First Do No Harm … Reduction?
Authors: Marc N. Gourevitch
Journal: Annals of Internal Medicine (2009)

Editorials17 March 2009First Do No Harm … Reduction?FREEMarc N. Gourevitch, MD, MPHMarc N. Gourevitch, MD, MPHFrom New York University School of Medicine, New York, NY 10016.Search for more papers by this authorAuthor, Article, and Disclosure Informationhttps://doi.org/10.7326/0003-4819-150-6-200903170-00111 SectionsAboutVisual AbstractPDF ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload CitationsTrack CitationsPermissions ShareFacebookTwitterLinkedInRedditEmail Illicit opioid use exacts a tremendous toll in health and human suffering. In the United States, heroin and prescription opioid abuse and dependence affect more than 5 million persons, at great human and societal cost (1). Addiction is now understood to be a chronic relapsing condition with deep physiologic roots, and pharmacotherapies that effectively treat opioid dependence are acknowledged to be first-line treatment for this often devastating disorder (2).Methadone is the medication most widely used to treat opioid dependence. Its efficacy has been established in diverse settings and across multiple outcomes, including reductions in mortality, HIV infection, incarceration, and costs. Extensive federal regulations govern methadone treatment, which is delivered to approximately 260 000 persons nationally by a heterogeneous mix of more than 1100 methadone treatment programs (3). Although mounting evidence supports integrating methadone treatment with medical and mental health services, most treatment programs provide minimal on-site medical care (4).Two significant issues concerning methadone safety have emerged in recent years: An increase in methadone-related deaths and evidence that methadone is associated with prolongation of the QT interval. The rise in methadone-associated deaths seems in large measure to reflect multisubstance overdoses among persons who access methadone that was prescribed to treat pain, which reflects its growing use as an analgesic outside of methadone maintenance treatment programs (5). Although evidence of methadone's possible effect on the QT interval has been accumulating, it has remained unclear how to incorporate such information into clinical practice. To address this issue, the federal Center for Substance Abuse Treatment convened an expert panel. The findings and recommendations of some of the panel members are published in this issue (6). (Of note, federal guidelines related to the recommendations are currently undergoing field testing and may be refined.)Using established criteria for determining the likelihood that a medication and side effects are causally related (7), the panel assembled data that ranged from experimental evidence of biological plausibility (methadone inhibits the hERG ion channel associated with QT prolongation) to prospective studies that demonstrate QT prolongation among patients who begin methadone treatment. In the aggregate, the data provide convincing evidence that methadone causes modest prolongation of the QT interval in many patients, with a small minority (approximately 2%) crossing a threshold associated with significantly increased risk for arrhythmia. The panel's summary of reports of torsade de pointes and sudden death in patients treated with methadone indicates that the incidence of these events is low but not zero and typically occurs among persons who receive exceptionally high doses of methadone or have other risk factors for dysrhythmia.A central question thus emerges: Does electrocardiographic (ECG) screening have a role in methadone treatment? Here, the panel members wade into controversial territory by recommending that physicians obtain ECGs before treatment initiation, at 30 days, and annually thereafter in all patients receiving methadone treatment. Unfortunately, this suggested guideline ventures well beyond the evidence presented. The core issue in evaluating a screening test is whether the expected benefits of its widespread implementation outweigh the expected harms (8). However, the panel members had no trials or decision models to assist them in defining the relative benefits and harms of ECG screening. Rather than using their literature review to frame a process for acquiring such data, the panel members determined that a clinical practice guideline was in order and drafted and completed it during a 2-day meeting. Although other recent analyses of this topic have not recommended routine ECG screening (9, 10), the panel members do not state why they reached a different conclusion.Several key points demand consideration before routine ECG screening can be endorsed. Although many medications can cause QT prolongation, published trials documenting that torsade de pointes and sudden death can be averted by baseline ECG screening are lacking. The literature is replete, on the other hand, with examples of screening tests that seemed sensible when recommended yet whose disadvantages, once carefully considered, were found to negate if not outweigh associated benefits (11). Significant harms potentially associated with routine ECG screening of all patients entering methadone treatment include unnecessary evaluation, anxiety, treatment and costs associated with false-positive findings (red herrings), costs of implementation (which in many systems will be borne by patients), and the potential wrongful determination that some persons should not receive sorely needed opioid-dependence treatment. For the typical person who begins methadone treatment, the risk for death from torsade de pointes is likely to be substantially lower than that from competing causes of mortality associated with untreated opioid addiction (12, 13). Although the panel members point out that buprenorphine may be a safer alternative for the estimated 2% of patients receiving methadone who are anticipated to benefit most from ECG screening, this newer medication is rarely prescribed by traditional methadone treatment programs and remains difficult to access in some areas (3). Some patients who have finally mustered the motivation to begin methadone maintenance only to be referred elsewhere for alternative treatment after an abnormal ECG will inevitably return to opioid use.If ECG screening were demonstrated to be beneficial, important related questions require clarification through decision analysis studies or clinical research. The panel members provide no evidence to justify their selection of screening frequency (at baseline, 30 days, and annually) over alternate strategies, such as once after 30 days. Nor do we know whether baseline screening should be restricted to persons with existing risk factors (history of structural heart disease, arrhythmia, or syncope or use of other medications that may also prolong the QT interval). The merits of selecting a methadone dose of 100 mg/d as a trigger for more frequent ECG testing also requires more careful consideration. Methadone is too often prescribed at lower-than-effective doses; although this is improving, more than half of programs in the United States still typically offer doses below the mean effective range of 80 to 100 mg/d (14). Conveying to patients and programs that a 100-mg dose is associated with elevated risk may exert new downward pressure on dose levels and risk poorer treatment outcomes. Selection of an optimal cut-point for more intensive monitoring should be driven by modeling of the risks and benefits of alternative approaches.In short, plausible arguments can be made for and against routine ECG screening in methadone treatment. But before guidelines are implemented, research methods, such as decision analysis, should be brought to bear to permit clear appreciation of the tradeoffs, benefits, and harms of alternative screening strategies—as has been done in similar circumstances (15). For too long, evidence-based approaches to structuring the delivery of methadone maintenance have been the exception (16). That situation is changing. This momentum must continue.Hippocrates wrote, “As to diseases, make a habit of two things—to help, or at least to do no harm” (17). Before we adopt guidelines to detect QT prolongation and potentially prevent sudden death among patients receiving methadone, we need more evidence to help us walk the fine line between minimizing the harms of treatment and failing to treat for fear of causing harm.Marc N. Gourevitch, MD, MPHNew York University School of MedicineNew York, NY 10016References1. Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration. Results from the 2007 National Survey on Drug Use and Health: National Findings. (NSDUH Series H-34, DHHS Publication No. SMA 08-4343.) Rockville, MD: Office of Applied Studies; 2008. Google Scholar2. National Institutes of Health. Effective Medical Treatment of Opiate Addiction. NIH Consensus Statement. Bethesda, MD: National Institutes of Health; 1997. Accessed at consensus.nih.gov/1997/1998TreatOpiateAddiction108html.htm on 12 February 2009. Google Scholar3. Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, Office of Applied Studies. National Survey of Substance Abuse Treatment Services (N-SSATS): 2007. Data on Substance Abuse Treatment Facilities. (DASIS Series: S-44, DHHS Publication No. (SMA) 08-4348.) Rockville, MD: Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration; 2008. Accessed at www.oas.samhsa.gov/DASIS.htm#nssats2 on 12 February 2009. Google Scholar4. Friedmann PD, Hendrickson JC, Gerstein DR, Zhang Z, Stein MD. Do mechanisms that link addiction treatment patients to primary care influence subsequent utilization of emergency and hospital care? Med Care. 2006;44:8-15. [PMID: 16365607] CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar5. Center for Substance Abuse Treatment. Methadone-Associated Mortality: Report of a National Assessment. Rockville, MD: Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration; 2003. Accessed at www.csdp.org/research/methadone.samhsa204.pdf on 12 February 2009. Google Scholar6. Krantz MJ, Martin J, Stimmel B, Mehta D, Haigney MC. QTc interval screening in methadone treatment. Ann Intern Med. 2009;150:387-95. LinkGoogle Scholar7. Naranjo CA, Busto U, Sellers EM, Sandor P, Ruiz I, Roberts EA, et al. A method for estimating the probability of adverse drug reactions. Clin Pharmacol Ther. 1981;30:239-45. [PMID: 7249508] CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar8. Guirguis-Blake J, Calonge N, Miller T, Siu A, Teutsch S, Whitlock E; U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. Current processes of the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force: refining evidence-based recommendation development. Ann Intern Med. 2007;147:117-22. [PMID: 17576998] LinkGoogle Scholar9. Pearson EC, Woosley RL. QT prolongation and torsades de pointes among methadone users: reports to the FDA spontaneous reporting system. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf. 2005;14:747-53. [PMID: 15918160] CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar10. Methadone Mortality—A Reassessment. Rockville, MD: Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration; 20 July 2007. Accessed at www.dpt.samhsa.gov/pdf/Methadone_Report_10%2018%2007_Brief%20w%20attch.pdf on 12 February 2009. Google Scholar11. Grimes DA, Schulz KF. Uses and abuses of screening tests. Lancet. 2002;359:881-4. [PMID: 11897304] CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar12. Hser YI, Hoffman V, Grella CE, Anglin MD. A 33-year follow-up of narcotics addicts. Arch Gen Psychiatry. 2001;58:503-8. [PMID: 11343531] CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar13. Vlahov D, Wang CL, Galai N, Bareta J, Mehta SH, Strathdee SA, et al. Mortality risk among new onset injection drug users. Addiction. 2004;99:946-54. [PMID: 15265091] CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar14. Pollack HA, D'Aunno T. Dosage patterns in methadone treatment: results from a national survey, 1988-2005. Health Serv Res. 2008;43:2143-63. [PMID: 18522665] CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar15. Wang PS, Ganz DA, Benner JS, Glynn RJ, Avorn J. Should clozapine continue to be restricted to third-line status for schizophrenia?: a decision-analytic model. J Ment Health Policy Econ. 2004;7:77-85. [PMID: 15208468] MedlineGoogle Scholar16. Rettig RA, Yarmolinsky A, eds. Federal Regulation of Methadone Treatment. Washington, DC: National Academies Pr; 1995. Google Scholar17. Hippocrates. Of the Epidemics. WHS Jones, trans. Loeb Classical Library, No. 147. 1923. Google Scholar Comments0 CommentsSign In to Submit A Comment Author, Article, and Disclosure InformationAffiliations: From New York University School of Medicine, New York, NY 10016.Disclosures: None disclosed.Corresponding Author: Marc N. Gourevitch, MD, MPH, Division of General Internal Medicine, New York University School of Medicine, Department of Medicine, 550 First Avenue, OBV-616, New York, NY 10016. PreviousarticleNextarticle Advertisement FiguresReferencesRelatedDetailsSee AlsoQTc Interval Screening in Methadone Treatment Mori J. Krantz , Judith Martin , Barry Stimmel , Davendra Mehta , and Mark C.P. Haigney Metrics Cited byMethadone Therapy in Underserved Urban Community: QTc Prolongation and Life-Threatening Ventricular ArrhythmiasResearch Gaps on Methadone Harms and Comparative Harms: Findings From a Review of the Evidence for an American Pain Society and College on Problems of Drug Dependence Clinical Practice GuidelineChanges of QTc interval after opioid switching to oral methadoneQTc Interval Screening in an Opioid Treatment ProgramAn ECG-Based Cardiac Safety Initiative Is Well Received by Opioid Treatment Program Staff: Results from a Qualitative AssessmentQTc interval screening for cardiac risk in methadone treatment of opioid dependenceTrends in Reporting Methadone-Associated Cardiac Arrhythmia, 1997–2011 An Analysis of Registry DataDavid Kao, MD, Becki Bucher Bartelson, PhD, Vaishali Khatri, MPH, Richard Dart, MD, Philip S. Mehler, MD, David Katz, MD, and Mori J. Krantz, MDUse of Methadone in Opioid Maintenance TreatmentPharmacological options for maintenance treatment of opioid dependence include opioid agonists and antagonistsPharmacological options for maintenance treatment of opioid dependence include opioid agonists and antagonistsCurrent and Potential Pharmacological Treatment Options for Maintenance Therapy in Opioid-Dependent Individuals(R)-methadone versus racemic methadone: what is best for patient care?The Role of Cardiovascular Screening in Headache PatientsUpdate in Addiction Medicine for the GeneralistUpdate in Hospice and Palliative CareProlonged QT interval and methadone: implications for palliative careChronic Pain: Levorphanol, Methadone, and the N- Methyl- d -Aspartate Receptor 17 March 2009Volume 150, Issue 6Page: 417-418KeywordsArrhythmiaDecision analysisElectrocardiographyMedical risk factorsOpioid addictionOpioidsResearch reporting guidelinesSyncopeTreatment guidelines ePublished: 17 March 2009 Issue Published: 17 March 2009 Copyright & PermissionsCopyright © 2009 by American College of Physicians. All Rights Reserved.PDF downloadLoading ...