Advertisement

Status of Methadone Maintenance Treatment and Research in the United States

  • John C. Ball
  • Alan Ross

Abstract

Methadone maintenance treatment was established in New York City in 1964 by Drs. Vincent Dole and Marie Nyswander.1,2 The original treatment regimen implemented by Drs. Dole and Nyswander with their staff provided comprehensive medical and rehabilitative services to intravenous heroin addicts. Criteria for admission included: 4 years of heroin addiction, a history of prior treatment failure, voluntary desire for treatment, age over 19, primary dependence upon opiates, and absence of psychosis or major medical complications. In the initial studies, addicts were evaluated and stabilized on a daily oral dose of methadone on an inpatient service before transfer to an outpatient clinic for continued treatment. With further experience, it was found feasible to eliminate the inpatient phase of treatment and start with the outpatient clinic.

Keywords

Methadone Treatment Methadone Maintenance Treatment Methadone Maintenance Alcoholism Treatment Treatment Domain 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Dole VP, Nyswander M (1965) A medical treatment for diacetylmorphine (heroin) addiction: a clinical trial with methadone hydrochloride. JAMA 193: 80–84Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Dole V (1989) Methadone maintenance. In Courtwright D, Joseph H, Des Jarlais D: Addicts Who Survived: An Oral History of Narcotic Use in America, 1923–1965. Knoxville: University of Tennessee Press, pp 331–343Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Dole VP, Nyswander ME, Warner A (1968) Successful treatment of 750 criminal addicts. JAMA 206: 2708–2711PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Gearing FR (1972) Methadone maintenance: six years later. Contemp Drug Prob 1: 191–206Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Gearing FR (1970) Successes and failures in methadone maintenance treatment of heroin addiction in New York City. In: Proceedings of the Third National Conference on Methadone Treatment. Rockville: US Public Health Service, Pub. No. 2172, pp 2–16Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Connell PH (1975) Review of methadone maintenance schemes. In Boström H, Larsson T, Ljungstedt N (eds): Skandia International Symposia: Drug Dependence-Treatment and Treatment Evaluation. Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell, pp 133–146Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Newman RG, in collaboration with Cates MS (1977) The role of social and psychiatric services. In Methadone Treatment in Narcotic Addiction: Program Management, Findings, and Prospects for the Future. New York: Academic Press, pp 64–68Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Lowinson JH (1981) Methadone maintenance in perspective. In Lowinson JH, Ruiz P (eds): Substance Abuse: Clinical Problems and Perspectives. Baltimore: Williams & Wilkins, pp 344–354Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    D’Amanda C (1983) Program policies and procedures associated with treatment outcome. In Cooper JR, Altman F, Brown BS, Czechowicz D (eds): NIDA Treatment Research Monograph Series: Research on the Treatment of Narcotic Addiction: State of the Art. (ADM) 83–1281. Rockville: US Department of Health and Human Services, pp 637–679Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Boume PG (1981) A 10-year perspective on the addiction problem. In Lowinson JH, Ruiz P (eds): Substance Abuse: Clinical Problems and Perspectives. Baltimore: Williams & Wilkins, pp 35–42Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Kirn TF (1988) Methadone maintenance treatment remains controversial even after 23 years of experience. JAMA 260: 2970–2975PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Gerstein DR, Harwood HJ (eds) (1990) Treating Drug Problems, Vol. 1. Washington, DC: National Academy PressGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    United States General Accounting Office (1990) Methadone maintenance: some treatment programs are not effective; greater federal oversight needed. In: GAO Report to the Chairman, Select Committee on Narcotics Abuse and Control, House of Representatives (March). Washington, DC: US Government Printing OfficeGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Klepak D (1978) Evaluation of treatment effectiveness: the New York State experience. Ann NY Acad Sci 311: 248–252PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    FDA, personal communication, January 1989Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Butynski W, Canova D, Jensen S (1989) State Resources and Services Related to Alcohol and Drug Abuse Problems—Fiscal Year 1988: An analysis of state alcohol and drug abuse. Washington, DC: National Association of State Alcohol and Drug Abuse DirectorsGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Parrino M (1989) Letter to Bennett WJGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Murphy S, Rosenbaum M (1988) Money for methadone. II. Unintended consequences of limited-duration methadone maintenance. J Psychoactive Drugs 20: 397–402PubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Des Jarlais DC, Friedman SR (1989) AIDS and the IV drug user. Science 245: 578PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Des Jarlais DC, Friedman SR (1987) Target groups for preventing AIDS among intravenous drug users. J Appl Soc Psychol 17: 251–268CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Galea RP, Lewis BF, Baker LA (eds) (1988) AIDS and IV Drug Abusers: Current Perspectives. Owings Mills: National Health Publishing, Exhibit I-1, I-2, pp xxvii, xxx-xxxiGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Novick DM, Joseph H, Croxson TS, et al (1990) Absence of antibody to human immunodeficiency virus in long-term, socially rehabilitated methadone maintenance patients. Arch Intern Med 150: 97–99PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Des Jarlais DC (1990) Stages in the response of the drug abuse treatment system to the AIDS epidemic in New York City. J Drug Issues 20: 335–347Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Cooper JR, Altman F, Brown B, Czechowicz D (eds) (1983) NIDA Treatment Research Monograph Series: Research on the Treatment of Narcotic Addiction: State of the Art. (ADM) 83–1281. Rockville: US Department of Health and Human ServicesGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Tims FM, Ludford JP (eds) (1984) NIDA Research Monograph 51: RAUS: Drug Abuse Treatment Evaluation: Strategies, Progress, and Prospects. (ADM) 84–1329. Rockville: US Department of Health and Human ServicesGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Hubbard RL, Marsden ME, Rachal JV, et al (1989) Drug Abuse Treatment: A National Study of Effectiveness. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina PressGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Simpson DD, Sells SB (eds) (1990) Opioid Addiction and Treatment: a 12-year follow-up. Malabar: Robert E. Krieger Publishing CompanyGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Jaffe JH (1979) The swinging pendulum: the treatment of drug users in America. In Dupont RI, Goldstein A, O’Donnell J (eds): Handbook on Drug Abuse. Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office, pp 3–16Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Cooper JR (1989) Methadone treatment and acquired immunodeficiency syndrome. JAMA 262: 1664–1668PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Pickens RW, Fletcher BW (1991) Overview of treatment issues. In: Improving Drug Abuse Treatment: NIDA Monograph. In pressGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Lipton DS, Appel P (1984) The state perspective. In Tims FM, Ludford JP (eds): NIDA Research Monograph Series 51: RAUS: Drug Abuse Treatment Evaluation: Strategies, Progress, and Prospects. (ADM) 84–1329. Rockville: US Department of Health and Human Services, pp 151–166Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Hall SM (1983) Methadone treatment: a review of the research findings. In Cooper JR, Altman F, Brown B, Czechowicz D (eds): NIDA Treatment Research Monograph Series: Research on the Treatment of Narcotic Addiction: State of the Art. (ADM) 83–1281. Rockville: US Department of Health and Human Services, pp 575–632Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Gottheil E, McLellan AT, Druley KA (eds) (1981) Reasonable and unreasonable methodological standards for the evaluation of alcoholism treatment. In: Matching Patient Needs and Treatment Methods in Alcoholism and Drug Abuse. Springfield: Charles C Thomas, pp 371–389Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Altman F, Schnoll SH (1983) Discussion summary. In Cooper JR, Altman F, Brown B, Czechowicz D (eds): NIDA Treatment Research Monograph Series: Research on the Treatment of Narcotic Addiction: State of the Art. (ADM) 83–1281. Rockville: US Department of Health and Human Services, pp 573–574Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Hubbard RL, Rachal JV, Craddock SG, Cavanaugh ER (1984) Treatment outcome prospective study (TOPS): client characteristics and behaviors before, during, and after treatment. In: Tims FM, Ludford JP (eds): NIDA Research Monograph Series 51: RAUS Drug Abuse Treatment Evaluation: Strategies, Progress, and Prospects. (ADM) 84–1329. Rockville: US Department of Health and Human Services, pp 42–68Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Meyer R (1983) Introduction to part III: factors affecting the outcome of methadone treatment. In Cooper JR, Altman F, Brown B, Czechowicz D (eds): NIDA Treatment Research Monograph Series: Research on the Treatment of Narcotic Addiction: State of the Art. (ADM) 83–1281. Rockville: US Department of Health and Human Services, pp 495–499Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Woody GE (1983) Treatment characteristics associated with outcome. In Cooper JR, Altman F, Brown B, Czechowicz D (eds): NIDA Treatment Research Monograph Series: Research on the Treatment of Narcotic Addiction: State of the Art. (ADM) 83–1281. Rockville: US Department of Health and Human Services, pp 541–564Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Tonry M (1990) Research on drugs and crime. In Tonry M, Wilson JQ (eds): Drugs and Crime, Vol. 13. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, pp 1–8Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Moos RH, Finney JW (1987–1988) Alcoholism program evaluation: the treatment domain. Drugs Society 2: 31–51CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Terry CE, Pellens M (1970) The Opium Problem. Montclair, NJ: Patterson SmithGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Pescor MJ (1943) A statistical analysis of the clinical records of hospitalized drug addicts. Public Health Rep Suppl 143. Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office, pp 1–30Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Second Triennial Report to Congress from the Secretary (1987) Drug Abuse and Drug Abuse Research. DHHS (ADM) 87–1486. Rockville: US Department of Health and Human Services, pp. 59–75Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Moos RH, Finney JW, Cronkite RC (eds) (1990) Alcoholism Treatment: Context, Process, and Outcome. New York: Oxford University PressGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    McLellan AT, Alterman AI, Woody GE (1991) A quantitative measure of substance abuse treatment programs: the treatment services review. J Nery Ment Dis (in press)Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    Anglin MD, Hser YI (1990) Treatment of drug abuse. In Tonry M, Wilson JQ (eds): Drugs and Crime, pp 393–460Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag New York Inc. 1991

Authors and Affiliations

  • John C. Ball
    • 1
  • Alan Ross
    • 2
  1. 1.National Institute on Drug Abuse-Addiction Research CenterUniversity of Maryland School of MedicineBaltimoreUSA
  2. 2.Department of BiostatisticsJohns Hopkins School of HygieneBaltimoreUSA

Personalised recommendations