Pharmacokinetics and withdrawal effects of opioids and alcohol

DRUG FACTS 4 Drug Facts When it comes to the pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of opioids, there are several things to keep in mind. First, there is a delay of one to up to five hours when it comes to the drug. The onset of the drug is anywhere from a few minutes to more than half an hour. In terms of what opioids do in the brain, there are several things that should be said. Opioids have the effect that they do because the mimic the existing neurotransmitters in the brain. The drug fools the receptors that exist and there is an interface with the existing nerve cells. However, they do so in an abnormal and synthetic way. The net effect is that the brain is flooded with dopamine (Jaffe, 2010). Withdrawal from alcohol is very different from withdrawal from opioids. They are the same in that they both wreak havoc on the body. Withdrawal from alcohol, if the addiction is strong enough, can kill. This is not generally true with opiates. In both cases, measured withdrawal takes about three to five days. People withdrawing from alcohol can experience delirium. When it comes to the physiological versus psychological withdrawal from opioids, this is the difference between the mind craving the drug (psychological) versus the body doing the same (physiological). Both must be dealt with but the latter is typically much rougher than the former. Similarly, the symptoms that manifest must be reacted to differently. Physiological dependence to opioids can be treated through methadone and other means. Psychological dependence must be managed as well, but is typically much less dangerous. One consideration is tolerance. The reason opioids are generally not taken long-term is that the body builds up resistance to the drug. This means that it takes more and more of the drug to achieve the same treatment, or “high” in the case of abusers. For example, what took 10 milligrams at one point will eventually take 20 milligrams. As time goes on, the number goes up (Jaffe, 2010). Article Review The article being reviewed on this page looks at the usage of certain opiates and how it can create the possibility of abuse. There is also a review of the different potencies and such that exist. The specific drugs that are in question are oxycodone, hydrocodone and morphine. The delivery system in question is intravenous/injected. One strength of the study is that it is double-blind in terms of its sample. Whenever possible, this is one of the best ways to do a scholarly study or research project. Further, they made it a point to make sure that the people involved were in roughly the same shape health-wise, that being in good health. On the downside, the sample size was a little on the small size. Indeed, only about nineteen people were included in the sample size. A good thing about the study is that they started with zero milligrams of the drugs and then bumped people up in five milligram increments. This was surely done for safety reasons. However, it is not hard to decipher that people on the streets that abuse the drugs in question are doing much more than fifteen milligrams, which was the highest amount used in this study. Further, many people on the street are using fentanyl and other very strong opiates. Even so, replicating that in a scientific study would be extremely unsafe and unwise. Further, it is not necessary to do so to get a good idea of what effects the drug has and what cravings or other behaviors will manifest. One area to consider when it comes to clinical practice is that the drug does have “good effects”, as indicated by the study. Whether it be pain relief, a flood of dopamine or other things, there is a reason people use the drug. Some of those reasons are medical and legitimate in nature. However, other reasons are less positive and useful, especially over time. A related, yet different, concern would be that many people use the drug for legitimate uses at first but get addicted due to misuse and abuse. People with back injuries, for example, would be a common one (Stoops et al, 2010).