By Pat Anson, PNN Editor

Do pain patients on long-term opioid therapy make irrational decisions? Is their mental capacity so diminished by opioids that they shouldn’t be involved in treatment decisions with their doctors?

The answer to both questions is often yes, according to a controversial new op/ed published in JAMA Internal Medicine. At issue is a recent update to the CDC’s opioid prescribing guideline, which calls for shared decision-making (SDM) when a prescriber considers tapering a patient or abruptly discontinuing their opioid treatment. The guideline was revised last year after reports of “serious harm” to patients caused by forced tapering.

“In situations where benefits and risks of continuing opioids are considered to be close, shared decision-making with patients is particularly important,” the 2022 guideline states.

But that advice about consulting with patients goes too far, according to the lead author of the JAMA op/ed, Mark Sullivan, MD, a professor of psychiatry at the University of Washington and a longtime board member of Physicians for Responsible Opioid Prescribing (PROP), an anti-opioid activist group.

“The value of SDM has been recognized for many years but also has its limitations, including where patients make irrational or short-sighted decisions,” Sullivan wrote. “Long-term opioid therapy induces a state of opioid dependence that compromises patients’ decisional capacity, specifically altering their perception of the value and necessity of the therapy; and although patients with chronic pain are not usually at imminent risk of death, they often can see no possibility of a satisfying life without a significant and immediate reduction in their pain.”

Sullivan and his two co-authors, Jeffrey Linder, MD, and Jason Doctor, PhD, have long been critical of opioid prescribing practices in the U.S. In their conflict of interest statements, Sullivan and Doctor disclose that they have worked for law firms involved in opioid litigation, a lucrative sideline for several PROP members.

Sullivan, Linder and Doctor call for more “structured” decision-making that includes the patient’s family and friends, “motivational interviewing” of patients about opioid risks and treatment goals, and education about non-drug alternatives such as yoga and meditation.

“We believe that a fully individualized, unstructured decision-making process will not be adequate to protect patients receiving long-term opioid therapy,” they wrote.

And what happens if a patient refuses to have their dose reduced? The op/ed doesn’t explicitly state it, but in an email to PNN, Sullivan said forced tapering would be acceptable in some situations.

“In the case of opioid prescribing, and especially opioid tapering, working to persuade the patient is almost always the best clinical strategy. But there are circumstances (opioid use disorder, diversion, serious medical risks) where tapering should occur even if the patient objects,” Sullivan wrote.

Opioid diversion by patients is actually rare. The DEA estimates that less than one percent of oxycodone (0.3%) and hydrocodone (0.42%) will be used by someone they were not intended for.

As for patients on opioids behaving “irrational,” Sullivan and his co-authors cite an op/ed published 33 years ago in The New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM). But that article doesn’t even discuss opioids or tapering, it’s about whether patients and doctors should collaborate in making decisions about end-of-life medical care.  It also makes an important disclaimer that “even the irrational choices of a competent patient must be respected if the patient cannot be persuaded to change them."

Sullivan rejects that approach to opioid treatment.

“We cite (the NEJM article) to demonstrate that SDM does not exclude or prevent irrational decisions,” he wrote in his email.  “You are right that we do not endorse the conclusion you cite, that patient’s irrational decisions must be respected.”

In a rebuttal to Sullivan’s op/ed also published in JAMA Internal Medicine, Mitchell Katz, MD, and Deborah Grady, MD, dispute the notion that a patient’s choices shouldn’t be respected.

“Primary care professionals generally highly value the inclusion of the patient’s perspective in decision-making, consistent with the principles of patient autonomy and self-determination, and are loathe to go against a patient’s wishes,” they wrote.

“As primary care professionals, we have found it helpful to tell patients that it is not recommended to take more than a specific threshold of opioids and that we do not want to prescribe something that is not recommended. However, that does not mean sticking to rigid cut points for dose and duration of opioid use, abandoning patients, or having them undergo too rapid a taper.”

Others questioned JAMA’s decision to publish Sullivan’s op/ed.

“While I recognize the editors’ legitimate intellectual interest in providing a forum for open discussion on the opioid policy space, I question their decision to publish an editorial that represents an ongoing call for broad, ill-defined reductions in opioid prescribing,” said Chad Kollas, MD, a palliative care specialist who rejects the idea that patients shouldn’t be involved in their healthcare choices.

“Errantly embracing a lower evidentiary standard for medical decision-making capacity creates an unacceptable risk for harm to patients with pain by violating their rights of medical autonomy and self-determination.”

Opioids were once commonly prescribed in the U.S. for both acute and chronic pain, but those days are long over. Opioid prescribing has been cut in half, to levels not seen since the 1990’s. And many patients today have trouble just getting their prescriptions filled at pharmacies due to opioid shortages.

Despite that, fatal overdoses have climbed to record levels, with illicit fentanyl and other street drugs involved in the vast majority of drug deaths, not prescription opioids.