By Roger Chriss, PNN Editor

It’s been over five years since the CDC released its opioid prescribing guideline for chronic pain. Now that the agency is looking at possible revisions, it’s worth taking a close look at what research is showing about the effects of the guideline.

First, let’s revisit the goals of the 2016 guideline:

“This guideline provides recommendations for primary care clinicians who are prescribing opioids for chronic pain outside of active cancer treatment, palliative care, and end-of-life care.

This guideline is intended to improve communication between clinicians and patients about the risks and benefits of opioid therapy for chronic pain, improve the safety and effectiveness of pain treatment, and reduce the risks associated with long-term opioid therapy, including opioid use disorder, overdose, and death.”

That’s not what has happened in practice. Instead, the CDC guideline has impacted pain management in both cancer and palliative settings, and has impeded access to care for people with chronic painful disorders.

Cancer and Palliative Care

Several major studies have appeared this year on the effects of the CDC guideline, all finding substantial and unexpected impacts on cancer and palliative care.

An Oregon State University study of over 2,600 hospital patients discharged to hospice care showed a decrease in opioid prescribing and an increase in the use of less powerful, non-opioid analgesics. As result, “some of those patients might have been undertreated for their pain compared to similar patients in prior years.”

Similarly, a study in The Oncologist looked at cancer patients with bone metastasis, and found that opioid prescribing fell significantly between 2011 and 2017. Researchers said their findings “raise concerns about potential unintended consequences related to population-level reduction in opioid prescribing.”

And a study in the journal Cancer found that in interviews with 26 patients with advanced cancer, the majority “experienced stigma about their opioid use for cancer pain management.” Patients also reported difficulties with pharmacies and insurance coverage of opioids.

Chronic Noncancer Pain Care

In chronic noncancer pain management, the CDC guideline has had mixed effects. A recent study in JAMA Network Open concluded that guideline-based opioid prescribing “has potential to improve pain management and reduce opioid-related harms,” but never addressed whether patients thought their pain care actually improved or was even adequate.  

The guideline has also had a chilling effect on some providers. A 2019 study in JAMA Network Open found that over 40% of primary care clinics in Michigan would not accept new patients being treated with opioids due to “decreased social desirability bias.”

The American Medical Association recently reported that many pharmacists have refused to fill legitimate opioid prescriptions, with some patients being told that they were not really in pain and others being subjected to “humiliating accusations that they were drug seekers.”

The AMA shared the experience of one doctor who came back from vacation to learn that he had been blacklisted by a major pharmacy chain that would no longer fill his prescriptions for controlled substances.

“When the CDC guidelines came down in 2016 basically saying we needed to take as many people as we could off opioids, I knew that my patients were in for a world of trouble,” said Aaron Newcomb, DO. “I was particularly concerned about my patients who were stable on low-dose opioid therapy for years. And my concerns have translated into an even worse reality for both me and my patients. Getting blacklisted by a national chain who had no clue about my practice was professionally wrong, but it also hurt my patients and my community.”

The goals of the CDC guideline were laudable. Improving patient outcomes and reducing public health risks are vital to the wellbeing of society. But at least so far, it’s hard to see the CDC guideline as having achieved any of its stated goals. Instead, we have guideline creep and a worsening overdose crisis.

The CDC alone should not be blamed for this outcome. States implemented laws and regulations, in some cases before the guideline was even released, that have contributed to these unfortunate shifts in clinical outcomes. The CDC even warned about misapplication of its guideline, though to little apparent effect.

There is clearly a lot of guideline creep at work. The impacts of the CDC guideline reach far beyond the use of opioids for chronic noncancer pain and are affecting patients in unintended ways, including those suffering from cancer and terminal illnesses or recovering from surgery. Patients and providers are hopeful the upcoming revision of the guideline will address these outcomes and improve pain care.

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.