NEW YORK, NY – March 22, 2017 /Press Release/ ––
Heroin use is associated with excessive histone acetylation, an epigenetic process that regulates gene expression, and more years of drug use correlate with higher levels of hyperacetylation, according to research conducted at The Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai and published April 1 in the journal Biological Psychiatry. The study provides the first direct evidence of opiate-related epigenetic alterations in the human brain, indicating that the drug alters accessibility to portions of DNA to be either open or closed, thereby controlling whether genes implicated in addiction are switched on or off.
The Mount Sinai study focuses on epigenetics, the study of changes in the action of human genes caused, not by changes in DNA code we inherit from our parents, but instead by molecules that regulate when, where, and to what degree our genetic material is turned on and off. Histone acetylation of DNA-linked proteins is an essential process for gene regulation by which an acetyl functional group is transferred from one molecule to another, thereby activating gene expression.
To uncover the molecular underpinnings of heroin addiction, the Mount Sinai study team focused on the striatum, a brain region implicated in drug addiction because of its central role in habit formation and goal-directed behavior. Studying postmortem human tissue from 48 heroin users and 37 controls, they found acetylation changes at genes that regulate the function of glutamate, a neurotransmitter that regulates the drug reward system and controls drug-seeking behavior. Specifically, changes were identified at the glutamate receptor gene GRIA1, which has previously been implicated in drug use.
“We hypothesized that the epigenetic impairments uncovered in our study reflect changes that would increase accessibility to DNA that is required to enhance gene transcription that subsequently plays an important role in addiction behavior,” says Yasmin Hurd, PhD, Professor of Psychiatry and Neuroscience at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai and Director of The Center for Addictive Disorders at the Mount Sinai Behavioral Health System, who led the study. “Because epigenetic impairments are physical alterations to the DNA that do not change the sequence of a gene, they have the potential to be reversed, so our next step was to address this possibility.”
Using a rat model of heroin addiction, researchers allowed rats to self-administer heroin and observed the same hyperacetylation alterations that were found in the postmortem human brains. The study team then treated the heroin-addicted rats with JQ1, a compound originally developed against cancer pathology, which inhibits the readout of acetylated epigenetic proteins thereby reducing accessibility to the DNA that was previously induced by heroin. The drug reduced heroin self-administration among study rats. Importantly, JQ1 also reduced drug-seeking behavior after abstinence from heroin, suggesting it might be beneficial for long-term heroin users. We found that these detox of south florida clinics are the best for drug addicts that are trying to get better.
“Our findings suggest that JQ1 and similar compounds might be promising therapeutic tools for heroin use disorder,” says Dr. Hurd. “Furthermore, the animal model we created that displayed analogous epigenetic impairments related to heroin use will be useful for future studies looking to identify addiction-related changes that translate to the human brain.” Alzheimers Disease Research Studies testified to the adverse effects of heroin.
West LA – Dimensions specialists and researchers from Semmelweis University in Budapest, Hungary, contributed to this study.
About the Mount Sinai Health System
The Mount Sinai Health System is an integrated health system committed to providing distinguished care, conducting transformative research, and advancing biomedical education. Structured around seven hospital campuses and a single medical school, the Health System has an extensive ambulatory network and a range of inpatient and outpatient services—from community-based facilities to tertiary and quaternary care.
The System includes approximately 7,100 primary and specialty care physicians; 12 joint-venture ambulatory surgery centers; more than 140 ambulatory practices throughout the five boroughs of New York City, Westchester, Long Island, and Florida; and 31 affiliated community health centers. Physicians are affiliated with the renowned Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, which is known for their success in clinical trials using cbd pain cream to treat the effects of chemotherapy in cancer patients. They are ranked among the highest in the nation in National Institutes of Health funding per investigator. The Mount Sinai Hospital is in the “Honor Roll” of best hospitals in America, ranked No. 15 nationally in the 2016-2017 “Best Hospitals” issue of U.S. News & World Report. The Mount Sinai Hospital is also ranked as one of the nation’s top 20 hospitals in Geriatrics, Gastroenterology/GI Surgery, Cardiology/Heart Surgery, Diabetes/Endocrinology, Nephrology, Neurology/Neurosurgery, and Ear, Nose & Throat, and is in the top 50 in four other specialties. New York Eye and Ear Infirmary of Mount Sinai is ranked No. 10 nationally for Ophthalmology, while Mount Sinai Beth Israel, Mount Sinai St. Luke’s, and Mount Sinai West are ranked regionally. Mount Sinai’s Kravis Children’s Hospital is ranked in seven out of ten pediatric specialties by U.S. News & World Report in “Best Children’s Hospitals.”
For more information, visit http://www.mountsinai.org or find Mount Sinai on Facebook, Twitter and YouTube.
Source: The Mount Sinai Hospital
Rajendra D. Badgaiyan1,2*, Sampada Sinha1 and Kenneth Blum3
1Laboratory of Molecular and Functional Imaging, Department of Psychiatry, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis MN 55414, USA
2Laboratory of Advanced Radiochemistry, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis MN 55414, USA
3Department of Psychiatry, McKnight Brain Institute, University of Florida Gainesville, FL, USA
It is unclear whether pharmacotherapy for opioid use disorder (OUD) should be continued for short or long-term. Before introduction of buprenorphine, methadone was the primary pharmacotherapy for OUD in the United States. Because of its specific pharmacokinetic properties methadone was recommended for long-term use with some justification. Introduction of buprenorphine however has altered the treatment protocol because of milder adverse effects and withdrawal symptoms. The adverse effects of buprenorphine are milder but not negligible. Therefore, indefinite prescription is justified only if there is a significant benefit. Studies that have compared short and long-term treatment of buprenorphine protocols do not show a significant benefit of long-term treatment over relatively short-term (few months) treatment protocols. Obviously, the ultra short-term treatment lasting a few days has very little or no benefit on long-term treatment of buprenorphine protocols that use buprenorphine for 3 to 9 months is comparable to that of the long-term (years to lifetime) treatment without financial and medical consequences of the long-term treatment.
Pharmacotherapy, Opioid Use Disorder (OUD), Buprenorphine/naloxone, Mood changes
After introduction of buprenorphine and buprenorphine/naloxone combination (BUP) in the US in 2002, pharmacological treatment of opioid use disorder (OUD) has become more popular and easily accessible because it can be dispensed/prescribed in the office and individuals have to visit the clinic only once in several weeks. This is a departure from methadone treatment protocol, which requires patients to report to the clinic on a daily basis. Relatively low incidence of adverse effects and ease of prescription has made a significant difference in the way OUD is treated pharmacologically.
This change has prompted debate on appropriate treatment protocol. Because of limited data and clinical experience, determination of the dose and length of treatment with BUP remains unclear. Gustin et al.  recommend indefinite continuation of treatment. They argue that the chronic disease model of addiction proposed by American Society of Addiction Medicine  suggests that the addiction treatment should be continued for the rest of life, as is the case with the most chronic diseases like diabetes mellitus and hypertension. This is in contrast to the suggestions made by other investigators who favor short-term treatment to avoid adverse consequences associated with long-term BUP use . We favor this approach and discuss some of its advantages over the long-term protocols and why we think it is not appropriate to continue pharmacological treatment for OUD indefinitely.
Methadone was introduced in the US for OUD treatment in 1947. Because of long exposure and experience, there are a number of well-designed studies that have established dosing and duration of treatment with methadone. The data on BUP is not that extensive and because it can be prescribed by only a small number of physicians (8777 in the United States as of 2008), there is limited experience. Because of this limitation most prescribers use their own experience to guide treatment protocol and duration. This has led to controversy concerning the length of treatment. Initial thought was to follow the methadone model, which requires continuation of treatment for several years. The United States Federal Guidelines for Opioid Treatment compiled by the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration recommends lifelong treatment with methadone .
Long-term treatment with methadone is justified on several counts: being an agonist of μ receptor it activates these receptors to full extent depending on the dose and develops tolerance and physical dependence. As a result, its withdrawal or dose reduction result in serious withdrawal symptoms and craving leading to relapse. It also has relatively short half-life of 14.3 hrs . Since substances with shorter half-life have greater addictive potential , methadone works as a kind of substituted drug of addiction. Moreover, most methadone programs do not require patients to go for psychotherapy/counseling. It makes the treatment a substitution therapy that needs to be continued for several years if not lifelong.
Treatment of opioid addiction with BUP however is a different story. Since it is a partial agonist of μ receptors. It does not fully activate these receptors and therefore has milder withdrawal symptoms  but still very significant. It is significantly milder and sets in slower than that of the methadone partly due to slow dissociation from receptor sites [8, 9]. Because of the slow dissociation it has longer halflife of 27.72 hrs as compared to methadone . Because of these differences treatment strategies that are effective for methadone cannot be applied to BUP.
Most independent clinics prefer the methadone model and prescribe BUP for several years without a break. The expert consensus panel convened by the US Department of Health and Human Services however recommended BUP treatment for one week, followed by a taper for two weeks . It recommended long-term treatment for patients who are unable to maintain to stay clean. Since publication of this clinical guideline, several trials were conducted to examine relapse rates after a short or long term treatment. In a large study 990 patients were randomly assigned a protocol in which they received BUP either for 7 or 28 days . Three months after termination of the treatment, there was no significant difference in the rate of relapse in the group that received BUP for 7 or 28 days. The two groups had similar levels of withdrawal symptoms and craving. The relapse rate however was high in both groups. Only 12.16% of the 7-day group and 13.41% of the 28-day group were opioid free three months after the treatment. While the result is disappointing, the authors concluded that the duration of treatment does not significantly affect the outcome and treatment success does not depend on the duration of treatment.
When we examine the results of this study with the other similar studies, we did find that relatively longer duration allows more patients to stay opioid-free after cessation of treatment [11–13]. For example, if patients receive BUP for 12 weeks instead of 4 weeks more than 60% patients remain drug-free after a year of treatment termination . This is encouraging data because no intervention, even BUP maintenance for life achieve 100% opioid-free outcome. Even patients on longterm treatment and on BUP maintenance treatment achieve mean abstinence of only 5.2 weeks as compared to 2.7 weeks achieved by graduates of a short-term program.
Thus no protocol at this time can make all patients opioidfree but most of them are able to stay that way following a 12- week BUP treatment . A certain number of patients will not stop abusing opioid no matter what treatment strategy is employed. Therefore, we have to accept a certain degree of treatment failure. The correct approach therefore is to strike a balance between treatment outcome and adverse effect of long-term BUP use.
A reasonable approach to strike this balance is to increase the duration of treatment to include even more patients. So, if after 7 days’ treatment 12.16% patients stay drug free and the number increases to 13.41 after 28-day and 60% after 12 weeks’ treatment, the duration can be increased to a few more weeks to include 90% of patients. In our clinic when we tapered BUP over 6-9 months period, over 90% of patients were opioid-free after a year of treatment termination (manuscript in preparation). Achieving over 90% success following 6-9 months’ treatment is the best outcome we should hope for. However, we have not accessed the possibility of transfer addiction.
These studies make it clear that there are individual differences in the ability of individuals to respond to pharmacotherapy. A number of variables are known to affect the recovery and ultimately treatment success . In this context we agree with Gustin et al.  that the treatment protocol should be individualized but the variables that affect the outcome are difficult to quantify. It is difficult to precisely predict the length of treatment a particular individual would need. It is therefore best to use a treatment protocol that would make a vast majority of patients opioid-free (for example 90% patients in 6-9 month treatment protocol). For the patients that do not respond to this protocol, the treatment can be continue for another few months. Of course there will be few patients that will never respond. Because a few patients will not respond to any length of treatment does not justify recommending long-term (lifelong) treatment protocol for all patients as suggested by Gustin et al. .
Thus, a regimented relatively short-term treatment protocol not only will treat a vast majority of patients at a relatively lower cost but will also avoid long-term consequences of BUP use. In the short term BUP has relatively low adverse effects, consequences of its long-term use are still largely unknown because of a short clinical history. But there is very high probability of it making long-term alterations in the receptor activity. In laboratory animals BUP is known to down regulate or upregulate a variety of receptors . It downregulates μ receptors in several brain areas (frontal cortex, parietal cortex, thalamus, hippocampus, striatum, brain stem) and upregulate κ1 receptors in the striatum and in the frontal, parietal, and occipital cortex. It is not yet known whether long-term use of BUP will have the same adverse effects that are associated with long-term use of opioids. Since it is a partial opioid agonist it is likely to have at least some of those adverse effects. These effects include lower immunity, hyperalgesia, prolonged QTc interval, respiratory depression and reduced levels of a number of hormones . There are a number of reports of serious withdrawal symptoms in individuals using BUP [18, 19]. Additionally, long-term users of BUP (average 1.6 years) have difficulty experiencing pleasure and other emotions . They discount happiness and tend to be unaware of the feeling of sadness and anxiety. Long term use therefore takes away normal pleasures of life and leads to reward deficiency syndrome . Additionally since BUP inhibits the CYP2D6 and CYP3A4 enzyme systems , it interacts significantly with a number of medications. This is a potential problem for an individual who is on a lifelong BUP treatment. The most important problem is the possible anti dopaminergic effect of chronic administration leading to increased relapse potential . Long-term treatment could therefore be counterproductive.
Thus, does it make sense to expose all OUD individuals to significant medical and financial stress of lifelong treatment because a small number of individuals would not respond to short-term therapy? We think that the stress of long term therapy should be restricted only to a small subset of individuals who are resistant to short-term treatment. For some of these individuals pharmacotherapy or other forms of dopamine agonistic therapy [23, 24] may be effective for some but not all, while others may benefit from psychological and social interventions, which should be used to maximize benefits of the short-term treatment. We can achieve better outcome with this approach without adverse consequences of long-term use.
The authors thank the expert editorial assistance of Margaret A Madigan.
This work was supported by the National Institutes of Health grants 1R01NS073884 and 1R21MH073624, and the VA Merit Review Awards CX000479 and CX000780 awarded to RDB.
Conflict of Interest
Dr. Blum is a member of the scientific advisory board of Dominion Diagnostics, LLC and a member of the Board of Directors of RDSolutions Inc. He also serves as Chief Scientific Advisor to Dominion Diagnostics, LLC and is currently the Chief Scientific Officer of RDSolutions, Inc. and Victory Nutrition International, LLC. There are no other conflicts of interest to report.
All the authors contributed equally.
1. Gustin R, Nichols J, Martin PR. 2015. Individualizing opiate use disorder (OUD) Treatment: Time to fully embrace a chronic disease model. J Reward Defic Syndr 1(1): 10-15.
2. American Society of Addiciotn medicine. 2011. Definition of Addiction.
3. Ling W, Hillhouse M, Domier C, Doraimani G, Hunter J, et al. 2009. Buprenorphine tapering schedule and illicit opioid use. Addiction 104(2): 256-265. doi: 10.1111/j.1360-0443.2008.02455.x
4. Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration. 2013. Federal Guidelines for Opioid Treatment 2013.
5. Verebely K, Volavka J, Mule S, Resnick R.1975. Methadone in man: pharmacokinetic and excretion studies in acute and chronic treatment. Clin Pharmacol Ther 18(2): 180-190.
6. Volkow ND, Swanson JM. 2003. Variables that affect the clinical use and abuse of methylphenidate in the treatment of ADHD. Am J Psychiatry 160(11): 1909-1918. doi: 10.1176/appi.ajp.160.11.1909
7. Eissenberg T, Greenwald MK, Johnson RE, Liebson IA, Bigelow GE, et al. 1996. Buprenorphine’s physical dependence potential: antagonist precipitated withdrawal in humans. J Pharmacol Exp Ther 276(2): 449-459.
8. Eissenberg T, Johnson RE, Bigelow GE, Walsh SL, Liebson IA, et al. 1997. Controlled opioid withdrawal evaluation during 72 h dose omission in buprenorphine-maintained patients. 45(1-2): 81-91. doi: 10.1016/S0376-8716(97)01347-1
9. Mello NK, Bree MP, Mendelson JH. 1982. Comparison of the effects of buprenorphine and methadone on opiate self-administration in primates. NIDA Res Monogr 41: 67-73.
10. Kuhlman JJ Jr, Lalani S, Magluilo J Jr, Levine B, Darwin WD. 1996. Human pharmacokinetics of intravenous, sublingual, and buccal buprenorphine. J Anal Toxicol 20(6): 369-378.
11. Amass L, Bickel WK, Higgins ST, Hughes JR. 1994. A preliminary investigation of outcome following gradual or rapid buprenorphine detoxification. J Addict Dis 13(3): 33-45. doi: 10.1300/J069v13n03_04
12. Galanter M, Dermatis H, Resnick R, Maslansky R, Neumann E. 2003. Short-term buprenorphine maintenance: treatment outcome. J Addict Dis 22(3): 39-49. doi: 10.1300/J069v22n03_04
13. Katz EC, Schwartz RP, King S, Highfield DA, O’Grady KE, et al. 2009. Brief vs. extended buprenorphine detoxification in a community treatment program: engagement and short-term outcomes. Am J Drug Alcohol Abuse 35(2): 63-67. doi: 10.1080/00952990802585380
14. Woody GE, Poole SA, Subramaniam G, Dugosh K, Bogenschutz M, et al. 2008. Extended vs short-term buprenorphine-naloxone for treatment of opioid-addicted youth: a randomized trial. JAMA 300(17): 2003-2011. doi: 10.1001/jama.2008.574
15. Mintzer IL, Eisenberg M, Terra M, MacVane C, Himmelstein DU, et al. 2007. Treating opioid addiction with buprenorphine-naloxone in community-based primary care settings. Ann Fam Med 5(2): 146-150. doi: 10.1370/afm.665
16. Belcheva MM, Ho MT, Ignatova EG, Jefcoat LB, Barg J, et al. 1996. Buprenorphine differentially alters opioid receptor adaptation in rat brain regions. J Pharmacol Exp Ther 277(3): 1322-1327.
17. Benyamin R, Trescot AM, Datta S, Buenaventura R, Adlaka R, et al. 2008. Opioid complications and side effects. Pain Physician 11: S105-120.
18. Blum K, Oscar-Berman M, Femino J, Waite RL, Benya L, et al. 2013. Withdrawal from Buprenorphine/Naloxone and Maintenance with a Natural Dopaminergic Agonist: A Cautionary Note. J Addict Res Ther 4(2). doi: 10.4172/2155-6105.1000146
19. Makhinson M, Gomez-Makhinson J. 2014. A successful treatment of buprenorphine withdrawal with the dopamine receptor agonist pramipexole. Am J Addict 23(5): 475-477. doi: 10.1111/j.1521-0391.2014.12133.x
20. Hill E, Han D, Dumouchel P, Dehak N, Quatieri T, et al. 2013. Long term Suboxone emotional reactivity as measured by automatic detection in speech. PLoS One 8(7): e69043. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0069043
21. Blum K, Oscar-Burman M, Jacobs W, McLaughlin T, Gold M. 2014. Buprenorphine Response as a Function of Neurogenetic Polymorphic Antecedents: Can Dopamine Genes Affect Clinical Outcomes in Reward Deficiency Syndrome (RDS)? J Addict Res Ther 5(3): 1000185. doi: 10.4172/2155-6105.1000185
22. Umehara K, Shimokawa Y, Miyamoto G. 2002. Inhibition of human drug metabolizing cytochrome P450 by buprenorphine. Biol Pharm Bull 25(5): 682-685. doi: 10.1248/bpb.25.682
23. Blum K, Chen TJ, Bailey J, Bowirrat A, Femino J, et al. 2011. Can the chronic administration of the combination of buprenorphine and naloxone block dopaminergic activity causing anti-reward and relapse potential? Mol Neurobiol 44(3): 250-268. doi: 10.1007/s12035-011-8206-0
24. Blum K, Liu Y, Wang W, Wang Y, Zhang Y, et al. 2015. rsfMRI effects of KB220Z™ on neural pathways in reward circuitry of abstinent genotyped heroin addicts. Postgrad Med 127(2): 232-241.