By Roger Chriss, PNN Columnist

The lawsuits against opioid manufacturers and distributors assume that the fault of the overdose crisis lies with manipulative marketing and medical mismanagement of patients and communities. There is some truth to this, as the HBO documentary “The Crime of the Century” describes. But there is also a lot missing.

The lawsuits and most of the media assume that the solution to the overdose crisis is to reduce opioid prescribing. But a decade of public health data has shown a more complicated picture, as prescribing levels and overdose rates have gone in opposite directions. And changes in prescribing policy were implemented in a heavy-handed way that destabilized patients and nurtured street drug markets.

Policy makers and anti-opioid activists made the overdose crisis worse, as Maia Szalavitz explains in Scientific American.

“If the goal of reducing prescribing were actually to help addicted people and improve pain care, these patients could have been contacted and given immediate access to appropriate treatment for their medical conditions when they lost their doctors. This would have left far fewer customers for dealers,” Szalavitz wrote.

“Instead, however, supply was simply cut and, in some cases, thousands of people were left to suffer withdrawal at the same time. As the crackdown progressed, even doctors who see their patients as benefitting from opioids began either to reduce doses or stop prescribing entirely for fear of being targeted by police and medical boards.”

Risks Are Not Uniform

Under-girding this policy of reduced prescribing is the assumption that risks don’t vary. In other words, it was assumed the risk of addiction and overdose is the same on the first day of opioid use as it is on the 10th or 100th day, regardless of age, gender or other factors.  

But a recent Australian study of patients on opioid medication showed that opioid use and misuse are more complex. Researchers found there was “substantial variation” in how patients answered questions from year to year about their opioid use and behavior. More patients stopped taking opioids on their own than were diagnosed with opioid dependence, suggesting that long-term opioid use does not automatically lead to misuse or addiction.

Further, the risks seem to rise quickly during the first week or two of opioid use, then drop to a stable level. That level is typically maintained over time, except in the face of changes in health status, psychosocial trauma or other medication use.

The risks seem to rise again when patients are taken off opioids. A 2019 study found that tapering actually increased the risk of a patient dying, particularly if the tapering was done quickly or non-consensually.

Irresponsible Advocacy

Anti-opioid advocacy groups like PROP (now officially called Healthcare Professionals for Responsible Opioid Prescribing), FedUp and PharmedOut are quick to point out the risks of addiction and the wrongdoings of Big Pharma.

But there is a clear failure by these groups to address the opioid hysteria they helped create or the unintended consequences of opioid deprescribing, such as sickle cell patients losing access to opioids because of what the NIH calls “rampant fear of opioid addiction and overdoses.” A similar rush to deprescribe is even impacting hospice and cancer patients.

The overdose crisis is rapidly evolving. Drug researcher Dan Ciccarone, PhD, of the University of California, San Francisco School of Medicine, told Buzzfeed that the U.S. is entering a “fourth wave” in the overdose crisis, in which illicit fentanyl and methamphetamine are the main problems, not prescription drugs.

The U.S. has both systemic and systematic issues that have impeded progress in the overdose crisis for decades. Szalavitz, Ciccarone and many others have pointed to better ways forward. From gentle transitioning of patients to harm reduction for people at risk, the U.S. could have done much better, as history now shows. Hopefully, we won’t wait again for history to tell us what we should be doing.  

Roger Chriss lives with Ehlers Danlos syndrome and is a proud member of the Ehlers-Danlos Society. Roger is a technical consultant in Washington state, where he specializes in mathematics and research.