Public policy statement
Public Policy Statement
On Rapid and Ultra Rapid Opioid Detoxification
(Formerly Public Policy Statement on Opioid Antagonist Agent Detoxification
under Sedation or Anesthesia (OADUSA))
Opioid addiction is a complex disease involving physiological, psychological, genetic, behavioral and environmental factors. It shares features of other drug dependencies but often requires unique treatment strategies. No single treatment approach is effective in all cases. In carefully chosen patient populations, both abstinence-based treatment and opioid agonist maintenance treatment are effective, safe and accepted modalities. (See ASAM Public Policy Statements on Methadone and Buprenorphine.)
The withdrawal syndrome from opioids--including those that have been therapeutically administered in an opioid maintenance treatment program--can be protracted and intensely symptomatic, albeit virtually without risk of mortality. There is no single "right way" to detoxify all opioid addicted patients. Traditional methods include tapering with methadone or buprenorphine or discontinuing opioids and administering oral clonidine to ameliorate symptoms of withdrawal. Even when pharmacologic agents are utilized in the management of opioid withdrawal, there is often a significant amount of patient discomfort. Patients who are unable to tolerate this discomfort often terminate the detoxification process and many return to illicit opioid use. Other opioid-dependent patients--both those engaged in active illicit drug use and those stabilized in an opioid agonist maintenance program--will not even attempt opioid withdrawal because of their fears of the discomforts of the process. Whereas mortality from opioid withdrawal is negligible, the mortality rate for persons who resume opioid use is significant. This is due not only to the mortality inherent in active opioid addiction but also to the increased risk of fatal overdose which results from the loss of opioid tolerance associated with even a short period of abstinence, as occurs in most detoxification attempts.
Clinicians have developed various accelerated methods of opioid detoxification that rapidly induce withdrawal through the monitored therapeutic administration of opioid antagonist agents, while concurrently diminishing the patient’s discomfort by inducing various degrees of sedation through the use of sedative hypnotic agents or general anesthetics. More commonly used terminology refers to rapid opioid detoxification
Public Policy Statement On Rapid and Ultra Rapid Opioid Detoxification
(ROD), in which oral opioid antagonists (naltrexone) are administered along with moderate sedation orally or ‘conscious sedation’ intravenously; and ultra rapid opioid detoxification (UROD), in which intravenous opioid antagonists (naltrexone) are administered along with general anesthesia.
The topic of antagonist-assisted acute detoxification accompanied by heavy sedation or
anesthesia has been the subject of two Cochrane Database Reviews, most recently
updated in 2004. In these reviews, the available literature was surveyed and described
in detail. The reviewers conclude that there is insufficient evidence to support the
clinical use of antagonist-assisted detoxification with heavy sedation or anesthesia
the management of opioid addiction (UROD). In the case of the use of antagonist-
assisted detoxification with minimal sedation
(ROD), the reviewers conclude that
adjunctive use of minimal sedation with an opioid antagonist and an alpha-2 adrenergic
agonist may increase the likelihood of entry into longer-term naltrexone treatment,
compared to withdrawal managed with an opioid antagonist and an adrenergic agonist
without the assistance of minimal sedation. A high level of monitoring and support (for
several hours following administration of opioid antagonists) is recommended because
of the possibility of vomiting, diarrhea and delirium.
The goal of addiction treatment is to have patients functioning optimally in their families and communities; abstinence alone does not assure optimum functioning, and detoxification does not in itself address the chronic dysfunctions of addiction. Ongoing engagement in addiction treatment is an important variable in how effective treatment will be. It is unclear how any specific method of detoxification relates to retention in addiction treatment. Further research could give information on the safety and effectiveness of antagonist-induced acute detoxification regimes, as well as of the variables influencing the severity of withdrawal, the prevalence and severity of adverse effects, the most effective antagonist-based detoxification regimens, and approaches that might increase retention in subsequent treatment and/or opioid or naltrexone maintenance programs for persons receiving opioid detoxification services. As stated so succinctly by authors of a 1998 article in the Journal of the American Medical Association, “the existing literature on Rapid Opiate Detox is limited in terms of the number of subjects evaluated, the variation in protocols studied, lack of randomized design…and the short term nature of the outcomes reported. Further research is indicated and needed using more rigorous research methods, longer term outcomes, and comparison with other methods of treatment for opiate dependence.” Almost a decade since the appearance of this article, the same conclusions are justified.
1. Opioid detoxification alone is not a treatment of opioid addiction. ASAM does
not support the initiation of acute opioid detoxification interventions unless
they are part of an integrated continuum of services that promote ongoing
recovery from addiction.
Public Policy Statement On Rapid and Ultra Rapid Opioid Detoxification
2. Ultra-Rapid Opioid Detoxification (UROD) is a procedure with uncertain risks
and benefits, and its use in clinical settings is not supportable until a clearly
positive risk-benefit relationship can be demonstrated. Further research on
UROD should be conducted.
3. Although there is medical literature describing various techniques of Rapid
Opioid Detoxification (ROD), further research into the physiology and
consequences of ROD should be supported so that patients may be directed
to the most effective treatment methods and practices.
4. Prior to participation in any particular modality of opioid detoxification, a
patient should be provided with sufficient information by which to provide
informed consent, including information about the risks of termination of a
treatment plan of prescribed agonist medications such as methadone or
buprenorphine, as well as the need to comply with medical monitoring of their
clinical status for a defined period of time following the procedure to ensure a
safe outcome. Patients should also be informed of the risks, benefits and
costs of alternative methods of treatment available.
Adopted by the American Society of Addiction Medicine Board of Directors April 2000 as Public Policy
Statement on Opioid Antagonist Agent Detoxification under Sedation or Anesthesia (OADUSA); rev.
Copyright 2005. American Society of Addiction Medicine, Inc. All rights reserved. Permission to make digital or hard copies of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for commercial, advertising or promotional purposes, and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Republication, systematic reproduction, posting in electronic form on servers, redistribution to lists, or other uses of this material, require prior specific written permission or license from the Society. ASAM Public Policy Statements normally may be referenced in their entirety only, without editing or paraphrasing, and with proper attribution to the Society. Excerpting any statement for any purpose requires specific written permission from the Society. Public Policy statements of ASAM are revised on a regular basis; therefore, those wishing to utilize this document must ensure that it is the most current position of ASAM on the topic addressed. _________________________________________________________________________________________________
American Society of Addiction Medicine
4601 North Park Avenue • Upper Arcade Suite 101 • Chevy Chase, MD 20815-4520
PHONE: (301) 656-3920 • FACSIMILE: (301) 656-3815
i n t e r n a t i o n a l j o u r n a l o f m e d i c a l i n f o r m a t i c s 7 6 S ( 2 0 0 7 ) S205–S211j o u r n a l h o m e p a g e : w w w . i n t l . e l s e v i e r h e a l t h . c o m / j o u r n a l s / i j m i Incident reporting schemes and the need for a good story J. Rooksby , R.M. Gerry , A.F. Smith a Computing Department, Lancaster University, UK b Department
Poder Judicial de la Ciudad Autónoma de Buenos Aires “CANEVARO, MARTÍN Y OTRO C/ GCBA S/AMPARO (ART. 14 CCABA)”, Expte. Nº EXP 36410/0 ///dad Autónoma de Buenos Aires, 19 de marzo de 2010.- VISTOS: para dictar sentencia en la presente causa iniciada por los actores MARTÍN CANEVARO y CARLOS HUMBERTO ÁLVAREZ NAZARENO, de cuyas constancias; RESULTA: 1. Que MARTÍN