Clinical 

Practice Guideline  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

Management of  
Substance Use Disorder s (SUD)

August, 2009
 

VA/DoD Evidence Based Practice
 VA/DoD CLINICAL PRACTICE GUIDELINE FOR MANAGEMENT

OF

SUBSTANCE USE DISORDERS (SUD)

Department of Veterans Affairs

Department of Defense

Prepared by:

The Management of Substance Use Disorders

Working Group

With support from:

The Office of Quality and Performance, VA, Washington, DC
&
Quality Management Office, United States Army MEDCOM

QUALIFYING STATEMENTS
The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) and The Department of Defense (DoD) guidelines are based
on the best information available at the time of publication. They are designed to provide information
and assist in decision-making. They are not intended to define a standard of care and should not be
construed as one. Also, they should not be interpreted as prescribing an exclusive course of
management.
Variations in practice will inevitably and appropriately occur when providers take into account the
needs of individual patients, available resources, and limitations unique to an institution or type of
practice. Every healthcare professional making use of these guidelines is responsible for evaluating
the appropriateness of applying them in any particular clinical situation.

Version 2.0 – 2009

 Table of Contents

  Page 
Introduction  1 
Guideline Update Working Group    4 
Definitions    6 
Algorithms and Annotations    8 
Module A: Screening and Initial Assessment for Substance Use  10 
Module B: Management of SUD in Specialty SUD Care  24 
Module C: Management of SUD in (Primary) General Healthcare  39 
Module P: Addiction‐Focused Pharmacotherapy  54 
Module S: Stabilization and Withdrawal Management  74 
Appendices  
Appendix A:  Guideline Development Process  91 
Appendix B:  Screening and Assessment Tools  98 
Appendix C:  Addiction‐Focused Psychosocial Interventions  122 
Appendix D:  Department of Defense Instruction (DoDI 1010.6)  133 
Appendix E:   Sedative‐Hypnotic Equivalent Oral Doses  135 
Appendix F:  Acronym List  136 
Appendix G:  Participant List  137 
Appendix H:  Bibliography  142 

 
 VA/DoD Clinical Practice Guideline
For Management of Substance Use Disorders

INTRODUCTION
The Clinical Practice Guideline for the Management of Substance Use Disorders (SUD) was
developed under the auspices of the Veterans Health Administration (VHA) and the Department of
Defense (DoD) pursuant to directives from the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA). VHA and DoD
define clinical practice guidelines as:

“Recommendations for the performance or exclusion of specific procedures or services

derived through a rigorous methodological approach that includes:
• Determination of appropriate criteria such as effectiveness, efficacy, population
benefit, or patient satisfaction; and
• Literature review to determine the strength of the evidence in relation to these
criteria.”

The intent of the guideline is to:

• Reduce current practice variation and provide facilities with a structured framework to help
improve patient outcomes
• Provide evidence-based recommendations to assist providers and their patients in the
decision-making process for patients with SUD
• Identify outcome measures to support the development of practice-based evidence that can
ultimately be used to improve clinical guidelines.

BACKGROUND
Substance use disorders (SUD) constitute a major public health problem with a substantial impact on
health, societal costs, and personal consequences.
• SUD in the VA population: In 2007 fiscal year, over 375,000 VA patients had a substance
use disorder diagnosis and nearly 500,000 additional patients had a nicotine dependence
diagnosis in the absence of other substance use disorders. (Dalton A, Saweikis M, McKellar
JD: Health Services for VA Substance Use Disorder Patients: Comparison of Utilization
Fiscal Years 2005, 2004, 2003 and 2002. Palo Alto, CA, Program Evaluation and Resource
Center, 2004.)
• SUD in the DoD population: The substantial negative consequences of alcohol use on the
work performance, health, and social relationships of military personnel have been a
continuing concern assessed in DoD surveys. In 2005, 8.1 percent of military personnel
anonymously responding to a survey reported one or more serious consequences associated
with alcohol use during the year, a decline from 9.6 percent in 2002. Using AUDIT criteria,
2.9 percent of respondents were estimated to be highly likely to be dependent on alcohol in
2005. (Bray RM, Hourani LL, Olmsted KLR, et al. 2005 Department of Defense Survey of
Health Related Behaviors Among Active Duty Military Personnel. Research Triangle Park,
NC: Research Triangle International, December, 2006.) Available at:
http://www.ha.osd.mil/special_reports/2005_Health_Behaviors_Survey_1-07.pdf

Target population
This guideline applies to adult patients with substance use conditions treated in any VA/DoD
clinical setting, including patients who have both substance use and other health conditions; and
patients with any level of severity ranging from hazardous and problematic use to substance use
disorders.

Introduction - Page 1
 VA/DoD Clinical Practice Guideline
For Management of Substance Use Disorders

Audiences
The guideline is relevant to all healthcare professionals providing or directing treatment services to
patients with substance use conditions in any VA/DoD healthcare setting, including specialty SUD
care, and both general and mental healthcare settings.

Goals of the Guideline

• To identify patients with substance use conditions, including at-risk use, substance use
problems and substance use disorders
• To promote early engagement and retention of patients with substance use conditions who can
benefit from treatment
• To improve outcomes for patients with substance use conditions (cessation or reduction of
substance use, reduction in occurrence and severity of relapse, improved psychological and
social functioning and quality of life, improved co-occurring medical and health conditions
and reduction in mortality).

Content of the Guideline

The guideline consists of five modules that address inter-related aspects of care for patients with
SUDs.
Module A: Screening and Initial Assessment for Substance Use includes screening, brief
intervention, and specialty referral considerations.
Module B: Management of SUD in Specialty SUD Care focuses on patients in need of further
assessment or motivational enhancement or who are seeking remission.
Module C: Management of SUD in General Healthcare (including primary care) emphasizes
earlier intervention for less severe SUD, or chronic disease management for patients
unwilling or unable to engage in treatment in specialty SUD care or not yet ready to
abstain.
Module P: Addiction-Focused Pharmacotherapy addresses use of medication approved by the
Food and Drug Administration for the treatment of alcohol and opioid dependence.
Module S: Stabilization and Withdrawal Management addresses withdrawal management
including pharmacological management of withdrawal symptoms.
Each module consists of an algorithm that describes the step-by-step process of the clinical decision-
making and intervention that should occur in the specified group of patients. General and specific
recommendations for each step in the algorithm are included in the annotations following the
algorithm. The links to these recommendations are embedded in the relevant specific steps in the
algorithm.
Each annotation includes a brief discussion of the research supporting the recommendations and the
rationale behind the grading of the evidence and the determination of the strength of the
recommendations.

Related Guideines
Tobacco use should be addressed in all patients and is a major cause of morbidity and mortality among
patients with non-nicotine SUDs. For management of nicotine dependence, refer to the Clinical
Practice Guideline: Treating Tobacco Use & Dependence: 2008 Update from the U.S. Department of
Health and Human Services available at:
http://www.surgeongeneral.gov/tobacco/treating_tobacco_use08.pdf and the VA/DoD Clinical
Practice Guideline for Management of Tobacco Use.

Introduction - Page 2
 VA/DoD Clinical Practice Guideline
For Management of Substance Use Disorders

For management of patients presenting with SUDs and depression, refer to the VA/DoD Clinical
Practice Guideline for the Management of Major Depressive Disorder (MDD). For management of
prescribed opioids for chronic pain, refer to the VA/DoD Clinical Practice Guideline for the
Management of Chronic Opioid Therapy. Additional recommendations for patients with co-occurring
conditions may be found in the VA/DoD Clinical Practice Guideline for the Management of Post
Traumatic Stress (ASD and PTSD).

Development Process
The development process of this guideline follows a systematic approach described in “Guideline-for-
Guideline,” an internal working document of VA/DoD Evidence-Based Practice Working Group.
The literature was critically analyzed and evidence was graded using a standardized format. The
evidence rating system for this document is based on the system used by the U.S. Preventative Services
Task Force (see Appendix A – Development Process).
If evidence exists, the discussion of the recommendations includes an evidence table that indentifies
the studies that have been considered, the quality of the evidence, and the rating of the strength of the
recommendation [SR]. The strength of recommendation, based on the level of the evidence and graded
using the USPSTF rating system (see Table: Evidence Rating System), is presented in brackets
following each guideline recommendation. Recommendations that are based on consensus of the
Working Group include a discussion of expert opinion on the given topic. No [SR] is presented for
these recommendations. A complete bibliography of the references found in this guideline can be
found in Appendix H.

Evidence Rating System

SR*
A A strong recommendation that the clinicians provide the intervention to eligible patients.
Good evidence was found that the intervention improves important health outcomes and
concludes that benefits substantially outweigh harm.
B A recommendation that clinicians provide (the service) to eligible patients.
At least fair evidence was found that the intervention improves health outcomes and concludes
that benefits outweigh harm.
C No recommendation for or against the routine provision of the intervention is made.
At least fair evidence was found that the intervention can improve health outcomes, but
concludes that the balance of benefits and harms is too close to justify a general
recommendation.
D Recommendation is made against routinely providing the intervention.
At least fair evidence was found that the intervention is ineffective or that harms outweigh
benefits.
I The conclusion is that the evidence is insufficient to recommend for or against routinely
providing the intervention.
Evidence that the intervention is effective is lacking, or poor quality, or conflicting, and the
balance of benefits and harms cannot be determined.
* SR= Strength of Recommendation

Introduction - Page 3
 VA/DoD Clinical Practice Guideline
For Management of Substance Use Disorders

Lack of Evidence – Consensus of Experts

Where existing literature was ambiguous or conflicting, or where scientific data were lacking on an
issue, recommendations were based on the clinical experience of the Working Group. These
recommendations are indicated in the evidence tables as based on “Working Group Consensus.”
This Guideline is the product of many months of diligent effort and consensus-building among
knowledgeable individuals from the VA, DoD, and academia, and a guideline facilitator from the
private sector. An experienced moderator facilitated the multidisciplinary Working Group. The draft
document was discussed in one face-to-face group meeting. The content and validity of each section
was thoroughly reviewed in a series of conference calls. The final document is the product of those
discussions by all members of the Working Group.
The list of participants is included in Appendix G.

Implementation
The guideline and algorithms are designed to be adapted to individual facility needs and resources.
The algorithms will serve as a guide that providers can use to determine best interventions and timing
of care for their patients to optimize quality of care and clinical outcomes. This should not prevent
providers from using their own clinical expertise in the care of an individual patient. Guideline
recommendations are intended to support clinical decision-making but should never replace sound
clinical judgment.
Although this guideline represents the state-of-the-art practice at the time of its publication, medical
practice is evolving and this evolution will require continuous updating of published information. New
technology and more research will improve patient care in the future. The clinical practice guideline
can assist in identifying priority areas for research and optimal allocation of resources. Future studies
examining the results of clinical practice guidelines such as these may lead to the development of new
practice-based evidence.

Outcomes
1. Reduction of consumption
2. Improvement in quality of life (social and occupational functioning)
3. Improvement of symptoms
4. Improvement of retention (keeping patients engaged in the program)
5. Improvement in co-occurring conditions
6. Reduction of mortality.

Introduction - Page 4
 VA/DoD Clinical Practice Guideline
For Management of Substance Use Disorders

Guideline Update Working Group *

VA DoD

Katherine Bradley, MD, MPH Darrel Dodson, LTC, MD

Karen Drexler, MD Diane Flynn, COL, MD

Francine Goodman, PharmD Nicole Frazer, Maj, PhD

Adam Gordon, MD William Haning, CPT, MD

Daniel Kivlahan, PhD James McCrary, Lt CoL, DO

Joseph Liberto, MD Edward McDaniel, LTC, MD

James McKay, PhD Paul Morrissey, LTC, MD

Andrew Saxon, MD Jay Stone, Lt Col, PhD

Office of Quality and Performance, VHA Quality Management Division

US Army Medical Command
Carla Cassidy, RN, MSN, NP Ernest Degenhardt, RN, MSN, ANP-FNP
Joanne Ksionzky RN, CNOR, RNFA
Mary Ramos, PhD, RN

FACILITATOR
Oded Susskind, MPH
RESEARCH TEAM – ECRI HEALTHCARE QUALITY INFORMATICS, INC.

Vivian H. Coats, MPH Martha D’Erasmo, MPH

Eileen G. Erinoff Rosalie Fishman, RN, MSN, CPHQ
Karen Schoelles, MD Joanne Marko, MS, SLP
David Snyder, PhD
* Bolded names are Co-Chairs of the guideline.
Additional contributor contact information is available in Appendix G.

Introduction - Page 5
 VA/DoD Clinical Practice Guideline
For Management of Substance Use Disorders

DEFINITIONS

CONDITIONS AND DISORDERS OF UNHEALTHY ALCOHOL USE

The spectrum of alcohol use extends from abstinence and low-risk use (the most common patterns of
alcohol use) to risky use, problem drinking, harmful use and alcohol abuse, and the less common but
more severe alcoholism and alcohol dependence. (Saitz, 2005)
UNHEALTHY ALCOHOL USE
Risky users: For women and persons > 65 years of age, > 7 standard drinks per week or >3 drinks per
occasion; for men ≤ 65 years of age, > 14 standard drinks per week or >4 drinks per occasion; there are
no alcohol-related consequences, but the risk of future physical, psychological, or social harm
increases with increasing levels of consumption; risks associated with exceeding the amounts per
occasion that constitute “binge” drinking in the short term include injury and trauma; risks associated
with exceeding weekly amounts in the long term include cirrhosis, cancer, and other chronic illnesses;
“risky use” is sometimes used to refer to the spectrum of unhealthy use but usually excludes
dependence; one third of patients in this category are at risk for dependence.
Problem drinking: Use of alcohol accompanied by alcohol-related consequences but not meeting
DSM-IV criteria; sometimes used to refer to the spectrum of unhealthy use but usually excludes
dependence.

DIAGNOSED SUBSTANCE USE DISORDERS (DSM IV, American Psychiatric Association, 1994)

DSM-IV-TR Criteria for Substance Abuse:

“A maladaptive pattern of substance use, leading to clinically significant impairment or distress, as
manifested by one (or more) of the following, occurring at any time in the same 12-month period:
• Recurrent substance use resulting in a failure to fulfill major role obligations at work, school,
or home
• Recurrent substance use in situations in which it is physically hazardous
• Recurrent substance-related legal problems
• Continued substance use despite having persistent or recurrent social or interpersonal
problems caused or exacerbated by the effects of the substance.”
DSM-IV-TR Criteria for Substance Dependence:
“A maladaptive pattern of substance use, leading to clinically significant impairment or distress, as
manifested by three (or more) of the following seven criteria, occurring at any time in the same 12-
month period:
1. Tolerance, as defined by either of the following:
• A need for markedly increased amounts of the substance to achieve intoxication or desired
effect
• Markedly diminished effect with continued use of the same amount of the substance.
2. Withdrawal, as defined by either of the following:
• The characteristic withdrawal syndrome for the substance (refer to DSM-IV-TR for further
details)
• The same (or a closely related) substance is taken to relieve or avoid withdrawal symptoms.
3. The substance is often taken in larger amounts or over a longer period than was intended.

Introduction - Page 6
 VA/DoD Clinical Practice Guideline
For Management of Substance Use Disorders

4. There is a persistent desire or there are unsuccessful efforts to cut down or control substance use.
5. A great deal of time is spent in activities necessary to obtain the substance (e.g., visiting multiple
doctors or driving long distances to see one), use the substance (e.g., chain smoking), or recover
from its effects.
6. Important social, occupational, or recreational activities are given up or reduced because of
substance use.
7. The substance use is continued despite knowledge of having a persistent or recurrent physical or
psychological problem that is likely to have been caused or exacerbated by the substance (e.g.,
current cocaine use despite recognition of cocaine-induced depression or continued drinking despite
recognition that an ulcer was made worse by alcohol consumption).
Dependence exists on a continuum of severity: remission requires a period of at least 30 days
without meeting full diagnostic criteria and is specified as Early (first 12 months) or Sustained
(beyond 12 months) and Partial (some continued criteria met) versus Full (no criteria met).”

SETTINGS OF CARE
General healthcare settings can be broadly defined as outpatient clinic settings including primary
care, psychiatry, or other specialty clinics (e.g., HIV, hepatology clinics, medical, pre-operative) and
may include emergency departments and surgical care clinics.
Specialty SUD Care focuses on patients in need of further assessment or motivational enhancement or
who endorse rehabilitation goals.

Introduction - Page 7
 VA/DoD Clinical Practice Guideline
For Management of Substance Use Disorders

ALGORITHMS AND ANNOTATIONS 

MODULE A: SCREENING AND INITIAL ASSESSMENT FOR SUBSTANCE USE  11 
A.  All Patients Seen in VA or DoD General Medical and Mental Healthcare Settings 11 
B.  Screen Annually for Unhealthy Alcohol Use Using Validated Tool 11 
C.  Does the Person Screen Positive or Drink Despite Contraindications? 14 
D.  Assess Current Alcohol Consumption 15 
E.  Does the Person Drink Above Recommended Limits or Despite Contraindications? 16 
F.  Provide Brief Intervention 17 
G.  Is Referral for Alcohol Use Disorder Also Indicated or Requested?/Offer Referral, if Appropriate 19 
H.  Does Patient Agree to the Referral or is the Referral Mandated? 20 
I.  Continue to Provide Brief Interventions During Future Visits 20 
J.  Provide Positive Feedback Regarding Changes 22 
K.  Advise to Stay Below Recommended Limits 22 
L.  Screen Annually for Unhealthy Alcohol Use 23 

MODULE B: MANAGEMENT OF SUD IN SPECIALTY SUD CARE  25 
A.  Patient with Presumptive or Possible Substance Use Disorder (SUD) Referred or
Self-Referred to Specialty Care 25 
B.  Ensure Behavioral or Physiological Stabilization, if Necessary 25 
C.  Obtain a Comprehensive Biopsychosocial Assessment 25 
D.  Determine Diagnosis of SUD; Develop Integrated Summary and Initial Treatment Plan 27 
E.  Initiate Addiction-Focused Pharmacotherapy (If Indicated) 31 
F.  Initiate Addiction-Focused Psychosocial Interventions 31 
G.  Address Psychosocial Functioning and Recovery Environment 32 
H.  Manage General Medical and Psychiatric Co-occurring Conditions 33 
I.  Assess Response to Treatment / Monitor Biological Indicators 34 
J.  Reinforce and Follow Up 34 
K.  Are Treatment Goals Achieved? 35 
L.  Discontinue Specialty SUD Treatment; Develop Aftercare/Recovery Plan 35 
M.  Reevaluate Treatment Plan Regarding Setting and Strategies 37 

MODULE C: MANAGEMENT OF SUD IN (PRIMARY) GENERAL HEALTHCARE  40 
A.  Patient with Presumptive or Possible Substance Use 40 
B.  Ensure Behavioral or Physiological Stabilization, if Necessary 40 
C.  Complete Assessment and Diagnostic Evaluation 41 
D.  Assess Co-Occurring Conditions (Psychiatric Illness, Medical Conditions,
Legal or Psychosocial Conditions) 42 
E.  Summarize the Patient's Problem(s), Discuss Treatment Options, and Arrive at
Shared Decision Regarding the Treatment Plan 43 
F.  Referral to Specialty SUD Care 45 

Table of Contents: Page - 8

 VA/DoD Clinical Practice Guideline
For Management of Substance Use Disorders

G.  Treatment: Consider Addiction-Focused Pharmacotherapy 45 

H.  Treatment: Medical Management and Monitoring 46 
I.  Treatment: Psychosocial Support for Recovery 48 
J.  Management of Medical and Psychiatric Co-occurring Conditions 49 
K.  Assess Response to Treatment / Monitor Biological Indicators 51 
L.  Follow-Up 52 
M.  Educate About Substance Use, Associated Problems, and Prevention of Relapse 52 
N.  Reevaluate Treatment Plan Regarding Setting and Strategies 52 

MODULE P: ADDICTION‐FOCUSED PHARMACOTHERAPY  55 
A.  Patient with Substance Use Disorder (SUD) 55 
B.  Does the Patient Meet DSM-IV Criteria for Opioid Dependence? 55 
PHARMACOTHERAPY FOR OPIOID DEPENDENCE ................................................................................................. 55 
C.  Is Opioid Agonist Treatment (OAT) Medication Appropriate for, and Acceptable to, the Patient? 55 
D.  Is Treatment in a Specialized Opioid Agonist Treatment Program (OATP)
Setting Appropriate for the Patient? 58 
E. Initiate Opioid Agonist Treatment in an Opioid Agonist Treatment Program (OATP)
or Office-Based Opioid Treatment (OBOT) 61
F.  Is Naltrexone Appropriate for and Acceptable to the Patient? 63 
G.  Assure Patient is Withdrawn from Opioids and Opioid Free Before Continuing 65 
H.  Initiate Naltrexone for Opioid Dependence with Patient Education and Monitoring 66 
PHARMACOTHERAPY FOR ALCOHOL DEPENDENCE ............................................................................................. 67 
I.  Is the Patient Alcohol Dependent? 67 
J.  Initiate Pharmacotherapy for Alcohol Dependence? 67 

MODULE S: STABILIZATION and WITHDRAWAL MANAGEMENT  75 
A.  Substance-Using Patient Who May Require Physiological Stabilization 75 
B.  Obtain History, Physical Examination, Mental Status Examination (MSE),
Medication Including Over-The-Counter (OTC), and Lab Tests as Indicated 75 
C.  Is the Patient in Any Immediate Medical or Psychiatric Crisis or Intoxicated? 75 
D.  Provide Appropriate Care To Stabilize; or, Follow Policies For DoD Active Duty Members: Keep
Commanding Officer Informed 77 
E.  Assess Level of Physiological Dependence and Indications for Stabilization Including Risk of
Withdrawal 78 
F.  Is the Patient in Need of Withdrawal Management? 79 
G.  Does Patient Require Inpatient Medically Supervised Withdrawal? 81 
H.  Admit to Inpatient Withdrawal Management or Initiate Ambulatory Withdrawal Management 82 
I.  Was Withdrawal Management Successful? 89 
J.  Is Care Management Indicated? 89 

Table of Contents: Page - 9

 VA/DoD Clinical Practice Guideline
For Management of Substance Use Disorders

Module A - Page 10
 VA/DoD Clinical Practice Guideline
For Management of Substance Use Disorders

MODULE A: SCREENING AND INITIAL ASSESSMENT FOR ALCOHOL USE

A. All Patients Seen in VA or DoD General Medical and Mental Healthcare Settings
All patients seen in primary care settings are the target population for alcohol screening.

BACKGROUND

Screening for Unhealthy Alcohol Use

Unhealthy Alcohol Use screening and counseling is ranked third of the top five prevention priorities
for U.S. adults among preventive practices recommended by the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force
(USPSTF).

Screening for Other Drug Use

Population-based screening for drug use disorder is not recommended. This reflects the lower
prevalence of drug use disorder and the lack of high-quality randomized controlled trials (RCT)
demonstrating the efficacy of primary care interventions for drug abuse and dependence. Instead,
selective case finding in high-risk populations (e.g., Hepatitis C or HIV clinics), is recommended so
that substance use disorders can be addressed (National Quality Forum, 2007; USPSTF, 2008).

DISCUSSION
Based on rigorous evaluation of clinically preventable burden, the U.S. Prevention Priorities
Commission concluded that of the practices recommended by the USPSTF (2008), Unhealthy Alcohol
Use screening and counseling is similar to screening for hypertension, colorectal cancer, or vision in
older adults, and a higher priority than breast and cervical cancer screening, as well as cholesterol
screening. Clinically preventable burden was based on both the cost-effectiveness of alcohol screening
and counseling, as well as the alcohol-attributable fraction of morbidity and mortality (Maciosek et al.,
2006; Solberg et al., 2008).

B. Screen Annually for Unhealthy Alcohol Use Using Validated Tool

BACKGROUND
Screening should identify patients along the entire continuum of Unhealthy Alcohol Use including
those who drink above recommended limits (often called risky or hazardous drinking) to those with
severe alcohol dependence. Most screen-positive patients will not be in treatment for alcohol use
disorders and the initial approach to Unhealthy Alcohol Use will include brief alcohol counseling
(often termed “brief interventions”) or referral.

RECOMMENDATIONS
1. Patients in general and mental healthcare settings should be screened for Unhealthy Alcohol Use
annually. [A]
2. Use a validated screening questionnaire for past-year Unhealthy Alcohol Use. [A]
3. Select one of two brief methods of screening: [A]
a. The Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test Consumption Questions (AUDIT-C) or

Module A - Page 11
 VA/DoD Clinical Practice Guideline
For Management of Substance Use Disorders

b. Ask whether patient drank any alcohol in the past year and administer the Single-Item
Alcohol Screening Questionnaire (SASQ) to assess the frequency of heavy drinking in
patients who report any drinking. (see Annotation C)
4. The CAGE questionnaire alone is not a recommended screen for past-year Unhealthy Alcohol Use
(e.g., risky or hazardous drinking). [D]
5. The CAGE questionnaire, used as a self-assessment tool, may be used in addition to an
appropriate screening method to increase patinet’s awareness to unhealthy use or abuse of alcohol.
See Appendix B for examples of the Screening Instruments

DISCUSSION

Annual Screening for Unhealthy Alcohol Use

Annual screening for Unhealthy Alcohol Use of all patients is recommended based on extensive
evidence that alcohol screening followed by brief alcohol counseling is efficacious for reducing
drinking as shown in reviews (Maciosek et al., 2006, USPSTF, 2004).
Screening should identify patients along the entire continuum of Unhealthy Alcohol Use including
those who drink above recommended limits (often called risky or hazardous drinking) to those with
severe alcohol dependence. Most screen-positive patients will not have alcohol dependence and will
be appropriate candidates for brief alcohol counseling as the initial treatment approach for Unhealthy
Alcohol Use (Kaner et al., 2007; Moyer et al., 2002; Whitlock et al., 2004).
A validated screening questionnaire should be used to identify past-year Unhealthy Alcohol Use. One
of two brief screens is recommended: the AUDIT-C or a single item alcohol screening questionnaire
(SASQ) for drinking above recommended daily limits (Bradley et al., 2003; Bradley et al., 2007; Bush
et al., 1998; Seale et al., 2006; Williams & Vinson, 2001).

Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test Consumption Questions (AUDIT-C)

The AUDIT-C comprises the first three questions of the World Health Organization (WHO) AUDIT
(see Appendix B-1). AUDIT-C scores range from 0 to 12 with > 4 points for men and > 3 points for
women considered a positive screen for Unhealthy Alcohol Use. The AUDIT-C was first described in
VA patients (Bush et al., 1998; Bradley et al., 2003), but has now been validated in other U.S. clinical
populations (Bradley et al., 2007; Frank et al., 2008; Seale et al., 2006; Williams & Vinson, 2001).

Single-Item Alcohol Screening Questionnaire (SASQ)

Patients can be screened using single questions regarding drinking 4 or more (women) or 5 or more
(men) drinks in a day. This approach to screening first assesses whether a patient drinks alcohol,
“Have you had more than 6 alcoholic drinks in the past year?” This is followed by the screening
question “When was the last time you had more than X drinks in one day?” with “X” being 4 drinks
for women and 5 for men. This approach has been validated in several studies (Seale et al., 2006;
Williams & Vinson, 2001). Patients who report drinking above the daily limit in the past 3 months
screen positive (Seale et al., 2006; Williams & Vinson, 2001). The National Institute on Alcohol
Abuse and Alcoholism (NIAAA) recommends a variation on this approach that asks about heavy
drinking in the past year (NIAAA, 2007).

Selection of an Approach to Unhealthy Alcohol Use Screening in a Particular Setting Should

Reflect Local Factors
The AUDIT-C may be preferable in the following situations:
• When the clinician preference is to obtain information regarding:
o Any drinking (for those with contraindications)
o Typical drinking (for medication interactions)

Module A - Page 12
 VA/DoD Clinical Practice Guideline
For Management of Substance Use Disorders

o Episodic heavy drinking

o The severity of Unhealthy Alcohol Use provided by the AUDIT-C (Au et al., 2007;
Bradley et al., 2004)
• When there is a specific service requirement (i.e., VHA performance measures)
• When an electronic medical record can score the AUDIT-C (Vinson et al., 2007).
The SASQ screen is easier to integrate into clinician interviews, as primary care clinicians are unlikely
to recall response options and scoring for the AUDIT-C.

Other Commonly Recommended Screening Tests (CAGE augmented with 2-3 additional questions
and 10-item AUDIT)
Several longer screening questionnaires are generally as effective but less practical for population-
based screening. They include augmented 7 to 8-item versions of the CAGE and the WHO 10-item
AUDIT (Bradley et al., 2007; Bradley et al., 1998; Fleming & Barry, 1991; Seale et al., 2006;
Steinbauer et al., 1998; Volk et al., 1997). If the 10-item AUDIT is used, the appropriate screening
cut-points for Unhealthy Alcohol Use are 4 or more (women) or 5 or more (men) to balance sensitivity
and specificity in U.S. outpatients (including VA outpatients) (Bradley et al., 2007; Steinbauer et al.,
1998; Volk et al., 1997), not 8 or more as is sometimes misreported (Fiellin et al., 2000; Reinert &
Allen, 2002).

Screening for a History of Alcohol Use Disorders

Screening for lifetime substance use disorders (e.g., with the CAGE alone) may be desirable in some
settings, but is not recommended as part of routine care unless the CAGE is added to a brief screen that
also identifies risky drinking.

EVIDENCE TABLE
Evidence Source QE Overall SR
Quality
1 Screening for Unhealthy Alcohol Use Maciosek et al., 2006 I Good A
should be offered to all VA/DoD general Solberg et al., 2008
and mental health care patients routinely USPSTF, 2004
2 Screening for Unhealthy Alcohol Use Working Group Consensus III Poor I
should be offered annually
3 The AUDIT-C is a valid and reliable Bradley et al., 2003; 2007 I Good A
screening instrument for identifying the Bush et al., 1998
spectrum of Unhealthy Alcohol Use in Dawson et al., 2005
U.S. outpatients Frank et al., 2008
Gordon et al., 2001
4 Single-item alcohol screening Bush et al., 1998 I Good A
questionnaires (SASQ) regarding heavy Seale et al., 2006
episodic drinking are valid and reliable Williams & Vinson, 2001
instruments for identifying the spectrum of NIAAA, 2007
Unhealthy Alcohol Use in US outpatients
5 There is insufficient evidence to support AHRQ, 2008 III Poor I
screening for drug use/abuse in unselectedMcPherson & Hersch, 2000
primary care populations USPSTF, 2008
Yudko et al., 2007
6 The CAGE is not recommended alone for Bradley et al., 2001 I Good D
screening for risky drinking as well as Fleming & Barry, 1991
alcohol use disorders Wallace & Haines, 1985
7 The WHO full AUDIT is also valid and Bradley et al., 1998 I Good A
reliable for identifying the spectrum of Bradley et al., 2007
Unhealthy Alcohol Use in US outpatients, Steinbauer et al., 1998
but is 10 items long Volk et al., 1997
QE = Quality of Evidence; SR = Strength of Recommendation (See Appendix A)

Module A - Page 13
 VA/DoD Clinical Practice Guideline
For Management of Substance Use Disorders

C. Does the Person Screen Positive or Drink Despite Contraindications?

BACKGROUND
Screening is intended to identify patients with Unhealthy Alcohol Use but also patients who are
drinking despite contraindications to alcohol use even if they screen negative for Unhealthy Alcohol
Use.

RECOMMENDATIONS
1. Consider a screen positive for Unhealthy Alcohol Use if: [B]
a. AUDIT-C score (range from 0 to 12) is > 4 points for men or > 3 points for women
b. Patients report drinking 4 or more (women) or 5 or more (men) drinks in a day in the past
year on the single-item screening question.
2. Identify contraindications for any alcohol use [C]. Contraindications to alcohol use include:
a. Pregnancy or trying to conceive
b. Liver disease including hepatitis C
c. Other medical conditions potentially exacerbated or complicated by drinking (e.g.,
pancreatitis, congestive heart failure)
d. Use of medications with clinically important interactions with alcohol or intoxication
(e.g., warfarin)
e. An alcohol use disorder.

DISCUSSION

Choice of Screening Cut-Points

Cut-points recommended here are those that balance sensitivity and specificity, and take prevalence
into account.
The AUDIT-C cut-points of 3 or more for women and 4 or more for men are recommended because
these cut-points tend to balance sensitivity and specificity in diverse studies (Bradley et al., 2007;
Bradley et al., 2003; Bush et al., 1998; Dawson et al., 2005; Frank et al., 2008). Patients screen
positive on the AUDIT-C because they under-report typical drinking on questions 1 and 2 of the
AUDIT-C as they do on other quantity frequency questions (Bradley et al., 1998; Canagasaby &
Vinson, 2005; Kerr et al., 2002; Kerr & Ye, 2007). In a study by Bradley (1998), reliance on reported
drinking on AUDIT-C questions 1-2 alone would result in identification of only 54 percent of male VA
patients who drank over 14 drinks a week. Therefore, while the AUDIT-C score is an effective screen,
self-report of alcohol consumption on questions 1-2 is not an accurate reflection of typical drinking.
Multiple validation studies—both inside and outside the VA — have shown that screening cut-points
of 3 or more in women and 4 or more in men balance sensitivity and specificity for identification of
risky drinking and alcohol use disorders.
The recommended cut-point for Single Item Alcohol Screening Questionnaires (SASQ) is based on
Working Group consensus. Some experts recommend considering 4 or more drinks per occasion in the
past year for women (5 or more for men) as a positive screen, whereas others have recommended a cut-
point of over 4 drinks for both women and men. Screening questions that assess the frequency or
recency of drinking above the recommended limits have used a threshold of any drinking above daily
limits in the past year to drinking above these limits in the past 3 months. The Working Group adopted
the NIAAA guidelines approach (patients who report drinking 4 (women) or 5 (men) or more drinks in
a day in the past year as screen positive), as a reflection of the expert opinion.
Several issues can be taken into account when choosing a screening cut-point for a specific purpose.

Module A - Page 14
 VA/DoD Clinical Practice Guideline
For Management of Substance Use Disorders

• Lower screening cut-points in women: This reflects the fact that women develop problems
due to drinking at lower levels (Bradley et al., 1998); therefore lower levels of alcohol use are
defined as risky drinking in women.
• The role of prevalence: When the prevalence of Unhealthy Alcohol Use is low (e.g., in
women in certain settings) a slightly higher screening threshold will often be optimal to avoid
excess false positive tests. Therefore, although a screening threshold of > 2 for the AUDIT-C
also balances sensitivity and specificity in women (Bradley et al., 2007; Bradley et al., 2003);
the higher cut-point (> 3) is typically used.
• The cost of false positives: The exact cut-point used for any particular setting differs
depending on the costs of a false positive compared to the benefits of a true positive screening
test (Cantor et al., 1999). For example, in FY 2008, the VA Office of Quality and
Performance used the recommended cut-points for a positive AUDIT-C screening test, but
only required documented follow-up brief alcohol counseling in patients screening positive at
cut-points of 5 or more. This choice was made to simplify implementation (no gender-specific
cutoff), target brief alcohol counseling to patients most likely to benefit and decrease provider
concerns about effort devoted to false positive screens (Bradley et al., 2007; Bradley et al.,
2003).

EVIDENCE TABLE
Evidence Source QE Overall SR
Quality
1 In primary care settings AUDIT- Bradley et al., 2003 II-2 Good B
C scores of > 4 for men and > 3 Bradley et al., 2007
for women should be considered Dawson et al., 2005
positive. Frank et al., 2008
2 Use of a higher AUDIT-C cut- Bradley et al., 2003 II-2 Good B
point may be supported in some Bradley et al., 2007
clinical environments. Dawson et al., 2005
Frank et al., 2008
3 In primary care settings, the NIAAA, 2007 II-2 Good B
optimal definition of a positive
screen for Unhealthy Alcohol
Use on the SASQ is: drinking 4
or more drinks on an occasion for
women or 5 or more drinks on an
occasion for men in the past year.
QE = Quality of Evidence; SR = Strength of Recommendation (See Appendix A)

D. Assess Current Alcohol Consumption

BACKGROUND
If a patient does not have contraindications to any drinking, experts recommend that alcohol
consumption be evaluated as the first step in a brief intervention. Most, if not all, clinical trials of brief
alcohol counseling have assessed patients’ drinking after screening and only included those who
reported drinking above recommended limits on reassessment.
Epidemiologic studies have shown that drinking above weekly or daily limits is associated with
development of alcohol-related problems.

Module A - Page 15
 VA/DoD Clinical Practice Guideline
For Management of Substance Use Disorders

RECOMMENDATIONS
1. Determine the number of drinks consumed by the patient in a typical week and the maximum
number of drinks on an occasion in the past month.

DISCUSSION
Patients under-report their typical drinking on screening questions (Bradley et al., 1998; Canagasaby &
Vinson, 2005; Kerr et al., 2003; Kerr & Ye, 2007). Among men who reported drinking above 14
drinks a week according to structured interview, only 54 percent have reported doing so on AUDIT-C
questions 1 and 2 (Bradley et al., 1998).
One approach is to ask the patient how often, what beverages, and when he/she drinks and then follow
with specific questions on how often he/she drinks 5 or more drinks on an occasion for men or 4 or
more for women. This approach will allow the provider to review the drinking throughout the day, the
drink/bottle sizes, and the number of standard-sized drinks the patient consumes. Another is to review
drinking for each of the previous 7 days (retrospective drinking diary). Either way, the goal is to
assess whether the patient drinks above recommended limits.

EVIDENCE TABLE
Evidence Source QE Overall SR
Quality
1 Patients who screen positive for Working Group Consensus III Poor I
Unhealthy Alcohol Use should be
assessed regarding current alcohol
consumption to identify if they drink
above recommended limits prior to
brief intervention
QE = Quality of Evidence; SR = Strength of Recommendation (See Appendix A)

E. Does the Person Drink Above Recommended Limits or Despite Contraindications?

BACKGROUND
Patients who drink above the recommended limits or those who have clinical conditions that
contraindicate alcohol use are candidates for a brief intervention.

RECOMMENDATIONS
1. Determine whether patient drinks above recommended limits. [A]
a. The recommended limits are:
- FOR MEN— no more than 14 standard-sized drinks a week and no more than 4 standard-
sized drinks on any day
- FOR WOMEN— no more than 7 standard-sized drinks a week and no more than 3
standard-sized drinks on any day
Standard-sized drinks are: 12 oz beer, 5 oz wine, or 1.5 oz hard liquor.
2. Contraindications for any alcohol use include:
a. Pregnancy or trying to conceive
b. Liver disease including hepatitis C
c. Other medical conditions potentially exacerbated or complicated by drinking (e.g.,
pancreatitis, congestive heart failure)

Module A - Page 16
 VA/DoD Clinical Practice Guideline
For Management of Substance Use Disorders

d. Use of medications with clinically important interactions with alcohol or intoxication

(e.g., warfarin)
e. An alcohol use disorder.

Table A- 1: Recommended Drinking Limits

Men No more than 14 drinks a week; and Women No more than 7 drinks a week; and
No more than 4 drinks on any occasion No more than 3 drinks on any occasion
Standard-sized drinks are: 12 oz beer, 5 oz wine, or 1.5 oz hard liquor

F. Provide Brief Intervention

BACKGROUND
A brief intervention typically lasts from several minutes up to an entire visit and is a patient-centered,
empathetic brief counseling intervention that can be offered by a clinician who is not a specialist
addictions provider or counselor.
A brief intervention for Unhealthy Alcohol Use is a single session or multiple sessions that include
motivational discussion focused on increasing insight and awareness regarding alcohol use and
motivation toward behavioral change. Brief interventions can be tailored for variance in population or
setting and can be used as a stand-alone treatment for those at-risk as well as a vehicle for engaging
those in need of more extensive levels of care.

RECOMMENDATIONS
1. Provide a brief intervention (counseling) for alcohol use, which includes the following
components: [A]
a. Express concern that the patient is drinking at unhealthy levels known to increase his/her
risk of alcohol-related health problems
b. Provide feedback linking alcohol use and health, including:
- Personalized feedback (i.e., explaining how alcohol use can interact with
patient’s medical concerns [hypertension, depression/anxiety, insomnia, injury,
congestive heart failure (CHF), diabetes mellitus (DM), breast cancer risk,
interactions with medications]) OR
- General feedback on health risks associated with drinking.
c. Advise:
- To abstain (if there are contraindications to drinking) OR
- To drink below recommended limits (specified for patient).
d. Support the patient in choosing a drinking goal, if he/she is ready to make a change
e. Offer referral to specialty addictions treatment if appropriate.

Module A - Page 17
 VA/DoD Clinical Practice Guideline
For Management of Substance Use Disorders

DISCUSSION

Evidence for Brief Intervention (Counseling) for Unhealthy Alcohol Use

The evidence for the efficacy of brief alcohol counseling has been summarized in a Cochrane review
(Kaner et al., 2007), and a USPSTF Review (Whitlock et al., 2004), as well as 7 other meta-analyses
and reviews (Ballesteros et al., 2004; Bertholet et al., 2005; Bien et al., 1993; Kahan et al., 1995;
Moyer et al., 2002; Poikolainen, 1999; Wilk et al., 1997). While none of these reviews were restricted
to VA or DoD patients, and no trial has included VA or DoD patients, there is no reason to expect that
VA patients would respond differently than other patients to brief intervention given the robust
international findings, including studies of older patients (Fleming et al., 1999).
A negative review (Beich et al., 2002) made assumptions that recruitment for screening in the real
world would be similar to low participation rates in RCTs. In fact, high rates of alcohol screening have
been achieved in VA clinical settings (Bradley et al., 2006).
Recent studies have also shown that telephone- or web-based brief interventions can be efficacious
(Brown et al., 2007; Kypri et al., 2008), although none of these studies have been conducted in VA or
DoD facilities.
Few trials have directly compared brief interventions with different components (e.g., advice alone
versus advice, feedback and goal setting). There was no significant benefit of longer over shorter brief
interventions, based on the Cochrane review (Kaner et al., 2007).
The Alcohol, Smoking and Substance Involvement Screening Test (ASSIST) is an eight item pencil
and paper questionnaire developed in 1997 by World Health Organization in response to the
overwhelming burden of disease caused by substance use. The ASSIST screens for problem or risky
use of tobacco, alcohol, cannabis, cocaine, amphetamine-type stimulants, sedatives, hallucinogens,
inhalants, opioids and other drugs. The findings from studies demonstrated that the ASSIST is a
feasible, reliable and valid screening instrument for use in primary health care settings across various
cultures. A five-minute brief intervention was developed using the ASSIST Feedback Form to give
personalized feedback and advice to clients about their ASSIST scores and their associated level of
risk. Preliminary findings from the Australian site based on analysis of 100 subjects demonstrated a
significant reduction in illicit drug use (F=12.0; df=1,98; p=0.001) for those subjects receiving a brief
intervention compared with control subjects not receiving an intervention. These results demonstrate
that ASSIST screening and brief intervention is a timely and effective way of identifying and
intervening with substance-using clients in primary health care settings (Ali et al., 2006)
EVIDENCE TABLE
Evidence Source QE Overall SR
Quality
1 Brief intervention (advice, Ali et al., 2006 I Good A
feedback, and goal setting) by Ballesteros et al., 2004
clinicians who are not Bertholet et al., 2005
addictions specialists Bien et al., 1993
decreases drinking Kahan et al., 1995
Kaner et al., 2007
Moyer et al., 2002
Poikolainen, 1999
Solberg et al., 2008
Wilk et al., 1997
QE = Quality of Evidence; SR = Strength of Recommendation (See Appendix A)

Module A - Page 18
 VA/DoD Clinical Practice Guideline
For Management of Substance Use Disorders

G. Is Referral for Alcohol Use Disorder Also Indicated or Requested?/Offer Referral, if Appropriate

BACKGROUND
Scores of controlled studies over several decades consistently show that a variety of forms of alcohol
dependence treatment including behavioral interventions and pharmacotherapies significantly reduce
alcohol consumption among alcohol-dependent patients.
Specialty addictions programs or mental health providers integrated in primary care settings who have
addictions expertise can be helpful for assessment, motivational interviewing and treatment. Patients
who are open to assessment or who are ready for assistance should be referred to a specialty addictions
provider or program, or mental health provider integrated in primary care.

RECOMMENDATIONS
1. Offer referral to specialty SUD care for addiction treatment if the patient:
a. May benefit from additional evaluation of his/her drinking or substance use and related
problems or from motivational interviewing
b. Has tried and been unable to change drinking or substance use on his/her own or does not
respond to brief intervention
c. Has been diagnosed for alcohol or other substance dependence
d. Has previously been treated for an alcohol or other substance use disorders
e. Has an AUDIT-C score > 8.
2. DoD active duty members involved in an incident in which substance use is suspected to be a
contributing factor are required to be referred to specialty SUD care for evaluation. Command
should be contacted to discuss administrative and clinical options if the member refuses to be
evaluated (see Appendix D).

DISCUSSION
Experts recommend that certain groups of patients be offered referral to specialty addictions treatment
at the time of the initial brief intervention. The efficacy of referral to specialty addictions care by a
primary care provider has not been extensively evaluated but is indicated because many brief
intervention trials have excluded patients with the most severe problem drinking, and instead referred
such patients to specialty treatment. Brief intervention should nevertheless be offered to patients who
are referred, because many will not follow through with the referral.
A meta-analysis of 7 multi-site controlled trials (total of 8,389 patients with alcohol dependence) that
examined the efficacy of either medications or behavioral interventions indicated that 24 percent of
patients maintained total abstinence for 12 months. Addiotnally, among the patients not totally
abstinent the percent days abstinent increased 128 percent while standard drinks per drinking day
decreased by 57 percent (Miller et al., 2001). When one considers that medical harm from alcohol
consumption shows a strong dose-response effect, these treatment-related reductions in consumption
appear to be highly clinically meaningful.

EVIDENCE TABLE
Evidence Source QE Overall SR
Quality
1 Offer referral to specialty addictions Working Group Consensus III Poor I
care if indicated
QE = Quality of Evidence; SR = Strength of Recommendation (See Appendix A)

Module A - Page 19
 VA/DoD Clinical Practice Guideline
For Management of Substance Use Disorders

H. Does Patient Agree to the Referral or is the Referral Mandated?

BACKGROUND
Many patients may initially decline voluntary referral, but provider encouragement and support may
improve patient willingness to complete the referral.

RECOMMENDATIONS
1. Agree on a set of specific goals with the patient.
a. Review with the patient results of previous efforts of self-change and formal treatment
experience, including reasons for treatment dropout
b. Ask patient about willingness to accept referral
c. Consider bringing an addiction specialist into a general medical or mental health visit to
assist with referral decision.
2. Patients at high risk for alcohol use disorder but who are not ready for specialty addictions
treatment should be engaged in monitoring of alcohol-related medical problems in the medical
setting.
3. DoD active duty members involved in an incident in which substance use is suspected to be a
contributing factor are required to be referred to specialty SUD care for evaluation. Command
should be contacted to discuss administrative and clinical options if the member refuses to be
evaluated (see Appendix D).

DISCUSSION
Many patients will not accept referrals (Oslin et al., 2006). However, attempted referral may have
some benefit (Elvy et al., 1988), and patients who recall a physician’s advice prior to alcohol treatment
have better outcomes (Walsh et al., 1992). More patients are successfully referred to alcohol
counselors in primary care settings if nurses refer patients directly instead of relying on primary care
providers to refer (Goldberg et al., 1991). An older study showed that addressing the patient’s needs
and concerns increased the acceptance of referral (Chafetz, 1968).

I. Continue to Provide Brief Interventions During Future Visits

BACKGROUND
Patients should be frequently re-evaluated to follow progress, assessed for changes in alcohol-related
biomarkers if possible, and supported to problem-solve if barriers to improvement are encountered.
Periodically, the patient’s interest in specialty treatment and mutual support groups should be re-
evaluated. Patient-centered approaches such as motivational interviewing may be helpful.
The interval of follow-up for a particular patient will depend on individual circumstances including
(but not limited to) the severity of their Unhealthy Alcohol Use, the exsitence of co-occurring
conditions, readiness to change, and personal circumstances (difficulty making appointments due to
employment or other responsibilities).

RECOMMENDATIONS
1. Address alcohol at the next medical visit scheduled to address other issues, or schedule a separate
appointment to specifically address drinking if the patient agrees. [B]
2. Repeat brief intervention at the follow-up visit if the patient has not responded to a previous brief
intervention. [B]

Module A - Page 20
 VA/DoD Clinical Practice Guideline
For Management of Substance Use Disorders

DISCUSSION
There is evidence that most patients will not respond to a single brief intervention and that repeated
brief interventions can be efficacious. Moreover, there are additional interventions that should be
offered to patients who do not respond to brief intervention.
Although there is not consistent evidence of a dose-response relationship for brief interventions (Kaner
et al., 2007), most brief intervention trials, especially those with improvement in outcome measures
other than self-reported drinking, have included follow-up visits (Fleming et al., 1997; Wallace et al.,
1988).
Repeated brief interventions appear to be especially efficacious when they have a medical focus. For
example, monitoring of medications to decrease drinking was efficacious with active medications for
alcohol dependence (Addolorato et al., 2007; Anton et al., 2006; Johnson et al., 2007) as well as
placebo (Anton et al., 2006). In addition, monitoring lab or physiologic measures and feedback to
patients on abnormal laboratory tests associated with Unhealthy Alcohol Use (Fleming et al., 2004;
Kristenson et al., 1983; Willenbring & Olson, 1999) or blood pressure (Maheswaran et al., 1992) is
associated with improved outcomes. One study of VA patients hospitalized for medical problems due
to drinking (who were not willing to enter addictions treatment) showed that such repeated primary
care interventions could result in abstinence even when the intervention did not require that the patient
start with a goal of abstinence (74 percent vs. 48 percent reported 30-day abstinence at 2 years for the
intervention and usual care groups, respectively) (Willenbring & Olson, 1999).
No research comparing different follow-up intervals was identified. No other guideline specifies the
exact timing when patients should be followed up after a brief intervention. Most brief intervention
trials included a “booster” at 1 to 2 and 3 to 4 months. Some studies found that patients who returned
for more sessions had improved outcomes.

Repeated Interventions for Severe Unhealthy Alcohol Use using Labs and Medications
The focus of these medical visits is on clinical engagement without requiring immediate abstinence
and can include monitoring any or all of the following:
• A physiologic biomarker of Unhealthy Alcohol Use, including blood pressure or laboratory
tests (Gamma Glutamyl Transferase (GGT), Mean Corpuscular Volume (MCV), Glycosylated
hemoglobin (HbA1c), Carbohydrate-Deficient Transferrin (CDT))
• Use of medications: naltrexone, acamprosate, or disulfiram (see Module P).
• Other medical symptoms the patient cares about that are related to alcohol use (e.g.,
hypertension, GERD, depression).
A number of studies have shown that repeated interventions focused on the physical complications of
drinking or medication management can be effective even with patients with severe Unhealthy Alcohol
Use. The first of these studies included men in Malmo, Sweden who had abnormal liver function tests
(LFTs). Repeated medical interventions decreased both LFTs and alcohol-related deaths (Kristenson
et al., 1983; Kristenson et al., 2002).
A study of patients with diabetes and/or hypertension showed that using percent carbohydrate deficient
transferrin (%CDT) as a biomarker to provide monthly feedback on excessive drinking significantly
decreased drinking and %CDT at 12-month follow-up (Fleming et al., 2004). A study of patients
willing to enter a trial for a medication to improve alcoholic liver disease, showed that nurse
monitoring was associated with marked decrease in drinking from an average of 16 to an average of
2.5 drinks daily (Lieber et al., 2003). A study of medications for alcohol dependence found that
medical monitoring and placebo were as effective as acamprosate or a combined behavioral
intervention among patients with alcohol dependence recruited to a trial of medications to help
decrease drinking (Anton et al., 2006).

Module A - Page 21
 VA/DoD Clinical Practice Guideline
For Management of Substance Use Disorders

EVIDENCE TABLE
Evidence Source QE Overall SR
Quality
1 Patients who do not respond Ballesteros et al., 2004 II-2 Fair B
after first brief intervention Bertholet et al., 2005
should have a repeat brief Bien et al., 1993
intervention Kahan et al., 1995
Kaner et al., 2007
Moyer et al., 2002
Poikolainen, 1999
Solberg et al., 2008
Wilk et al., 1997
2 Monthly monitoring decreases Fleming et al., 2004 II-1 Fair B
drinking in alcohol-dependent Kristenson et al., 1983
patients or patients with Kristenson & Osterling, 2002
Unhealthy Alcohol Use with Lieber et al., 2003
chronic diseases or Willenbring & Olson, 1999
complications of drinking (e.g.,
elevated GGT)
QE = Quality of Evidence; SR = Strength of Recommendation (See Appendix A)

J. Provide Positive Feedback Regarding Changes

BACKGROUND
Expert opinion supports optimistic, empathetic interventions that note the importance of the changes
patients have made to their health, provide positive feedback and encourage continued drinking below
recommended limits.

RECOMMENDATIONS
1. Provide positive feedback to patients for decreases in drinking.
2. Relate changes in drinking to any changes in presenting health conditions.

EVIDENCE TABLE
Evidence Source QE Overall SR
Quality
1 Provide positive feedback Working Group Consensus III Poor I
regarding changes patient
makes in drinking
QE = Quality of Evidence; SR = Strength of Recommendation (See Appendix A)

K. Advise to Stay Below Recommended Limits

BACKGROUND
Patients who screen positive near the screening threshold of the AUDIT-C (3-5) can report drinking
within recommended limits, but many are under-reporting drinking. Therefore, based on Working
Group consensus, patients who initially screen positive for Unhealthy Alcohol Use but report drinking
below recommended limits should nevertheless be explicitly advised about recommended limits and
encouraged to continue drinking below those limits.

Module A - Page 22
 VA/DoD Clinical Practice Guideline
For Management of Substance Use Disorders

RECOMMENDATIONS
1. Advise patients who screen positive for Unhealthy Alcohol Use but who report drinking below
recommended limits to continue to drink below recommended limits.

EVIDENCE TABLE
Evidence Source QE Overall SR
Quality
1 Advise patients who report Working Group Consensus III Poor I
drinking below recommended
limits to avoid drinking above
recommended limits.
QE = Quality of Evidence; SR = Strength of Recommendation (See Appendix A)

L. Screen Annually for Unhealthy Alcohol Use

BACKGROUND
No trials have compared different intervals of screening. This recommendation for annual screening is
based on Working Group consensus consistent with routine annual preventive screening for other
disorders in VA/DoD primary care setting and the past-year assessment window of the AUDIT-C.

RECOMMENDATIONS
1. Repeat alcohol screening annually.

Module A - Page 23
 VA/DoD Clinical Practice Guideline
For Management of Substance Use Disorders

Module B -Page24
 VA/DoD Clinical Practice Guideline
For Management of Substance Use Disorders

MODULE B: MANAGEMENT OF SUBSTANCE USE DISORDERS

IN SPECIALTY SUD CARE

A. Patient with Presumptive or Possible Substance Use Disorder (SUD) Referred or Self-Referred to
Specialty Care

BACKGROUND
Patients may be referred to this module based on the following indications for treatment: hazardous
substance use, substance abuse, substance dependence, risk of relapse, suspected or possible SUD, or
mandated referral within the DoD. Patients seeking to achieve remission may be appropriately
managed using this module. Other patients may be ambivalent about rehabilitation goals and may
benefit from more comprehensive assessment and discussion of treatment options. Finally, patients
may be referred to a specialist for more extensive evaluation of risks related to substance use.

B. Ensure Behavioral or Physiological Stabilization, if Necessary

BACKGROUND
Most patients referred to specialty SUD care are not acutely intoxicated or in need of immediate
physiological stabilization prior to initiating assessment and treatment planning. Others may have
been stable at the time of referral, but require stabilization when they present for specialty SUD care
evaluation or treatment and should be managed using Module S: Stabilization and Withdrawal
Management.

RECOMMENDATIONS
1. Assure patient safety and readiness to cooperate with further assessment by referring the patient to
an emergency department or appropriate setting for stabilization as needed.

C. Obtain a Comprehensive Biopsychosocial Assessment

BACKGROUND
Comprehensive and multidimensional assessment procedures are needed to evaluate an individual’s
strengths, needs, abilities, and preferences, and to determine priorities so that an initial treatment plan
can be developed. In less severe cases, the assessment should at least involve screening of these
elements, through the use of a multidimensional screening instrument.

RECOMMENDATIONS
1. Obtain a comprehensive biopsychosocial assessment that includes all of the following: *
a. History of the present episode, including precipitating factors, current symptoms and
pertinent present risks:
• Family history:
- Family alcohol and drug use history, including past treatment episodes
- Family social history, including profiles of parents (or guardians or other
caretakers), home atmosphere, economic status, religious affiliation,
cultural influences, leisure activities, monitoring and supervision, and
relocations

Module B - Page 25
 VA/DoD Clinical Practice Guideline
For Management of Substance Use Disorders

- Family medical and psychiatric history

• Developmental history, including pregnancy and delivery, developmental
milestones and temperament
• Comprehensive substance use history, including onset and pattern of
progression, past sequelae and past treatment episodes (include all substances,
e.g., alcohol, illicit drugs, tobacco, caffeine, over-the-counter medications,
prescription medications, inhalants)
• Nearly all daily nicotine users are nicotine dependent. Identification and
treatment of co-morbid nicotine dependence may improve recovery rates of
other SUDs. For patients using nicotine, offer and recommend tobacco use
cessation treatment. Use the Clinical Practice Guideline: Treating Tobacco Use
& Dependence: 2008 Update from the U.S. Department of Health and Human
Services available at:
http://www.surgeongeneral.gov/tobacco/treating_tobacco_use08.pdf and the
VA/DoD Clinical Practice Guideline for Management of Tobacco Use
• Recent pattern of substance use based on self-report and urine drug screening
• Personal/social history (including housing issues, religious/spiritual affiliation,
cultural influences)
• School history
• Military history
• Marital history
• Peer relationships and friendships
• Leisure activities
• Sexual activity
• Physical or sexual abuse
• Legal/non-judicial punishment history, including past behaviors and their
relation to substance use, arrests, adjudications and details of current status
• Psychiatric history, including symptoms and their relation to substance use,
current and past diagnoses, treatments and providers
• Medical history, including pertinent medical problems and treatment, surgeries,
head injuries, present medications and allergies
• Review of systems, including present and past medical and psychological
symptoms
b. Laboratory tests for infectious diseases (HIV, Hepatitis C, sexually transmitted disease)
and consequences of substance use (e.g., liver function tests)
c. Mental status examination
d. Survey of assets, vulnerabilities and supports
e. Patient’s perspective on current problems, treatment goals and preferences
2. Use empathic and non-judgmental (versus confrontational) therapist style, being sensitive to
gender, cultural and ethnic differences.
*Adapted from ASAM Patient Placement Criteria, 2nd Edition-Revised (ASAM PPC-2R, 2001)

Module B - Page 26
 VA/DoD Clinical Practice Guideline
For Management of Substance Use Disorders

DISCUSSION
Assessment is the beginning of the therapeutic process. A comprehensive biopsychosocial assessment
covers physical, emotional, cognitive, behavioral, emotional, and environmental domains.
The guidelines do not exclusively endorse the use of any particular instrument as the basis for a
comprehensive assessment. However, the Addiction Severity Index (ASI) (Fureman et al., 1990;
McLellan et al., 1992) is a standardized, rater-administered interview that assesses seven functional
domains considered important in an overall addiction evaluation: medical status, employment status,
legal problems, family/social relations, drug use, alcohol use, and psychiatric status. Formal DSM-IV-
TR psychiatric diagnoses are derived from the clinical interview.
Ensuring appropriate housing and access to care is an important part of the assessment process. The
term "housing" is used generically as the residence of a patient while receiving treatment. It can
involve the same setting within which treatment takes place or it can refer to a variety of living
situations with varying degrees of supervision that are separate from the location of treatment services
(see Appendix B-10).
For military service members, access to care and housing may be dependent on the echelons of
military medical care, particularly in a deployed environment. For example, a soldier requiring
substance abuse treatment may need to be evacuated to higher levels of care from Level 1 (Battalion
Aid Station) to Level II (Forward Surgical Team) to Level III (Combat Support Hospital) to Level IV
(Definitive Care).
The clinician's empathic and non-judgmental interest during assessment can help the patient make
sense of his or her condition, decrease the patient’s sense of isolation, increase the likelihood of
treatment adherence, and foster growth of the therapeutic alliance. Conclusions from the assessment
should be shared with the patient. The clinician's attitude and manner are important components of the
assessment process. A nonjudgmental, respectful attitude that reflects genuine interest and empathy
will facilitate rapport. Reliability and validity of the assessment will be affected by the degree of trust
in the interviewer and by consideration of the degree to which the patient presents voluntarily or feels
coerced. In determining reliability and validity of the assessment the clinician should also recognize
that recent substance use might affect the patient's presentation during the interview. Memory and
cognitive deficits and impairment of judgment and mood, secondary to drug use, may be present. The
clinician should monitor the patient's cognitive function and mental status during the assessment. If it
is possible to gain permission from the patient to do so, consulting with collateral informants (e.g.,
spouse/partner, family, friends, co-workers, and/or chain of command) will provide a useful adjunct to
gathering information directly from the patient.

EVIDENCE TABLE
Evidence Source QE Overall SR
Quality
1 Conduct comprehensive Working Group Consensus III Poor I
biopsychosocial assessment
QE = Quality of Evidence; SR = Strength of Recommendation (See Appendix A)

D. Determine Diagnosis of SUD; Develop Integrated Summary and Initial Treatment Plan

BACKGROUND
The comprehensive intake assessment report should include a diagnostic formulation, summary of past
treatment response, and integrated summary of all clinically relevant information. Treatment
recommendations should incorporate an interdisciplinary perspective. The patient’s motivational level
and personal goals should be assessed, and this information taken into consideration in selecting
treatment goals and options.

Module B - Page 27
 VA/DoD Clinical Practice Guideline
For Management of Substance Use Disorders

RECOMMENDATIONS
1. Provide a narrative to consolidate and interpret the information obtained during the assessment
process.
2. Include a diagnostic formulation.
3. Include past treatment response and patient’s perspective on current problems.
4. Review the patient’s motivational level, treatment preferences and goals, and consider these
factors, along with an interdisciplinary perspective and available programming, in recommending
specific treatment options. [B]
5. Present and discuss the treatment options with the patient and significant others.
6. Determine whether the treatment plan can be implemented in general health care (including
primary care) based on availability of a willing provider, severity and chronicity of the SUD,
active involvement with recovery supports in the community, prior treatment response, and patient
preference and likelihood of adherence.
7. If treatment in specialty SUD care is appropriate, determine the appropriate initial intensity and
level of specialty SUD care, based on ASAM patient placement criteria. [B]
8. If treatment in specialty SUD care is recommended, determine if it is an acceptable mode of
treatment to the patient.
9. Involve the patient in prioritizing problems to be addressed in the initial treatment plan, and in
selecting specific treatment goals, regardless of the level of care selected (see Table B-1).
10. If the patient does not agree to the treatment plan, provide motivational intervention and offer to
renegotiate the treatment plan.
For DoD Active Duty Members
11. A treatment team shall convene with the patient and command to review the treatment plan and
goals.

Table B- 1. Treatment Plan and Expected Outcomes

Treatment Plan Expected Outcomes

Patient seeking to achieve - Complete and sustained remission of all SUDs
remission - Resolution of, or significant improvement in, all coexisting
biopsychosocial problems and health-related quality of life

Patient seeking help but not - Short- to intermediate-term resolution or partial improvement of
committed to abstinence SUDs for a specified period of time
- Resolution or improvement of at least some coexisting problems
and health-related quality of life
Patient not willing to engage - Engagement in general health treatment process, which may
in treatment and not yet continue for long periods of time or indefinitely
ready to abstain - Continuity of care
- Continuous enhancement of motivation to change
- Availability of crisis intervention
- Improvement in SUDs, even if temporary or partial
- Improvement in coexisting medical, psychiatric, and social
conditions
- Improvement in quality of life
- Reduction in the need for high-intensity health care services
- Maintenance of progress
- Reduction in the rate of illness progression

Module B - Page 28
 VA/DoD Clinical Practice Guideline
For Management of Substance Use Disorders

DISCUSSION

Determination of Appropriate Treatment

The integrated summary has also been referred to as the case formulation. The purpose of the
integrated summary is to blend the disparate pieces of the assessment process into a more cohesive
summarization. The summary needs to include biopsychosocial strengths and weaknesses that the
patient brings to treatment. The summary also describes the history and etiology and maintenance
factors for the SUD. The integrated summary serves as the foundation for the development of the
treatment plan. Consistent with The Joint Commission standards, it is important that the information
upon which the treatment plan is based appears within the assessment database and does not appear de
novo in the integrated summary (JCAHO, 1999).
The integrated summary is intended to be interpretive in nature, providing more than a restatement of
facts already present in the assessment. The clinician must use professional judgment to evaluate the
information and discuss with the patient how his/her various strengths and problems interrelate to
affect the treatment process. For example, patients may indicate that some problems, such as
homelessness or ambivalence about change, may need to be addressed before others.
Some patients may be able to be managed effectively outside of specialty care, and will not require
referral to specialty care. Factors that are associated with the potential for good outcome in non-
specialty care include the availability of a willing primary care provider with whom the patient has an
established relationship, lower severity and chronicity of the SUD, active involvement with recovery
supports in the community, favorable prior treatment response, and the patient’s preference for non-
specialty care rather than specialty care treatment.
With regard to patient level of care placement, the ASAM criteria (2001) are the most widely accepted
placement system. The criteria consider problem severity in seven areas in making recommendations
for specific levels of care. In that regard, there is now a fair amount of research that indicates patients
with greater substance use severity and co-occurring problems such as psychiatric disorders and
housing problems will do better in more intensive forms of treatment. Conversely, those with lower
severity levels will do as well or better in less intensive forms of treatment. However, there is little
controlled evidence to support the validity of the ASAM criteria.

Involving the Patient in the Selection of Treatment Level and Goals

It has become accepted best practice to establish treatment goals in the context of a working
collaboration or negotiation between the treatment provider and the patient. In the case of a patient
who does not find standard specialty care rehabilitation to be an acceptable form of treatment, the
patient’s treatment history and previous efforts at self-change should be reviewed. The patient’s
perception of reasons for failure to engage in or early dropout from prior treatment episodes should be
reviewed and discussed.
When both the patient and provider agree on what is to be accomplished and how this is to be done, the
chances of achieving a good outcome are enhanced (Putnam et al., 1994; Sanchez-Craig & Lei, 1986).
Motivational Interviewing (MI) techniques and style should be used in SUD treatment sessions.
Confrontational counseling styles should generally be avoided. However, highly skilled therapists
with good alliances with their patients may use a more directive counseling style under certain
circumstances. Miller et al. (1993) found that a more confrontational counseling style was associated
with worse alcohol use outcomes. However, a more detailed study of counseling processes in MI
indicated that confronting, warning, and directing patients may actually produce better outcomes if the
therapist has strong interpersonal skills and has developed a good alliance with the patient (Moyers et
al., 2005).
Motivational interviewing techniques should be used in clinical sessions with patients who remain
ambivalent about or resistant to standard specialty care. Prior studies have supported the efficacy of
MI interventions. Providing MI at the beginning of more intensive treatment-as-usual programs led to
larger effect sizes compared to treatment as usual alone in a review by Dunn et al. (2001) and to
sustained effects favoring MI in a review by Hettema et al. (2005).

Module B - Page 29
 VA/DoD Clinical Practice Guideline
For Management of Substance Use Disorders

DoD active duty members who fail to engage in recommended treatment should be informed that such
a decision could result in involuntary separation from military service.

EVIDENCE TABLE

Evidence Source QE Overall SR

Quality
1 Consolidate and interpret the Working Group Consensus III Poor I
information obtained during the
assessment process in a narrative
form
2 Include a diagnostic formulation Working Group Consensus III Poor I
3 Review comprehensive assessment Working Group Consensus III Poor I
and integrated summary, including
past treatment response
4 Determine the appropriate initial Chen et al., 2006 I Fair B
intensity level of treatment Maguara et al., 2003
McKay et al., 2002
PRISM-E, 2007
Tiet et al., 2007
Timko & Sempel, 2004
Witbrodt et al., 2007
Working Group Consensus
5 Review the patient’s motivational Burke et al., 2003 I Fair B
level and goals and match the Dunn et al., 2001
patient’s needs with available Friedmann et al., 2004
programming Heather, 1996
Hettema et al., 2005
McLellan et al., 1997
McLellan et al., 1998
Miller et al., 2003
Monti et al., 1989
Project MATCH, 2003
Rohsenow et al., 2004
6 Incorporate an interdisciplinary Working Group Consensus III Poor I
perspective in presenting treatment
recommendations
7 If rehabilitation is recommended, Working Group Consensus III Poor I
determine whether it is an
acceptable or mandated mode of
treatment to the patient
8 Involve the patient in prioritizing Working Group Consensus III Poor I
problems to be addressed in the
initial treatment plan
9 If patient does not agree to the Working Group Consensus III Poor I
treatment plan, provide
motivational intervention and
renegotiate treatment plan
QE = Quality of Evidence; SR = Strength of Recommendation (See Appendix A)

Module B - Page 30
 VA/DoD Clinical Practice Guideline
For Management of Substance Use Disorders

E. Initiate Addiction-Focused Pharmacotherapy (If Indicated)

BACKGROUND
Addiction-focused pharmacotherapy should be considered, available and offered if indicated, for all
patients with opioid dependence and/or alcohol dependence. Addiction-focused pharmacotherapy
should be provided in addition to indicated pharmacotherapy for co-occurrring psychiatric conditions.
In addition, it should be directly coordinated with specialty psychosocial treatment and adjunctive
services for psychosocial problems as well as with the patient’s primary care and/or general mental
health providers.

RECOMMENDATIONS
1. Discuss addiction-focused pharmacotherapy options with all patients with opioid and/or alcohol
dependence.
2. Initiate addiction-focused pharmacotherapy if indicated and monitor adherence and treatment
response.
(See Module P for specific recommendations and evidence.)

F. Initiate Addiction-Focused Psychosocial Interventions

BACKGROUND
The goals of evidence-based psychosocial treatment for SUD are to engage the patient to establish
early problem resolution or remission, improve psychosocial functioning and prevent relapse to
substance use. A number of effective psychosocial interventions have been developed and evaluated,
and there is no clear evidence that any one of these approaches is the treatment of choice or can be
accurately matched to specific patient characteristics. There is considerable evidence from
psychotherapy research that general factors such as therapist skill, the strength of the therapeutic
alliance, and the structure provided by regular treatment contact can have as powerful an effect as the
specific content or conceptual approach of the interventions. Therefore, attention to these general
therapeutic factors is at least as important as the specific treatment approach selected.

RECOMMENDATIONS
1. Indicate to the patient and significant others that treatment is more effective than no treatment (i.e.,
“Treatment works”).
2. Consider the patient’s prior treatment experience and respect patient preference for the initial
psychosocial intervention approach, since no single intervention approach has emerged as the
treatment of choice.
3. Regardless of the particular psychosocial intervention chosen, use motivational interviewing style
during therapeutic encounters with patients and emphasize the common elements of effective
interventions including: enhancing patient motivation to stop or reduce substance use, improving
self-efficacy for change, promoting a therapeutic relationship, strengthening coping skills,
changing reinforcement contingencies for recovery, and enhancing social support for recovery.
4. Emphasize that the most consistent predictors of successful outcome are retention in formal
treatment and/or active involvement with community support for recovery.
5. Use strategies demonstrated to be efficacious to promote active involvement in available mutual
help programs (e.g., Alcoholics Anonymous, Narcotics Anonymous).

Module B - Page 31
 VA/DoD Clinical Practice Guideline
For Management of Substance Use Disorders

6. Based on locally available expertise, initiate addiction-focused psychosocial interventions with

empirical support. Consider the following interventions that have been developed into published
treatment manuals and evaluated in randomized trials:
a. Behavioral Couples Counseling
b. Cognitive Behavioral Coping Skills Training
c. Community Reinforcement Approach
d. Contingency Management/Motivational Incentives
e. Motivational Enhancement Therapy
f. Twelve-Step Facilitation.
7. Addiction-focused psychosocial interventions should be coordinated with evidence-based
intervention(s) for other biopsychosocial problems to address identified concurrent problems.
8. Intervention should be provided in the least restrictive setting necessary for safety and
effectiveness.
(See Appendix C for description of evidence-based psychosocial interventions.)

G. Address Psychosocial Functioning and Recovery Environment

BACKGROUND
Many patients have co-existing psychosocial problems that affect their likelihood of establishing and
maintaining good clinical outcome and improved functional status.
Some of these problems are consequences of SUD that persist even after early recovery is established.
Others occur independently of SUD, but can complicate access to care or present relapse risk. These
problems include access to a supportive recovery environment (housing and social support for
sobriety), difficulties with family and social relationships, unemployment/underemployment, and/or
unresolved legal issues.

RECOMMENDATIONS
1. Prioritize and address other coexisting biopsychosocial problems with services targeted to these
problem areas, rather than increasing intensity of addiction-focused psychosocial treatment alone.
[B]
2. Address transitional housing needs to facilitate access to treatment and promote a supportive
recovery environment.
3. Provide social/vocational/legal services in the most accessible setting to promote engagement and
coordination of care.
4. Address deferred problems as part of treatment plan updates and monitor emerging needs.
5. Coordinate care with other social service providers or case managers.

EVIDENCE TABLE
Evidence Source QE Overall SR
Quality
1 Identifying and addressing other Friedmann et al., 2004 I Fair B
biopsychosocial problems may be McLellan et al., 1997
more effective than increasing the McLellan et al., 1998
intensity of addiction focused
treatments
QE = Quality of Evidence; SR = Strength of Recommendation (See Appendix A)

Module B - Page 32
 VA/DoD Clinical Practice Guideline
For Management of Substance Use Disorders

H. Manage General Medical and Psychiatric Co-occurring Conditions

BACKGROUND
In addition to the standard addiction-focused services, programs should address psychiatric and general
medical conditions that exist in association with the SUD. Treatment services directed toward these
additional problems, when they exist, are associated with improvement. Problems typically show little
spontaneous improvement if services are not provided.

RECOMMENDATIONS
1. Prioritize and address other medical and psychiatric co-occurring conditions.
2. Recommend and offer cessation treatment to patients with nicotine dependence.
3. Treat concurrent psychiatric disorders consistent with VA/DoD clinical practice guidelines (e.g.,
Major Depressive Disorder, Bipolar Disorder, Post Traumatic Stress, Psychoses) including
concurrent pharmacotherapy.
4. Provide or arrange treatment via referral for medical conditions (e.g. management of diabetes,
chronic heart failure, management of unexplained medical symptoms). (See other VA/DoD
Clinical Practice Guidelines at: www.healthquality.va.gov)
5. Provide multiple services in the most accessible setting to promote engagement and coordination
of care.
6. Monitor and address deferred problems and emerging needs through ongoing treatment plan
updates.
7. Coordinate care with other providers.

DISCUSSION
Treatment providers should identify psychiatric and medical comorbidities, and evaluate the degree to
which they are associated with the SUD. The ASI and other information from the biopsychosocial
assessment (e.g., urine drug screen, tests for HIV and Hepatitis C and other lab results, physical exam,
mental status exam, and patient report) and integrated summary can be used to make this evaluation.
When problems are identified, and their severity and relationship to the SUD determined, the provider
and treatment team should determine the optimal timing and setting for the interventions. For example,
the need for immediate or delayed referral to a specialized program for a patient with a chronic co-
occurring psychiatric condition.
Nicotine and alcohol interact in the brain, each drug possibly affecting vulnerability to dependence on
the other (Schiffman & Balabanis, 1995). Initial studies suggest that recovery rates from non-nicotine
SUDs are significantly improved in patients who reduce their nicotine usage prior to discharge from
structured rehabilitation settings, versus those nicotine addicts who do not reduce their nicotine use
(Frosch, et al., 2000). Consequently, some researchers postulate that treating both addictions
simultaneously might be an effective, even essential, way to help reduce dependence on both (NIAAA,
2000).
When unavailable through the primary treatment team, patients may need referral to other clinics in
order to access needed services, such as primary medical care or psychiatric evaluation. Providing
these services in a single setting (one-stop service) may be more effective (Umbricht-Schneiter et al.,
1994). Other facilities will need to develop referral resources and feedback mechanisms. Either way,
ongoing communication and coordination among service providers is essential to quality care.

Module B - Page 33
 VA/DoD Clinical Practice Guideline
For Management of Substance Use Disorders

I. Assess Response to Treatment / Monitor Biological Indicators

BACKGROUND
At each periodic reassessment, the patient may have achieved the goals set for specialty SUD care, be
successfully completing interim steps toward each goal, not improving, or may have dropped out of
treatment altogether. Periodic monitoring of progress toward treatment goals helps to coordinate care
and to motivate the patient and treatment team members to accomplish interim steps. Periodic
reassessments also provide opportunities to address emerging problems and to change treatment
strategies when the initial plan is not fully successful.

RECOMMENDATIONS
1. Reassess response to treatment periodically and systematically, using standardized and valid self-
report instrument(s) and laboratory tests. Indicators of treatment response include ongoing
substance use, craving, side effects of medication, emerging symptoms, etc. (see example for a
treatment response monitor; Appendix B-9: Brief Addiction Monitor).

DISCUSSION
Reassess and document clinical response throughout the course of treatment:
• Daily in the acute inpatient setting, including reevaluation of the continued need for that level
of care.
• At least weekly in the residential setting, including reevaluation of the continued need for that
level of care.
• In the outpatient setting:
o Weekly during the first few weeks for a new episode of care
o At least monthly thereafter.

J. Reinforce and Follow Up

BACKGROUND
For many patients, substance use disorders are chronic conditions that warrant extended efforts at
relapse prevention and encouragement by providers for progress.

RECOMMENDATIONS
1. For patients who accomplish their initial goals in early recovery, the treatment team should
collaborate with the patient to develop a continuing care plan (e.g., aftercare plan) which may
include:
a. Transition to an appropriate alternative specialty care setting (see Annotation L -
Aftercare), such as PTSD specialty treatment, etc.
b. Return to primary care.
2. For patients who are progressing toward goals, providers should:
a. Provide positive feedback and encouragement to remain engaged in specialty SUD care
b. Involve patients in identifying the next interim steps toward achieving the goals.

Module B - Page 34
 VA/DoD Clinical Practice Guideline
For Management of Substance Use Disorders

DISCUSSION
Consider reduced treatment intensity or discontinuing some treatment components based on:
• Accomplishment of treatment goals and objectives
• Full, early remission
• Early problem resolution
• Greater involvement in community support
• Improvements in other associated problem areas.
Coordinate follow-up with the patient's primary medical or behavioral health provider during
transitions to less intensive levels of care in order to reinforce progress and improve monitoring of
relapse risks.

K. Are Treatment Goals Achieved?

BACKGROUND
In general, longer lengths of time in treatment correlate with better outcomes for more severely
dependent patients. However when no further addiction-focused specialty treatment visits are
scheduled, care should be transitioned to their primary medical or behavioral healthcare provider for
relapse monitoring and ongoing management of co-occurring general medical and/or psychiatric
conditions.

RECOMMENDATIONS
1. Use the patient’s progress in attaining recovery goals to individualize treatment continuation and
avoid adopting uniform treatment plans with standardized duration and intensity.
2. Consider patient report of craving and other subjective indications of relapse risk.
3. For patients who achieve sustained remission or problem resolution, provide appropriate
continuity of care and follow-up with providers in the general medical or mental health care
setting (see Module C).

DISCUSSION
Emphasize the increased risk of relapse in early recovery and the importance of follow-up, until the
recovery is well-established and the patient no longer meets diagnostic criteria. Monitoring of the
patient’s response to treatment should inform decisions regarding continuation until recovery support
in the patient's daily life is adequately established.

L. Discontinue Specialty SUD Treatment; Develop Aftercare/Recovery Plan

BACKGROUND
An aftercare or recovery plan is a mutual effort between the patient and treatment team to identify and
promote those aspects of continuing care for SUDs that are associated with success in recovery. At the
point that the patient has achieved the initial stabilization goals of intensive treatment, he/she receives
a written plan for continuing care to maintain recovery.

Module B - Page 35
 VA/DoD Clinical Practice Guideline
For Management of Substance Use Disorders

RECOMMENDATIONS
1. Provide continuing care following intensive outpatient or residential rehabilitation (individual,
group or telephone follow-up).
2. Consider objective monitoring of substance use and medical consequences. [A]
3. Encourage active involvement in community support for recovery (e.g., Alcoholics Anonymous,
Cocaine Anonymous). [A]
4. As part of the discharge instructions from the intensive phase, provide the patient a written plan to
facilitate compliance with aftercare which may include “the basic things I need to do to meet my
treatment goals,” such as:
a. Information on treatment appointments and prescribed medications
b. Recognizing relapse warning signs and triggers and appropriate coping responses
c. Maintaining contact with recovery support network and identifying mutual help meetings
to attend.
5. For DoD Active Duty: Rehabilitation and Referral Services for Alcohol and Drug Abusers,
requires an individualized aftercare plan designed to identify the continued support of the patient
with monthly monitoring (minimally) during the first year after inpatient treatment.

DISCUSSION
There is good evidence that aftercare (continuing care) following intensive addiction rehabilitation is
associated with improved outcomes for substance use and psychosocial functioning. Common
elements of aftercare include periodic contact with an addiction treatment professional (case
management, group, individual or phone contact), active involvement in 12-step mutual help programs,
and ongoing monitoring of indicators of substance use and/or its medical consequences (urine drug
screens, liver function tests, etc.).
Although there is no direct evidence that a written recovery plan improves outcome, this
recommendation is based in part on regulatory requirements and in part on evidence from compliance
with other medical and mental health treatment that clear written instructions and specific appointment
times improve rates of follow-up.
Recovery Plans can be personalized to the individual patient's needs or the treatment team's discretion.
However, some basic areas to be considered include the following descriptive (rather than prescriptive)
list:
• A listing of the names, dates, and times of mutual support meetings and recovery activities.
For example: 12 Step (or non-12 Step) support meetings the patient will be attending after
rehabilitation (including the frequency of attendance) and first name and phone number of
sponsor(s)
• Follow-up appointments for aftercare and other medical appointment dates, times and
locations as well as phone numbers/addresses (and provider's names, if known).
• A summary of the primary issues the patient has been working on during rehabilitation
treatment and the specific methods the patient intends to use towards resolution of these
issues
• The patient's personally identified relapse warning signs and triggers (with the help of their
sponsor, rehabilitation counselor, etc.), and the respective countering coping skills planned
(Gorski & Miller, 1986)
• A listing of individuals within the patient's identified recovery support network (Galanter,
1997) (other than sponsors and providers) along with some description regarding the role of
each in the patient's recovery.

Module B - Page 36
 VA/DoD Clinical Practice Guideline
For Management of Substance Use Disorders

For a DoD individualized aftercare plan, a quarterly evaluation of the patient's progress shall be
conducted by a committee comprised of the patient's commanding officer, his or her representative, the
patient, and an aftercare coordinator or the patient's substance abuse counselor. Following the
completion of outpatient treatment, the aftercare program shall assist the individual in developing a
continuing support plan that will involve the patient's commander. The patient shall have a written
plan describing the military member's further rehabilitative responsibilities with a copy to his or her
commander. The patient's progress shall be evaluated on a quarterly basis during the first year of
recovery by a committee comprised of the patient, an alcohol counselor or aftercare coordinator, and
the patient's commanding officer or representative (DoDI 1010.6, 1985) (see Appendix D).

EVIDENCE TABLE

Evidence Source QE Overall SR

Quality

1 Provide continuing care Bennett et al., 2005 I Good A

after intensive Brown et al., 2004
rehabilitation Horng & Chueh, 2004
McKay et al., 2005
O’Farrell et al., 1998
Patterson et al., 1997
Sannibale et al., 2003
Siegal et al., 2002
2 Encourage participation in Cloud et al., 2004 I Good A
12-step mutual help groups Mueller et al., 2007
(Alcoholics Anonymous) Timko et al., 2006
Provide a written plan for Working Group Consensus III Poor I
3
continuing care
QE = Quality of Evidence; SR = Strength of Recommendation (See Appendix A)

M. Reevaluate Treatment Plan Regarding Setting and Strategies

BACKGROUND
Relapse can be used as a signal to reevaluate the treatment plan rather than evidence that the patient
cannot succeed or that the patient was not sufficiently motivated.

RECOMMENDATIONS
1. For patients who are not improving, providers should consider either:
a. Adding or substituting another medication or psychosocial intervention, or
b. Changing treatment intensity by:
• Increasing the intensity of care, or
• Increasing the dose of the medication, or
• Decreasing the intensity to a minimum level of care that is agreeable to the
patient such as monitoring in general health care (see Module C).
2. If patients drop out of treatment, the treatment team should make efforts to contact the patient and
re-engage him/her in treatment.

Module B - Page 37
 VA/DoD Clinical Practice Guideline
For Management of Substance Use Disorders

DISCUSSION
Modify treatment plans based on changes in a patient’s clinical and psychosocial condition rather than
imposing uniform treatment plans (ASAM, 2001). If possible, use treatment algorithms that clearly
specify when to consider a modification to treatment and suggest adaptations to treatment when
progress is less than adequate.
Indications to change treatment intensity or provide adjunctive treatments may include:
• Relapse based on self-report or urine toxicology
• Increased risk of relapse (e.g., craving or personal loss)
• Emergence or exacerbation of co-occurring medical and psychiatric conditions
• Suboptimal response to medication, psychotherapy, or social intervention
• Emergence of medication side effects
• Subsequent substance-related misconduct.
Discuss relapse as a signal to reevaluate the treatment plan rather than evidence that the patient cannot
succeed or was not sufficiently motivated (Miller & Rollnick, 1991).
Target services to identified problems (e.g., psychiatric, medical, family/social, legal, vocational, and
housing) that increase the risk of relapse, rather than increasing drug and alcohol counseling alone
(McLellan et al., 1997).
Consider care management for patients with persistently sub-optimal response, rather than routinely
intensifying rehabilitation or discharging (see Module C).

Module B - Page 38
 VA/DoD Clinical Practice Guideline
For Management of Substance Use Disorders

Module C - Page 39
 VA/DoD Clinical Practice Guideline
For Management of Substance Use Disorders

MODULE C: MANAGEMENT OF SUD IN (PRIMARY) GENERAL HEALTHCARE

A. Patient with Presumptive or Possible Substance Use

BACKGROUND
Clinicians in general medical and mental health care settings are likely to encounter patients with
presumptive or possible substance use who are either referred, self-referred, or otherwise seek help
related to substance use. Substance use can include Unhealthy Alcohol Use, misuse of prescription
medications, and illegal substance use (e.g., heroin, cocaine). Substance use conditions are prevalent
among outpatient clinic populations.
General health care settings can be broadly defined as outpatient clinic settings including primary care,
psychiatry, or other specialty clinics (e.g., HIV, hepatology clinics, medical sub-specialty, pre-
operative) and may include emergency departments and surgical care clinics.
All patients in general or in mental healthcare settings should be screened for Unhealthy Alcohol Use.
Population-based screening for other drug use disorder is not recommended. This reflects the lower
prevalence of drug use disorder and the lack of high-quality randomized controlled trials
demonstrating the efficacy of primary care interventions for drug abuse and dependence. Instead,
selective case finding in high-risk populations (e.g., Hepatitis C or HIV clinics), is recommended.
Patients who are diagnosed with SUD or who are seeking help with problem drinking or drug use,
should be offered treatment and/or a referral to specialty addiction treatment, and monitored for
unstable medical or psychiatric conditions. Patients should be referred for acute stabilization or
withdrawal management if needed.
Management of SUD in the general or mental healthcare settings is likely to be a more acceptable and
effective alternative for the patient when one of the following applies:
a. The patient refuses referral to specialty SUD care but continues to seek some services,
especially medical and/or psychiatric services
b. The patient has serious co-morbidity that precludes participation in available specialty
SUD care
c. The patient has been engaged repeatedly in specialty SUD treatment with minimal
progress toward abstinence or sustained improvement.

B. Ensure Behavioral or Physiological Stabilization, if Necessary

BACKGROUND
Patients who are intoxicated, undergoing withdrawal, or who are at risk for imminent severe harm
associated with their substance use may be considered medically unstable or at risk for harm of self or
others. These patients may be delirious or otherwise not able to engage collaboratively with a provider
regarding their assessment and treatment. Screening, assessment, or treatment of substance use
disorders should occur in patients who are medically stable.
For example, patients with severe physical dependence on alcohol may undergo alcohol withdrawal
syndrome and may incur hallucinations, seizures, delirium, and delirium tremens. Treatment of
withdrawal symptoms, as well as intoxication with alcohol or opioids, may require specialty treatments
in an inpatient acute care or addiction specialty setting. Patients with cocaine intoxication may require
close cardiac monitoring.

Module C - Page 40
 VA/DoD Clinical Practice Guideline
For Management of Substance Use Disorders

RECOMMENDATIONS
1. Assure patient safety and readiness to cooperate with further assessment by referring the patient to
an emergency department or appropriate acute care setting for stabilization as needed.
See Module S – Stabilization and Withdrawal Management.

DISCUSSION
An initial evaluation of a patient with SUD should occur to assess medical and psychiatric stability.
Patients with problems that require emergency care or urgent action should not be further managed in
non-addiction specialty settings. Medical conditions (e.g., acute trauma, myocardial infarction, and
stroke) and mental conditions (e.g., delirium, suicidal ideation, or psychosis) may preclude immediate
action on SUD and may not be effectively treated.

C. Complete Assessment and Diagnostic Evaluation

BACKGROUND
Comprehensive and multidimensional assessment procedures are needed to evaluate an individual’s
strengths, weaknesses, needs, and preferences and to determine priorities so that an initial treatment
plan can be developed. In less severe cases, the assessment should at least involve screening of these
elements through the use of a multidimensional screening instrument.
A complete evaluation that includes history, physical, and laboratory assessments is important to
properly diagnose patients with SUD. Many patients may be involved with more than one substance
and poly-substance use may not be readily apparent.
For diagnostic criteria of substance abuse and dependence, see Introduction: Definitions (page 6).

RECOMMENDATIONS
1. Patients with suspected, presumed, or identified substance use disorder (SUD) should receive a
comprehensive assessment to include:
a. Medical history, including pertinent medical problems and treatment, surgeries, head
injuries, present medications and allergies and family history of substance use
b. Physical examination including mental status examination (MSE)
c. Laboratory evaluation as indicated.
2. Comprehensive substance use history, including onset and pattern of progression, past sequelae
and past treatment episodes (include all substances, e.g., alcohol, illicit drugs, tobacco, caffeine,
over-the-counter medications, prescription medications, inhalants).
3. Use empathic and non-judgmental (versus confrontational) therapist style, being sensitive to
gender, cultural, and ethnic differences.
4. DoD active duty members involved in an incident in which substance use is suspected to be a
contributing factor are required to be referred to specialty SUD care for evaluation. Command
should be contacted to discuss administrative and clinical options if the member refuses to be
evaluated (see Appendix D).

DISCUSSION
Proper diagnosis of SUD is essential for medical, medico-legal, and fit-to-duty purposes. Every
attempt should be made to formally diagnose patients. This diagnosis aids in management and triage
decisions. Providers should inform the patient that these symptoms or diagnosis are related to SUD.
Baseline laboratory evaluation may also assist in assessing response to treatment. Ongoing

Module C - Page 41
 VA/DoD Clinical Practice Guideline
For Management of Substance Use Disorders

improvement in laboratory abnormalities may encourage patients to continue therapy; lack of

improvement may encourage a provider to intensify therapy.
During the engagement in non-specialty care settings, providers should perform an appropriate
assessment but pay particular attention to assessing suicide risk. Providers in non-specialty care
settings should assess patients’ willingness to engage in addiction treatment and offer referral to
specialty care at any point in the process. Finally, in non-specialty care settings, providers should
monitor for any unstable condition and refer to stabilization if needed.

D. Assess Co-Occurring Conditions (Psychiatric Illness, Medical Conditions, Legal or Psychosocial

Conditions)

BACKGROUND
Co-occurring disorders (CODs) are common with SUD and must be identified and addressed as a part
of comprehensive care. CODs, also termed co-morbid disorders, are defined as sub-clinical or
diagnosed medical and/or behavioral health conditions that occur with and influence the SUD
condition. CODs threaten the health of patients and may complicate the treatment of SUD.
SUD is highly correlated with posttraumatic stress disorder and other psychological disorders that may
occur after stressful and traumatic events, such as those associated with war.

RECOMMENDATIONS
1. Identify and document any co-occurring disorders (CODs) in patients with substance use
disorders.
a. Psychiatric history, including symptoms and their relation to substance use, current and
past diagnoses, treatments and providers
b. Infectious diseases (HIV, Hepatitis C, sexually transmitted disease)
c. Nearly all daily nicotine users are nicotine dependent. Identification and treatment of co-
morbid nicotine dependence may improve recovery rates of other SUDs. For patients
using nicotine offer and recommend tobacco use cessation treatment. Use the Clinical
Practice Guideline: Treating Tobacco Use & Dependence: 2008 Update from the U.S.
Department of Health and Human Services at
http://www.surgeongeneral.gov/tobacco/treating_tobacco_use08.pdf and the
VA/DoD Clinical Practice Guideline for Management of Tobacco Use
d. Medical COD that may be related to or affected by substance use (e.g., diabetes,
cardiovascular disease, digestive disorders, skin infections, respiratory disorders).
2. Individuals with SUD should be assessed for any significant, unmet psychosocial needs or
situational stressors. These include but are not limited to:
a. Inadequate or no housing
b. Financial difficulties, especially if unable to meet basic needs
c. Problematic family relationships or situations (including caregiver burden or domestic
violence)
d. Poor social support
e. Religious and spiritual problems
f. Occupational problems
g. Difficulties with activities of daily living or instrumental activities of daily living
h. Any other acute or chronic situational stressors.

Module C - Page 42
 VA/DoD Clinical Practice Guideline
For Management of Substance Use Disorders

DISCUSSION
Most of what is known about the number of cases of CODs was taken from convenience samples.
Those studies in mental health settings found that 20 to 50 percent of patients with lifetime co-
occurring SUD had a lifetime co-occurring mental disorder, while those in SU/SUD treatment settings
found that 50 to 75 percent of patients had such a disorder. One report found that 73 percent of
patients with drug dependence disorder in SUD treatment had a co-occurring mental disorder at some
point during their lifetime.
Of the COD cases reported in substance abuse settings a substantial proportion either had a mental
disorder of low severity or an antisocial personality disorder. In the former instance, SU/SUD
treatment has been found to be effective; in the latter instance, SU/SUD treatment is widely
acknowledged as the treatment of choice. The literature also suggests elevated rates of other forms of
mental disorders, including major depressive disorder and other mood or affective disorders, or
posttraumatic stress disorder, and indicates the diagnosis of more than one mental disorder is not
unusual.
Ongoing data regarding the incidence and prevalence of CODs are obtained from national
epidemiologic studies including the National Comorbidity Survey (NCS, funded by the NIMH), the
National Survey on Drug Use and Health (NSDUH, funded by SAMHSA), and the National
Epidemiologic Study on Alcohol and Related Conditions (NESARC, funded by the NIAAA and
NIDA). (http://ncadi.samhsa.gov/ ; www.coce.samhsa.gov)
Data also suggest that the type and severity of COD depend on the specific substance used or SUD.
High-risk CODs includes a variety of liver (e.g., hepatitis B and C) and cardiac (e.g., cardiomyopathy,
congestive heart failure, arrhythmias, valve disease) disorders. Furthermore, environmental morbidity
such as unemployment, homelessness, family dysfunction and criminality are important and should be
attended to in non-specialty care settings.
An analysis of the Millennium Cohort Study data found that combat deployment in support of the wars
in Iraq and Afghanistan was significantly associated with new-onset heavy weekly drinking, binge
drinking, and other alcohol-related problems among Reserve/Guard and younger personnel after return
from deployment (Jacobson et al., 2008).

Additional information on COD can be found in Treatment Improvement Protocol (TIP) 42, Substance
Abuse Treatment for Persons with Co-Occurring Disorders (Center for Substance Abuse
Treatment [CSAT], 2005.

E. Summarize the Patient's Problem(s), Discuss Treatment Options, and Arrive at Shared Decision
Regarding the Treatment Plan

BACKGROUND
Informed decision-making involves explaining the medical condition, outlining treatment options, and
guiding the patient to a decision about their own care. Even when patients refuse referral or are unable
to participate in specialized addiction treatment, many are accepting of general medical or psychiatric
care.

RECOMMENDATIONS
1. Recognize that feedback about laboratory assessments may improve patients’ motivation to
change and may serve as a baseline to monitor SUD treatment progress.
2. Review the assessment, including diagnosis, past treatment response and the patient’s perspective
on current problems; co-occurring disorders related to SUD; the patient’s motivational level,
treatment preferences and short- and long-term goals.

Module C - Page 43
 VA/DoD Clinical Practice Guideline
For Management of Substance Use Disorders

3. Present and discuss with the patient appropriate treatment options in a way that motivates ongoing
cooperation with the provider and supports subsequent decisions about referral or brief
intervention.
4. Present and discuss the treatment options with the patient and significant others.
5. Determine which treatments could be offered in general healthcare (including primary care), based
on availability of a provider, severity and chronicity of the SUD, active involvement with recovery
supports in the community, prior treatment response, and patient’s preference and likelihood of
adherence.
6. Involve the patient in prioritizing problems to be addressed in the initial treatment plan, and in
selecting specific treatment goals, regardless of the level of care selected (See Table C – 1).
7. If the patient is not willing to engage in any addictions focused care, provide motivational
intervention and determine whether treatment for medical and psychiatric problems can be
effectively and safely provided. Continue to try to engage the patient in addictions treatment (see
annotation K).
Table C- 1. Treatment Goals and Expected Outcomes

Treatment Goals Expected Outcomes

Patient seeking to achieve Complete and sustained remission of all substance use disorders
remission (SUDs)
Resolution of, or significant improvement in, all coexisting
biopsychosocial problems and health-related quality of life
Patient seeking help but Short- to intermediate-term remission of SUDs or partial
not committed to remission of SUDs for a specified period of time
abstinence Resolution or improvement of at least some health-related quality
of life
Patient not willing to Engagement in general health treatment process, which may
engage in treatment and continue for long periods of time or indefinitely
not yet ready to abstain Continuity of care (case management)
Continuous enhancement of motivation to change
Availability of crisis intervention
Improvement in SUDs, even if temporary or partial
Improvement in coexisting medical, psychiatric, and social
conditions
Improvement in quality of life
Reduction in the need for high-intensity healthcare services
Maintenance of progress
Reduction in the rate of illness progression

DISCUSSION
Some patients may be able to be managed effectively in non-specialty care, and will not require
referral to specialty care. Factors that are associated with the potential for good outcome in non-
specialty care include the availability of a willing provider with whom the patient has an established
relationship, lower severity and chronicity of the SUD, active involvement with recovery supports in
the community, favorable prior treatment response, and patient’s preference for non-specialty care
rather than specialty care treatment.
For DoD active duty members, a specialty referral is required for patients with presumptive or possible
substance use disorder or following any substance-related incident, and refusal requires contact with
command to discuss administrative and clinical options.

Module C - Page 44
 VA/DoD Clinical Practice Guideline
For Management of Substance Use Disorders

F. Referral to Specialty SUD Care

BACKGROUND
Referral should be offered to patients who are open to assessment or who are ready for assistance from
a specialty addictions provider or program.

RECOMMENDATIONS
1. Offer referral to specialty SUD care for addiction treatment if the patient: [A]
a. May benefit from additional evaluation or motivational interviewing regarding his/her
substance use and related problems
b. Has tried and been unable to change substance use on his/her own or does not respond to
repeated brief intervention
c. Has been diagnosed with substance dependence
d. Has previously been treated for an alcohol or other substance use disorder
e. Has an AUDIT-C score of > 8.
For active duty members, coordinate care with the unit commander.
2. DoD active duty members involved in an incident in which substance use is suspected to be a
contributing factor are required to be referred to specialty SUD care for evaluation. Command
should be contacted to discuss administrative and clinical options if the member refuses to be
evaluated (see Appendix D).

EVIDENCE TABLE

Evidence Source QE Overall SR

Quality

1 Referral to specialty care Gerstein & Harwood, 1990 I Good A

Institute of Medicine, 1990
QE = Quality of Evidence; SR = Strength of Recommendation (See Appendix A)

G. Treatment: Consider Addiction-Focused Pharmacotherapy

BACKGROUND
Currently, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has approved pharmacotherapy for patients
diagnosed with alcohol or opioid dependence. While non-pharmacologic treatment has been the
mainstay of treatment for SUD, recent scientific advances have encouraged the use of pharmacologic
treatments. Pharmacologic treatments can serve as an effective adjunct to non-pharmacologic
treatments to help patients reduce or eliminate alcohol consumption.

RECOMMENDATIONS
1. Discuss pharmacotherapy options with all patients with opioid and/or alcohol dependence.
2. Initiate pharmacotherapy if indicated and monitor adherence and treatment response.
(See Module P for specific recommendations and evidence.)

Module C - Page 45
 VA/DoD Clinical Practice Guideline
For Management of Substance Use Disorders

DISCUSSION
While non-pharmacologic treatment has been the mainstay of treatment for SUD, recent scientific
advances have encouraged the use of pharmacologic treatments. Pharmacologic treatments for
problem alcohol consumption can serve as an effective adjunct to non-pharmacologic treatments to
help patients reduce or eliminate alcohol consumption. The advance in the understanding of the
neurobiology of alcohol dependence and success of pharmacotherapy in other addictions has supported
the use of pharmacotherapy to help in the treatment of problem drinking. The lack of awareness
among clinicians that effective pharmacotherapy options exist is a primary reason for low utilization of
pharmacotherapy in clinical practice.
Current approved medications for alcohol use disorders include acamprosate, disulfiram, oral
naltrexone, and injectable naltrexone. Several other medications (e.g., topiramate) also show promise
in the treatment of alcohol use disorders. Similarly, buprenorphine has been effective at improving the
treatment of opioid dependence in office-based settings. Opioid agonist therapy (OAT) has historically
been restricted to delivery in licensed opioid agonist treatment programs (OATPs).
In 2002, sublingual buprenorphine and buprenorphine/naloxone tablets (hereafter collectively termed
buprenorphine) were approved for OAT. Buprenorphine has been shown to be a safe and effective
treatment of opioid dependence in non-specialized, outpatient, office-based settings (Fiellin et al.,
2006).

H. Treatment: Medical Management and Monitoring

BACKGROUND
The provider in general healthcare settings can and should provide evidence-based medical
management to reduce substance use. A structured, focused format can provide an initial pathway
towards recovery. Brief interventions are effective in the initial phase and may be repeated as part of
medical monitoring. For patients who do not respond to brief intervention, comprehensive medical
management and monitoring as well as opportunistic referral to specialty SUD care are the emphases
of general healthcare treatment. In some cases, medical management will lead to remission of the
SUD or referral for specialty SUD care, while in others it serves a more palliative function.

RECOMMENDATIONS
1. Provide a brief intervention (counseling) for Unhealthy Alcohol Use , which includes the
following components: [A]
a. Express concern that the patient is drinking at unhealthy levels known to increase his/her
risk of alcohol-related health problems
b. Provide feedback linking alcohol use and health, including:
• Personalized feedback (i.e., explaining how alcohol use can interact with the
patient’s medical concerns [e.g., hypertension, depression/anxiety, insomnia,
injury, diabetes, breast cancer risk, interactions with medications]) OR
• General feedback on health risks associated with drinking.
c. Advise:
• To abstain (if there are contraindications to drinking) OR
• To drink below recommended limits (specified for the patient by gender, age
and health status)
d. Support the patient in choosing a drinking goal, if he/she is ready to make a change.

Module C - Page 46
 VA/DoD Clinical Practice Guideline
For Management of Substance Use Disorders

2. Provide medical management in the treatment of alcohol use disorder and consider medical
management for other substance use disorders that includes: [C]
• Monitoring self-reported use, laboratory markers and consequences
• Use of medication, adherence monitoring, response to treatment and adverse effects
• Education and referral to community support for recovery (e.g., Alcoholics Anonymous).
3. Offer referral to a specialty addictions program when indicated.

RATIONALE
A number of modalities of psychosocial therapy have been studied and validated for treatment of
SUDs (McCaul & Petry, 2003). Referral to specialty care is an ongoing consideration for arranging
access to more extensive evidence-based psychosocial therapy interventions. In the context of the
primary care setting, delivering particular psychosocial therapies may be difficult due to time
constraints, patient population, and lack of training. Brief interventions and comprehensive medical
management and monitoring have been shown to be the most studied (and effective) interventions in
the context of non-specialty care settings (Anton et al. 2006).
Brief interventions (see discussion Module A, Annotation F).
Medical Management strategy was developed as part of the NIAAA-supported COMBINE study to
provide a basic form of clinical intervention supporting effective pharmacotherapy (Anton et al.,
2006). Medical Management is a manualized treatment designed to approximate a primary care
approach to alcohol dependence (http://pubs.niaaa.nih.gov/publications/combine/index.htm) (Pettinati
et al., 2000). The treatment, delivered by a medical professional (e.g., nurse or physician), provides
strategies to increase medication adherence and monitoring of substance use and consequences as well
as supporting abstinence through education and referral to support groups.
The initial session (40–60 minutes) involves discussion of the alcohol dependence diagnosis and
negative consequences from drinking, a recommendation to abstain, medication information, strategies
to enhance medication adherence, and referral to support groups such as Alcoholics Anonymous. In the
subsequent monitoring visits, the clinician assesses the client’s drinking, monitoring lab or physiologic
measures, assesing overall functioning, medication adherence, and any medication side effects.
Session structure varies according to the client’s drinking status and treatment compliance. When the
client does not adhere to the medication regime, the clinician evaluates the reasons and helps the client
devise plans to address the problem(s). Clinicians urge clients who drink to attend support groups and
offer common sense recommendations, such as avoiding bars. If the client suffers from medical side
effects, the clinician specifies procedures for using concomitant medication to ameliorate them or
reduces the dosage of either one or both study agents, resuming the study agents if side effects remit.
If a client discontinues medication because he or she cannot tolerate it, the clinician schedules a
monthly 15- to 25-minute “medical attention” meeting, during which the clinician employs a similar
approach that focuses on the client’s drinking and overall health, omitting the medication adherence
component.
In COMBINE, Medical Management appeared to be an excellent treatment to reduce alcohol
consumption even when the medication prescribed was placebo. Medical management can be adapted
to help treat substances other than alcohol use and alcohol use disorders, although further studies will
be required to support its effectiveness.

Module C - Page 47
 VA/DoD Clinical Practice Guideline
For Management of Substance Use Disorders

EVIDENCE TABLE

Evidence Source QE Overall SR

Quality

1 Medical monitoring and Anton , 2006 I Good C

placebo are as effective as
acamprosate or a combined
behavioral intervention for
alcohol
QE = Quality of Evidence; SR = Strength of Recommendation (See Appendix A)

I. Treatment: Psychosocial Support for Recovery

BACKGROUND
Psychosocial rehabilitation services can be an important part of the treatment of SUD when indicated.
Negative life events and stressful circumstances may contribute to the onset or relapse of a substance
use disorder. They also may influence treatment adherence and outcome.

RECOMMENDATIONS
1. Referral to psychosocial rehabilitation services should be offered to individuals with identified,
unmet psychosocial needs, regardless of the population or setting, and regardless of the type of
pharmacotherapy or psychotherapy being administered.
2. Prioritize and address other coexisting biopsychosocial problems with services targeted to these
problem areas, rather than increasing intensity of addiction-focused psychosocial treatment alone.
[B]
a. Address transitional housing needs to facilitate access to treatment and promote a
supportive recovery environment
b. Provide social/vocational/legal services in the most accessible setting to promote
engagement and coordination of care
c. Address deferred problems as part of treatment plan updates and monitor emerging needs
d. Coordinate care with other social service providers or case managers.

DISCUSSION
The Guideline for Detoxification and Substance Abuse Treatment: An Overview of the Psychosocial
and Biomedical Issues during Detoxification (SAMHSA, 2006) recommends the following:
“Patients are more likely to engage in treatment if they believe the full array of their problems
will be addressed, including those needs typically addressed by social services (e.g., housing,
vocational assistance, childcare, and transportation). Moreover, patients receiving needed
services remain in substance abuse treatment longer and improve more than people who do
not receive such services.
As the individual passes through acute intoxication and withdrawal, it is important to ensure
that the basic needs of the patient are met after discharge. These needs include access to a
safe, stable, and drug-free living environment if possible; physical safety; food and clothing;
ongoing health and prenatal care; financial assistance; and childcare.
Providers should be familiar with available resources for legal assistance, dental care, support
groups, interpreters, housing assistance, trauma treatment, recovery-sensitive parenting
groups, spiritual and cultural support, employment assistance, and other assistance programs

Module C - Page 48
 VA/DoD Clinical Practice Guideline
For Management of Substance Use Disorders

for basic needs. Family and other support systems also can be helpful to the patient in
accessing services and should take part in the services planning as often as possible, always
with the patient's consent.
To address the needs of homeless and indigent patients, providers should be familiar with
emergency shelters, cash assistance, and food programs in their communities and should have
established referral relationships. Assessing women, teenagers, older adults, and other
vulnerable individuals for victimization by another member of the household also is
important. Patients should be linked with prenatal and primary healthcare for domestic
violence. Ideally, linkage to these programs includes more than a phone number; and should
assist patients in scheduling initial appointments and arranging for transportation.”

J. Management of Medical and Psychiatric Co-occurring Conditions

BACKGROUND
In addition to the standard addiction-focused services, providers should address psychiatric and general
medical conditions that exist in association with the SUD. Treatment services directed toward these
additional problems, when they exist, are associated with improvement. Problems typically show little
spontaneous improvement if services are not provided.

RECOMMENDATIONS
1. Prioritize and address co-occurring medical and psychiatric conditions.
2. Recommend and offer cessation treatment to patients with nicotine dependence. Use the Clinical
Practice Guideline: Treating Tobacco Use & Dependence: 2008 Update from the U.S.
Department of Health and Human Services at:
http://www.surgeongeneral.gov/tobacco/treating_tobacco_use08.pdf and the VA/DoD Clinical
Practice Guideline for Management of Tobacco Use.
3. Treat concurrent psychiatric disorders consistent with VA/DoD clinical practice guidelines (e.g.,
Major Depressive Disorder, Post Traumatic Stress, Bipolar Disorder, Psychoses) including
concurrent pharmacotherapy.
4. Provide multiple services in the most accessible setting to promote engagement and coordination
of care.
5. Monitor and address deferred problems and emerging needs through ongoing treatment plan
updates.
6. Coordinate care with other providers.

DISCUSSION
A comprehensive medical approach to medical care that addresses all of the patient’s co-occurring
disorders (CODs) is important. Patients benefit from a focused summary of their current SUD and the
effect that it has on their overall health as well as the effect it has on those around them. Collaboration,
service and system integration, when available, can assist in managing a patient with SUD and CODs.
Disease-specific treatment has been shown to be efficacious for patients diagnosed with SUD or other
psychiatric disorders alone. While there have been a number of theories about how to treat COD
among patients with SUD, there has been little data to support the best approach. In the simplest
sense, existing efficacious treatment that successfully reduces psychiatric symptoms in patients with
such symptoms alone should also reduce psychiatric symptoms in patients with both psychiatric CODs
and SUD. A review of 59 studies (36 RCTs evaluating treatment of dual diagnosis) concluded that
although no treatment was identified as efficacious for both psychiatric disorders and substance-related
disorder, the author found: (1) existing efficacious treatments for reducing psychiatric symptoms also

Module C - Page 49
 VA/DoD Clinical Practice Guideline
For Management of Substance Use Disorders

tend to work in dual-diagnosis patients, (2) existing efficacious treatments for reducing substance use
also decrease substance use in dually diagnosed patients, and (3) the efficacy of integrated treatment is
still unclear (Tiet & Mausbach, 2007).
This is likely also true for medical CODs among SUD patients. There is scant literature on COD
treatment among patients with SUD. One meta-analysis on the use of medications to reduce
depressive symptoms in individuals with SUD concluded that antidepressants are effective for
reducing depressive symptoms among these patients, although the effect of these medications on the
substance use was limited. The existing literature regarding treatments for patients with SUDs with a
COD of major depression or bipolar disorders seems to support that medication, psychosocial, and
self-help treatments are available and show some evidence of effectiveness, but suggest that more
evidence is needed to demonstrate efficacious treatment effects for patients with CODs.
A growing body of research demonstrates that integrated services produce better outcomes for
individuals with CODs, particularly those with more serious or complex conditions. Integrated service
is any process by which mental, medical health, and SUD services are integrated or combined at either
the level of direct contact with the patients with COD or between providers or programs serving COD
patients. Providers in non-specialty care settings should communicate regularly and integrate their
care with specialty addiction care services when possible. For patients who are managed entirely
within non-specialty care settings, comprehensive COD and SUD care should be attempted. Often for
a primary care provider who is managing SUD, discussions with and/or referrals to behavioral
healthcare can be an important intervention for a patient with SUD. Likewise a behavioral health
specialist may find that collaborating with the primary care provider on the management of the medical
conditions of the patient may optimize the behavioral health provider’s attention to SUD care.
Motivation for SUD treatment can be increased when attention is paid to CODs.
Coordinated, collaborative overview of treatment options and processes to arrive at a plan of treatment
should occur with every patient with SUD and a COD. Unmanaged co-morbidities have a
demonstrated adverse effect on recovery from SUD. The non-specialty care setting is well suited for
coordinating and delegating the management of SUD, a COD, or both.
Substance use disorders often follow a chronic, relapsing course, making individualized treatment
more complicated (McLellan et al., 1996; O’Brien & McLellan, 1996). Treatment has not yet been
well-conceptualized for many patients who either have responded with minimal improvement to
repeated rehabilitative treatments or are unable or unwilling to engage in rehabilitation efforts, but who
desire other services. Even when patients are unable and/or unwilling to participate in rehabilitation or
show minimal benefit, there are opportunities to address SUD in other care settings.
Care management approaches for SUD are similar to management of other severe and persistent
disorders for which no cure has been identified, such as bipolar disorder or diabetes mellitus (McLellan
et al., 2000). Recent evidence suggests that approaches emphasizing engagement with the patient over
long periods of time, case management, and integration of substance abuse treatment interventions
with treatment for the coexisting conditions result in reduced substance use and associated
complications (Drake & Mueser, 2000; Osher & Drake, 1996; U.S. DHHS, 1994; Willenbring et al.,
1995; Willenbring et al., 1999). In the absence of serious co-morbidity or with appropriate specialist
consultation, care management can be provided within some addiction treatment clinics.
Even when patients refuse referral or are unable to participate in specialized addiction treatment, many
are accepting of general medical or psychiatric care. Clinicians in multiple settings can deliver care
management for patients with SUDs. The chronic illness approach is consistent with management
approaches for many other disorders treated in medical and psychiatric settings (Drake & Mueser,
2000; McLellan et al., 2000; Willenbring et al., 1999).

Module C - Page 50
 VA/DoD Clinical Practice Guideline
For Management of Substance Use Disorders

EVIDENCE TABLE

Evidence Source QE Overall SR

Quality

1 Consider care management for Willenbring et al., 1995 I Good A

patients with SUD who are Willenbring et al., 1999
medially ill
Consider care management for Drake & Mueser, 2000 II-1 Fair B
combined serious psychiatric Osher & Drake, 1996
2 disorders and SUD, where U.S. DHHS, 1994
participation in rehabilitation
programs is precluded
Match patient’s motivational American Society of III Fair C
3 level and needs with available Addiction Medicine (ASAM),
programming 2001
QE = Quality of Evidence; SR = Strength of Recommendation (See Appendix A)

K. Assess Response to Treatment / Monitor Biological Indicators

BACKGROUND
Periodic monitoring of progress toward treatment goals helps to coordinate care and to motivate the
patient and members of the treatment team to accomplish interim steps. Periodic reassessments also
provide opportunities to address emerging problems and change treatment strategies when the initial
plan is not fully successful.
There is no uniformly successful treatment plan. Some patients may respond to psychosocial
interventions, others to pharmacotherapy. Some patients may respond to one medication and not to
another. The provider should be flexible in modifying the medical regimen based on the patient’s
needs or preferences.

RECOMMENDATIONS
1. Reassess response to treatment periodically and systematically, using standardized and valid
instrument(s) whenever possible. Indicators of treatment response include ongoing substance use,
craving, side effects of medication, emerging symptoms, etc.
2. Consider obtaining biological markers of recent substance use.
3. Assess co-occurring medical problems associated with substance use through history, physical
exam and appropriate laboratory evaluation.

DISCUSSION
Reassessments must occur at predictable intervals to enable both the decision about conservation of
resources and the acknowledgment that the SUD require assiduous attention. Periodic intervals may
include: after specialty care, after special studies, at agreed-upon milestones, and whenever the patient
or a collaborator report a deteriorating course.
The assessment in a medical setting involves at least two components: biomarkers and patient reports.
Biomarkers are objective evidence that an individual may be using drugs. These markers can be as
simple as a urine drug screen or physical indications of potential harm associated with use (e.g., liver
function abnormalities). Patient reports are based on questionnaires designed to get a "big picture" of
the patient's substance use and to identify potential "red flags" that require particular physician
attention. In the DoD setting, the Substance Use Report (SUR) measures the subject’s report of days

Module C - Page 51
 VA/DoD Clinical Practice Guideline
For Management of Substance Use Disorders

of recent drug use and routes of administration. The use of methamphetamines, cocaine, alcohol,
marijuana, opioids, benzodiazepines, barbiturates, and nicotine (cigarette smoking) are recorded on
this form at each clinic visit.

L. Follow-Up

ACTION STATEMENT
For many patients, substance use disorders are chronic conditions that warrant extended efforts at
relapse prevention and encouragement by multiple providers for progress.

RECOMMENDATIONS
1. Ask the patient about any use, craving, or perceived relapse risk.
2. Provide feedback to patient regarding improvement or deterioration in laboratory assessments
affiliated with substance use.
3. Encourage abstinence or reduced use, consistent with the patient’s motivation and agreement.
4. Convey openness to discuss any future concerns that may arise and encourage the patient to
discuss them with you.

M. Educate About Substance Use, Associated Problems, and Prevention of Relapse

BACKGROUND
Expert opinion supports optimistic, empathetic interventions that note the importance of the changes
patients have made to their health, provide positive feedback and encourage continued drinking below
recommended limits.

RECOMMENDATIONS
1. Discuss the patient’s current use of alcohol and other drugs and address any potential problem
areas, such as recent initiation of use, increase in use, and use to cope with stress.
2. Inform patient about potential age- and gender-related problems, such as:
a. Abusive drinking or other drug use in the young adult
b. Alcohol and other drug use during pregnancy
c. Medication misuse or heavy drinking in the older adult.
3. Convey openness to discuss any future concerns that may arise and encourage the patient to
discuss them with you.
4. Periodically inquire about alcohol and drug use at future visits.

N. Reevaluate Treatment Plan Regarding Setting and Strategies

BACKGROUND
Patients’ goals may change over time, and providers should adapt to new objectives that the patient
may express. Partial remission may be common and requires an ongoing reevaluation of the treatment
plan rather than evidence that the patient cannot succeed or that the patient was not sufficiently

Module C - Page 52
 VA/DoD Clinical Practice Guideline
For Management of Substance Use Disorders

motivated. Even after examining the reasons for partial remission and intensifying or modifying
psychosocial treatment or pharmacotherapy, some patients may not reduce alcohol consumption.
Treatment of chronic relapsing patients is difficult. For those willing to accept referral, treatment
should be undertaken by addiction professionals in specialty treatment settings that employ a multi-
faceted approach incorporating social, environmental, medical, behavioral, and motivational
interventions.

RECOMMENDATIONS
1. For patients who are not improving a consideration should be given to either:
a. Changing to another medication or intervention; or
b. Changing treatment intensity by:
• Increasing the intensity of care, or
• Increasing the dose of the medication, or
• Adding a medication.
2. For patients who do not stabilize and refuse to engage in any type of ongoing care with any
provider (e.g., medical, psychiatric, or addiction specialty) episodic attention to substance use may
be accomplished by the following:
a. Provide crisis intervention, as needed
b. At any contact initiated by the patient:
• Assess current substance use
• Recommend that the patient accept ongoing care in the most appropriate setting
• Designate a single provider to coordinate care for patients who repeatedly
present in crisis
• Consider involving supportive family members or significant others, if the
patient agrees. For DoD active duty members this may include first line
supervisor when appropriate, and will necessarily include the unit commander
• Initiate involuntary treatment procedures, if imminent threat to safety occurs
(e.g., suicidal, violent, or unable to care for self).
c. Continue to reinforce and endorse increased appropriate engagement and adherence.
3. Consider consultation with mental health or SUD specialty.

DISCUSSION
Indications to change treatment intensity or provide adjunctive treatments may include:
• Relapse based on self-report or urine toxicology
• Increased risk of relapse (e.g., craving or personal loss)
• Emergence or exacerbation of co-occurring medical and psychiatric conditions
• Suboptimal response to current treatment
• Emergence of medication side effects
• Subsequent substance-related misconduct.
Discuss relapse as a signal to reevaluate the treatment plan rather than evidence that the patient cannot
succeed or was not sufficiently motivated (Miller & Rollnick, 1991).

Module C - Page 53
 VA/DoD Clinical Practice Guideline
For Management of Substance Use Disorders

Module P - Page 54
 VA/DoD Clinical Practice Guideline
For Management of Substance Use Disorders

MODULE P: ADDICTION-FOCUSED PHARMACOTHERAPY

A. Patient with Substance Use Disorder (SUD)

BACKGROUND
Patients managed within this module meet the criteria for DSM-IV-TR substance abuse or dependence
and are considered for addiction-focused pharmacotherapy.

B. Does the Patient Meet DSM-IV Criteria for Opioid Dependence?

BACKGROUND
Addiction focused pharmacotherapy is often indicated for patients who meet DSM-IV-TR opioid
dependence criteria. The American Academy of Pain Medicine, the American Pain Society, and the
American Society of Addiction Medicine issued a consensus statement that distinguished addiction
from physical dependence. References to opioid dependence elsewhere in this module are based on
the diagnostic condition reflecting addiction rather than physical dependence alone.
See Introduction: Definitions (page 6)

RECOMMENDATIONS
1. Assess opioid dependence using DSM-IV-TR criteria.
.
PHARMACOTHERAPY FOR OPIOID DEPENDENCE

C. Is Opioid Agonist Treatment (OAT) Medication Appropriate for, and Acceptable to, the Patient?

BACKGROUND
Opioid agonist treatment (OAT) is the first line treatment for chronic opioid dependence that meets
DSM-IV-TR criteria. For DoD active duty members, OAT is generally not a treatment option.

RECOMMENDATIONS
1. Provide access to opioid agonist treatment (OAT) for all opioid dependent patients, under
appropriate medical supervision and with concurrent addiction-focused psychosocial treatment as
indicated. [A]
2. Strongly recommend methadone or sublingual buprenorphine/naloxone maintenance as first line
treatments due to their documented efficacy in improving retention and reducing illicit opioid use
and craving. [A]
3. Note: In pregnancy, buprenorphine monotherapy is preferred.
See Table P-1 for indications, contraindications, side effects, and drug interactions of methadone and
sublingual buprenorphine/naloxone.
Refer to Appendix C: Addiction-Focused Psychosocial Treatment
.

Module P - Page 55
 VA/DoD Clinical Practice Guideline
For Management of Substance Use Disorders

DISCUSSION
Opioid dependence is a cluster of cognitive, behavioral, and physiological symptoms characterized by
repeated self-administration and usually results in opioid tolerance, withdrawal symptoms, and
compulsive drug taking, despite negative consequences. While federal regulatory language uses the
term “opiate addiction,” the diagnostic term opioid dependence will be used here for consistency with
the rest of the guideline. Dependence may occur with or without the physiological symptoms of
tolerance and withdrawal. OAT for opioid dependence consists of administering an opioid agonist
medication, such as methadone or sublingual buprenorphine, in combination with a comprehensive
range of medical, counseling, and rehabilitative services. By administering an opioid to prevent
withdrawal, reduce craving, and reduce the effects of illicit opioids, the opioid dependent patient is
able to focus more readily on recovery activities. In addition, OAT has been associated with a
reduction in human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) risk behavior, and drug-related criminal behavior
When compared to medically supervised withdrawal attempts, OAT is more successful in achieving
the long-term goal of reducing opioid use and the associated negative medical, legal, and social
consequences.
Two systematic reviews examined the efficacy of buprenorphine versus methadone for opioid
maintenance therapy. Mattick et al. (2003) concluded that buprenorphine can reduce heroin use but is
not as effective as methadone. Buprenorphine given in flexible doses was less effective than
methadone in retaining patients in treatment (6 RCTs, N=837, RR=0.82; 95%CI: 0.69-0.96). There
was no advantage for high dose buprenorphine over high dose methadone in retention (5 RCTs,
N=449, RR=0.79; 95%CI: 0.62-1.01). Farre et al. (2002) found that low doses of buprenorphine were
not as effective as high doses of methadone for risk of illicit drug use (OR 3.39, 95%CI, 1.87-6.16).
Since the publication of the above systematic reviews, RCTs of buprenorphine versus methadone have
suggested that methadone was more effective at reducing opioid consumption (Fischer et al., 2006;
Neri et al., 2005). One trial suggested that methadone may also be superior to buprenorphine for
maintenance of patients with co-occurring cocaine dependence (Schottenfeld et al., 2005). When
reported, retention rates in these trials ranged from 59 to 93 percent, and relapse rates from 16 to 28
percent.
Table P- 1. Agonist Therapy for Opioid Dependence
Methadone Buprenorphine / Naloxone or Buprenorphine
Indications Opioid dependence (DSM diagnosis) and Opioid dependence (DSM diagnosis) plus one or
patient meets Federal Opioid Treatment more of the following:
Standards (42 CFR 8.12) 1 New patients not currently receiving OAT
AND who meet at least one of the following
3 criteria:
a. Do not have timely access to a VA-
supported OAT center.
b. Do not meet regulatory criteria for
treatment in an OAT program.
(http://www.dpt.samhsa.gov/)
c. Will have difficulty adhering to
scheduled visits at a VA supported
OAT program (e.g., because of
restrictive clinic hours).
2 Appropriately selected patients on stable
methadone maintenance who have difficulty
adhering to scheduled visits at a VA-
supported OAT center or may not need
close supervision.
3 Patients who have a documented severe,
uncontrollable adverse effect or true
hypersensitivity to methadone.
Contraindications Hypersensitivity Hypersensitivity

Module P - Page 56
 VA/DoD Clinical Practice Guideline
For Management of Substance Use Disorders

Warnings / Concurrent enrollment in another OTP Buprenorphine/naloxone may precipitate

Precautions withdrawal in patients on full agonist opioids
Significant liver failure
Concurrent benzodiazepines or other CNS
Use of opioid antagonists (e.g., naloxone,
depressants, including active alcohol abuse
nalmefene, or naltrexone)
/dependence (potential respiratory depression)
Concurrent benzodiazepines or other CNS
Use caution in patients with respiratory, liver, or
depressants (potential respiratory
depression) renal impairment

Cardiac arrhythmias with prolonged QTc Use of opioid antagonists (e.g., naloxone,
nalmefene, or naltrexone)
interval

Baseline evaluation Consider baseline ECG and physical Liver transaminases

examination for patients at risk for QT
prolongation or arrhythmias

Dosage and Initial dose: 15–20 mg single dose, max. Induction dose: 2–8 mg sublingually once daily
Administration 30 mg. Day 2 and onward: Increase dose by 2–4 mg/d;
Daily dose: Max. 40 mg/d on first day. target dose in first week, 12–16 mg/d.
Usual dosage range for optimal effects:
Stabilization / Maintenance: Titrate by 2–4 mg
60–120 mg/d. per week; usual dose 12–16 mg/d (up to
Titrate carefully, consider methadone’s 32 mg/d)
delayed cumulative effects Individualize dosing regimens
Give orally in single dose
Individualize dosing regimens (AVOID
same fixed dose for all patients)

Alternative Dosing Give in divided daily doses based on peak Give equivalent weekly maintenance dose
Regimens and low levels that document a divided over extended dosing intervals (2 or 3
metabolic rate that justifies divided times a week or every 2, 3, or 4 days)
doses

Dosing in Special Renal or Hepatic Impairment: Reduce Hepatic Impairment: Reduce dose
Populations dose
Elderly or Debilitated: Reduce dose

Adverse Effects Major: respiratory depression, shock, Major: hepatitis, hepatic failure, respiratory
cardiac arrest, possible prolongation of depression (usually when misused
QTc interval on ECG and torsades de intravenously with other CNS depressants)
pointes ventricular tachycardia Common: headache, pain, abdominal pain,
Common: lightheadedness, dizziness, insomnia, nausea, vomiting, sweating,
sedation, nausea, vomiting, sweating, constipation
constipation, edema
Less common: sexual dysfunction

Drug Interactions Drugs that reduce serum methadone levels: Drugs that reduce serum buprenorphine level:
ascorbic acid, barbiturates, ascorbic acid, barbiturates, carbamazepine,
carbamazepine, ethanol (chronic use), ethanol (chronic use), interferon, phenytoin,
interferon, phenytoin, rifampin, rifampin, efavirenz, nevirapine, other
efavirenz, nevirapine, other antiretrovirals with CYP3A4 activity
antiretrovirals with CYP3A4 activity Drugs that increase serum buprenorphine level:
Drugs that increase serum methadone amitriptyline, atazanavir,
level: amitriptyline, atazanavir, atazanavir / ritonavir, cimetidine, delavirdine,
atazanavir / ritonavir, cimetidine, diazepam, fluconazole, fluvoxamine,
delavirdine, diazepam, fluconazole, ketoconazole, voriconazole
fluvoxamine, ketoconazole, Opioid agonist: buprenorphine/naloxone or
voriconazole
buprenorphine may precipitate withdrawal
Opioid antagonists may precipitate Opioid antagonists may precipitate withdrawal

Module P - Page 57
 VA/DoD Clinical Practice Guideline
For Management of Substance Use Disorders

withdrawal

Patient Education Strongly advise patient against self- Strongly advise patient against self-medicating
medicating with CNS depressants with CNS depressants during buprenorphine
during methadone therapy therapy
Serious overdose and death may occur if Serious overdose and death may occur if
benzodiazepines, sedatives, benzodiazepines, sedatives, tranquilizers,
tranquilizers, antidepressants, or alcohol antidepressants, or alcohol are taken with
are taken with methadone buprenorphine
Store in a secure place out of the reach of Store in a secure place out of the reach of
children children

EVIDENCE TABLE
Evidence Source QE Overall Net SR
Quality Effect
1 Methadone and buprenorphine Farre et al., 2002 I Good Subst A
are efficacious in decreasing Fischer et al., 2006
opioid use. Johnson et al., 2000
Lintzeris et al., 2004
Marsch, 1998
Mattick et al., 2003
Neri et al., 2005
Schottenfeld et al., 2005
Strain et al., 1993a, 1993b
2 Methadone may be slightly Farre et al.,, 2002 I Good Subst A
more efficacious than Fischer et al., 2006
buprenorphine in decreasing Mattick et al., 2003
opioid use, particularly in Neri et al., 2005
patients with co-occurring Schottenfeld et al., 2005
cocaine dependence.
3 Methadone may be slightly Mattick et al., 2003 I Good Subst A
more efficacious than
buprenorphine in retaining
patients in treatment.
QE = Quality of Evidence; Net effect = Significance of the intervention benefit; SR = Strength of Recommendation
(See Appendix A)

D. Is Treatment in a Specialized Opioid Agonist Treatment Program (OATP) Setting Appropriate for
the Patient?

BACKGROUND
In general, patients requiring greater structure and intensity of comprehensive treatment services
including mental health, medical, and social services, may be better served in an Opioid Agonist
Treatment Program (OATP). Provision of care at OATPs is highly regulated, with provider and
patient-level requirements including limited take home medications provided, mandated laboratory
studies and clinical assessments, appropriate psychosocial intervention, and formal agreements for the
provision of OAT. In office-based opioid treatment (OBOT) for medical maintenance by credentialed
physicians, patients usually receive less intensive services (e.g., less psychosocial services needed to
prevent relapse) either within an addiction specialty care program or in a setting similar to treatment of
other medical conditions.
Deciding on whether a patient requires opioid agonist treatment in a specialized OATP depends on
matching treatment resources to each individual patient’s needs.

Module P - Page 58
 VA/DoD Clinical Practice Guideline
For Management of Substance Use Disorders

RECOMMENDATIONS
1. Individualize the choice of setting based on patient characteristics and availability of facilities to
treat patients with opioid agonist therapy (OAT). See Table P-2.
2. Appropriate psychosocial interventions should be provided as part of the opioid agonist therapy
(OAT). [A]

DISCUSSION
Opioid agonist therapy (OAT) can be delivered through opioid agonist treatment program (OATP) or
through office-based treatment (OBOT). OATPs are structured, licensed facilities that are not
available to each VHA facility. However, OATPs, or “methadone facilities,” may be located in
proximity to a VHA or near the veterans domicile. Most OATPs provide both medically supervised
withdrawal and rehabilitation services. Most OATPs provide comprehensive services including
individual therapy, group therapy, and family counseling. OATPs can provide OAT in the form of
methadone and buprenorphine. Most OATPs are providing predominantly methadone. Provision of
care at OATPs is highly regulated, with provider and patient-level requirements including limited take
home medications provided, mandated laboratories and assessments, appropriate psychosocial
intervention, and formal agreements for the provision of OAT.
OBOT for opioid dependence can only be provided by credentialed physicians. Buprenorphine is the
only medication approved for OBOT. Minimum resources necessary to provide OBOT using
buprenorphine include history and physical exam, availability to obtain laboratories including urine
drug testing, and access to additional counseling and treatment services. OBOT using buprenorphine
can be provided in residential and outpatient arrangements and any environment not directly associated
with OATP. If providing buprenorphine within the confines of an OATP, all OATP
requirements/regulations must be met.
Fiellin et al. (2006) randomized subjects to one of 3 conditions: 1) one 45 minute counseling session
per week plus thrice weekly buprenorphine dispensing; 2) one 20 minute counseling session per week
plus thrice weekly buprenorphine dispensing; 3) one 20 minute counseling session per week plus once
weekly buprenorphine dispensing. Outcomes (illicit opioid use and treatment retention) did not differ
by condition. Thus, a more intensive amount of psychosocial treatment was not better than a modest
amount of psychosocial treatment.
Peer reviewed evidence evaluating system-, provider-, or patient-level factors that would assist the
provider in determining whether a patient is most appropriate for OATP or OBOT care is currently not
available, but several principles apply. If the facility has access to an OATP, and the patient is willing
to accept OAT care through the OATP, patients should be directed to explore OATP care. If the
facility does not have access to an OATP, OBOT care should be available. Patient level factors that
would steer a provider to recommend an OATP over OBOT are the following: pregnancy (high level
evidence), severe opioid dependence (high-mod evidence), co-existing pain syndromes requiring
opioids (high level of evidence), and social/environmental instability (low level of evidence).
Currently, the “gold standard” treatment of a pregnant opioid dependent patient is OATP care using
methadone. This care has significant history, is well known to most providers, and has much evidence
for efficacy for the mother, fetus and newborn. Patients who use significant amounts of opioids and
who have a high level of physical dependence and tolerance may be better treated with methadone
through an OATP (moderate level of evidence). Patients who have co-occurring pain syndromes,
requiring OAT and opioids for pain control should be treated within an OATP as concurrent use of
opioid medications for pain and buprenorphine presents management challenges and may be
ineffective. Social and environmental factors (e.g., homelessness, marital discord, dangerous living
environments) may prompt a provider to suggest OATP over OBOT care as OATP care generally has
more access to wrap around services that may assist in the patient recovery (e.g., vocational training,
housing assistance, family counseling). Recent evidence suggests that OBOT can be provided with
success to the homeless and patients with social/environmental stressors, but OATP care is likely the
preferred choice.

Module P - Page 59
 VA/DoD Clinical Practice Guideline
For Management of Substance Use Disorders

A systematic review (Amato et al., 2004) concluded that adding any psychosocial support to standard
methadone maintenance therapy reduced the use of heroin during treatment. Based on eight studies
(N=510) the relative risk for retention in treatment was 0.94 (95%CI 0.85 to 1.02), and based on three
studies (N=250) the relative risk for abstinence at the end of follow-up was 0.90 (95%CI 0.76 to 1.07).
While these findings showed a trend towards improved outcomes by adding any psychosocial support,
they did not reach statistical significance.
Scherbaum et al. (2005) compared methadone plus psychosocial intervention (cognitive behavioral
training [CBT]) versus methadone alone. This RCT found a significant difference in drug use between
methadone plus CBT versus methadone alone. Retention rates were 63 percent and 59 percent, and
abstinence rates or percentage of negative urine were 29 percent and 52 percent respectively.
Patients who have difficulty accessing an OATP (e.g., large geographical distances, lack of
transportation) may be better treated in OBOT using buprenorphine. Recent evidence suggests that use
of buprenorphine may be preferable to methadone due to drug-drug interactions of medications taken
for co-occurring conditions (e.g., anti-retroviral medications for HIV). OBOT care using
buprenorphine may also be preferred over OATP care for patients with opioid dependence, but with
intermittent use of opioids and who do not have a significant amount of physical dependence and
tolerance of opioids.
Table P- 2. Patient Suitability for Office-Based Opioid Treatment versus Opioid Treatment Program*

Criteria Office-Based Opioid Opioid Agonist Treatment

Treatment (OBOT) Program (OATP)
Can an office-based setting provide needed
Yes No
resources for the patient
Patint’s psychosocial supports Good Poor
Level of opioid dependence Mild to Moderate High
Unstable (e.g., chronically
Co-occurring psychiatric disorders Stable
suicidal)
Co-occurring medical disorders Stable Unstable
Dependence on CNS depressants (e.g. alcohol,
No Yes
benzodiazepines)
Pregnancy No Yes
Previous failed treatment attempts, especially with
None/Few Many
opioid agonists
Response to sublingual buprenorphine in the past Good Poor
Expected to be reasonably compliant in treatment Yes No
* A considerable amount of medical decision-making is required to determine the best setting for each individual
patient. If the setting chosen initially is not appropriate, the patient can be switched to the alternative setting with
appropriate monitoring.

Module P - Page 60
 VA/DoD Clinical Practice Guideline
For Management of Substance Use Disorders

EVIDENCE TABLE

Evidence Source QE Overall Net SR

Quality Effect
1 Insufficient data to Working Group Consensus III Poor NR I
determine if one setting of
care is better (OBOT vs.
OATP).
2 Methadone with Amato et al., 2004 I Good Subst A
counseling is better than McLellan et al., 1993
methadone alone. Scherbaum et al., 2005
QE = Quality of Evidence; NR= Not Relevant; SR = Strength of Recommendation (See Appendix A)

E. Initiate Opioid Agonist Treatment in an Opioid Agonist Treatment Program (OATP) or Office-
Based Opioid Treatment (OBOT)

RECOMMENDATIONS
Opioid Agonist Treatment Program (OATP) and office-based opioid treatment (OBOT) must be
provided in the context of a complete treatment program that includes:
a. Appropriate adjustment of opioid agonist doses to maintain a therapeutic range between
signs/symptoms of overmedication (e.g., somnolence, miosis, itching, hypotension, and
flushing) and opioid withdrawal (e.g., drug craving, anxiety, dysphoria, and irritability)
• Usual dosage range for optimal effects: 60–120 mg/day [A]
• Buprenorphine target dose is generally up to 16mg daily; doses above 32mg are
rarely indicated. In all cases, except pregnancy, the combination product of
buprenorphine/naloxone should be used.
b. Relapse monitoring to promote effective outcomes
c. Adequate frequency of toxicology for alcohol and other drugs of abuse. Drug testing for
both methadone and buprenorphine should also be considered to ensure compliance with
the prescription and for detection of possible diversion
d. Appropriate psychosocial interventions. [A]

DISCUSSION

Methadone Therapy
• Methadone for the treatment of opioid dependence may only be prescribed out of an
accredited OATP as it is a schedule II agent. It is illegal to prescribe methadone for the
treatment of opioid dependence out of an office-based practice.
• For newly admitted patients, the initial dose of methadone should not exceed 30 mg and the
total dose for the first day should not exceed 40 mg, without provider documentation that 40
mg did not suppress opioid withdrawal symptoms.
• Under usual practices, a stable, target dose is greater than 60 mg/day and most patients will
require considerably higher doses in order to achieve a pharmacological blockade of
reinforcing effects of exogenously administered opioids.

Module P - Page 61
 VA/DoD Clinical Practice Guideline
For Management of Substance Use Disorders

Buprenorphine Therapy
• Office-based treatment with sublingual buprenorphine for opioid dependence can only be
provided by physicians who have received a waiver from the SAMHSA and have a special
DEA number. “To qualify for a waiver under DATA 2000, a licensed physician (MD or DO)
must meet any one or more of the following criteria:
o The physician holds a subspecialty board certification in addiction psychiatry from
the American Board of Medical Specialties.
o The physician holds an addiction certification from the American Society of
Addiction Medicine.
o The physician holds a subspecialty board certification in addiction medicine from the
American Osteopathic Association.
o The physician has, with respect to the treatment and management of opioid-addicted
patients, completed not less than eight hours of training (through classroom
situations, seminars at professional society meetings, electronic communications, or
otherwise) that is provided by the American Society of Addiction Medicine, the
American Academy of Addiction Psychiatry, the American Medical Association, the
American Osteopathic Association, the American Psychiatric Association, or any
other organization that the Secretary (of Health and Human Services) determines is
appropriate for purposes of this subclause.
o The physician has participated as an investigator in one or more clinical trials leading
to the approval of a narcotic drug in schedule III, IV, or V for maintenance or
medically supervised withdrawal treatment, as demonstrated by a statement
submitted to the Secretary by the sponsor of such approved drug.
o The physician has such other training or experience as the State medical licensing
board (of the State in which the physician will provide maintenance or medically
supervised withdrawal treatment) considers to demonstrate the ability of the
physician to treat and manage opioid-addicted patients.
o The physician has such other training or experience as the Secretary considers to
demonstrate the ability of the physician to treat and manage opioid-addicted patients.
Any criteria of the Secretary under this subclause shall be established by regulation.
Any such criteria are effective only for 3 years after the date on which the criteria are
promulgated, but may be extended for such additional discrete 3-year periods as the
Secretary considers appropriate for purposes of this subclause. Such an extension of
criteria may only be put into effect through a statement published in the Federal
Register by the Secretary during the 30-day period preceding the end of the 3-year
period involved.”
Source: www.buprenorphine.samhsa.gov/waiver_qualifications.html
• For the first year a physician has her or his waiver, the physician may dispense or prescribe
buprenorphine for up to 30 patients at a time under the provisions of the Drug Addiction
Treatment Act of 2000 (DATA). After the first year the qualified physician can apply to
SAMHSA to raise her or his treatment limit to 100.

Buprenorphine Treatment Protocol

• Buprenorphine induction (usual duration approximately 1 week), the first phase of treatment,
involves helping a patient in the process of switching from the opioids of abuse to
buprenorphine. The goal of the induction phase is to find the minimum dose of
buprenorphine at which the patient discontinues or markedly diminishes use of other opioids
and experiences no withdrawal symptoms, minimal or no side effects, and no uncontrollable
cravings for other opioids.

Module P - Page 62
 VA/DoD Clinical Practice Guideline
For Management of Substance Use Disorders

• Before the initial buprenorphine induction dose is administered to a patient dependent on

short-acting opioids, a minimum of 12 to 24 hours should have elapsed since the last use of
opioids. The patient should be exhibiting mild to moderate opioid withdrawal (e.g., sweating,
yawning, rhinorrhea, and lacrimation).
• In all cases, except pregnancy, the combination product of buprenorphine/naloxone should be
used. The initial dose of buprenorphine/naloxone combination is between 2/0.5 mg and 4/1
mg. If opioid withdrawal symptoms subside but then return (or are still present) after 2 hours,
a second dose of 4/1 mg can be administered. The total amount of buprenorphine
administered in the first day generally should not exceed 8 mg.
• Patients entering induction onto buprenorphine from long-acting opioids (e.g., methadone)
should be instructed to hold opioid use for 24 to 48 hours and should present in mild to
moderate opioid withdrawal. The first dose of buprenorphine/naloxone should be 2/0.5 mg.
If a patient develops signs or symptoms of withdrawal after the first dose, a second dose of
2/0.5 mg should be administered and repeated, if necessary, to a maximum of 8 mg
buprenorphine on Day 1.
• Patients who are not physically dependent on opioids should receive the lowest possible dose
(2/0.5 mg) of buprenorphine/naloxone for induction treatment.
• For patients who do not experience any difficulties with the first day of buprenorphine dosing,
and who are not experiencing withdrawal symptoms on Day 2, the daily
buprenorphine/naloxone dose is established as equivalent to the total amount of
buprenorphine/naloxone (or buprenorphine) that was administered on Day 1. Doses may be
subsequently increased in 2/0.5 to 4/1 mg increments each day, if needed for symptomatic
relief, with a target dose of 12/3 to 16/4 mg per day to be achieved within the first week.

EVIDENCE TABLE

Evidence Source QE Overall Net SR

Quality Effect
1 Methadone target dose is Preston et al., 2000 I Good Subst A
typically > 60 mg/day. Strain et al., 1999
2 Buprenorphine target dose is Ling et al., 1998 III Poor - I
generally up to 16 mg daily. Working Group Consensus
Doses above 32 mg are
rarely indicated.
QE = Quality of Evidence; SR = Strength of Recommendation (See Appendix A)

F. Is Naltrexone Appropriate for and Acceptable to the Patient?

BACKGROUND
Naltrexone is an FDA approved alternative to opioid agonist treatment for patients with opioid
dependence who are highly motivated and have psychosocial support for treatment and medication
adherence. However, the number of individuals maintained on naltrexone continues to be low and its
usefulness in the treatment of opioid dependency has been limited. It has no opioid agonist effects.
Patients may continue to experience cravings and may thereby not be motivated to maintain adherence
to the medication regimen. Patients addicted to opioids must be fully withdrawn for up to 7-10 days
from all opioids before beginning naltrexone treatment. Unfortunately, during this period, many
patients relapse to use of opioids and are unable to start on naltrexone.

Module P - Page 63
 VA/DoD Clinical Practice Guideline
For Management of Substance Use Disorders

RECOMMENDATIONS
1. Consider monitored administration of naltrexone maintenance in highly motivated opioid
dependent patients. [C] See Table P-3.
2. Consider opioid agonist treatment (OAT) or long-term therapeutic community before naltrexone
as first line approaches for chronic opioid dependent patients.

Table P- 3. Pharmacotherapy with Naltrexone for Opioid Dependence

Indications Opioid dependence with ability to achieve at least 7-10 days of abstinence to
prevent precipitated withdrawal with first dose
Engagement in comprehensive management program that includes measures to
ensure medication adherence
Note: Most effective when the patient is engaged in addiction-focused counseling
with monitored administration
Contraindications Acute hepatitis or liver failure
Hypersensitivity to naltrexone or product components
Current physiological dependence on opioids with use within past 7 days
Ongoing acute opioid withdrawal or failed naloxone challenge test
Receiving opioid agonists
Positive urine opioid screen

Warnings / Active liver disease

Precautions Severe hepatic dysfunction (i.e., transaminase levels > 3 times normal and abnormal
bilirubin)
Severe renal failure
Pregnancy Category C
Baseline Consider naloxone challenge test
Evaluation Transaminase levels
Urine toxicology

DISCUSSION
Naltrexone has no positive psychoactive effects and is unpopular with many opioid dependent patients
since naltrexone maintenance therapy requires complete abstinence from opioids. Treatment dropouts
are common. Naltrexone has been shown to be ineffective in preventing relapse when treatment
retention rates are low and moderately effective when retention and medication adherence are adequate
(Johansson et al., 2006).
Although the utility of naltrexone maintenance therapy is limited, some highly motivated patients—
those with strong incentives to complete treatment—can successfully prevent relapse using naltrexone
therapy. Subpopulations with better prognosis for response may include patients highly motivated for
abstinence without obvious external pressure; patients receiving contingency management to enhance
motivation (Adi et al., 2007); patients in the criminal justice system with monitored administration
(Cornish et al., 1997); business executives (Washton, 1984); and healthcare workers with employment-
related monitoring (Ling & Wesson, 1984).
There is inconsistent evidence for additional benefit of adding psychosocial treatment to naltrexone
therapy (relative to naltrexone therapy alone) and vice versa (adding naltrexone to psychosocial
treatment relative to psychosocial treatment alone) (Minozzi et al., 2006; Adi et al., 2007).

Module P - Page 64
 VA/DoD Clinical Practice Guideline
For Management of Substance Use Disorders

EVIDENCE TABLE
Evidence Source QE Overall Net SR
Quality Effect
1 In opioid-dependent Adi et al., 2007 I Poor to Small C
patients post opioid Minozzi et al., 2006 Fair to
withdrawal, naltrexone is Johansson, 2006 Mod
effective in reducing
heroin/drug abuse;
however, its effectiveness
in preventing relapse
depends on patient retention
/ adherence.
2 Consider monitored Adi et al., 2007 I Poor Small I
administration of naltrexone
maintenance in highly
motivated opioid dependent
patients.
QE = Quality of Evidence; SR = Strength of Recommendation (See Appendix A)

G. Assure Patient is Withdrawn from Opioids and Opioid Free Before Continuing

BACKGROUND
Avoid an adverse opioid withdrawal reaction precipitated by naltrexone during lingering physiological
dependence. Such reactions can result in extreme reluctance to trust treatment of any modality.

RECOMMENDATIONS
1. Prior to starting naltrexone, ensure that the patient is opioid-free as naltrexone is an opioid
antagonist and may precipitate withdrawal.
2. Consider pharmacologically assisted withdrawal (See Module S: Stabilization and Withdrawal
Management, Annotation F), unless the patient successfully completed a naloxone challenge
and/or has had at least 7-10 days of verified abstinence.

DISCUSSION
There are several methods to resolve uncertainty about physiological dependence on opioids:
• Self-report
• Urine toxicology screening
• Medical record review
• Physical examination (e.g., stigmata of IV use or symptoms of opioid withdrawal)
• Intoxication
• Confirming physiological dependence can also be accomplished with a challenge using
naloxone, a short acting narcotic antagonist, to elicit signs and symptoms of precipitated
withdrawal (O’Brien, 1994). A naloxone challenge should be done selectively and with great
care (e.g., by or in close consultation with a physician experienced in management of opioid
withdrawal) since patients can rapidly experience serious opioid withdrawal.
a. Give 0.2 to 0.4 mg of naloxone, subcutaneously or intravenously; if patient is
physiologically dependent on opioids, precipitated withdrawal usually begins within
minutes.

Module P - Page 65
 VA/DoD Clinical Practice Guideline
For Management of Substance Use Disorders

b. Patients with low levels of opioid use may require up to a total dose of 0.8 mg of
naloxone to precipitate withdrawal, given in increments of 0.2 mg every 30 minutes.
c. Symptoms usually peak within 30 minutes and subside in 3 to 4 hours.
d. An oral dose of 5 or 10 mg of methadone may attenuate the withdrawal.

H. Initiate Naltrexone for Opioid Dependence with Patient Education and Monitoring

BACKGROUND
Patients who have successfully completed a naloxone challenge and/or have had at least 7 to 10 days
of verified abstinence and who lack contraindications can be safely started on naltrexone maintenance
therapy.

RECOMMENDATIONS
1. Provide appropriate dosing, treatment retention- and adherence-enhancing techniques, and relapse
monitoring to promote effective outcomes.
2. Carefully start oral naltrexone at a dose of 25 mg once daily. If no signs of withdrawal occur, the
dose may be increased to 50 mg daily on the following day. Extended dosing intervals, using
equivalent weekly doses, may be used for supervised administration (see Table P-4).

Table P- 4. Pharmacotherapy Management with Naltrexone for Opioid Dependence

Dosage and 25 mg orally once daily initially; if no withdrawal reaction, increase to 50 mg once daily
Administration Observed administration improves adherence
Alternative Dosing - 25 mg orally twice daily with meals to reduce nausea, especially during the first week
Schedules - 100 mg on Monday and Wednesday, 150 mg on Friday

Adverse Effects Common: nausea

Other: headache, dizziness, nervousness, fatigue, insomnia, vomiting, anxiety,
somnolence
Drug Interactions Opioid-containing medications, including over-the-counter (OTC) preparations
Thioridazine
Oral hypoglycemics
Antiretrovirals
Monitoring Monitor for opioid use with urine toxicology at least weekly during early recovery
Repeat transaminase levels monthly for the first 3 months and every 3 months thereafter
Discontinue or reduce naltrexone if transaminase levels rise significantly
Patient Education Discuss compliance-enhancing procedures
Negotiate commitment from the patient regarding monitored ingestion, if necessary
Side effects, if any, tend to occur early in treatment and can typically resolve within 1-2
weeks after dosage adjustment
If signs and symptoms of acute hepatitis occur, discontinue naltrexone and contact
provider immediately

DISCUSSION
Only the oral formulation of naltrexone is currently FDA-approved for maintenance therapy of opioid
dependence. Treatment programs to prevent relapse, with or without naltrexone, often fail unless the
patient is motivated to adhere to treatment.

Module P - Page 66
 VA/DoD Clinical Practice Guideline
For Management of Substance Use Disorders

PHARMACOTHERAPY FOR ALCOHOL DEPENDENCE

I. Is the Patient Alcohol Dependent?

BACKGROUND
For the purposes of this guideline, alcohol dependence is defined via DSM-IV-TR criteria.

RECOMMENDATION
1. Identify patients with alcohol dependence that should be considered for addiction-focused
pharmacotherapy.
See Introduction: Definitions (page 6)

J. Initiate Pharmacotherapy for Alcohol Dependence?

BACKGROUND
Established pharmacologic treatments, notably disulfiram and naltrexone, (see Table P-5) combined
with addiction-focused counseling may reduce the amount of drinking, the risk of relapse, the number
of days of drinking, and craving in some alcohol-dependent individuals. For many patients, however,
these treatments are not effective. Research in molecular and behavioral genetics are guiding the
development of new drugs seeking to identify pharmacologic pathways relevant to alcohol dependence
and to more effectively match treatments to individuals according to their genetic characteristics.
Medications such as ondansetron, topiramate, sertraline, aripiprazole, quetiapine and baclofen
represent novel lines of research and are currently being tested for use in the treatment of alcoholism.

RECOMMENDATIONS
1. Routinely consider oral naltrexone, an opioid antagonist, and/or acamprosate for patients with
alcohol dependence. [A]
Note that in VA, acamprosate is currently a non-formulary medication with criteria for use posted
at http://vaww.national.cmop.va.gov/PBM/Clinical%20Guidance/Forms/AllItems.aspx
2. Medications should be offered in combined with addiction-focused counseling. [A]
3. Injectable naltrexone should be considered when medication adherence is a significant concern in
treating alcohol dependence and should be combined with addiction-focused counseling. [A]
Note that in VA, injectable naltrexone is currently a non-formulary medication with criteria for
use posted at http://vaww.national.cmop.va.gov/PBM/Clinical%20Guidance/Forms/AllItems.aspx
4. If patient does not respond to one of the approved medications, a trial on one of the other approved
medications is warranted.
5. Because of the risk of significant toxicity and limited evidence of effectiveness, risk and benefits
of disulfiram should be considered and disulfiram should only be used when abstinence is the goal
and when combined with addiction-focused counseling. [B] The informed consent discussion
with the patient should be documented.
6. Dosing of these pharmacotherapies should be consistent with medication trials and
recommendations in appropriate drug references (see Table P-5).

Module P - Page 67
 VA/DoD Clinical Practice Guideline
For Management of Substance Use Disorders

Table P- 5. Pharmacotherapy of Alcohol Dependence

Naltrexone Oral Naltrexone Injectable Acamprosate Disulfiram

Indications Alcohol dependence Alcohol dependence Alcohol dependence Alcohol dependence
(DSM diagnosis) (DSM diagnosis) with: (DSM diagnosis) (DSM diagnosis) with:
with: - Pretreatment abstinence with: - Abstinence > 24 hours
- At least 3-5 days of not required but - Abstinence at treatment and BAL equal to 0
pretreatment improves response (2) initiation - Combined cocaine
abstinence (1) - Willingness to receive dependence
monthly injections - Failure of or
- Difficulty adhering to an contraindication to
oral regimen naltrexone
- Previous response to
- Engagement in a disulfiram
- Engagement in a - Engagement in a
comprehensive comprehensive - Capacity to appreciate
management program comprehensive risks and benefits and
management program management
that includes that includes to consent to treatment
psychosocial therapy program that includes
psychosocial therapy psychosocial therapy. Note: More effective with
monitored
administration (e.g., in
clinic or with spouse or
probation officer.)

Contra- -Receiving opioid Receiving opioid agonists Hypersensitivity Severe cardiovascular,

indications agonists Physiologic opioid respiratory, or renal
Physiologic opioid dependence with use disease
Severe renal impairment
dependence with use within past 7 days (CrCl ≤ 30 mL/min). Severe hepatic
within past 7 days Acute opioid withdrawal dysfunction (i.e.,
Acute opioid withdrawal transaminase levels > 3
Failed naloxone challenge times upper limit of
Failed naloxone Positive urine opioid normal or abnormal
challenge test screen bilirubin)
Positive urine opioid Acute hepatitis or liver Severe psychiatric
screen failure disorders, especially
Acute hepatitis or liver Hypersensitivity psychotic and
failure cognitive disorders and
Inadequate muscle mass
Hypersensitivity suicidal ideation
Discontinue intramuscular
Poor impulse control
naltrexone if there is
NO detectable benefit Metronidazole or
within 3 months ketoconazole therapy
which already induce a
similar reaction to
alcohol
Hypersensitivity
Warnings / Active liver disease Active liver disease Monitor for emergence
Precautions Moderate to severe renal of depression or
insufficiency (no data) suicidality
Severe renal failure
Injection site reactions Reduce dose in patients
with renal
Use intramuscular impairment, including
injections with caution elderly
in patients with
thrombocytopenia or
coagulation disorders

Pregnancy Category C Pregnancy Category C Pregnancy Category C Pregnancy Category C

Module P - Page 68
 VA/DoD Clinical Practice Guideline
For Management of Substance Use Disorders

Naltrexone Oral Naltrexone Injectable Acamprosate Disulfiram

Baseline Liver transaminase Liver transaminase levels Creatinine clearance Liver transaminase levels
Evaluation levels Bilirubin within normal (estimated or Physical assessment
Bilirubin within normal limits measured)
Psychiatric assessment
limits Creatinine clearance Urine beta-HCG for
females Electrocardiogram
Urine beta-HCG for (estimated or
females measured) 50 ml/min Verify abstinence with
or greater breath or blood alcohol
level
Ensure patient has
adequate muscle mass Urine beta-HCG for
for injection females
Urine beta-HCG for
females
Dosage and 50 to 100 mg orally once 380 mg once monthly by 666 mg orally three 250 mg orally once daily
Administration daily deep intramuscular times daily, (range, 125–500 mg
injection preferably with meals daily)
Alternative 25 mg once or twice None None Reduce dose to 125 mg to
Dosing daily with meals to reduce side effects
Schedules reduce nausea, For monitored
especially during the administration,
first week consider giving 500 mg
100 mg on Monday and on Monday,
Wednesday and 150 Wednesday, and Friday
mg on Friday
Dosing in Hepatic or renal Mild renal impairment Moderate renal
Special impairment: Use (CrCl 50–80 ml/min): impairment (CrCl 30–
Populations caution No dosage adjustment 50 ml/min): 333 mg
necessary three times daily
Moderate–Severe renal Do not administer to
impairment: No data patients with severe
renal impairment
(CrCl ≤ 30 ml/min)
Adverse Effects Common: nausea Major: Eosinophilic Major: suicidality 2.4% Major: Hepatotoxicity,
Other: headache, pneumonia,depression, (vs. 0.8% on placebo peripheral neuropathy,
dizziness, suicidality during the first year in psychosis, delirium,
nervousness, fatigue, Common: Injection-site clinical trials) severe disulfiram-
insomnia, vomiting, reaction, injection-site Common: diarrhea ethanol reaction
anxiety, somnolence tenderness, injection- (16%) Common: somnolence,
site induration, nausea, Other: anxiety, asthenia, metallic taste,
headache, asthenic depression, insomnia headache
conditions
Drug Opioid-containing Opioid-containing Naltrexone: 33% Alcohol containing
Interactions medications, medications, including increase in Cmax of medications, including
including OTC OTC preparations acamprosate (no OTC preparations
preparations Thioridazine (increased dosage adjustment is Drug-drug interactions
Thioridazine (increased lethargy and recommended) may occur with
lethargy and somnolence) Antidepressants: weight phenytoin, warfarin,
somnolence) gain and weight loss isoniazid, rifampin,
more common than diazepam,
with either chlordiazepoxide,
medication alone imipramine,
desipramine, and oral
hypoglycemic agents.

Module P - Page 69
 VA/DoD Clinical Practice Guideline
For Management of Substance Use Disorders

Naltrexone Oral Naltrexone Injectable Acamprosate Disulfiram

Monitoring Repeat liver Repeat liver transaminase Monitor serum creatinine Repeat liver transaminase
transaminase levels at levels at 6 and 12 / CrCl, particularly in levels in 10 to 14 days
6 and 12 months and months and every 12 patients with renal and every 12 months
then every 12 months months thereafter impairment and the thereafter
thereafter elderly
Patient Discuss compliance- Report any concerning Report any new or Avoid alcohol in food and
Education enhancing methods injection-site reactions worsening depression beverages, including
Negotiate commitment Report any new or or suicidal thinking medications
from the patient worsening depression Avoid disulfiram if
regarding monitored or suicidal thinking alcohol intoxicated
ingestion May cause allergic May cause sedation;
Side effects, if any, tend pneumonia; contact caution operating
to occur early in provider if patient vehicles and hazardous
treatment and can develops signs and machinery
typically resolve symptoms of Discuss compliance-
within 1-2 weeks pneumonia enhancing methods
after dosage
adjustment Family members should
not administer
If signs and symptoms of acute hepatitis occur, disulfiram without
discontinue naltrexone and contact provider informing patient
immediately Provide patients with
Very large doses of opioids may overcome the effects wallet cards that
of naltrexone and lead to serious injury, coma, or indicate the use of
death disulfiram
Small doses of opioids, such as in analgesic,
antidiarrheal, or antitussive drugs, may be blocked
by naltrexone and fail to produce a therapeutic
effect
Patients who have previously used opioids may be
more sensitive to toxic effects of opioids after
discontinuation of naltrexone
(1) Most trials for oral NTX required as an inclusion criterion pretreatment abstinence of ≥ 4 or ≥ 7 days. This
is the subgroup of patients in which oral NTX was shown to be efficacious. Expert opinion suggests a less
restrictive requirement. This description of "appropriate" candidates is consistent with FDA-approved product
information
(2) While documented abstinence is not required for therapeutic benefit with injectable naltrexone, even
greater benefit may be seen in patients who achieve some duration of alcohol abstinence (e.g. 2–4 days) prior
to the initial injection of naltrexone. The evidence supports 7 days of prior abstinence for improved outcomes.

Module P - Page 70
 VA/DoD Clinical Practice Guideline
For Management of Substance Use Disorders

DISCUSSION
Three drugs have been FDA-approved for adjunctive therapy in alcohol dependence: the opioid
antagonist naltrexone (oral and extended-release injectable), the putative glutamate antagonist
acamprosate, and the acetaldehyde dehydrogenase inhibitor disulfiram.
There is convincing evidence of the efficacy of naltrexone. In short-term trials (up to 12 weeks),
naltrexone was shown to decrease the risk of relapse in recently withdrawn alcohol-dependent patients
who concomitantly received addiction counseling (Anton, 2005; Bouza, 2004; Kranzler & Van, 2001;
Srisurapanont & Jarusuraisin, 2005; Streeton & Whelan, 2001). The effect size for relapse reduction is
small to moderate (RR 0.64; NNT = 7), but clinically meaningful. Naltrexone treatment was also
shown to decrease the likelihood of returning to drinking (RR 0.87; NNT = 13) (Srisurapanont
&Jarusuraisin, 2005), the likelihood of treatment discontinuation (RR 0.82, NNT = 13) (Srisurapanont
& Jarusuraisin, 2005), and the amount of alcohol consumed (Kranzler & Van, 2001; Pettinati et al,
2006; Streeton & Whelan, 2001). The efficacy of naltrexone in improving abstinence has been
inconsistent (Pettinati et al., 2006). Poor adherence to orally self-administered medications is one of
the major reasons for naltrexone treatment failure in alcohol-dependent patients. Therefore, methods
for enhancing medication adherence, such as psychosocial therapy and management of adverse effects,
should be used during oral naltrexone therapy.
One approach to enhancing patient adherence is to use the long-acting formulation of naltrexone.
Naltrexone extended-release suspension may be administered once monthly via intramuscular injection
by a healthcare professional. When given with low-intensity psychosocial therapy, a 6-month course
of therapy with this formulation was shown to decrease alcohol consumption (Johnson et al., 2004) and
moderately decrease heavy drinking (treatment effect size relative to placebo, 25%) in a population
consisting of mostly nondetoxified patients (Garbutt et al., 2005). A subset of patients with
pretreatment abstinence (≥ 7 days) had a greater decrease in heavy drinking (effect size, 80%) as
compared with nonabstinent patients (effect size, 21%) (O’Malley, 2007). Another depot formulation
of naltrexone was also shown to be efficacious in an early clinical trial (Kranzler et al., 2004).
Several systematic reviews support the efficacy of acamprosate. They showed that acamprosate
improves the likelihood of abstinence and retention in treatment in recently withdrawn patients (Bouza
et al., 2004; Kranzler & Van, 2001; Mann et al., 2004). In one good-quality systematic review, the
effect size for abstinence was small to moderate (OR 1.88; 95% CI, 1.57–2.25; NNT = 10; 95% CI, 7–
15) (Bouza et al., 2004). In another good-quality systematic review, acamprosate significantly
improved continuous abstinence rates at 6 months (relative benefit (RB) 1.47; 95% CI, 1.29-1.69; p <
0.001). The overall placebo-corrected difference in success rates at 12 months was 13.3% (95% CI,
7.8-18.7%; NNT = 7.5) (Mann et al., 2004).
There is a paucity of randomized placebo-controlled clinical trials supporting the use of disulfiram. A
multi-site partially VA study that compared 250 mg disulfirarm to 1 mg disulfiram and to a vitamin
pill found no differences in overall abstinence rates but did find significantly less alcohol use among
compliant subjects in the 250 mg group (Fuller et al., 1986). One study involving dual diagnosis
patients with Axis I psychiatric disorder and co-occurring alcohol dependence showed that open-label
disulfiram and blinded naltrexone were modestly effective and equivalent in reducing alcohol use, and
there was no additional benefit from using the combination over the individual medications (Petrakis et
al., 2005).
Injectable naltrexone should also be routinely considered as the initial therapy, as each extended-
release dose ensures medication adherence for a full month and, in contrast to oral naltrexone, there is
evidence of efficacy beyond three months and in non-withdrawn patients. Pretreatment with oral
naltrexone is not necessary to establish benefit or tolerability prior to starting intramuscular naltrexone.
Injectable naltrexone should also be considered in patients with poor adherence to oral medications.
No published trials have directly compared the injectable and oral forms of naltrexone in terms of
efficacy and safety.
Disulfiram should be considered more selectively because of its potential to cause serious
hepatotoxicity. Monitored administration significantly improves compliance. Disulfiram should be

Module P - Page 71
 VA/DoD Clinical Practice Guideline
For Management of Substance Use Disorders

considered whenever a patient requests it or when some form of monitoring is available. In clinical
practice, it is sometimes used to provide additional support during periods of high risk of relapse.
Evidence for its efficacy in treatment of combined cocaine and alcohol dependence is relatively strong
(Carroll et al., 1998; McCance-Katz et al., 1998; George et al., 2000; Petrakis et al., 2000)
As summarized below, studies comparing naltrexone and acamprosate have shown inconsistent results.
Two studies have shown no significant differences between naltrexone and disulfiram. There is
insufficient evidence to support the routine use of one drug over another.

Naltrexone vs. Acamprosate

• No significant difference between naltrexone and acamprosate in rate of relapse to heavy
drinking (Kiefer et al., 2003)
• No treatment effects were seen for either naltrexone or acamprosate in any measure of
alcohol consumption (Morley, 2006)
• Naltrexone plus medical management significantly improved percent days abstinent
compared to medical management plus placebo, whereas acamprosate showed no
beneficial effects (Anton et al, 2006).
Naltrexone vs. Disulfiram
• No significant difference between naltrexone and disulfiram in decreasing alcohol intake
and remaining abstinent (Nava et al., 2006)
• No significant difference between naltrexone and disulfiram for measures of abstinence
and percent heavy drinking days in patients with Axis I psychiatric disorder and co-
occurring alcohol dependence (Petrakis et al., 2005).
Acamprosate vs. Disulfiram
• An open-label, randomized trial in India showed superiority of disulfiram over
acamprosate (de Sousa, 2005).
Acamprosate vs. Disulfiram vs. Naltrexone
• An open-label, randomized trial in Europe comparing disulfiram, acamprosate, and
naltrexone showed superiority of disulfiram over the other agents (Laaksonen et al.,
2008).
Combination
Few trials have assessed whether combination therapy is better than single-drug therapy. In one trial,
the combination of oral naltrexone and acamprosate was significantly better than acamprosate alone
but not naltrexone alone (Kiefer et al., 2003). In the COMBINE trial, the combination of naltrexone
and acamprosate, given with medical management, was not better than either agent alone or cognitive
behavioral intervention (and no evidence of efficacy was shown for acamprosate) (Anton et al., 2006).
One trial, involving dually diagnosed patients with Axis I psychiatric disorder and alcohol dependence,
showed no incremental benefit with the combination of naltrexone and disulfiram over either agent
alone (Petrakis et al., 2005). Therefore, just one of three trials showed additional benefit from using a
combination of antialcoholic agents over single agents.

Module P - Page 72
 VA/DoD Clinical Practice Guideline
For Management of Substance Use Disorders

EVIDENCE TABLE

Evidence Source QE Overall Net SR

Quality Effect
1 Oral natrexone should be Anton et al., 2005 I Good Subst A
routinely considered when Bouzza et al., 2004
treating alcohol dependence Feinn & Kranzler, 2005
with addiction counseling. Kranzler & Van, 2001
Pettinati et al., 2006
Sriurapanont & Jarusuraisin, 2005
Streeton & Whelan, 2001
2 Injectable naltrexone should be Anton et al., 2006 I Good Subst A
routinely considered when Garbutt et al., 2005
treating alcohol dependence Johnson et al., 2004
with addiction counseling. Kranzler et al., 2004
3 Acamprosate should be Anton et al., 2006 I Good Subst A
routinely considered when Bouza et al., 2004
treating alcohol dependence Kranzler & Van, 2001
with addiction counseling. Mann et al., 2004
4 Disulfiram should only be used Garbutt et al., 1999 I Fair Mod B
when abstinence is the goal.
Compliance improves when
disulfiram administration is
directly observed.
5 Injectable naltrexone is Ciraulo et al., 2008 I Good Mod A
effective in treating alcohol- Garbutt et al., 2005
dependent patients who are
willing to receive monthly
injections; a better response is
seen in patients with (vs.
without) 7 days of pretreatment
alcohol abstinence.
QE = Quality of Evidence;Net Effect= Significance of efficacy; SR = Strength of Recommendation (See Appendix A)

Module P - Page 73
 VA/DoD Clinical Practice Guideline
For Management of Substance Use Disorders

Module S - Page 74
 VA/DoD Clinical Practice Guideline
For Management of Substance Use Disorders

MODULE S: STABILIZATION and WITHDRAWAL MANAGEMENT

A. Substance-Using Patient Who May Require Physiological Stabilization

This module addresses the management of patients who are physiologically dependent on alcohol
and/or other substances and who are at risk of withdrawal symptoms, or for whom the provider is
uncertain about the level of withdrawal risk and seeks further evaluation.

B. Obtain History, Physical Examination, Mental Status Examination (MSE), Medication Including
Over-The-Counter (OTC), and Lab Tests as Indicated

BACKGROUND
The provider should review or obtain clinical background information on the patient, including any
prior assessment.

RECOMMENDATIONS
1. Interview the patient and other collateral informants, where appropriate, about medical and mental
health history and use of prescription and non-prescription medications before initiating extensive
diagnostic testing.
2. Note any history of recent head trauma.
3. Order laboratory tests selectively, aiming to detect potential medical causes for the presenting
symptoms, where indicated by:
a. Specific symptoms found on the medical review of systems
b. Evidence of unusual symptom profiles
c. History of atypical illness course
d. Abnormal screen for cognitive status, particularly in the elderly patient.

DISCUSSION
Consider a standardized instrument, such as Folstein’s Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE)
(Folstein et al., 1975) using age and education-adjusted cut-off scores (Crum et al., 1993), to assess for
cognitive status realizing that alcohol and other substances may impair the operating characteristics of
this test.
Screen for mental health disorders in patients who are under evaluation for use of alcohol and other
substances.

C. Is the Patient in Any Immediate Medical or Psychiatric Crisis or Intoxicated?

BACKGROUND
Emergency or urgent actions include unstable medical problems (e.g., acute trauma, myocardial
infarction, and stroke) or unstable psychiatric problems (e.g., imminent risk of harm to self and/or
others and delirium, including alcohol-related delirium [withdrawal/intoxication]).

Module S - Page 75
 VA/DoD Clinical Practice Guideline
For Management of Substance Use Disorders

RECOMMENDATIONS
1. Refer patients with problems that require emergency care or urgent action to emergency care for
further action as needed.

DISCUSSION

Delirium can be identified through the following:

1. Disturbance of consciousness (e.g., reduced clarity of awareness of the environment with reduced
ability to focus, sustain, or shift attention).
2. A change in cognition (such as memory deficit, disorientation, or language disturbance) or the
development of a perceptual disturbance that is not accounted for by a preexisting, established, or
evolving dementia.
3. The disturbance develops over a short period of time (usually hours to days) and tends to fluctuate
during the course of the day.
4. There is evidence from the history, physical examination, or laboratory findings that:
a. Illness is characterized by an atypical course
b. Disturbances are caused by the direct physiological consequences of a general
medical condition
c. Symptoms developed during substance intoxication or medication use are
etiologically related to the disturbance
d. Symptoms are developed during or following a withdrawal syndrome
e. Delirium has more than one etiology (e.g., a general medical condition plus
intoxication or a medication side effect).

Risk of Harm to Self or Others

1. Risk Assessment Guide indicates: All patients who present with positive depression screens,
history of mental health diagnosis or with any of the following warning signs should be further
assessed for suicide risk:
a. Threatening to hurt or kill self
b. Looking for ways to kill self
c. Seeking access to pills, weapons, or other means
d. Talking or writing about death, dying, or suicide
2. Presence of any of the above requires immediate attention and referral. Consider hospitalization
for safety until complete assessment may be made
3. Additional Warning Signs
• Hopelessness
• Rage, anger, seeking revenge
• Acting reckless or engaging in risky activities, seemingly without thinking
• Feeling trapped – like there’s no way out
• Increasing alcohol or drug abuse
• Withdrawing from friends, family, and society
• Anxiety, agitation, unable to sleep, or sleeping all the time
• Dramatic changes in mood

Module S - Page 76
 VA/DoD Clinical Practice Guideline
For Management of Substance Use Disorders

• No reason for living, no sense of purpose in life

Acute intoxication
1. The most common signs and symptoms involve disturbances of perception, wakefulness,
attention, thinking, judgment, psychomotor behavior, and interpersonal behavior.
2. Patients should be medically observed at least until blood levels are decreasing and the clinical
presentation is improving.
3. Highly tolerant individuals may not show signs of intoxication. Patients may appear “sober” even
at blood alcohol levels (BAL) well above the legal limit.
4. Recent intake of a substance can be assessed from the history, physical examination (e.g., alcohol
on the breath), or toxicological analysis of urine or blood. The specific clinical picture in
substance intoxication depends on the substance(s) used, the duration of use at that dose,
tolerance, time since last dose, expectations of effects, and the environment or setting of use.

DSM-IV-TR Criteria for Substance Intoxication

The development of a reversible substance-specific syndrome due to recent ingestion of (or exposure
to) a substance. Note: Different substances may produce similar or identical syndromes.
Clinically significant maladaptive behavioral or psychological changes that are due to the effect of the
substance on the central nervous system (e.g., belligerence, mood lability, cognitive impairment,
impaired judgment, and impaired social or occupational functioning) and develop during or shortly
after use of the substance.
Note: The symptoms are not due to a general medical condition and are not better accounted for by
another mental disorder.

D. Provide Appropriate Care To Stabilize Prior to Management of Withdrawal;

Follow Policies For DoD Active Duty Members: Keep Commanding Officer Informed

BACKGROUND
Existing local policies and procedures with regard to threats to self or others reflect local and state laws
and the opinion of the VA District Council and the DoD. Primary care, mental health, and
administrative staff must be familiar with these policies and procedures.

RECOMMENDATIONS
1. Assure the patient’s immediate safety and determine the most appropriate setting.
2. Refer for mental health treatment or assure that follow-up appointment is made.
3. Inform and involve someone close to the patient.
4. Limit access to means of suicide.
5. Increase contact and make a commitment to help the patient through the crisis.
6. For comatose patients, maintain airway and adequate ventilation in order to preserve respiration
and cardiovascular function.
7. Emergency procedures should be considered, including the use of gastric lavage for sedative,
hypnotic, and/or opioid intoxication.
8. Emergency pharmacologic interventions should be utilized as appropriate, including the use of
intravenous naloxone hydrochloride for opioid overdose and flumazenil for benzodiazepine
overdose.

Module S - Page 77
 VA/DoD Clinical Practice Guideline
For Management of Substance Use Disorders

9. Agitation secondary to intoxication from a variety of substances is best initially managed through
interpersonal approaches and decreasing sensory stimuli rather than additional medications. If
chemotherapeutic agents are necessary, the short acting IM benzodiazepines (e.g., lorazepam) and
high potency neuroleptics should be considered
For DoD active duty members: follow DoD and Service-specific policies, as mental
health/emergency referral is likely mandated.

DISCUSSION

Serious Psychiatric Instability

Obtain immediate mental health consultation if other psychiatric symptoms (e.g., acute psychosis)
significantly interfere with further assessment and require immediate psychiatric treatment before
continuing assessment.

EVIDENCE TABLE
Evidence Source QE Overall SR
Quality
2 Note increased risk for violence. Hasting & Hamberger, 1997 III Poor I
Thienhaus & Piasecki, 1998
3 Offer counseling to a patient at Hirschfield & Russello, 1997 III Poor I
risk. USPSTF, 1996
4 Arrange emergency treatment or APA, 1993 III Poor I
possible hospitalization. US DHHS, 1993 & 1995
USPSTF, 1996
QE = Quality of Evidence; SR = Strength of Recommendation (See Appendix A)

E. Assess Level of Physiological Dependence and Indications for Stabilization Including Risk of
Withdrawal

BACKGROUND
Untreated severe alcohol and other sedative-hypnotic withdrawal, in particular, can lead to autonomic
instability, seizures, delirium, or even death.
The opioid withdrawal syndrome can be protracted with intense symptoms, though the syndrome itself
poses virtually no risk of mortality. However, there is significant mortality risk from overdose for
those who relapse following unsuccessful medically supervised withdrawal attempts as a result of loss
of opioid tolerance.
The potential for a withdrawal syndrome can be gauged only imprecisely by asking the patient the
pattern, type, and quantity of recent and past substance use. Systematic monitoring of withdrawal
symptoms is indicted until patients are stabilized.

RECOMMENDATIONS
1. Obtain and document necessary information to classify level of withdrawal and factors that may
influence the severity of the withdrawal (see Appendix B-6 for a list of withdrawal signs and
symptoms for the different types of substances):
a. Determine type of substance of use
b. Determine time since last use
c. Determine concurrent use of other substances or prescriptions

Module S - Page 78
 VA/DoD Clinical Practice Guideline
For Management of Substance Use Disorders

d. Determine co-occurring medical and/or psychiatric disorders

e. Consider past withdrawal experiences.
2. Use laboratory results and patient observation to determine the level of tolerance (e.g., high blood
level in patient who appears to be not intoxicated).
3. Use standardized measures to assess the severity of withdrawal symptoms such as CIWA-Ar (see
Box S-1) or COWS (see Box S-2). [B]
4. Evaluate patients using multiple substances (e.g., opioids and sedative-hypnotics) for risk of
withdrawal from each substance.
Box S- 1. Assessment of Alcohol Withdrawal (see Appendix B-7)
The Clinical Institute Withdrawal Assessment for Alcohol-Revised
(CIWA-Ar) has good reliability and validity for assessing severity of
withdrawal symptoms from alcohol.
CIWA-Ar has 10 provider ratings. Interpret total scores as follows:
• Minimal or absent withdrawal: ≤ 9
• Mild to moderate withdrawal: 10-19
• Severe withdrawal: > 20.

Box S- 2. Assessment of Opioid Withdrawal (see Appendix B-8)

The Objective, Subjective and Clinical Opiate Withdrawal Scales
(OOWS, SOWS, and COWS) can be used for assessing severity of
withdrawal symptoms from opioids
COWS has 10 provider ratings. Interpret total scores as follows:
• Mild withdrawal: 5-12
• Moderate withdrawal: 13-24
• Moderately severe withdrawal: 25-36
• Severe withdrawal: > 36.

EVIDENCE TABLE
Evidence Source QE Overall SR
Quality
1 Consider using standardized Gossop, 1990 II Fair B
assessment of withdrawal Handelsman et al., 1987
symptoms. Pittman et al., 2007
Reoux et al., 2000
Sullivan et al., 1989
Wesson & Ling, 2003
QE = Quality of Evidence; SR = Strength of Recommendation (See Appendix A)

F. Is the Patient in Need of Withdrawal Management?

BACKGROUND
Withdrawal management from a substance is defined as non-pharmacologic and/or pharmacologic
medical care with a goal of safely transitioning a patient from active use to sustained treatment for the

Module S - Page 79
 VA/DoD Clinical Practice Guideline
For Management of Substance Use Disorders

patient’s substance use disorder. Withdrawal management is an essential initial gateway in preparing
many patients for additional treatment.
Pharmacologically supervised withdrawal is warranted only for alcohol, sedative-hypnotics, and
opioids; however, patients who use other illicit substances may find benefit in initiation of treatment
during their withdrawal period. For nicotine dependence, refer to Clinical Practice Guideline:
Treating Tobacco Use & Dependence: 2008 Update from the U.S. Department of Health and Human
Services at: http://www.surgeongeneral.gov/tobacco/treating_tobacco_use08.pdf and the VA/DoD
Clinical Practice Guideline for the Management of Tobacco Use. Other substances do not require
pharmacological management for withdrawal.
It is important to distinguish patients with legitimate pain and/or anxiety disorders who develop only
physiological tolerance during long-term use of prescribed medications from those with markers of
prescription misuse.

RECOMMENDATIONS
1. Indications for withdrawal management from alcohol or sedative-hypnotics
• Patient with alcohol dependence with observed withdrawal symptoms
• CIWA-Ar score for at least mild withdrawal (>10)
• Patients with dependence on central nervous system depressants, due to the risks of untreated
withdrawal in severely dependent persons.
2. Relative contraindication for medically supervised withdrawal management from alcohol
• Patients with minimal withdrawal symptoms that are not accompanied by complicating co-
occurring disorders. Such patients may respond sufficiently to generalized support,
reassurance, and frequent monitoring.
3. Potential indications for medically supervised opioid withdrawal:
• Patient with physical dependence in the absence of clinical indications for ongoing treatment
(e.g., severe pain disorder)
• Patient with physical dependence accompanied by aberrant or non-adherent behavior (e.g.,
obtaining prescriptions from multiple providers, escalating doses without provider
consultation, or buying medications on the street)
• Agreement to provide naltrexone for treatment of opioid dependence
• Patient who does not request or want opioid agonist medical therapy but wants non-
pharmacologic treatment for opioid dependence.
4. Contraindication for opioid withdrawal management:
• Chronic severe opioid dependence. For such patients, first line therapy is methadone or
sublingual buprenorphine/naloxone maintenance treatment (See Module P - Addiction
Focused Pharmacotherapy)
• Two or more unsuccessful medically supervised withdrawal episodes within a 12-month
period. Such patients should be assessed for opioid agonist therapy.
5. Consider using a structured assessment tool to evaluate and track behaviors suggestive of
addiction, such as inappropriate medication use, and to increase the provider's confidence in
determinations of appropriate vs. inappropriate opioid use.
6. Evaluate opioid dependent patients for severe acute or chronic physical pain that may require
appropriate short-acting opioid agonist medication in addition to the medication needed to prevent
opioid withdrawal symptoms (see also VA/DoD Clinical Practice Guideline for Management of
Chronic Opioid Therapy at: http://www.healthquality.va.gov).

Module S - Page 80
 VA/DoD Clinical Practice Guideline
For Management of Substance Use Disorders

EVIDENCE TABLE
Evidence Source QE Overall SR
Quality
1 Medically supervised withdrawal for dependence Mee-Lee et al., 2001 III Poor I
on central nervous system depressants.
2 General support and frequent monitoring for mild APA, 1995 III Poor I
withdrawal symptoms.
3 Consider structured assessment tool to evaluate and Wu et al., 2006 II Fair C
track behaviors suggestive of addiction.
QE = Quality of Evidence; SR = Strength of Recommendation (See Appendix A)

G. Does Patient Require Inpatient Medically Supervised Withdrawal?

BACKGROUND
Patients are more likely to complete an inpatient medically supervised withdrawal protocol; however,
long-term outcomes do not differ between inpatient and outpatient medically supervised withdrawal
programs. Relative advantages to consider include:

Ambulatory withdrawal management has the potential advantages of:

• Facilitating continuity of care in the outpatient setting
• Reducing disruption to the patient’s life
• Lowering costs in the outpatient setting.

Inpatient withdrawal management has the advantages of:

• Having fewer logistic medical and legal concerns (e.g., arranging for patient transportation,
driving during the course of medically supervised withdrawal, and the ability to give informed
consent)
• Allowing closer monitoring of withdrawal symptoms
• Having higher likelihood of completing the withdrawal mangement protocol

RECOMMENDATIONS
1. Consider the following indications for inpatient medically supervised withdrawal: [C]
a. Current symptoms of at least mild alcohol withdrawal (e.g., CIWA-Ar score ≥10)
b. History of delirium tremens or withdrawal seizures
c. Inability to tolerate oral medication
d. Imminent risk of harm to self or others
e. Recurrent unsuccessful attempts at ambulatory medically supervised withdrawal
f. Reasonable likelihood that the patient will not complete ambulatory medically
supervised withdrawal (e.g., due to homelessness)
g. Active psychosis or severe cognitive impairment
h. Chronic liver disease or cardiovascular disease, pregnancy, or lack of medical
support system.

Module S - Page 81
 VA/DoD Clinical Practice Guideline
For Management of Substance Use Disorders

DISCUSSION
Compared to ambulatory settings, inpatient withdrawal management can often be done more rapidly
since access to alcohol and drugs is restricted. Withdrawal management performed while a patient is
in a clinically managed residential setting (e.g., some VA Substance Abuse Residential Rehabilitation
Treatment Programs [SARRTP]), is considered ambulatory.
This guideline endorses ASAM placement criteria for determining the appropriate level of care. To
ensure the patient’s safety during the withdrawal process in the least restrictive environment and
promote the long-term success for recovery, the following factors should be considered:
• Severity of current and past withdrawal symptoms based on standardized measures (e.g.,
CIWA-Ar, COWS
• Severity of co-occurring conditions
• The acceptance and potential to complete medically supervised withdrawal
• Recovery environment
• ASAM criteria (see Web site: http://www.asam.org).
ASAM (PPC-2R [2001]) recommends considering the following primary patient dimensions in making
a decision about appropriate level of care:
1. Acute intoxication and/or withdrawal potential, especially history of withdrawal seizures
2. Biomedical conditions and complications
3. Emotional/behavioral conditions and complications including:
o Psychiatric conditions
o Psychological or emotional/behavioral complications of known or unknown origin
o Poor impulse control
o Change in mental status
o Transient neuropsychiatric complications
4. Treatment acceptance/resistance
5. Relapse/continued use potential
6. Recovery/living environment.

EVIDENCE TABLE
Evidence Source QE Overall SR
Quality
1 Indications for inpatient medically ASAM, 2001 III Poor C
supervised withdrawal.
QE = Quality of Evidence; SR = Strength of Recommendation (See Appendix A)

H. Admit to Inpatient Withdrawal Management or,

Initiate Ambulatory Withdrawal Management

BACKGROUND
The objectives of withdrawal management from alcohol, sedative-hypnotics, or opioids in either
inpatient or ambulatory settings are to prevent the patient from experiencing adverse events and
prepare the patient for ongoing addiction treatment.

Module S - Page 82
 VA/DoD Clinical Practice Guideline
For Management of Substance Use Disorders

RECOMMENDATIONS

Alcohol Withdrawal Management

Follow local alcohol withdrawal management pathways, taking into consideration the following
principles.
1. Use either of the following two acceptable pharmacotherapy strategies for managing alcohol
withdrawal symptoms:
a. Symptom-triggered therapy where patients are given medication only when signs or
symptoms of withdrawal appear (e.g., PRN dosing) [A]
b. A predetermined fixed medication dose with gradual tapering over several days may be
considered for some patients, although it is inferior to symptom-triggered therapy. [B]
2. Repeat standardized assessments, such as the CIWA-Ar scale for alcohol withdrawal, to guide
dosing decisions (e.g., if and when to dose) until stabilized.
3. Consider the following procedures for monitoring ambulatory alcohol withdrawal as safe and
effective alternatives to inpatient approaches:
a. Medical or nursing staff should assess the patient in person, either daily or every other
day (patient contact may be made by telephone on other days), to include:
• Patient report of any alcohol use the previous day
• Reported medication intake compared to the medication dispensed the previous
day
• Tremor, restlessness, and previous night’s sleep
• Skin (e.g., color and turgor).
b. Urine toxicology or a breathalyzer test of blood alcohol content should be completed.
c. If the daily screening is positive for any one of the following, the patient should be
medically evaluated before initiating or continuing outpatient withdrawal management, or
hospital admission should be considered:
• Blood sugar ≥ 400 or positive anion gap
• History of recent hematemesis, melena, or other gastrointestinal bleeding
disorder
• Bilirubin ≥ 3.0
• Creatinine ≥ 2.0
• Systolic blood pressure ≥ 180 or diastolic blood pressure ≥ 110
• Unstable angina
• Temperature ≥ 101 degrees
• BAC ≥ 0.08 on two outpatient visits.
4. For inpatient treatment of alcohol withdrawal, use benzodiazepines over non-benzodiazepine
sedative-hypnotics because of documented efficacy, and a greater margin of safety.
Benzodiazepines are the drug of choice in this setting, given adequate monitoring, because they
reduce withdrawal severity, incidence of delirium, and seizures. All benzodiazepines appear to be
effective, but agents without active metabolites such as lorazepam or oxazepam may be preferred
in patients with liver impairment. [A]
5. Dose and withdrawal scales should be individualized for each patient. Geriatric patients should
start with lower doses of benzodiazepines than younger adults. [A]

Module S - Page 83
 VA/DoD Clinical Practice Guideline
For Management of Substance Use Disorders

6. For managing mild to moderate alcohol withdrawal, carbamazepine and valproic acid can be used
as an effective supplement or alternative to benzodiazepines. They may be considered in patients
that cannot use benzodiazepines (e.g., abuse liability or allergy/adverse reactions). [B]
7. Other agents, such as beta-blockers, and clonidine, are generally not considered as appropriate
monotherapy for alcohol withdrawal, [D] but may be considered in conjunction with
benzodiazepines in certain patients. [C]
8. During and after medically supervised withdrawal, emphasis should be placed on engagement in
ongoing addiction treatment. [C]
9. Use of alcohol as an agent for medically supervised withdrawal is contraindicated. [D]

Sedative-Hypnotics Medically Supervised Withdrawal (e.g., Benzodiazepines)

There are three general treatment strategies for patients withdrawing from other sedative-hypnotic
medications at doses above the therapeutic range, for a month or more:
1. Substitute phenobarbital for the addicting agent and taper gradually. [A]
a. The average daily sedative-hypnotic dose is converted to a phenobarbital equivalent and
divided into 3 doses per day for 2 days (see Appendix E for phenobarbital equivalencies
for sedative hypnotics).
b. Phenobarbital dose should be reduced by 30 mg per day, beginning on day 3.
2. Substitution then tapering: For patients on a shorter acting benzodiazepine, substitute a longer
acting benzodiazepine at an equivalent dose (e.g., chlordiazepoxide) and taper 10 percent per day,
over 1 to 2 weeks.
3. Simple tapering: Gradually decrease the dosage of the long-acting substance the patient is
currently taking.

DISCUSSION
Considerable clinical experience and the largest accumulated body of data indicate that
benzodiazepines are the treatment of choice for pharmacotherapy for alcohol withdrawal on the basis
of such outcomes as the severity of the alcohol-withdrawal syndrome, occurrence of delirium, and
occurrence of seizures. One meta-analysis comparing benzodiazepines with placebo or with an active
control drug included 11 trials, representing a total of 1286 patients (Mayo-Smith, 1997). There was
more often a clinically significant reduction of symptoms within two days with benzodiazepines than
with placebo (common odds ratio, 3.28; 95 percent confidence interval, 1.30 to 8.28) (Mayo-Smith,
1997). In addition, benzodiazepines were more effective than placebo in reducing the incidence of
seizures (risk reduction, 7.7 seizures per 100 patients treated; P=0.003) and delirium (risk reduction,
4.9 cases of delirium per 100 patients treated=0.04) (Mayo-Smith, 1997). Individualizing therapy with
withdrawal scales results in administration of significantly less medication and shorter treatment
(Mayo-Smith, 1997).
A more recent meta-analysis included 57 trials with a total of 4051 subjects (Ntais et al., 2005). This
analysis was comprised of studies that compared benzodiazepines to placebo, to other
benzodiazepines, or to other medications. As in the other meta-analysis, benzodiazepines were clearly
superior to placebo in preventing withdrawal seizures (Ntais et al., 2005). This meta-analysis found
similar symptom reductions with benzodiazepines compared to other medications and similar capacity
of benzodiazepines to reduce seizures compared to anticonvulsants (Ntais et al., 2005).
Another recent meta-analysis focused on anticonvulsants, including carbamazepine and valproic acid,
for alcohol withdrawal and evaluated 48 studies, involving 3610 subjects (Polycarpou et al., 2005).
Given the heterogeneity across studies in methodology, differences between anticonvulsants and
placebo in achieving therapeutic success and preventing seizures favored anticonvulsants but did not
attain statistical significance (Polycarpou et al., 2005). Benzodiazepines remain the treatment of
choice for management of alcohol withdrawal.

Module S - Page 84
 VA/DoD Clinical Practice Guideline
For Management of Substance Use Disorders

Beta-blockers and clonidine do reduce some signs and symptoms of alcohol withdrawal, but they do
not reduce seizures or delirium so they are not recommended as monotherapy (Mayo-Smith, 1997).

EVIDENCE TABLE
Evidence Source QE Overall Net SR
Quality Effect
1 Use symptom-triggered therapy APA, 1995 I Good Subst A
or gradual dose tapering over CSAT, 1995
several days for alcohol Hayashida et al., 1989
withdrawal management. Mayo-Smith, 1997
Saitz et al., 1994
2 Consider ambulatory medically Hayashida et al., 1989 I Good Subst A
supervised alcohol withdrawal, Mayo-Smith, 1997
when indicated.
3 Use benzodiazepines over non- Mayo-Smith, 1997 I Good Subst A
benzodiazepine sedative-
hypnotics for alcohol withdrawal
management.
4 For managing alcohol Mayo-Smith, 1997 I Fair Subst B
withdrawal, carbamazepine can Polycarpou et al., 2005
be used as an effective Reoux, 2001
alternative to benzodiazepines
for mild to moderate withdrawal.
QE = Quality of Evidence; SR = Strength of Recommendation (See Appendix A)

Opioid Withdrawal Management

RECOMMENDATIONS
1. Medically supervised opioid withdrawal is rarely effective as a long-term strategy for treatment of
opioid dependence because of high relapse rates. Opioid maintenance with
buprenorphine/naloxone or methadone is the definitive treatment of choice in most cases. [B]
2. If pursuing medically supervised opioid withdrawal, the preferred approaches are initial
stabilization and subsequent short or extended taper with opioid agonist therapy.
3. Set the length of the taper period based on the treatment setting and severity of the dependence.
4. Medically supervised withdrawal can usually be accomplished in 4 to 7 days in an inpatient
setting, to quickly achieve opioid abstinence prior to treatment in a drug-free setting, preferably
with initiaton of naltrexone.
5. Withdrawal using buprenorphine/naloxone:
a. Only physicians with a waiver from the US Department of Health and Human Services
can prescribe buprenorphine/naloxone
b. Initial stabilization is accomplished via induction with buprenorphine/naloxone just as it
would be for maintenance with this agent (See Table S-1). To reduce the risk of
precipitated withdrawal, the patient must be in sufficient opioid withdrawal to be
manifesting objective signs of withdrawal prior to starting buprenorphine/naloxone
usually at least 8 hours since the patient’s last use of heroin or other short-acting opioid
or at least 24 and preferably at least 48 hours have elapsed since the last use of
methadone or other long-acting opioid
c. Within 1-3 days, a daily dose of buprenorphine/naloxone should be achieved that
eliminates signs and symptoms of opioid withdrawal, suppresses opioid craving, and

Module S - Page 85
 VA/DoD Clinical Practice Guideline
For Management of Substance Use Disorders

eliminates illicit opioid use. This dose could range from 2/0.5 mg per day to 16/4mg per
day and would rarely exceed that amount
d. Once stabilization has been achieved the dose can be rapidly tapered over 5-7 days.
There is little evidence that prolonging the taper leads to better results. (If the patient and
physician prefer a longer taper, there is also no evidence that a longer taper is harmful).
6. Withdrawal using methadone:
a. Withdrawal using methadone can only be performed in the context of a federally licensed
opioid treatment program where daily medication dispensing can occur. For patients not
engaged in methadone maintenance through an opioid treatment program, withdrawal
should be managed with buprenorphine
b. Initial stabilization is accomplished via induction with methadone just as it would be for
maintenance with this agent. Withdrawal signs do not have to be observed prior to
starting methadone, but with methadone there is risk of medication accumulation,
toxicity, and overdose. Initial dosing should be very conservative with careful daily
observation of the patient. Initial daily doses can range from 5 mg to a maximum of 30
mg
c. Within days to weeks, a daily dose of methadone should be achieved that eliminates signs
and symptoms of opioid withdrawal, suppresses opioid craving, and eliminates illicit
opioid use. This dose could range from 30 mg per day to doses as high as 120 mg per
day
d. Once stabilization has been achieved, the dose can be gradually tapered over a period of
weeks to months. Dose decreases of more than 5 -10 mg/day of methadone are generally
poorly tolerated. [C] In contrast to the evidence with buprenorphine/naloxone, with
methadone, longer taper periods should be used in the outpatient setting to minimize
patient discomfort and maximize chances of success
e. A period of two to three weeks is generally sufficient for short-term outpatient medically
supervised withdrawal in the most stable and motivated individual. The higher the
stabilization dose, the longer the taper is likely to take. The taper should proceed more
gradually as the dose becomes lower.
7. The 180-day stabilization/medically supervised withdrawal regimen should be considered to
facilitate work on patients’ early recovery problems, while stabilized on sublingual buprenorphine
or a relatively low dose (50-60 mg/day) of methadone. Stabilization is followed by short-term
medically supervised withdrawal from buprenorphine or methadone and transition to a drug-free
rehabilitation program.
8. Clonidine, an alpha-adrenergic agonist, can be considered as an adjunctive agent for symptom
relief during inpatient medically supervised opioid withdrawal; however, outpatient success is
much lower. If using clonidine, adjunctive medications for anxiety, restlessness, insomnia, muscle
aches, nausea, and diarrhea can also be prescribed.

DISCUSSION

Use of Buprenorphine or Methadone

A systematic review of RCTs suggest greater efficacy in managing withdrawal symptoms and in
completion of medically supervised withdrawal in inpatient and outpatient settings compared to alpha2
adrenergic agonists (e.g., clonadine) (Gowing et al., 2006). Systematic reviews also show that there
appears to be no significant difference between buprenorpine and methadone in terms of complication
of medically supervised withdrawal, but withdrawal symptoms may resolve more quickly with
buprenorphine (Amato et al.,, 2005; Gowing et al., 2006). Examples of dosing schedules for
withdrawal from opioids with buprenorphine and methadone are displayed in Table S-1 and S-2.

Module S - Page 86
 VA/DoD Clinical Practice Guideline
For Management of Substance Use Disorders

Alternative medically supervised withdrawal methods have been sought, due to concern that tapering
regimens using opioid agonists prolong the problem by prescribing an addictive medication. Many of
the symptoms of opioid withdrawal (e.g., diaphoresis, hyperactivity and irritability) appear to be
mediated by over-activity in the sympathetic nervous system. This resulted in trials that attempted to
depress the over-activity and ameliorate the withdrawal syndrome, using adrenergic agents, such as
clonidine and lofexidine, which are without abuse potential (Gold et al., 1978; Gold et al., 1980).
Clonidine, an alpha-adrenergic agonist with inhibitory action primarily at the locus ceruleus, is
effective in decreasing the signs and symptoms of opioid withdrawal in inpatient populations.
Inpatient studies reported an 80 to 90 percent success rate in detoxifying patients from methadone or
heroin, while outpatient studies have reported success rates as low as 30 to 35 percent (Cornish et al.,
1998).
The problems identified in outpatient clonidine medically supervised withdrawal include easier access
to heroin and other opioids, lethargy, insomnia, dizziness, and over-sedation. All of these problems are
more easily managed in the inpatient setting.

EVIDENCE TABLE
Evidence Source QE Overall Net SR
Quality Effect
1 Gradually decrease the dosage of CSAT, 1995 III Poor - C
the sedative-hypnotic or Smith & Wesson, 1994
substitute phenobarbital for the
addicting agent and taper
gradually.
2 During opioid medically Magura et al., 2001 II-2 Poor Mod B
supervised withdrawal, facilitate Simpson & Sells, 1990
engagement in comprehensive
long-term treatment.
3 Buprenorphine has demonstrated Gowing et al., 2006 I Good Subst A
greater efficacy in managing
withdrawal symptoms and in
completion of medically
supervised withdrawal treatment
in inpatient and outpatient
settings compared to alpha2
adrenergic agonists (e.g.,
clonidone).
4 Buprenorphine and methadone Amato et al.; 2005 I Good Subst A
appear to have equal efficacy in Gowing et al.; 2006
terms of completion of medically
supervised withdrawal treatment,
but withdrawal symptoms may
resolve more quickly with
buprenorphine.
QE = Quality of Evidence; SR = Strength of Recommendation (See Appendix A)

Module S - Page 87
 VA/DoD Clinical Practice Guideline
For Management of Substance Use Disorders

Table S- 1. Example Suboxone Dosing Schedules for

Withdrawal from Illicit Opioids 13 Day CTN Buprenorphine
Withdrawal Protocol
Day(s) in Dose of Suboxone
Study Day Buprenorphine-
Treatment (expressed as amount of buprenorphine)
Naloxone Dose (mg)
Starting dose of buprenorphine
1 4 + additional 4 as needed

8 mg 16 mg 24 mg 2 8
3 16
1 8 16 24
4 14
2 6 12 20
5 12
3 6 10 16
6 10
4 4 8 12
7 8
5 4 4 8
8 6
6 2 2 4
9 6
7 2 2 2
10 4
11 4

12 2
13 2

Table S- 2. Example Methadone Dosing Schedules for Withdrawal from Illicit Opioids

Day(s) in 21-Day Schedule 90-Day Schedule 180-Day Schedule

Treatment Dose (mg) Dose (mg) Dose (mg)
1 30 30 30
2 20 40 40
3 30 50 50
4–6 25 60 60
7 – 10 20 60 60
11 – 13 15 60 60
14 – 17 10 60 60
18 – 21 5 55 60
22 – 28 50 60
29 – 35 45 55
36 – 42 40 50
43 – 49 35 45
50 – 56 30 40
57 – 63 25 40
64 – 70 20 35
71 – 77 15 35
78 – 84 10 30
85 – 90 5 30
91 – 100 25
101 – 110 25
111 – 120 20
121 – 130 20
131 – 140 15
141 – 150 15
151 – 160 10
161 – 170 10
171 – 180 5
(Adapted from Strain & Stitzer, 1999)

Module S - Page 88
 VA/DoD Clinical Practice Guideline
For Management of Substance Use Disorders

I. Was Withdrawal Management Successful?

BACKGROUND
Treatment of opioid withdrawal should focus on facilitating entrance into comprehensive long-term
treatment, as well as alleviating acute symptoms. Withdrawal management can be attempted with
patients who wish to detoxify from all opioids. There is a high relapse rate to heroin or other opioid use
unless stabilization is combined with psychosocial interventions. As such, withdrawal management is
not a stand-alone treatment modality.

RECOMMENDATIONS
1. Identify patients in need of additional withdrawal management or stabilization before proceeding
with further evaluation or treatment.
2. Medically supervised withdrawal is successful to the degree that the patient:
a. Is physiologically stable
b. Avoids hazardous medical consequences of withdrawal
c. Experiences minimal discomfort
d. Reports being treated with respect
e. Completes the medically supervised withdrawal protocol (e.g., no longer requires
medication for withdrawal symptom management).

J. Is Care Management Indicated?

BACKGROUND
Among patients for whom withdrawal management is unsuccessful or who decline engagement in
specialty care for rehabilitation, some patients may benefit from implementation of an ongoing care
management plan outside of specialty SUD care.

RECOMMENDATIONS
1. If medically supervised withdrawal is unsuccessful, or treatment engagement is not achieved,
consider one of the following:
a. A more intensive level of care for withdrawal management (e.g., inpatient)
b. Identify patients who can benefit from implementation of a care management plan, if
acceptable to the patient (see Module C, Annotation K).

Module S - Page 89
 VA/DoD Clinical Practice Guideline
For Management of Substance Use Disorders

APPENDICES
Table of Contents
Page

Appendix A: Guideline Development Process 91 

Appendix B: Screening and Assessment Tools 98 
B-1: Brief Alcohol Screening Questionnaires for Unhealthy Alcohol Use 98 
B-2: Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test (AUDIT) 100 
B-3: CAGE Questionnaire 102 
B-4: Single Item Drug Use/Abuse Screen 103 
B-5: WHO Alcohol, Smoking and Substance Involvement Screening Test (ASSIST) 104 
B-6: Signs and Symptoms of Intoxication and Withdrawal (DSM-IV-TR) 111 
B-7: Addiction Research Foundation Clinical Institute Withdrawal
Assessment of Alcohol (CIWA-Ar) 116 
B-8: Clinical Opiate Withdrawal Scale (COWS) 118 
B-9: Brief Addiction Monitor (BAM). 120 
B-10. Housing Options 121 
Appendix C: Addiction-Focused Psychosocial Interventions 122
C-1 Behavioral Couples Therapy (BCT) 123
C-2 Cognitive Behavioral Coping Skills Therapy 125
C-3 Community Reinforcement Approach (CRA) 126
C-4 Contingency Management for SUD Treatment 127
C-5 Motivational Enhancement Theray (MET) 128
C-6 Twelve Step Facilitation (TSF) 130
Appendix D: Department of Defense Instruction (DoDI 1010.6) 133 
Appendix E: Sedative-Hypnotic Equivalent Oral Doses 135 
Appendix F: Acronym List 136 
Appendix G: Participant List 137 
Appendix H: Bibliography 142 

Appendices - Page 90
 VA/DoD Clinical Practice Guideline
For Management of Substance Use Disorders

Appendix A: Guideline Development Process

The development of the 2009 update of the VA/DoD Clinical Practice Guideline for Management of
SUD followed the steps described in “Guideline for Guidelines,” an internal working document of the
VA/DoD Evidence Based Practice Working Group, that requires an ongoing review of the work in
progress. The Working Group of the VA/DoD was charged to update the evidence-based action
recommendations whenever possible.
The Offices of Quality and Performance and Patient Care Services, in collaboration with the network
Clinical Managers, the Deputy Assistant Under Secretary for Health, and the Medical Center
Command of the DoD identified clinical leaders to champion the guideline development process.
During a preplanning conference call, the clinical leaders defined the scope of the guideline and
identified a group of clinical experts from the VA and DoD that formed the Management of SUD
Working Group. Working Group members included representatives of the following specialties:
primary care, internal medicine, psychiatry, psychology, psychotherapy research, social science
research, pharmacy, and nursing.
The Working Group defined a set of clinical questions within the area of the guideline. This ensured
that the guideline development work outside the meeting focused on issues that practitioners
considered important and produced criteria for the search and the protocol for systematic review and,
where appropriate, meta-analysis.
The Working Group participated in an initial face-to-face meeting to reach consensus about the
guideline algorithm and recommendations and to prepare a draft update document. The draft
continued to be revised by the Working Group at-large through numerous conference calls and
individual contributions to the document. Following the initial effort, an editorial panel of the
Working Group further edited the draft document. Recommendations for the performance or inclusion
of specific procedures or services were derived through a rigorous methodological approach that
included the following:
• Determining appropriate criteria, such as effectiveness, efficacy, population benefit, or patient
satisfaction
• Reviewing literature to determine the strength of the evidence in relation to these criteria
• Formulating the recommendations and grading the level of evidence supporting the
recommendation

• Independent experts reviewed the draft and their feedback was integrated into the final draft
document.
This update of the SUD Guideline is the product of many months of diligent effort and consensus
building among knowledgeable individuals from the VA, DoD, academia, as well as guideline
facilitators from the private sector. An experienced moderator facilitated the multidisciplinary
Working Group. The list of participants is included in Appendix G.

Appendix A - Page 91
 VA/DoD Clinical Practice Guideline
For Management of Substance Use Disorders

FORMULATION OF QUESTIONS
The Working Group developed researchable questions and associated key terms after orientation to the
scope of the guideline and to goals that had been identified by the Working Group. The questions
specified (adapted from the Evidence-Based Medicine toolbox, Center for Evidence-Based Medicine,
[http://www.cebm.net]):
• Population – Characteristics of the target patient population
• Intervention – Exposure, diagnostic, or prognosis
• Comparison – Intervention, exposure, or control used for comparison
• Outcome – Outcomes of interest.

These specifications served as the preliminary criteria for selecting studies. Literature searches were
conducted on all topics identified in the algorithm or recommendations of the original guidelines.
After reviewing the initial search for systematic reviews and meta-analyses, the Working Group
decided to focus the search for individual randomized controlled trials (RCT) on the following
questions:

Questions Related to Pharmacotherapy for Alcohol Dependence

• In outpatients or inpatients with a DSM diagnosis of alcohol dependence who receive care
outside specialty addictions settings (e.g., primary care), is there a difference in
efficacy/effectiveness between naltrexone (either oral or depot extended-release injectable
formulation), acamprosate, or disulfiram and placebo in terms of alcohol consumption,
relapse, retention/engagement in the treatment program, and adverse events?
• In outpatients or inpatients with a DSM diagnosis of alcohol dependence who receive care
outside specialty addictions settings (e.g., primary care), is there a difference in
efficacy/effectiveness between combination pharmacotherapy with two or more agents
(naltrexone, acamprosate, disulfiram, depot naltrexone) compared to single agent
pharmacotherapy?
• In outpatients or inpatients with a DSM diagnosis of alcohol dependence who receive care
outside specialty addictions settings is there a difference in efficacy/effectiveness between
initiating pharmacotherapy as the initial intervention after diagnosis compared to waiting a
short period to achieve abstinence before initiating drug therapy?
• In patients with a DSM diagnosis of alcohol dependence or abuse is there a difference
between initiating pharmacotherapy in the inpatient setting (Specialty setting ) compared to
initiating pharmacotherapy in an outside specialty setting in terms of alcohol consumption,
relapse, retention/engagement in the treatment program, adverse events, and withdrawals due
to adverse events?
• In outpatients or inpatients with a DSM diagnosis of alcohol dependence who receive care
outside specialty addictions settings is there a difference between initiating non-
pharmacologic psychosocial intervention in conjunction with pharmacotherapy compared to
pharmacotherapy alone?

Pharmacotherapy for Opioid Dependence

• In patients with a DSM diagnosis of Opioid Dependence who have completed withdrawal,
does use of naltrexone maintenance compared to placebo or treatment as usual lead to better
outcomes in terms of consumption, relapse, retention/engagement in the treatment program,
and adverse events?

Appendix A - Page 92
 VA/DoD Clinical Practice Guideline
For Management of Substance Use Disorders

• In patients with a DSM diagnosis of Opioid Dependence who have failed prior outpatient
abstinence treatment, is there a difference in efficacy/effectiveness between maintenance
treatment with opioid agonist buprenorphine (buprenorphine or buprenorphine/naloxone)
compared to opioid agonist methadone in terms of consumption, relapse,
retention/engagement in the treatment program, and adverse events?
• In patients with a DSM diagnosis of Opioid dependence, is there a difference in
efficacy/effectiveness between initiating non-pharmacologic psychosocial interventions in
conjunction with pharmacotherapy compared to pharmacotherapy alone?
• In patients with a DSM diagnosis of Opioid dependence is there a difference in
efficacy/effectiveness between initiating buprenorphine within office-based outpatient
treatment compared to initiating methadone within an opioid agonist treatment program in
terms of consumption, relapse, retention/engagement in the treatment program, and adverse
events?
• In patients with a DSM diagnosis of Opioid dependence appropriate for withdrawal
management, is there a difference in efficacy/effectiveness between methadone or
buprenorphine or clonidine in terms of completion of the withdrawal process, safety,
engagement in subsequent treatment, and relapse?

Selection of Evidence
The evidence selection was designed to identify the best available evidence to address each key
question and ensure maximum coverage of studies at the top of the hierarchy of study types.
Published, peer-reviewed RCTs, as well as meta-analyses and systematic reviews that included
randomized controlled studies were considered to constitute the strongest level of evidence in support
of guideline recommendations. This decision was based on the judgment that RCTs provide the
clearest, scientifically sound basis for judging comparative efficacy. The Working Group made this
decision recognizing the limitations of RCTs, particularly considerations of generalizability with
respect to patient selection and treatment quality. When available, the search sought out critical
appraisals already performed by others that described explicit criteria for deciding what evidence was
selected and how it was determined to be valid. The sources that have already undergone rigorous
critical appraisal include Cochrane Reviews, Best Evidence, Technology Assessment, and AHRQ
systematic evidence reports.
In addition to Medline/PubMed, the following databases were searched: Database of Abstracts of
Reviews of Effectiveness (DARE) and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials. For
Medline/PubMed searches, limits were set for language (English), and type of research (RCT,
systematic reviews and meta-analysis).
As a result of the literature reviews, articles were identified for possible inclusion. These articles
formed the basis for formulating the guideline recommendations. The following inclusion criteria
were used for studies:
• English language only of studies performed in United States, United Kingdom, Europe,
Australia, Japan, New Zealand
• Full articles only
• Study populations age limited to adults greater than 18 years; all races, ethnicities, cultural
groups
• Randomized controlled trials or prospective studies
• Published from 2002 to October 2007.

Appendix A - Page 93
 VA/DoD Clinical Practice Guideline
For Management of Substance Use Disorders

Admissible evidence (study design and other criteria):

• Original research studies that provide sufficient detail regarding methods and results to enable
use and adjustment of the data and results.
• Randomized controlled trials (RCT); systematic reviews (including EPC and HTA reviews);
and meta-analyses.
• Relevant outcomes must be able to be abstracted from data presented in the articles.
• Sample sizes must be appropriate for the study question addressed in the paper. RCTs will be
included if they are initiated with 30 or more participants.

PREPARATION OF EVIDENCE TABLES (REPORTS) AND EVIDENCE RATING

The results of the search were organized and evidence reports as well as copies of the original studies
were provided to the Working Group for further analysis. Each study was appraised by a group of
research analysts for scientific merit, clinical relevance, and applicability to the populations served by
the Federal healthcare system. The body of evidence was rated for quality and level of evidence. The
reports of the evidence can be found in separate documents titled “Evidence Summary Alcohol
Dependence” and “Evidence Summary Opioid Dependence.”
Recommendation and Overall Quality Rating
Evidence-based practice involves integrating clinical expertise with the best available clinical evidence
derived from systematic research. The Working Group received an orientation and tutorial on the
evidence USPSTF 2001 rating process, reviewed the evidence and independently formulated Quality
of Evidence ratings (see Table A-1), a rating of Overall Quality (see Table A-2), and a Strength of
Recommendation (see Table A-3).

Appendix A - Page 94
 VA/DoD Clinical Practice Guideline
For Management of Substance Use Disorders

Table A-1: Quality of Evidence (QE)

I At least one properly done RCT

II-1 Well-designed controlled trial without randomization

II-2 Well-designed cohort or case-control analytic study, preferably from more than one source

Multiple time series evidence with/without intervention, dramatic results of uncontrolled

II-3
experiment

III Opinion of respected authorities, descriptive studies, case reports, and expert committees

Table A-2: Overall Quality

Good High grade evidence (I or II-1) directly linked to health outcome

High grade evidence (I or II-1) linked to intermediate outcome;

Fair or
Moderate grade evidence (II-2 or II-3) directly linked to health outcome

Poor Level III evidence or no linkage of evidence to health outcome

Table A-3: Net Effect of the Intervention

More than a small relative impact on a frequent condition with a substantial burden of
suffering;
Substantial or
A large impact on an infrequent condition with a significant impact on the individual
patient level.

A small relative impact on a frequent condition with a substantial burden of suffering;

or
Moderate
A moderate impact on an infrequent condition with a significant impact on the
individual patient level.

A negligible relative impact on a frequent condition with a substantial burden of

suffering;
Small or
A small impact on an infrequent condition with a significant impact on the individual
patient level.

Negative impact on patients;

or
Zero or
No relative impact on either a frequent condition with a substantial burden of
Negative
suffering; or an infrequent condition with a significant impact on the individual
patient level.

Appendix A - Page 95
 VA/DoD Clinical Practice Guideline
For Management of Substance Use Disorders

Table A-4: Final Grade of Recommendation

The net benefit of the intervention

Quality of Zero or
Substantial Moderate Small
Evidence Negative

Good A B C D

Fair B B C D

Poor I I I I

Evidence Rating System

A A strong recommendation that the clinicians provide the intervention to eligible
patients.
Good evidence was found that the intervention improves important health outcomes
and concludes that benefits substantially outweigh harm.
B A recommendation that clinicians provide (the service) to eligible patients.
At least fair evidence was found that the intervention improves health outcomes and
concludes that benefits outweigh harm.
C No recommendation for or against the routine provision of the intervention is made.
At least fair evidence was found that the intervention can improve health outcomes,
but concludes that the balance of benefits and harms is too close to justify a general
recommendation.
D Recommendation is made against routinely providing the intervention to
asymptomatic patients.
At least fair evidence was found that the intervention is ineffective or that harms
outweigh benefits.
I The conclusion is that the evidence is insufficient to recommend for or against
routinely providing the intervention.
Evidence that the intervention is effective is lacking, or poor quality, or conflicting,
and the balance of benefits and harms cannot be determined.

LACK OF EVIDENCE – CONSENSUS OF EXPERTS

Where existing literature was ambiguous or conflicting, or where scientific data was lacking on an
issue, recommendations were based on the clinical experience of the Working Group.

ALGORITHM FORMAT
The goal in developing the guideline for management of SUD was to incorporate the information into a
format which would maximally facilitate clinical decision-making. The use of the algorithm format
was chosen because of the evidence that such a format improves data collection, diagnostic and
therapeutic decision-making and changes patterns of resource use. However, few guidelines are
published in such a format.

Appendix A - Page 96
 VA/DoD Clinical Practice Guideline
For Management of Substance Use Disorders

The algorithmic format allows the provider to follow a linear approach to critical information needed
at the major decision points in the clinical process, and includes:
• An ordered sequence of steps of care
• Recommended observations
• Decisions to be considered
• Actions to be taken
A clinical algorithm diagrams a guideline into a step-by-step decision tree. Standardized symbols are
used to display each step in the algorithm (Society for Medical Decision-Making Committee, 1992).
Arrows connect the numbered boxes indicating the order in which the steps should be followed.

Rounded rectangles represent a clinical state or condition.

Hexagons represent a decision point in the guideline, formulated as

a question that can be answered Yes or No. A horizontal arrow
points to the next step if the answer is YES. A vertical arrow
continues to the next step for a negative answer.

Rectangles represent an action in the process of care.

Ovals represent a link to another section within the guideline.

A letter within a box of an algorithm refers the reader to the corresponding annotation. The
annotations elaborate on the recommendations and statements that are found within each box of the
algorithm. Included in the annotations are brief discussions that provide the underlying rationale and
specific evidence tables. Annotations indicate whether each recommendation is based on scientific
data or expert opinion. A complete bibliography is included in the guideline.

REFERENCES

Agency for Health Care Policy and Research (AHCPR). Manual for conduction systematic review.
Draft. August 1996. Prepared by Steven H. Woolf.
Harris RP, Helfand M, Woolf SH, Lohr KN, Mulrow CD, Teutsch SM, Atkins D; Methods Work
Group, Third US Preventive Services Task Force Current methods of the U.S. Preventive Services
Task Force: a review of the process. Am J Prev Med 2001 Apr;20(3 Suppl):21-35.
Society for Medical Decision-Making Committee (SMDMC). Proposal for clinical algorithm
standards, SMDMC on Standardization of Clinical Algorithms. Med Decis Making 1992 Apr-
Jun;12(2):149-54.
United States Preventive Service Task Force (USPSTF). Guide to clinical preventive services. 2nd
edition. Washington, DC: US Department of Health and Human Services, Office of Disease
Prevention and Health Promotion, 1996.
Woolf SH. Practice guidelines, a new reality in medicine II. Methods of developing guidelines. Arch
Intern Med 1992 May;152(5):946-52.

Appendix A - Page 97
 VA/DoD Clinical Practice Guideline
For Management of Substance Use Disorders

Appendix B: Screening and Assessment Tools

Appendix B-1: Brief Alcohol Screening Questionnaires for Unhealthy Alcohol Use

AUDIT Consumption Questions (AUDIT-C)

1. How often did you have a drink containing alcohol in the past year?
Two to four times Two to three times Four or more
Never Monthly or less
per month per week times per week

2. On days in the past year when you drank alcohol how many drinks did you typically drink?
1 or 2 3 or 4 5 to 6 7 to 9 10 or more

3. How often do you have 6 or more drinks on an occasion in the past year?
Less than Daily or
Never Monthly Weekly
Monthly almost daily
Note: The AUDIT-C can be administered by interview or self-report.
Scoring AUDIT-C
Question 0 points 1 point 2 points 3 points 4 points

Two to four times Two to three times Four or more

1 Never Monthly or less
per month per week times per week

0 drinks and 1 or
2 2
3 or 4 5 to 6 7 to 9 10 or more

Less than Daily or

3 Never Monthly Weekly
Monthly almost daily
When the AUDIT-C is administered by self-report add a “0 drinks” response option to question #2 (0
points based on validations studies). In addition, it is valid to impute responses of 0 points to
questions #2-3 for patients who indicate “never” in response to question #1 (past year non-drinkers).
The minimum score (for non-drinkers) is 0 and the maximum possible score is 12.
Consider a screen positive for Unhealthy Alcohol Use if AUDIT-C score is > 4 points
for men or > 3 points for women

Single-Item Alcohol Screening Questionnaire (SASQ) recommended by NIAAA

1. Do you sometimes drink beer, wine, or other alcoholic beverages?
(Followed by the screening question)
2. How many times in the past year have you had…
5 or more drinks in a day (men)
4 or more drinks in a day (women)
One standard drink = 12 ounces of beer, or 5 ounces of wine, or 1.5 ounces of 80-proof spirits.

A positive screen is any report of drinking 5 or more (men) or 4 or more (women) drinks on an
occasion in the past year.

Appendix B - Page 98
 VA/DoD Clinical Practice Guideline
For Management of Substance Use Disorders

REFERENCES

Overview:

Bradley KA, Kivlahan DR, Williams EC. Brief approaches to alcohol screening: practical alternatives
for primary care. J Gen Intern Med. Jul 2009;24(7):881-883.

AUDIT-C

Bush, K., D. R. Kivlahan, M. B. McDonell, S. D. Fihn & K. A. Bradley (1998) The AUDIT alcohol
consumption questions (AUDIT-C): an effective brief screening test for problem drinking.
Ambulatory Care Quality Improvement Project (ACQUIP). Alcohol Use Disorders Identification
Test. Arch Intern Med, 158, 1789-95.
Bradley KA, DeBenedetti AF, Volk RJ, Williams EC, Frank D, Kivlahan DR. AUDIT-C as a brief
screen for alcohol misuse in primary care. Alcohol Clin Exp Res. Jul 2007;31(7):1208-1217.
Bradley KA, Bush KR, Epler AJ, et al. Two brief alcohol-screening tests From the Alcohol Use
Disorders Identification Test (AUDIT): validation in a female Veterans Affairs patient population.
Arch Intern Med. Apr 14 2003;163(7):821-829.

SASQ
National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism, US Department of Health and Human Services
& National Institute of Health (2007) Helping Patients Who Drink Too Much: A Clinician’s Guide
(updated 2005 guide).

Smith, P. C., S. M. Schmidt, D. Allensworth-Davies & R. Saitz (2009) Primary Care Validation of a
Single-Question Alcohol Screening Test. J Gen Intern Med, 24, 783-788.

Appendix B - Page 99
 VA/DoD Clinical Practice Guideline
For Management of Substance Use Disorders

Appendix B-2: Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test (AUDIT)

Because alcohol use can affect your health and can interfere with certain medications and treatments, it is important that we
ask some questions about your use of alcohol in the last year. Your answers will remain confidential so please be honest.
Place an X in one box that best describes your answer to each question.

Questions 0 1 2 3 4
Two to four Two to Four or
1. How often do you have a drink Monthly or
Never times a three times more times
containing alcohol? less
month a week a week
2. How many drinks containing alcohol
do you have on a typical day when you 1 or 2 3 or 4 5 or 6 7 to 9 10 or more
are drinking?
Daily or
3. How often do you have six or more Less than
Never Monthly Weekly almost
drinks on one occasion? monthly
daily
4. How often during the last year have Daily or
Less than
you found that you were not able to Never Monthly Weekly almost
monthly
stop drinking once you had started? daily
5. How often during the last year have
Daily or
you failed to do what was normally Less than
Never Monthly Weekly almost
expected from you because of monthly
daily
drinking?
6. How often during the last year have
Daily or
you needed a first drink in the morning Less than
Never Monthly Weekly almost
to get yourself going after a heavy monthly
daily
drinking session?
7. How often during the last year have Daily or
Less than
you had a feeling of guilt or remorse Never Monthly Weekly almost
monthly
after drinking? daily
8. How often during the last year have
Daily or
you been unable to remember what Less than
Never Monthly Weekly almost
happened the night before because of monthly
daily
your drinking?
Yes, but Yes, during
9. Have you or someone else been
No not in the the last
injured as a result of your drinking?
last year year
10. Has a relative or friend, doctor or other
Yes, but Yes, during
healthcare worker been concerned
No not in the the last
about your drinking or suggested you
last year year
cut down?
Total

Appendix B - Page 100

 VA/DoD Clinical Practice Guideline
For Management of Substance Use Disorders

SCORING
NOTE: The AUDIT can be administered by interview or self-report.

Questions 1-8 are scored 0, 1, 2, 3 or 4.

Questions 9 and 10 are scored 0, 2 or 4 only.
The response is as follows:

Question 0 points 1 point 2 points 3 points 4 points

Two to four times Two to three times Four or more

1 Never Monthly or less
per month per week times per week

2 1 or 2 3 or 4 5 to 6 7 to 9 10 or more

Less than Daily or

3-8 Never Monthly Weekly
Monthly almost daily

Yes, but not in the Yes, during

9-10 No - -
last year the last year

The minimum score (for non-drinkers) is 0 and the maximum possible score is 40.

The originally proposed WHO cut-off of 8 or more was based on the derivation sample (Saunders et.
al. 1993). In U.S. primary care studies and studies in VA outpatients, scores of 4 or more indicate a
positive screen for identification of risky drinking or alcohol use disorders; scores of 5 or more indicate
a positive screen for past-year DSM-IV alcohol use disorders (Volk et. al., 1997; Steinbauer et. al.,
1998; Bradley et. al., 1998; Bradley et. al., 2003).

REFERENCES

Bradley KA, DeBenedetti AF, Volk RJ, Williams EC, Frank D, Kivlahan DR. AUDIT-C as a brief
screen for alcohol misuse in primary care. Alcohol Clin Exp Res. Jul 2007;31(7):1208-1217.
Bradley KA, Bush KR, Epler AJ, et al. Two brief alcohol-screening tests From the Alcohol Use
Disorders Identification Test (AUDIT): validation in a female Veterans Affairs patient population.
Arch Intern Med. Apr 14 2003;163(7):821-829.
Bradley KA, Bush KR, McDonell MB, Malone T, Fihn SD. Screening for problem drinking:
comparison of CAGE and AUDIT. Ambulatory Care Quality Improvement Project (ACQUIP).
Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test. J Gen Intern Med. Jun 1998;13(6):379-388.
Saunders JB, Aasland OG, Babor F, et al. Development of the alcohol use disorders screening test
(AUDIT). WHO collaborative project on early detection of persons with harmful alcohol
consumption, II. Addiction 1993;88:791-804.
Steinbauer JR, Cantor SB, Holzer CE, Volk JR. Ethnic and sex bias in primary care screening tests for
alcohol use disorders. Ann Intern Med. 1998;129:353-362.
Volk RJ, Cantor SB, Steinbauer JR, Cass AR. Item bias in the CAGE screening test for alcohol use
disorders. J Gen Intern Med. 1997;12:763-769.

Appendix B - Page 101

 VA/DoD Clinical Practice Guideline
For Management of Substance Use Disorders

Appendix B-3: CAGE Questionnaire

Please check one response to each item that best describes how you have felt and behaved during your
whole life.

YES NO
† †
1. Have you ever felt you should cut down on your drinking?
1 0
† †
2. Have people annoyed you by criticizing your drinking?
1 0
† †
3. Have you ever felt bad or guilty about your drinking?
1 0
4. Have you ever had a drink first thing in the morning to steady your † †
nerves or to get rid of a hangover (eye opener)? 1 0

SCORING
Item responses on the CAGE are scored 0 to 1, with a higher score an indication of alcohol problems.
A total score of 2 or greater is considered clinically significant.

REFERENCE

Bradley KA, Bush KR, McDonell MB, Malone T, Fihn SD. Screening for problem drinking:
comparison of CAGE and AUDIT. Ambulatory Care Quality Improvement Project (ACQUIP).
Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test. J Gen Intern Med. Jun 1998;13(6):379-388.
Bradley KA, Kivlahan DR, Bush KR, McDonell MB, Fihn SD. Variations on the CAGE alcohol
screening questionnaire: strengths and limitations in VA general medical patients. Alcohol Clin
Exper Res. 2001;25(10):1472-1478.
Buchsbaum DG, Buchanan R, Centor R. Interpreting CAGE scores. Ann Intern Med.
1992;116(12):1032-1033.

Appendix B - Page 102

 VA/DoD Clinical Practice Guideline
For Management of Substance Use Disorders

Appendix B-4: Single Item Drug Use/Abuse Screen

How many times in the past year have you used an illegal drug or used a
prescription medication for non-medical reasons?

SCORING
A response of >1 was considered positive.

REFERENCE

PC Smith, D Allensworth-Davies, R Saitz. Single question screening for drug use in primary care.
Subst Abuse Volume 30/No. 1, 2009; page 88 (abstract; manuscript is under review).

Appendix B - Page 103

 VA/DoD Clinical Practice Guideline
For Management of Substance Use Disorders

Appendix B-5: WHO Alcohol, Smoking and Substance Involvement Screening Test
(ASSIST)
(Modified by NIDA)
Full screen available at http://www.nida.nih.gov/nidamed/screening/nmassist.pdf

Appendix B - Page 104

 VA/DoD Clinical Practice Guideline
For Management of Substance Use Disorders

Appendix B - Page 105

 VA/DoD Clinical Practice Guideline
For Management of Substance Use Disorders

Appendix B - Page 106

 VA/DoD Clinical Practice Guideline
For Management of Substance Use Disorders

Appendix B - Page 107

 VA/DoD Clinical Practice Guideline
For Management of Substance Use Disorders

Appendix B - Page 108

 VA/DoD Clinical Practice Guideline
For Management of Substance Use Disorders

Appendix B - Page 109

 VA/DoD Clinical Practice Guideline
For Management of Substance Use Disorders

Appendix B - Page 110

 VA/DoD Clinical Practice Guideline
For Management of Substance Use Disorders

Appendix B-6: Signs and Symptoms of Intoxication and Withdrawal (DSM-IV-TR)

Substance Signs and Symptoms of Intoxication Signs and Symptoms of Withdrawal
Classification

Alcohol DSM-IV-TR 303.00 Alcohol Intoxication DSM-IV-TR 291.81 Alcohol Withdrawal

• Recent ingestion of alcohol
Note: Cessation of or reduction in alcohol use that
• Clinically significant maladaptive
has been heavy and prolonged
behavioral or psychological changes
(inappropriate sexual or aggressive • Two or more of the following that develop within
behavior, mood lability, impaired several hours to a few days after apparent
judgment, impaired social or occupational intoxication
functioning) that developed during or • Autonomic hyperactivity (Sweating, Heart Rate >
shortly after alcohol ingestion) 100)
• One or more of the following that develop • Increased hand tremor
during or shortly after alcohol ingestion: • Insomnia
• Slurred speech • Nausea or vomiting
• Lack of coordination • Transient visual, tactile, or auditory
• Unsteady gait hallucinations, or delusions
• Nystagmus • Psychomotor agitation
• Impaired attention or memory • Anxiety
• Coma or stupor • Grand mal seizures
• Symptoms cause clinically significant distress or
impairment in social, occupational, or other
important areas of functioning
Note: Symptoms not due to general medical
condition and not accounted for by another Note: Symptoms not due to general medical
mental disorder condition and not accounted for by another mental
disorder

Sedative, DSM-IV-TR 292.89 Intoxication DSM-IV-TR 292.0 Withdrawal

Hypnotic,
Anxiolytic • Recent use of sedative, hypnotic, or • Cessation of or reduction in sedative, hypnotic,
anxiolytic or anxiolytic use that has been heavy and
• Clinically significant maladaptive prolonged
behavioral or psychological changes • Two or more of the following developing within
(inappropriate sexual or aggressive several hours to a few days of apparent
behavior, mood lability, impaired intoxication
judgment, impaired social or occupational • Autonomic hyperactivity (sweating or pulse rate
functioning) that developed during or over 100)
shortly after sedative, hypnotic, or • Increased hand tremor
anxiolytic use) • Insomnia
• One or more of the following developing • Nausea or vomiting
during or shortly after sedative, hypnotic, • Transient visual, tactile, or auditory
or anxiolytic use hallucinations or illusions
• Slurred speech • Psychomotor agitation
• Lack of coordination • Anxiety
• Unsteady gait • Grand mal seizures
• Nystagmus • Symptoms cause clinically significant distress or
• Impaired attention or memory impairment in social, occupational, or other
• Stupor important areas of functioning
• Coma
Note: Symptoms not due to general medical
condition and not accounted for by another mental
disorder

Appendix B - Page 111

 VA/DoD Clinical Practice Guideline
For Management of Substance Use Disorders

Substance Signs and Symptoms of Intoxication Signs and Symptoms of Withdrawal

Classification

Amphetamines, DSM-IV-TR 292.89 Amphetamine DSM-IV-TR 292.0 Amphetamine Withdrawal

(including Intoxication
Ecstasy, MDMA,) Note: Cessation of or reduction in amphetamine or
• Recent Use of Amphetamine or Related
Substance related substance use that has been heavy and
Or prolonged
• Clinically significant maladaptive
behavioral or psychological changes • Dysphoric mood and two or more of the
Cocaine (euphoria or affective blunting, changes in following that develop within several hours to a
sociability, hyper vigilance, interpersonal few days after apparent intoxication
sensitivity, anxiety, tension, anger, • Fatigue
stereotyped behaviors, impaired • Vivid, unpleasant dreams
judgment, impaired social or occupational • Insomnia or hypersomnia
functioning) that developed during or
• Increased appetite
shortly after amphetamine use)
• Psychomotor agitation or retardation
• Two or more of the following that develop
• Symptoms cause clinically significant distress or
during or shortly after amphetamine use:
impairment in social, occupational, or other
• Tachycardia or bradycardia
important areas of functioning
• Pupillary dilation
• Elevated or low blood pressure Note: Symptoms not due to general medical
• Perspiration or chills condition and not accounted for by another mental
• Nausea or vomiting disorder
• Evidence of weight loss
• Psychomotor agitation or retardation
• Muscular Weakness
• Chest Pain
• Cardiac Arrhythmia
• Respiratory Depression
• Confusion
• Seizures
• Dyskinesia
• Dystonia
• Coma
Note: Symptoms not due to general medical
condition and not accounted for by another
mental disorder

Opioids DSM-IV-TR 292.89 Opioid Intoxication DSM-IV-TR 292.0 Opioid Withdrawal

• Recent Use of Opioid • Cessation of or reduction in opioid use that has
• Clinically significant maladaptive been heavy and prolonged (several weeks or
behavioral or psychological changes longer)
(initial euphoria followed by apathy, • Administration of opioid antagonist after a period
dysphoria, psychomotor agitation or of opioid use
retardation, impaired judgment or • Three or more of the following within minutes to
impaired social or occupational several days of above:
functioning) that develop during or shortly • Dysphoric mood
after use of opioids) • Nausea or vomiting
• Pupillary constriction (Or dilation due to • Muscle aches
anoxia from severe overdose) and one or • Lacrimation or rhinorrhea
more of the following: • Pupillary dilation, piloerection, or sweating
• Drowsiness or coma • Diarrhea
• Slurred speech • Yawning
• Impaired attention or memory • Fever
Note: Symptoms not due to general medical • Insomnia
condition and not accounted for by another • Symptoms cause clinically significant distress or
mental disorder impairment in social, occupational, or other
important areas of functioning
Note: Symptoms not due to general medical
condition and not accounted for by another mental
disorder

Appendix B - Page 112

 VA/DoD Clinical Practice Guideline
For Management of Substance Use Disorders

Substance Signs and Symptoms of Intoxication Signs and Symptoms of Withdrawal

Classification

Cannabis DSM-IV-TR 292.89 Cannabis Intoxication

Recent use of Cannabis

• Clinically significant maladaptive
behavioral or psychological changes
(impaired motor coordination, euphoria,
anxiety, sensation of slowed time,
impaired judgment, social withdrawal that
develop during or shortly after cannabis
use)
• Two or more of the following that develop
within 2 hours of cannabis use:
• Conjunctival injection
• Increased appetite
• Dry mouth
• Tachycardia
Note: Symptoms not due to general medical
condition and not accounted for by another
mental disorder

Hallucinogen DSM-IV-TR 292.89 Hallucinogen

including LSD Intoxication

Recent use of hallucinogen

• Clinically significant maladaptive
behavioral or psychological changes
(marked anxiety or depression, ideas of
reference, fear of losing one’s mind,
paranoid ideation, impaired judgment, or
impaired social or occupational
functioning that develop during or shortly
after hallucinogen use)
• Perceptual changes occurring in a state
of full wakefulness and alertness
(subjective intensification of perceptions,
depersonalization, illusions,
hallucinations, synesthesias) that develop
during or shortly after hallucinogen use
Two or more of the following that develop
during or shortly after hallucinogen use
• Pupillary dilation
• Tachycardia
• Sweating
• Palpitations
• Blurring of vision
• Tremors
• Lack of coordination
Note: Symptoms not due to general medical
condition and not accounted for by another
mental disorder

Appendix B - Page 113

 VA/DoD Clinical Practice Guideline
For Management of Substance Use Disorders

Substance Signs and Symptoms of Intoxication Signs and Symptoms of Withdrawal

Classification

Inhalants DSM-IV-TR 292.89 Inhalant Intoxication

• Recent intentional use or short-term high-
(solvents, nitrous dose exposure to volatile agents
oxide, nitrites) (excluding anesthesia gases and short-
acting vasodilators)
• Clinically Significant Maladaptive
Behavioral or Psychological Changes
(belligerence, assaultiveness, apathy,
impaired judgment, impaired social or
occupational functioning) that develop
during or shortly after exposure to volatile
agents)
Two or more of the following that develop
during or shortly after inhalant use or
exposure:
• Dizziness
• Nystagmus
• Lack of coordination
• Slurred Speech
• Unsteady Gait
• Lethargy
• Depressed reflexes
• Psychomotor Retardation
• Tremor
• Generalized Muscle Weakness
• Blurred Vision or Diplopia
• Stupor Coma
• Euphoria
Note: Symptoms not due to general medical
condition and not accounted for by another
mental disorder

Appendix B - Page 114

 VA/DoD Clinical Practice Guideline
For Management of Substance Use Disorders

Substance Signs and Symptoms of Intoxication Signs and Symptoms of Withdrawal

Classification

Phencyclidine DSM-IV-TR 292.89 Phencyclidine

(PCP) Intoxication

Recent use of phencyclidine or related

substance
• Clinically Significant Maladaptive
Behavioral or Psychological Changes
(belligerence, assaultiveness,
impulsiveness, unpredictability,
psychomotor agitation, impaired
judgment, or impaired social or
occupational functioning) that develop
during or shortly after phencyclidine use
Within an hour (less when smoked, “snorted,”
or used intravenously) two or more of the
following:
• Vertical or horizontal nystagmus
• Hypertension or tachycardia
• Numbness or diminished responsiveness
to pain
• Ataxia
• Dysarthria
• Muscle rigidity
• Seizures or Coma
• Hyperacusis
Symptoms cause clinically significant distress
or impairment in social, occupational, or other
important areas of functioning

Note: Symptoms not due to general medical

condition and not accounted for by another
mental disorder

Dextromethorphan Alcohol-like Intoxication

(DXM)
• Hallucinations
• Impaired Senses, Including Vision
• Mind-body Dissociation
• Slurred Speech
• Memory Loss

Appendix B - Page 115

 VA/DoD Clinical Practice Guideline
For Management of Substance Use Disorders

Appendix B-7: Addiction Research Foundation Clinical Institute Withdrawal

Assessment of Alcohol (CIWA-Ar)

Appendix B - Page 116

 VA/DoD Clinical Practice Guideline
For Management of Substance Use Disorders

SCORING
CIWA-Ar has 10 provider ratings. Interpret sum of total scores as follows:
• Minimal or absent withdrawal: ≤ 9
• Mild to moderate withdrawal: 10-19
• Severe withdrawal: > 20

REFERENCE

Sullivan JT, Sykora K, Schneiderman J, et al. Assessment of alcohol withdrawal: the revised Clinical
Institute Withdrawal Assessment for Alcohol scale (CIWA-AR). Brit J Addiction 1989;84:1353-7.
See web based training on use of CIWA-Ar for Prevention of Alcohol Withdrawal Syndrome at
www.detoxguideline.org

Appendix B - Page 117

 VA/DoD Clinical Practice Guideline
For Management of Substance Use Disorders

Appendix B-8: Clinical Opiate Withdrawal Scale (COWS)

For each item, circle the number that best describes the patient’s signs or symptoms. Rate just on the apparent
relationship to opioid withdrawal. For example, if heart rate is increased because the patient was jogging just prior
to assessment, the increased pulse rate would not add to the score.

Appendix B - Page 118

 VA/DoD Clinical Practice Guideline
For Management of Substance Use Disorders

SCORING
COWS has 10 provider ratings. Interpret sum of total scores as follows:
• Mild withdrawal: 5-12
• Moderate withdrawal: 13-24
• Moderately severe withdrawal: 25-36
• Severe withdrawal: > 36

REFERENCE

Wesson DR, Ling W. The Clinical Opiate Withdrawal Scale (COWS). J Psychoactive Drugs. 2003
Apr-Jun;35(2):253-9.

Appendix B - Page 119

 VA/DoD Clinical Practice Guideline
For Management of Substance Use Disorders

Appendix B-9: Brief Addiction Monitor (BAM).

Participant ID: __________ Date: __________
Interviewer ID (Clinician Initials): __________
Method of Administration: † Clinician Interview † Self Report † Phone

Time Started: _____ : _____ Time Finished: _____:________

This is a standard set of questions about several areas of your life such as your health, alcohol and drug use
The questions generally ask about the past 30 days. Please consider each question and answer as accurately as possible.

1. In the past 30 days, would you say your physical health has been?
0- Excellent 1 - Very Good 2 - Good 3 - Fair 4 - Poor
2. In the past 30 days, how many nights did you have trouble falling asleep or staying asleep? ___ ___
3. In the past 30 days, how many days have you felt depressed, anxious, angry or very upset throughout most of the day?
___ ___
4. In the past 30 days, how many days did you drink ANY alcohol? (If 00, Skip to #6) ___ ___
5. How many days did you have at least (5-men, 4-women) drinks? [One drink is considered one shot of hard liquor (1.5 oz.) or
12 - ounce can/bottle of beer or 5 ounce glass of wine.] ___ ___
6. In the past 30 days, how many days did you use any illegal/street drugs or abuse any prescription medications?
(If 00, Skip to #8) ___ ___
7. What did you take? (Check all that apply)
__ 7a. Marijuana
__ 7b Sedatives/Tranquilizers (e.g., « benzos", Valium, Xanax, Ativan, Ambien, "barbs", Phenobarbital, downers, etc.)
__ 7c. Cocaine/Crack
__ 7d. Other Stimulants (e.g., amphetamine, methamphetamine, Dexedrine, Ritalin, Adderall, “speed”, "crystal meth", “ice”,
"crank", etc.)
__ 7e. Opiates (e.g., Heroin, Morphine, Dilaudid, Demerol, Oxcycontin, "oxcy", codeine (Tylenol 2,3,4), Percocet, Vicodin,
Fentanyl, etc.)
__ 7f. Other drugs (e.g., steroids, non-prescription sleep or diet pills, benadryl, ephedra, other over-the-counter/unknown meds,
etc)
8. In the past 30 days, how much were you bothered by cravings or urges to drink alcohol or use drugs?
0 - Not at all 1 - Slightly 2 - Moderately 3 - Considerably 4 - Extremely
9. How confident are you in your ability to be completely abstinent (clean) from alcohol and drugs in the next 30 days?
0 - Not at all 1 - Slightly 2 - Moderately 3 - Considerably 4 - Extremely
10. In the past 30 days, how many days did you attend self-help meetings like AA or NA to support your recovery? ___ ___
11. In the past 30 days, how many days were you in any situations or with any people that might put you at an increased risk
for using alcohol or drugs (i.e., around risky “people, places or things”)? ___ ___
12. Does your religion or spirituality help support your recovery?
0 - Not at all 1 - Slightly 2 - Moderately 3 - Considerably 4 - Extremely
13. In the past 30 days, how many days did you spend much of the time at work, school, or doing volunteer work? ___ ___
14. Do you have enough income (from legal sources) to pay for necessities such as housing, transportation, food and clothing
for yourself and your dependents?
0 - No 1 - Yes
15. In the past 30 days, how much have you been bothered by arguments or problems getting along with any family members
or friends?
0 - Not at all 1 - Slightly 2 - Moderately 3 - Considerably 4 - Extremely
16. In the past 30 days, how many days were you in contact or spend time with any family members or friends who are
supportive of your recovery? ___ ___
17. How satisfied are you with your progress toward achieving your recovery goals?
0 - Not at all 1 - Slightly 2 - Moderately 3 - Considerably 4 - Extremely

Appendix B - Page 120

 VA/DoD Clinical Practice Guideline
For Management of Substance Use Disorders

Appendix B-10. Housing Options *

Types of Indications Examples
Housing

Intensive Medical or psychiatric instability Inpatient medical bed section

Medical requiring hospitalization (includes Inpatient addiction/psychiatry bed section
Management severe intoxication or withdrawal)
or Monitoring ASAM PPC-2R* Levels III.7 and IV
Clinical Medical or psychiatric instability Social detoxification setting
Management requiring 24-hour clinical VA Substance Abuse Residential Rehabilitation
management, but not of sufficient Treatment Programs (SARRTP) and VA
severity to require hospitalization Domiciliaries (if professional staff are present
ASAM PPC-2R Levels III.3-III.5 24-hours/day)
Therapeutic Rehabilitation Facility
Therapeutic Community
24-Hour Mild to moderately severe psychiatric Halfway houses
Supervision or medical conditions requiring Sober houses or safe houses
some supervision that may be Use of hospital bed space for lodging purposes
provided by paraprofessionals, (e.g., self-care wards in DoD & lodger status
volunteers, or patients in advanced in VA)
stages of treatment VA SARRTP and VA Domiciliaries (if staffed
Demonstrated inability to remain only by non-professionals at least part of the
abstinent in unsupervised setting or day or night)
homeless
Lacking own social support system,
such as family members willing and
able to assist
ASAM PPC-2R Level III.1
Non-Supervised Homeless Patient’s own home
Housing Lives at too far to travel to outpatient Transitional living facility
program Temporary housing provided on-site or in the
Able to care for self, including use of community
medications Intensive Outpatient Treatment
Able to remain abstinent in an Partial Hospitalization
unsupervised setting Day or evening outpatient treatment programs
ASAM PPC-2R Levels I, II.1, or II.5 Drop-in center
*ASAM Patient Placement Criteria, 2nd Edition-Revised (ASAM PPC-2R, 2001)

Appendix B - Page 121

 VA/DoD Clinical Practice Guideline
For Management of Substance Use Disorders

Appendix C: Addiction-Focused Psychosocial Interventions

Summary of Effectiveness of Psychosocial Interventions during early recovery (first 90 days) on
condition specific outcomes of SUD (use or consequences) or general psychosocial functioning
First line alternatives at least as effective Added effectiveness as adjunctive
as other bona fide active interventions or interventions in combination with
treatment as usual (TAU) pharmacotherapy and/or other first line
psychosocial interventions

Interventions Alcohol Opioids Stimulants Cannabis Alcohol Opioids Stimulants Cannabis Comments
(alphabetical) /mixed /mixed

C-1 Behavioral +++ N/A +++ N/A +/- + ? N/A Effective for
Couples Therapy male or female
patients with
SUD and
partners;
improves
marital
satisfaction
C-2 Cognitive +++ N/A +++ ++ + +++ N/A ++
Behavioral Coping
Skills Training

C-4 Contingency N/A N/A N/A N/A + +++ +++ N/A

Management/
Motivational
Incentives

C-3 Community +++ N/A + N/A N/A N/A + N/A Complex

Reinforcement intervention
Approach

C-5 Motivational +++ N/A N/A ? +++ ? +/- + May improve

Enhancement treatment
Therapy (MET) engagement as
adjunct to TAU
for stimulants;
Some evidence
for those with
low readiness
or high anger
C-6 Twelve-Step +++ N/A N/A N/A ++ N/A + N/A AA
Facilitation participation is
correlated with
outcome –
appears to
mediate TSF
effects
+++ based on meta analysis of comparison with bona fide alternative interventions
+ or ++ Based on one (+) or more (++) individual trials in comparison with bona fide alternatives
N/A: evidence not available; +/- evidence inconsistent across outcomes; ?: benefit questionable

Appendix C - Page 122

 VA/DoD Clinical Practice Guideline
For Management of Substance Use Disorders

 
C-1. Behavioral Couples Therapy (BCT)

DESCRIPTION
Most versions of behavioral couples therapy (BCT) are focused both on reducing alcohol or drug use
in the identified patient and on improving overall marital satisfaction for both partners. In BCT
sessions, the therapist arranges a daily Sobriety Contract in which the patient states his or her intent not
to drink or use drugs that day, and the partner expresses support for the patient’s efforts to stay
abstinent. The Sobriety Contract can also include urine drug screens for the patient, attendance at
other agreed-to counseling sessions, or 12-step meetings by the patient and partner. To improve
relationship functioning, BCT uses a series of behavioral assignments to increase positive feelings,
shared activities, and constructive communication because these relationship factors are conducive to
sobriety.

DISCUSSION
BCT has been evaluated in a number of randomized studies with alcohol or drug dependent individuals
and their partners. As a standalone treatment, it has consistently been found to improve drinking or
drug use outcomes and marital satisfaction to a greater degree than control conditions, which have
usually been individual or group standard addictions treatment (Epstein & McCrady, 1998; Fals-
Stewart et al., 1996, 2003; O’Farrell & Fals-Stewart, 2001; Shadish & Baldwin, 2005; Stanton &
Shadish, 1997). Studies have also shown that BCT is cost-effective, reduces violence, and improves
the psychosocial functioning of children in the family (Fals-Stewart et al., 1997, 2002; Kelley & Fals-
Stewart, 2002; O’Farrell et al., 1996a, 1996b, 1999). Although most studies have focused exclusively
on males with SUD and their female partners, several recent studies have also found that the
intervention is effective for female substance abusers and their male partners (Fals-Stewart et al.,
2006). However, it should be noted that BCT has been compared to other forms of couples therapy in
only a few studies which raises the question of whether it is in fact more effective than other conjoint
interventions (Walitzer & Dermen, 2004). In addition, the intervention has only been tested with
significant others who are not themselves substance abusers.

REFERENCES

Epstein E.E., & McCrady, B.S. (1998). Behavioral couples treatment of alcohol and drug use
disorders: Current status and innovations. Clinical Psychology Review. 1998;18:689-711.
Fals-Stewart, W., Birchler, G.R., et al. (2006). Learning sobriety together: A randomized trial
examining behavioral couples therapy with alcoholic female patients. Journal of Consulting and
Clinical Psychology, 74, 579-591.
Fals-Stewart, W. and T. J. O’Farrell (2003). Behavioral family counseling and naltrexone for male
opioid-dependent patients. J Consult Clin Psychol 71(3): 432-42.
Fals-Stewart, W., Birchler, G.R. & O’Farrell, T.J. (1996). Behavioral couples therapy for male
substance-abusing patients: Effects on relationship adjustment and drug-using behavior. Journal of
Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 64, 959-972.
Fals-Stewart, W., O’Farrell, T.J., & Birchler. G.R. (1997). Behavioral couples therapy for male
substance abusing patients: A cost outcomes analysis. Journal of Consulting and Clinical
Psychology, 65, 789-802.
Fals-Stewart, W., K. Klostermann, et al. (2005). Brief relationship therapy for alcoholism: a
randomized clinical trial examining clinical efficacy and cost-effectiveness. Psychol Addict
Behav 19(4): 363-71.
Fals-Stewart, W., T. B. Kashdan, et al. (2002). Behavioral couples therapy for drug-abusing patients:
effects on partner violence. J Subst Abuse Treat 22(2): 87-96

Appendix C - Page 123

 VA/DoD Clinical Practice Guideline
For Management of Substance Use Disorders

Hulse, G. K. (2003). Behavioural family
andomized reduces drug use in opioid-dependent men.
Evid Based Ment Health 6(4): 123.
Kelley, M. L., & Fals-Stewart, W. (2002). Couples- versus individual-based therapy for alcohol and
drug abuse: effects on children’s psychosocial functioning. J Consult Clin Psychol 70(2): 417-27
O’Farrell T., & Fals-Stewart, W. (2001). Family-involved alcoholism treatment: An update. In:
Galanter M, editor. Recent Developments in Alcoholism, Volume 15: Services Research in the
Era of Managed Care. New York: Kluwer Academic/Plenum.
O’Farrell, T. J., Choquette, K. A., Cutter, H. S. G., Floyd, F. J., Bayog, R. D., Brown, E. D., Lowe, J.,
Chan, A., & Deneault, P. (1996a). Cost-benefit and cost-effectiveness analyses of behavioral
marital therapy as an addition to outpatient alcoholism treatment. Journal of Substance Abuse, 8,
145-166.
O’Farrell, T. J., Choquette, K. A., Cutter, H. S. G., Brown, E. D., Bayog, R., McCourt, W., Lowe, J.,
Chan, A., & Deneault, P. (1996b). Cost-benefit and cost-effectiveness analyses of behavioral
marital therapy with and without relapse prevention sessions for alcoholics and their spouses.
Behavior Therapy, 27, 7-24.
O’Farrell, T. J., Van Hutton, V., & Murphy, C. M. (1999). Domestic violence after alcoholism
treatment: A two-year longitudinal study. Journal of Studies on Alcohol, 60, 317-321.
Shadish WR, & Baldwin, S.A. (2005). Effects of behavioral marital therapy: A meta-analysis of
randomized controlled trials. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 73:6-14.
Stanton MD, & Shadish, W.R. (1997). Outcome, attrition, and family-couples treatment for drug
abuse: A meta-analysis and review of the controlled, comparative studies. Psychological Bulletin,
122:170-91.
Walitzer, K. S., & Dermen, K.H. (2004). Alcohol-focused spouse involvement and behavioral couples
therapy: evaluation of enhancements to drinking reduction treatment for male problem drinkers. J
Consult Clin Psychol 72(6): 944-55.

Appendix C - Page 124

 VA/DoD Clinical Practice Guideline
For Management of Substance Use Disorders

C-2. Cognitive-Behavioral Coping Skills Therapy

DESCRIPTION
Cognitive-behavioral coping skills therapy consists of related treatment approaches for substance use
disorders that focus on teaching patients to modify both thinking and behavior related not only to
substance use, but to other areas of life functionally related to substance use. Patients learn to track
their thinking and activities and identify the affective and behavioral consequences of those thoughts
and activities. Patients then learn techniques to change thinking and behaviors that contribute to
substance use, and to strengthen coping skills, improve mood, interpersonal functioning and enhance
social support. Primary therapeutic techniques include education of the patient about the treatment
model, collaboration between the patient and therapist to choose goals, identifying unhelpful thoughts
and developing experiments to test the accuracy of such thoughts, guided discovery (facilitating the
patient in identifying alternative beliefs through the use of questions designed to explore current
beliefs), interpersonal skill building through communication and assertiveness training, behavioral
rehearsal, and role-play. In addition, treatment incorporates structured practice outside of session,
including scheduled activities, self-monitoring, thought recording and challenging, and interpersonal
skills practice.

DISCUSSION
Cognitive-behavioral coping skills therapy has been evaluated in a number of randomized studies and
has been empirically supported (Dutra et al., 2008; Wilbourne, 2005). Cognitive-behavioral coping
skills therapy has been shown to be effective with alcohol and drug dependent adults and adolescents
but not consistently superior to other interventions (Czruchry et al 2003; Ball et al 2007; Carroll et al;
Kaminer et al 2002).

REFERENCES

Ball, S. A., M. Todd, et al. (2007). Brief motivational enhancement and coping skills interventions for
heavy drinking. Addict Behav 32(6): 1105-18etc.
Carroll, K. M., C. J. Easton, et al. (2006). The use of contingency management and motivational/skills-
building therapy to treat young adults with marijuana dependence. J Consult Clin Psychol 74(5):
955-66.
Czuchry, M. and D. F. Dansereau (2003). Cognitive skills training: impact on drug abuse counseling
and readiness for treatment. Am J Drug Alcohol Abuse 29(1): 1-18
Dutra, L., Stathopoulou, G., Basden, S.L., Leyro, T.M., Powers, M.B., & Otto, M.W. (2008). A meta-
analytic review of psychosocial interventions for substance use disorders. Am J
Psychiatry;165(2):179-87.
Kaminer, Y., J. A. Burleson, et al. (2002). Cognitive-behavioral coping skills and psychoeducation
therapies for adolescent substance abuse. J Nerv Ment Dis 190(11): 737-45
Wilbourne PL An empirical basis for the treatment of alcohol problems. Dis Abstr Int 2005;66(5-
B):2844.

Appendix C - Page 125

 VA/DoD Clinical Practice Guideline
For Management of Substance Use Disorders

C-3. Community Reinforcement Approach (CRA)

DESCRIPTION
Community Reinforcement Approach (CRA) is a comprehensive cognitive-behavioral intervention for
the treatment of substance abuse problems by focusing on environmental contingencies that impact and
influence the patient’s behavior. Developed in accordance with the belief that these environmental
contingencies play a crucial role in an individual’s addictive behavior and recovery, CRA utilizes
familial, social, recreational, and occupational events to support the individual in changing his or her
drinking/using behaviors and in creating a successful sobriety. The goal is to rearrange multiple
aspects of an individual’s life so that a sober lifestyle is more rewarding than one that is dominated by
alcohol and/or drugs. CRA integrates several treatment components, including building the patient’s
motivation to quit drinking/using, helping the patient initiate sobriety, analyzing the patient’s
drinking/using pattern, increasing positive reinforcement, learning new coping behaviors, and
involving significant others in the recovery process.

DISCUSSION
Numerous early clinical trials have found CRA to be effective in treating substance abuse and
dependence and in helping relatives recruit their loved ones into substance abuse treatment (Miller et
al., 1999). The trials were conducted in a variety of geographic regions, treatment settings (e.g.,
inpatient and outpatient), and individual and family therapy approaches. Furthermore, the patients in
those studies suffered from various substance-related problems and included homeless people as well
as people of different ethnic or cultural backgrounds. Consistently, CRA was more effective than the
traditional approaches with which it was compared or to which it had been added.
More recently, in the ongoing Mesa Grande project reviewing clinical trials of treatments for alcohol
use disorders (Miller & Wilbourne, 2002), CRA was rated as one of the psychosocial treatments
having the strongest evidence of efficacy. And in a study of 100 cocaine-dependent outpatients by
Higgins et al. (2003), patients treated with CRA plus vouchers were retained better in treatment, used
cocaine at a lower frequency during treatment (but not follow-up) and reported a lower frequency of
drinking to intoxication during treatment and follow-up compared with patients treated with vouchers
only. Patients treated with CRA plus vouchers also reported a higher frequency of days of paid
employment during treatment and the initial 6 months of follow-up, decreased depressive symptoms
during treatment only, and fewer hospitalizations and legal problems during follow-up.

REFERENCES

Higgins, S.T., Sigmon, S.C., Wong, C.J., Heil, S.H., Badger, G.J., Donham, R., Dantona, R.L., and
Anthony, S. (2003). Community reinforcement therapy for cocaine-dependent outpatients.
Archives of General Psychiatry. 60, 1043-1052.
Miller, W. R., & Wilbourne, P. L. (2002). Mesa Grande: A methodological analysis of clinical trials of
treatments for alcohol use disorders. Addiction, 97, 265-277.
Miller, W.R., Meyers, R.J., & Hiller-Sturmhofel, S. (1999). The Community reinforcement approach,
Alcohol Research & Health, 23, 116-121.

Appendix C - Page 126

 VA/DoD Clinical Practice Guideline
For Management of Substance Use Disorders

C-4. Contingency Management for SUD Treatment

DESCRIPTION
Contingency Management (CM) approaches are based on behavioral principles of reinforcement that
reward specific behavioral goals related to recovery. Either monetary or nonmonetary rewards are
made contingent on objective evidence such as negative toxicology results (e.g., biological tests for
recent drug or alcohol use), treatment adherence, or progress toward treatment goals. The most
common form of contingencies provided to reinforce desired behaviors are vouchers with monetary
value that can be redeemed for goods and services, specific material prizes, or draws from a “fishbowl”
that contains cards which vary in their reinforcing value from simple praise to vouchers worth $1 to
$100. Schedules (fixed or intermittent) and magnitude of reinforcement have varied and have
implications for overall cost of clinical implementation.

DISCUSSION
Contingency Management can be effective in combination with pharmacotherapy (e.g., agonist
medications for opioid dependence) or in addition to cognitive behavioral therapy. These approaches
have shown consistent effectiveness with patients diagnosed with drug use disorders (Dutra et al.,
2008; Prendergast et al., 2006; Plebani-Lussier et al., 2006) for establishing a period of continuous
abstinence and early recovery. There has been limited evidence on patients with alcohol dependence.
In a meta-analytic review of psychosocial interventions for illicit SUDs, the highest effect size
estimates were obtained for CM approaches (Dutra et al., 2008), which also demonstrated the lowest
dropout rates. Prendergast et al. (2006) conducted a meta-analysis of treatment-control group studies
published since 1970 of CM with respect to drug use outcomes and found CM more effective in
treating opiate use (d* = 0.65) and cocaine use (d = 0.66), compared with tobacco (d = 0.31) or
multiple drugs (d = 0.42). However, for most interventions, the magnitude of the effect observed at the
end of treatment is not maintained in the months following treatment. Prendergast et al. (2006)
concludes that CM may be viewed as an adjunct to standard treatment, enhancing its effectiveness.
Whether CM can serve as a stand-alone treatment is not known (*d = standardized effect score).
In a meta-analysis of voucher-based reinforcement therapy (VBRT) for SUDs, VBRT significantly
improved treatment outcomes compared to control conditions (Plebani-Lussier et al., 2006). With the
exception of alcohol, which consisted of a single study, overall effect sizes for all targeted drugs
indicated that VBRT resulted in significantly better abstinence outcomes than control conditions. This
meta-analysis also offers support for the efficacy of VBRT for facilitating other therapeutic changes
(e.g. clinic attendance, medication compliance) in individuals with SUDs. Results suggest that
magnitude and immediacy of VBRT exert the strongest influence on effect size during treatment,
although the authors recommend future research in these areas.

REFERENCES

Dutra L, Stathopoulou G, Basden SL, Leyro TM, Powers MB, Otto MW. A meta-analytic review of
psychosocial interventions for substance use disorders. Am J Psychiatry. 2008 Feb;165(2):179-
87.
Plebani-Lussier J, Heil SH, Mongeon, JA, Badger GJ, Higgins ST. A meta-analysis of voucher-based
reinforcement therapy for substance use disorders. Addiction 2006;101:192-203.
Prendergast M, Podus D, Finney J, Greenwell L, Roll J. Contingency management for treatment of
substance use disorders: a meta-analysis. Addiction 2006;101:1546-60.

Appendix C - Page 127

 VA/DoD Clinical Practice Guideline
For Management of Substance Use Disorders

C-5. Motivational Enhancement Therapy (MET)

DESCRIPTION
Motivational enhancement therapy (MET) is a less intensive form of specialized psychosocial
intervention for patients with substance use disorders. MET uses principles of motivational
interviewing including an empathic, client-centered, but directive approach intended to heighten
awareness of ambivalence about change, promote commitment to change and enhance self-efficacy.
MET differs from MI in that it is a more structured intervention that is based to a greater degree on
systematic assessment with personalized feedback. The therapeutic style using motivational
interviewing elicits client reactions to assessment feedback, commitment to change and collaboration
on development of an individualized change plan. Involvement of a significant other is encouraged in
at least one of the MET sessions.

DISCUSSION
Motivational enhancement therapy (MET) (Miller et al., 1992), is more appropriate for patients with
alcohol dependence seeking specialty care from trained provides with demonstrated competence
(Martino et al., 2008; Miller et al., 2004). MI (Miller & Rollnick, 2002) has been effective as a stand-
alone intervention for non-treatment seeking patients with less severe disorders (Hettema et al., 2005;
Moyers et al., 2005).
MET has been evaluated in two major multi-center trials among patients with alcohol dependence. As
a stand-alone treatment, MET typically involves 3 to 4 sessions and yielded comparable benefits to
more intensive manualized interventions of 8 to 12 sessions (Project MATCH, 1997; UKATT
Research Team, 2001). MET also can improve outcomes for alcohol dependence as an adjunctive
intervention to treatment as usual (Ball et al., 2007) or can be integrated with CBT and 12-step
facilitation (Anton et al., 2006).
Both Project MATCH and the UKATT Study tested for differential effects of MET based on client
characteristics including gender and readiness for change, but found no significant matching effects
(UKATT); however Project MATCH found advantages of MET for patients with high levels of anger
at treatment entry (Project MATCH).
Among patients with cannabis dependence, two sessions of MET, did not reduce marijuana use over
15-month follow-up as much as a nine-session multicomponent intervention that also included
cognitive–behavioral therapy and case management (Babor et al. 2004). There is no incremental
effectiveness of MET on substance use outcomes when added to treatment as usual for patients with
other drug use disorders (Ball et al., 2007; Miller et al., 2003), including pregnant substance abusers
(Winhusen et al., 2007).

REFERENCES

Anton RF, O’Malley SS, Ciraulo DA, Cisler RA, Couper D, Donovan DM, et al. for the COMBINE
Study Research Group. Combined pharmacotherapies and behavioural Interventions for alcohol
dependence. The COMBINE study: a randomized controlled trial. JAMA 2006;293:2003–2017.
Ball SA, Martino S, Nich C, Frankforter TL, Van Horn D, Crits-Christoph P, Woody GE, Obert JL,
Farentinos C, Carroll KM; National Institute on Drug Abuse Clinical Trials Network. Site
matters: multisite randomized trial of motivational enhancement therapy in community drug abuse
clinics. J Consult Clin Psychol. 2007 Aug;75(4):556-67.
Babor TF. Brief Treatments for Cannabis Dependence: Findings from a Randomized Multisite Trial. J
Consult Clin Psychol. 2004;72:455-66.
Hettema J, Steele J, Miller WR. Motivational interviewing. Annual Review of Clinical Psychology.
2005;1:91-111.

Appendix C - Page 128

 VA/DoD Clinical Practice Guideline
For Management of Substance Use Disorders

Martino S, Ball SA, Nich C, Frankforter TL, Carroll KM. (2008). Community program therapist
adherence and competence in motivational enhancement therapy. Drug Alcohol Depend. Mar 5
[Epub ahead of print]
Miller, W. R., Yahne, C. E., Moyers, T. B., Martinez, J. & Pirritano, M. (2004). A randomized trial of
methods to help clinicians learn motivational interviewing. Journal of Consulting and Clinical
Psychology, 72, 1050–1062.
Miller WR, Yahne CE, Tonigan JS. Motivational interviewing in drug abuse services: A randomized
trial. J Consult Clin Psychol. 2003;71:754-63.
Miller, W. R., Zweben, A., DiClemente, C. & Rychtarik, R. (1992). Motivational Enhancement
Therapy: A Clinical Research Guide for Therapists Treating Individuals with Alcohol Abuse and
Dependence, Project MATCH Monograph series, (Vol. 2), DHHS pub. No. (ADM) 92–1894.
Washington DC: Department of Health and Human Services.
Moyers, T.B., Miller, W.R., & Hendrickson, S.M.L. (2005). How does motivational interviewing
work? Therapist interpersonal skill predicts client involvement within motivational interviewing
sessions. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 73, 590-598.
Project MATCH research group. Matching alcoholism treatments to client heterogeneity: Project
MATCH Posttreatment drinking outcomes. J Stud Alcohol. 1997;58:7-29.
Raistrick D, Heather N, Godfrey C. Review of the effectiveness of treatment for alcohol problems.
London: National Treatment Agency for Substance Misuse, 2006.
Rohsenow DJ, Monti PM, Martin RA, Colby SM, Myers MG, Gulliver SB, et al. Motivational
enhancement and coping skills training for cocaine abusers: Effects on substance use outcomes.
Addiction. 2004;99:862-74.
UKATT Research Team. Effectiveness of treatment for alcohol problems: findings of the randomized
UK alcohol treatment trial (UKATT). BMJ 2005;311:541-4.
United Kingdom Alcohol Treatment Trial (UKATT): hypotheses, design and methods. Alcohol 2001
Jan-Feb;36(1):11-21.
Winhusen T, Kropp F, Babcock D, Hague D, Erickson SJ, Renz C, Rau L, Lewis D, Leimberger J,
Somoza E. Motivational enhancement therapy to improve treatment utilization and outcome in
pregnant substance users. J Subst Abuse Treat. 2007 Dec 14.

Appendix C - Page 129

 VA/DoD Clinical Practice Guideline
For Management of Substance Use Disorders

C-6. Twelve-Step Facilitation (TSF)

DESCRIPTION
Twelve Step Facilitation (TSF) therapy aims to increase the patient’s active involvement in Alcoholics
Anonymous (AA) or other twelve-step based mutual- (self-) help groups. This approach was
systematized in a manual for NIAAA’s Project MATCH and delivered as 12-sessions of individual
therapy in which the therapist actively encourages engagement in AA, and walks the patient through
the first four steps of the AA program. The therapist conveys the concept that addiction is a chronic,
progressive and potentially fatal illness for which the only successful strategy is abstinence achieved
one day at a time by following a 12-step program of recovery. Each therapy session is divided into
three parts. The first part reviews relevant events of the last week (including urges to use, drinking
behavior and recovery-oriented activities) and a homework assignment. The middle portion introduces
new material related to the 12-steps. The conclusion of the session includes a homework assignment
and development of a plan for recovery-oriented activities (meeting attendance, sponsor contact).

DISCUSSION
Twelve step facilitation (TSF) refers to formal psychotherapy administered by a professional that is
intended to foster the patient’s active participation in Alcoholics Anonymous or other 12 step-based
mutual-help programs. It assumes that alcoholism (or addiction) is a progressive illness that affects the
body, mind, and spirit for which the only effective strategy for recovery is abstinence from alcohol (or
other drugs). The individual can achieve complete abstinence one day at a time by following a 12-step
program of recovery as outlined in the “Big Book” of Alcoholics Anonymous (c1935, 1955, 1976,
2001) and through fellowship with others in recovery through the 12 traditions of Alcoholics
Anonymous.
Encouragement of participation in Alcoholics Anonymous (AA) and other 12 step-based mutual help
groups is widespread in community addiction treatment programs. Participation in twelve step-based
mutual help groups has been associated with improved outcome and reduction in healthcare costs in
numerous observational studies (Humphreys et al, 2004). In the relatively few randomized, controlled
clinical trials, TSF psychotherapy is associated with reduced drug and alcohol use compared to
baseline and (with one exception, Higgins et al, 1993) no significant differences in primary outcome
measures compared to other standardized addiction treatment psychotherapies. Two studies have
found significant advantages of TSF in secondary outcome measures such as treatment retention and
abstinence from alcohol.
Project MATCH (1997, 1998) is a multicenter, randomized, controlled clinical trial evaluating the
efficacy of individual psychotherapies for treatment of alcohol dependence. In Project MATCH, 1726
subjects were randomly assigned to TSF (12-sessions), Cognitive Behavioral Therapy (CBT, 12
sessions), or Motivation Enhancement Therapy (MET, 4 sessions). Patients in all three groups
improved in the primary outcome measures of addiction severity, with no significant differences
between the three groups. In addition, patients assigned to TSF were significantly more likely than
those assigned to CBT or MET to completely abstain from alcohol.
Project MATCH and 7 other randomized clinical trials of TSF for treatment of alcohol dependence
were reviewed by the Cochrane Collaboration (2006). Seven of these trials compared some form of
TSF to another active treatment and found no significant differences between them. One trial by Davis
and colleagues (2002) compared “standard” outpatient group and individual therapy emphasizing
participation in AA with minimal treatment (alcohol education videos) and found that both groups
significantly reduced their drinking over baseline, but the standard treatment group reduced average
daily alcohol consumption and increased abstinence significantly more than the minimal treatment
group.
Dutra and colleagues (2008) performed a meta-analytic review of psychosocial treatments for
substance use disorders other than alcohol. Of the 34 studies reviewed, three evaluated TSF. All three

Appendix C - Page 130

 VA/DoD Clinical Practice Guideline
For Management of Substance Use Disorders

compared TSF to another active treatment- Contingency Management (CM, Higgins et al, 1993),
Cognitive Behavioral Therapy (CBT, Carroll et al, 1998) or Dialectical Behavioral Therapy (DBT,
Linehan et al, 2002).
Higgins and colleagues (1993) compared a comprehensive behavioral therapy including community
reinforcement, relapse prevention training, employment assistance, and recreational therapy to
traditional drug counseling with weekly group and individual therapy emphasizing a 12-step approach
in 38 outpatient volunteers. Patients who were randomly assigned to comprehensive behavioral
therapy achieved better treatment retention (58% versus 11% at week 12) and significantly more
achieved 8 consecutive weeks of cocaine abstinence (68% versus 11%) as measured by urine drug
screen than the patients in 12-step based drug counseling.
Carroll and colleagues (1998) randomly assigned 122 patients with cocaine and alcohol dependence to
one of five treatment arms (TSF, CBT, TSF plus disulfiram, CBT plus disulfiram, or clinical
management plus disulfiram). Disulfiram treatment was significantly associated with treatment
retention and abstinence from cocaine and alcohol. TSF and CBT with disulfiram were both
significantly more effective than CM with disulfiram in increasing abstinence from cocaine with no
significant differences between the two.
Linehan and colleagues (2002) compared a 12-month course of dialectical behavioral therapy (DBT) to
comprehensive validation therapy with TSF (CVT+TSF) for treatment of heroin dependence in women
with borderline personality disorder receiving LAAM. Both treatments produced significant
reductions in positive urine drug screens for heroin (from >80% at baseline to 27% for DBT and 33%
for CVT +TSF at 16 months) with no significant differences between them. Patients assigned to TSF
were more likely to be retained in treatment (100% versus 64%) though those retained in DBT were
more likely to maintain reduction in positive urine drug screens during the last 4 months of treatment.
The preponderance of the evidence supports that AA participation is associated with improved
addiction outcome compared to baseline. TSF is more effective than minimal intervention and at least
as efficacious as CBT, MET and DBT for treatment of addiction. Though in one trial, TSF was
significantly less effective in reducing cocaine use than a comprehensive behavioral treatment
including contingency management, more research is needed to examine whether TSF may have more
enduring effects than other forms of psychosocial treatment. Detailed guidance for administering TSF
using the Project MATCH manual is available through the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and
Alcoholism at http://pubs.niaaa.nih.gov/publications/match.htm.

REFERENCES

Carroll KM, Nich C, Ball SA., et al. Treatment of cocaine and alcohol dependence with psychotherapy
and disulfiram. Addiction 1998;93(5):713-27.
Dutra L, Stathopoulou G, Basden SL, Leyro TM, Powers MB, Otto MW. A meta-analytic review of
psychosocial interventions for substance use disorders. Am J Psychiatry 2008.
Ferri M, Amato L, Davoli M. Alcoholics Anonymous and other 12-step programmes for alcohol
dependence. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2006
Higgins ST, Budney AJ, Bickel WK, Hughes JR, Foerg F, Badger G. Achieving cocaine abstinence with
a behavioral approach. Am J Psychiatry. 1993 May;150(5):763-9.
Humphreys K, Wing S, McCarty D, Chappel J, Gallant L, Haberle B, Horvath AT, Kaskutas LA, Kirk T,
Kivlahan D, Laudet A, McCrady BS, McLellan AT, Morgenstern J, Townsend M, Weiss R. Self-help
organizations for alcohol and drug problems: toward evidence-based practice and policy. J Subst
Abuse Treat. 2004 Apr;26(3):151-8; discussion 159-65. Review.
Linehan MM, Dimeff LA, Reynolds SK, Comtois KA, Welch SS, Heagerty P, Kivlahan DR. Dialectical
behavior therapy versus comprehensive validation therapy plus 12-step for the treatment of opioid
dependent women meeting criteria for borderline personality disorder. Drug Alcohol Depend. 2002 Jun
1;67(1):13-26.

Appendix C - Page 131

 VA/DoD Clinical Practice Guideline
For Management of Substance Use Disorders

Project MATCH Research Group. Alcohol: Clin Exper Res. Vol. 22. 1998. Matching alcoholism
treatments to client heterogeneity: project MATCH three-year drinking outcomes; pp. 1300–1311.
Project MATCH research group. Matching alcoholism treatments to client heterogeneity: Project
MATCH Posttreatment drinking outcomes. J Stud Alcohol. 1997;58:7-29.
Timko C, Moos RH, Finney JW, Lesar MD: Long-term outcomes of alcohol use disorders: comparing
untreated individuals with those in Alcoholics Anonymous and formal treatment. J Stud Alcohol 2000;
61:529–540

Appendix C - Page 132

 VA/DoD Clinical Practice Guideline
For Management of Substance Use Disorders

Appendix D: Department of Defense Instruction (DoDI 1010.6)

Department Of Defense Instruction (DoDI 1010.6) Rehabilitation and Referral Services for Alcohol and
Drug Abusers

Executive Summary

Action Plan Item C.3:

Assess service programs for early intervention and/or rehabilitation for all personnel involved in an
alcohol incident.
All services have existing policies in place regarding assessment and intervention for any service
member who has an alcohol-related incident (as defined by each service).
1. US Army: AR 600-85
The critical functions of the US Army’s Substance Abuse and Prevention (ASAP) program are the
identification, referral and screening, and rehabilitation of members who abuse substances.
Commanders may use one of five methods to identify potential substance abusers: voluntary (self)
identification, command identification, biochemical identification, medical identification, or
investigation or apprehension. Any member with an alcohol-related incident is referred to the ASAP
Program for an evaluation. Treatment is provided according to severity. Identification of an abuser
who cannot be rehabilitated or involvement in serious alcohol related misconduct would be referred to
their command for separation.
2. US Navy: OPNAVINST 5350.4D
Navy policy emphasizes responsible alcohol use. Members with an alcohol incident are referred by
the command for an evaluation by a provider in the medical facility. Individuals may also self-refer
for medical screening or treatment without disciplinary action. ALCOHOL-IMPACT is an educational
program (not a treatment) offered to individuals following an alcohol-related incident if it is
determined that they do not require more intensive intervention such as treatment. It can also be
offered as a result of self referral, or be command directed. Treatment is provided to members by
matching the intensity of treatment with the severity of their condition, and after care programs are
initiated upon return to the command. Members whose alcohol related misconduct is severe or
members who are repeat offenders and those determined to be unresponsive to treatment are processed
for administrative separation. Members who incur an alcohol incident subsequent to receiving
treatment will be processed for administrative separation. However, waivers to separation provisions
may be requested by the command.
Note: Alcohol incident defined as: an offense punishable under the UCMJ or civilian authority
committed by a member where, in the judgment of the Commanding Officer, the consumption of
alcohol was the primary contributing factor.
3. US Marine Corps: MCO P1700.24B Appendix L Substance Abuse Treatment Services
The USMC is required to identify, counsel, or rehabilitate those identified as alcohol/drug abusers or
alcohol/drug dependent. The Substance Abuse Counseling Center (SACC) provides screening, early
intervention, comprehensive biopsychosocial assessments, and individualized treatment (except for
drug dependence). All Marines referred to SACC will be screened and accordingly provided either the
Early Intervention Program (minimum of three hours of education instruction) or a more formal
assessment which leads to an Individualized Treatment Plan (may include outpatient services,
intensive outpatient services, or inpatient services as well as 12 months of an aftercare program).
Marines who are referred to a program for rehabilitation for personal alcohol abuse may be separated
from service for failure of or refusal to participate in treatment.
4. US Air Force: AFI 44-121

Appendix D - Page 133

 VA/DoD Clinical Practice Guideline
For Management of Substance Use Disorders

Members are referred to Alcohol and Drug Abuse Prevention and Treatment (ADAPT) Program for
evaluation whenever substance use is suspected to be a contributing factor in any incident, e.g., DUI,
public intoxication, drunk and disorderly, family maltreatment/neglect, under-age drinking, medical
treatment, positive drug test, inappropriate behavior or substandard performance. Members can also
self-refer for an evaluation. If member is not diagnosed with alcohol abuse or dependence, a minimum
of 6 hours of awareness education is provided. If a diagnosis is warranted, a treatment plan is
established with the member, based on the severity of the condition, and an aftercare program is begun
following completion of treatment. Treatment is provided in the least restrictive environment possible,
according to severity. Members determined to be unresponsive to treatment will be processed for
administrative separation.

REFERENCE

A complete copy of DoDI 1010.6 is available on the following Web site: http://www.tricare.osd.mil.

Appendix D - Page 134

 VA/DoD Clinical Practice Guideline
For Management of Substance Use Disorders

Appendix E: Sedative-Hypnotic Equivalent Oral Doses

For equivalent dose of commonly used Benzodiazepines and Barbiturates see : Weaver MF. Treatment of
sedative-hypnotic drug abuse in adults. In: UpToDate Online 16.3, Waltham, MA, 2009.

Appendix E - Page 135

 VA/DoD Clinical Practice Guideline
For Management of Substance Use Disorders

Appendix F: Acronym List

ASI Addiction Severity Index
AUD Alcohol Use Disorders
AUDIT-C Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test Consumption Questions
BAL Blood Alcohol Levels
BCT Behavioral Couples Therapy
BI Brief Interventions
CDT Carbohydrate Deficient Transferrin
CHF Congestive Heart Failure
CIDI Composite International Diagnostic Interview
CM Contingency Management
CMEP Case Management Enhancement Program
COD Co-Occurring Disorders
CPG Clinical Practice Guideline
CRA Community Reinforcement Approach
DATA Drug Addiction Treatment Act of 2000
DIS Diagnostic Interview Schedule
DM Diabestes Mellitus
EtG Ethyl Glucuronide
EtS Ethyl Sulfate
HIV Human Immunodeficiency Virus
HR-QOL Health Related-Quality of Life
ICMP Iowa Case Management Project
IDU Injection Drug Use
IOM Institutes of Medicine
LFT Liver Function Test
MET Motivational Enhancement Therapy
MI Motivational Interviewing
MM Medical Management
MSE Medical Status Examination
NCU National Comorbidity Survey
NESARC National Epidemiologic Study on Alcohol and Related Conditions
NIAAA National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism
NIDA National Institute on Drug Abuse
NSDUH National Survey on Drug Use and Health
OAT Opioid Agonist Treatment
OATP Opioid Agonist Treatment Program
OBOT Office-Based Opioid Treatment
OTC Over-The-Counter
RCT Randomized Controlled Trial
RT Response to Treatment
SARRTP Substance Abuse Residential Rehabilitation Treatment Programns
SASQ Single Item Alcohol Screening Questionnaire
SBI Screening and Brief Intervention
SCID Structured Clinical Interview for the DSM
SUD Substance Use Disorders
SUR Substance Use Report
TRISARC Tri-Service Addiction Recovery Center
TSF Twelve-Step Facilitation
UDS Urine Drug Scren
USPSTF U.S. Preventive Services Task Force
VBRT Voucher-Based Reinforcement Therapy

Appendix F - Page 136

 VA/DoD Clinical Practice Guideline
For Management of Substance Use Disorders

Appendix G: Participant List

John P. Allen, Ph.D, MPA

Associate Chief Consultant for Addictive Disorders (116B)
Office of Mental Health Services
Veterans Health Administration
Rm. 984
810 Vermont Ave.
Washington, DC, 20420
Phone: (202) 461-7352
Email: JohnPaul.allen@va.gov

Katherine Bradley, MD, MPH

Associate Professor of Medicine
Staff Physician, Medicine Service
VA Puget Sound Healthcare System
Campus Box 35820 (HSR&D 152)
Seattle, WA 98108
Phone: (206) 764-5314
Email: Katherine.bradley@va.gov

Carla Cassidy, RN, MSN, NP

Director, Evidence Based Practice Program
Department of Veterans Affairs (10Q)
810 Vermont Avenue
Washington, DC 20420
Phone: (202) 266-4502
Email: Carla.cassidy@va.gov

Martha D’Erasmo MPH

Independent Consultant
4550 North Park Ave, Apt. 505
Chevy Chase, MD 20815
Phone: (301) 654-3152
Email: Marty@hqiinc.com

Ernest Degenhardt, MSN, Adult and Family NP

COL, USA
Chief, Evidence Based Practice
US Army Medical Command
2050 Worth Road, Suite 26
Fort Sam Houston TX 78234
Phone: (210) 221-8297
Email: ernest.degenhardt@amedd.army.mil

Appendix G - Page 137

 VA/DoD Clinical Practice Guideline
For Management of Substance Use Disorders

Darrel W. Dodson, MD, DPM, MPH

LTC, USA
Chief, Department of Medicine
Carl R. Darnall Army Medical Center
36000 Darnall Loop
Fort Hood, TX 76544
Phone: (254) 288-8090
Email: darrel.w.dodson@us.army.mil

Karen P.G. Drexler, MD

Director, Substance Abuse Treatment
Atlanta VAMC
1670 Clairmont Rd
Decator, GA 30033
Phone: (404) 321-6111 ext. 6905
Email: Karen.drexler@va.gov

Rosalie Fishman, RN, MSN, CPHQ

President
Healthcare Quality Informatics, Inc.
15200 Shady Grove Rd, Suite 350
Rockville, MD 20850
Phone: (301) 296-4542
Email Rosalie@hqiinc.com

Nicole L. Frazer, Ph.D

Maj, USAF
Chief, Air Force Substance Abuse Program Development
USAF, Air Force Medical Operations Agency
Office of the Surgeon General
5201 Leesburg Pike, Suite 1501B
Falls Church, VA 22041
Phone: (703) 681-6333
Email: Nicole.frazer@pentagon.mil

Francine Goodman, B.S. Pharm, Pharm.D

Clinical Pharmacy Specialist
Pharmacy Benefits Management Service
1st Ave-1 block North of Cermak Rd
Building 37 Room 139
Hines IL 60141
Phone: (708) 786-7862
Email: Francine.goodman@va.gov

Adam J. Gordon, MD, MPH

Faculty, VA Pittsburgh Healthcare System
VA Pittsburgh Healthcare System
7180 Highland Dr.
Pittsburgh PA 15206
Phone: (412) 365-4463
Email: adam.gordon@va.gov

Appendix G - Page 138

 VA/DoD Clinical Practice Guideline
For Management of Substance Use Disorders

William F. Haning, III, MD, FASAM, DFAPA

CAPT, USMC
Director Graduate Affairs, John A Burns School of Medicine; Program Director, Addiction
Psychiatry/Medicine; Deputy Force Surgeon, U.S. Marine Forces Pacific
John A. Burns School of Medicine; MEB #223C
651 Ilalo St.
Honolulu, HI 96813
Phone: (808) 692-0877
Email: haning@hawaii.edu

Daniel R. Kivlahan, Ph.D

Director, Center of Excellence in Substance Abuse Treatment and Education (CESATE)
VA Puget Sound Healthcare System
1660 Columbian Way S (116 ATC)
Seattle WA 98108
Phone: (206) 768-5483
Email: Daniel.kivlahan@va.gov

Joseph G. Liberto, MD
Director Mental Health Clinical Center
VA Maryland Healthcare System
10N Greene Street
Baltimore, MD 21201
Phone: (410) 605-7368
Email: joseph.liberto@va.gov

Joanne Marko, MS, SLP

Independent Consultant
17816 Whimsey Court
Olney, MD 20832
Phone: (301) 774-5812
Email: nitojo@comcast.net

James E. McCrary, DO
Lt Col, USAF, MC
Air Force Medical Consultant
DoD Pharmacoeconomic Center
2450 Stanley Road, Suite 208
Fort Sam Houston, TX 78234-2789
Phone: (210) 295-1271
Email: James.mccrary@cen.amedd.army.mil

Edward L. McDaniel, MD
LTC, USA
Chief, Internal Medicine Service
Brooke Army Medical Center
3851 Roger Brooke Dr.
Fort Sam Houston, TX 78234-6200
Phone: (210) 916-0985
Email: Edward.mcdaniel@amedd.army.mil

Appendix G - Page 139

 VA/DoD Clinical Practice Guideline
For Management of Substance Use Disorders

James R. McKay, Ph.D

Professor of Psychology in Psychiatry
Director, Philadelphia VA CESATE
University of Pennsylvania
3440 Market St., Suite 370
Philadelphia PA 19104
Phone: (215) 746-7704
Email: Mckay-j@mail.trc.upenn.edu

Paul M. Morrissey, MD, MBA

LTC, USA
Chief, Community Mental Health
Clinical Consultant, Army Substance Abuse Program
West Point, NY 10996
Phone: (845) 938-3441
Email: paul.morrissey@us.army.mil

Mary Ramos RN, Ph.D

Clinical Practice Guidelines/Medical Management Coordinator
US Army Medical Command
2050 Worth Road, Suite 26
Fort Sam Houston TX 78234
Phone: (210) 221-7281
Email: mary.ramos4@amedd.army.mil

Patricia A. Rikli, BSN, MSN, Ph.D

Project Manager/Nurse Planner
VA Employee Education System
St. Louis EERC, VA Medical Center Bldg.2
1 Jefferson Barracks Drive
St. Louis MO 63125-4199
Phone: (314) 894-5742
Email: Patricia.rikli@va.gov

Karen Schoelles, MD, SM

Medical Director
Health Technology Assessment Group
Evidence-based Practice Center
ECRI
5200 Butler Pike
Plymouth Meeting, PA 19462
Phone: (610) 825-6000, ext. 5337
Email: kschoelles@ecri.org

David Snyder, Ph.D

Research Analyst
ECRI Institute
5200 Butler Pike
Plymouth Meeting, PA 19462
Phone: (610) 825-6000
Email:dsnyder@ecri.org

Appendix G - Page 140

 VA/DoD Clinical Practice Guideline
For Management of Substance Use Disorders

Jay Stone M. Stone, Ph.D

Lt Col, USAF
Defense Centers of Excellence for Psychological Health and Traumatic Brain Injury
1401 Wilson Blfd, Suite 400
Arlington, VA 22209
Phone: (703) 696-9478
Email: jay.stone@tma.osd.mil

Oded Susskind, MPH

Medical Education Consultant
Brookline MA 02446
Phone: (617) 232-3558
Email: Oded@tiac.net

Appendix G - Page 141

 VA/DoD Clinical Practice Guideline
For Management of Substance Use Disorders

Appendix H: Bibliography
Addolorato G, Leggio L, Ferrulli A, Cardone S, Vonghia L, Mirijello A, Abenavoli L, D'Angelo C,
Caputo F, Zambon A, Haber PS, Gasbarrini G. Effectiveness and safety of baclofen for
maintenance of alcohol abstinence in alcohol-dependent patients with liver cirrhosis: randomised,
double-blind controlled study. Lancet 2007 Dec 8;370(9603):1915-22.
Adi Y, Juarez-Garcia A, Wang D, Jowett S, Frew E, Day E, Bayliss S, Roberts T, Burls A. Oral
naltrexone as a treatment for relapse prevention in formerly opioid-dependent drug users: a
systematic review and economic evaluation. Health Technol Assess 2007 Feb;11(6):iii-iv,1-85.
Ali R, Humeniuk R, Newcombe D, Dennington V, Vial, R. Preliminary findings of the WHO assist
phase III study in an australian setting: a five-minute brief intervention for illicit drug linked to
assist scores. 68th Annual Scientific Meeting of the College on Problems of Drug Dependence;
2006.
Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ). Screening in primary care settings for illicit
drug use: staged systematic review for the United States preventive services task force. Rockville,
MD: U. S. Department of Health and Human Services; 2008.
Amato L, Davoli M, A Perucci C, Ferri M, Faggiano F, P Mattick R. An overview of systematic
reviews of the effectiveness of opiate maintenance therapies: available evidence to inform clinical
practice and research. J Subst Abuse Treat 2005 Jun;28(4):321-9.
Amato L, Minozzi S, Davoli M, Vecchi S, Ferri M, Mayet S. Psychosocial combined with agonist
maintenance treatments versus agonist maintenance treatments alone for treatment of opioid
dependence. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2004 Oct 18(4):CD004147.
American Psychiatric Association. Practice guideline for major depressive disorders in adults.
Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Association 1993;4-19.
American Psychiatric Association. Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders. 4th ed.
Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Association 1994.
American Psychiatric Association. Practice guidelines for the treatment of patients with substance use
disorders: alcohol, cocaine, opioids. Am J Psychiatry 1995;152:51-9.
American Society of Addiction Medicine. Patient placement criteria for the treatment of substance-
related disorders. 2nd ed. Washington, DC: American Society of Addiction Medicine 1996.
American Society of Addiction Medicine. Patient placement criteria for the treatment of substance-
related disorders – see Mee-Lee et al., 2001.
Anton RF, O’Malley SS, Ciraulo DA, Cisler RA, Couper D, Donovan DM, Gastfriend DR, Hosking J
D, Johnson BA, LoCastro JS, Longabaugh R, Mason BJ, Mattson ME, Miller WR, Pettinati HM,
Randall CL, Swift R, Weiss RD, Williams LD, Zweben A, COMBINE Study Research Group.
Combined pharmacotherapies and behavioral interventions for alcohol dependence: the
COMBINE study: a randomized controlled trial. JAMA 2006 May 3;295:2003-17.
Anton RF, Moak DH, Latham P, et al. Naltrexone combined with either cognitive behavioral or
motivational enhancement therapy for alcohol dependence. J Clin Psychopharmacol 2005;25:349-
57.
Au DH, Kivlahan DR, Bryson CL, Blough D, Bradley KA. Alcohol screening scores and risk of
hospitalizations for GI conditions in men. Alcohol Clin Exp Res 2007 Mar;31(3):443-51.
Babor TF, Kadden RM. Screening and interventions for alcohol and drug problems in medical settings:
what works? J Trauma 2005 Sep;59(3 Suppl):S80-7.
Ballesteros J, Duffy JC, Querejeta I, Arino J, Gonzalez-Pinto A. Efficacy of brief interventions for
hazardous drinkers in primary care: systematic review and meta-analyses. Alcohol Clin Exp Res
2004;28(4):608-18.

Appendix H - Page 142

 VA/DoD Clinical Practice Guideline
For Management of Substance Use Disorders

Ballesteros J, Gonzalez-Pinto A, Querejeta I, Arino J. Brief interventions for hazardous drinkers

delivered in primary care are equally effective in men and women. Addiction 2004 Jan;99(1):103-
8.
Beich A, Gannik D, Malterud K. Screening and brief intervention for excessive alcohol use: qualitative
interview study of the experiences of general practitioners. BMJ 2002;325:1-5.
Bennett GA, Withers J, Thomas PW, Higgins DS, Baily J, Parry L, Davies E. A randomised trial of
early warning signs relapse prevention training in the treatment of alcohol dependence. Addict
Behav 2005 Jul;30(6):1111-24.
Bernstein J, Bernstein E, Tassiopoulos K, Heeren T, Levenson S, Hingson R. Brief motivational
intervention at a clinic visit reduces cocaine and heroin use. Drug Alcohol Depend 2005 Jan
7;77(1):49-59.
Bertholet N, Daeppen JB, Wietlisbach V, Fleming M, Burnand B. Reduction of alcohol consumption
by brief alcohol intervention in primary care: systematic review and meta-analysis. Arch Intern
Med 2005 May 9;165(9):986-95.
Bien TH, Miller WR, Tonigan S. Brief interventions for alcohol problems: a review. Addiction
1993;88:315-36.
Bouza C, Angeles M, Munoz A, Amate JM. Efficacy and safety of naltrexone and acamprosate in the
treatment of alcohol dependence: a systematic review. Addiction 2004;99:811-28.
Bradley KA, Badrinath S, Bush K, Boyd-Wickizer J, Anawalt B. Medical risks for women who drink
alcohol. J Gen Intern Med 1998;13:627-39.
Bradley KA, Bush K, McDonell MB, Malone T, Fihn SD; the Ambulatory Care Quality Improvement
Project (ACQUIP). Screening for problem drinking: comparison of CAGE and AUDIT. J Gen
Intern Med 1998 Jun;13(6):379-88.
Bradley KA, Bush KR, Epler AJ, Dobie DJ, Davis TM, Sporleder JL, Maynard C, Burman ML,
Kivlahan DR. Two brief alcohol-screening tests From the Alcohol Use Disorders Identification
Test (AUDIT): validation in a female Veterans Affairs patient population. Arch Intern Med 2003
Apr 13;163(7):821-29.
Bradley KA, DeBenedetti AF, Volk RJ, Williams EC, Frank D, Kivlahan DR. AUDIT-C as a brief
screen for alcohol misuse in primary care. Alcohol Clin Exper Res 2007;31(7):1-10.
Bradley KA, Kivlahan DR, Bush KR, McDonell MB, Fihn SD. Variations on the CAGE alcohol
screening questionnaire: strengths and limitations in VA general medical patients. Alcohol Clin
Exper Res 2001;25(10):1472-78.
Bradley KA, Kivlahan DR, Zhou XH, Sporleder JL, Epler AJ, McCormick KA, Merrill JO, McDonell
MB, Fihn SD. Using alcohol screening results and treatment history to assess the severity of at-
risk drinking in Veterans Affairs primary care patients. Alcohol Clin Exp Res 2004
Mar;28(3):448-55.
Bradley KA, McDonell MB, Bush K, Kivlahan DR, Diehr P, Fihn SD. The AUDIT alcohol
consumption questions: reliability, validity, and responsiveness-to-change in older male primary
care patients. Alcohol Clin Exper Res 1998;22(8):1842-9.
Bradley KA, Williams EC, Achtmeyer CE, Volpp B, Collins BJ, Kivlahan DR. Implementation of
evidence-based alcohol screening in the Veterans Health Administration. Am J Manag Care Oct
2006;12(10):597-606.
Brown RL, Saunders LA, Bobula JA, Mundt MP, Koch PE. Randomized-controlled trial of a
telephone and mail intervention for alcohol use disorders: three-month drinking outcomes.
Alcohol Clin Exp Res 2007 Aug;31(8):1372-9.
Brown BS, O’Grady K, Battjes RJ, Farrell EV. Factors associated with treatment outcomes in an
aftercare population. Am J Addict 2004 Oct-Dec;13(5):447-60.

Appendix H - Page 143

 VA/DoD Clinical Practice Guideline
For Management of Substance Use Disorders

Burke BL, Arkowitz H, Menchola M. The efficacy of motivational interviewing: a meta-analysis of

controlled clinical trials. J Consult Clin Psychol 2003;71:843-61.
Bush K, Kivlahan DR, McDonell MB, Fihn SD, Bradley KA. The AUDIT alcohol consumption
questions (AUDIT-C): an effective brief screening test for problem drinking. Ambulatory Care
Quality Improvement Project (ACQUIP). Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test. Arch Intern
Med 1998 Sept 14;158(16):1789-95.
Canagasaby A, Vinson DC. Screening for hazardous or harmful drinking using one or two quantity-
frequency questions. Alcohol Alcohol 2005 May-Jun;40(3):208-13.
Cantor SB, Sun CC, Tortolero-Luna G, Richards-Kortum R, Follen M. A comparison of C/B ratios
from studies using receiver operating characteristic curve analysis. J Clin Epidemiol
1999;52(9):885-92.
Carroll KM, Nich C, Ball SA, McCance E, Rounsaville BJ. Treatment of cocaine and alcohol
dependence with psychotherapy and disulfiram. Addiction 1998 May;93(5):713-27.
Center for Substance Abuse Treatment Detoxification from Alcohol and Other Drugs. Treatment
Improvement Protocol (TIP) Series, Number 19; 1995. DHHS Publication No. (SMA) 95-3046.
Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
Chafetz ME. Research in the alcohol clinic and around-the-clock psychiatric service of the
Massachusetts General Hospital. Am J Psychiatry 1968 Jun;124(12);1674-79
Chen S, Barnett PG, Sempel JM, Timko C. Outcomes and costs of matching the intensity of dual-
diagnosis treatment to patients’ symptom severity. J Subst Abuse Treat 2006 Jul;31(1):95-105.
Ciraulo DA, Dong Q, Silverman BL, Gastfriend DR, Pettinati HM. Early treatment response in
alcohol dependence with extended-release naltrexone. J Clin Psychiatry 2008 Feb;69(2):190-5.
Cloud RN, Ziegler CH, Blondell RD. What is Alcoholics Anonymous affiliation? Subst Use Misuse
2004 Jun;39(7):1117-36.
COMBINE Research Study Group. Testing combined pharmacotherapies and behavioral interventions
in alcohol dependence: rationale and methods. Alcohol Clin Exp Res 2003 Jul;27(7):1107-22.
Cornish JW, Metzger D, Woody CE, Wilson GE, Wilson D, McLellan AT, Vandergrift B, O’Brien
CP. Naltrexone pharmacotherapy for opioid dependent federal probationers. J Subst Abuse Treat
1997 Nov-Dec;14(6):529-34.
Cornish JW, McNicholas LF, O'Brien CP. Treatment of substance-related disorders. In: Schatzberg,A,
Nemeroff CB, editors. Textbook of Psychopharmacology 2nd ed. Washington, D.C.: American
Psychiatric Press 1998. P. 851-68.
Crum RM, Anthony JC, Bassett SS, Folstein MF. Population-based norms for the Mini-Mental State
Examination by age and education level. JAMA 1993 May 12;269(18):2386-91.
Dawson DA, Grant BF, Stinson FS, Zhou Y. Effectiveness of the derived Alcohol Use Disorders
Identification Test (AUDIT-C) in screening for alcohol use disorders and risk drinking in the US
general population. Alcohol Clin Exp Res May 2005;29(5):844-54.
Department of Defense Instruction, DoDI 1010.6. Rehabilitation and referral services for alcohol and
drug abuse. Available from: http://www.tricare.osd.mil
Department of Veterans Affairs & Department of Defense. VA/DoD Clinical Practice Guideline for
the Management of Tobacco Use . Washington, DC. Veterans Health Administration,
Department of Veterans Affairs and Health Affairs, Department of Defense.
de Sousa A, de Sousa A. An open randomized study comparing disulfiram and acamprosate in the
treatment of alcohol dependence. Alcohol Alcohol 2005 Nov-Dec;40(6):545-8.
Drake RE, Mueser KT. Psychosocial approaches to dual diagnosis. Schizophr Bull 2000;26(1):105-11.
Dunn C, Deroo L, Rivara FP. The use of brief interventions adapted from motivational interviewing

Appendix H - Page 144

 VA/DoD Clinical Practice Guideline
For Management of Substance Use Disorders

across behavioral domains: a systematic review. Addiction 2001 Dec;96:1725-42.

Elvy GA, Wells JE, Baird KA. Attempted referral as intervention for problem drinking in the general
hospital. Br J Addict 1988;83:83-9.
Farré M Mas A, Torrens M, Moreno V, Camí J. Retention rate and illicit opioid use during methadone
maintenance interventions: a meta-analysis. Drug Alcohol Depend 2002 Feb;65(3):283-90.
Feinn R, Kranzler HR. Does effect size in naltrexone trials for alcohol dependence differ for single-site
vs. multi-center studies? Alcohol Clin Exp Res 2005;29:983-8.
Fiellin DA, Pantalon MV, Chawarski MC, Moore BA, Sullivan LE, O'Connor PG, Schottenfeld RS.
Counseling plus buprenorphine-naloxone maintenance therapy for opioid dependence. N Engl J
Med 2006 Jul 27;355(4):365-74.
Fiellin DA, Reid MC, O'Connor PG. Screening for alcohol problems in primary care: a systematic
review. Arch Intern Med 2000;160:1977-89.
Fischer G, Ortner R, Rohrmeister K, Jagsch R, Baewert A, Langer M, Aschauer H. Methadone versus
buprenorphine in pregnant addicts: a double-blind, double-dummy comparison study. Addiction
2006 Feb;101(2):275-81.
Fleming M, Brown R, Brown D. The efficacy of a brief alcohol intervention combined with %CDT
feedback in patients being treated for type 2 diabetes and/or hypertension. J Stud Alcohol Sep
2004;65(5):631-7.
Fleming MF, Barry KL, Manwell LB, Johnson K, London R. Brief physician advice for problem
alcohol drinkers: a randomized controlled trial in community-based primary care practices. JAMA
1997;277(13):1039-45.
Fleming MF, Barry KL. A three-sample test of a masked alcohol screening questionnaire. Alcohol
Alcohol 1991;26(1):81-91.
Fleming MF, Manwell LB, Barry KL, Adams W, Stauffacher EA. Brief physician advice for alcohol
problems in older adults. J Fam Pract 1999 May;48(5):378-84.
Fleming MF, Mundt MP, French MT, Manwell LB, Stauffacher EA, Barry KL. Brief physician advice
for problem drinkers: long-term efficacy and benefit-cost analysis. Alcohol Clin Exp Res 2002
Jan;26(1):36-43
Folstein M, Folstein SE, McHugh PR. Mini-mental state: a practical method for grading the cognitive
state of patients for the clinician. J Psychiatr Res 1975 Nov;12(3):189-98.
Frank D, Debenedetti AF, Volk RJ, Williams EC, Kivlahan DR, Bradley KA. Effectiveness of the
AUDIT-C as a screening test for alcohol misuse in three racial/ethnic groups. J Gen Intern Med
2008 Jun;23(6):781-7.
Friedmann PD, Hendrickson JC, Gerstein DR, Zhang Z. The effect of matching comprehensive
services to patient’s needs on drug use improvements in addiction treatment. Addiction 2004
Aug;99(8):962-72.
Frosch DL, Shoptaw S, Nahom D, Jarvik ME. Associations between tobacco smoking and illicit drug
use among methadone-maintained opiate-dependent individuals. Exp Clin Psychopharmacol 2000
Feb; 8 (1):97-103.
Fuller RK, Branchey L, Brightwell DR, Derman RM, Emrick CD, Iber FL, James KE, Lacoursiere RB,
Lee KK, Lowenstam I, et.al. Disulfiram treatment of alcoholism. A Veterans Administration
cooperative study. JAMA 1986 Sep 19;256(11):1449-55.
Fureman B, Parikh G, Bragg A, McLellan AT. The fifth edition of the addiction severity index
workbook. Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania and Department of Veterans Affairs,
Center for Studies of Addiction, 1990.
Galanter, M. Network therapy. In: Lowinson JH; Ruiz P; Millman RB; Langrod JG., editors.

Appendix H - Page 145

 VA/DoD Clinical Practice Guideline
For Management of Substance Use Disorders

Substance abuse, a comprehensive textbook. 3rd ed. Baltimore: MD: Williams & Wilkins: 1997.
p. 478-84.
Garbutt JC, Kranzler HR, O’Malley SS, Gastfriend DR, Pettinati HM, Silverman BL, Loewy JW,
Ehrich EW; Vivitrex Study Group. Efficacy and tolerability of long-acting injectable naltrexone
for alcohol dependence: a randomized controlled trial. JAMA 2005 Apr 6;293(13):1617-25.
Gelsi E, Vanbiervliet G, Chérikh F, Mariné-Barjoan E, Truchi R, Arab K, Delmont JM, Tran A.
Factors predictive of alcohol abstention after resident detoxication among alcoholics followed in
an hospital outpatient center. Gastroenterol Clin Biol 2007 Jun-Jul;31(6-7):595-9.
Gentilello LM, Ebel BE, Wickizer TM, Salkever DS, Rivara FP. Alcohol interventions for trauma
patients treated in emergency departments and hospitals: a cost benefit analysis. Ann Surg 2005
Apr;241(4):541-50.
George TP, Chawarski MC, Pakes J, Carroll KM, Kosten TR, Schottenfeld RS. Disulfiram versus
placebo for cocaine dependence in buprenorphine-maintained subjects: a preliminary trial. Biol
Psychiatry 2000 June 15;47(12):1080-6.
Gerstein, D; Harwood; H., editors. Treating drug problems. Vol. 1. Washington, DC: National
Academy Press;1990.
Gowing L, Ali R, White J. Buprenorphine for the management of opioid withdrawal. Cochrane
Database Syst Rev 2006 Apr 19;(2):CD002025.
Gold MS, Pottach AC, Sweeney DR, Kleber HD. Opiate withdrawal using clonidine. A safe, effective,
and rapid nonopiate treatment. JAMA 1980 Jan 25;243(4):343-6.
Gold MS, Redmond DE, Kleber HD. Clonidine blocks acute opiate withdrawal symptoms. Lancet
1978 Sep 16;2(8090):599-602.
Goldberg HI, Mullen M, Ries RK, Psaty BM, Ruch BP. Alcohol counseling in a general medicine
clinic: a randomized controlled trial to improve referral and show rates. Med Care 1991;29(7
suppl):JS49-56.
Hardman JG; Limbird LE; editors. Goodman and Gilman’s the pharmacological basis of therapeutics.
9th ed. New York: McGraw-Hill; 1996.
Gordon AJ, Maisto SA, McNeil M, Kraemer KL, Conigliaro RL, Kelley ME, Conigliaro J. Three
questions can detect hazardous drinkers. J Fam Pract April 2001;50(4):313-20.
Gordon AJ, Saitz R. Identification and treatment of alcohol use disorders in primary care. J Clin
Outcomes Manage 2004;11:444-62.
Gorski TT, Miller M. Staying sober: a guide for relapse prevention. Independence, MO: Independent
Press; 1986.
Gossop M. The development of a Short Opiate Withdrawal Scale (SOWS). Addict Behav
1990;15(5):487-90.
Handelsman L, Cochrane KJ, Aronson MJ, Ness R, Rubinstein KJ, Kanof PD. Two new rating scales
for opiate withdrawal. Am J Alcohol Abuse 1987;13:293-308.
Hasting EJ, Hamberger LK. Sociodemographic predictors of violence. Psychiatr Clin North Am 1997
Jun; 20(2):323-35.
Havens JR, Cornelius LJ, Ricketts EP, Latkin CA, Bishai D, Lloyd JJ. The effect of a case
management intervention on drug treatment entry among treatment-seeking injection drug users
with and without comorbid antisocial personality disorder. J Urban Health 2007 Mar;84(2):267-
71.
Hayashida M, Alterman AI, McLellan AT, O'Brien CP, Purtill JJ, Volpicelli JR, Raphaelson AH, Hall
CP. Comparative effectiveness and costs of inpatient and outpatient detoxification of patients with
mild-to-moderate alcohol withdrawal syndrome. N Engl J Med 1989 Feb 9;320(6):358-65.

Appendix H - Page 146

 VA/DoD Clinical Practice Guideline
For Management of Substance Use Disorders

Heather N. Waiting for a match: the future of psychosocial treatment for alcohol problems. Addiction
1996 Apr;91(4):469-72.
Hettema J, Steele J, Miller WR. Motivational interviewing. Annu Rev Clin Psychol 2005;1:91-111.
Hesse M, Vanderplasschen W, Rapp RC, Broekaert E, Fridell M. Case management for persons with
substance use disorders. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2007 Oct 17;(4):CD006265.
Hirschfeld RM, Russell JM. Assessment and treatment of suicidal patients. N Engl J Med 1997 Sep 25;
337(13):910-5.
Horng FF, Chueh KH. Effectiveness of telephone follow-up and counseling in aftercare for alcoholism.
J Nurs Res 2004;12(1):11-20.
Huber DL, Sarrazin MV, Vaughn T, Hall JA. Evaluating the impact of case management dosage. Nurs
Res 2003;52(5):276–88.
Institute of Medicine. Broadening the base of treatment for alcohol problems. Washington, DC:
National Academy Press, 1990. 630p.
Institute of Medicine. Crossing the quality chasm: a new health system for the 21st century.
Washington, DC: The National Academies Press; 2001. 360 p.
Institute of Medicine. Improving the quality of healthcare for mental and substance-use conditions: the
quality chasm series. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press; 2005. 528 p.
Jacobson IG, Ryan MA, Hooper TI, Smith TC, Amoroso PJ, Boyko EJ, Gackstetter GD, Wells TS,
Bell NS. Alcohol use and alcohol-related problems before and after military combat deployment.
JAMA. 2008 Aug 13;300(6):663-75.
Jansson LM, Svikis DS, Breon D, Cieslak R. Intensity of case management services: does more equal
better for drug-dependent women and their children? Soc Work Men Health 2005;3(4):63-78.
JCAHO, Accreditation manual for hospitals. November 1999; Nursing Section: p.NR10.
Jerrell JM, Hu T, Ridgely MS. Cost-effectiveness of substance disorder interventions for people with
severe mental illness. J Ment Health Admin 1994;21(3):283–97.
Jerrell JM, Ridgely MS. Impact of robustness of program implementation on outcomes of clients in
dual diagnosis programs. Psychiatr Serv 1999 Jan;50(1):109–12.
Johansson BA, Berglund M, Lindgren A. Efficacy of maintenance treatment with naltrexone for
opioid dependence: a meta-analytical review. Addiction 2006 Apr;101(4):491-503.
Johnson BA, Ait-Daoud N, Aubin HJ, Van Den Brink W, Guzzetta R, Loewy J, Silverman B, Ehrich
EA pilot evaluation of the safety and tolerability of repeat dose administration of long-acting
injectable naltrexone (Vivitrex) in patients with alcohol dependence. Alcohol Clin Exp Res 2004
Sep;28:1356-61.
Johnson BA, Rosenthal N, Capece JA, Wiegand F, Mao L, Beyers K, McKay A, Ait-Daoud N, Anton
RF, Ciraulo DA, Kranzler HR, Mann K, O'Malley SS, Swift RM. Topiramate for treating alcohol
dependence: a randomized controlled trial. JAMA 2007 Oct 10;298(14):1641-51.
Johnson RE, Chutuape MA, Strain EC, walsh SL, Stitzer ML, Bigelow GE. A comparison of
levomethadyl acetate, buprenorphine, and methadone for opioid dependence. N Eng J Med 2000
Nov 2;343(18): 1290-7.
Kahan M, Wilson L, Becker L. Effectiveness of physician-based interventions with problem drinkers.
Can Med Assoc J 1995;152(6):851-9.
Kaner E, Beyer F, Dickinson H, Pienaar E, Campbell F, Schlesinger C, Heather N, Saunders J,
Burnand B. Effectiveness of brief alcohol interventions in primary care populations. Cochrane
Database Syst Rev 2007(2):CD004148.
Kerr WC, Fillmore KM, Bostrom A. Stability of alcohol consumption over time: evidence from three

Appendix H - Page 147

 VA/DoD Clinical Practice Guideline
For Management of Substance Use Disorders

longitudinal surveys from the United States. J Stud Alcohol 2002 May;63(3):325-33.
Kerr WC, Ye Y. Population-level relationships between alcohol consumption measures and Ischemic
Heart Disease mortality in U.S. time-series. Alcohol Clin Exp Res 2007 Nov;31(11):1913-9.
Kiefer F, Jahn H, Tarnaske T, Helwig H, Briken P, Holzbach R, Kämpf P, Stracke R, Baehr M, Naber
D, Wiedemann K. Comparing and combining naltrexone and acamprosate in relapse prevention of
alcoholism: a double-blind, placebo-controlled study. Arch Gen Psychiatry 2003Jan;60(1):92–9.
Kraft KM, Rothbard AB, Hadley TR, Mclellan AT, Asch DA. Are supplementary services provided
during methadone maintenance really cost-effective? Am J Psychiatry 1997 Sep;154(9):1214-9.
Kranzler HR, Van Kirk J. Efficacy of naltrexone and acamprosate for alcoholism treatment: a meta-
analysis. Alcohol Clin Exp Res 2001;25:1335-41.
Kranzler HR, Wesson DR, Billot L. DrugAbuse Sciences Naltrexone Depot Study Group. Naltrexone
depot for treatment of alcohol dependence: a multicenter, randomized, placebo-controlled clinical
trial. Alcohol Clin Exp Res 2004;28:1051–9.
Kristenson H, Ohlin H, Hulten-Nosslin M, Trell E, Hood B. Identification and intervention of heavy
drinking in middle-aged men: results and follow-up of 24-60 months of long-term study with
randomized controls. Alcohol Clin Exp Res 1983;7(2):203-9.
Kristenson H, Osterling A, Nilsson JA, Lindgarde F. Prevention of alcohol-related deaths in middle-
aged heavy drinkers. Alcohol Clin Exp Res Apr 2002;26(4):478-84.
Kypri K, Langley JD, Saunders JB, Cashell-Smith ML, Herbison P. Randomized controlled trial of
web-based alcohol screening and brief intervention in primary care. Arch Intern Med 2008 Mar
10;168(5):530-6.
Laaksonen E, Koski-Jännes A, Salaspuro M, Ahtinen H, Alho H. A randomized, multicentre, open-
label, comparative trial of disulfiram, naltrexone and acamprosate in the treatment of alcohol
dependence. Alcohol Alcohol 2008 Jan-Feb;43(1):53-61.
Lapham SC, Hall M, Skipper BJ. Homelessness and substance use among alcohol abusers following
participation in project H&ART. J Addict Dis 1995;14(4):41–55.
Levy JA, Strenski T, Amick DJ. Community-based case management for active injecting drug users.
Adv I Med Sociology 1995;6:183–206.
Lieber CS, Weiss DG, Groszmann R, Paronetto F, Schenker S; Veterans Affairs Cooperative Study
391 Group. I. Veterans Affairs Cooperative Study of polyenylphosphatidylcholine in alcoholic
liver disease: effects on drinking behavior by nurse/physician teams. Alcohol Clin Exp Res Nov
2003;27(11):1757-64.
Ling W, Charuvastra C, Collins JF, Batki S, Brown LS Jr, Kintaudi P, Wesson DR, McNicholas L,
Tusel DJ, Malkerneker U, Renner JA Jr, Santos E, Casadonte P, Fye C, Stine S, Wang RI, Segal
D. Buprenorphine maintenance treatment of opiate dependence: a multicenter, randomized clinical
trial. Addiction Apr 1998;93(4):475-86.
Ling W, Wesson DR. Naltrexone treatment for addicted health-care professionals: a collaborative
private practice. J Clin Psychiatry 1984 Sep;45(9 Pt 2):46-8.
Lintzeris N, Ritter A, Panjari M, Clark N, Kutin J, Bammer G. Implementing buprenorphine treatment
in community settings in Australia: experiences from the Buprenorphine Implementation Trial.
Am J Addict 2004;13 Suppl 1:S29-41.
Maciosek MV, Coffield AB, Edwards NM, Flottemesch TJ, Goodman MJ, Solberg LI. Priorities
among effective clinical preventive services results of a systematic review and analysis. Am J Prev
Med Jul 2006;31(1):52-61.
Magura S, Rosenblum A. Leaving methadone treatment: lessons learned, lesson forgotten, lessons
ignored. Mt Sinai J Med 2001 Jan;68(1):62-74.

Appendix H - Page 148

 VA/DoD Clinical Practice Guideline
For Management of Substance Use Disorders

Magura S, Staines G. Predictive validity of the ASAM Patient Placement Criteria for naturalistically
matched vs. mismatched alcoholism patients. Am J Addict 2003 Oct-Dec;12(5):386-97.
Maheswaran R, Beevers M, Beevers DG. Effectiveness of advice to reduce alcohol consumption in
hypertensive patients. Hypertension 1992 Jan;19(1):79-84.
Maisto SA, Conigliaro J, McNeil M, Kraemer K, Conigliaro RL, Kelley ME. Effects of two types of
brief intervention and readiness to change on alcohol use in hazardous drinkers. J Stud Alcohol
2001;62:605-14.
Mann K, Lehert P, Morgan MY. The efficacy of acamprosate in the maintenance of abstinence in
alcohol-dependent individuals: results of a meta-analysis. Alcohol Clin Exp Res 2004;28:51-63.
Marsch LA. The efficacy of methadone maintenance interventions in reducing illicit opiate use, HIV
risk behavior and criminality: a meta-analysis. Addiction 1998 Apr;93(4):515-32.
Martin SS, Scarpitti FR. An intensive case management approach for paroled IV drug users. J Drug
Issues1993;23:43–59.
Mattick RP, Breen C, Kimber J, Davoli M. Methadone maintenance therapy versus no opioid
replacement therapy for opioid dependence. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2003;(2):CD002209.
Mattick RP, Kimber J, Breen C, Davoli M. Buprenorphine maintenance versus placebo or methadone
maintenance for opioid dependence. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2008 Apr 16;(2):CD002207.
Mayo-Smith, MF. Pharmacological management of alcohol withdrawal. A meta-analysis and
evidence-based practice guideline. American Society of Addiction Medicine Working Group on
Pharmacological Management of Alcohol Withdrawal. JAMA 1997 Jul 9;278(2):144-51.
McCance-Katz EF, Kosten TR, Jatlow P. Chronic disulfiram treatment effects on intranasal cocaine
administration: initial results. Biol Psychiatry 1998 Apr 1;43(7):540-3.
McCaul ME, Petry NM. The role of psychosocial treatments in pharmacotherapy for alcoholism. Am J
Addict 2003;12 Suppl 1:S41-52.
McKay JR, Donovan DM, McLellan AT, Krupski A, Hansten M, Stark KD, Geary K, Cecere J.
Evaluation of full vs. partial continuum of care in the treatment of publicly-funded substance
abusers in Washington State. Am J Drug Alcohol Abuse 2002;28(2):307-38.
McKay JR, Lynch KG, Shepard DS, Pettinati HM. The effectiveness of telephone based continuing
care for alcohol and cocaine dependence: 24 month outcomes. Arch Gen Psychiatry 2005 Feb;
62(2):199-207.
McLellan AT, Hagan TA, Levine M, Meyers K, Gould F, Bencivengo M, Durell J, Jaffe J. Does
clinical case management improve outpatient addiction treatment? Drug Alcohol Depend 1999
Jun;55(1-2):91–103.
McLellan AT, Arndt IO, Metzger DS, Woody GE, O’Brien CP. The effects of psychosocial services in
substance abuse treatment. JAMA 993 Apr 21;269(15):1953-9.
McLellan AT, Kushner H, Metzger D, Peters R, Smith I, Grissom G, Pettinati H, Argeriou M. The
fifth edition of the addiction severity index. J Subst Abuse Treat 1992; 9:199-213.
McLellan AT, Lewis DC, O’Brien CP, Kleber HD. Drug dependence, a chronic medical illness:
implications for treatment, insurance, and outcomes evaluation. JAMA 2000 Oct 4;284(13):1689-
95.
McLellan AT, Woody GE, Metzger D, McKay J, Durrell J, Alterman AI, O'Brien CP. Evaluating the
effectiveness of treatments for substance use disorders: reasonable expectations, appropriate
comparisons. Milbank Q 1996;749(1):51-85.
McLellan AT, Grissom GR, Zanis D, Randall M, Brill P, O’Brien CP. Problem-service ‘Matching’ in
addiction treatment. Arch Gen Psychiatry 1997 Aug;54(8):730-5.
McLellan AT, Hagan TA, Levine M, Gould F, Meyers K, Bencivengo M, Durell, J. Supplemental

Appendix H - Page 149

 VA/DoD Clinical Practice Guideline
For Management of Substance Use Disorders

social services improve outcomes in public addiction treatment. Addiction 1998;93(10):1489-99.

McPherson TL, Hersch RK. Brief substance use screening instruments for primary care settings: a
review. J Subst Abuse Treat Mar 2000;18(2):193-202.
Mee-Lee D, Schulman, GD, Fishman M, Gastfriend DR, Griffith JH. ASAM patient placement
criteria for the treatment of substance-related isorders. 2nd ed. Second Edition-revised: ASAM-
PPC-2R. Chevy Chase, MD: American Society of Addiction Medicine; 2001.
Mejta CL, Bokos PR, Mickenberg J, Maslar M, Senay E. Improving substance abuse treatment access
and retention using a case management approach. J Drug Issues 1997;27(2):329–40.
Miller WR, Benefield RG, Tonigan JS. Enhancing motivation to change in problem drinking: a
controlled comparison of two therapist styles. J Consult Clin Psychol 1993 Jun;61(3):455-61.
Miller WR, Rollnick S. Motivational interviewing: preparing people for change. 1st ed. New York: The
Guilford Press; 1991.
Miller WR, Walters ST, Bennett ME. How effective is alcoholism treatment in the United States? J
Stud Alcohol. Mar 2001;62(2):211-20.
Miller WR, Yahne CE, Tonigan JS. Motivational interviewing in drug abuse services: a randomized
trial. J Consult Clin Psychol 2003;71:754-63.
Minozzi S, Amato L, Vecchi S, Davoli M, Kirchmayer U, Verster A. Oral naltrexone maintenance
treatment for opioid dependence. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2006 Jan 25;(1):CD001333.
Morley KC, Teesson M, Reid SC, Sannibale C, Thomson C, Phung N, Weltman M, Bell JR,
Richardson K, Haber PS. Naltrexone versus acamprosate in the treatment of alcohol dependence:
A multi-centre, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. Addiction. 2006
Oct;101(10):1451-62.
Monti PM, Abrams DB, Kadden RM., et al. Treating alcohol dependence: a coping skills training
guide in the treatment of alcoholism. New York: Guilford Press; 1989.
Morgenstern J, Blanchard KA, McCrady BS, McVeigh KH, Morgan TJ, Pandina RJ. Effectiveness of
intensive case management for substance-dependent women receiving temporary assistance for
needy families. Am J Public Health 2006 Nov;96(11):2016-23.
Moyer A, Finney JW, Swearingen CE, Vergun P. Brief interventions for alcohol problems: a meta-
analytic review of controlled investigations in treatment-seeking and non-treatment-seeking
populations. Addiction 2002;97:279-92.
Moyers TB, Miller WR, Hendrickson,SM. How does motivational interviewing work? Therapist
interpersonal skill predicts client involvement within motivational interviewing sessions. J Consult
Clin Psychol 2005 Aug;73(4):590-8.
Mueller SE, Petitjean S, Boening J, Wiesbeck GA. The impact of self-help group attendance on relapse
rates after alcohol detoxification in a controlled study. Alcohol Alcohol 2007 Mar-Apr 42(2):108-
12.
National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism. (NIAAA) US Department of Health and Human
Services, National Institute of Health. Helping patients who drink too much: a clinician’s guide.
NIH Publication No. 07–3769. Reprinted May 2007.
National Quality Forum. National voluntary consensus standards for the treatment of substance use
conditions: Evidence-Based Treatment Practices; 2007. Available from:
www.qualityforum.org/WorkArea/linkit.aspx?LinkIdentifier=id
Nava F, Premi S, Manzato E, Lucchini A. Comparing treatments of alcoholism on craving and
biochemical measures of alcohol consumptionst. J Psychoactive Drugs 2006 Sep;38(3):211-7.
Neri S, Bruno CM, Pulvirenti D, Malaguarnera M, Italiano C, Mauceri B, Abate G, Cilio D, Calvagno
S, Tsami A, Ignaccolo L, Interlandi D, Prestianni L, Ricchena M, Noto T. Randomized clinical

Appendix H - Page 150

 VA/DoD Clinical Practice Guideline
For Management of Substance Use Disorders

trial to compare the effects of methadone and buprenorphine on the immune system in drug
abusers. Psychopharmacol (Berl) 2005 May;179(3):700-4.
Ntais C, Pakos E, Kyzas P, Ioannidis JP. Benzodiazepines for alcohol withdrawal. Cochrane Database
Syst Rev2005 Jul 20(3):CD005063.
O’Farrell TJ, Choquette KA, Cutter HS. Couples relapse prevention sessions after behavioral marital
therapy for male alcoholics: Outcomes during the three years after starting treatment. J Stud
Alcohol 1998 Jul;59(4):357-70.
O'Brien, CP. Opioids: antagonists and partial agonists. In: Galanter M; Kleber H., editors. Textbook
of substance abuse treatment. Washington, D.C.: American Psychiatric Press, Inc; 1994. p. 223-
36.
O'Brien CP, McLellan AT. Myths about the treatment of addiction. Lancet 1996 Jan
27;347(8996):237-40.
O'Malley SS, Sinha R, Grilo CM, Capone C, Farren CK, McKee SA, Rounsaville BJ, Wu R.
Naltrexone and cognitive behavioral coping skills therapy for the treatment of alcohol drinking
and eating disorder features in alcohol-dependent women: a randomized controlled trial. Alcohol
Clin Exp Res 2007 Apr;31(4):625-34.
Orwin RG, Sonnenfeld LJ, Garrison-Mogren R, Smith NG. Pitfalls in evaluating the effectiveness of
case management programs for homeless persons: Lessons from the NIAAA Community
Demonstration Program. Evaluation Rev 1994;18(2):153-207.
Osher FC, Drake RE. Reversing a history of unmet needs: approaches to care for persons with co-
occurring addictive and mental disorders. Am J Orthopsychiatry 1996 Jan;6691):4-11.
Oslin DW, Grantham S, Coakley E, Maxwell J, Miles K, Ware J, Blow FC, Krahn DD, Bartels SJ,
Zubritsky C, Olsen E, Kirchner JE, Levkoff S. PRISM-E: comparison of integrated care and
enhanced specialty referral in managing at-risk alcohol use. Psychiatr Serv Jul 2006;57(7):954-8.
Patterson DG, MacPherson J, Brady NM. Community psychiatric nurse aftercare for alcoholics: a five-
year follow-up study. Addiction 1997 Apr;92(4):459-68.
Petrakis IL, Poling J, Levinson C, Nich C, Carroll K, Rounsaville B; VA New England VISN I
MIRECC Study Group. Naltrexone and disulfiram in patients with alcohol dependence and
comorbid psychiatric disorders. Biol Psychiatry 2005 May 15;57(10):1128-37.
Petrakis IL, Carroll KM, Nich C, Gordon LT, McCance-Katz EF, Frankforter T, Rounsaville BJ.
Disulfiram treatment for cocaine dependence in methadone-maintained opioid addicts. Addiction
2000 Feb;95(2):219-28.
Pettinati HM, O’Brien CP, Rabinowitz AR, Wortman SP, Oslin DW, Kampman KM, Dackis CA. The
status of naltrexone in the treatment of alcohol dependence: specific effects on heavy drinking. J
Clin Psychopharmacol 2006;26:610-25.
Pettinati HM, Volpicelli JR, Pierce JD, Jr., O'Brien CP. Improving naltrexone response: an
intervention for medical practitioners to enhance medication compliance in alcohol dependent
patients. J Addict Dis 2000;19(1):71-83.
Physicians Desk Reference; 53rd ed. Montvale, N. J.: Medical Economics;1999.
Pittman B, Gueorguieva R, Krupitsky E, Rudenko A, Flannery B, Krystal J. Multidimensionality of the
Alcohol Withdrawal Symptom Checklist: a factor analysis of the Alcohol Withdrawal Symptom
Checklist and CIWA-Ar. Alcohol Clin Exp Res 2007 Apr;31(4):612–8.
Poikolainen K. Effectiveness of brief interventions to reduce alcohol intake in primary health care
populations: a meta-analysis. Prev Med 1999 May;28(5):503-9.
Polycarpou A, Papanikolaou P, Ioannidis JP, Contopoulos-Ioannidis DG. Anticonvulsants for alcohol
withdrawal. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2005 July 20;(3):CD005064.

Appendix H - Page 151

 VA/DoD Clinical Practice Guideline
For Management of Substance Use Disorders

Preston KL, Umbricht A, Epstein DH. Methadone dose increase and abstinence reinforcement for
treatment of continued heroin use during methadone maintenance. Arch Gen Psychiatry 2000
Apr;57(4):395-404.
PRISM-E – see Oslin et al., 2006
Project MATCH research group. Matching alcoholism treatments to client heterogeneity: Project
MATCH Posttreatment drinking outcomes. J Stud Alcohol 1997 Jan;58(1):7-29.
Putnam DE, Finney JW, Barkey PL, Bonner MJ. Enhancing commitment improves adherence to a
medical regimen. J Consult Clinical Psychol 1994 Feb;62(1):191-4.
Rapp RC, Siegal HA, Li L, Saha P. Predicting post-primary treatment services and drug use outcome:
A multivariate analysis. Am J Drug Alcohol Abuse 1998 Nov;24(4):603–15.
Reinert DF, Allen JP. The Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test (AUDIT): a review of recent
research. Alcohol Clin Exp Res 2002 Feb;26(2):272-9.
Reoux JP, Miller K. Routine hospital alcohol detoxification practice compared to symptom triggered
management with an Objective Withdrawal Scale (CIWA-Ar). Am J Addict 2000
Spring;9(2):135-44.
Ridgely MS, Jerrell JM. Analysis of three interventions for substance abuse treatment of severely
mentally ill people. Community Ment Health J 1996 Dec;32(6):561–72.
Rohsenow DJ, Monti PM, Martin RA, Colby SM, Myers MG, Gulliver SB, Brown RA, Mueller TI,
Gordon A, Abrams DB. Motivational enhancement and coping skills training for cocaine abusers:
Effects on substance use outcomes. Addiction 2004 Jul;99(7):862-74.
Saitz R. Clinical practice. Unhealthy alcohol use. N Engl J Med 2005 May 19;352(20):2139-40.

Saitz R, Mayo-Smith MF, Roberts MS. Redmond HA, Bernard DR, Calkins DR. Individualized
treatment for alcohol withdrawal: a randomized double-blind controlled trial. JAMA 1994 Aug
17; 272(7):519-23.
Saleh SS, Vaughn T, Hall JA, Levey S, Fuortes L, Uden-Holmen T. Cost-effectiveness of case
management in substance abuse treatment. Res Soc Work Prac 2006 Jan;16(21):38-47.
Saleh SS, Vaughn T, Hall JA, Levey S, Fuortes L, Uden-Holmen T. Effectiveness of case management
in substance abuse treatment. Care Manage J 2002;3(4):172–7.
Sanchez-Craig M, Lei H. Disadvantages of imposing the goal of abstinence on problem drinkers: an
empirical study. Br J Addict 1986 Aug;81(4):505-12.
Sannibale C, Hurkett P, Van Den Bossche E, O’Connor D, Zador D, Capus C, Gregory K, McKenzie
M. Aftercare attendance and post-treatment functioning of severely substance dependent
residential treatment clients. Drug Alcohol Rev 2003 Jun;22(2):181-90.
Sarrazin MV, Huber DL, Hall JA. Impact of Iowa case management on family functioning for
substance abuse treatment clients. Adol Fam Health 2001 2(3):132–40.
Scherbaum N, Kluwig J, Specka M, Krause D, Merget B, Finkbeiner T, Gastpar M. Group
psychotherapy for opiate addicts in methadone maintenance treatment–a controlled trial. Eur
Addict Res 2005;11(4): 163-71.
Schiffman S, Balabanis M. Associations between alcohol and tobacco. In: Fertig JB; Allen JP, editors.
Alcohol and tobacco: from basic science to clinical practice . NIAAA Research Monograph No.
30, NIH Pub. No. 95-3531. Bethesda, MD: 1995. p 17-36.
Schottenfeld RS, Chawarski MC, Pakes JR, Pantalon MV, Carroll KM, Kosten TR. Methadone versus
buprenorphine with contingency management or performance feedback for cocaine and opioid
dependence. Am J Psychiatry 2005 Feb;162(2):340-9.
Scott CK, Sherman RE, Foss MA, Godley M, Hristova L. Impact of centralized intake on case
management services. J Psychoactive Drugs 2002 Jan-Mar;34(1):51–7.

Appendix H - Page 152

 VA/DoD Clinical Practice Guideline
For Management of Substance Use Disorders

Seale JP, Boltri JM, Shellenberger S, Velasquez MM, Cornelius M, Guyinn M, Okosun I, Sumner H.
Primary care validation of a single screening question for drinkers. J Stud Alcohol. Sep
2006;67(5):778-84.
Siegal HA, Fisher JH, Rapp RC, Kelliher CW, Wagner JH, O’Brien WF, Cole PA. Enhancing
substance abuse treatment with case management: its impact on employment. J Subst Abuse Treat
1996 Mar-Apr;13(2):93–8.
Siegal HA, Rapp RC, Li L, Saha P, Kirk K. The role of case management in retaining clients in
substance abuse treatment: an exploratory analysis. J Drug Issues 1997;27(4):821–31.
Siegal HA, Li L, Rapp RC. Case management as a therapeutic enhancement: impact on post-treatment
criminality. J Addict Dis 2002;1(4):37-46.
Simpson DD, Sells SB, editors. Opioid sddiction and treatment: a twelve-year follow. Malabar, FL.:
Robert E. Krieger; 1990.
Smith DE, Wesson DR. Benzodiazepines and other sedative-hypnotics. In: Galanter M; Kleber H,
editors. Textbook of substance abuse treatment. Washington, D.C.: American Psychiatric Press,
Inc 1994. p. 179-90.
Solberg LI, Maciosek MV, Edwards NM. Primary care intervention to reduce alcohol misuse ranking
its health impact and cost effectiveness. Am J Prev Med 2008 Feb;34(2):143-52.
Srisurapanont M, Jarusuraisin N. Naltrexone for the treatment of alcoholism: a meta-analysis of
randomized controlled trials. Int J Neuropsychopharmacol 2005;8:267–80.
Stahler GJ, Shipley TF, Bartelt D, DuCette JP, Shandler IW. Evaluating alternative treatments for
homeless substance-abusing men: outcomes and predictors of success. J Addict Dis
1995;14(4):151-67.
Steinbauer JR, Cantor SB, Holzer CE, Volk JR. Ethnic and sex bias in primary care screening tests for
alcohol use disorders. Ann Intern Med 1998;129:353-62.
Stinson FS, Nephew TM, Dufour MC, Grant BF. State Trends in Alcohol-Related Mortality, 1979-92.
1st Edition Bethesda, MD: US Department of Health and Human Services, National Institutes of
Health.
Strain EC, Bigelow GE, Liebson IA, Stitzer ML. Moderate-versus high-dose methadone in the
treatment of opioid dependence: a randomized trial. JAMA 1999 Mar 17;281(11): 1000-5.
Strain EC, Stitzer MI, Liebson IA, Bigelow GE.et al. Dose-response effects of methadone in the
treatment of opioid dependence. Ann Intern Med 1993a Jul 1;119(1):23-7.
Strain EC, Stitzer, MI, Liebson, IA. Methadone dose and treatment outcome. Drug Alcohol Depend
1993b Sep;33:105-17.
Streeton C, Whelan G. Naltrexone, a relapse prevention maintenance treatment of alcohol dependence:
a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Alcohol 2001;36:544-52.
Sullivan JT, Skyora K, Schneiderman J, Naranjo CA, Sellers EM. Assessment of alcohol withdrawal:
the revised Clinical Institute Withdrawal Assessment for Alcohol scale (CIWA-Ar). Br JAddict
1989 Nov;84(11):1353-57.
Thienhaus DJ, Piasecki M. Assessment of psychiatric patients’ risk of violence toward others.
Psychiatr Serv 1998 Sep;49(9):1129-30.
Tiet Q, Mausbach B. Treatments for patients with dual diagnosis: a review. Alcohol Clin Exp Res
2007 Apr;31(4):513-36.
Tiet QQ, Ilgen MA, Byrnes HF, Harris AH, Finney JW. Treatment setting and baseline substance use
severity interact to predict patients’ outcomes. Addiction 2007 Mar;102(3):432-40.
Timko C, Sempel JM. Short-term outcomes of matching dual diagnosis patients’ symptom severity to
treatment intensity. J Subst Abuse Treat 2004 Apr;26(3):209-18.

Appendix H - Page 153

 VA/DoD Clinical Practice Guideline
For Management of Substance Use Disorders

Timko C, DeBenedetti A, Billow R. Intensive referral to 12-step self-help groups and 6-month
substance use disorder outcomes. Addiction 2006 May;101 (5):678-88.
Tri-Service addiction recovery center. Recovery plan. Andrews Air Force Base, MD: Malcolm Grow
Medical Center; 1998.
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Clinical guidelines for the use of buprenorphine in
the treatment of opioid addiction. Treatment improvement protocol (TIP) series #40. Center for
Substance Abuse Treatment; DHHS Publication No. (SMA) 04-3939. Rockville, MD: Department
of Health and Human Services.
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. State methadone treatment guidelines. Treatment
improvement protocol (TIP) series #1. Parrino MW, consensus panel chair, Center for Substance
Abuse Treatment; 1993. DHHS Publication No. (SMA) 93-1991. Rockville, MD: Department of
Health and Human Services.
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Detoxification from alcohol and other drugs (TIP)
series#19. Center for Substance Abuse Treatment; 1995. DHHS Publication No. (SMA)95-3046.
Rockville, MD: Department of Health and Human Services.
U.S. Department of Health & Human Services. Helping patients with alcohol problems, a health
practitioner’s guide. National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism; 2003. Rockville, MD:
Department of Health and Human Services.
U.S. Preventive Service Task Force (USPSTF). Guide to clinical preventive services. 2nd edition.
Washington, DC: US Department of Health and Human Services, Office of Disease Prevention
and Health Promotion, 1996.
U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. Screening and behavioral counseling interventions in primary
care to reduce alcohol misuse: Recommendation statement. Ann Intern Med. 2004;140:554-6.
U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. Screening for illicit drug use. Rockville, MD: Agency for
Healthcare Research and Quality; 2003..Rockville, MD. AHRQ Publication No. No. 08-05108-
EF-3
U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. Polen MR, Whitlock EP, Wisdom JP, Nygren P, Bougatsos C.
Screening in Primary Care Settings for Illicit Drug Use: Staged Systematic Review for the U.S.
Preventive Services Task Force. Evidence Synthesis No. 58, Part 1. AHRQ Publication No. 08-
05108-EF-1. Rockville, MD, Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, January 2008.
U.S. Preventive Services Task Force Lanier D, Ko S. Screening in Primary Care Settings for Illicit
Drug Use: Assessment of Screening Instruments — A Supplemental Evidence Update for the U.S.
Preventive Services Task Force. Evidence Synthesis No. 58, Part 2. AHRQ Publication No. 08-
05108-EF-2. Rockville, Maryland: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, January 2008.
Umbricht-Schneiter A, Ginn DH, Pabst KM, Bigelow GE. Providing medical care to methadone clinic
patients: referral versus on-site care. Am J Public Health 1994 Nov;84(11):207-10.
Van Stelle KR, Mauser E, Moberg DP. Recidivism to the criminal justice system of substance abusing
offenders diverted into treatment. Crime and Delinquency 1994;40:175–96.
Vanderplasschen W, Rapp RC, Wolf JR, Broekaert. The development and implementation of case
management for substance disorders in North America and Europe. Psychiatr Serv 2004
Aug;55(8):913-22.
VanderPlasschen W, Wolf J, Rapp RC, Broekaert E. Effectiveness of different modles of case
management for substance-abusing populations. J Psychoactive Drugs 2007 Mar;39(1):81-95.
Vaughan-Sarrazin MS, Hall JA, Rick GS. Impact of Iowa case management on use of health services
by rural clients in substance abuse treatment. J Drug Issues 2000;30(2):435–63.
Vinson DC, Kruse RL, Seale JP. Simplifying alcohol assessment: two questions to identify alcohol use
disorders. Alcohol Clin Exp Res Jul 2007;31(8):1392-8.

Appendix H - Page 154

 VA/DoD Clinical Practice Guideline
For Management of Substance Use Disorders

Volk RJ, Steinbauer JR, Cantor SB, Holzer CE. The Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test
(AUDIT) as a screen for at-risk patients of different racial/ethnic backgrounds. Addiction
1997;92(2):197-206.
Volpicelli JR, Markman I, Monterosso J, Filing J, O’Brien CP. Psychosocially enhanced treatment for
cocaine-dependent mothers: evidence of efficacy. J Subst Abuse Treatment 2000;18(1):41–9.
Wallace P, Cutler S, Haines A. Randomised controlled trial of general practitioner intervention in
patients with excessive alcohol consumption. BMJ 1988;297:663-68.
Wallace P, Haines A. Use of a questionnaire in general practice to increase the recognition of patients
with excessive alcohol consumption. BMJ 1985;290:1949-52.
Walsh DC, Hingson RW, Merrigan DM, Levenson SM, Coffman GA, Heeren T, Cupples LA. The
impact of a physician's warning on recovery after alcoholism treatment. JAMA 1992 Feb
5;267(5):663-7.
Washton AM, Pottash AC, Gold MS. Naltrexone in addicted business executives and physicians. J
Clin Psychiatry. 1984 Sep;45(9 Pt 2):39-41.
Wesson DR, Ling W. The Clinical Opiate Withdrawal Scale (COWS). J Psychoactive Drugs
2003;35(2):253-9.
Whitlock EP, Polen MR, Green CA, Orleans T, Klein J. Behavioral counseling interventions in
primary care to reduce risky/harmful alcohol use by adults: a summary of the evidence for the
U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. Ann Intern Med 2004;140(7):557-68.
Wilk AI, Jensen NM, Havighurst TC. Meta-analysis of randomized control trials addressing brief
interventions in heavy alcohol drinkers. J Gen Intern Med 1997;12:274-83.
Willenbring ML, Olson DH. A randomized trial of integrated outpatient treatment for medically ill
alcoholic men. Arch Intern Med 1999 Sep;159(16):1946-52.
Willenbring ML, Whelan JA, Dahlquist JS, et al: Community treatment of the chronic public inebriate:
I. implementation. Alcoholism Treatment Quarterly 1990;7(2):79–97, 1990.
Willenbring ML, Olson DH, Bielinski J B. Integrated outpatient treatment for medically ill alcoholic
men: results from a quasi-experimental study. J Stud Alcohol 1995 May;56(3):337-43.
Williams R, Vinson DC. Validation of a single screening question for problem drinking. J Fam Pract.
2001;50(4):307-12.
Witbrodt J, Bond J, Kaskutas LA, Weisner C, Jaeger G, Pating D, Moore C. Day hospital and
residential addiction treatment: randomized and nonrandomized managed care clients. J Consult
Clin Psychol 2007 Dec;75(6):947-59.
Wu SM, Compton P, Bolus R, Schieffer B, Pham Q, Baria A, Van Vort W, Davis F, Shekelle P,
Naliboff BD. The addiction behaviors checklist: validation of a new clinician-based measure of
inappropriate opioid use in chronic pain. J Pain Symptom Manage 2006 Oct;32:342–51.
Yudko E, Lozhkina O, Fouts A. A comprehensive review of the psychometric properties of the Drug
Abuse Screening Test. J Subst Abuse Treat 2007 Mar;32(2):189-98.

Appendix H - Page 155