A few weeks ago I wrote a post All About Zika virus epidemic. The million-dollar question is does Zika cause microcephaly (or abnormally small heads and severe brain damage) in the fetus if a pregnant woman is infected with virus? At the time I wrote my first post, the evidence strongly suggested that it did but scientists were reluctant to declare a direct causal relationship.
The team from the CDC examined all the available reports and studies on the Zika virus and microcephaly and did a systematic analysis of all the evidence using a strict set of criteria to determine causality.
While no one report or piece of evidence is the “smoking gun” all of the pieces put together reveal the truth. Just like only when all the pieces of a puzzle are fit together is the whole picture clear.
This conclusion is extremely important because the risks for pregnant women are very real. The CDC has released important information for pregnant women or women who intend to become pregnant in areas were Aedes mosquitoes (Zika carrying mosquitoes) are prevalent.
It’s important to remember that while Zika does cause microcephaly is does not cause it in 100% of pregnancies. Some pregnant women bitten by Zika will have no problems with the developing fetus. One thing we still don’t know is what is the risk that the Zika will cause microcephaly and who are the mothers most in danger of this happening?
As more information is gathered on this epidemic and more scientific studies published, the more we will learn about how to fight it.
I hate to be condescending but how the scientific community perceives a phenomena and how the public at large perceive the exact same thing can be starkly different.
For example, there is still a debate over the scientific legitimacy of global warming and climate change. Of course, this flies in the face of reality. In the scientific community, there is no more doubt over climate change than there is over heliocentricity (the theory that states the Earth revolves around the Sun). Study after study comes to the came conclusion, the scientific evidence is overwhelmingly in favor. But I’m not writing to debate climate change.
The same type of dichotomy exists for replacement/maintenance therapies for addiction. Methadone and the related compound buprenorphine (Suboxone, one of its formulations) are still considered controversial or ineffective or “replacing one drug for another.”
In brief, methadone is a compound that acts on the same target as heroin (the mu opioid receptor) but unlike heroin, it acts for a very long time (24hrs). Dr. Vincent Dole, a doctor at the Rockefeller University in New York, and his colleague, Dr. Marie Nyswander, had the brilliant idea of using this very long-acting opioid compound as a way of treating heroin addiction. Indeed, methadone has the advantage of not producing the intense, pleasurable high that heroin produces but is still effective at curbing cravings for heroin and eliminating withdrawal symptoms. Dole and Nyswander published their first study in 1967 and methadone has been an approved—and effective—treatment for heroin addiction worldwide ever since.
However, controversy over the use of methadone exists. Even the opening of a methadone clinic can incite protests. The persistence of negative attitudes towards methadone and the stigma against treating addiction as a medical disease has prevented addicts from receiving proven medical treatments that are effective at curbing cravings and actually keeping them off of heroin and in treatment programs.
So just for a moment, let’s suspend our preconceived notions about what methadone is or how it works and let’s just ask our selves two simple questions:
Does methadone work?
Does methadone keep addicts off of heroin and in treatment?
The answer is a resounding YES!
Many controlled, clinical studies have examined the effectiveness of methadone. But a comprehensive comparison of methadone versus control, non-medication based treatments has not been considered amongst the various studies.
Researchers at the Cochrane Library performed this type of comprehensive analysis. Data was considered from 14 unique, previous clinical studies conducted over the past 40 years. Researchers compared methadone treatment versus control, non-medication based treatment approaches (placebo medication, withdrawal or detoxification, drug-free rehabilitation clinics, no treatment, or waitlist).
11 studies and 1,969 subjects were included in their final analysis.
The results were clear. Methadone was found to keep people off of heroin and in treatment more effectively than control treatments. Urine analysis confirmed methadone-treated addicts were more likely to be heroin-free and regularly seeking treatment.
Of course, as I stated above, this is nothing new. But it’s important to note that abstinence therapies or treatments that encourage addicts to go “cold turkey” don’t really work; inevitably, relapse will occur. A medical treatment exists to help addicts fight their cravings so their brains are not fixated on obtaining heroin and these people are able to regain normal daily functions. And in time, methadone doses can be tapered down as intensity and frequency of cravings decrease.
The debate now should not be on whether methadone works, but on how to use it effectively and how to expand its use so that as many people as possible can benefit from it.
Most importantly, methadone helps an addict to return to normal life. End of story.