CDC Is Worried About Shortages of ADHD Stimulants. What About Rx Opioids?

By Pat Anson

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention is worried that shortages of stimulant medication used to treat attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) may be forcing some patients to turn to street drugs or even suicide.

In a new report, the CDC estimates that 15.5 million U.S. adults have ADHD¸ a condition that causes inattention, impulsiveness and hyperactivity. About a third of those patients were prescribed a stimulant, but 71.5% of them had difficulty getting their prescription filled because of shortages.

“Shortages of stimulant medications in the United States have affected many persons with ADHD who rely on pharmacotherapy to appropriately treat their ADHD,” wrote lead author Brooke Staley, PhD, an epidemiologist at the CDC’s National Center on Birth Defects and Developmental Disabilities.

“Patients experiencing these difficulties might seek medication outside the regulated health care system, increasing their risk for overdose because of the prevalence of counterfeit pills in the illegal drug market, which might contain unexpected substances such as fentanyl.”

This is the second CDC report in recent months to warn about stimulant shortages. In a CDC Health Advisory released in June, the agency said ADHD patients who are unable to obtain Adderall and other stimulants are at risk of “social and emotional impairment, increased risk of drug or alcohol use disorder, unintentional injuries, such as motor vehicle crashes, and suicide.”

The CDC’s concern about ADHD patients is in marked contrast to its ongoing neglect of pain patients, who face similar shortages of opioid medication.

In a recent PNN survey, 90% of pain patients said they experienced delays or problems getting their opioid prescriptions filled at a pharmacy. Desperate for relief, some bought counterfeit medication or other illicit drugs; obtained opioids prescribed to another person; or used alcohol, cannabis and other substances to ease their pain. Nearly a third said they considered suicide because their pain was so severe.

In short, the very same risky behavior that concerns the CDC about ADHD patients.   

We asked the CDC if it was studying the impact of opioid shortages on pain patients and instead got a defense of the ADHD study.

“There has been limited information about (ADHD) diagnosis and treatment in adults and this analysis aimed to fill that information gap – providing the first national estimates on prevalence of adult ADHD in more than a decade. It is also the first national estimates to describe age at diagnosis and treatment, including telehealth and difficulty filling stimulant prescriptions,” a spokesperson said in an email.

It would not be unreasonable to say that the CDC shares some of the blame for chronic shortages of hydrocodone, oxycodone and other prescription opioids. The agency’s controversial 2016 opioid guideline paved the way for steep cuts in opioid prescribing, resulting in “serious harm” to patients who were rapidly tapered and left in uncontrolled pain. Some committed suicide.

The CDC guideline also greased the skids of opioid litigation by exaggerating the risk of opioid addiction and overdose. Faced with a tsunami of lawsuits, drug distributors and pharmacy chains agreed to ration the supply of opioids at individual pharmacies, and drug makers cut back on the production of opioids to avoid further liability. As recently as last month, Teva Pharmaceuticals stopped production of immediate-release fentanyl medicines, potent pain relievers that were relied on by dying cancer patients.

The CDC has been silent about opioid shortages – so have the FDA and DEA.

“We don't make the medicines and we can't tell someone that they must make medicines. There are some things that are out of our control,” FDA Commissioner Robert Califf, MD, said in a 2023 interview. 

Faced with complaints about shortages of ADHD medication, the DEA recently said it would raise the supply of stimulants that drug makers are allowed to produce in 2025, but would continue with its decade-long campaign to reduce the supply of opioids.

That discrepancy hasn’t been lost on pain sufferers.

“You’ve corrected course for ADHD drugs, now do the same for opioid pain analgesics,” one patient posted in a comment on the DEA’s plan. “Do not cut opioids production in 2025. The shortages across the country will be worse, with a corresponding increase in suffering and deaths among chronic pain patients.”

“These proposals will only further the pain and harm on a community of disabled individuals that did not ask to be disabled,” wrote Rebecca Meadows. “Would you want your mother, brother, sister, child or yourself to suffer unnecessarily due to unwarranted cutbacks in pain medications being made? The amount of people who suffer now is ridiculous but it’s only going to get worse if we continue on this path.”

A former CDC epidemiologist wrote a book about how the CDC’s “Disastrous War on Opioids” made the overdose crisis worse. Opioid overdoses have nearly doubled since the 2016 guideline was released.

“There are still significant restrictions on people in chronic pain for no apparent benefit. There continues to be very high rate of overdoses,” said author Charles LeBaron, MD. “I'm kind of a diehard public health guy. I want to see whether anything good happens. Nothing good happened. Time to reconsider.”

DEA Plans More Cuts in Opioid Supply, While Raising ADHD Stimulant Production

By Pat Anson

The U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration is planning more cuts in the supply of prescription opioids in 2025, while raising production of amphetamine and other stimulants used to treat attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD).

If the DEA’s plans are finalized after a public comment period, it would be the ninth consecutive year the opioid supply has been reduced.

Under the Controlled Substances Act, the DEA has broad legal authority to set annual aggregate production quotas (APQs) for drug makers – in effect telling them how much Schedule I and II chemicals and medications they can produce. DEA sets the quotas after consulting with the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and other federal agencies, as well as individual states about the projected need for controlled substances.

“FDA predicts that levels of medical need for schedule II opioids in the United States in calendar year 2025 will decline on average 6.6 percent from calendar year 2024 levels. These declines are expected to occur across a variety of schedule II opioids. These declines are expected to occur across a variety of schedule II opioids,” the DEA said in a notice recently published in the Federal Register.

There will not be 6.6% cuts across the board for every opioid. Unlike previous years, the agency is proposing only slight reductions in the supply of fentanyl, oxycodone, hydrocodone and hydromorphone, while keeping quotas unchanged for morphine and codeine.

Most of the cuts are very minor – less than a tenth of one percent -- when the proposed APQ’s for 2025 are compared to the ones adopted in 2024.

DEA Opioid Production Quotas for 2025

  • Fentanyl: 0.0025% decrease

  • Oxycodone:  0.137% decrease

  • Hydrocodone: 0.081% decrease

  • Hydromorphone: 0.015% decrease

  • Morphine: Unchanged

  • Codeine: Unchanged

The DEA notice does not address the discrepancy between the FDA’s estimate of a 6.6% decline in medical need for opioids with the quotas it is proposing. The agency says it considered a “potential increase in demand for certain opioids” due to more elective surgeries being performed in 2025. Many of those surgeries were postponed during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The FDA predicted a 3.5% increase in domestic medical use of Schedule II stimulants in 2025. Demand for stimulants to treat ADHD has grown in recent years, but the drugs are also increasingly used to treat brain fog and fatigue caused by Long Covid. The FDA told DEA it was concerned about ongoing shortages of amphetamine, lisdexamfetamine, and methylphenidate, which are used to make stimulants such as Adderall.    

The DEA wants to raise production quotas for amphetamine (+5.9%) and lisdexamfetamine (+23.5%), while leaving the 2025 quota for methylphenidate the same as it was in 2024. The agency said inventories of amphetamine and methylphenidate-based products had increased, while shortages of lisdexamfetamin continue.

“DEA believes that manufacturers will be able to meet the increase in domestic medical need for these three schedule II stimulants with the APQs proposed in this notice,” the agency said.

The Myth of Opioid Diversion

The DEA has been cutting opioid production quotas for nearly a decade, reducing the supply of oxycodone by over 68% and hydrocodone by nearly 73% since 2015. Many of those cuts are due to pressure from Congress, as well as a common belief that prescription opioids are often diverted or sold to people they are not intended for.

That belief is largely a myth.

As required by Congress, DEA estimated the diversion rate of schedule II opioids in 2025, and once again came to the conclusion that diversion is rare – less than half of one percent for oxycodone and hydrocodone. Much of the diversion is a result of theft and losses in the supply chain, before opioids even reach patients.

Estimated 2025 Diversion Rates

  • Oxycodone: 0.493%

  • Hydrocodone: 0.379%

  • Fentanyl:  0.013%

  • Hydromorphone: 0.06%

The DEA’s diversion rates are partially based on “red flag” data from prescription drug monitoring programs (PDMP). Potential red flags include patients who see three or more prescribers in a 90-day period; patients who receive a daily opioid dose in excess of 240 morphine milligram equivalents (MME); and patients who pay in cash for a controlled substance.

DEA requested PDMP data from all 50 states, but only 29 states responded to the request by sharing summaries of their red flag data.

“While PDMP data is useful in estimating diversion, it is not conclusive. Further investigation would be required before concluding that any of the subject prescriptions were actually diverted. DEA continues to evaluate its methodologies in estimating diversion in an effort to set quotas more efficiently. State participation is crucial to accurate data analysis, and DEA anticipates working closely with states, as well as other federal and state entities, in future quota determinations,” the agency said.

Public Comments

The DEA quietly published its notice about 2025 production quotas in the Federal Register on September 25, with no fanfare or press release.

Usually the agency receives thousands of comments from the public about its production quotas, but so far there have been only a handful of comments posted. Many are from patients still bitter about the decade of cuts the DEA has imposed on the opioid supply, which have contributed to record shortages of prescription drugs.

“The actions that are being taken by Congress, by the DEA, state legislatures, and state medical boards, have caused THOUSANDS of these patients to lose access to their medications, have resulted in the improper prosecution of pain doctors, resulting in a severe nationwide shortage of pain specialists, and nationwide shortages of medications,” wrote David Smith.  

“The CDC, FDA, and DEA have severely underestimated the needs of chronic pain patients and misjudged the consequences of these cuts. While opioid misuse is a serious issue, penalizing legitimate pain patients is not the solution,” said Gina Harrison.

“Please I'm begging you not to cut opioids meds this year,” said Melissa Guthrie. “I'm on palliative care and there were a couple months last year I didn't get my meds due to shortages. You know it's not the pain meds causing harm. It’s the illicit fentanyl and street drugs killing people.”

You still have time to make your feelings known, as long as you do it by October 25, when the public comment period ends. To make a comment, click here.

A Company Will Help You Find a Pharmacy That Has Your Meds

By Pat Anson

If you have a prescription for oxycodone, Adderall, Wegovy or Ozempic, there’s a good chance you’ve had trouble getting it filled. That’s because many pharmacies are experiencing shortages of opioids, stimulants for ADHD, and diabetes drugs that have become popular weight-loss medications.  

The shortages are so acute that a recent PNN survey found that 90% of patients with an opioid prescription experienced delays or problems getting it filled. Many had to visit 3 or more pharmacies to find one that had their medication in stock.

“My pharmacy has been unable to order or get my medication for me for over 6 months now and they are unsure when they'll be able to order or get it for me again,” one patient told us.

“Having to call pharmacies is ridiculous,” said another. “You sit on the phone for 20 minutes just to find out they don’t have your medication.”

Peter Daggett knows all about the stress and anxiety that come with not being able to get a prescription filled. He and his friend, Parth Shah, have firsthand experience with the “pharmacy crawl.”

“We were both diagnosed with ADHD at a younger age, and as many people like us taking stimulant medication, we struggled to find pharmacies that had our medications in stock,” said Daggett. I was banging my head against the wall. I couldn’t get my medications. I didn't have time to call pharmacies for three hours. I didn't have time to call 100 pharmacies to find one that has my medication.

“And I said to Parth, ‘I’d probably pay somebody 50 bucks if they go find this medication for me.’ And he said, ‘Maybe some other people would, too.’ So we decided to test this out and see if it was something that people wanted. And there were tons and tons of people right out of the gate that really wanted a service like this to exist.”

That’s when Dagget and Shah launched Medfinder, an online company that helps patients find local pharmacies that have their medications in stock. So far this year, they’ve helped over 6,000 patients get their prescriptions filled.  

Medfinder recently started advertising on Facebook and through Google’s advertising platform. Its pharmacy-finding service is available in all 50 states and is growing quickly.

“Our team will go and contact as many pharmacies as it takes to find a pharmacy that has the patient's medications in stock and is willing to dispense it. That will cover any geographic range that the patient wants,” Daggett explained.

“Generally, what we'll do is patients will come in, they'll put their zip code in, and then we'll start searching in the nearby radius. Once we find the pharmacy that has the patient's medication in stock, we'll text that patient (the name and location of) the pharmacy. Then we wait to hear back from the patient.”

MEDFINDER AD

A search for one medication costs $50, but Medfinder has sliding rate plans that can reduce the cost of each search to $30. Fees will be refunded if no pharmacy is found within five business days, but that doesn’t happen often. Daggett says the company has a 99% success rate and is usually able to find a pharmacy within 90 minutes.  

In addition to patients, Medfinder also wants to form partnerships with prescribers. That can save doctors the time and hassle of writing another prescription for the same drug when a patient’s initial search for a pharmacy doesn’t pan out. Once a pharmacy is found through Medfinder, the prescriber is prompted to send the prescription directly to them electronically.

Ozempic, Wegovy and other diabetes/weight loss drugs are Medfinder’s most widely requested medications, followed by ADHD stimulants. Opioids don’t currently make up a big part of the company’s business, but Daggett says they’ve had success finding pharmacies with opioids in stock, despite chronic nationwide shortages of oxycodone and hydrocodone.

“It's extremely rare that we're not able to find a medication for a patient,” he told PNN.       

Patients Blame DEA for Drug Shortages, Not Monopolies or Middlemen

By Pat Anson, PNN Editor

Two federal agencies are getting more than they bargained for when they asked the public to comment on record shortages of prescription drugs.

In February, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) made a joint Request for Information in the Federal Register, asking how wholesalers and other “middlemen” in the drug supply chain were contributing to persistent shortages.

“When you’re prescribed an important medication by your doctor, and you learn the drug is out of stock, your heart sinks,” HHS Secretary Xavier Becerra said in a press release. “This devastating reality is the case for too many Americans who need generic drugs for ADHD, cancer, and other conditions. (This) announcement is part of the Biden-Harris Administration’s work to tackle healthcare monopolies and lessen the impact on vulnerable patients who bear the brunt of this lack of competition.”

Nearly 10,000 comments have been received so far, with many blaming the federal government for the drug shortages -- not monopolies, middlemen or lack of competition. Drawing the most criticism is the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), which sets annual production quotas for opioids, stimulants and other controlled substances. The CDC and FDA also came under fire from frustrated patients.

“The heavy-handed failure of the FDA/DEA to properly and ethically manage the uptick in ADHD prescriptions is creating a crisis on par with their equally underhanded failure in managing the opioid crisis,” wrote Matti Dupre. “Hardworking Americans are left looking at the individuals leading these organizations as a source of pain rather than as a means of support.”

“Millions of people are having a hard time getting their prescription opioid medications filled at pharmacies now. Why? Because the DEA have cut production down so low, pharmacies can't get what they need to fill our prescriptions,” said Candi P. “Wake up! Stop playing with our lives!”

“The government has gone way too far, with their guidelines and regulations regarding opioids,” wrote Julie Anuskewic, who has a painful immune system disorder. “My pain is not controlled because the CDC has scared all doctors into not prescribing. It’s bad enough that they have destroyed the doctor-patient relationship. Now they are destroying the patient-pharmacist relationship.” 

Notably lacking in the FTC and HHS statement about drug shortages is any mention of the National Opioid Settlement, which has forced major drug wholesalers and big chain pharmacies to ration opioids and other controlled substances or risk losing their DEA licenses. Some manufacturers are also cutting back on production of generic opioids because the profit margins are low and the risk of further litigation is high.

A recent PNN survey found that 90% of patients with opioid prescriptions had trouble getting them filled, with one in five unable to get their pain medication even after contacting multiple pharmacies.  

“The FTC is looking in the wrong places for reasons for drug shortages, at least as far as opioids and stimulants are concerned,” wrote Andrea MacNary. “In those cases, the shortages are a direct result of the DEA's policies – with input from the FDA – that have seen annual reductions in the amount of drugs that manufacturers are allowed to produce.

”This results in patients being unable to obtain their legally prescribed medications in a timely manner. Because pharmacies have shortages, patients are then forced to call around to different pharmacies looking for their meds. This is extremely difficult, because not only do pharmacies not want to disclose whether they have the drugs in stock, but if the patient does find them, they must obtain a new prescription from their doctor.”

‘Broken Quota System’

One critic sees the public outreach by the FTC and HHS as a ham-handed attempt to coverup the DEA’s “crude and inadequate system” for regulating controlled substances   

“I believe the FTC is only trying to find cover for the Drug Enforcement Administration.The DEA is the only governmental agency that sets production and distribution quotas for every drug company manufacturing controlled medication,” William Dodson, MD, wrote in a recent op/ed in ADDitude. “This problem traces its roots and long tendrils back to the DEA alone. No other agency has the authority to create and prolong it. 

“The time has long since passed for the DEA to admit its fault and fix its broken quota system. There has already been too much needless suffering by innocent people who did nothing to cause the DEA’s restrictions.”

That’s not how the DEA sees it. This month a top DEA official compared the growing demand for Adderall and other ADHD stimulants to the early stages of the opioid crisis. Matthew Strait claimed the problem isn’t tight supplies, but excessive prescribing of stimulants.

“I’m not trying to be a doomsday-er here,” said Strait, deputy assistant administrator in the DEA’s diversion control division. “It makes me feel like we’re at the precipice of our next drug crisis in the United States.”

If you’d like to make a comment in the Federal Register on the FTC and HHS Request for Information, click here. Comments will be accepted until May 30. 

DEA Plans Further Cuts in Rx Opioid Supply in 2024

By Pat Anson, PNN Editor

Despite chronic shortages of opioid pain medication around the country, the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration is planning to further reduce the supply of oxycodone, hydrocodone, morphine and other opioids in 2024.

The DEA sets annual production quotas for opioids and other controlled substances after consulting with the Food and Drug Administration, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and individual states about their projected medical and research needs. If the proposed cuts are finalized next month, 2024 will be the 8th consecutive year that DEA reduced production quotas for opioid manufacturers.

“FDA predicts that levels of medical need for schedule II opioids in the United States in calendar year 2024 will decline on average 7.9 percent from calendar year 2023 levels. These declines are expected to occur across a variety of schedule II opioids including fentanyl, hydrocodone, hydromorphone, oxycodone, and oxymorphone,” DEA said in a public notice published in the Federal Register.

There will not be 7.9% cuts across the board for every opioid. The steepest cuts will be in the supply of codeine and prescription fentanyl, while production quotas for oxycodone and hydrocodone will be reduced only marginally.  

Proposed Cuts in 2024 Opioid Supply

- 8.3% Codeine  

- 7.6% Rx Fentanyl  

- 4.3% Morphine

- 2.1% Hydromorphone 

- 0.3% Oxycodone   

- 0.3% Hydrocodone

Since reaching their peak in 2015, DEA production quotas have been reduced by over 68% for oxycodone and nearly 73% for hydrocodone, the two most widely prescribed Schedule II opioids.

The primary goal of the DEA in cutting the supply is to reduce the risk of diversion, abuse and overdose, but there is little evidence the policy is working or even needed. Prescription opioid use has been cut in half in recent years, but overdose deaths have grown to record levels, fueled primarily by illicit fentanyl and other street drugs.

Fears about patients selling or diverting their opioid medication also appear overblown, as the DEA estimates the diversion risk for hydrocodone at only 0.31% and 0.28% for oxycodone. That means for every pill that’s sold or stolen, about 300 pills are used by the patient they were intended for.

Federal health agencies appear to have turned a blind eye to opioid shortages. For several months, the American Society of Health-System Pharmacists (ASHP) has warned of shortages of immediate release oxycodone, oxycodone/acetaminophen tablets, and hydrocodone/acetaminophen tablets. But those shortages have not been publicly acknowledged by the DEA or FDA, and have not been added to the FDA’s drug shortage list.

More ADHD Meds, Cannabis and Psychedelics

The DEA and FDA have been more responsive to complaints of shortages of Adderall and other stimulants used to treat attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). The DEA is modestly raising its production quotas for stimulants after the FDA predicted a 3.1% increase in their medical use in 2024.

“DEA is committed to ensuring that patients who need stimulant medications have access to them and to ensuring that these drugs are being prescribed thoughtfully and responsibly, and we will continue working with our partners inside and outside of government to do so,” DEA Administrator Ann Milgram wrote in a letter released this week. She said 17 out of 18 drug makers had agreed to increase their production of stimulants under existing 2023 quotas.

In addition to stimulants, the DEA is also raising 2024 production quotas for cannabis, psychedelics and hallucinogens in response to an “increased level of research and clinical trials” involving the Schedule I substances.

The DEA’s quota process may undergo significant changes in the years ahead. The agency wants to be “more nimble” in responding to shortages and increases in demand. To do that, it is seeking access to sales and inventory reports from drug makers to better assess the supply that is available.

“DEA believes that changes to reporting requirements are necessary to improve both the type of data collected and the timeliness of that data, allowing DEA to be more nimble in its administration of the quota program. Future regulatory changes may seek to address the lack of real-time inventory and sales data accessible to DEA, the lack of information on production lead times, and issues of timeliness,” the agency said.

“DEA also is considering methods by which it might increase transparency in its quota setting process. Future regulatory proposals may define additional steps, including such concepts as public notification and an opportunity for public input when prescribing rates for controlled substances deviate substantially from FDA's estimate of future use. Furthermore, DEA is considering regulatory changes which will authorize it to reduce a manufacturer's individual manufacturing or procurement quota in order to apportion it to another manufacturer.”

To leave a comment on the DEA’s 2024 production quotas, click here. Public comments must be submitted online or in writing on or before December 4, 2023.

Lawsuits Accuse DEA of ‘Incompetence’ in Regulating Drug Supply

By Pat Anson, PNN Editor

Two federal lawsuits accuse the Drug Enforcement Administration of incompetence and heavy-handed regulation of the nation’s drug supply, which could worsen shortages of ADHD medication and drive a drug manufacturer and specialty pharmacy out of business.

At issue is the DEA’s enforcement of the Controlled Substances Act (CSA), a federal law that gives the agency broad authority to limit the production and sale of opioids, ADHD drugs and other controlled medications that have the potential for abuse. Under the CSA, the DEA decides who can write and dispense prescriptions for hundreds of controlled substances and the amount that drug makers can produce.   

“They shouldn't be playing God with people's medications. And really, that's what's happening here,” says attorney Jim Walden, who recently filed a lawsuit in the Second Circuit Court of Appeals on behalf of Ascent Pharmaceuticals, a leading producer of generic drugs used to treat attention deficit hyperactive disorder (ADHD), a condition that primarily affects children.

By its own estimate, Ascent produces about 20% of the nation’s supply of generic ADHD medication. In its 12-year history, Ascent had never been accused of a regulatory violation or faced any sanctions, so it was surprised to learn on September 29 that DEA would not renew its production quota for ADHD drugs because it has doubts about the company’s record keeping.

“After reviewing these records, DEA lacks confidence in the data provided by Ascent in its quota requests,” the agency said in its denial.

Ascent’s lawsuit disputes that claim, saying DEA investigators spent 18 months “bumbling about” its business records, without ever making clear what they were concerned about or why the quota was denied.

“The Quota Denial nowhere explains the basis for DEA’s alleged confidence gap. If that detail resides in the administrative complaint served alongside the Quota Denial, DEA should be embarrassed: the errors in it reveal a fundamental inaptitude with DEA’s own recordkeeping requirements,” the lawsuit alleges.

“This case highlights the perils of a hapless administrative agency, which (ironically) acknowledged the scarcity of ADHD medications on the very day it effectively sought to shutter Ascent, a company with a time-proven capability of quickly getting medicine to children in need. Ascent and patients have been victimized by DEA’s incompetence, having rendered an arbitrary, capricious, and unsubstantiated quota denial based on erroneous conclusions.”

Before going into private practice, Walden spent 10 years as a federal prosecutor, often handling DEA cases. He’s asking the federal appeals court to issue an emergency injunction that forces DEA to approve Ascent’s quota application.

“We're in the middle of a national scarcity crisis that is really putting children at risk. So it's very, very hard to understand what could possibly be motivating DEA, because they're obviously not alleging that there are quality control problems with the drugs or that there's a threat of diversion,” Walden told PNN. “So, by definition, their decision is arbitrary and it should be reversed.”

The DEA’s actions do seem puzzling. Shortages of ADHD drugs began in the early stages of the pandemic and have steadily worsened, as more children and adults sought mental health treatment. Yet in December of last year, when the DEA issued its quotas for 2023, the agency said there was no need to increase production because the supply of Adderall and other stimulants was sufficient to meet demand.

“The majority of the manufacturers contacted by DEA and/or FDA have responded that they currently have sufficient quota to meet their contracted production quantities for legitimate patient medical needs,” the DEA said in the Federal Register. “Based on this trend, DEA has not implemented an increase.”

A few months later, DEA and FDA officials changed their tune. In an unusual joint letter,  FDA commissioner Dr. Robert Califf and DEA Administrator Anne Milgram admitted there was an ADHD shortage, blamed drug makers for not making enough medication, and washed their hands of the problem.

“This is not a problem that the FDA and DEA can solve on our own,” Califf and Milgram wrote. “The FDA and DEA do not manufacture drugs and cannot require a pharmaceutical company to make a drug, make more of a drug, or change the distribution of a drug.” 

DEA production quotas may also be partially responsible for shortages of opioid pain medication. In recent years, the agency has aggressively cut the supply of many opioids, leading to current shortages of hydrocodone and oxycodone.     

Judge, Jury and Executioner

The second lawsuit against DEA involves Simfa Rose Pharmacy, a Pembroke Pines, Florida pharmacy that specializes in making drugs for seniors, palliative care, and cancer patients.

Simfa Rose came under scrutiny nearly three years ago when investigators saw it was filling an unusual number of high-dose, immediate release opioid prescriptions, often in combination with stimulants and muscle relaxants. Some of the prescriptions were paid for in cash.

As far the DEA is concerned, these were signs of “multiple red flags of abuse or diversion” that posed “an imminent danger” to public health. On May 2 of this year, DEA suspended the pharmacy’s license to dispense controlled substances, a move that severely impacts its ability to continue operating.

“It’s affected them greatly. It’s a miracle they are still open at this point,” says Vittorio Penza, a lawyer for Simfa Rose.

Under DEA rules, there is only one recourse for a pharmacy or doctor to challenge a license suspension – an appeal to a DEA Administrative Law Judge. Such appeals are not only time consuming; they are rarely granted. The few that are granted are referred back the DEA Administrator, who then has the final say on whether the license is restored or permanently revoked.

The Simfa Rose lawsuit alleges this is an “unconstitutional administrative process” that denies the pharmacy due process.

“It’s totally nuts what they are doing. You have a judge, jury and executioner system. It’s all in secret. They don’t publish anything until it’s a decision that’s favorable to them. You’re kept in the dark by it,” Penza told PNN. “All you have to do is take someone's license, whether they need it or not. You're still screwed and you're going to go down. Because once your reputation is tainted, you lose your customers and you lose the patients.”

Penza says the expert witness hired by DEA to review the pharmacy’s practices made outrageous claims.

“Their expert says you can't fill immediate release opioids more than two times. If you are a cancer patient or someone on their deathbed, it doesn't matter. It's an unresolvable red flag if you give someone an immediate release opioid,” he said. “And the kicker is he doesn't even look at what the patient's diagnosis is. One of the patients was shot was shot in the back, the bullet is still lodged in there. The other one was wounded overseas in the Gulf War.”

Perhaps the biggest challenge faced by someone seeking to reverse a DEA decision is that federal agencies have sovereign immunity – they can’t be sued for monetary damages. All they can do is challenge the DEA’s statutory authority under the Controlled Substances Act and its use of an in-house “kangaroo court” to keep pharmacies, doctors and drug makers in line.        

“I've come to realize that this is a nationwide issue. I've been getting calls ever since we filed from around the country. It pains me to hear some of these stories of doctors and nurses and pharmacists that have just been stripped of their livelihoods because of what the DEA is doing,” Penza said.  

FDA and DEA Leaders Call for More ADHD Meds, But Ignore Rx Opioid Shortages

By Pat Anson, PNN Editor

Leaders of the Food and Drug Administration and the Drug Enforcement Administration say they’re working to end one of the worst drug shortages in decades.

“The lack of availability of certain medications in recent months has been understandably frustrating for patients and their families,” FDA commissioner Robert Califf, MD, and DEA Administrator Anne Milgram said in an unusual joint letter. “We are calling on key stakeholders, including manufacturers, distributors, pharmacies, and payors, to do all they can to ensure access for patients when a medication is appropriately prescribed.”

Those should be welcome words for pain patients across the U.S. who have trouble getting their prescriptions filled for opioid medication. Unfortunately, the letter has nothing to do with opioids. It’s only about shortages of Adderall and other prescription stimulants, which are used primarily to treat attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD).

The letter is the latest example of how the FDA and DEA have turned a blind eye to opioid shortages, which both agencies have played prominent roles in creating. Two widely used painkillers, oxycodone and hydrocodone, have been difficult to get for months, leaving thousands of patients in uncontrolled pain or going into withdrawal. Even big chain pharmacies like CVS are out of opioids or have a limited supply.   

“I had to once again follow up with CVS, just to be told they received absolutely nothing! Pain management provider in response sent another prescription to the outpatient pharmacy,” says Christine Kucera, a pain patient who recently wrote a column for PNN about her problems getting prescriptions filled for oxycodone.

“I'm currently sitting in the waiting area at the outpatient pharmacy, stressing, waiting for another bomb to drop.”

The American Society of Health-System Pharmacists (ASHP) first warned about a shortage of immediate release oxycodone in March. Over the next few months, hydrocodone/acetaminophen tablets (Vicodin) and oxycodone/acetaminophen tablets (Percocet) were added to the ASHP’s shortage list. Those shortages could soon grow even worse, because one of the largest generic drug makers in the world, Teva Pharmaceutical, is discontinuing production of immediate release oxycodone. 

Despite these warning signs, the FDA and DEA have yet to acknowledge shortages of either oxycodone or hydrocodone, and appear to be doing nothing about them. But they are moving to boost production of stimulants used to treat ADHD. The agencies say drug makers have sold only 70% of the stimulants they were authorized to produce.   

“We want to make sure those who need stimulant medications have access,” Califf and Milgram said in their letter. “We have called on manufacturers to confirm they are working to increase production to meet their allotted quota amount.” 

“What this latest notice shows is that the FDA and DEA could get involved with the opioid shortage if they wanted to,” says Rick Martin, a retired pharmacist disabled by back pain. Martin recently had to switch to a weaker opioid for pain relief because he can’t find a pharmacy with hydrocodone in stock.

“Teva said they were going to stop making oxycodone. The DEA/FDA could be proactive and ask Teva to relinquish their remaining 2023 quota allotment, then redistribute to other manufacturers,” Martin told PNN. 

Lower Production Quotas

The DEA sets annual production quotas for opioids, stimulants and other controlled substances, working closely with the FDA in assessing demand. Last year, the FDA advised the DEA that demand for hydrocodone, oxycodone and other Schedule II opioids would fall by 5.3% in 2023, which resulted in another year of cuts by the DEA in opioid production. Since 2013, the supply of oxycodone has fallen by 65 percent and hydrocodone by 73 percent. 

The FDA also advised the DEA that domestic medical use of stimulants would fall by 0.1% in 2023, even while warning that shortages were developing. The DEA’s response last December was that amphetamine and other stimulants were overprescribed to patients who didn’t really need them, and that its proposed production quotas (APQ) for the drugs in 2023 would be adequate.

“The majority of the manufacturers contacted by DEA and/or FDA have responded that they currently have sufficient quota to meet their contracted production quantities for legitimate patient medical needs,” the DEA said in the Federal Register. “Based on this trend, DEA has not implemented an increase to the APQ for amphetamine at this time.”

That kind of background detail is missing from Califf’s and Milgram’s letter, which disingenuously claims that there is little that the DEA and FDA can do to ensure that there are adequate supplies of medication. 

“This is not a problem that the FDA and DEA can solve on our own,” Califf and Milgram wrote. “The FDA and DEA do not manufacture drugs and cannot require a pharmaceutical company to make a drug, make more of a drug, or change the distribution of a drug.” 

Only briefly do Califf and Milgram acknowledge that their own production quotas are part of the problem, saying they were “committed to reviewing and improving our quota process.” 

“These (stimulant) shortages were caused by the DEA, which limited the manufacture of these medications,” says Andrea Anderson, a pain sufferer and patient advocate. “This exact problem has affected patients who require opioid analgesics to manage their severe pain. It has been affecting them for over six years, yet we see no mention of the extraordinary difficulties these patients are experiencing trying to find pain medication.  

“The DEA has no reason to be involved in deciding how many prescriptions should be written for any medical condition. This is the purview of trained medical clinicians and quantities should not be dictated by law enforcement agencies.” 

Drug manufacturers are required to report shortages and supply interruptions to the FDA. Doctors, hospitals, pharmacies and consumers can also report supply problems by sending an email to drugshortages@fda.hhs.gov.

That’s where Christine Kucera recently sent an email addressed to the FDA commissioner.

“Three different medications used in my treatment are continuously unavailable, sometimes for weeks and months. CVS IS OUT, the system is not working, and all you do is NOTHING!” Kucera wrote to Califf. 

“When will you address the unethical treatment and harms being inflicted upon millions of US citizens directly caused by government practicing medicine, limiting and denying access to essential medicines based on biased and manipulated facts, reduced quotas, faulty CDC prescription guidelines that should never have been created; and the DEA who are making up their own rules, practicing medicine, and deciding what they think appropriate medical care is?”  

Tylenol on Trial: Does Acetaminophen Cause Autism and ADHD?

By Teresa Carr, Undark Magazine

More than 100 families of children with autism and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder are suing companies that market acetaminophen, the pain reliever in Tylenol and an array of other medications. Tylenol-maker Johnson & Johnson, as well as major retailers that use acetaminophen in their store-brand products, knew about research linking prenatal use of acetaminophen to neurodevelopmental disorders in children, the families claim, and should have included warnings on product labels.

The court filings reveal mothers wracked with guilt, convinced that by taking an over-the-counter pain reliever, they caused their child’s disability. In case after case, these women say that if they had thought acetaminophen could possibly harm their baby, they would have minimized their use of the drug — or not taken it at all.

It’s hardly an open-and-shut case. Most of what is known about acetaminophen and pregnancy comes from a type of study that sifts through data looking for correlations between prenatal exposures and developmental disorders. Scientists have been fighting amongst themselves over how much weight to give these studies, which were not designed to prove that a given factor — in this case, acetaminophen — caused ADHD or autism.

The debate reached a boiling point in 2021, when a group of international scientists declared that the current research, limited as it is, warrants stronger warnings about the use of acetaminophen during pregnancy. In a consensus statement published in Nature Reviews Endocrinology, the scientists called for “precautionary action” through focused research and increased awareness of the drug’s potential risks. Ninety-one scientists, clinicians, and public health professionals from around the world signed on.

That statement was the “galvanizing incident” for the lawsuits, said Ashley Keller, a founding partner at the legal firm Keller Postman LLC and one of the lawsuits’ lead attorneys.

‘An Outlier Opinion’

But there’s a hitch: The consensus statement does not, in fact, reflect the views of many experts or of any major medical organization. The same Nature journal published three rebuttals signed by numerous professional groups as well as individual researchers and clinicians. These critics wrote that the consensus statement used flawed data to exaggerate potential harms of acetaminophen and downplayed the drug’s essential role for treating fever and pain.

Johnson & Johnson has seized on those criticisms in its defense. The consensus statement “is an outlier opinion of a small group whose position has been rejected by their own medical organizations and every regulatory body to address the issue,” company spokesperson Melissa Witt told Undark in an email. Giving credence to theories not based in sound science, she said, could harm millions of pregnant women.

This debate over how to interpret the acetaminophen science lies at the heart of the lawsuits, and the answer has profound implications, both for individuals and for public health. Acetaminophen is one of the most common drugs in the world, and in the United States, up to 65 percent of all expectant mothers use it. The cases have been consolidated in the Southern District of New York. If the litigation proceeds to trial, attorneys expect tens to hundreds of thousands of families to join in.

It’s a shame that questions linger about the safety of a drug that’s been around for 70 years, said Christina Chambers, a professor of pediatrics at the University of California, San Diego and lead investigator for a series of studies on exposures during pregnancy for the Organization of Teratology Information Specialists, a professional society that provides advice on using medications during pregnancy and breastfeeding.

In an interview with Undark, Chambers expressed doubts about the consensus statement, saying that if acetaminophen has any effect on fetal development, that effect is likely to be modest. Still, she added, “What this accumulated data calls for is to do better study.”

Top Selling Pain Reliever

Acetaminophen was discovered in 1878, according to an FDA history of groundbreaking medications. But it wasn’t until the early 1950s that researchers demonstrated that the compound worked as well as the two popular pain relievers of the time — aspirin and acetanilide — with fewer side effects. In 1955, drugmaker McNeil gained FDA approval and launched Tylenol Elixir for Children, advertising it “for little hotheads.”

Four years later Johnson & Johnson acquired McNeil, and, in 1975, began aggressively marketing an “extra strength” 500-milligram version of the drug to adults. By the early 1980s, Tylenol was the top-selling pain reliever in the U.S.

Acetaminophen is now used in more than 600 over-the-counter and prescription medications, including combination products for sleep, cough, cold, and allergy.

Acetaminophen is one of the most common drugs in the world, and in the United States, up to 65 percent of all expectant mothers use it.

Today, new medications typically undergo toxicity testing in animals before researchers study their safety and effectiveness in humans, but like many older drugs, acetaminophen didn’t undergo as thorough of a process. “Back in ’55 we weren’t doing preclinical testing for reproductive safety,” said Chambers.

Scientists do know that, in most cases, acetaminophen is the safest way for pregnant women to relieve fever and pain. “Not treating a fever — especially a high fever — can have consequences,” continued Chambers.

Strong data from lab animal and human studies have associated a high fever at certain points in pregnancy with an increased risk of birth defects and other fetal abnormalities. And, while it’s an understudied area, she said, chronic pain is associated with depressive symptoms, insomnia, and other harms to the mother and could adversely affect her pregnancy.

Some common over-the-counter drugs treat both fever and pain, such as nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs like aspirin, ibuprofen (Advil), and naproxen (Aleve), but the FDA warns against using any of these after 20 weeks of pregnancy because these drugs can damage the unborn babies’ kidneys.

Meanwhile, other painkillers have their own drawbacks. Babies exposed to opioids during the first trimester of pregnancy are at increased risk for birth defects of the brain, spine, and spinal cord. In addition, studies show that regular use of opioids during pregnancy increases the risk of poor fetal growth, preterm delivery, stillbirth, and neonatal opioid withdrawal syndrome.

Medicinal cannabis may address pain, and some women might think of it as a natural and, therefore, safe alternative. But there’s very little data available on short- and long-term outcomes for mothers and babies exposed to the potent products available today, said Chambers. Recent studies suggest that cannabis increases the risk of preterm birth and smaller babies, but it’s hard to tease out the effects from other factors. She described the drug’s legalization and increased societal acceptance as “a huge experiment happening now.”

“So, what are you left with?” she asked.

In 1975, Johnson & Johnson began aggressively marketing extra-strength Tylenol to adults. In this 1983 commercial, the product is touted as the most potent pain reliever that can be bought without a prescription:

Rising Rates of Autism and ADHD  

For pregnant people experiencing fever or pain, acetaminophen is widely viewed as the best option. But can it also harm the fetus?

To begin answering this question, researchers have analyzed preexisting datasets of health information, looking for associations between acetaminophen use during pregnancy and neurodevelopmental problems in children. Such research is referred to as observational, and while it can be useful, this approach can’t typically prove causality.

Autism rates have climbed steadily since the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, or DSM, first established it as a distinct disorder in 1980. In 2000, 1 in 150 children were diagnosed with autism by the age of eight according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention; by 2020, the number had risen to 1 in 36.

ADHD rates increased as well, though not as sharply. In 2019, 6 million children between the ages of 3 and 17 (9.8 percent) had received a diagnosis of ADHD, compared to 4.4 million children in 2003, according to CDC data from a national survey of parents.

Many experts attribute the bulk of that increase to greater awareness and broadening definitions of the disorders. Factors such as improved survival for premature infants and a trend toward starting families later may also play a role, as both prematurity and older parents are associated with increased risk for neurodevelopmental disorders.

In the early 2010s researchers additionally became interested in whether acetaminophen, so commonly used by pregnant people, could affect fetal development.

In 2014, after a couple of observational studies suggested a possible link, the Food and Drug Administration began a formal process to track data on the issue. The findings from the agency’s initial review of the evidence, based on limited and contradictory data, were inconclusive according to a Drug Safety Communication published the following year.

Since then, researchers from several countries, including the U.S., have published a steady stream of observational research. In 2021, an international group of researchers came together to review the evidence and craft a consensus.

“We all sat down and said, it’s time to put all this together; we’ve done reviews, there’s more and more evidence,” said lead author Ann Bauer, an epidemiologist at the University of Massachusetts Lowell. “We all felt that it was time for women to have this information.”

Of the 29 observational studies involving 220,000 mother-child pairs, 26 linked prenatal use of acetaminophen to neurodevelopmental disorders including ADHD, autism, language delays, lower IQ, and cerebral palsy among others. Sixteen studies showed a more-pronounced effect with longer-term use of the drug.

Bauer pointed out that a handful of observational studies published after the consensus statement also suggest an association.

The group conceded that the observational data is imperfect. The positive association could stem from other factors, such as heredity or the condition that prompted the woman to take the drug. Still, the researchers concluded that the combined weight of the data was strong enough to warrant warning labels on acetaminophen and for health care professional to caution women against indiscriminate use of the drug. Society should act now, they wrote, “not wait unequivocal proof that a chemical is causing harm to our children.”

In science, it’s always possible to find something wrong with individual studies, said David Møbjerg Kristensen, a professor of molecular biology at Roskilde University in Denmark, one of the consensus authors. “But it’s more when you have all the studies lining up that you begin to be concerned,” he said.

‘Irresponsibly Published’

But other experts say that it’s misleading to stack up profoundly limited data and conclude that, as a whole, it carries more weight.

The paper from Bauer’s team was “irresponsibly published,” said Nathaniel DeNicola, an obstetrician-gynecologist based in Orange County, California, who helped review the evidence for the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. “It did not reflect the preponderance and overall weight of the data, and it did not reflect the clinical context.”

DeNicola, who has expertise in environmental exposures and health policy, pointed out that consensus authors didn’t include numerous reviews, including those from major medical organizations, that drew different conclusions. Both ACOG and the Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine, for example, found no clear evidence that acetaminophen causes fetal developmental issues and no reason to change current medical advice and practice.

In the end, neither did the FDA. In 2018, the agency brought the issue before its Medical Policy and Program Review Council, which provides oversight and direction of policies. The council found the available data didn’t warrant changes on acetaminophen labels or updates to the existing safety communication, wrote FDA press officer Charlie Kohler in an email to Undark.

While the agency continues to monitor the issue, it closed the formal tracking process in 2020 said Kohler, because extensive reviews failed to turn up solid evidence of a link between the drug and neurodevelopmental issues.

The gold standard for understanding the effect of a medication is to randomly assign one group to take the drug and another to get a placebo, with neither researchers nor participants knowing who got what until the end of the study. However, those randomized clinical trials rarely include pregnant women because of potential risks to the fetus. As a result, acetaminophen researchers rely on observational studies and laboratory experiments, including those that test the effects of the drug on experimental animals.

It can be difficult, however, to study neurodevelopmental problems in these animals. For one, researchers wouldn’t diagnose ADHD or autism in a mouse, though some research finds that mice exposed to acetaminophen in the womb are more likely to have problems with learning, memory, motor skills, and social behavior. Additionally, the biological mechanisms that lead to a diagnosis in humans are complex and not well understood, said Kristensen, so researchers don’t know what to exactly look for when they study the brains of laboratory animals.

Research in test tubes and lab animals does show that acetaminophen affects several chemical systems involved in brain development. “The compound is doing multiple different things during development at specific time points when the fetus is vulnerable,” said Kristensen. But whether these factors contribute to neurodevelopmental problems, he added, is unclear. Kristensen said that he expects to publish data within the next year or so that could help clarify the connection.

It’s also hard to know what to make of the observational research, which has numerous limitations, according to DeNicola. Many of the studies rely on women’s recall of having taken acetaminophen, which can be faulty weeks and even months later, he said. And instead of a clinical diagnosis of a child’s developmental or behavior disorder, studies often depend on assessments by parents and teachers, which sometimes differ.

One of the biggest issues with the observational research is failing to adequately control for other factors that cause autism and ADHD, particularly heredity, said Per Damkier, head of research in clinical pharmacology at the University of Southern Denmark and a co-author of a consensus rebuttal by the European Network of Teratology Information Services. (Teratology is the study of diseases and conditions that are congenital, or present at birth.) Based on data from Western countries, researchers estimate that up to 80 percent of autism and up to 90 percent of ADHD results from genes children inherited from their parents. If you don’t account for that huge factor, he said, “you inevitably will come up with misleading results.”

For example, a 2017 Pediatrics study included in the original consensus review found that the father’s use of acetaminophen increased a child’s risk of ADHD just as much as the mother’s use during pregnancy. While the researchers theorize that acetaminophen could have altered how the fathers’ genes work, Damkier said that the more likely explanation is that the analysis didn’t sufficiently adjust for heredity.

The pain or illness that prompts a woman to take a pain reliever may also skew the data. In their consensus rebuttal, authors from the Organization of Teratology Information Specialists point to the OTIS’ long-running MotherToBaby study, which found that compared to pregnant women who use acetaminophen for short periods, those who take it longer term report having more mental health conditions, including depression and anxiety, and are more likely to take antidepressants — all factors studies suggest are associated with ADHD and autism in children.

In a 2020 study, epidemiologist Reem Masarwa, then a postdoctoral fellow at McGill University in Montreal, and colleagues explored whether confounding factors such as heredity and maternal illness could be biasing acetaminophen research.

The group reanalyzed data from a meta-analysis Masarwa had published two years earlier, which had found a 35 percent increased risk of ADHD in children exposed to prenatal acetaminophen. This time the researchers stringently adjusted for parental ADHD and migraines in the mother.  The ADHD risk nearly disappeared.

‘There’s Something Biological Going On’

The consensus authors cite two studies that overcome the limitation of relying on a mother’s memory of acetaminophen use. The first, a 2019 study, tested umbilical cord blood for traces of acetaminophen and the second, published in 2020, measured acetaminophen in babies’ first bowel movement. Both found that the higher the prenatal exposure to acetaminophen, the greater the chance of a child receiving a physician diagnosis of a neurodevelopmental disorder.

“The beautiful thing about the new studies coming out is that the better the study, the stronger the associations,” said Kristensen. “Suddenly, you can see dose response, which is something we always look for because that argues that there’s something biological going on.”

However, both of those studies have drawbacks as well. Acetaminophen only lingers in the blood for a few hours, so the implication of the cord-blood study is that a single dose right before birth could have a dramatic effect on a child’s brain. Many experts find that result implausible.

Testing a newborn’s bowel movement may be a better measure as it is thought to reflect the mother’s use of acetaminophen during the last two trimesters of pregnancy. But as with some other observational studies, the researchers didn’t account for why the mother took the drug in the first place.

Plaintiff attorney Ashley Keller said that his first responsibility is to help his clients win compensation. In addition, he said, there’s also a public health issue at stake in that the women need full information to make informed decisions.

In April, U.S. District Judge Denise Cote, who is presiding over the pre-trial proceedings, took the unusual step of inviting federal regulators to provide an opinion on whether the science warrants adding a warning to acetaminophen labels about an association between prenatal exposure and ADHD and autism.

The FDA declined to comment on whether the agency would weigh in by the end of July as requested by Judge Cote.

Claiming that FDA regulations and federal laws prevent them from changing Tylenol labels, Johnson & Johnson is pushing for a dismissal. The company continues to evaluate the science and has not seen any evidence that acetaminophen use during pregnancy causes fetal development issues, Witt, the company spokesperson, wrote in an email. “Leading medical organizations agree with the current product label which clearly states, ‘If pregnant or breast-feeding, ask a health professional before use.’”

Bauer said the lawsuits are helping get the word out about the accumulating research on acetaminophen’s risks. Up until now, she said, a lot of women have viewed the drug as “completely innocuous,” something to take “whenever they are in discomfort.” Others disagree. DeNicola said that the women he sees in his practice are conscientious about using acetaminophen.

One thing everyone agrees on is the recommendations for acetaminophen use, said DeNicola: “Use it only where indicated in the lowest dose for the shortest duration.” So, for pain or fever that means taking one pill, one time, to see if symptoms ease, he said.

Another point of real consensus is the need for more research. Bauer said that several groups are looking at possible mechanisms for how acetaminophen could affect development. “As far as the epidemiology, there’s a pretty perfect study that could be done,” she said, pointing out that, with smartphones, women can easily record what they take and why. “But it’s going to take us many, many years is the problem.”

“Something that is potentially this important for, not just fetal, but for childhood brain development should be studied,” DeNicola said. “And it should be studied in a real way.” For example, he would like to see studies that use blood tests and other measures throughout pregnancy to accurately track exposures not just to acetaminophen, but also to environmental substances of greater concern to fetal development, such as industrial chemicals. And, since a baby’s brain continues to develop after birth, studies should account for use of acetaminophen in childhood — a glaring omission from most of the current research, said DeNicola.

At the moment, no one is conducting exactly that type of study on acetaminophen.

However, FDA spokesperson Charlie Kohler said that agency is conducting a small study to see how people’s bodies absorb, metabolize, and excrete the drug. The agency is also planning a toxicology study in 2024, pending approval of funding.

And Chambers said that she is coordinating a study funded by the National Institutes of Health of about 8,000 mother-child pairs in 25 sites across the U.S. The Healthy Brain and Child Development Study will capture information on prenatal exposures, including to acetaminophen, and use brain imaging and standardized assessments to track brain development in children. Researchers will release data annually, so information on prenatal exposure to acetaminophen will begin to emerge in the next couple of years, she said.

If there’s anything good to come out of the controversy, it’s that every drug, over the counter or not, deserves rigorous research on safety, said Chambers — and society hasn’t invested in systematically doing that type of research. She pointed out that while the FDA requires new drugs to be assessed for safety during pregnancy, nobody has the resources of motivation to do that for old drugs like acetaminophen.

“And we need to stop that,” said Chambers. “We need to turn that wheel around, pay attention and do the work that needs to be done.”

This article was originally published by Undark, a non-profit, editorially independent online magazine covering the complicated and often fractious intersection of science and society. You can read the original article here.

DEA Plans Further Cuts in Rx Opioid Supply  

By Pat Anson, PNN Editor

For the seventh consecutive year, the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration is planning to cut the supply of prescription opioids, reducing them in 2023 to levels not seen in nearly two decades.

DEA sets production quotas for opioids and other controlled substances annually, after consulting with the CDC, FDA and individual states about their projected medical and research needs. Based on that input, the DEA is lowering the supply of Schedule II opioids such as oxycodone and hydrocodone by about 5 percent next year.

“FDA predicts that levels of medical need for schedule II opioids in the United States in calendar year 2023 will decline on average 5.3 percent from calendar year 2022 levels. These declines are expected to occur across a variety of schedule II opioids including fentanyl, hydrocodone, hydromorphone, oxycodone, and oxymorphone,” the DEA said in a notice published in the Federal Register.   

The production cut in Schedule II opioids is not as steep as in prior years, but continues a trend that began a decade ago. Since their peak in 2013, production quotas have fallen by 65% for oxycodone and 73% for hydrocodone, the two most widely prescribed opioids.

OXYCODONE PRODUCTION QUOTAS (KILOGRAMS)

SOURCE: DEA

The primary goal of the DEA in lowering opioid production is to reduce the risk of diversion, abuse and overdose, but it’s hard to find any evidence the policy is working. Prescription opioid use has fallen by 48% in the last five years, but opioid overdose deaths have climbed to record levels, fueled primarily by street drugs made with illicit fentanyl, a synthetic opioid 50 to 100 times stronger than morphine.

Although DEA is arresting and prosecuting illicit fentanyl dealers, it also continues to actively target doctors who prescribe high doses of opioids. This month it suspended the DEA license of a California doctor for unknown reasons, which led to the death of a chronic pain patient and his wife in a double suicide.

“It’s the end of the road for me with doctors,” Danny Elliott posted on Twitter a few days before his death. Elliott had lived with severe headaches for over two decades and was despondent that he was out of pain medication and unable to find a new doctor.

Low Risk of Diversion    

DEA is required under federal law to estimate the amount of prescription opioids that will be diverted through loss or theft, and then subtract it from the annual production quota. But those estimates reveal just how small the opioid diversion problem actually is.

Using information gathered from prescription drug monitoring programs (PDMPs), pharmacies, hospitals and others in the drug supply chain, DEA estimates that less than one percent of oxycodone (0.3%) and hydrocodone (0.42%) will be diverted for use by someone they were not intended for.

The DEA’s 2023 production quotas are also based on an old recommendation from the CDC that prescribers should “avoid increasing dosages of opioids beyond 90 MME for patients with chronic pain.”  CDC recently revised its opioid guideline to remove the 90 MME dosage threshold. The new guideline is more flexible and encourages doctors to make treatment decisions based on the individual needs of the each pain patient and not on any hard limits.

The DEA is accepting public comments on its production quotas until Thursday, November 17. The public response so far has been muted – only 47 comments as of this writing -- likely because the quotas have received little publicity from the media or the DEA itself.

Most of the comments that have been received are critical of DEA plans to reduce the supply of amphetamines and other stimulants used in treating attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD).  Some of those drugs are already in short supply, but DEA said it has “grown increasingly concerned” that ADHD medications are being diverted and abused by young adults.

To leave your comment on the DEA’s 2023 production quotas, click here.

Acetaminophen Use by Pregnant Women Raises Risk of Autism or ADHD in Children

By Pat Anson, PNN Editor 

A large new study in Europe is adding to the growing body of evidence that the use acetaminophen (paracetamol) by pregnant women raises the risk of their children having autism or Attention-Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD)

Researchers at the University of Barcelona followed nearly 74,000 mothers and their children in the UK and five other European countries, finding that women who took the pain reliever while pregnant were 19% more likely to have children with Autism Spectrum Conditions (ASC) and 21% more likely to develop ADHD symptoms.

“Associations between prenatal acetaminophen and ASC and ADHD symptoms were consistently positive for both boys and girls albeit slightly stronger among boys,” researchers reported in the European Journal of Epidemiology.

Several previous studies have linked prenatal use of acetaminophen to autism, ADHD and hyperactivity in children, but this was by far the largest. Although the exact cause is unknown, it’s believed acetaminophen affects a baby’s brain development and growth, especially during the third trimester. The study found no evidence that acetaminophen raised the risk of autism and ADHD after the children were born.

Despite the findings, the UK’s National Health Service (NHS) maintains that it is safe for pregnant women to use paracetamol.

“Paracetamol is the first choice of painkiller if you're pregnant or breastfeeding. It's been taken by many pregnant and breastfeeding women with no harmful effects in the mother or baby,” the NHS says on its website.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration also does not caution pregnant women about using acetaminophen. The agency said in 2015 that the evidence was “too limited” to justify such a warning.  

The University of Barcelona researchers are a bit more cautious, saying pregnant women should take acetaminophen “only when necessary.”

“Considering all evidences on acetaminophen use and neurodevelopment, we agree with previous recommendations indicating that while acetaminophen should not be suppressed in pregnant women or children, it should be used only when necessary,” they said.

Acetaminophen is the most popular pain reliever in the world, and is used by over half the pregnant women in Europe and the United States. It is the active ingredient in Tylenol, Excedrin, and hundreds of pain medications. Excessive use of acetaminophen can cause liver, kidney, heart and blood pressure problems. A recent study found little or no evidence to support its use for most pain conditions.  

Acetaminophen Linked to Hyperactivity and Behavior Problems in Children

By Pat Anson, PNN Editor

A new study is adding to the growing body of evidence linking maternal use of acetaminophen to hyperactivity and other behavioral problems in children. Acetaminophen – which is more commonly known as paracetamol outside the U.S. – is the world’s most widely used over-the-counter pain reliever.

British researchers have been following over 14,000 children born in 1991 and 1992 who are enrolled in the Avon Longitudinal Study of Parents and Children. The children’s health, cognitive skills, temperament and behavior were regularly evaluated as they grew older.

Children with mothers who regularly used acetaminophen in mid to late pregnancy were more likely to be hyperactive, less adaptable and to have conduct problems in their pre-school years. The attention and hyperactivity issues appear to lessen by age 7, although boys exposed to the drug were more likely to have conduct problems until age 9.

“We have shown that paracetamol consumption between 18 and 32 weeks gestation was associated with adverse trends in pre‐school child behaviour, but the associations were no longer present by the end of primary school (age 10‐11 years). Boys appeared to be more susceptible than girls to possible behavioural effects of the drug,” researchers reported in the journal Paediatric and Perinatal Health.

Acetaminophen is used by over half the pregnant women in the United States and European Union. It is the active ingredient in Tylenol, Excedrin, and hundreds of pain medications.

Previous studies have linked maternal use of acetaminophen to asthma, autism and attention deficit disorder (ADHD) in children, as well as early puberty and slow language development in girls.

“Our findings add to a series of results concerning evidence of the possible adverse effects of taking paracetamol during pregnancy such as issues with asthma or behaviour in the offspring,” said lead author Professor Jean Golding of the University of Bristol.

“It reinforces the advice that women should be cautious when taking medication during pregnancy and to seek medical advice where necessary.”

Despite the findings, the UK’s National Health Service (NHS) maintains that it is “usually safe” for pregnant women to use paracetamol.

“Paracetamol has been used routinely during all stages of pregnancy to reduce a high temperature and for pain relief. There's no clear evidence it has any harmful effects on an unborn baby,” the NHS says on its website.

The FDA’s warning label for acetaminophen cautions people about the risk of liver damage and other side effects, but does not specifically warn pregnant women about using the pain reliever. The agency said in 2015 that the evidence was “too limited” to justify such a warning.  

Acetaminophen May Slow Language Development

By Pat Anson, Editor

Another study has linked acetaminophen to learning difficulties in young children born to mothers who used the over-the-counter pain reliever during pregnancy.

Researchers at the Icahn School of Medicine in New York City say toddlers exposed to acetaminophen in the womb had a slower rate of language development at 30 months. The findings are consistent with other studies reporting higher rates of autism, attention deficit disorder (ADHD) and behavioral problems in children born to mothers who used acetaminophen while pregnant.  

Acetaminophen (paracetamol) is one of the most widely used pain relievers in the world. It is the active ingredient in Tylenol, Excedrin, and hundreds of other pain medications. Researchers say over half the pregnant women in the United States and European Union use the drug.

“Given the prevalence of prenatal acetaminophen use and the importance of language development, our findings, if replicated, suggest that pregnant women should limit their use of this analgesic during pregnancy,” said senior author Shanna Swan, PhD, Professor of Environmental and Public Health at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai.

“It’s important for us to look at language development because it has shown to be predictive of other neurodevelopmental problems in children.”

The study involved 754 women who enrolled in the Swedish Environmental Longitudinal, Mother and Child, Asthma and Allergy study (SELMA) during weeks 8-13 of their pregnancy. Researchers asked the women to report the number of acetaminophen tablets they took between conception and enrollment, and tested the acetaminophen concentration in their urine.

A delay in a child's language development, defined as the use of fewer than 50 words at 30 months of age, was measured by a nurse and a follow-up questionnaire filled out by the mothers.

Girls born to mothers with high exposure -- those who took acetaminophen more than six times in early pregnancy -- were nearly six times more likely to have language delay than girls born to mothers who did not take acetaminophen.

While the number of acetaminophen tablets and concentration in urine were associated with a significant increase in language delay in girls, there was only a slight increase in boys.  The findings suggest that acetaminophen use in pregnancy results in the loss of the well-recognized female advantage in language development in early childhood.

The study is published online in the journal European Psychiatry. Researchers will follow-up with the children and re-examine their language development at age seven.

A 2016 study of over 2,600 Spanish women linked acetaminophen to autism and attention deficit problems in their children. Studies in Denmark and New Zealand have also linked acetaminophen to a higher risk of ADHD.

Over 50 million people in the U.S. use acetaminophen each week to treat pain and fever. The pain reliever has long been associated with liver injury and allergic reactions such as skin rash. In the U.S. over 50,000 emergency room visits each year are caused by acetaminophen, including 25,000 hospitalizations and 450 deaths.

Acetaminophen Linked to Kids’ Behavior Problems

By Pat Anson, Editor

Another study has linked acetaminophen to attention deficit and other behavioral problems in children whose mothers used the over-the-counter pain reliever while pregnant.

"Children exposed to acetaminophen use prenatally are at increased risk of multiple behavioral difficulties,” said lead author Evie Stergiakouli, PhD, of the University of Bristol. “Given the widespread use of acetaminophen among pregnant women, this can have important implications on public health advice.”

The study, published in JAMA Pediatricsinvolved nearly 7,800 mothers in the UK who used acetaminophen in 1991 and 1992.

Prenatal use of acetaminophen in the second and third trimesters was associated with a higher risk of behavior problems and hyperactivity in children. Use of acetaminophen at 32 weeks of pregnancy was also associated with a higher risk for emotional problems.

“We found stronger association between maternal acetaminophen use and multiple behavioral and emotional problem domains during the third trimester than during the second trimester, in agreement with previous studies that have included multiple measurement times during pregnancy," said Stergiakouli

"Given that there is active brain development and growth during the third trimester, this finding could indicate that there are developmental periods when the brain is more sensitive to acetaminophen exposure.” 

Acetaminophen (paracetamol) is one of the most widely used pain relievers in the world. It is the active ingredient in Tylenol, Excedrin, and hundreds of other pain medications. Researchers say over half the pregnant women in the United States and European Union use the drug.

"The risk of not treating fever or pain during pregnancy should be carefully weighed against any potential harm of acetaminophen to the offspring," said Stergiakouli

A recent study of over 2,600 Spanish women linked acetaminophen to autism and attention deficit problems in their children. Studies in Denmark and New Zealand have also linked acetaminophen with a higher risk of hyperkinetic disorders and attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD).

Over 50 million people in the U.S. use acetaminophen each week to treat pain and fever. The pain reliever has long been associated with liver injury and allergic reactions such as skin rash.

Acetaminophen Linked to Autism and ADHD

By Pat Anson, Editor

An over-the-counter pain reliever widely used by pregnant women has been linked to autism and attention deficit problems in their children, according to researchers.

In a new study involving over 2,600 Spanish women and their children, published online in the International Journal of Epidemiology, researchers said maternal use of acetaminophen – also known as paracetamol -- appears to increase the risk of autism spectrum disorder (ASD) in boys. There was also a “weak” association between acetaminophen and attention deficit disorder (ADHD) in both male and female children.

“To our knowledge, this is the first prospective study to report an independent association between the use of acetaminophen during pregnancy and autism spectrum symptomatology in exposed children. It is also the first paper to report differential gender effects of prenatal acetaminophen exposure on neurodevelopment,” the researchers said.

About 40 percent of the women in the study used acetaminophen while pregnant. Their children were evaluated at 1 and 5 years of age.

The researchers speculated that boys may metabolize acetaminophen differently than girls, accounting for the greater risk of autism.

“Animal studies have suggested that male mice undergo greater toxicity than female mice after being administered a similar dose of acetaminophen. Furthermore, the male brain may be more vulnerable to early life stressors  and this could explain why neuropsychiatric disorders of childhood, such as ASC and ADHD, are more prevalent in male children,” they said.

Acetaminophen (paracetamol) is the world’s most widely used over-the-counter pain reliever. It is the active ingredient in Tylenol, Excedrin, and hundreds of other pain medications.

In a review of the study, the UK’s National Health Service (NHS) said researchers failed to prove a clear link between maternal use of acetaminophen and autism or ADHD.

“This research cannot prove paracetamol use is directly responsible for these findings. Not all links were statistically significant – for example, paracetamol was not linked with ADHD when looking at full diagnostic criteria, or with ASD when looking at the full sample of children,” the NHS said. “Importantly, no link was found with developmental or intellectual outcomes in the child.

“The current viewpoint is that occasionally using paracetamol as needed, and at recommended doses, is safe during pregnancy. This study has not provided sufficient evidence to the contrary to change this advice.”

Over 50 million people in the U.S. use acetaminophen each week to treat pain and fever. The pain reliever has long been associated with liver injury and allergic reactions such as skin rash.

Another recent study of pregnant women found that Lyrica (pregabalin) – a medication also prescribed for pain – appears to  increase the risk of major births defects, including heart defects and structural problems with the central nervous system.