Studying Natural Opioids Could Lead to New Non-Addictive Analgesics

By Dr. John Streicher, University of Arizona

Opioid drugs such as morphine and fentanyl are like the two-faced Roman god Janus: The kindly face delivers pain relief to millions of sufferers, while the grim face drives an opioid abuse and overdose crisis that claimed nearly 70,000 lives in the U.S. in 2020 alone.

Scientists like me who study pain and opioids have been seeking a way to separate these two seemingly inseparable faces of opioids. Researchers are trying to design drugs that deliver effective pain relief without the risk of side effects, including addiction and overdose.

One possible path to achieving that goal lies in understanding the molecular pathways opioids use to carry out their effects in your body.

What Are Natural Opioids?

The opioid system in your body is a set of neurotransmitters your brain naturally produces that enable communication between neurons and activate protein receptors. These neurotransmitters include small protein-like molecules like enkephalins and endorphins. These molecules regulate a tremendous number of functions in your body, including pain, pleasure, memory, the movements of your digestive system, and more.

Opioid neurotransmitters activate receptors that are located in a lot of places in your body, including pain centers in your spinal cord and brain, reward and pleasure centers in your brain, and throughout the neurons in your gut. Normally, opioid neurotransmitters are released in only small quantities in these exact locations, so your body can use this system in a balanced way to regulate itself.

The problem comes when you take an opioid drug like morphine or fentanyl, especially at high doses, for a long time. These drugs travel through the bloodstream and can activate every opioid receptor in your body. You’ll get pain relief through the pain centers in your spinal cord and brain. But you’ll also get a euphoric high when those drugs hit your brain’s reward and pleasure centers, and that could lead to addiction with repeated use. When the drug hits your gut, you may develop constipation, along with other common opioid side effects.

Targeting Opioid Signals

How can scientists design opioid drugs that won’t cause side effects?

One approach my research team and I take is to understand how cells respond when they receive a message from an opioid neurotransmitter. Neuroscientists call this process opioid receptor signal transduction. Just as neurotransmitters are a communication network within your brain, each neuron also has a communication network that connects receptors to proteins within the neuron.

When these connections are made, they trigger specific effects like pain relief. So, after a natural opioid neurotransmitter or a synthetic opioid drug activates an opioid receptor, it activates proteins within the cell that carry out the effects of the neurotransmitter or the drug.

Opioid signal transduction is complex, and scientists are just starting to figure out how it works. However, one thing is clear: Not every protein involved in this process does the same thing. Some are more important for pain relief, while some are more important for side effects like respiratory depression or the decrease in breathing rate that makes overdoses fatal.

So what if we target the “good” signals like pain relief and avoid the “bad” signals that lead to addiction and death? Researchers are tackling this idea in different ways. In fact, in 2020, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration approved the first opioid drug based on this idea, oliceridine, as a painkiller with fewer respiratory side effects.

However, relying on just one drug has downsides. That drug might not work well for all people or for all types of pain. It could also have other side effects that show up only later on. Plenty of options are needed to treat all patients in need.

Inhibiting a Protein Relieves Pain

My research team is targeting a protein called Heat shock protein 90, or Hsp90, which has many functions inside each cell. Hsp90 has been a hot target in the cancer field for years, with researchers developing Hsp90 inhibitors as a treatment for many cancer types.

We’ve found that Hsp90 is also really important in regulating opioid signal transduction. Blocking Hsp90 in the brain blocked opioid pain relief. However, blocking Hsp90 in the spinal cord increased opioid pain relief. Our recently published work uncovered more details on exactly how inhibiting Hsp90 leads to increased pain relief in the spinal cord.

Our work shows that manipulating opioid signaling through Hsp90 offers a path forward to improve opioid drugs. Taking an Hsp90 inhibitor that targets the spinal cord along with an opioid drug could improve the pain relief the opioid provides while decreasing its side effects. With improved pain relief, you can take fewer opioids and reduce your risk of addiction. We are currently developing a new generation of Hsp90 inhibitors that could help realize this goal.

There may be many paths to developing an improved opioid drug without the burdensome side effects of current drugs like morphine and fentanyl. Separating the kindly and grim faces of the opioid Janus could help provide the pain relief we need without addiction and overdose. 

John Streicher, PhD, is an Associate Professor in the Department of Pharmacology at the University of Arizona. Dr. Streicher has published over 70 peer-reviewed articles and is engaged in numerous drug discovery campaigns to create new analgesics. He receives funding from the National Institutes of Health, the Arizona Biomedical Research Commission, the Flinn Foundation, and the University of Arizona.

This article originally appeared in The Conversation and is republished with permission.

DEA Lifts Limits on Buprenorphine Use

By Pat Anson, PNN Editor

After years of strict limits on the number of patients that a provider can treat with buprenorphine, it’s suddenly a lot easier to prescribe the drug for opioid use disorder (OUD). The Drug Enforcement Administration has eliminated the “X-Waiver” program for buprenorphine, a move required by Congress under the 2023 Appropriations Act.  

Elimination of the X-Waiver removes all patient caps and significantly increases the number of providers that can treat OUD with buprenorphine, a long-acting opioid similar to methadone. When combined with naloxone, an overdose prevention drug, buprenorphine reduces opioid cravings and eases withdrawal. Prescriptions for Suboxone and other buprenorphine/naloxone combinations now only require a provider to get a standard DEA registration for controlled substances.

“DEA fully supports this significant policy reform. ln this moment, when the United States is suffering tens of thousands of opioid-related drug poisoning deaths every year, the DEA 's top priority is doing everything in our power to save lives. Medication for opioid use disorder helps those who are fighting to overcome opioid use disorder by sustaining recovery and preventing overdoses,” DEA Administrator Anne Milgram wrote in a January 12 letter to providers.

The DEA is also developing a new mandatory eight-hour training program for providers to help them identify and treat OUD when they apply for or renew their registrations. The new training will be required on June 21.

“I think this is overdue. Buprenorphine can reduce the risks of overdose by 60% and is much safer than methadone,” says Lynn Webster, MD, an expert in pain management who is a Senior Fellow at the Center for U.S. Policy. “It would be controversial, but I believe low-dose buprenorphine should be OTC as a harm reduction measure. At least there should be a discussion about the potential benefit vs risk.”

Pressure to Prescribe

It remains to be seen how the elimination of the X-Waiver will affect pain patients. Over the years, we’ve heard complaints from patients who say they were coerced by their doctors into taking Suboxone, even though it’s not approved as a treatment for pain. With patient caps removed and more doctors able to prescribe buprenorphine, there could be added pressure on pain patients to take Suboxone – whether they show signs of OUD or not.

“I understand the pressure to use buprenorphine for pain rather than traditional opioids. It is a much safer opioid than most, so it should be considered as a first line therapy,” says Webster. “However, that is the rub. It is not effective or tolerated in many patients.  Patients have a legitimate concern that they may be coerced to transition to buprenorphine when their existing medications are working and there are no signs of abuse.     

“I don't think the change in regulations will mean more doctors will push their patients to use buprenorphine, because the mind-set is already there.” 

A little-known aspect of buprenorphine is that it blocks other opioids from working – meaning anyone who is taking it should be aware that if they have acute pain from an accident, trauma or surgery, they’ll have to rely on non-opioid pain relievers.  

While often touted as the most effective medication for OUD, most people who take buprenorphine relapse and starting taking opioids again. About two-thirds of the patients who receive Suboxone stop filling prescriptions for it after just three months. 

Although it’s difficult to get high on buprenorphine, it can still be misused. A 2021 study found the misuse rate for buprenorphine was over two times higher than misuse rates for hydrocodone, oxycodone and other opioid pain medications.

Charges Against Founder of Genetic Testing Company Dropped

By Pat Anson, PNN Editor

The U.S. Department of Justice has quietly dropped criminal charges against the founder and CEO of Proove Biosciences, a genetic testing company based in California that was accused of paying physicians over $3.5 million in illegal kickbacks. A judge dismissed the case against Brian Meshkin and five other defendants last month “in the interests of justice” after federal prosecutors declined to move forward with the case.

“There has been so much injustice over the past 6 years that it is wonderful to see truth prevail.  I am excited to have the opportunity to set the record straight and to move forward from here with my head held high,” Meshkin said in a statement.

A spokesperson for the U.S. Attorney’s Office in San Diego declined to comment on the case being dismissed, according to The Orange County Register.

Proove specialized in genetic testing of pain patients and claimed its DNA tests could determine how well they metabolized opioid medication and if they were at risk of abuse. The company claimed that 94% of patients experienced significant pain relief within 60 days of treatment changes based on their test results.

Proove’s aggressive marketing included millions of dollars in “research fees” paid to physicians who ordered its tests, a practice that ran afoul of federal kickback laws. In 2017, the company’s headquarters in Irvine, CA was raided by FBI agents and Proove was placed into a court-ordered receivership – a form of bankruptcy – when its business collapsed.

The former vice-president of marketing for Proove plead guilty in 2020 to paying illegal kickbacks. The following year, the National Spine & Pain Center in Maryland agreed to pay $5.1 million in restitution to Medicare as part of a criminal settlement for taking kickbacks from Proove.

Meshkin blamed the company's legal and financial problems on “erroneous and damaging” reports by STAT News, which detailed how physicians could make up to $144,000 a year if they funneled their patients’ genetic tests to Proove.

“This work was destroyed by misinformation spread by a handful of disgruntled ex-employees and contractors, spread by the media, and blindly adopted by some in the Southern District of California office of the U.S. Attorney and the FBI,” Meshkin said. 

“That misinformation and false and defamatory allegations directed at Proove hurt thousands of people beyond the company itself, including the many patients and their families who have died from or whose lives were impacted by opioid overdoses and suicide that could have been prevented with access to Proove’s life-saving technology.”

Many questions remain about the effectiveness of the tests. A genetic expert told STAT News the company’s testing claims were “hogwash” and said they exploited fears about opioid addiction.  A Montana pain patient who took the test and followed Proove’s treatment advice said they didn’t work for her.

“To me it was a waste of time and money. The meds it said I should be taking either didn’t work, stopped working, or made me sick. And the meds I should not be taking, I do just fine on,” she told PNN in 2017.

There Is Another Drug Reform Bill the Senate Must Pass

By Michael C. Barnes, Guest Columnist

After last month’s midterm elections, the U.S. Senate passed the Medical Marijuana and Cannabidiol Expansion Research Act. The House had passed the bill in April, and President Biden signed it into law on December 2. The new law has been described as “modest” because it mostly facilitates research on marijuana and cannabidiol to support the development of medications for approval by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA).

The law also eliminates a longstanding regulatory roadblock that has prevented marijuana research; hindered the development of marijuana-derived, FDA-approved medications; and led to 37 state-regulated markets for marijuana products that do not meet federal consistency, purity, and potency standards. New research can be expected to yield marijuana-derived medications that the FDA can approve.

There is another regulatory burden that the Senate must eliminate before the end of this year. This change in federal law would also be modest, but it would facilitate access to treatment for opioid use disorder (OUD), which is essential amid the nationwide fentanyl poisoning crisis. S. 3257 would expand the time health care providers can hold long-acting, injectable buprenorphine (an FDA-approved medication for OUD) from 14 days to 60 days. It’s that simple. But like the new marijuana research law, the modest change will make a significant difference.

In the 12 months that ended June 30, 2022, 102,842 people died of a drug poisoning. Of those, 69,150 involved synthetic opioids, predominantly illegal fentanyl. Facilitating access to evidence-based treatment for OUD is more important now than ever. Changing the law cannot wait until the next Congress gets up and running.

S.3257 would amend the Controlled Substances Act, which currently requires that a health care provider administer injectable buprenorphine OUD medication to the patient named on the prescription within 14 days after the medication was delivered to the provider. The supposed purpose of the 14-day limit is to prevent the diversion of the medication to the illicit market.

But in 2020, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) reported that “all of the provider groups GAO spoke with said that diversion of injectable … buprenorphine is unlikely, and representatives from three of the six provider groups said that the design of these formulations reduce opportunities for diversion due to how they are administered.”

For patients and providers, the 14-day limit is too short considering the coordination required to facilitate injectable buprenorphine prescribing, insurance coverage and payment, delivery and receipt, and appointment scheduling and attendance. Sixty days are necessary to ensure that medication administration may take place at a time when the patient, provider, and medication are available.

Additionally, the 14-day limit wastes valuable health care resources and places patients’ recovery and lives at risk. For example, if an insured patient is not able to attend a medical appointment on or before the 14th day after the injectable buprenorphine was delivered to his or her provider, the medication must be disposed of.

It is unlikely that an insurer would pay for a replacement product, and it is common for patients not to be able to pay for medications out of pocket. As a result, a patient may be forced to go without a week or months’ worth of medication for OUD. This situation can put the patient at risk for a recurrence of OUD symptoms, active substance use, poisoning by illicit substance, and death.

In June, the House of Representatives passed H.R. 7666 with broad bipartisan support. Section 264 of H.R. 7666 contains a provision expanding the 14-day limit to 60 days.

In passing the marijuana research act, the Senate proved itself willing and capable of enacting modest yet meaningful drug reforms during its lame-duck session. To prevent drug poisonings and avoid wasting lifesaving medications, the Senate must do so again by expanding the 14-day limit to 60 days.

Michael C. Barnes is the managing attorney for Sequel Health Law. He serves as counsel to Aimed Alliance, a not-for-profit health policy organization.

The goal of Aimed Alliance is to create a society in which consumers can make informed and individually appropriate decisions about their health care, without those decisions being overridden by third parties.

Stopping Rx Opioid Therapy Raises Risk of Overdose

By Pat Anson, PNN Editor

Discontinuing opioid therapy for people with chronic pain raises the risk of a patient dying from an overdose, according to a new Canadian study that calls for better guidance for healthcare providers on the risks associated with abrupt tapering.

Researchers analyzed the medical histories of over 14,000 pain patients in British Columbia who were on long term opioid therapy from 2014 to 2018 – a period when physicians in Canada and the United States were being urged to restrict opioid prescriptions due to a worsening overdose crisis. The vast majority of patients studied were either tapered to a lower dose or their opioid treatment was discontinued, regardless of whether they showed signs of opioid use disorder (OUD).  

The study findings, published in PLOS Medicine, show that discontinuing opioid therapy for pain was associated with increased overdose risk. The association was even stronger for the small minority of patients diagnosed with OUD. In total, 530 people in the study (3.8%) experienced either a fatal or non-fatal overdose, with 120 of them dying.

“Our findings underscore the need for healthcare providers and policymakers to carefully consider potential unintended adverse effects of discontinuing opioid treatment for chronic pain when developing prescribing interventions and making practice decisions,” wrote lead author Mary Clare Kennedy, PhD, a Research Scientist with the BC Centre on Substance Use and a Research Fellow at the University of British Columbia.

“Given the harms of opioid treatment discontinuation identified in this and past studies, non-consensual and abrupt discontinuation of opioid treatment for pain is contraindicated in almost all instances.”

Kennedy and her colleagues were unable to determine what substances were involved in the overdoses, but they believe some patients who had their opioid therapy stopped may have resorted to illicit fentanyl and other street drugs to manage their pain, withdrawal and other symptoms. Over 73% of the overdose deaths that occurred in British Columbia during the study period involved fentanyl.

Previous studies have also found that opioid tapering raises the risk of an overdose and mental health crisis. A study published last year in JAMA found that tapered patients were 68% more likely to be treated for opioid withdrawal, drug overdose or alcohol intoxication, and they were twice as likely to experience depression, anxiety or a suicide attempt.

The FDA warned in 2019 that rapid tapering or abrupt discontinuation of opioids could result in serious harm to patients, including withdrawal, uncontrolled pain, psychological distress and suicide.

‘Reckless Mistreatment of Patients’

Despite this growing body of evidence, forced tapering and opioid discontinuation continues – some of it caused by the heavy-handed tactics of law enforcement. Over 200 pain patients were recently cut off from opioids after their California doctor had his DEA license suspended without warning. One patient and his wife died by suicide within a week of the DEA’s action.

“Not only are we collectively causing harm, we are failing to stop causing harm even when we agree that we're causing it, which is actually worse,” says Stefan Kertesz, MD, an associate professor at the University of Alabama at Birmingham, who is leading a study of pain patient suicides.

Kertesz says regulators, insurers, journalists and law enforcement have misinterpreted overdose studies to suggest that opioid prescribing, particularly at higher doses, was the root cause of the overdose crisis.  

“Many clinicians and policymakers engaged in aggressive extrapolation that went far beyond the data. Many journalists and legal plaintiffs described the prescriptions in a way that aggravated matters. They made dose into a fetish, a performance metric, and a threshold for law enforcement,” Kertesz told PNN. “Dose based quality metrics, payor standards and legal investigation thresholds incentivize reckless mistreatment of patients.

“My ultimate question is when will agencies like the National Committee for Quality Assurance, the Office of Inspector General, and law enforcement actually come to appreciate the evidence in play?”

It took six years, but the CDC recently revised its 2016 opioid guideline to include specific language warning of the dangers of tapering or discontinuing opioids.

“Clinicians should avoid abrupt discontinuation of opioids, especially for patients receiving high dosages of opioids, should avoid dismissing patients from care, and should ensure appropriate care for patients with pain and patients with complications from opioid use,” the revised guideline states.

Opioid Prescriptions Down Sharply for Medicare Patients

By Pat Anson, PNN Editor

The number of Medicare beneficiaries receiving opioid prescriptions has declined significantly since 2016, according to a new government report that also found steep declines in the number of beneficiaries receiving high doses or who appear to be doctor shopping.

The report by the Department of Health and Human Service’s Office of Inspector General found that over 21 million people -- 23% of Medicare Part D beneficiaries -- received at least one opioid prescription in 2021, down from 33% of beneficiaries in 2016. Over 51 million people are currently enrolled in Part D.

The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) adopted new safety rules in 2018 that discourage high dose prescribing and limit the initial supply of opioids to 7 days. The rules also allowed pharmacists and insurers to flag Medicare patients deemed to be at high risk, as well as their prescribers.

The rules appear to have had a major impact on prescribing. In 2016, over half a million Medicare beneficiaries received a daily opioid dose of at least 120 MED (morphine milligram equivalent). By 2021, that fell to less than 200,000 patients, a 60 percent decrease in high dose prescribing.   

MEDICARE PATIENTS RECEIVING HIGH DOSE OPIOIDS

HHS Office of Inspector General

Since 2016, the number of Medicare beneficiaries who appeared to be doctor shopping dropped from 22,300 to 1,800; while the number of doctors with “questionable” prescribing patterns fell from 401 to just 98.  Patients were flagged for doctor shopping if they were on high doses and received opioids from four or more prescribers or four or more pharmacists.

“The opioid epidemic continues to grip the nation. There is clearly still cause for concern and vigilance, even as some positive trends emerge,” the OIG report found. “The number of Medicare Part D beneficiaries who received opioids in 2021 decreased to approximately a quarter of a million beneficiaries, extending a downward trend from prior years. Further, fewer Part D beneficiaries were identified as receiving high amounts of opioids or at serious risk of misuse or overdose. The number of prescribers ordering opioids for large numbers of beneficiaries at serious risk was steady.”

But there is little evidence that less prescribing is reducing addiction and overdoses.  The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention estimates there were nearly 81,000 opioid-related deaths in 2021, nearly twice the number reported in 2016, when the CDC’s opioid guideline was released. The vast majority of deaths involved illicit fentanyl and other street drugs, not prescription opioids.

The OIG report found that 50,391 Part D beneficiaries experienced an opioid overdose (either fatal or non-fatal) in 2021, but did not break down how many were linked to illicit or prescription opioids.

Over one million Medicare beneficiaries were diagnosed with opioid use disorder (OUD) last year, but only one in five received a medication like Suboxone or methadone to treat their condition. Medicare patients were far more likely to receive naloxone, an overdose reversal drug. Over 445,000 beneficiaries received a prescription for naloxone, an 18% increase from 2020.

Another Look at the Opioid Risk Tool

By Dr. Lynn Webster

I'm a proud grandfather to two young granddaughters. They are my world. Watching the U.S. Supreme Court rescind women's right to decide what to do with their own bodies made me feel angry that my granddaughters will be subjected to dehumanizing discrimination.

This tyranny against women extends beyond the Supreme Court’s decision over Roe vs. Wade.

I have read multiple accounts of women who are being denied access to opioid medication because they acknowledge a history of toxic adverse experiences as children or adolescents. Many such instances have occurred after women completed the Opioid Risk Tool, a questionnaire that asks a person if they have a history of preadolescent sexual abuse.

The refusal to prescribe opioids to women with a history of preadolescent sexual abuse is a defensive measure by providers to avoid being accused of causing an Opioid Use Disorder (OUD).

Why I Developed the Opioid Risk Tool

The Opioid Risk Tool (ORT) that I developed more than 20 years ago was designed to assess the risk of someone who was prescribed opioids for chronic pain treatment showing aberrant drug-related behavior.

The ORT was a simple questionnaire that could be administered and scored in less than a minute. It was developed at a time when we had no way to assess the risk of developing opioid abuse in patients who were prescribed an opioid for non-cancer pain. We needed a tool to help evaluate whether the risk of potential harm from opioids outweighed the potential good for each individual.

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 might require more careful observation during treatment, not to deny the person access to opioids.

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. This was intended to protect the patient from potential harm. It was never supposed to be used as an excuse to mistreat patients.

The original version of the ORT contained 10 questions, including whether a patient had a history of preadolescent sexual abuse. Women who answered "yes" scored 3 points; while men who responded affirmatively scored 0 points. The higher you scored, the more closely your doctor would need to monitor your opioid use during your treatment.

The ORT questionnaire was based on the best evidence at the time. Multiple studies have since confirmed the validity of the questions used in the questionnaire. However, many people have criticized the question that asks about a history of preadolescent sexual abuse because of a perceived gender inequity. In addition, some doctors have generalized the ORT's question about preadolescent trauma so that it applies to a history of female sexual abuse at all ages.

I have written that the ORT has been weaponized by doctors who are looking for a reason to deny patients -- particularly, women -- adequate pain medication.

There are doctors who use their power to determine whether to treat a woman's chronic pain with an opioid or allow her to suffer needlessly based on the ORT's answers. This is no less malevolent than a forced taper resulting in suicides or the use of the CDC opioid prescribing guideline to criminally charge providers for not following the CDC's recommendation. In all of these situations, an injustice is being committed against innocent people.

It is also not much different from the Supreme Court’s decision to ignore a woman’s right to access full reproductive rights. Both are attacks on women.

Fortunately, Martin Cheatle, PhD, and his team published a revised Opioid Risk Tool in the July 2019 edition of the Journal of Pain. In his research, Dr. Cheatle found that a revised ORT using 9 questions instead of 10 was as accurate as, if not better than, the original ORT in weighing the risk of patients for OUD. The revised ORT eliminates the use of a woman's sexual abuse history as a risk factor.

At a time when females have had their human rights taken away by a Supreme Court vote, it is especially appropriate to reconsider how we assess risks for potential opioid abuse for women.

It distresses me to know that, while the original ORT served to help assess the risk opioids posed for individuals, it has also caused harm. Since the question about a woman's sexual abuse history does not provide any additional benefit, there is no reason to retain it. The revised ORT should be used instead of the original ORT.

Lynn R. Webster, MD, is Senior Fellow at the Center for U.S. Policy (CUSP) and Chief Medical Officer of PainScript. He also consults with the pharamaceutical industry.

Lynn is the 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.

Drug Addiction Is the Problem, Not Prescription Opioids

By Christine Kucera, Guest Columnist

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) is the leading national public health institute of the United States. The agency is responsible for protecting the public from health and safety threats. 

In my opinion, the CDC has no business writing clinical guidelines! Medical guidelines for healthcare/disease management, medication management, and clinical decision making should be developed, reviewed and approved by a diverse team of clinical subject area specialists and key stakeholders, including medical specialists, medical groups, advisory teams, advocates and patients. Not regulatory agencies!

The 2016 CDC opioid guideline, as currently written, has harmed and damaged millions of lives, and caused unspeakable suffering. In effect, the CDC sanctioned torture by failing to promptly address and correct the negative impact of its guideline on individual patient care, addiction and pain management treatment and resources.

The CDC has clearly overstepped its authority by creating a guideline meant to regulate the use of prescription opioids. Any regulatory measures which prevent patients from accessing prescription opioids as indicated for their health and well-being are unethical and should be reconsidered, if not totally withdrawn.

The CDC continues to propagate the false narrative that any patients requiring prescription opioids for any type of pain are or will become addicts. And it continues to claim — without any evidence — that if opioid prescriptions are limited in quantity, type, duration and dose, there will be a reduction in addiction, overdose and death. The facts indicate otherwise. Overdoses are at record high levels.

The True Causes of Addiction

Substance addiction exists because our government has failed to address its true causes, which include poor access to addiction treatment, unethical pain treatment, lack of quality care standards across medical institutions, and lack of legislative laws that protect patients from suffering needlessly. 

Addiction is caused by preventable and manageable health disparities, untreated and undertreated mental and physical suffering, genetic metabolic variability, lack of resources, lack of all-inclusive healthcare insurance, lack of provider managed pain care, lack of treatment centers, lack of access to appropriately prescribed medications, lack of drug monitoring systems, lack of access to mental health and pain care providers, lack of timely access to a comprehensive network of providers, and lack of individualized care. 

Maybe if the CDC actually focused on the above health and safety issues, we would have guidance on solving the real problems. The CDC has failed miserably to recognize that individual pain care is as unique as the patient who is suffering in pain. Every single person that has pain seeks relief.

Relief comes in many different forms, both healthy and unhealthy. These forms of relief may be self-directed and/or medically managed by clinical staff and providers, and includes exercise, yoga, rest, mobilization, heat/ice therapy, massage, mindfulness, acupuncture, Chinese herbal medicine, bio-feedback, diet, weight loss, surgeries, water therapy, bicycling, strength/weight training, martial arts, immunotherapy, TENS, anti-inflammatories, anti-seizure medication, muscle relaxants, antidepressants, biologicals, medical/recreational cannabis, CBD, kratom, prescription opioids, illicit/illegal drugs and alcohol — to name a few. 

Every Patient is Different

The journey each patient in pain takes is individual. The pain you've experienced and lived with is different from mine and everyone else’s.  

The terms “acute pain” and “chronic pain” are also misleading and are part of the false narrative. Pain is a symptom. Its management depends on its physical and/or mental cause, not how long it lasts. Pain is the body's way of sending up a red flag that something is not right.

Duration means nothing in the world of pain, as every minute of the day is different in type, in location and in intensity. Pain goes through cycles, and no person experiences pain the same way.  

Until the individuals who wrote this God awful, evil guideline experience pain that is unrelenting, agonizing, non-stop, 24/7 for their entire life, they should back off the false narrative, go back into their non-medical cave, and leave the medical decision making up to the actual physicians who are trained to manage pain with all the tools available and at any quantity required by a patient.  

What the CDC should be addressing are the sources of suffering, identifying at-risk individuals and providing a framework for implementing resources and systems of care that are fluid and adaptive to the unique circumstances of each individual.  

There are too many outstanding questions and issues which also continue to impact patients and providers. What are the FDA and DEA’s roles and responsibilities? How do their policies meet the objectives of the CDC guideline to reduce addiction, overdose and death? What impact do they have on medical providers treating patients in pain? 

Addiction is the public health issue requiring CDC input, not the utilization of prescription opioids for pain treatment. 

Christine Kucera is an intractable pain patient survivor of over 30 years. She lives with reactive psoriatic arthritis, spondylitis, polyarthritis, sacroiliitis, degenerative disc disease, dermatomyositis, mixed connective tissue disease, psoriasis, lupus, spinal radiculopathy, thoracic outlet syndrome, endometriosis stage IV, and other painful conditions.

Prior to becoming disabled, Christine was a healthcare research systems developer and analyst for federally funded CMS, AHRQ, and NIH grants and programs. 

Study Warns of ‘Kratom Use Disorder’

By Pat Anson, PNN Editor

Nearly a third of people who use the herbal supplement kratom develop symptoms of withdrawal and tolerance that could be signs of kratom use disorder (KUD), according to a small survey by the National Institute on Drug Abuse. Withdrawal symptoms included gastrointestinal upset, restlessness, anxiety, irritability and fatigue.

Kratom comes from the leaves of a tree that grows in Southeast Asia, where it has been used for centuries as a natural stimulant and pain reliever. An estimated two million Americans use kratom to self-treat their pain, depression, anxiety and addiction.

NIDA researchers recruited 129 past and current kratom users in the U.S. to participate in the online survey, asking them about their symptoms and demographic information.

The study findings, recently published in the Journal of Addiction Medicine, found that over half of kratom users showed no signs of addiction. But 29.5% met the diagnostic criteria for KUD, such as increased use, tolerance, withdrawal, unsuccessful attempts to quit, and craving. Most reported KUD symptoms that were mild or moderate, with about one in four with KUD having severe symptoms.  

Nearly 10% of participants also reported “psychosocial impairments,” such as decreases in social, occupational, or recreational activities because of their kratom use.

“As assessed here, tolerance and withdrawal are primary KUD features rather than psychosocial impairments. As kratom is often used among persons with a myriad of health conditions, clinicians should be aware of and assess for kratom use and withdrawal,” wrote lead author Kirsten Smith, PhD, who heads much of the kratom research at NIDA.

Federal health officials have long taken a dim view of kratom and made unsuccessful attempts to ban it. In 2018, former FDA Commissioner Scott Gottlieb, MD, claimed that kratom was an opioid, addictive, and should not be used to treat any medical condition.

“Kratom use disorder” is a relatively new diagnosis and does not appear often in medical literature.  One of the first references to it is in a 2019 study that called kratom an “emerging public health threat.” Researchers said healthcare providers need to be aware that kratom use was “typically accompanied by increasing tolerance and dependence making it highly problematic.”

A kratom advocate said the new NIDA study shows the risk of kratom addiction is low and that symptoms are often mild. 

“I thought the results of this research were particularly interesting because of the growing number of addiction recovery centers expanded their service-for-hire to include kratom use disorder (KUD) and characterizes this condition as mirroring opioid use disorder (OUD) that requires intensive drug interventions of different substances,” said Mac Haddow, a lobbyist and Senior Fellow for the American Kratom Association, which represents kratom vendors and consumers.  

“Importantly, the study concludes that tolerance of kratom over time, and withdrawal from that level of dependence are the primary outcomes rather than psychosocial impairments that are largely debilitating among drug addictions. The study also recognizes that kratom continues to be a harm reduction alternative for those suffering from polydrug use addiction issues and that accounts for its increasing use as the drug overdose crisis deepens in the U.S.” 

Kratom is often used as a treatment for addiction. A 2016 PNN survey of over 6,400 kratom users found that nearly 12% used it to reduce their cravings for alcohol or opioids. Nine out of ten said kratom was “very effective” at treating their substance use disorder. And over 98% of all respondents don’t believe kratom is harmful or dangerous.

Study Warns of High Risk of Addiction in Medical Marijuana Users

By Pat Anson, PNN Editor

Medical marijuana is often touted as a treatment for chronic pain, but a new clinical trial found cannabis provided no significant improvement to people who took it for pain, anxiety or depression. Marijuana did help people sleep better, but it also raised their risk of cannabis use disorder (CUD).

“There have been many claims about the benefits of medical marijuana for treating pain, insomnia, anxiety and depression, without sound scientific evidence to support them,” says lead author Jodi Gilman, PhD, with the Center for Addiction Medicine at Massachusetts General Hospital (MGH). “We learned there can be negative consequences to using cannabis for medical purposes. People with pain, anxiety or depression symptoms failed to report any improvements, though those with insomnia experienced improved sleep.”

Gilman and her colleagues enrolled 186 people in the study and randomly assigned them to one of two groups. The first group was allowed to immediately obtain a medical marijuana card, while the second group had to wait 12 weeks before getting one. Both groups were allowed to choose their cannabis products at a dispensary, with no limits on the dose or frequency of use.

Participants in the immediate card acquisition group reported significantly more cannabis use in the study period, with nearly one in five (17%) developing CUD symptoms such as craving, tolerance and withdrawal within 12 weeks. The odds of having CUD were nearly 3 times higher in the immediate acquisition group than in the delayed acquisition group.

“This trial showed that CUD can develop at a fast rate within the first 12 weeks of medical marijuana card ownership, suggesting that those with a card may develop CUD at a similar rate as those who use cannabis recreationally and that the (medical) motive for use may not be protective,” researchers reported in in JAMA Network Open.

“Although most cases of CUD onset in the trial were mild, with 2 to 4 symptoms, these symptoms developed over a short, 12-week initial exposure. The most commonly reported CUD symptoms were higher tolerance and continued use despite the recurrent physical or psychological problems caused or exacerbated by cannabis.”

People with anxiety or depression -- the most common conditions for which medical cannabis is sought -- were at significantly higher risk of developing CUD than those with pain and insomnia.

Incidence of Cannabis Use Disorder

SOURCE JAMA NETWORK OPEN

“Our study underscores the need for better decision-making about whether to begin to use cannabis for specific medical complaints, particularly mood and anxiety disorders,” said Gilman, who called for more regulation of medical marijuana.  “There needs to be better guidance to patients around a system that currently allows them to choose their own products, decide their own dosing, and often receive no professional follow-up care.”

Cannabis advocates say Gilman’s findings are at odds with larger observational studies (here, here and here) that found cannabis use disorder declined in states that legalized medical marijuana. They feel the study also lacked detail of CUD symptoms or what impact they had.

“Although the authors stress the notion that those in the card-holders groups were more likely to be diagnosed with symptoms of CUD, they never identify what these symptoms were, their severity, or how disruptive they were to these individuals daily lives and functioning — or even if in fact they were at all,” said Paul Armentano, Deputy Director of NORML, a marijuana advocacy group. 

“Finally, it should be recognized that virtually all therapeutic agents possess varying safety profiles. Medical cannabis is not innocuous. But its safety profile is far superior to that of many conventional pharmaceuticals for which it can provide an alternative, including opioids and benzodiazepines — even if one is to take these findings at face value.” 

A recent survey found that twice as many Americans are now using cannabis or cannabidiol (CBD) to manage chronic pain than opioid medication.

What Do You Think About Changes to CDC Opioid Guideline?

By Pat Anson, PNN Editor

Do you think the proposed changes to the CDC’s opioid guideline are an improvement over the original 2016 guideline? Will the changes make doctors more or less willing to prescribe opioids? Should the guideline be expanded to include recommendations for treating conditions like migraine and low back pain?

Those are some of the questions we’re asking in a new PNN survey on the long-awaited draft revision of the guideline that was unveiled last month by the CDC.  In addition to giving healthcare providers more flexibility in using opioid medication to manage chronic pain, some experts say the changes effectively transform the guideline into a national “standard of care” for pain management – one that would apply to most doctors and patients, regardless of the severity or duration of their pain.

While the guideline changes have been applauded by professional societies like the American Medical Association for removing “arbitrary doses thresholds” for opioids, some worry that the expansion goes too far and could harm patients -- like the original guideline did -- by depriving them of effective pain treatments.

“The CDC is outside its lane to be recommending how physicians should practice pain medicine. Would they recommend how to treat hypertension or diabetes? If they did, it too would be inappropriate, unless it was in collaboration with one or more of the medical professional societies devoted to those areas,” says Lynn Webster, MD, Senior Fellow at the Center for U.S. Policy and past president of the American Academy of Pain Medicine.

“I have a lot of concerns about the new version. It is better, but still terribly misleading and not grounded in science, which is terrible disappointing.” 

90 MME Threshold Dropped

Perhaps the biggest change to the 2016 guideline is the CDC’s decision to drop a recommendation that opioid doses not exceed 90 morphine milligram equivalents (MME) per day, which quickly became a hard limit for many providers, insurers, states and regulators.

While the CDC still recommends caution about doses exceeding 50 MME, that advice is not enough for Lewis Nelson, MD, a longtime critic of opioid prescribing who advised the agency when the original guideline was created. He thinks the 90 MME limit is based on sound evidence.

“There are good data to support that there is an inflection point at 90 MME. It’s clear that high-dose chronic opioid therapy is associated with a number of adverse consequences -- including addiction, unintentional overdose and potentially death,” says Nelson, the Chair of Emergency Medicine at Rutgers New Jersey Medical School. “In a way, it’s a race to the bottom in pain management, because if you’re not getting better with a reasonable dose of an opioid, there’s nothing to support that additional opioid is going to carry significant benefit and is known to markedly increase the risk.”

Dr. Webster says the use of MME to guide prescribing is misleading because not all opioids are the same or convert well to MME doses. Like others, he worries that 50 MME will become the new hard threshold for opioid doses.

“I think any reference to conversion tables and MME will be interpreted as validation of them. We saw that with the 2016 guideline,” Webster told PNN. “The CDC needs to explicitly state the lack of scientific basis for both and that their use could be dangerous in some cases. They should not cite 50 MME threshold anywhere, as it is meaningless, misleading and will lead to further misapplication of the recommendation. You would think that they would have learned that by the 2016 guideline.” 

Take Our Survey

This is the fifth survey PNN has conducted on the CDC guideline. All of them found that the vast majority of patients and providers believe the guideline was harmful, worsened the quality of pain care, and led some patients to contemplate suicide or turn to street drugs.    

For those who think surveys are a waste of time and the CDC doesn’t pay attention to them -- think again. On Page 53 of its revised opioid guideline, the agency cites PNN’s 2017 survey and has a footnote linking to it:

"An online (non-peer reviewed) survey of over 3000 patients 1 year after the release of the 2016 CDC Guideline found that 84% reported more pain and worse quality of life and 42% said they had considered suicide; however, the survey did not attempt to sample patients with chronic pain using a rigorous methodological approach.”  

It’s true the PNN survey was not peer-reviewed and that patients were not sampled with a “rigorous methodological approach.”  It’s also true that CDC has not conducted a large survey of its own to measure the impact of its guideline on patients. The agency has focused on counting opioid prescriptions — not patient outcomes — as a measure of whether its guideline is working.

To take our new survey, click here.

It should only take a few minutes to complete. We’ll share the results in mid-April.

'This is an opportunity for patients, caregivers, clinicians and others to share their impressions of the 2022 revised and expanded CDC practice guidelines for treatment of acute and chronic pain,” says patient advocate Richard “Red” Lawhern, PhD.

“This guideline will ultimately steer pain care for the foreseeable future, for better or worse. The more involved and informed every part of our community is, the more we can help shape its impact. This survey is one more way to get involved and help guide future efforts,” said Tamera Lynn Stewart, Policy Director for P3 Political Action Alliance.

You can read the revised draft of the CDC guideline and leave an online comment in the Federal Register by clicking here. Comments must be received by April 11.

Pain Patients Have Low Rates of Illicit Drug Use

By Pat Anson, PNN Editor

Anti-opioid activists have long claimed that opioid medication is a gateway drug to heroin and other street drugs. That myth is so ingrained in the medical community that many pain patients are discriminated against by doctors and pharmacists, who suspect they are abusing their medication or using illicit drugs.

But a large new study by Millennium Health pokes a hole in that myth, finding that patients being treated in pain management practices are far less likely to use heroin, fentanyl, cocaine and methamphetamine than other patients.

The drug testing firm analyzed the lab results of two million urine tests from 2015 to 2021 – nearly 600,000 coming from pain patients -- and found that patients seeing primary care physicians, behavioral health doctors (psychiatrists and psychologists), or getting substance use disorder (SUD) treatment were significantly more likely to test positive for street drugs than patients of pain management providers.

SOURCE: MILLENNIUM HEALTH

“That’s one of the reasons why we decided to put this out there in the public domain, because it’s important. Because clearly there are differences across these groups,” said Eric Dawson, PharmD, Vice President of Clinical Affairs at Millennium Health.

For example, the positivity rate for fentanyl in urine samples is about 2% for pain management patients – a level that remained stable throughout the 6-year study period.

But Millennium found that for primary care and behavioral health patients, the positivity rate for fentanyl has ticked up to about 5 percent.

In patients getting SUD treatment, the positivity rate has skyrocketed to about 17 percent, no doubt a reflection of the growing presence of illicit fentanyl in street drugs.

Positivity rates for methamphetamine are also rising for most patients – but not for pain patients – while cocaine use has remained relatively flat. Positivity rates for heroin have declined steadily for all patients since 2015, according to Millennium.

“Generally speaking, the pain population that’s treated with opioids is an older population and uses illicit drugs at a very low rate,” said Steven Passik, PhD, VP of Scientific Affairs and Head of Clinical Data Programs at Millennium.

“Not only are they low, they remain low,” says Dawson. “So many of the other groups, over time their positivity rates are increasing. The pain population started low and remains low. And that says they are different than the other groups.”

What makes the findings even more striking is that they include the first two years of the covid pandemic, a time when stress, isolation and depression led many people to abuse drugs.

“But that did not happen in the pain patients. You can actually see that,” says Passik, who believes regular drug testing makes pain management patients less likely to take risks that might affect their healthcare. He thinks the Millennium study should be reviewed by both providers and policymakers to get a better understanding of people in pain.

“There isn’t that much data like this out there. I think it’s unique and very positive about this population. And I think that should be factored in when people are talking about access to opioids,” Passik told PNN.

In addition to fentanyl, heroin and other street drugs, the Millennium study also looked at positivity rates for marijuana, which have soared in recent years due to the legalization of medical and recreational cannabis in many states. By the end of 2021, the positivity rate for cannabis had reached nearly 32 percent for most patients. But, like the other drugs, cannabis use remained relatively low for pain patients.  

Does Childhood Trauma Increase Risk for Opioid Misuse?

By Pat Anson, PNN Editor

Did a parent humiliate or swear at you as a child? Were you ever molested? Did you live with a problem drinker or someone who went to prison? Were your parents ever separated or divorced?

Those are some of the questions posed to over 1,400 college students in a study by researchers at the University of Georgia, who wanted to assess the relationship between childhood trauma and the misuse of prescription opioids later in life.

Their research, recently published in the Journal of American College Health, found that most students had at least one adverse childhood experience (ACE). But those who reported four or more ACEs were almost three times more likely to misuse opioid medication.

Based on that finding, the researchers say healthcare providers should consider a patient’s experience with childhood trauma before prescribing them opioids.

“Our findings suggest need to include assessment of ACEs as a screening criterion for opioid prescription and administration among college-aged individuals,” wrote lead author Janani Thapa, PhD, an associate professor in UGA’s College of Public Health.

Many doctors already use screening tools to assess whether a patient is at risk for opioid misuse. They look up their prescription drug history, or ask patients if they’ve been sexually abused or have family members with a substance use disorder.

But Thapa and her colleagues think that assessment should go further, incorporating a wider range of childhood trauma, such as whether a patient didn’t have enough to eat or had to wear dirty clothes as a child.  

“Prevention of opioid misuse demands careful consideration of the traumatic exposure of the patient,” they said. “Current opioid assessment measures, including patient or family interviews, and prescription monitoring, may need to incorporate patients’ traumatic history for proper chronic pain management and integrated care.”

Penalizing Patients

The use of opioid screening tools is controversial. Some patients resent being asked about their childhood trauma – which they see as irrelevant to their health problems and pain management as adults.   

“I overcame my early life abuse until an ignorant doctor used that childhood abuse without psychiatric consultation to put labels on me and refuse medicine for pain,” one patient told us.

“Just because a patient may have been sexually abused or has family members who are addicts/alcoholics, does not mean the patient will be,” said another. “To penalize a person who is in excruciating pain due to no choice of their own, is cruel and inhumane.”

But a pain management expert says opioid screening tools have their place, because childhood trauma can have a lasting impact. 

“Most studies have shown that 4 in 5 people with an Opioid Use Disorder have at least one ACE,” says Lynn Webster, MD, past president of the American Academy of Pain Management and a PNN contributor. “I consider ACEs a form of post-traumatic stress disorder. It affects emotion regulation, causing an inability to modulate distressing emotions in a healthy and adaptive way. ACEs create a maladaptive response to stress. The earlier in life the ACEs occur, the more effect they will have later in life.” 

Over 20 years ago, Webster developed one of the first opioid screening tools for doctors, a short survey that asked patients if they had a history of substance abuse, sexual abuse, or any mental health issues. In his own practice, Webster found the survey helpful in identifying patients at risk of abusing opioids, but he later came to regret how the screening tool was “weaponized” against patients, particularly women, and used by other doctors as an excuse to deny patients opioids. 

“The Opioid Risk Tool (ORT) incorporates pre-adolescent trauma to help identify females who were at greater risk of OUD from what I believe is a form of PTSD. If I were to develop the tool today, I would probably make it gender neutral, but the increased risks for females would remain,” Webster said in an email. 

Webster agrees with the University of Georgia researchers that ACEs should be used to help assess whether a patient is at risk of abusing medication. But he says a high number of ACEs should not be used to avoid prescribing opioids to someone who has a medical need for them.  

Illicit Drug Use by Teens Fell Significantly in 2021

By Pat Anson, PNN Editor

Substance abuse by U.S. teenagers declined significantly this year, according to the results of a new national survey that found the use of prescription opioids by adolescents fell to the lowest level in nearly two decades.

Illicit drug use by 10th graders fell by nearly 12 percent in 2021, and by about 5% for eighth and 12th graders. The findings represent the largest one-year decline in illicit drug use by teens since the Monitoring the Future survey began in 1975.

The study by University of Michigan researchers found that teenagers reported increased feelings of boredom, anxiety, depression and loneliness in 2021 – no doubt fueled by pandemic-related fears and isolation. But unlike their adult counterparts, young people overall did not increase their use of marijuana, alcohol and other drugs.

“We have never seen such dramatic decreases in drug use among teens in just a one-year period. These data are unprecedented and highlight one unexpected potential consequence of the COVID-19 pandemic, which caused seismic shifts in the day-to-day lives of adolescents,” Nora Volkow, MD, Director of the National Institute on Drug Abuse, said in a statement.

“Moving forward, it will be crucial to identify the pivotal elements of this past year that contributed to decreased drug use – whether related to drug availability, family involvement, differences in peer pressure, or other factors – and harness them to inform future prevention efforts.”

The Monitoring the Future survey is given annually to students in eighth, 10th and 12th grades, who self-report their drug use behaviors and attitudes. The results from this year’s survey were collected from February through June 2021. Over 32,000 students enrolled in 319 public and private schools in the U.S. participated, with some taking the survey at home and others while at school.

The percentage of students who reported using any illicit drug other than marijuana within the past year decreased significantly. Among 12th graders, for example, 7.2% reported using an illicit drug in 2021, compared to 11.4% in 2020.

Decreases were also reported in the use of alcohol by 12th graders (46.5% in 2021 vs. 55.3% in 2020) and in marijuana (30.5% in 2021 vs. 35.2% in 2020).

Significant declines in use were also reported by students in 2021 for a wide range of drugs, including cocaine, heroin, hallucinogens, cigarettes and nonmedical use of amphetamines, tranquilizers, and prescription opioids.

The decline in drug use by teens is not a one-year fluke and is part of a long running trend. For example, the use of Vicodin by 12th graders has fallen by nearly 92 percent since its peak in 2003. The use of OxyContin has declined by 83% since its peak in 2005.   

MONITORING THE FUTURE SURVEY

“In addition to looking at these significant one-year declines in substance use among young people, the real benefit of the Monitoring the Future survey is our unique ability to track changes over time, and over the course of history,” said Richard Miech, PhD, who led the Monitoring the Future study at the University of Michigan. “We knew that this year’s data would illuminate how the COVID-19 pandemic may have impacted substance use among young people.”

Not all the news is good. The researchers found that adolescents who suffered severe stress, anxiety or depression due to the pandemic, experienced financial hardship, or whose parents used drugs were most likely to use drugs themselves.

Other studies have found that adults who regularly use recreational drugs increased their drug usage during the pandemic. A new study of alcohol sales in 16 U.S. states found a major increase in wine and liquor sales in the first few months of the pandemic, by as much as 20 to 40 percent in some states.

Another recent study found that opioid prescribing briefly increased in the early stages of the pandemic, as patients postponed corrective procedures and it became harder to obtain non-opioid therapies for pain such as massage and physical therapy. Opioid prescribing returned to previous levels after a few months.   

The CDC announced last month that the U.S. has seen over 100,000 drug deaths in the 12-month period ending in May, 2021. The record-high spike in overdoses is thought to be primarily a result of pandemic lockdowns and the continuing spread of illicit fentanyl.   

Little Evidence Opioid Use by Children Leads to Addiction

By Pat Anson, PNN Editor

Healthcare providers have become more cautious in recent years about giving opioid pain medication to children, fearing that even short-term use could lead to a lifetime of addiction or even a fatal overdose.

But in a review at the University of Alberta, pediatric researchers found little evidence to support a link between short-term opioid use in childhood and opioid use disorder (OUD) later in life.

“We actually didn’t find a lot of evidence to directly answer our question,” said senior author Michele Dyson, PhD, assistant professor of pediatrics in the Faculty of Medicine & Dentistry and associate director of the Alberta Research Centre for Health Evidence.

“If opioids are used as indicated, they can be a safe and effective strategy for pain management,” she said. “In some cases, they really are part of the best treatment plan to manage a child’s pain.”

Dyson and her colleagues reviewed 21 observational studies involving nearly 50 million patients under the age of 18 who were exposed to opioids for less than 14 days. Most of the studies were considered low quality and did not look at the duration of opioid use.

One study did show a potential link between short-term exposure and later abuse. But researchers concluded the findings overall were not definitive because they did not specify duration of exposure or lacked a control group. Their findings are reported in the journal Pediatrics.

“There is limited evidence to determine if short-term therapeutic exposure to opioids in childhood is
definitively associated with future nonmedical opioid use or development of an OUD; however, this review suggests a link between lifetime therapeutic opioid use (unknown duration) and nonmedical opioid use. The existing evidence on risk factors for nonmedical opioid use or OUD after short-term therapeutic exposure is unclear,” researchers concluded.

Conflicting Advice

Whether opioid medication is appropriate for children is a controversial issue. Earlier this year, the World Health Organization (WHO) released new guidelines recommending that opioids only be used for children who are dying or seriously ill and not expected to recover.

Like the Alberta study, a WHO advisory panel found little good quality research on how to treat childhood pain, but recommended that children with chronic pain be treated with physical therapy and psychological interventions such as cognitive behavioral therapy.  

An international study in The Lancet came to a very different conclusion, warning that opioid prescribing guidelines intended for adults are being “inappropriately applied to young people.” Because of the stigma associated with opioids, researchers said childhood pain was often untreated or poorly treated, leading to chronic pain, disability and other negative consequences in adulthood.

“Health-care professionals, young people, and parents continue to hold misconceptions and believe myths about opioid use in pediatric patients, whereby the media depicts opioids as the villain and the underlying reason for substance misuse,” researchers said. “Opioids have their place in pediatric pain medicine.”

That finding is at odds with a 2018 warning from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, which said that cough and cold medications containing opioids pose “serious risks” to children and should no longer be prescribed to patients younger than 18.

A recent study found that opioid misuse is relatively rare in U.S. adolescents and young adults. Less than 1% of those who filled an opioid prescription for the first time overdosed or developed opioid use disorder within the next 12 months.

The conflicting advice can be confusing to both parents and providers.

“Parents see stories about overdoses in the news and are afraid for their children, while physicians and prescribers are also worried because they don’t know what the evidence is,” says Dyson. “Health-care providers don’t want to cause harm, and at the same time, they still want to be able to treat pain appropriately.”

Dyson and her team at the University of Alberta have developed a series of infographics to help physicians, parents and young people recognize that opioid pain relievers are sometimes needed.

One such graphic plainly states: “Opioids don’t have to be scary!”

View fullsize

UNIVERSITY OF ALBERTA INFOGRAPHIC

“While we can’t say for sure that a short-term prescription for pain is linked with misuse, there is some evidence that that could happen,” she explained. “There is likely some risk, but it needs to be balanced with the harms of stigmatizing opioid use and under-treating pain, which comes with its own significant short- and long-term consequences.”