Register a SA Forums Account here!
JOINING THE SA FORUMS WILL REMOVE THIS BIG AD, THE ANNOYING UNDERLINED ADS, AND STUPID INTERSTITIAL ADS!!!

You can: log in, read the tech support FAQ, or request your lost password. This dumb message (and those ads) will appear on every screen until you register! Get rid of this crap by registering your own SA Forums Account and joining roughly 150,000 Goons, for the one-time price of $9.95! We charge money because it costs us money per month for bills, and since we don't believe in showing ads to our users, we try to make the money back through forum registrations.
 
  • Post
  • Reply
Lote
Aug 5, 2001

Place your bets

kliksf posted:

Here's a story regarding APAP and Hydrocodone I thought was illuminating:
Back when I worked at a dispensary there was a doctor who wrote recommendations for cannabis and he ended up losing his medical license. The case grew out of a divorce proceeding and apparently at some point while they were married he wrote his wife a total of 4 prescriptions for Vicodin between a Thursday and following Monday. In the records of the hearing that resulted in the revoking of his license it was noted that the amount of acetaminophen prescribed over that short a period of time was enough to expose his patient to liver toxicity and possibly death and was deemed grounds to prevent the doctor from practicing medicine. Nowhere in the proceedings, which were all public record, nowhere was it mentioned that he wrote a script for his wife, nowhere did they mention the controlled substances aspect, either of which I imagine would be enough to cost you your license, but the explicit reason on the web site for stripping the doctor of his license was essentially tylenol poisoning.

Writing a script for your wife is discouraged but not something that you would lose your license or even go before a disciplinary board. Writing a controlled substance for your wife for the purpose of pain control would potentially run into regulatory issues and subsequently have ethical / legal disciplinary proceedings because you have to have a ton of clinical documentation. Writing four scripts over the course of four days thereby giving a toxic dose of acetaminophen is not excusable in multiple facets any way you cut it. In short, why charge the guy for tax evasion when you got him dead to rights on murder?

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

Lote
Aug 5, 2001

Place your bets

You're drawing the wrong conclusions from the papers and interpreting the numbers wrong. You're saying it isn't "common" to develop opiate dependence but you're not defining common. The prevalence from the sources you cite are all over the map (0!% to 31%) and they give a median of 4.5%. A 1 in 20 chance of becoming addicted to opiates ain't low.

Lote
Aug 5, 2001

Place your bets

KingEup posted:

Do you reject the Cochrane findings?

I would use more up to date findings. You're using a paper from 2010. The author that you're citing wrote the new CDC guidelines in 2016 for prescribing opiates which draw completely opposite conclusions and recommendations.

Lote
Aug 5, 2001

Place your bets

The papers your citing give a 4-6% chance of addiction. That is "small".

Edit:

Also, it is no longer possible to simply continue previous practices with respect to the management of chronic pain. The associated risks of opioid diversion, overdose, and addiction demand change.

Lote fucked around with this message at 00:48 on Jan 30, 2017

Lote
Aug 5, 2001

Place your bets

KingEup posted:

I love how a Cochrane review and the head of NIDA writing in the New England Journal of Medicine can be dismissed so easily.

So far not one person has provided any evidence to the contrary. Are we arguing in good faith here or what?

I'm not providing new evidence because I'm quoting the papers that you're citing.

This quote, "It is no longer possible to simply continue previous practices with respect to the management of chronic pain. The associated risks of opioid diversion, overdose, and addiction demand change." is from the paper that you're using to argue the opposite conclusion.

Lote
Aug 5, 2001

Place your bets

Ytlaya posted:

Does iatrogenic addiction include people who develop a "taste" for opiates through their prescribed medication and then seek them out through illegal channels later?

That is a good layman's definition of iatrogenic. Just means caused by doctors inadvertently.

Lote
Aug 5, 2001

Place your bets

empty whippet box posted:

What the gently caress? Why would Coke and meth have fent cut into it? I don't mean to sound too conspiratorial but I can't think of a reason a dealer would do that. That's something you do if you want to kill people.

Helps increase the chance of you getting addicted.

Lote
Aug 5, 2001

Place your bets
There's a good amount that "survive" an OD and end up being in a coma with little to no brain left and needing a breathing machine. They'll "live" in a nursing home until an infection from a pressure sore or pneumonia gets them. There aren't any good statistics about how many people end up like this and they may not eventually be included in the number of overdose deaths.

Lote
Aug 5, 2001

Place your bets

Rockopolis posted:

So, there's no way this is a :tinfoil: reason for lovely drug policy, right? Like, it's horrible and stupid, but it's like a more comprehensible evil. An explanation.

People that use IV drugs almost always have Hepatitis C. A decent number have HIV.

Lote
Aug 5, 2001

Place your bets
You get withdrawal at a super low dose and the ratio between the dose that will get you high and the dose that will kill you is much narrower than that of fentanyl by a factor of 40. Also this is a drug where doseage is measured in micrograms.

Sounds safe.

Lote
Aug 5, 2001

Place your bets
I don't think it's manufacture sloppiness. Almost all of the cocaine in the USA is now adulterated with levamisole - a drug that treats worms and parasites. Apparently it increases the cocaine high. This is happening when they make the drug. If there's cocaine or amphetamine sneaking in, it's probably to make the high bigger so you're more likely to get addicted. Hit that addiction pathway two ways instead of one.

Lote
Aug 5, 2001

Place your bets
If the AHCA passes, people with substance abuse problems are going to be turbo screwed. Insurance can charge more for substance abuse. Medicaid may get block grants, and they can drug test. If you ever lose Medicaid, you can't get it back.

Lote
Aug 5, 2001

Place your bets

Konstantin posted:

In the common case where addiction treatment is unavailable or the patient refuses it, the least bad thing may be to continue to prescribe opiods until treatment is available and the patient is prepared to attempt treatment.

Prescribing opioids as a treatment for addiction without a specialized license is currently illegal, and the DEA will come down on you hard if they figure out you're doing it.

Lote
Aug 5, 2001

Place your bets
Apparently there's an even more potent opioid that's only used in research called lofentanil. It's not used in animals because it would kill everything.

Lote
Aug 5, 2001

Place your bets
Work requirements are going to kill people. Medicaid is how you pay for medications.

Technically you can get on disability for addiction but good luck going through that process if you’re actively addicted to drugs or alcohol.

Lote
Aug 5, 2001

Place your bets
If people are overdosing, it must be the good stuff. Just gotta be more careful than the people that OD

Lote
Aug 5, 2001

Place your bets

CellBlock posted:

I think you're joking, but I watched an episode of Drugs, Inc. where a heroin dealer basically said that. He mixed a drop or whatever of fentanyl into his whole batch of heroin, so that people would hear about one bag or something that was crazy and want to buy more of the same "brand."

I was being mostly serious. If you cut your product, only people without tolerance are going to overdose. If the addicts are the ones dying, then you know it’s strong.

Lote
Aug 5, 2001

Place your bets

the black husserl posted:

https://twitter.com/jdawsey1/status...genumber%3D1942

This was inevitable for Trump. He full endorsed Duterte style "kill drug users" tactics in like the second month of his Presidency and now he's taking the first steps to get that started.

We will definitely get some kind of "kill the bastards, I've got your back" speech to law enforcement, a la the "beat up your suspects more" he gave last year.

You can really accelerate this process by just dropping an 88 gal drum of pure fentanyl / carfentil in every major city with a heroin problem. Basically go for the plot line of Kingsmen 2.

Lote
Aug 5, 2001

Place your bets
I'm pretty sure Marx and Zizek wrong and the opium of the masses is heroin.


Or a cheaper, more potent analogue like fentanyl

Lote
Aug 5, 2001

Place your bets

tetrapyloctomy posted:

I haven't bothered to ask whether they're doing 300, 100, or some fraction.

It’s the 100 mg ones more likely than the 300 mg caps because they’re tablets and easier to crush

Lote
Aug 5, 2001

Place your bets

Zil posted:

It has been working for the past 40 years and of course it shows no sign of stopping. :suicide101:

Just 1.25 Vietnams per year. Maybe if we outperform, we can match the number of total WWI deaths for one year.

Lote
Aug 5, 2001

Place your bets
There’s another company that makes a 1 month long acting injectible form of Narcan. I don’t really see the buprenorphine one becoming more than a niche in court ordered treatment when you have an alternative that’s more authoritarian.

There was also a surgically implanted long acting (I think 6 months) of buprenorphine that failed hilariously. You would think that one would’ve been more popular with judges but /shrug

Lote
Aug 5, 2001

Place your bets

tetrapyloctomy posted:

My read of his post was simply "There's an opioid antagonist called naltrexone that's basically like long-acting Narcan," not that he was saying they were in fact the exact same drug.

Yeah. I don’t know how many people are familiar with naltrexone and Vivitrol. More people are familiar with Narcan.

Lote
Aug 5, 2001

Place your bets

OhFunny posted:

https://twitter.com/nytimes/status/1068016048295821314?s=19

CDC notes overdose deaths were leveling off in early 2018.

“Leveling off” being it only increased 10% as opposed to 20%.

The most effective thing right now is giving Narcan kits to users.

Lote
Aug 5, 2001

Place your bets
Recently got approval in the US. I believe you have to have the X waiver to prescribe it. Insurance maybe/maybe not covering it yet. Don't know how it stacks up versus methadone vs Suboxone vs Vivitrol/Naltrexone

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

Lote
Aug 5, 2001

Place your bets

shame on an IGA posted:

At least in the states, it's a shameless cash grab being marketed heavily to judges and prisons because patients can't just take generic subs instead of the $1500 shot if it's specified by name on a court order.

In the judicial setting, I don't really see Sublocade taking off when you have Vivitrol as an alternative. If you're feeling authoritarian, why not go with the one that completely blocks heroin and you can't possibly get "high" on?

All long acting injectable medications are expensive, even the generic ones.

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • Post
  • Reply