored because it allows access to food and mates, which other less impulsive individuals will not seek out.[95][96][98] Aggressive behavior often results from impulsivity in type 2 alcoholics.[95][96] In a physically competitive environment, aggression could be beneficial.[95][96] These traits are mismatched for our modern environment, however, and function instead as risk factors for alcoholism.[95][96]

The self-perceived survival ability and reproductive fitness (SPFit) theory is a corollary of the mismatch theory.[99] This theory posits that drugs mimic self-perceived power and sexual attractiveness.[99] Since power and sexual attractiveness are basic qualities that lead to reproductive success, drugs are likely to be abused.[99] The distinction between the SPFit theory and other mismatch theories is that other theories highlight pleasure-seeking in addiction, while the SPFit theory states that pleasure is not a significant enough motivator to outweigh the fitness costs of addiction.[99]

Addiction as the result of coevolution with psychoactive substances

Conflicting research posits that hominins evolved with psychoactive substances, and this coevolution has led to the evolution of pleasure responses from these substances.[100][101] Natural psychoactive drugs induce pleasure responses in humans due to human chemical-ecological adaptations to counteract the effects of plant chemical defense mechanisms.[101] Specific examples of human adaptations to counter plant toxins include liver enzymes, tasting food, olfaction, and vomiting.[101][102] Humans, chimpanzees, and monkeys eat substances such as soil as a method for detoxification.[101] There is also evidence of plant adaptations specifically for human consumption.[101][102] Some psychoactive drugs target human pathogens.[102] For instance, tobacco leaves and nicotine extract can be used to fight helminth infections in livestock.[102] Plants have also evolved chemicals that mimic human neurotransmitters. These examples imply that humans coevolved with psychoactive substances.[101]

Coevolution and mismatch theories are not mutually exclusive.[94][102][103] Humans may have evolved with natural psychoactive substances, but modern psychoactive substances, such as heroin, are far more potent than those likely found in the EEA.[94][102][103] Thus, many modern drugs can still be considered the result of an evolutionary mismatch.[94][102][103]

Evolutionary perspectives on vulnerability to addiction

An evolutionary perspective can also explain why certain groups in the population are more prone to addiction than others.[93] Impulsivity and risky behaviors are only rewarded when reproductive prospects seem unlikely.[93] This predicts that young men will be most prone to impulsive behaviors like substance abuse because competition for mates and resources is highest at that time.[93] These rates of substance abuse in males should decrease with age as men generally start families and must invest in their offspring's success.[93] As reproductive competition in human females does not vary significantly, there should be fewer impulsive behaviors, like substance abuse, in females because it is more beneficial for them to invest in long-term reproductive success.[93]

Substance abuse variation can also be predicted by environmental differences.[92][93] Impulsivity is only favored in dangerous and unpredictable environments, so it follows substance abuse will be more likely to occur in these environments.[92][93]

Relevance of the evolutionary perspective to treatment and prevention

The evolutionary perspective can help therapists address the roots of substance dependence issues with their patients and develop long-term solutions.[98] For instance, the SPFit theory proposes psychoactive substances increase self-perceived levels of fitness.[98][99] Therapists using an evolutionary perspective can evaluate what the abuser is seeking when he or she abuses substances, and work towards fixing underlying problems in their patients’ lives.[98]

An evolutionary perspective supports that stopping drug use is the first step of effective treatment.[92] These drugs must also be replaced by natural rewards, like friendship, evoking positive feelings.[92] Because drug use is so heavily tied to emotion, harboring positive emotions should be considered essential to treatment.[92] Recognizing that substance abuse is tied to the evolution of brain systems that are meant to reward social relationships can also influence new methods of treatment.[92] Those who abuse substances often personify addictive substances, and treatment that encourages disentangling oneself from a harmful relationship with substance abuse may help.[92] This is already evident in Alcoholics Anonymous as they encourage gaining control over alcohol.[92]

Anticipating that adolescents, particularly adolescent males, are especially prone to drug abuse can be used to provide programs for these adolescents to direct them towards natural stimuli and away from potentially addictive substances.[92][93] This is especially true for adolescents in marginalized populations, as their environment is more likely to foster impulsive behaviors.[92][93]

Epidemiology

Disability-adjusted life year for drug use disorders per 100,000 inhabitants in 2002.
  no data
  less than 40
  40-80
  80-120
  120-160
  160-200
  200-240
  240-280
  280-320
  320-360
  360-400
  400-440
  more than 440

The most common drug addictions are to legal substances such as nicotine, caffeine, and alcohol.[citation needed]

History

The phenomenon of drug addiction has occurred to some degree throughout recorded history (see "Opium").[104] Modern agricultural practices, improvements in access to drugs, advancements in biochemistry, and dramatic increases in the recommendation of drug usage by clinical practitioners have exacerbated the problem significantly in the 20th century. Improved means of active biological agent manufacture and the introduction of synthetic compounds, such as methamphetamine, are also factors contributing to drug addiction.[105][106]

For the entirety of US history, drugs have been used by some members of the population. In the country's early years, most drug use by the settlers was of alcohol or tobacco. During and following the American Civil War, the prevalence of caffeine use in the US increased.[107]

The nineteenth century saw opium usage in the US become much more common and popular. Morphine was isolated in the early nineteenth century, and came to be prescribed commonly by doctors, both as a painkiller and as an intended cure for opium addiction. At the time, the prevailing medical opinion was that the addiction process occurred in the stomach, and thus it was hypothesized that patients would not become addicted to morphine if it was injected into them via a hypodermic needle, and it was further hypothesized that this might potentially be able to cure opium addiction. However, many people did become addicted to morphine. In particular, addiction to opium became widespread among soldiers fighting in the Civil War, who very often required painkillers and thus were very often prescribed morphine. Women were also very frequently prescribed opiates, and opiates were advertised as being able to relieve "female troubles".[107]

During the 1960s, the hippie movement came into being and became a huge influence on US culture. This movement was marked by–among other things–desire for self-discovery, desire for and self-improvement, and desire for a connection to something greater. One of the key ways in which much of the movement sought to satisfy these desires was through experimenting with LSD, which was a legal substance at the time. Laws were later enacted that made LSD illegal, thus making it such that a substantial portion of a large movement were now consuming illicit substances, whereas otherwise most of them were law-abiding citizens. During the same time period, the Vietnam War was underway and creating a lot of mistrust between the US government and its citizens, resulting in some people having a desire to rebel and live outside the laws of their country. Many soldiers in the Vietnam War were introduced to heroin and many developed a dependency to the substance which survived even when they return to the US. Technological advances in travel meant that this increased demand for heroin in the US could now be met. Furthermore, as technology advanced, more drugs were synthesized and discovered, opening up new avenues to substance dependency.[107]

Society and culture

Legislation

Depending on the jurisdiction, addictive drugs may be legal, legal only as part of a government sponsored study, illegal to use for any purpose, illegal to sell, or even illegal to merely possess.

Most countries have legislation which brings various drugs and drug-like substances under the control of licensing systems. Typically this legislation covers any or all of the opiates, amphetamines, cannabinoids, cocaine, barbiturates, benzodiazepines, anesthetics, hallucinogenics, derivatives and a variety of more modern synthetic drugs. Unlicensed production, supply or possession is a criminal offence.

Usually, however, drug classification under such legislation is not related simply to addictiveness. The substances covered often have very different addictive properties. Some are highly prone to cause physical dependency, while others rarely cause any form of compulsive need whatsoever. Also, under legislation specifically about drugs, alcohol, caffeine and nicotine are not usually included.

Although the legislation may be justifiable on moral or public health grounds, it can make addiction or dependency a much more serious issue for the individual: reliable supplies of a drug become difficult to secure, and the individual becomes vulnerable to both criminal abuse and legal punishment.

It is unclear whether laws against illegal drug use do anything to stem usage and dependency. In jurisdictions where addictive drugs are illegal, they are generally supplied by drug dealers, who are often involved with organized crime. Even though the cost of producing most illegal addictive substances is very low, their illegality combined with the addict's need permits the seller to command a premium price, often hundreds of times the production cost. As a result, addicts sometimes turn to crime to support their habit.

See also

Template:Multicol

Template:Multicol-break

Questionnaires

Template:Multicol-end

References

  1. ^ National Institutes of Health website: "Drug dependence means that a person needs a drug to function normally. Abruptly stopping the drug leads to withdrawal symptoms. Drug addiction is the compulsive use of a substance, despite its negative or dangerous effects." http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmedhealth/PMH0002490/
  2. ^ a b DSM-IV & DSM-IV-TR:Substance Dependence
  3. ^ Galea, S., Nandi, A., & Vlahov, D. (2004). The social epidemiology of substance use. Epidemiologic Reviews, 26, 36–52.
  4. ^ "A Culture of Denial: Myths About Addicts and Addiction". Retrieved 10 April 2014. {{cite news}}: Unknown parameter |deadurl= ignored (|url-status= suggested) (help)
  5. ^ Epidemiologic Reviews, 26, 36–52.
  6. ^ a b Kendler KS, Neale MC, Heath AC, Kessler RC, Eaves LJ (May 1994). "A twin-family study of alcoholism in women". Am J Psychiatry. 151 (5): 707–15. PMID 8166312.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  7. ^ Clarke, Toni-Kim; Crist, Richard C.; Kampman, Kyle M.; Dackis, Charles A.; Pettinati, Helen M.; O’Brien, Charles P.; Oslin, David W.; Ferraro, Thomas N.; Lohoff, Falk W.; Berrettini, Wade H. (May 2013). "Low frequency genetic variants in the μ-opioid receptor (OPRM1) affect risk for addiction to heroin and cocaine". Neuroscience Letters. 542: 71–75. doi:10.1016/j.neulet.2013.02.018.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  8. ^ Hall, F. Scott; Drgonova, Jana; Jain, Siddharth; Uhl, George R. (December 2013). "Implications of genome wide association studies for addiction: Are our a priori assumptions all wrong?". Pharmacology & Therapeutics. 140 (3): 267–279. doi:10.1016/j.pharmthera.2013.07.006.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  9. ^ Nutt King, Saulsbury , Blakemore (2007). "Development of a rational scale to assess the harm of drugs of potential misuse". Lancet. 369 (9566): 1047–53. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(07)60464-4. PMID 17382831.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  10. ^ "Marijuana Drug Facts". National Institute on Drug Abuse. January 2014. Retrieved 18 April 2014.
  11. ^ a b c d e Kalivas PW, Volkow ND (2005). "The neural basis of addiction: a pathology of motivation and choice". Am J Psychiatry. 162 (8): 1403–13. doi:10.1176/appi.ajp.162.8.1403. PMID 16055761.
  12. ^ a b c d Jones S, Bonci A (2005). "Synaptic plasticity and drug addiction". Current Opinion in Pharmacology. 5 (1): 20–5. doi:10.1016/j.coph.2004.08.011. PMID 15661621.
  13. ^ a b Eisch AJ, Harburg GC (2006). "Opiates, psychostimulants, and adult hippocampal neurogenesis: Insights for addiction and stem cell biology". Hippocampus. 16 (3): 271–86. doi:10.1002/hipo.20161. PMID 16411230.
  14. ^ Rang, H. P. (2003). Pharmacology. Edinburgh: Churchill Livingstone. p. 596. ISBN 0-443-07145-4.
  15. ^ Kourrich S, Rothwell PE, Klug JR, Thomas MJ (2007). "Cocaine experience controls bidirectional synaptic plasticity in the nucleus accumbens". J. Neurosci. 27 (30): 7921–8. doi:10.1523/JNEUROSCI.1859-07.2007. PMID 17652583.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  16. ^ a b Floresco SB, Ghods-Sharifi S (2007). "Amygdala-prefrontal cortical circuitry regulates effort-based decision making". Cereb. Cortex. 17 (2): 251–60. doi:10.1093/cercor/bhj143. PMID 16495432.
  17. ^ a b c "Dopamine in Drug Abuse and Addiction: Results of Imaging Studies and Treatment Implications".
  18. ^ "Drugs, Brains, and Behavior: The Science of Addiction".
  19. ^ "Understanding Drug Abuse and Addiction".
  20. ^ a b c Boob G, Kreek MJ (2007). "Stress, Dysregulation of Drug Reward Pathways, and the Transition to Drug Dependence". Am J Psychiatry. 164 (8): 1149–59. doi:10.1176/appi.ajp.2007.05030503. PMC 2837343. PMID 17671276.
  21. ^ AJ Giannini, RQ Quinones, DM Martin. Role of beta-endorphin and cAMP in addiction and mania. Society for Neuroscience Abstracts. 15:149, 1998.
  22. ^ Kovács KA, Steinmann M, Magistretti PJ, Halfon O, Cardinaux JR (September 2006). "C/EBPbeta couples dopamine signalling to substance P precursor gene expression in striatal neurones". Journal of Neurochemistry. 98 (5): 1390–9. doi:10.1111/j.1471-4159.2006.03957.x. PMID 16771829.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  23. ^ Nestler EJ, Barrot M, Self DW (September 2001). "ΔFosB: A sustained molecular switch for addiction". Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America. 98 (20): 11042–6. doi:10.1073/pnas.191352698. PMC 58680. PMID 11572966.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  24. ^ Chao J, Nestler EJ (2004). "Molecular neurobiology of drug addiction". Annual Review of Medicine. 55: 113–32. doi:10.1146/annurev.med.55.091902.103730. PMID 14746512.
  25. ^ Nestler EJ (December 2005). "The Neurobiology of Cocaine Addiction". Science & Practice Perspectives / a Publication of the National Institute on Drug Abuse, National Institutes of Health. 3 (1): 4–10. PMC 2851032. PMID 18552739.
  26. ^ Conversi D, Bonito-Oliva A, Orsini C, Colelli V, Cabib S (January 2008). "DeltaFosB accumulation in ventro-medial caudate underlies the induction but not the expression of behavioral sensitization by both repeated amphetamine and stress". The European Journal of Neuroscience. 27 (1): 191–201. doi:10.1111/j.1460-9568.2007.06003.x. PMID 18184321.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  27. ^ Perrotti LI, Weaver RR, Robison B, Renthal W, Maze I, Yazdani S, Elmore RG, Knapp DJ, Selley DE, Martin BR, Sim-Selley L, Bachtell RK, Self DW, Nestler EJ (May 2008). "Distinct Patterns of ΔFosB Induction in Brain by Drugs of Abuse". Synapse. 62 (5): 358–69. doi:10.1002/syn.20500. PMC 2667282. PMID 18293355.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  28. ^ Nikulina EM, Arrillaga-Romany I, Miczek KA, Hammer RP (May 2008). "Long-lasting alteration in mesocorticolimbic structures after repeated social defeat stress in rats: time course of μ-opioid receptor mRNA and FosB/ΔFosB immunoreactivity". The European Journal of Neuroscience. 27 (9): 2272–84. doi:10.1111/j.1460-9568.2008.06176.x. PMC 2442756. PMID 18445218.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  29. ^ Wallace DL, Vialou V, Rios L, Carle-Florence TL, Chakravarty S, Kumar A, Graham DL, Green TA, Kirk A, Iñiguez SD, Perrotti LI, Barrot M, DiLeone RJ, Nestler EJ, Bolaños-Guzmán CA (October 2008). "The influence of ΔFOSB in the Nucleus Accumbens on natural reward-related behavior". Journal of Neuroscience. 28 (41): 10272–7. doi:10.1523/JNEUROSCI.1531-08.2008. PMC 2653197. PMID 18842886.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  30. ^ Nestler EJ (October 2008). "Transcriptional mechanisms of addiction: role of ΔFosB". Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B. 363 (1507): 3245–55. doi:10.1098/rstb.2008.0067. PMC 2607320. PMID 18640924.
  31. ^ Ulery-Reynolds PG, Castillo MA, Vialou V, Russo SJ, Nestler EJ (January 2009). "PHOSPHORYLATION OF ΔFosB MEDIATES ITS STABILITY IN VIVO". Neuroscience. 158 (2): 369–72. doi:10.1016/j.neuroscience.2008.10.059. PMC 2734485. PMID 19041372.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  32. ^ Kim Y, Teylan MA, Baron M, Sands A, Nairn AC, Greengard P (February 2009). "Methylphenidate-induced dendritic spine formation and ΔFosB expression in nucleus accumbens". Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America. 106 (8): 2915–20. doi:10.1073/pnas.0813179106. PMC 2650365. PMID 19202072.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  33. ^ Chen JC, Chen PC, Chiang YC (2009). "Molecular mechanisms of psychostimulant addiction". Chang Gung Medical Journal. 32 (2): 148–54. PMID 19403004.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  34. ^ Teegarden SL, Scott AN, Bale TL (May 2009). "Early life exposure to a high fat diet promotes long-term changes in dietary preferences and central reward signaling". Neuroscience. 162 (4): 924–32. doi:10.1016/j.neuroscience.2009.05.029. PMC 2723193. PMID 19465087.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  35. ^ Watanabe H, Henriksson R, Ohnishi YN, Ohnishi YH, Harper C, Sheedy D, Garrick T, Nyberg F, Nestler EJ, Bakalkin G, Yakovleva T (July 2009). "FOSB proteins in the orbitofrontal and dorsolateral prefrontal cortices of human alcoholics". Addiction Biology. 14 (3): 294–7. doi:10.1111/j.1369-1600.2009.00155.x. PMC 2828493. PMID 19523044.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  36. ^ Garzón J, Rodríguez-Muñoz M, López-Fando A, Sánchez-Blázquez P (March 2005). "Activation of mu-opioid receptors transfers control of Galpha subunits to the regulator of G-protein signaling RGS9-2: role in receptor desensitization". The Journal of Biological Chemistry. 280 (10): 8951–60. doi:10.1074/jbc.M407005200. PMID 15632124.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link) CS1 maint: unflagged free DOI (link)
  37. ^ Kovoor A, Seyffarth P, Ebert J, Barghshoon S, Chen CK, Schwarz S, Axelrod JD, Cheyette BN, Simon MI, Lester HA, Schwarz J (February 2005). "D2 dopamine receptors colocalize regulator of G-protein signaling 9-2 (RGS9-2) via the RGS9 DEP domain, and RGS9 knock-out mice develop dyskinesias associated with dopamine pathways". The Journal of Neuroscience. 25 (8): 2157–65. doi:10.1523/JNEUROSCI.2840-04.2005. PMID 15728856.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  38. ^ Garzón J, Rodríguez-Muñoz M, Sánchez-Blázquez P (May 2005). "Morphine alters the selective association between mu-opioid receptors and specific RGS proteins in mouse periaqueductal gray matter". Neuropharmacology. 48 (6): 853–68. doi:10.1016/j.neuropharm.2005.01.004. PMID 15829256.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  39. ^ Bouhamdan M, Yan HD, Yan XH, Bannon MJ, Andrade R (March 2006). "Brain-specific regulator of G-protein signaling 9-2 selectively interacts with alpha-actinin-2 to regulate calcium-dependent inactivation of NMDA receptors". Journal of Neuroscience. 26 (9): 2522–30. doi:10.1523/JNEUROSCI.4083-05.2006. PMID 16510730.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  40. ^ Silverman JL, Koenig JI (August 2007). "Evidence for Involvement of ERβ and RGS9-2 in 17-β Estradiol Enhancement of Amphetamine-Induced Place Preference Behavior". Hormones and Behavior. 52 (2): 146–55. doi:10.1016/j.yhbeh.2007.03.017. PMC 2096711. PMID 17493623.
  41. ^ Hooks SB, Martemyanov K, Zachariou V (January 2008). "A role of RGS proteins in drug addiction". Biochemical Pharmacology. 75 (1): 76–84. doi:10.1016/j.bcp.2007.07.045. PMID 17880927.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  42. ^ Martemyanov KA, Krispel CM, Lishko PV, Burns ME, Arshavsky VY (December 2008). "Functional comparison of RGS9 splice isoforms in a living cell". Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America. 105 (52): 20988–93. doi:10.1073/pnas.0808941106. PMC 2634932. PMID 19098104.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  43. ^ Traynor JR, Terzi D, Caldarone BJ, Zachariou V (March 2009). "RGS9-2: probing an intracellular modulator of behavior as a drug target". Trends in Pharmacological Sciences. 30 (3): 105–11. doi:10.1016/j.tips.2008.11.006. PMID 19211160.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  44. ^ Miller NS, Giannini AJ (1990). "The disease model of addiction: a biopsychiatrist's view". J Psychoactive Drugs. 22 (1): 83–5. PMID 2324867.
  45. ^ Ball JC, van de Wijngaart GF (1994). "A Dutch addict's view of methadone maintenance—an American and a Dutch appraisal". Addiction. 89 (7): 799–802, discussion 803–14. doi:10.1111/j.1360-0443.1994.tb00974.x. PMID 8081178.
  46. ^ Reynolds M, Mezey G, Chapman M, Wheeler M, Drummond C, Baldacchino A (2005). "Co-morbid post-traumatic stress disorder in a substance misusing clinical population". Drug Alcohol Depend. 77 (3): 251–8. doi:10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2004.08.017. PMID 15734225.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  47. ^ Moggi F, Giovanoli A, Strik W, Moos BS, Moos RH (2007). "Substance use disorder treatment programs in Switzerland and the USA: Program characteristics and 1-year outcomes". Drug Alcohol Depend. 86 (1): 75–83. doi:10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2006.05.017. PMID 16782286.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  48. ^ Nils Bejerot: Swedish addiction epidemic in an international perspective, 1988
  49. ^ Giannini AJ (June 1996). "Alexithymia, affective disorders and substance abuse: possible cross-relationships". Psychol Rep. 78 (3 Pt 2): 1389–90. doi:10.2466/pr0.1996.78.3c.1389. PMID 8816054.
  50. ^ DAA/UK
  51. ^ Schaler, Jeffrey Alfred (1997). "Addiction Beliefs of Treatment Providers: Factors Explaining Variance". Addiction Research & Theory. 4 (4): 367–384. doi:10.3109/16066359709002970. ISSN 1476-7392.
  52. ^ Johnson RE, Chutuape MA, Strain EC, Walsh SL, Stitzer ML, Bigelow GE (2000). "A comparison of levomethadyl acetate, buprenorphine, and methadone for opioid dependence". N. Engl. J. Med. 343 (18): 1290–7. doi:10.1056/NEJM200011023431802. PMID 11058673.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  53. ^ Connock M, Juarez-Garcia A, Jowett S; et al. (2007). "Methadone and buprenorphine for the management of opioid dependence: a systematic review and economic evaluation". Health Technol Assess. 11 (9): 1–171, iii–iv. PMID 17313907. {{cite journal}}: Explicit use of et al. in: |author= (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  54. ^ Marsch LA, Stephens MA, Mudric T, Strain EC, Bigelow GE, Johnson RE (2005). "Predictors of outcome in LAAM, buprenorphine, and methadone treatment for opioid dependence". Exp Clin Psychopharmacol. 13 (4): 293–302. doi:10.1037/1064-1297.13.4.293. PMID 16366759.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  55. ^ Robertson JR, Raab GM, Bruce M, McKenzie JS, Storkey HR, Salter A (2006). "Addressing the efficacy of dihydrocodeine versus methadone as an alternative maintenance treatment for opiate dependence: A randomized controlled trial". Addiction. 101 (12): 1752–9. doi:10.1111/j.1360-0443.2006.01603.x. PMID 17156174.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  56. ^ Qin Bo-Yi (1998). "Advances in dihydroetorphine: From analgesia to detoxification". Drug Development Research. 39 (2): 131–134. doi:10.1002/(SICI)1098-2299(199610)39:2<131::AID-DDR3>3.0.CO;2-Q. Link
  57. ^ Metrebian N, Shanahan W, Wells B, Stimson GV (1998). "Feasibility of prescribing injectable heroin and methadone to opiate-dependent drug users: associated health gains and harm reductions". Med. J. Aust. 168 (12): 596–600. PMID 9673620.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  58. ^ Metrebian N, Mott J, Carnwath Z, Carnwath T, Stimson GV, Sell L (2007). "Pathways into receiving a prescription for diamorphine (heroin) for the treatment of opiate dependence in the United kingdom". Eur Addict Res. 13 (3): 144–7. doi:10.1159/000101550. PMID 17570910.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  59. ^ a b Kenna GA, Nielsen DM, Mello P, Schiesl A, Swift RM (2007). "Pharmacotherapy of dual substance abuse and dependence". CNS Drugs. 21 (3): 213–37. doi:10.2165/00023210-200721030-00003. PMID 17338593.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  60. ^ Mattick RP, Darke S (1995). "Drug replacement treatments: is amphetamine substitution a horse of a different colour?". Drug Alcohol Rev. 14 (4): 389–94. doi:10.1080/09595239500185531. PMID 16203339.
  61. ^ White R (2000). "Dexamphetamine substitution in the treatment of amphetamine abuse: an initial investigation". Addiction. 95 (2): 229–38. doi:10.1046/j.1360-0443.2000.9522299.x. PMID 10723851.
  62. ^ Majumdar SK (1991). "Chlormethiazole: current status in the treatment of the acute ethanol withdrawal syndrome". Drug Alcohol Depend. 27 (3): 201–7. doi:10.1016/0376-8716(91)90001-F. PMID 1884662.
  63. ^ Giannini AJ, Billett W (August 1987). "Bromocriptine-desipramine protocol in treatment of cocaine addiction". J Clin Pharmacol. 27 (8): 549–54. PMID 3308977.
  64. ^ Soyka M, Roesner S (2006). "New pharmacological approaches for the treatment of alcoholism". Expert Opin Pharmacother. 7 (17): 2341–53. doi:10.1517/14656566.7.17.2341. PMID 17109610.
  65. ^ Pettinati HM, Rabinowitz AR (2006). "Choosing the right medication for the treatment of alcoholism". Curr Psychiatry Rep. 8 (5): 383–8. doi:10.1007/s11920-006-0040-0. PMID 16968619.
  66. ^ Bouza C, Angeles M, Magro A, Muñoz A, Amate JM (2004). "Efficacy and safety of naltrexone and acamprosate in the treatment of alcohol dependence: a systematic review". Addiction. 99 (7): 811–28. doi:10.1111/j.1360-0443.2004.00763.x. PMID 15200577.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  67. ^ Williams SH (2005). "Medications for treating alcohol dependence". Am Fam Physician. 72 (9): 1775–80. PMID 16300039.
  68. ^ Gass JT, Olive MF (2008). "Glutamatergic substrates of drug addiction and alcoholism". Biochem. Pharmacol. 75 (1): 218–65. doi:10.1016/j.bcp.2007.06.039. PMC 2239014. PMID 17706608.
  69. ^ Srisurapanont M, Jarusuraisin N (2005). Srisurapanont, Manit (ed.). "Opioid antagonists for alcohol dependence". Cochrane Database Syst Rev (1): CD001867. doi:10.1002/14651858.CD001867.pub2. PMID 15674887.
  70. ^ Karhuvaara S, Simojoki K, Virta A; et al. (2007). "Targeted nalmefene with simple medical management in the treatment of heavy drinkers: a randomized double-blind placebo-controlled multicenter study". Alcohol. Clin. Exp. Res. 31 (7): 1179–87. doi:10.1111/j.1530-0277.2007.00401.x. PMID 17451401. {{cite journal}}: Explicit use of et al. in: |author= (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  71. ^ Comer SD, Sullivan MA, Hulse GK (2007). "Sustained-release naltrexone: novel treatment for opioid dependence". Expert Opin Investig Drugs. 16 (8): 1285–94. doi:10.1517/13543784.16.8.1285. PMID 17685876.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  72. ^ Ling W, Rawson R, Shoptaw S, Ling W (2006). "Management of methamphetamine abuse and dependence". Curr Psychiatry Rep. 8 (5): 345–54. doi:10.1007/s11920-006-0035-x. PMID 16968614.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  73. ^ Preti A (2007). "New developments in the pharmacotherapy of cocaine abuse". Addict Biol. 12 (2): 133–51. doi:10.1111/j.1369-1600.2007.00061.x. PMID 17508985.
  74. ^ Urschel HC, Hanselka LL, Gromov I, White L, Baron M (2007). "Open-label study of a proprietary treatment program targeting type A gamma-aminobutyric acid receptor dysregulation in methamphetamine dependence". Mayo Clin. Proc. 82 (10): 1170–8. doi:10.4065/82.10.1170. PMID 17908523.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  75. ^ Garwood CL, Potts LA (2007). "Emerging pharmacotherapies for smoking cessation". Am J Health Syst Pharm. 64 (16): 1693–8. doi:10.2146/ajhp060427. PMID 17687057.
  76. ^ Frishman WH (2007). "Smoking cessation pharmacotherapy—nicotine and non-nicotine preparations". Prev Cardiol. 10 (2 Suppl 1): 10–22. doi:10.1111/j.1520-037X.2007.05963.x. PMID 17396063.
  77. ^ Siu EC, Tyndale RF (2007). "Non-nicotinic therapies for smoking cessation". Annu. Rev. Pharmacol. Toxicol. 47: 541–64. doi:10.1146/annurev.pharmtox.47.120505.105354. PMID 17209799.
  78. ^ K.R. Alper, H.S. Lotsof, G.M. Frenken, D.J. Luciano, J. Bastiaans (1999). "Treatment of Acute Opioid Withdrawal with Ibogaine" (PDF). The American Journal on Addictions. 8 (3): 234–242. doi:10.1080/105504999305848. PMID 10506904. Retrieved 16 June 2009.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  79. ^ S.L.T. Cappendijk, M.R. Dzoljic (1993). "Inhibitory effects of ibogaine on cocaine self-administration in rats". European Journal of Pharmacology. 241 (2–3): 261–265. doi:10.1016/0014-2999(93)90212-Z. PMID 8243561.
  80. ^ S.D. Glick, K. Rossman, N.C. Rao, I.M. Maisonneuve and J.N. Carlson (1992). "Effects of ibogaine on acute signs of morphine withdrawal in rats: Independence from tremor". Neuropharmacology. 31 (5): 497–500. doi:10.1016/0028-3908(92)90089-8. PMID 1528400.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  81. ^ O'Donohue, W; K.E. Ferguson (2006). "Evidence-Based Practice in Psychology and Behavior Analysis" (PDF). The Behavior Analyst Today. 7 (3). Joseph D. Cautilli: 335–350.
  82. ^ Chambless, D.L. (1998). "An update on empirically validated therapies" (PDF). Clinical Psychology. 49. American Psychological Association: 5–14.
  83. ^ Dutcher LW, Anderson R, Moore M, Luna-Anderson C, Meyers RJ, Delaney HD, Smith JE (Spring 2009). "Community Reinforcement and Family Training (CRAFT): An Effectiveness Study" (PDF). Journal of Behavior Analysis of Sports, Health Fitness and Behavioral Medicine. 2 (1): 82–93. ISSN 1946-7079.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)[unreliable source?]
  84. ^ Meyers RJ, Smith JE, Lash DN (June 2005). "A Program for Engaging Treatment-Refusing Substance Abusers into Treatment: CRAFT" (PDF). IJBCT. 1 (2): 90–100. ISSN 1555-7855.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)[unreliable source?]
  85. ^ Smith JE, Milford JL, Meyers RJ (2004). "CRA and CRAFT: Behavioral Approaches to Treating Substance-Abusing Individuals" (PDF). The Behavior Analyst Today. 5 (4): 391–403.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)[unreliable source?]
  86. ^ http://www.ama-assn.org/ama1/pub/upload/mm/21/omss-handbook-final.pdf
  87. ^ Jordan JB (2006). "Acupuncture treatment for opiate addiction: a systematic review". J Subst Abuse Treat. 30 (4): 309–14. doi:10.1016/j.jsat.2006.02.005. PMID 16716845.
  88. ^ White AR, Rampes H, Campbell JL (2006). White, Adrian R (ed.). "Acupuncture and related interventions for smoking cessation". Cochrane Database Syst Rev (1): CD000009. doi:10.1002/14651858.CD000009.pub2. PMID 16437420.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  89. ^ "Treatment Approaches for Drug Addiction", National Institute of Drug Abuse, 09/12/12
  90. ^ Blum, K; Noble, EP; Sheridan, PJ; Montgomery, A; Ritchie, T; Jagadeeswaran, P; Nogami, H; Briggs, AH; Cohn, JB (18 April 1990). "Allelic association of human dopamine D2 receptor gene in alcoholism". JAMA: the Journal of the American Medical Association. 263 (15): 2055–60. PMID 1969501.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  91. ^ a b c Nesse, Randolph (September–November 1994). "An evolutionary perspective on substance abuse". Ethology and Sociobiology. 15 (5–6): 339–348. doi:10.1016/0162-3095(94)90007-8.
  92. ^ a b c d e f g h i j k Lende, DH; Smith, EO (April 2002). "Evolution meets biopsychosociality: an analysis of addictive behavior". Addiction (Abingdon, England). 97 (4): 447–58. PMID 11964060.
  93. ^ a b c d e f g h i j k l m n Durrant, R; Adamson, S; Todd, F; Sellman, D (November 2009). "Drug use and addiction: evolutionary perspective". The Australian and New Zealand journal of psychiatry. 43 (11): 1049–56. doi:10.3109/00048670903270449. PMID 20001400.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  94. ^ a b c d e f g h Nesse, Randolph (April 2002). "Evolution and Addiction". Addiction. 97 (4): 470–471. doi:10.1046/j.1360-0443.2002.00086.x.
  95. ^ a b c d e f g h i j k Gerald, MS; Higley, JD (April 2002). "Evolutionary underpinnings of excessive alcohol consumption". Addiction (Abingdon, England). 97 (4): 415–25. PMID 11964058.
  96. ^ a b c d e f g h i j k Cloninger, CR (24 April 1987). "Neurogenetic adaptive mechanisms in alcoholism". Science. 236 (4800): 410–6. doi:10.1126/science.2882604. PMID 2882604.
  97. ^ Harlow, H.F.; M.K. Harlow (1965). "The affectional systems. In: Schrier, A. M., Harlow, H. F. & Stollinitz, F., eds". Behavior of Nonhuman Primates. 2: 287–334.
  98. ^ a b c d Chick, J (April 2002). "Evolutionary psychobiology: any relevance for therapy?". Addiction (Abingdon, England). 97 (4): 473–4. PMID 11964064.
  99. ^ a b c d e Newlin, DB (April 2002). "The self-perceived survival ability and reproductive fitness (SPFit) theory of substance use disorders". Addiction (Abingdon, England). 97 (4): 427–45. PMID 11964059.
  100. ^ Saah, Tammy (2005). "The evolutionary origins and significance of drug addiction". Harm Reduction Journal. 2 (8). PMC 1174878.
  101. ^ a b c d e f Sullivan, RJ; Hagen, EH (April 2002). "Psychotropic substance-seeking: evolutionary pathology or adaptation?". Addiction (Abingdon, England). 97 (4): 389–400. PMID 11964056.
  102. ^ a b c d e f g Sullivan, Roger; Edward H Hagen and Peter Hammerstein (June 2008). "Revealing the paradox of drug reward in human evolution". Proc Biol Sci. 275 (1640): 1231–1241. PMC 2367444.
  103. ^ a b c Nesse, RM; Berridge, KC (3 October 1997). "Psychoactive drug use in evolutionary perspective". Science. 278 (5335): 63–6. doi:10.1126/science.278.5335.63. PMID 9311928.
  104. ^ Lowinson, Joyce H; Ruiz, Pedro; Millman, Robert B; Langrod, John G (eds) (2005). Substance Abuse: A Comprehensive Textbook (4th ed.). Philadelphia: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins. ISBN 0-7817-3474-6Template:Inconsistent citations {{cite book}}: |author4= has generic name (help)CS1 maint: postscript (link)
  105. ^ Hillman, D.C.A. (22 July 2008). The chemical muse: drug use and the roots of Western civilization. Macmillan. ISBN 978-0-312-35249-3.
  106. ^ Rinella, Michael A. (23 November 2011). Pharmakon: Plato, Drug Culture, and Identity in Ancient Athens. Rowman & Littlefield. ISBN 978-0-7391-4687-3.
  107. ^ a b c Casey, Elaine. "History of Drug Use and Drug Users in the United States". www.druglibrary.org. Retrieved 3 January 2014.

External links

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Substance_dependence&oldid=606691163"