Should Heroin Be Used to Treat Addiction?

By Pat Anson, PNN Editor

Some Canadian doctors are using novel approaches to treat opioid addiction, everything from safe injection sites to opioid vending machines to prescription heroin.

A new proposal would take the concept a step further by establishing the first clinical guideline for using hydromorphone and pharmaceutical grade heroin to treat people with severe opioid use disorder. The idea is to provide a safer supply to opioid addicts who currently use illicit heroin, counterfeit pills and other street drugs, which are often laced with fentanyl.

"Offering injectable opioid treatments is an effective way for clinicians to address the toxicity of the fentanyl-adulterated drug supply and help people achieve stability so they can focus on other aspects of their lives to get well, such as housing, employment, and connecting with family," says Dr. Christy Sutherland, Medical Director of PHS Community Services Society in Vancouver, BC.

Sutherland is one of the co-authors of the guideline, which is published in the Canadian Medical Association Journal. In 2018, nearly 4,500 Canadians died from opioid overdoses, with about 75% of the deaths involving fentanyl, a synthetic opioid that’s become a scourge on the black market.

"Opioid use disorder is a public health emergency nationwide; unfortunately, resources for the treatment of opioid addiction have been scarce and guidelines outlining best practices for innovative treatments have been lacking. This guideline is a blueprint for health practitioners to step up and provide evidence-based care," says Dr. Nadia Fairbairn, British Columbia Centre on Substance Use and the University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC.

Heroin is classified as a Schedule I controlled substance in the United States, making it illegal to prescribe. But pharmaceutical grade heroin (known as diacetylmorphine) is legal in Canada, UK and several other European countries.

Studies have found that heroin-assisted treatment is effective in treating opioid addiction in patients who have failed at other treatment methods, such as methadone.

Under the proposed guideline, injectable heroin (diacetylmorphine) and hydromorphone (Dilaudid) could be used to treat severe opioid addiction in patients who do not respond to oral medication or use illicit injectable opioids.

It would be up to each Canadian province to decide whether to adopt the guideline.

Pharmaceutical heroin and safe injection sites are controversial issues in the U.S. But a recent analysis by the RAND Corporation advocates their use to combat opioid addiction.

“Given the increasing number of deaths associated with fentanyl and successful use of heroin-assisted treatment abroad, the U.S. should pilot and study this approach in some cities,” said Beau Kilmer, co-director of the RAND Drug Policy Research Center. “This is not a silver bullet or first-line treatment. But there is evidence that it helps stabilize the lives of some people who use heroin.”

What About Pain Patients?

Pain patient advocates in Canada were taken aback by the proposal to liberalize the use of heroin to treat opioid addiction. Opioid pain medication is increasingly difficult to obtain in Canada, as it is in the United States, because of restrictive guidelines.

“It is indeed shocking. Pain patients continue to be marginalized, stigmatized, ignored and left to suffer,” said Barry Ulmer, Executive Director of the Chronic Pain Association of Canada.  “I do think it is ridiculous to say opioid use disorder is a public health emergency. The population they are addressing no doubt has to be addressed, but in terms of numbers it is minuscule to those suffering pain, yet the number of dollars expended for both is just out of whack.

“People suffering pain cannot obtain help or even maintain access to medication they have been stable on for years. Something is sadly wrong. What is a public health emergency is the epidemic of undertreated chronic pain. They should get their blinders off. We have well over 1 million Canadians suffering from high impact pain, yet they are pretty much marginalized.”

One of those Canadians is Dan Wallace, a retired military veteran and police detective who lives with chronic knee and shoulder pain.

“I applaud the efforts made and others that are contemplated for the near future that would allow those who are addicted to obtain legally prescribed heroin that would keep them from the tainted street drug supply,” Wallace said. “Where I have a problem is with the complete dismissal of medical care to the many legacy patients who were previously prescribed opioids to manage their pain.”

Wallace used opioid medication for over 20 years before being tapered. He now has trouble walking and sleeping because of what he calls “a tortuous and cruel degree of pain.”

“I and others like me aren’t looking for a handout of free heroin because we haven’t been able to control ourselves and have become addicts. No one deserves to be treated like throw-away patients yet pain patients are just that. Why is it that their lives matter while simultaneously ours do not?” Wallace asks.

“I have never abused any substance in my life. Does my suffering ever help a single person who will now be getting prescribed heroin so they don’t have to buy illegal street drugs? Health Canada should be deeply ashamed at the needless suffering, disability, and deaths of pain patients they have caused.”

The Opioid Risk Tool Has Been Weaponized Against Pain Patients

By Dr. Lynn Webster, PNN Columnist

I was surprised and deeply disappointed to learn this week that people have been denied opioid prescriptions due to their responses on the Opioid Risk Tool (ORT).

As a guest on the DPP Rally Talk Show with Claudia Merandi, I heard from a caller who told me that her doctor denied her an opioid prescription based on her ORT answers.

One particular answer seems to have caused the caller’s problem: She acknowledged her history of experiencing preadolescent sexual abuse. Apparently, the doctor used that as a reason to deny her access to opioid medication to treat her pain. This is a terrible misapplication of the tool.

The ORT is a self-assessment tool I developed and published about 15 years ago. It was developed at a time when we didn’t know the rate of opioid abuse in patients who were prescribed an opioid for noncancer pain. We needed a tool to help evaluate whether the risk of potential harm from opioids outweighed the good.

I never intended for doctors to use the ORT to determine who should or shouldn’t be prescribed an opioid. My goal was to help doctors identify patients who were at increased risk of misuse and addiction, so that they could receive more careful observation during treatment.

Since abuse and addiction are diagnosed by observing atypical behaviors, knowing which patients are at greatest risk for displaying those behaviors is useful in establishing appropriate levels of monitoring for abuse.

I was not alone in the belief that it was critical to assess patients for their risk potential.

In 2009, the American Pain Society and American Academy of Pain Medicine published a guideline for opioid prescribing. Its first recommendation stated: “Prior to initiating COT (chronic opioid therapy), clinicians should conduct a history, physical examination, and appropriate testing, including an assessment of risk of substance abuse, misuse, or addiction.”

Then, in 2016, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s opioid-prescribing guideline recommended that “before starting and periodically during continuation of opioid therapy, clinicians should evaluate risk factors for opioid-related harms.”

Several other opioid prescribing guidelines also recommended assessing patient risk before initiating therapy. These included the Washington State Department of Health, Utah Clinical Guidelines on Prescribing Opioids for Treatment of Pain, the American Society of Interventional Pain Physicians (ASIPP) Opioid Guidelines, and others.

Risk Factors for Opioid Abuse

Assessing the risk of developing opioid abuse is based on genetic and environmental factors, just as it is with other diseases. Accordingly, the ORT includes questions about family and personal history of substance abuse, since both areas contribute to genetic and environmental factors. 

Genetics are estimated to contribute between 50 to 60% of an individual's vulnerability to opioid addiction. By contrast, genetics contribute only about 30% to a person's vulnerability to marijuana.

A person with one addiction is seven times more likely to develop an addiction to a different class of drugs, so genetics plays a major role in determining who will and who will not develop an opioid use disorder (OUD). Additionally, life experiences -- which are part of one’s environment -- also play a role.

The ORT asks if there is a history of experiencing preadolescent sexual abuse. Studies indicate that preadolescent sexual abuse is believed to result in something clinically similar to post traumatic stress disorder (PTSD).

The National Institute of Drug Abuse (NIDA) has reported that 30 to 60% of women who are undergoing drug abuse treatment suffer from PTSD. One treatment center in New York City reports that more than 90% of women treated for substance abuse had experienced sexual or traumatic abuse. 

According to another NIDA report, victims of rape were 10 times more likely to have abused heroin and other stimulants than the general population. A study in 2000 also showed that a history of preadolescent sexual abuse tripled the risk of drug use disorders.

Many other studies have corroborated these studies, showing that preadolescent sexual abuse is a risk factor for substance abuse later in life. The most important of these is the seminal CDC-Kaiser Permanente Adverse Childhood Experience Study.

A Cruel Misapplication of ORT

Environmental and genetic factors should influence how closely a patient's opioid use is monitored. However, a history of experiencing preadolescent sexual abuse does not mean a person will necessarily develop an OUD. It is only a risk factor. It does not determine the outcome of using opioids, although it may partially indicate the level of monitoring, support, and education that would be appropriate.

It is a cruel misapplication of the ORT to use a background of sexual abuse as the only criterion to assess whether a patient should receive opioid therapy. The ORT is an important tool in mitigating harm that prescribing opioids could cause. It should not be weaponized to justify denying people in pain appropriate therapy. 

Lynn R. Webster, MD, is a vice president of scientific affairs for PRA Health Sciences and consults with the pharmaceutical industry. He is author of the award-winning book, “The Painful Truth,” and co-producer of the documentary, “It Hurts Until You Die.” You can find him on Twitter: @LynnRWebsterMD. 

The information in this column is for informational purposes only and represents the author’s opinions alone. It does not inherently express or reflect the views, opinions and/or positions of Pain News Network.

Mother Who Lost Son to OxyContin Vindicated by Purdue Settlement

By Mark Kreidler, Kaiser Health News

In the 15 years since she lost her son to a single OxyContin pill, Barbara Van Rooyan has had but one up-close look at the people representing the company that made it.

It was in a small courthouse in Abingdon, Va., where Van Rooyan and other relatives of OxyContin victims gathered for a sentencing hearing in 2007. Three executives of Purdue Pharma had pleaded guilty to federal charges related to their misbranding and marketing of the powerful opioid. The company had pleaded guilty as well.

Van Rooyan and the others in her group spoke during the sentencing, giving voice to their grief and their pain. They wanted the executives sent to jail for knowingly expanding an opioid crisis fast engulfing the country.

Instead, Purdue paid fines totaling $634 million. The executives served no time. The company was allowed to continue aggressively marketing its product, and the following year, sales of OxyContin reached $2 billion.

From 1999 to 2017, more than 700,000 people in the U.S. died of drug overdoses, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. In 2017, nearly 68% of the more than 70,000 recorded overdose deaths involved opioids, mostly illicit opioids such as fentanyl and heroin.

“I never really thought a whole lot about evil before this all happened,” Van Rooyan said recently, seated on a couch in the living room of her Irvine, Calif., home. “But to see this kind of malevolence or disregard for human life — I don’t know what else to call it but evil.”

The outcome in that Virginia courthouse was a far cry from last week’s news of a tentative mass settlement of many of the 2,000-plus lawsuits against the company, which could total upward of $12 billion and result in Purdue’s dissolution.

The potential settlement amount would include $3 billion from the Sackler family, owners of Purdue, whose fortune is estimated at $13 billion. The family has amassed that money over the past two decades, largely by selling OxyContin, an opioid painkiller.

‘The Lid Is Off’

Van Rooyan’s Purdue experience is a story of deception, sadness and frustration — yet when she tells it now, she emits a surprising spark of energy. That’s because Van Rooyan, part of the unlikely group of citizens who repeatedly took flailing swings at Purdue Pharma, is watching the giant fall.

Van Rooyan, who has studied the cases against Purdue closely, sees the paradox in the proffered settlement: Much of the payout would be financed by profits from the continued sale of OxyContin, under a new company that would be formed following a Chapter 11 bankruptcy.

But in some regard, she said, Purdue Pharma’s complicity in the opioid crisis has finally emerged into the general public’s view. “The world really knows now. They get it,” she said. “The lid is off, and all this stuff is bubbling out.”

That wasn’t the case on the night of July 4, 2004, when Van Rooyan and her husband, Kirk, got the call that changed their world. Barbara, then a professor of counseling at Folsom Lake College near Sacramento, was told that her son, Patrick Stewart, lay in a San Diego hospital, in a medically induced coma from which he was unlikely to emerge.

Patrick, a graduate of Oak Ridge High School in El Dorado Hills, Calif., and San Diego State University, died at age 24.

His friends told Barbara they had attended an Independence Day party at which someone offered her son an OxyContin pill, telling him it “was kind of like a muscle relaxant and it was FDA approved, so it was safe,” she said. Patrick, who had also consumed a couple of beers, was opioid intolerant and suffered respiratory failure in his sleep.

Barbara Van Rooyan holds picture of her son, Kirk

“At the time,” Van Rooyan said, “all I knew about Oxy was that Rush Limbaugh had been addicted to it.”

She was about to learn a lot more.

OxyContin Abuse

Van Rooyan channeled her grief through intense research into Oxy’s vast potential for damage despite the company’s sales pitches to the contrary. A slow-release pain treatment with a heavy dose of the narcotic oxycodone, it could be easily crushed or dissolved for a more intense and addictive high. Rampant abuse already had begun to be reported, particularly in the Appalachian area, author Beth Macy wrote in her national bestseller “Dopesick.”

Later in 2004, Van Rooyan found Ed Bisch, a Philadelphia man who had begun a website to expose Oxy abuse in the wake of his teenage son’s death. The following year, Van Rooyan and her husband, a plastic surgeon, petitioned the Food and Drug Administration to require that OxyContin be made more abuse-resistant, and that its use be strictly limited to severe pain.

“This was an exhausting process, which she and Kirk did as a labor of love to try to save others,” Bisch recalled.

Van Rooyan became the California arm of a grassroots movement known as RAPP — Relatives Against Purdue Pharma. The group, originally just four in number, protested at physician meetings funded by pharmaceutical companies and testified before Congress. Van Rooyan enlisted the help of U.S. Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), who wrote the FDA on her behalf and later sent Van Rooyan a letter of commendation.

But most members of Congress did not reply to Van Rooyan’s letters, she said. The FDA said its review needed more time — which turned out to be eight years. By then, Purdue already had reformulated OxyContin to make it more abuse resistant and to renew its patent, but the FDA declined to restrict its use to managing severe pain.

Van Rooyan pressed on, but for a long while, the opioid crisis felt to her like a topic hiding in plain sight. And fighting Purdue while still grieving the loss of son Patrick was taking a toll.

“Her determination was tireless,” Bisch said, “but eventually the frustration burned us out.”

And then came the turn.

A rash of high-profile opioid overdoses and deaths, from actor Heath Ledger to Tom Petty to Prince, put the topic squarely in the public eye — and 15 years after the death of Van Rooyan’s son, Purdue Pharma and other drugmakers were suddenly on the run.

(Editor’s note: Ledger, Petty and Prince all died from a lethal mix of opioids and other drugs that were apparently obtained on the street.)

Wants Purdue Settlement Spent on Treatment

Van Rooyan tracks every development related to Purdue, including a lawsuit in New York that alleges members of the Sackler family have been offloading their fortunes into private or offshore accounts to shield them from a settlement.

But she’s not out for vengeance. Her goals have changed.

“Do I want the records to be public? Do I want these people to have their business shut down? Yes, I do,” she said. “But more than vindictiveness, I want that money of theirs to go to treatment and rehab. If that happens, something good can come out of it.”

If she has a regret, it is that the case in Virginia ended in 2007 with no more than a fine. “If that result had been different — if people had gone to jail — it could have changed the trajectory of this,” she said.

Ana Venegas for KHN

But momentum finally appears to be gathering, and Van Rooyan finds herself identified as one of the trailblazers of the anti-OxyContin movement. She spends little time dwelling on that. Instead, she quotes her younger son, Andrew, who told her, “We didn’t want any of this — this is just the hand we were dealt. We need to play the cards the best we can.”

“She’s just a really strong person,” said Kirk Van Rooyan, who has been with Barbara throughout the ordeal, though he is not Patrick’s biological father. “There have been times when I’d think to myself, ‘How would I be doing if I were in her shoes?’ And the answer usually is, ‘Not as well as she’s doing.’”

Van Rooyan, a longtime artist, now spends much of her time volunteering with veterans in Orange County, Calif., helping them get back into the workforce and using art therapy to help them express themselves.

The art is special to Van Rooyan, she said, because it is part of what saved her in the aftermath of her son’s death.

“Patrick was the one who suggested I take my first class,” she said. After a few delays, she finally enrolled. It was about a month before that Fourth of July in 2004.

Kaiser Health News is a nonprofit news service covering health issues. It is an editorially independent program of the Kaiser Family Foundation, which is not affiliated with Kaiser Permanente.

One in Four Adults in England Take Addictive Meds

By Pat Anson, PNN Editor

Nearly 12 million people – about one in four adults in England -- are taking addictive prescription drugs to treat depression, anxiety, insomnia or chronic pain, according to a new review by Public Health England (PHE).

The review takes a cautionary view on the use of five drug classes – opioids, antidepressants, benzodiazepines, gabapentinoids, and so-called “z-drugs” such as zolpidem, zopiclone and zaleplon.

“The medicines we looked at help to make millions of people every year feel better and recover from their illness. Doctors can prescribe them because there is good evidence that they work, but they do have some risks,” the PHE report found.

Benzodiazepines, z-drugs, opioids and gabapentinoids are associated with dependence and withdrawal, while there’s a risk of withdrawal with antidepressants. When the drugs are taken in combination or in high doses, there is also risk of respiratory depression and overdose.  

About half the patients prescribed the drugs in England had been taking them for at least a year — a sign of dependence. But the report cautions doctors not to abruptly discontinue the drugs and to taper them gradually, if at all.

“There is a view that a sub-population of chronic pain patients can be prescribed long-term opioids at relatively stable doses so that their analgesia and functioning can be maintained with good adherence and tolerable side-effects,” the report found.

“We do not want to put anyone off safely using medicines that could help them. Stopping or limiting the use of medicines could also cause harm, including increasing the risk of suicide or making people try to get medicines or illegal alternatives from less safe sources, such as illegal websites or drug dealers.”

Increasing Use of Antidepressants and Gabapentinoids

Antidepressants were prescribed to about 7.3 million people in England or 17% of the adult population. Opioids were prescribed to 5.6 million patients, followed by gabapentinoids (1.5 million), benzodiazepines (1.4 million) and z-drugs (1 million). Prescriptions for opioids, benzodiazepines and z-drugs are dropping, while the use of antidepressants and gabapentinoids is growing. 

Gabapentinoids such as pregabalin (Lyrica) and gabapentin (Neurontin) were originally developed to treat epilepsy, but the drugs are increasingly prescribed in the UK to treat neuropathy and other types of chronic pain. PHE researchers found only marginal evidence that they are effective for pain and alarming signs that they are being misused. 

“Gabapentinoids have come to be used for a wider range of indications than is supported by the evidence or their licensing, and they have sometimes been prescribed in place of opioids or benzodiazepines in the likely-mistaken belief that they are less liable to misuse or dependence, and lack of awareness of the withdrawal problems that can arise when prescribing is stopped,” the report said. 

Prescriptions for opioids and gabapentinoids were 1.6 times higher in parts of England with more poverty. People in poor areas are also more likely to be prescribed medicines for longer periods. Prescription rates for women are about 1.5 times higher than for men. Prescription rates also increased with age.

Outcomes Matter When Opioids Are Tapered

By Roger Chriss, PNN Columnist

The drug overdose crisis has led to a rethinking of pain management. Prescription opioids are now seen as risky medications with potentially serious side effects, including addiction and overdose. As a result, there is an increasing push to discontinue or taper patients on long-term opioid therapy.

A recent op/ed in the Annals of Internal Medicine by physicians Roger Chou, Jane Ballantyne and Anna Lembke claims there is “little benefit” from long-term opioid use and “many patients” would benefit from tapering. They even suggest that the use of addiction treatment drugs such as Suboxone should be expanded to include pain patients dependent on opioids.

“Evidence indicates that long-term opioid therapy confers little benefit versus nonopioid therapy, particularly for function. Opioid use disorder (OUD) occurs in a subset of patients, and quality of life may be adversely affected despite perceived pain benefits,” they wrote.

“We argue that achieving effective, safe, and compassionate tapers requires implementing and incentivizing tapering protocols, recognizing prescription opioid dependence as a distinct clinical condition necessitating treatment, and expanding the indication for buprenorphine formulations approved for OUD to include prescription opioid dependence.”

It should be noted Chou is one of the co-authors of the CDC’s controversial opioid prescribing guideline, while Ballantyne and Lembke are board members of the anti-opioid activist group Physicians for Responsible Opioid Prescribing (PROP). Ballantyne, who is president of PROP, was part of the “core expert group” that advised the CDC when it was drafting its guideline.

What Happens to Tapered Patients?

The goal of improving patient safety is admirable. However, there is relatively little data on what happens to patients during tapering or after opioids are discontinued. The evidence is mixed at best.

A 2018 review in Pain Medicine of 20 studies involving over 2,100 chronic pain patients found that most patients had less pain or the same amount of pain when tapering was completed. But the studies were not controlled and the evidence was of marginal quality, with large amounts of data missing.

A 2019 study in the journal Pain evaluated outcomes in 49 former opioid users with chronic pain. The findings showed that about half the patients reported their pain to be better or the same after stopping opioids, while the other half reported their pain was worse.

There are risks associated with tapering that also need to be considered, such as uncontrolled pain, suicide, overdose and early death. The tapering process itself can be extremely challenging and patient outcomes after discontinuation are not necessarily positive.

A recent study in the Journal of General Internal Medicine looked at what happened to chronic pain patients being treated at a large urban healthcare system in the year after they were tapered.

For about 5 percent of patients, “termination of care” was the primary outcome – a vague category that means there was no record of them seeking further treatment. Some of those patients may have miraculously gotten better and required no healthcare. And some may have died.

“These findings invite caution and demonstrate the need to fully understand the risks and benefits of opioid tapers,” the authors warned.

Another study in the same journal is also concerning. Researchers at the University of Washington followed 572 patients who were treated with opioids at a Seattle pain clinic. About 20 percent of the patients died, a high mortality rate, but the death rate was even higher for patients who were tapered. Seventeen of them died from a definite or possible overdose.

“In this cohort of patients prescribed COT (chronic opioid therapy) for chronic pain, mortality was high. Discontinuation of COT did not reduce risk of death and was associated with increased risk of overdose death,” the authors concluded.

"We are worried by these results, because they suggest that the policy recommendations intended to make opioid prescribing safer are not working as intended," said lead author Jocelyn James, assistant professor of general internal medicine at the University of Washington School of Medicine. "We have to make sure we develop systems to protect patients."

In other words, opioid discontinuation does not necessarily lead to better outcomes, as Chou, Ballantyne and Lembke suggest. The blind push to taper patients at all costs to reduce opioid prescribing can have tragic consequences — which no one seems to be tracking.

“Crucially, today’s opioid prescribing metrics take no count of whether the patient lives or dies. Data from two recent studies strongly suggest it is time to start counting. The sooner quality standards are revised in favor of genuine patient protection, the better,” says Stefan Kertesz, MD, an Alabama physician and researcher.

Outcomes matter. And they need to be reasonable for the patient. A person with a self-limiting condition like low back pain may well benefit from opioid discontinuation. But some patients with more chronic conditions do not get better, and their needs cannot go ignored.

The Canadian Psychological Association emphasizes caution and patient safety in a recent position paper on the opioid crisis:  “Tapering must always be done gradually under physician or nurse practitioner supervision, with the patient's consent, and with ongoing support and monitoring of pain and functioning, as well as management of withdrawal symptoms."

The use of prescription opioids should always take patient risks and benefits into consideration. It also requires knowing about outcomes when taking patients off opioids. At present there is too much interest in numbers and too little interest in people.

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.

The information in this column should not be considered as professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. It is for informational purposes only and represents the author’s opinions alone. It does not inherently express or reflect the views, opinions and/or positions of Pain News Network.

Opioid Overdoses Drop, But Fentanyl Crisis ‘Likely to Get Worse’

By Pat Anson, PNN Editor

Opioid overdose deaths fell by nearly 5 percent in 25 U.S. states last year, according to a new analysis from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention -- one of the first reports to document a significant decrease in opioid overdoses.

The 25 states covered in the report are participating in the CDC’s State Unintentional Drug Overdose Reporting System (SUDORS), which tracks overdose deaths through toxicology, medical examiner and coroner reports. SUDORS is considered more reliable than other databases because it provides more details on the types of drugs involved – both legal and illegal.

Opioid overdoses fell overall by 4.6% in the first six months of 2018, driven in large part by a 6.6% decline in deaths involving prescription opioids. The CDC found that less than a third (28.7%) of the overdoses were linked to opioid pain medication. Most overdoses involve illicit drugs.

“Prescription opioid deaths stabilized nationally from 2016 to 2017, and the number of opioid prescriptions filled has been decreasing for several years, as efforts to reduce high-risk prescribing have increased. Findings from this report suggest these efforts might have fostered decreases in prescription opioid deaths without illicit opioids,” researchers said.

While the data about prescription opioids is encouraging, the report paints a grim picture about the abuse of other substances. Nearly 63% of the opioid overdoses involved a non-opioid drug such as cocaine, methamphetamine or benzodiazepines.

Overdoses linked to illicitly manufactured fentanyl (IMF) rose by 11.1% in 2018, with fentanyl or a fentanyl analog involved in nearly nine out of ten opioid deaths.

Fentanyl is a synthetic opioid 50 to 100 times more potent than morphine. Fentanyl analogs such as carfentanil can be even stronger. Most drug users have no idea what they’re getting, because fentanyl is often added to heroin, cocaine and other drugs to boost their potency, or used in the production of counterfeit medication.

Fentanyl Dominates Black Market

A new report from the RAND corporation, a nonprofit research organization, suggests the fentanyl problem will be hard to eradicate. Researchers looked at synthetic opioid markets in the U.S. and other parts of the world, such as Canada and Estonia — where fentanyl first appeared 20 years ago..

“Once fentanyl gains a foothold, it appears capable of sweeping through a market very quickly,” wrote Bryce Pardo, lead author of the study and an associate policy researcher at RAND. “We know of no instance in which fentanyl attained a dominant position in the marketplace and then lost that position to another less potent opioid. To date, fentanyl’s spread appears to be a one-way ratchet.

“One of the most important — and depressing — insights in this analysis is that however bad the synthetic opioid problem is now, it is likely to get worse before it gets better.” 

RAND researchers say the surge in fentanyl and other synthetic opioids is driven by supply-side factors more than user demand. China's pharmaceutical and chemical industries are poorly regulated, allowing producers to cheaply produce fentanyl and ship it to buyers anywhere in the world. Mexican drug traffickers smuggle most of the fentanyl that enters the U.S., although some of it is shipped in the mail or by commercial delivery services.

DEA IMAGE

Unconventional strategies may be needed to address the fentanyl crisis. The RAND researchers advocate several innovative approaches, such as supervised drug consumption sites, creative supply disruption, drug product testing, and heroin-assisted treatment, which is available in some countries. Sweden has developed an online market with fentanyl analogs sold primarily as nasal sprays.

"It might be that the synthetic opioid problem will eventually be resolved with approaches or technologies that do not currently exist or have yet to be tested," said Beau Kilmer, study co-author and director of the RAND Drug Policy Research Center. "Limiting policy responses to existing approaches will likely be insufficient and may condemn many people to early deaths."

RAND researchers say there is little reason to believe that tougher sentences, including homicide laws for low-level drug dealers and couriers, will make a difference.

Last week the Mexican navy found over 25 tons of powdered fentanyl on a Danish ship docked at a Mexican port, one of the largest fentanyl shipments ever seized. The shipment originated from Shanghai, China.

Chinese officials are pushing back on claims that they’re not doing enough to stop fentanyl exports, saying the U.S. needs to stop blaming other countries for its own drug problems.

“A small group of people produce fentanyl illegally in China and mail them to the U.S. and other regions, driven by the exorbitant profit and at the request of criminals overseas, including those in the U.S. The Chinese government has zero tolerance for this. Once we find clues, we chase them down and spare no one,” Liu Yuejin, deputy head of the China National Narcotics Control Commission, told Bloomberg.

“I think the most important thing for U.S. politicians is to face the reality: What’s the root cause of such large-scale abuse of fentanyl in the U.S.? They need to find out and come up with solutions.”  

Oklahoma Judge Orders J&J to Pay $572 Million in Damages

By Pat Anson, PNN Editor

In a precedent setting case, an Oklahoma judge has ruled that Johnson & Johnson is partly responsible for fueling Oklahoma’s opioid crisis and ordered the health care giant to pay $572 million in damages.

“The opioid crisis has ravaged the state of Oklahoma and must be abated immediately,” said Cleveland County District Judge Thad Balkman, reading his decision aloud from the bench.

Balkman said J&J concocted a ‘marketing scheme” for opioid pain medication that overstated the drugs’ effectiveness and underplayed their risks. The company’s subsidiary, Janssen Pharmaceutical, produced less than one percent of the opioids prescribed in Oklahoma, but supplied 60% of the ingredients in painkillers sold by other companies.  

“They developed and carried out a plan to directly influence and convince doctors to prescribe more and more opioids, despite the fact that defendants knew increasing the supply of opioids would lead to abuse, addiction, misuse, death and crime,” the judge said.

Oklahoma had asked for $17.5 billion from J&J to pay for addiction treatment, emergency care, law enforcement and other services needed to address the opioid crisis. J&J said it would appeal the judges “flawed” ruling.

"Janssen did not cause the opioid crisis in Oklahoma, and neither the facts nor the law support this outcome," Michael Ullmann, Executive Vice President and General Counsel for J&J, said in a statement. “This judgment is a misapplication of public nuisance law that has already been rejected by judges in other states.

"The unprecedented award for the State's 'abatement plan' has sweeping ramifications for many industries and bears no relation to the Company's medicines or conduct." 

Balkman’s ruling is not legally binding on any other court, but as the first opioid case to go to trial, it is expected to have a significant impact on negotiations to resolve nearly 2,000 lawsuits filed by states, cities and counties against opioid makers, distributors and pharmacies. Many of those cases have been consolidated before a federal judge in Ohio.

Oklahoma previously reached a $270 million out-of-court settlement with Oxycontin-maker Purdue Pharma and an $85 million deal with Teva Pharmaceutical. Endo International and Allergan recently agreed to pay $10 million and $5 million respectively to two Ohio counties to avoid going to trial.

Compared to the cost and bad publicity that J&J went through defending itself in Oklahoma, those settlements look prescient.

As PNN has reported, three law firms that acted as lead outside counsel for Oklahoma stand to collect 25% of the damages and penalties awarded to the state. Oklahoma’s star witness, anti-opioid activist Dr. Andrew Kolodny, testified that he was paid $500,000 for his services at a rate of $725 an hour.

Some Pharmacies Won’t Sell Suboxone, But Street Dealers Do

By Nina Feldman, WHYY

Louis Morano knew what he needed, and he knew where to get it.

He made his way to a mobile medical clinic parked on a corner of Philadelphia’s Kensington neighborhood, in the geographical heart of the city’s overdose crisis. People call it “the bupe bus.”

Buprenorphine is a drug that curbs cravings and treats the symptoms of withdrawal from opioid addiction. One of the common brand name drugs that contains it, Suboxone, blends buprenorphine with naloxone. Combined with cognitive behavioral therapy, it is one of the three FDA-approved medicines considered the gold standard for opioid-addiction treatment.

Morano had tried Suboxone before — he had purchased some from a street dealer and had used it to get through his workday, when he couldn’t use heroin. It kept the misery of withdrawal sickness at bay.

Morano, 29, has done seven stints in rehab for opioid addiction in the past 15 years. So he had a sense of how the drug would make him feel. He’d always sort of thought of it as a crutch. But after a slip following his latest stint in rehab, he said, he committed to recovery.

“I can’t do this anymore, and I need something,” Morano said.

The bupe bus — a project of Prevention Point Philadelphia, the city’s only syringe exchange program — is part of Philadelphia’s efforts to expand access to this particular form of medication-assisted treatment, known as MAT, for opioid addiction.

Morano was first in line at the mobile clinic. When the doors of the bus heaved open, Dr. Ben Cocchiaro waved Morano inside, where they squeezed into a tiny exam room.

Cocchiaro and Morano discussed how buprenorphine might help Morano’s recovery succeed this time, and whether he’d be open to seeing a therapist. Cocchiaro gave Morano instructions on how to take the medication, and then called a pharmacy to authorize a prescription.

Barriers to Treatment

To date, much of the research on barriers to buprenorphine access has focused on the fact that too few medical providers are certified to write the prescriptions. According to federal law, doctors must apply for a special waiver from the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, or SAMHSA, to prescribe buprenorphine. To get the waiver, a doctor must undergo eight hours of training — and can prescribe the drug to a maximum of 30 patients at a time, to start. Given these constraints, many doctors don’t bother.

But pharmacists are also a part of the problem. Because they fill the prescriptions, pharmacists are the gatekeepers for the drug, and not all of them are willing to take on that role. Increasing pharmacists’ involvement in distributing buprenorphine might be just as important as persuading more doctors to prescribe it, according to Dan Ventricelli of the Philadelphia College of Pharmacy.

“We can write a bunch of prescriptions for people,” he said. “But if they don’t have a pharmacy and a pharmacist that’s willing to fill that medication for them, fill it consistently and have an open conversation with that patient throughout that treatment process, then we may end up with a bottleneck at the community pharmacy.”

Just a few blocks from the bupe bus in Kensington, Richard Ost owns an independent pharmacy. He said his store was one of the first in the neighborhood to stock buprenorphine. But after a while, Ost started noticing that people were not using the medication as directed — they were selling it instead.

Buprenorphine acts as a partial opioid agonist, which means it’s a low-grade opioid. When taken in pill or tablet form, it’s unlikely to cause the same feelings of euphoria as heroin would, but it might if it were dissolved and injected. Many people buy it on the street for the same reason Morano did: to keep from going into withdrawal between injecting heroin or fentanyl. Others buy it to try to quit using on their own.

“We started seeing people do it in our store in front of us,” said Ost. He said it’s unethical to dispense a prescription if a patient turns around and sells it illegally, rather than use it. “Once we saw that with a patient, we terminated them as a patient.”

Ost explained that the illegal market for Suboxone also meant customers trying to stay sober were being continually targeted and tempted.

“So if we were having a lot of people in recovery coming out of our stores, the people who were dealing illicit drugs knew that, and they would be there to talk to them and they would say, ‘Well, I’ll give you this’ or ‘I’ll give you that,’ or ‘I’ll buy your Suboxone’ or ‘I’ll trade you for this.’”

Ost said that eventually his staff didn’t feel safe, and that neither did the customers. He understands the value of bupe but said it just wasn’t worth it. He mostly has stopped carrying it.

Even those pharmacies that aim to stock buprenorphine can run into problems. Limits set by wholesalers require pharmacies to order the drug in small, frequent batches. Though pharmacies can apply for exemptions to order more at a time, or to have a higher percentage of their total stock consist of controlled substances, doing so invites a higher level of scrutiny from the wholesaler and, in turn, the Drug Enforcement Administration.

Another issue is that doctors and pharmacists receive different education about how long buprenorphine should be prescribed before tapering a patient off it. Many medical providers might prescribe the drug for long-term treatment, based on recent SAMHSA guidelines, while pharmacists may view longer courses of treatment as posing the risk of long-term dependency.

“It’s not even that they’re on different pages,” said Ventricelli of the College of Pharmacy. “It’s that they’re reading completely different books.”

If a patient going through withdrawal can’t get buprenorphine quickly, the stakes are high. Silvana Mazzella, associate executive director at Prevention Point, said that when it’s not available, patients are more likely to turn back to heroin or fentanyl.

“We’re in a situation where if you are in withdrawal, you’re sick, you need to get well, you want help today, and if you can’t get it through medication-assisted treatment, unfortunately you will find it a block away, very quickly, and very cheaply,” she said.

Doctors with Prevention Point have found a pharmacy near the bupe bus that will reliably dispense buprenorphine to their Philadelphia patients. It’s a neighborhood branch of a local chain, called the Pharmacy of America.

The head pharmacist, Anthony Shirley, said he’s comfortable filling the scripts because he trusts that the doctors at Prevention Point will write prescriptions only for patients who need the medication. He has heard firsthand from patients who say buprenorphine saved their lives.

“That’s something you can’t really put a price tag on,” Shirley said. For him, the calculation is simple: His store is in an area where many people need buprenorphine. That means it’s his job to get it to them.

This story is part of a partnership that includes WHYY, NPR and Kaiser Health News. KHN is a nonprofit news service covering health issues. It is an editorially independent program of the Kaiser Family Foundation, which is not affiliated with Kaiser Permanente.

Panel Recommends All Adults Be Screened for Illicit Drug Use

By Pat Anson, PNN Editor

The next time you visit a doctor, he or she may want to know more than what medications you take or if you consume alcohol.

An influential national panel of health experts is recommending for the first time that U.S. doctors screen all adult patients for illicit drug use, including the nonmedical use of opioids and other prescription drugs. “Nonmedical” means the use of a friend’s or relative’s prescription or buying medications off the street. It can also mean using a legal medication more frequently or in higher doses than prescribed.

The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force concluded with “moderate certainty” that screening for illicit drug use would be beneficial because it would lead to a more accurate diagnosis and treatment for substance abuse.

Screening typically involves questions about drug use and frequency. This can include questions on routine intake forms or asking patients directly when they visit with a healthcare provider. Screening does not include drug testing, although nothing would stop a doctor from ordering such tests.

“Illicit drug use can have a devastating impact on individuals and families,” said task force co-vice chair Karina Davidson, PhD, a professor of behavioral medicine at the Zucker School of Medicine at Hofstra University. “Clinicians can help by screening their adult patients and connecting people who use illicit drugs to the care they need to get better.”

About 11.5% of Americans age 18 years or older reported using cannabis or illicit drugs in a national survey. Illicit drug use is more common in young adults ages 18 to 25 years (24.2%) than in older adults (9.5%).  About one in five illicit drug users reported the nonmedical use of psychotherapeutic drugs, including opioids, pain relievers, or other medications. Less than 8% reported using cocaine, hallucinogens, or inhalants.

Although illicit drug use is relatively common among adolescents (7.9%) aged 12 to 17, the task force said there was not enough evidence to support screening for Americans under the age of 18.

“We want to help prevent illicit drug use in teens, so we’re calling for more research on the benefits of screening,” said task force member Carol Mangione, MD, chief of general internal medicine at the David Geffen School of Medicine at UCLA. “Clinicians should continue to use their professional judgement to determine what’s best for their teen patients.”

The task force’s draft report is available for public comment through September 9. After the task force reviews the comments, it will issue a final report. The panel’s recommendations are not mandatory for healthcare providers, but like many federal guidelines – such as the 2016 CDC opioid guideline -- they could be adopted as a “standard of care” by medical associations and healthcare systems.  Some already recommend that providers routinely screen their patients about illicit drug use.

AG’s Call for Weakening of HIPAA Laws

Federal laws that have long protected the privacy of patients undergoing addiction treatment may also be changing. The National Association of Attorneys General wants Congress to end regulations that prevent doctors from sharing information about their patients’ addiction treatment histories.

In a letter recently sent to congressional leaders, 39 state attorneys general called on Congress to “replace the cumbersome, out-of-date, privacy rules” contained in the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA). One section of the law – known as 42 CFR Part 2 – sets strict rules about disclosing patient records for substance abuse treatment.

“These privacy rules were created more than 40 years ago in a time of intense stigma surrounding substance use disorder treatment. They were created to assure patients that they would not face adverse legal or civil consequences when seeking treatment by protecting confidentiality of substance use disorder patient records,” the AG’s said.

“Unfortunately, they now serve to perpetuate that stigma, as the principle underlying these rules is that substance use disorder treatment is shameful and records of it should be withheld from other treatment providers in ways that we do not withhold records of treatment of other chronic diseases. While maintaining confidentiality is imperative to encouraging individuals to seek and obtain treatment, the inability to share records among providers can burden coordination of care, potentially resulting in harm to the patient.”

Two bills under consideration in Congress, the Overdose Prevention and Patient Safety Act and the Protecting Jessica Grubb’s Legacy Act would amend 42 CFR Part 2 to allow for addiction treatment records to be shared. The bills have been endorsed by over 40 national healthcare organizations, including the American Hospital Association, the American Psychiatric Association, and the American Society of Addiction Medicine.

Study: Prescription Drug Databases Overestimate Opioid Misuse

By Pat Anson, PNN Editor

Prescription drug monitoring has long been seen as the gold standard for tracking the opioid crisis. Patients who fill an opioid prescription for more than three months are considered long-term users with a higher risk of misuse, addiction and overdose. Many pharmacy chains assign a “risk score” to these patients and their doctors could even get a warning letter from the government.

But in a small study of emergency room patients, Canadian researchers found the risk of opioid misuse by long-term users is small and one out of five patients who fill opioid prescriptions don’t even use them. Their findings suggest that prescription databases alone are a poor way to measure opioid misuse.

“The rate of long‐term opioid use reported by filled prescription database studies should not be used as a surrogate for opioid misuse,” said lead author Raoul Daoust, MD, a professor and researcher in the Department of Family Medicine and Emergency Medicine at the University of Montreal.

Daoust and his colleagues surveyed 524 patients who were discharged from a hospital emergency department (ED) with an opioid prescription for acute pain. Instead of just relying on a database to track their prescriptions, the researchers asked the patients about their opioid use.

Three months after discharge, only 47 patients – about 9 percent – said they were still using opioids. Of those, 72% said they used opioids to treat their initial pain and 19% were using the drugs to treat a new pain condition.

The remaining four patients said they used opioids for another reason, suggesting possible misuse. That’s less than one percent (0.8%) of the original 524 patients.

“Within the limit of our study, our results suggest that the risk of long‐term opioid use for reasons other than pain is low for ED discharged patients with an opioid prescription treating an acute pain condition,” Daoust reported in the journal Academic Emergency Medicine.

Daoust’s findings are controversial because they throw into question the widely accepted theory that all opioid prescribing is risky, whether it’s for chronic or acute pain. The methodology used in his study was questioned by one critic.

"Emergency physicians should not be reassured by the authors' findings. The lack of a denominator, poor response rate (56%), and applied definition of misuse are significant limitations,” said Gail D'Onofrio, MD, a professor of emergency medicine and chair in the department of emergency medicine at Yale University.

D'Onofrio cites a 2017 CDC study, which found that the probability of long-term opioid use increases sharply after the first few days of treatment.

“Transitions from acute to long-term therapy can begin to occur quickly: the chances of chronic use begin to increase after the third day supplied and rise rapidly thereafter,” CDC researchers warned.

But that analysis is based solely on the number of opioid prescriptions – not actual opioid use. And Daoust found that studies like that are a poor way to measure risk.

“These studies used filled prescriptions databases that could overestimate opioid use since not all patients filling an opioid prescription consumed them. As a case in point, in this study, 21% of patients who filled their opioid prescription after the initial ED visit did not consume them,” Daoust reported.

What is the risk of long-term opioid use after an emergency room visit? In a large 2017 study by the Mayo Clinic, only about 1 percent of ER patients given an opioid prescription progressed to long term use – similar to what Daoust found.

"Our paper lays to rest the notion that emergency physicians are handing out opioids like candy," said lead author Molly Moore Jeffery, PhD, scientific director of the Mayo Clinic Division of Emergency Medicine Research. “Most opioid prescriptions written in the emergency department are for shorter duration, written for lower daily doses and less likely to be for long-acting formulations."

A 2018 study also questioned the value of prescription drug monitoring programs (PDMPs) which have long been promoted as critical tools in the fight against opioid abuse. The study found little evidence that PDMPs are reducing overdoses and that they may lead to unintended consequences such as patients turning to street drugs for pain relief.

Are Rx Opioids Scapegoats for the Opioid Crisis?

By Dr. Lynn Webster, PNN Columnist

The Washington Post recently published a series of stories about the volume of opioid medication distributed over the past several years in the United States. Over 76 billion pills were distributed from 2002 through 2012.

That sounds like a huge amount, but it is difficult to know what the number means. What is clear is that the stories are meant to suggest the number of pills is excessive and responsible for the rise in opioid overdose deaths. 

This presumed correlation is one reason for the recent lawsuits that have been filed against opioid manufacturers and distributors. It has also spawned policies that appear to have worsened, not prevented, overdoses.

Though the situation has been framed largely as a prescribing problem, the reasons for the drug crisis are many. While overprescribing has certainly been a factor, it is probably less important than other factors, such as joblessness, homelessness and despair, which are more challenging to address.

Let’s look at the data about the relationship between opioid prescriptions and overdose death rates. The number of opioid prescriptions in the United States peaked in 2012 and began a steady decline. By 2017, they reached a 15-year low.

Despite the decline in the number of opioids prescribed, overdoses from all opioids – both legal and illegal -- continued to increase. Overdoses involving prescription opioids represent only about 25% of the total number of drug overdoses.  

Obviously, something more than the supply of prescription opioids is driving overdoses higher.

No Correlation Between Opioid Prescriptions and Overdoses

After winning a year-long court battle with the Justice Department, the Post and HD Media, publisher of the Charleston Gazette-Mail in West Virginia, were able to access data from the DEA’s Automation of Reports and Consolidated Orders System (ARCOS).

The information in the database shows that, between 2006 and 2012, West Virginia received the largest per capita amount of prescription opioids. The state also experienced the highest opioid-related death rate during that period. Is there a correlation?

Kentucky also had a high number of pills and a high death rate, but as Jacob Sullum recently reported in Reason, Kentucky’s death rate in 2017 was actually lower than Maryland’s and Utah’s, where prescription rates are substantially lower. He also pointed out that although Oregon’s prescription rate was among the highest in the country, the rate of deaths involving pain pills in Oregon was just 3.5 per 100,000, lower than the rates in most states. 

Sullum further showed that Kentucky, Nevada, Oklahoma, Oregon, South Carolina and Tennessee were among the 10 states with the highest per capita prescribed pills during the 2006-2012 period. But they were not the states with the highest overdose rates. 

In a separate analysis, the CDC and Agency for Healthcare Research Quality found no correlation -- not even a weak one -- between opioid prescribing rates and overdoses when comparing data from each state. 

In addition, the rate of opioid prescribing is highest nationally for people 55 years and older, but that age group has the lowest rate.  

This lack of correlation between opioid overdoses and the volume of prescribed opioids is consistent internationally. In 2016, England prescribed the most opioids and saw the most overdose deaths in its history. However, the drug responsible for many of those deaths was heroin, not prescription opioids. 

There is a raging opioid crisis in West Africa where, despite a low prescription rate, the number of overdoses has surged. 

In 2018, Scotland's drug overdose rate exceeded that of the United States -- largely because of heroin. There is no evidence of an overall increase in opioid prescribing in Scotland. 

No Simple Answers to the Opioid Crisis

It is clear that the data does not support a simple answer to the opioid crisis. Focusing all of our efforts on decreasing the supply of prescriptions will not solve the problem and is already creating unintended consequences.

In fact, cocaine and methamphetamine were involved in more overdose deaths in the U.S. in 2018 than prescription opioids. As the supply of prescription opioids has decreased due to the policies of the last few years, people have moved from prescription opioids to other illicit drugs.

The solution to the opioid crisis must be multi-pronged. Overprescribing played a role in causing the crisis, but sociological factors appear to have driven the demand. We must consider what prompts people to turn to drugs in despair. A recent study published in SSM-Population shows job loss bears a significant correlation to opioid-caused deaths.

In addition, in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, Princeton University economists Anne Case and Angus Deaton (recipient of the 2015 Nobel prize in economics) showed mortality from substance use was linked to declining economic opportunity and financial insecurity.

Solving the drug crisis will not be easy. However, the disenfranchised members of our most impoverished communities deserve viable solutions to their problems. It is crucial to understand the degree to which job loss and hopelessness contribute to the drug problem.

Reputable data proves that the volume of opioids prescribed is not solely, or even primarily, responsible for the opioid crisis. Let’s focus on what is responsible.

Lynn R. Webster, MD, is a vice president of scientific affairs for PRA Health Sciences and consults with the pharmaceutical industry. He is author of the award-winning book, “The Painful Truth” and co-producer of the documentary, “It Hurts Until You Die.”

The information in this column should not be considered as professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. It is for informational purposes only and represents the author’s opinions alone. It does not inherently express or reflect the views, opinions and/or positions of Pain News Network.

CDC: Still Not Enough Naloxone

By Pat Anson, PNN Editor

The Trump Administration is stepping up efforts to increase prescribing of naloxone, an overdose recovery drug credited with saving thousands of lives.

Although naloxone prescriptions have increased dramatically, a new CDC Vital Signs report estimates that nearly 9 million additional prescriptions could have been dispensed last year if every patient with a high-dose opioid prescription was offered naloxone.  Patients are considered “high risk” if they take an opioid dose of 50 morphine milligram equivalent (MME) or more per day.

Naloxone has been used for years by first responders and emergency medical providers to revive overdose victims. Current efforts are focused on expanding access to the drug by prescribing it directly to patients considered at risk of an overdose.

In 2018, CDC researchers say only one naloxone prescription was dispensed for every 70 high-dose opioid prescriptions nationwide. Naloxone “under-prescribing” was even more acute in rural counties, which are nearly three times more likely to be ranked low in naloxone dispensing than metropolitan counties.

“It is clear from the data that there is still much needed education around the important role naloxone plays in reducing overdose deaths. The time is now to ensure all individuals who are prescribed high-dose opioids also receive naloxone as a potential life-saving intervention,” CDC Director Robert Redfield, MD, said in a statement.

Ironically, federal policies contribute to the under-prescribing. In 2018, most (71%) Medicare prescriptions for naloxone required a copay, compared to 42% for commercial insurance.

In January, the Food and Drug Administration encouraged drug makers to make naloxone available over-the-counter without a prescription. The FDA even developed an OTC label for Narcan, a naloxone nasal spray that sells for about $135. Seven months later, the FDA could not confirm to PNN that any company had submitted an application for an OTC version of naloxone.

Last year the Department of Health and Human Services released guidance urging doctors to “strongly consider” prescribing naloxone to patients on any dose of opioids when they also have respiratory conditions or obstructive sleep apnea, are co-prescribed benzodiazepines, have a mental health or substance abuse disorder, or a history of illegal drug use or prescription opioid misuse.

Many states are also taking steps to increase naloxone prescribing. California now requires doctors to “offer” naloxone prescriptions to pain patients deemed at high risk of an overdose. State law does not make the prescriptions mandatory, yet some patients say they were “blackmailed” by pharmacists who refused to fill their opioid scripts unless naloxone was also purchased. Patients around the country report similar experiences.   

Unintended Consequences

The drumbeat for naloxone comes at a time when sales are already booming. There were 556,000 naloxone prescriptions in 2018, twice as many as in 2017.

There’s no doubt naloxone saves lives, but some researchers say the drug has had little effect on the overdose crisis and may in fact be making it worse. In a recent study published by SSRN, two economics professors warned of “unintended consequences” if naloxone becomes more widely available.

“We expect these unintended consequences to occur through two channels. First, the reduced risk of death makes opioid abuse more appealing, leading some to increase their opioid use — or use more potent forms of the drug — when they have naloxone as a safety net. Some of those abusers may become criminally active to fund their increased drug use,” wrote Jennifer Doleac, PhD, Texas A&M University, and co-author Anita Mukherjee, PhD, University of Wisconsin.

“Furthermore, expanding naloxone access might not in fact reduce mortality. Though the risk of death per opioid use falls, an increase in the number or potency of uses means the expected effect on mortality is ambiguous.”

The researchers said there were anecdotal reports of “naloxone parties” where attendees used heroin and prescription opioids to get high knowing they could be revived. News reports have also quoted first responders who are frustrated that the same opioid abusers “are saved again and again by naloxone without getting treatment.”

Would Decriminalization Solve the Overdose Crisis?

By Pat Anson, PNN Editor

Vancouver, British Columbia was the first major North American city to be hit by the overdose crisis. In 2016, after a wave of overdose deaths involving illicit fentanyl and even more deadly synthetic opioids like carfentanil, the western Canadian province declared a public health emergency.

Despite efforts to decrease the supply of prescription opioids in BC, over 3,600 more people have overdosed since the emergency was declared, with fentanyl detected in 87% of the deaths last year.

So when BC’s largest healthcare system recommends some radical solutions to the overdose crisis, it’s worth noting. Vancouver Coastal Health (VCH) released a report last month recommending that illegal drugs be decriminalized and that drug users be given access to prescription opioids as an alternative to the black market.

"Legalization and regulation of all psychoactive substances would reduce people's dependence on the toxic illegal supply, criminal drug trafficking and illegal activities that people with addictions must engage in to finance their drug use," said Dr. Patricia Daly, VCH’s chief medical health officer.  

Some Canadian drug policy experts think the idea makes sense.

"The illegal market is an absolute toxic mess right now," Donald MacPherson, executive director of the Canadian Drug Policy Coalition, told the CBC. "It's really in line with consumer protection strategy ... just like we do with every other substance that we ingest, whether it be food or drugs."

Also notable about the VCH report is that – unlike most regulators and politicians in Canada and the U.S. – prescription opioids are not singled out as the root cause of the overdose crisis. Instead, opioid medication is seen as part of the solution.

The report recommends pilot programs to see if prescription fentanyl and other opioid medications made available at supervised consumption sites could help high-risk illicit drug users “transition” to legal opioids.

“Piloting legal access to opioids is different from OAT (opioid agonist therapy) as treatment and would be low-barrier and flexible. Initial pilots would include observation of consumption, followed by pilots allowing distribution of opioids for people to take away for later consumption,” the report recommends.

The idea is controversial, but some doctors are warming up to it. A pilot program recently began at a Vancouver clinic, where hydromorphone tablets are given to about 50 patients who ingest them on site under staff supervision. In Ontario, over 400 healthcare providers and researchers recently signed an open letter asking that high dose injectable hydromorphone be made widely available to illicit drug users.

Substance Abuse and Socioeconomic Problems

The primary cause of the opioid crisis, according to the VCH report, is a “complex interaction” of socioeconomic problems, such as unemployment and homelessness, combined with substance abuse and an increasingly dangerous black market supply.

VCH analyzed the deaths of 424 overdose victims from 2017 and found that less than half (45%) even sought treatment for acute or chronic pain. They were far more likely to be unemployed (72%) and have a substance abuse problem (84%). About four out of ten overdose victims used opioids, alcohol or stimulants daily.

“Most of those who died used multiple substances including opioids, alcohol and stimulants such as cocaine and crystal meth. A significant percentage of those who died of opioid overdoses had primary alcohol use disorder and/or stimulant use disorder,” the report found.

Importantly, most of those who died were no strangers to the healthcare system. The vast majority (77%) had seen a healthcare provider in the year before they overdosed and one out of five (21%) had seen a provider a week before their death. Six out of ten (59%) had received Suboxone or methadone to treat opioid addiction, but the medications were either not effective or they dropped out of treatment.

In addition to decriminalization, the VCH report recommends improving access to addiction treatment, better substance abuse training of healthcare providers, and increased access to the overdose reversal drug naloxone.

Addiction and the 2020 Presidential Race

By Dr. Lynn Webster, PNN Columnist

I found the recent story about Hunter Biden's drug and alcohol problems disturbing, not because he has an addiction — there's no shame in that — but because of the way the media tiptoes around the problem.

There seems be some reluctance to discuss Hunter's problem because of the way it may affect his father – former Vice President Joe Biden – and Biden’s bid for the presidency in 2020. To me, this illustrates a serious barrier to addressing the terrible disease of addiction.

Drugs, Politicians and Their Families

Marijuana is not considered a hard drug today, but it was considered a serious drug of abuse 27 years ago, when President Bill Clinton admitted he had used it. The stigma attached to using marijuana at the time was such that he disingenuously claimed he didn't inhale.

Of course, Clinton wasn't the only president who used or abused chemicals. Nor was he the only president whose reputation took a hit when his drug use was exposed to the public:

President Richard Nixon was reported to have an alcohol problem that worsened as his presidency neared its end.

President George W. Bush reportedly used cocaine in his youth and admitted “drinking too much.” ABC News even polled voters to find out whether his cocaine use might affect their willingness to vote for him.

President Barack Obama admitted that he used marijuana and cocaine. He was also a cigarette smoker with a nicotine addiction, and dealt with media inquiries about his attempts to quit throughout his presidency.

Hunter Biden is not the only family member of a presidential candidate with addiction.

Jeb Bush's daughter, Noelle Bush, had a drug problem. New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio’s daughter, Chiara de Blasio, abused alcohol and drugs while dealing with depression. Sen. Amy Klobuchar's father has struggled with alcohol his whole life. And President Trump’s brother, Fred Trump, Jr., died of complications related to alcoholism, which contributes to an estimated 88,000 deaths per year.

What Do Candidates Know?

Clearly, the endemic nature of addiction in our culture means that we should be interested in how the candidates deal with the presence of drugs in their lives. Are they able to talk openly about drug use instead of letting it remain a dark and shameful secret? Are they compassionate and supportive of family members who struggle?

To what extent do they personally use drugs and alcohol in daily life? And by extension, how well do they cope with stress? These are relevant, appropriate questions for candidates auditioning for a job that impacts the entire world.

It would be inappropriate to vote for a candidate solely on the basis of whether or not their loved ones struggle with addiction. But one criteria we can use for voting is a candidate’s positions on the critical issue of addiction in America. Here is how I would evaluate a candidate:

1) How much awareness do they demonstrate on the basic issues, including:

• Do they know the difference in the prevalence of prescription opioid vs. illicit opioid abuse?

• Do they know that addiction is not determined by the drug, but by genetic and environmental factors?

• Do they know that the volume of pills prescribed to people in various parts of the country does not determine the number of overdose deaths?

• Do they know that the prevalence of overdose deaths correlates with the loss of jobs and lack of income opportunity?

2) Will they de-stigmatize the disease of addiction by:

• Decriminalizing the use of drugs?

• Acknowledging addiction is a disease?

• Understanding that babies cannot be born addicted?

• Educating people that physical dependence and withdrawal can occur without addiction?

3) Do they favor access to substance abuse treatment in a timely fashion for everyone who needs it, regardless of their ability to pay?

4) Will they advocate for people in pain to receive opioid therapy when appropriate at the dose determined by their provider, rather than by the government?

5) Will they acknowledge the unintended consequences of the CDC opioid prescribing guideline?

Shining a Light on Addiction

The ideal candidate should recognize the tragedies associated with all addictions, not just with prescription opioids. He or she must recognize that addiction is part of being human, and that some people are more vulnerable to addiction than others, just as some people are more vulnerable to developing cancer or heart disease.

Whoever becomes or remains our president must shine the light of information on addiction, rather than hide it in the darkness of misinformation, shame and denial. 

Lynn R. Webster, MD, is a vice president of scientific affairs for PRA Health Sciences and consults with the pharmaceutical industry. He is author of the award-winning book, “The Painful Truth” and co-producer of the documentary, “It Hurts Until You Die.”

You can find him on Twitter: @LynnRWebsterMD.

The information in this column should not be considered as professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. It is for informational purposes only and represents the author’s opinions alone. It does not inherently express or reflect the views, opinions and/or positions of Pain News Network.

‘Opioid of the Future’ Postponed

By Pat Anson, PNN Editor

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration is tapping the brakes on NKTR-181, an experimental opioid pain medication that has less abuse potential than traditional opioids like oxycodone or hydrocodone.

In an SEC filing, Nektar Therapeutics said it received a letter from the FDA on July 23 saying the agency was postponing all advisory committee meetings for opioid analgesics, including one scheduled for August 21 to discus Nektar’s new drug application for NKTR-181.

The FDA was due to make a final decision on NKTR-181 eight days later, but that too is apparently being postponed while the agency considers “a number of scientific and policy issues relating to this class of drugs.”

Nektar called NKTR-181 the “opioid of the future” because it is the first full mu-opioid agonist that can provide pain relief without the euphoria or “high” that can lead to abuse and addiction.

The molecular structure of NKTR-181 is designed to have low permeability across the blood-brain barrier, which slows its rate of entry into the brain.

In a Phase III clinical study, patients with chronic back pain reported that their pain scores dropped an average of 65% when taking NKTR-181 twice daily. Safety studies also found that recreational drug users had significantly less “drug liking” of NKTR-181 when compared to oxycodone.

NEKTAR IMAGE

The research was so promising the FDA gave NKTR-181 “fast track” designation to speed its development. Nektar executives told PNN two years ago they were hopeful the drug would be approved in late 2018, with a commercial launch early this year.

Obviously that didn’t happen. And the FDA’s fast track has turned into a slow walk.

Two FDA advisory committees met last month and decided “much better-quality data” was needed before approving any new opioids — even ones with low risk of abuse.  

The agency has been under growing public and political pressure to tighten its regulation of opioids. In February, a 60 Minutes report claimed the FDA “opened the floodgates” to the opioid epidemic by approving the use of OxyContin for chronic pain. The following month, the agency received a petition from Public Citizen calling for a moratorium on new opioid approvals because the agency “can no longer be trusted” due to its “poor record” of regulating opioids.

On July 25, Howard Robin, Nektar’s President and CEO, sold 100,000 shares of Nektar for $3.1 million. A spokesman said the sale was previously scheduled due to expiring options. The company’s chief financial officer and a director also sold shares this month. Nektar shares (NASDAQ: NKTR) lost about 10% of their value after the SEC filing was made public.