Opioids Are Not the Only Pain Meds That Can Be Abused

By Dr. Lynn Webster, PNN Columnist

Contrary to popular opinion, opioids don't cause substance abuse. Opioids certainly may be abused, but it is human biology itself that drives drug abuse.

We often get the message that any other pain treatment would be better than using opioids. However, even non-opioids prescribed for pain can contribute to overdoses and suicides. The same genetic and environmental factors that cause opioid abuse can induce abuse of other drugs, too.

For several years the number of opioid prescriptions has declined significantly, due to public demand and political pressure. According to the IQVIA Institute, there was a 17 percent decrease in the number of opioids prescribed in 2018 alone.

We may have expected that to translate into fewer drug abuse problems. Instead, we have seen an increase in overdoses, hospitalizations and suicides involving non-opioids such as gabapentin, methamphetamines and muscle relaxants.

Less access to prescription opioids has driven some people in disabling pain to seek illegal alternative medications. That has led to a wave of use and abuse of drugs that doctors have not prescribed.

Between 2016 and 2017, the CDC reported a nearly 47% increase in fentanyl-related deaths. Overdoses related to methamphetamine and cocaine have also surged.  

According to Stateline, approximately 14,000 cocaine users and 10,000 meth users died in the United States in 2017, triple the number of deaths in 2012. Deaths involving have heroin also spiked since 2010.  

Gabapentin and Baclofen 

Prescription drugs, too, have fueled the negative statistics. Doctors have felt forced to taper or discontinue opioids. In an attempt to find alternatives for pain management, they have increased the number of gabapentin and baclofen prescriptions. 

As PNN has reported, a recent study published in Clinical Toxicology found a “worrying” increase in calls to U.S. poison control centers about gabapentin (Neurontin) and the muscle relaxer baclofen, coinciding with a decrease in opioid prescriptions. The study analyzed more than 90,000 cases of exposure to gabapentin and baclofen, many of which were coded as suicides or attempted suicides.

“Gabapentin and baclofen are two medications that have seen increased availability to patients as alternatives to opioids for the treatment of acute and chronic pain. With greater accessibility, poison center exposures have demonstrated a marked increase in toxic exposures to these two medications,” wrote lead author Kimberly Reynolds of the University of Pittsburgh.

“As poison center data do not represent the totality of cases in the United States, the steep upward trends in reported exposures reflect a much larger problem than the raw numbers would suggest.”  

Gabapentin is one of the most commonly prescribed drugs in the United States. It is prescribed for epilepsy, hot flashes, migraines, nerve damage, and more. It is also used to treat the symptoms of drug and alcohol detoxification, and to treat pain for patients at higher risk of addiction to opioids.  

Baclofen is a muscle relaxant that has also been substituted for opioids. Other non-opioid drugs such as pregabalin and NSAID’s are being increasingly prescribed as well.  

All Medications Have Risks 

Non-opioids have a role to play in pain management, but it is just as important to understand their dangers. While we need effective alternatives to opioids, it is important to know that alternatives also have risks. That is unavoidable, because all medications carry potential benefits and consequences.  

To decide whether a medication is appropriate for an individual, it is critical to determine whether the potential benefit outweighs potential harm. Gabapentin and baclofen are not bad drugs, but they are not harmless replacements for opioids, either.  

No pain medication, whether it is an opioid or non-opioid, is right for everyone under all circumstances. The next time a physician or nurse practitioner suggests replacing an opioid with gabapentin, baclofen, or another medication, it would be appropriate to ask for a comparison of the risks and benefits. 

Talking with your healthcare provider about your preference for a particular medication does not make you a drug seeker. It helps you become an informed patient. 

Lynn R. Webster, MD, is a vice president of scientific affairs for PRA Health Sciences and consults with the pharmaceutical industry. He 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 Lynn on Twitter: @LynnRWebsterMD.

Opinions expressed here are those of the author alone and do not reflect the views or policy of PRA Health Sciences. 

CDC Planning to Update Opioid Guideline in 2021

By Pat Anson, PNN Editor

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention is in the initial stages of updating or expanding its controversial opioid prescribing guideline, which has been widely blamed for patient suffering, abandonment and suicide since its release in 2016.

CDC officials outlined their plans today at a meeting in Atlanta of the Board of Scientific Counselors (BSC) for the agency’s National Center for Injury Prevention and Control (NCIPC).

The update – which could take two years to complete – is likely to include recommendations for treating short-term acute pain, as well as how to taper patients safely off opioid medication.

Public pressure has been building on the CDC to clarify the guideline. Although voluntary and only intended for primary care physicians treating chronic pain, the guideline’s recommended limits on opioid prescribing have been widely adopted as policy by federal agencies, states, insurers, pharmacies and many doctors.

“Some policies and practices citing the guideline went beyond its recommendations,” said Dr. Deborah Dowell, Chief Medical Officer for NCIPC and co-author of the guideline. “The guideline does not support abrupt tapering or sudden discontinuation of opioids, but has been inappropriately cited to justify hard limits or cutting off opioids.

“In addition, we’ve heard reports of misapplications beyond the guideline’s clearly stated scope. For example, applying the recommendations to patients in cancer treatment or experiencing surgical pain.”

Last year the American Medical Association took a stand against the “misapplication” and “inappropriate use” of the guideline. The Food and Drug Administration has also warned that many patients are being tapered off opioids inappropriately, putting them at risk of withdrawal, uncontrolled pain and suicide.

Although the matter appears urgent, Dowell said the CDC was “just getting started” on updating the guideline. She said updated recommendations would likely not be finalized until late 2021, five and a half years after the initial guideline was released.   

‘Way Too Long to Wait’

During a public comment period, critics called the guideline a failed public health experiment that has done more harm than good.

“No one should have to die in pain. No one should have to live in pain,” said Amber Bullington, an intractable pain patient who was forcibly tapered off opioids. “We need to rescind the CDC guidelines and undo the harm you’ve done. You say you want to save lives. You’re not saving lives. Overdoses continue to escalate. Pain patients are dying and suffering.”   

“I have talked to patients all over the U.S. who are being denied treatment because of the reign of terror that has been established against doctors who try to treat them with opioid prescriptions. This has to stop. This is madness,” said patient advocate Richard “Red” Lawhern.

Others expressed concern about the guideline not being updated until 2021.

“It’s important that something be done in the interim to negate the effect of the misuse of the guideline across the board by so many government agencies,” said Richard, a pain patient and advocate. “Two years is way too long to wait for this to get fixed.”

“Chronic pain patients may not be able to last that long. Many won’t,” said Peter Pischke, a patient advocate. “I beg you guys, keep this in mind. You will have to make it clear and un-vague so that every politician, bureaucrat, administrator, every law enforcement official knows that what you guys tried to do in 2016 failed miserably when it came to patients with cancer and patients with chronic pain.”

The BSC voted unanimously to form a new “Opioid Workgroup” of 12 to 20 people to direct efforts to update the guideline. While a wide range of medical specialties would be represented on the panel, there was no mention of including patients or patient advocacy groups in anything more than an advisory or ad hoc role.

Nominations to serve on the Opioid Workgroup will be accepted until February 4, 2020.

As PNN has reported, the CDC has funded three new studies of opioid and non-opioid treatments for chronic pain. Draft reports are expected to be finalized in early 2020. Two additional studies of treatments for migraine and acute pain were recently awarded to the Mayo Clinic and Oregon Health & Science University, respectively, at a cost of $1.36 million. Results from those studies are not expected until August 2020.

Gabapentin Linked to Growing Number of Suicide Attempts

By Pat Anson, PNN Editor

We’ve reported several times about the abuse and lack of effectiveness of gabapentin, a nerve medication increasingly prescribed to treat fibromyalgia, neuropathy and other types of chronic pain.

It turns out gabapentin is also involved in a growing number of attempted suicides.

In a large new study published in the journal Clinical Toxicology, University of Pittsburgh researchers looked at over 90,000 calls involving medications to U.S. poison control centers. They found that calls about gabapentin and the muscle relaxant baclofen increased significantly just as opioid prescriptions began declining.

“Gabapentin and baclofen are two medications that have seen increased availability to patients as alternatives to opioids for the treatment of acute and chronic pain. With greater accessibility, poison center exposures have demonstrated a marked increase in toxic exposures to these two medications,” wrote lead author Kimberly Reynolds of the University of Pittsburgh.

“As poison center data do not represent the totality of cases in the United States, the steep upward trends in reported exposures reflect a much larger problem than the raw numbers would suggest.”     

Between 2013 and 2017, calls involving the abuse and misuse of gabapentin went up nearly 120 percent, while reports of baclofen being abused or misused rose nearly 32 percent from 2014 to 2017.

Even more concerning is that calls about attempted suicides involving gabapentin rose 80 percent, while calls about attempted suicides with baclofen increased 43 percent. Co-ingestion of sedatives and opioids were common for both medications.

Only 19 deaths involving gabapentin were identified as possible suicides during the five-year study period, but there were thousands of gabapentin-related calls each year coded as attempted suicides — including over 10,000 calls in 2017 alone.

SOURCE: CLINICAL tOXICOLOGY

“It would be anticipated that patients who are prescribed gabapentin and/or baclofen would be more likely to be treated for mood disorders and pain as they are frequently comorbid and therapy overlaps significantly,” researchers said.

“Gabapentin has specifically been recognized for its misuse and diversion potential, synergistic effect with opioid use, and contribution to use disorders. Baclofen misuse has not been as frequently described but is anecdotally observed and associated with severe toxicity, physical dependence, and complicated withdrawal.”

Gabapentin was the 10th-most widely prescribed drug in the U.S. in 2017. Calls to poison control centers about gabapentin were highest in Kentucky and West Virginia, two of the states hardest hit by the opioid crisis. Calls about baclofen were highest in Kentucky, Maine and New Mexico.

The researchers recommend that patients who are prescribed gabapentin or baclofen be prescreened for substance use disorders, mood disorders and suicidal ideation.

FDA Gabapentin Warning

The Food and Drug Administration warned in 2008 that all patients being treated with gabapentin or ten other antiepileptic drugs should be informed about the risks of suicidal thoughts and actions.

The FDA reviewed 199 clinical trials of the drugs and found that patients who received them had almost twice the risk of suicidal behavior or ideation (0.43%) than patients on a placebo (0.24%). That means there would be one additional case of suicidal thinking or behavior for every 530 patients treated with an antiepileptic drug.

“All patients who are currently taking or starting on any antiepileptic drug for any indication should be monitored for notable changes in behavior that could indicate the emergence or worsening of suicidal thoughts or behavior or depression,” the FDA said.

Gabapentin (Neurontin) and its chemical cousin pregabalin (Lyrica) belong to a class of nerve medication called gabapentinoids. Both drugs were originally developed to treat epileptic seizures, but are now widely prescribed off label to treat a variety of chronic pain conditions.    

A recent Swedish study found that patients taking gabapentinoids had higher rates of overdose, suicide and suicidal behavior than the general population. The risks were strongest in teens and young adults.

A recent clinical review found little evidence that gapapentinoids should be used off-label to treat pain and that prescribing guidelines often exaggerate their effectiveness. The CDC’s controversial 2016 opioid guideline, for example, calls gabapentin and pregabalin “first-line drugs” for neuropathic pain.

In a new draft report being funded by the CDC, researchers say gabapentin showed only “small improvements” in pain for people with diabetic peripheral neuropathy and fibromyalgia. The study by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) is expected to finalized in early 2020.

CDC Considering ‘Update or Expansion’ of Opioid Guideline

By Pat Anson, PNN Editor

When the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention released its controversial opioid prescribing guideline in March 2016, it pledged to study the impact of the guideline on patients, doctors and pain treatment in the United States.

“CDC is committed to evaluating the guideline to identify the impact of the recommendations on clinician and patient outcomes, both intended and unintended, and revising the recommendations in future updates when warranted,” the agency said.

Three and a half years later, after widespread reports of patient suffering, abandonment and suicide, the CDC may finally be getting around to an update. But it may not be what patients and doctors were hoping for.

In a meeting next week of the Board of Scientific Counselors (BSC) for the CDC’s National Center for Injury Prevention and Control (NCIPC), guideline co-author Dr. Deborah Dowell is scheduled to give a 30-minute presentation entitled “Background for Updating the CDC Guideline for Prescribing Opioids.”

According to the agenda for the December 4 meeting in Atlanta, Dowell’s presentation will be preceded by an update from NCIPC Director Dr. Debra Houry, who oversaw development of the opioid guideline. Presentations are also planned on overdose prevention and the formation of an “Opioid Workgroup.”

“CDC is scheduled to give a background presentation for a potential update/expansion of the CDC Guideline,” Courtney Lenard, a CDC spokesperson, said in an email to PNN. “CDC will also request that NCIPC’s BSC establish an Opioid Workgroup to provide expert input and observations on a possible update or expansion of the guideline.”

Public pressure has been building on the CDC to clarify the guideline — but not to expand it. Although voluntary and only intended for primary care physicians treating chronic pain, the guideline’s recommended limits on opioid prescribing have been widely adopted as policy by federal agencies, state governments, insurers, pharmacy chains and many doctors.

The guideline has also been applied to short-term acute pain situations, such as patients being treated for post-surgical pain or emergency room trauma. Last year, CDC Director Dr. Robert Redfield said he wanted the agency to develop opioid prescribing guidelines for acute pain and to use a new enhanced data system to track overdoses in hospital emergency rooms.

“I hope this does not become CDC Prescribing Guideline 2.0. In the original CDC Guideline, the identity of the key expert group was unknown, there were concerns over conflict of interest and secrecy, and legislatures or regulatory agencies eventually adopted the guideline and treated it as gospel despite the limitations stated in the report,” said Stephen Ziegler, PhD, a Professor Emeritus at Purdue University.

Last year the American Medical Association took a stand against the “misapplication” and “inappropriate use” of the guideline -- and adopted a resolution stating that some patients “can benefit from taking opioids at greater dosages than recommended by the CDC.”   

In April, the Food and Drug Administration warned that many patients were being tapered off opioids inappropriately, putting them at risk of withdrawal, uncontrolled pain and suicide. That was followed days later by a pledge from Redfield to re-evaluate the guideline and “clarify its recommendations.”

A clarification is long overdue. In a PNN survey early this year of over 6,000 pain patients and healthcare providers, an overwhelming majority said the guideline was harmful to patients and should be revised.

“Cannot understand or know why the CDC will not speak out on the harm done to undertreated, denied and abandoned patients,” one patient told us.

“The guidelines were written in secret, and the carnage that we predicted has come to pass,” said an emergency medicine physician.

“They should be revoked. People are suffering and committing suicide due to inability to tolerate suffering. This is inhumane,” another provider wrote. “It blemishes CDC’s reputation.”

CDC Funding AHRQ Studies

Instead of getting input from doctors and patients on the impact of the guideline, the CDC appears to be focused on more research to help expand its use. PNN has learned that the CDC is funding three new studies on the effectiveness of opioid and non-opioid therapies — essentially doubling down on previous research that found little evidence that opioids are effective for chronic pain.    

“CDC is funding the Agency for Healthcare Research & Quality (AHRQ) through an interagency agreement to conduct systematic reviews of new scientific evidence that has been published since the Opioid Prescribing Guideline was released,” said CDC’s Lenard. “The reviews will evaluate the effectiveness and comparative effectiveness of opioids, non-opioid pharmacologic therapy, and nonpharmacologic therapy for chronic and acute pain.

“Results of these reviews will help CDC determine whether evidence gaps have been addressed and if the Opioid Prescribing Guideline should be updated or expanded. If a Guideline update or expansion occurs, the development process would include consideration of findings from the systematic reviews and an additional public comment period through the Federal Register once an update or expansion is drafted.”

All three AHRQ studies were awarded on the same day – at an estimated cost of $1.1 million – to the Pacific Northwest Evidence-based Practice Center at Oregon Health & Science University, which is headed by Dr. Roger Chou, one of the co-authors of the CDC guideline.

As PNN has reported, Chou is a primary care physician and longtime researcher who has publicly aligned himself with Physicians for Responsible Opioid Prescribing (PROP), an influential anti-opioid activist group that seeks drastic reductions in the use of opioid medication.  

Chou recently co-authored an article with PROP President Dr. Jane Ballantyne and PROP board member Dr. Anna Lembke that encourages doctors to consider tapering “every patient receiving long term opioid therapy.”

Chou also consulted with PROP founder Dr. Andrew Kolodny and other PROP members for Oregon Pain Guidance, an advisory group that claims opioid tapering “will improve the quality of life for the majority of patients.”

DR. ROGER CHOU

It is not clear if PROP members are also involved in the three AHRQ studies, as they were in drafting the CDC guideline. But critics say Chou’s continuing association with PROP raises questions about his impartiality as a researcher.

“For years, we have called out a ‘False Narrative’ that prescription opioids drive the current overdose crisis; current data shows this is demonstrably false,” said Dr. Chad Kollas, a palliative care specialist in Florida. “We have not done as well calling out a “Hidden Narrative,” where PROP-affiliated physicians have wrongly influenced and encouraged the misapplication of federal policy in a way that has systematically harmed vulnerable patients in pain. We must call out their conflicts of interest loudly now.”

As a matter of policy, AHRQ does not release conflict of interest statements or disclose the names of its consultants, investigators and peer reviewers until after its reports are finalized. The AMA is recommending that the agency end that policy.

“We would suggest that AHRQ publish the list of all those involved in any aspect of the report… to help remove any perception of potential conflict,” Dr. James Madara, the AMA’s Executive Director and CEO, wrote in a letter to AHRQ. The letter also urges the agency to clearly state that the opioid epidemic was not fueled by prescription opioids and that its research should not be used to justify tapering.

Draft versions of the three AHRQ studies have been completed and were recently posted for 30 days on the agency’s website. They were removed after a public comment period ended, which is another AHRQ policy. Fortunately, PNN was able to obtain copies before the draft reports were withdrawn from public view.

• Opioid Treatments for Chronic Pain

• Nonopioid Pharmacologic Treatments for Chronic Pain

• Nonpharmacologic Treatment for Chronic Pain

What did Chou and his researchers conclude? The three draft reviews support many of the same conclusions as the CDC guideline — hardly a surprise since Chou helped write the guideline.

“For patients with chronic pain, opioids are associated with small beneficial effects versus placebo but are associated with increased risk of short-term harms and do not appear to be superior to nonopioid therapy. Evidence on intermediate-term and long-term benefits remains very limited and additional evidence confirms an association between opioids and increased risk of serious harms,” one draft says. 

“Findings of this review, with expansion of scope to include short-term trials, support the recommendation in the 2016 CDC guideline that opioids are not first-line therapy for chronic pain and to preferentially use nonopioid alternatives.”    

The AHRQ expects to release final versions of the three pain management reports in early 2020. A list of experts and informants will be released at that time, along with any conflicts of interest. 

Still unclear is what the CDC will do with the reports and what kind of “update or expansion” the agency is considering for its opioid guideline.

U.S. Life Expectancy Still Declining

By Pat Anson, PNN Editor

After decades of progress with Americans living longer and healthier lives, a disturbing new study has documented how life expectancy in the U.S. has declined for three consecutive years.

The drop in life expectancy was most pronounced in young and middle-aged adults. Starting in 2014, midlife mortality increased across all racial groups, largely due to drug overdoses, alcohol abuse, suicide, and chronic illnesses such as hypertension and diabetes. Researchers said prescription opioids were more of a symptom than a cause of premature deaths.

In 2014, Americans were expected to live to 78.9 years of age. By 2017, the average life expectancy had fallen to 78.6 years.

The U.S. now has the worst midlife mortality rate among 17 high income countries, even though it spends more on healthcare per capita than any other nation.  

“This is an emergent crisis. And it is a uniquely American problem since it is not seen in other countries. Something about life in America is responsible,” lead author Steven Woolf, MD, reported in a Special Communication published in JAMA.

The largest increases in midlife mortality occurred among adults with less education and those living in rural areas.  Changes in life expectancy were greatest in upper New England, the Ohio Valley, and Appalachia – regions where economic distress, lower social mobility and the so-called epidemic of despair contributed to rising rates of suicide and drug and alcohol abuse.

“While it’s a little difficult to place the blame on despair directly, the living conditions causing despair are leading to other problems,” said Woolf, who is director emeritus of the Center on Society and Health at Virginia Commonwealth University. “For example if you live in an economically distressed community where income is flat and it’s hard to find jobs, that can lead to chronic stress, which is harmful to health.”

While life expectancy increased in a handful of Western states, midlife mortality rose in Ohio and West Virginia – states often called ground-zero of the opioid crisis.  A sharp increase in opioid overdoses came in three waves; starting with the introduction of OxyContin and the overuse of prescription opioids in the 1990s, followed by increased heroin use, and then the emergence of illicit fentanyl – which triggered another wave of opioid overdoses starting in 2013.

“However, the increase in opioid-related deaths is only part of a more complicated phenomenon and does not fully explain the increase in midlife mortality rates from other causes, such as alcoholic liver disease or suicides. Opioid-related deaths also cannot fully explain the U.S. health disadvantage, which began earlier (in the 1980s) and involved multiple diseases and nondrug injuries,” Woolf said.

The tsunami of fentanyl overdoses has yet to dissipate. According to a new study by the Massachusetts Department of Public Health, 93% of opioid related overdoses in the state in the first nine months of 2019 involved fentanyl. Deaths involving prescription opioids such as oxycodone and hydrocodone peaked in 2014 and are now linked to only about 10% of overdose deaths in Massachusetts.

FDA Approval Gives New Hope to Patients With Rare Genetic Disease

By Pat Anson, PNN Editor

Lisa Kehrberg was once frightened about her future. For years the retired family practice doctor and mother of two would suffer severe bouts of unexplained abdominal pain, headaches and nausea that would leave her hospitalized for weeks at a time.

“I was doubled over, rocking, vomiting and crying with the worst pain of my life. Worse than labor, appendicitis, or anything else I'd experienced. It was a hot, burning pressure that was like lava and hot razor blades filling up my abdomen,” Lisa recalled.

She was eventually diagnosed with a rare genetic disease called acute intermittent porphyria, which causes toxic molecules to build up in the body. The same disease killed Lisa’s brother in 2011. And she thought the same fate awaited her.

“One of the most common causes of death from porphyria is suicide. This isn't surprising. I always wonder how people who are sick like me keep surviving. To live in continuous excruciating pain every minute of every day with no end in sight is quite the challenge,” Lisa wrote in a 2016 column for PNN.

It was about that time that Lisa entered a clinical trial program. Every four weeks she’d travel to Houston from her home near Chicago for injections of an experimental drug. Over time, her symptoms began to improve and the porphyria attacks that used to occur monthly became less frequent.

LISA KEHRBERG, MD

Like other participants in clinical studies, Lisa wasn’t allowed to talk publicly about the drug she was getting – until now.  

The Food and Drug Administration has just approved the use of Givlaari (givosiran) for the treatment of adult patients with acute hepatic porphyria (AHP). Approval was granted based on results from placebo controlled trials involving 94 porphyria patients. Those who received Givlaari experienced 70% fewer porphyria attacks compared to patients receiving a placebo.  

“Prior to getting givosiran I was bed-bound for close to 6 months straight from severe muscle weakness and paralysis issues. I no longer have paralysis and most of the muscle weakness has resolved,” Lisa said in an email. “The rate of new attacks has decreased greatly, finally giving my nerves a chance to heal after 22 years of attacks and 6 years of back-to-back attacks.”

“These attacks occur suddenly and can produce permanent neurological damage and death,” Richard Pazdur, MD, director of the FDA’s Oncology Center of Excellence, said in a statement Wednesday. “Prior to today’s approval, treatment options have only provided partial relief from the intense unremitting pain that characterizes these attacks. The drug approved today can treat this disease by helping to reduce the number of attacks that disrupt the lives of patients.”

The FDA approved Givlaari under its breakthrough therapy, priority review and orphan drug designations, which provide incentives to companies in the development of drugs for rare diseases. Approval was granted to Alnylam Pharmaceuticals, which expects Givlaari to be available to healthcare providers by the end of the year.

There are about 3,000 people diagnosed with active porphyria in the U.S. and Europe. Due the wide array of symptoms the disease has, it can take years before an accurate diagnosis is made.

“The FDA approval of Givlaari is an important milestone for our community, as we now have a new treatment option for adults living with acute hepatic porphyria,” said Kristen Wheeden, Executive Director of the American Porphyria Foundation.

Image courtesy of Alnylam Pharmaceuticals

“AHP can have a profound impact on the lives of patients and their families. Porphyria attacks are associated with severe, incapacitating pain, often requiring hospitalization for management. In addition, many patients struggle on a daily basis with chronic symptoms related to their disease. The approval of Givlaari is exciting for our community.”

Lisa Kehrberg isn’t out of the woods just yet. She has permanent nerve damage from years of porphyria attacks. But her future is a lot brighter than it was.  

“For newly diagnosed patients, I strongly believe this treatment has the ability to stop the progression of the disease and will allow patients to lead a normal, functional life,” she says. 

Little Evidence to Support Rescheduling of Tramadol

By Roger Chriss, PNN Columnist

The consumer watchdog group Public Citizen has petitioned the FDA and DEA to “upschedule” the opioid painkiller tramadol. The DEA set tramadol as a Schedule IV drug in 2014, and the petition urges moving it to a more restrictive Schedule II, on the same risk level as hydrocodone and oxycodone.

The petition claims that tramadol is “an increasingly overprescribed, addictive, potentially deadly narcotic.” But the basis for this claim and the assumption that upscheduling will help are problematic.

The CDC reports that there were approximately 1,250 fatal overdoses involving tramadol in 2017, the most recent year for which data is available. Like most fatal overdoses, tramadol deaths often involve multiple drugs, so it’s hard to draw any conclusions from those deaths.

Tramadol is complex, with a highly variable patient response. Some patients have such a strong negative reaction to the drug that they refuse to take it again. Others find it too sedating at high doses or too weak to provide adequate pain relief. Abuse, addiction and overdose can also occur with tramadol.

Recently Harvard Health looked at a JAMA study on the risks of using tramadol versus other pain relievers. Tramadol was found to have a higher risk of death than anti-inflammatory medications such as naproxen (Aleve), while people treated with codeine had a similar level of risk.

“However, because of the study’s design, the researchers could not determine whether tramadol treatment actually caused the higher rates of death. In fact, the patients for whom tramadol is prescribed could make it look riskier than it truly is,” said Robert Shmerling, MD, an editor at Harvard Health.

Unintended Effects of Upscheduling

Understanding the effects of upscheduling is tricky. In 2014 the DEA reclassified hydrocodone (Vicodin) from Schedule III to the more restrictive Schedule II. The reclassification accelerated a trend that was already underway – hydrocodone prescriptions had been falling since 2011.

But there were unintended consequences to upscheduling. A recent University of Texas study found that decreases in hydrocodone prescribing after its rescheduling “were larger in patients being treated for cancer.”

Anotherr study found that upscheduling led to a substantial decrease in hydrocodone prescribing in hospital emergency departments, but that was offset by an increase in prescriptions for codeine and anti-inflammatory drugs.

Upscheduling hydrocodone has also had a negligible effect on overdoses, which are largely caused by illicit fentanyl, heroin and other street drugs, as well as non-opioid medications such as Xanax.

Similarly, predicting the impact of new prescription opioids is difficult. Breathless warnings about the opioid Zohydro, which was approved as a Schedule II drug in 2014, proved false. “There was no great surge of overdoses” after Zohydro was introduced, as Chris MacGreal wrote in his book “American Overdose.”

Fears about opioids are also delaying the introduction of safer medications. The experimental opioid NKTR-181 has less abuse potential than traditional opioids, but its approval is uncertain because the FDA has stopped all advisory committee meetings on opioid analgesics.

Public Citizen ignores all this. It also fails to mention other actions the FDA could pursue, from making naloxone into an over-the-counter drug to improving access to medication-assisted therapy for opioid use disorder. There’s no petition to have the DEA “nix the wavier” for buprenorphine (Suboxone) to make it more widely available or to have the federal government promote the Pain Management Best Practices Inter-Agency Task Force report.

Finally, there’s no call to monitor outcomes. As PNN has reported, opioid tapering has had tragic unintended consequences. And a new Cochrane review on the effects of educational and regulatory efforts targeting prescribers was unable to draw any conclusions “because the evidence is of very low certainty.” The authors could find only two relevant studies that assessed prescribing policies adopted in the 1990’s.

There are good reasons to be cautious about tramadol. But there are probably better ways than upscheduling to reduce risks and improve outcomes. As a result, Public Citizen's petition seems quite narrow and unlikely to help with the overdose crisis.

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.

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.

Experts Warn Rx Opioids Being Denied to Breast Cancer Patients

By Pat Anson, PNN Editor

Patients with advanced breast cancer are being denied opioid pain medication due to lack of supply in poor countries and a backlash against opioid addiction in the United States, according to experts at an international conference on breast cancer recently held in Lisbon.

In a session agreeing to new guidelines for treating breast cancer, oncology experts at the Advanced Breast Cancer Fifth International Consensus Conference also called for better access to a group of anti-cancer drugs called CDK4/6 inhibitors. The drugs help breast cancer patients live longer and improve their quality of life, but are often not available.  

The guidelines also warn that cancer patients should not have limits placed on their access to adequate pain control.

“Patients with advanced breast cancer can suffer pain and other symptoms, particularly towards the end of their lives. We need to ensure that appropriate pain medications and other symptom interventions are available to them,” said conference co-chair Eric Winer, MD, Director of Breast Cancer Program at Dana-Farber/Harvard Cancer Center in Boston.

“We acknowledge that the misuse of opioids is a big problem, particularly in the United States, but we need to make sure that in trying to deal with this problem we do not interfere with pain management in cancer patients. In addition, in some low- and middle-income countries, such as some in Africa, there are problems with patients being able to access any form of pain relief, and this needs to be addressed urgently.”

The panel of experts also called for more research into the use of cannabis for managing pain and other symptoms in patients with advanced breast cancer. But they cautioned that cannabis should not replace pain relievers that have been proven to work.

“The panel encourages research on the potential role of cannabis to assist in pain and symptom control but strongly stresses that it cannot replace proven medicines, such as morphine, for adequate pain control,” the guideline state.

Over two million new cases of breast cancer are diagnosed worldwide ever year, and there are about 600,000 deaths annually from the disease.

Confusion Over CDC Guideline

Although the CDC’s 2016 opioid guideline is only intended for primary care physicians treating non-cancer pain, the recommendations include patients “who have completed cancer treatment, are in clinical remission, and are under cancer surveillance only.”  

Experts say the CDC’s inclusion of cancer survivors is a mistake because it is not uncommon for cancer pain to persist long after the cancer is treated.  The CDC’s recommendations also conflict with cancer treatment guidelines that suggest doctors use both short and long-acting opioids when treating flares from cancer pain. The CDC recommends against long-acting opioids because of the potential risk of addiction.

The conflicting recommendations have caused confusion for oncologists and pharmacists, and agony for cancer patients not getting proper pain relief.

Earlier this year, a Rite Aid pharmacist refused to fill an opioid prescription for a California woman with Stage 4 terminal breast cancer.  April Doyle posted a tearful video online about her experience at the pharmacy that went viral. The pharmacist and a Rite Aid manager later apologized to Doyle for the incident.  

Rx Drug Databases Linked to Heroin Deaths

By Pat Anson, PNN Editor

Prescription drug monitoring programs (PDMPs) in the U.S. are often promoted as critical tools in preventing opioid abuse and addiction. But a new study suggests that some PDMPs may be having the unintended effect of driving pain patients to street drugs such as heroin.

PDMPs in 49 states (the one exception is Missouri) allow physicians and pharmacists to consult a drug database to see if patients are “doctor shopping” or getting too many opioid prescriptions. The databases are also used by law enforcement agencies to identify doctors who prescribe high levels of opioid medication.  

A team of researchers reported in the International Journal of Drug Policy that there was a “consistent, positive, and significant association” between the adoption of PDMPs and fatal heroin overdoses. By the third year of a state adopting a PDMP, there was a 22% overall increase in heroin fatalities.

The increase was not uniform across all PDMPs.  States with “Proactive” PDMPs, which are more likely to flag suspicious activity by doctors and patients and report them to law enforcement, had a slight decline in heroin overdoses, while states with weaker PDMPs had significant increases in heroin deaths.

“The study just shows that heroin is an alternative to prescription pain medicine,” says John Lilly, DO, a Missouri physician who opposes PDMPs. “The harder it is to get prescription pain medicine, the more heroin deaths and presumably heroin use occurs. Market forces at work. Heroin is not the big alternative. It’s illicit fentanyl.”

It's not the first time researchers have found mixed results on the effectiveness of PDMPs. A 2018 study also found an increase in heroin deaths associated with PDMPs, along with a decline in overdoses linked to prescription opioids.

"It's pretty striking that this is the second study where we have found that PDMPs with robust features such as sending unsolicited alerts about outlying prescribing and dispensing patterns to PDMP users, and providing more open access to PDMP data, are associated with a small decline in opioid overdose deaths," said senior author Magdalena Cerdá, DrPH, an associate professor and director of the Center for Opioid Epidemiology and Policy at NYU Langone Health.

"In our prior study we found that these types of PDMPs were associated with a decline in prescription opioid overdose deaths, and this new study suggests Proactive PDMPs may also have a downstream protective effect on heroin overdose risk."

Cerdá and her colleagues believe PDMPs that aggressively flag and report suspicious activity will help stop inappropriate prescribing sooner and better identify patients in need of addiction treatment, preventing their transition to heroin. 

“To the best of our knowledge, this study is the first to identify specific classes of PDMP characteristics that are most strongly associated with changes in rates of fatal heroin poisonings,” said lead author Silvia Martins, MD, an associate professor of epidemiology at Columbia Mailman School of Public Health. “We believe those authorized to access the data should be trained to protect individual privacy and confidentiality and ensure that it is used only to improve care for the patient.”

DEA Sues Colorado for Access to PDMP

Patient privacy is at issue in an unusual lawsuit filed last week by the Drug Enforcement Administration against Colorado’s Board of Pharmacy. The DEA subpoenaed the board to release patient data from Colorado’s PDMP to assist in the investigation of two pharmacies. But the state refused to comply, citing privacy concerns.

“The Department of Regulatory Agencies is committed to combating the opioid epidemic that remains a devastating issue for many Colorado communities,” spokeswoman Jillian Sarmo said in an email to the Colorado Sun. “We continue to work with our partners in other agencies in this fight, but we have an obligation to do so in a targeted and thoughtful manner that ensures the privacy of the hundreds of thousands of individual patients in the state whose personal prescription records have no connection to any criminal activity and whose disclosure has no relevance to any criminal investigation.”

Also named in the DEA lawsuit is Appriss, Inc., a private company that Colorado and dozens of other states use to collect and maintain their PDMP data. If a federal judge rules in favor of the DEA in Colorado, it could set a legal precedent that would force Appriss to release prescription data from other states.

“We are taking this action as part of our office’s efforts to aggressively pursue law enforcement investigations of anyone who may be breaking the law,” U.S. Attorney Jason Dunn said in a statement.  “We are disappointed with the refusal to comply with these lawful subpoenas, a refusal that has forced us to seek aid from the court in getting the information we need to carry out important law enforcement investigations aimed at combating the prescription drug abuse epidemic.” 

A recent study undermines much of the association between overdoses and prescription opioids that are obtained legally. Researchers say only 1.3% of overdose victims in Massachusetts had an active prescription for the opioid that killed them — meaning PDMPs would have little value in preventing the other 98.7% of deaths.

Patients on Rx Opioids Often Tapered at Risky Levels

By Pat Anson, PNN Editor

Tens of thousands of pain patients on long term opioid therapy have been cutoff or tapered to lower doses more rapidly than recommended, putting them at risk of withdrawal, uncontrolled pain and suicide, according to a large new study.

The study, published in JAMA Network Open, is one of the first to assess the impact of the 2016 CDC opioid guideline and other measures aimed at reducing opioid prescribing.

Researchers at University of California Davis reviewed the prescription records of over 100,000 patients on stable opioid doses from 2008 to 2017.

The percentage of patients who were tapered rose significantly during the study period -- from 10.5% in 2008 to 22.4% in 2017 – especially for patients on relatively high daily doses that exceeded 90 MME (morphine milligram equivalent).

“Opioid tapering has become increasingly common among patients using long-term opioids, particularly among patients taking higher doses and since the publication of the CDC opioid prescribing guideline,” researchers found.   

SOURCE: JAMA NETWORK OPEN

“Our results also suggest that many patients undergo tapering at rapid maximum rates. The downstream effects of opioid tapering on pain, withdrawal, mental health, and overdose risk warrant careful evaluation.”

Federal guidelines recommend a gradual dose reduction of about 10% per month. But researchers found that tapering for nearly one in five patients exceeded that level and some were tapered at rates six times higher than recommended. The average dose reduction overall was 27.6% per month.

"Tapering plans should be based on the needs and histories of each patient and adjusted as needed to avoid adverse outcomes," said study author Alicia Agnoli, MD, an assistant professor of family and community medicine at UC Davis. “Unfortunately, a lot of tapering occurs due to policy pressures and a rush to get doses below a specific and sometimes arbitrary threshold. That approach can be detrimental in the long run."

Too rapid tapering can have devastating consequences on patients and their families. Such was the case for Bryan Spece, a 54-year old Montana man who committed suicide after his dose of oxycodone was abruptly reduced by 70 percent. The pain clinic that tapered Spece said it was following the CDC guideline.

"He was the last person anyone would have thought to take his own life. He was just not that guy," a family member told PNN. "I know he was in a lot of pain and in a very dark spot."

Women More Likely to Be Tapered

Although men are twice as likely as women to die from an opioid overdose, UC Davis researchers found that tapering rates for women were about 13% higher than men, which they attribute to a possible sex bias.

“When considering dose tapering for patients, clinicians may fear that a recommendation of tapering may prompt angry or even violent responses, particularly from male patients. Such perceptions may be associated with a sex bias among clinicians, manifesting as a greater willingness to initiate tapering among women than men,” researchers said.

Although patients who survive an opioid overdose are at substantial risk of overdosing again, the study found that less than one in four patients (23.4%) with recent overdoses were tapered by their prescribers.

Researchers hope to build on the study further to develop best practices for dose reduction.

"Ultimately, we want to clarify the effects of tapering on patients and how to help them taper to maximize benefits and minimize risks," said lead author Joshua Fenton, MD, a professor of family and community medicine at UC Davis. "We expect this line of research will have important implications for how physicians manage and monitor patients who are undergoing opioid tapering."

The Food and Drug Administration first warned in April that many pain patients were being tapered inappropriately, putting them at risk of serious harm. That was followed a few days later by a pledge from CDC Director Robert Redfield, MD, to evaluate the impact of the agency’s opioid guideline and to “clarify its recommendations.”

Seven months later, not a single word of the CDC guideline has been changed or clarified. Outside of an editorial published in the New England Journal of Medicine, the CDC has made no effort to publicize or widely disseminate warnings to doctors not to taper patients too rapidly.

Not until last month – three and a half years after the CDC guideline was released – did the Department of Health and Human Services publish a 6-page guide for doctors on how to taper patients. The guide encourages prescribers to collaborate with patients and “obtain patient buy-in” before starting a tapering program.

Petition Urges DEA to Reschedule Tramadol

By Pat Anson, PNN Editor

In 2014, the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration reclassified the opioid hydrocodone as a Schedule II controlled substance, citing evidence that the painkiller has a high potential for abuse and addiction. The change made it harder to obtain the drug and led to a sharp decline in hydrocodone prescriptions.

That same year, the opioid tramadol was classified for the first time as a Schedule IV drug – a less restrictive category that means it has low potential for abuse and addiction. Prescriptions for tramadol surged.

Five years later, a consumer watchdog group is saying that was a mistake. Public Citizen has filed a petition with the FDA and DEA asking that tramadol be reclassified as a Schedule II drug, on the same risk level as hydrocodone, oxycodone, morphine and fentanyl. The petition claims there is “overwhelming evidence” that tramadol is a public health risk, particularly for people who rapidly metabolize the drug.

“New evidence has accumulated showing that tramadol is an increasingly overprescribed, addictive, potentially deadly narcotic that should be rescheduled to Schedule II,” the petition states. “Tramadol’s current placement in Schedule IV has generated a false perception of the drug’s safety profile — particularly with respect to its potential for abuse, dependence, and addiction — among both prescribers and patients, which has contributed to the large increase in its prescribing following the DEA’s 2014 rescheduling of hydrocodone.”

Tramadol is considered a “weak” opioid because it does not bind directly to opioid receptors in the brain like hydrocodone and other opioids do. Many patients say tramadol gives them little or no pain relief, but it’s often the only opioid their doctor is willing to prescribe.

Tramadol is the active ingredient in several brand name painkillers such as Ultram, Ultracet, Ryzolt and Rybix. About 32 million prescriptions for tramadol were filled last year in the U.S.

“The failure to designate tramadol as a controlled substance when it was initially approved by the FDA and the subsequent placement of the drug in a less restrictive category has promoted the false belief that the drug must have a much better safety profile than other opioids,” Dr. Michael Carome, director of Public Citizen’s Health Research Group, said in a statement.

“The dangerous misperception of tramadol’s safety has led to reckless overprescribing of the drug during the past several years of the opioid epidemic.”

According to government health surveys, tramadol was misused by about 1.5 million people in 2018 – exceeding the number of people that misused morphine and some other Schedule II opioids.

In 2017, the FDA banned the use of tramadol in children under the age of 12, citing a handful of cases where children died or had serious breathing problems after using the drug.

A recent study by the Mayo Clinic found that patients given tramadol after surgery have a slightly higher risk of prolonged use than those receiving oxycodone or other short acting opioids.

Tramadol was classified as a Schedule 3 drug in the United Kingdom in 2014. It is still an unscheduled drug in Canada, although Health Canada has proposed classifying it as a Schedule I controlled drug.

Tramadol is widely abused in West, Central and North Africa.

CDC Guideline Author Leading New Rx Opioid Study

By Pat Anson, PNN Editor

One of the co-authors of the CDC’s controversial 2016 opioid guideline is leading a new federal study about the effectiveness of opioid medication in treating chronic pain, Pain News Network has learned. 

Dr. Roger Chou is a primary care physician who heads the Pacific Northwest Evidence-based Practice Center at Oregon Health & Science University (OHSU), which was awarded a $500,000 contract to conduct the opioid study by the federal Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ).   

A draft version of the AHRQ report echoes many of the conclusions drawn by the CDC – that there is little evidence to support the use of opioids for chronic pain and that nonopioid pain relievers such as Tylenol are just as effective as Vicodin.

Even when used for short-term acute pain, the draft report found “no differences between opioids versus nonopioid medications in improvement in pain function, mental health status, sleep, or depression.”

The AHRQ has not publicly disclosed the authors of the draft report, and only acknowledged in a statement to PNN that “the OHSU team is comprised of several experts who draw upon diverse experience and expertise in pain management.” Their final report is expected in January 2020.

In addition to his work on the CDC guideline, Chou has authored numerous articles on pain management in peer-reviewed medical journals and has led research efforts for the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force, World Health Organization and the American Pain Society. But Chou’s involvement in the AHRQ study has caused some alarm among patient advocates, who believe he and the agency are biased against prescription opioids.

“The agency is operating under a political agenda that has little to do with medical evidence or truth,” said Richard “Red” Lawhern, PhD, a patient advocate with the Alliance for the Treatment of Intractable Pain. “The report is fatally flawed and must be immediately withdrawn without replacement. AHRQ owes the public and millions of people in pain a public apology for its malfeasance and misdirection.”

PROP Collaboration

Most health researchers keep a low profile and try to avoid controversy, but Chou has publicly collaborated with Physicians for Responsible Opioid Prescribing (PROP), an influential anti-opioid activist group that seeks drastic reductions in the use of opioid medication.

Chou recently co-authored an article with PROP President Dr. Jane Ballantyne and PROP board member Dr. Anna Lembke that encourages doctors to consider tapering “every patient receiving long term opioid therapy.”

Chou and his co-authors thanked PROP Executive Director Dr. Andrew Kolodny and other PROP board members for their help in drafting the article:

“Acknowledgment: The authors thank the Oregon Pain Guidance Working Group (Jane Ballantyne, Roger Chou, Paul Coelho, Ruben Halperin, Andrew Kolodny, Anna Lembke, Jim Shames, Mark Stephens, and David Tauben) for discussions about tapering and for reviewing a draft of this article.”

As PNN has reported, Kolodny, Ballantyne and Lembke have worked as paid consultants to law firms that stand to make billions of dollars from opioid litigation. Their legal work was only recently disclosed in revised conflict of interest statements.

It is not clear if PROP members are involved in the AHRQ study, as they were with the CDC guideline. As a matter of policy, AHRQ does not disclose the names of its consultants and investigators until after reports are completed.

“This policy is aimed at helping the authors maintain their independence by not being subject to lobbying by industry reps or others with conflicts of interest, either financial or intellectual,” AHRQ spokesman Bruce Seeman said in an email.

“AHRQ’s failure to disclose Chou as an author of its draft report is troubling, given his prior work with Ballantyne and Lembke, who have admittedly worked on behalf of PROP in the past.”

— Dr. Chad Kollas

“AHRQ’s failure to disclose Chou as an author of its draft report is troubling, given his prior work with Ballantyne and Lembke, who have admittedly worked on behalf of PROP in the past. PROP heavily influenced the creation and implementation of the 2016 CDC Guideline, which was systematically misapplied over the last three years by lawmakers, health insurers and pharmacies in a way that became harmful to many patients with chronic pain,” said Dr. Chad Kollas, a palliative care specialist in Florida.

“Failing to disclose authorship of the AHRQ report reduces the agency’s transparency in a way that raises alarms for those familiar with the misapplication of the CDC Guideline and seek to prevent recurrent harm to patients suffering from chronic pain.”

Chou did not respond to requests for comment for this story. He recently served on a state task force that recommended a rigid tapering policy that would have forced many Oregon Medicaid patients off opioids and into withdrawal. The policy was scaled back after a backlash from patients and pain management experts, who said the recommendations were not supported by evidence or compassionate.  

“Compassionate sounds good but it’s a loaded term,” was Chou’s response at the time. “I don’t think there’s anything compassionate about leaving people on drugs that could potentially harm them.”

On a recent podcast, Chou said there was little of evidence to support the use of opioid medication.

DR. ROGER CHOU

“The impact of prescription opioids in terms of mortality and substance use disorder and all the other things that come along with it have really been quite staggering.  We have more evidence that the benefits of opioids are really not as large as we’d like them to be. In most studies, they’re actually quite small and often clinically insignificant,” he said.

Chou also claimed in the May 2019 interview that the opioid hydrocodone was “the number one prescribed drug in the United States and has been for many years.” That statement is false. Since 2011, hydrocodone prescriptions have fallen dramatically – as they have for all opioids -- and it is now the fifth most widely prescribed drug in the U.S., ranking behind cholesterol, thyroid and blood pressure medications.

Public Comment Period Ends

On Tuesday, the AHRQ ended a 30-day public comment period on its draft report. Unlike other federal agencies that routinely seek public comments in the Federal Register, the AHRQ only accepted comments on its website. The agency did little to publicize the draft report outside of a mass email to 100,000 subscribers notifying them the report was available for comment. 

One critic who had a chance to see the AHRQ’s review of over 150 opioid studies said it was filled with errors, biases and cherrypicked research – much like the CDC guideline that Chou co-authored.

“In laymen’s terms, AHRQ and CDC have been caught with their fingers on the balance scales, in a deliberate and unconscionable effort to bias public policy against the use of opioid therapies regardless of the medical evidence,” Lawhern said in a written public comment.  “CDC violated its own research standards by failing to explicitly acknowledge that the medical evidence for alternatives to opioids is no stronger than for opioids. Now AHRQ proposes to compound that lack of public transparency by doubling down on a false narrative.”

Although voluntary, the CDC’s dose recommendations have been widely misapplied by insurers, pharmacies, doctors, and federal and state regulators – who have adopted the guideline as policy or even law — and used it as an excuse to abruptly cutoff or taper patients on opioids.

“We are concerned that the AHRQ review may have similar unintended consequences,” the American Medical Association said in a letter to the agency. The letter points out that most opioid overdose deaths are caused by illicit fentanyl and other street drugs, not prescription opioids.

“We would suggest that AHRQ publish the list of all those involved in any aspect of the report... to help remove any perception of potential conflict.”

— Dr. James Madara, AMA

“The AMA urges the AHRQ to clarify that the review does not support a conclusion that the epidemic of opioid-related overdose deaths is due to efforts to treat patients with chronic pain or cancer pain, or to manage pain for patients receiving hospice or palliative care,” said Dr. James Madara, the AMA’s Executive Director and CEO. “The AMA further urges the AHRQ to clarify that this review should not be used to justify or support reductions in opioid therapy for patients with acute, chronic, palliative, cancer-related or other pain when clinically indicated by the patient’s physician.”

The AMA’s letter also urged the AHRQ to publicly identity everyone the agency consulted with before its final report is released.

“We would suggest that AHRQ publish the list of all those involved in any aspect of the report during the comment period to help remove any perception of potential conflict,” Madara wrote.

PROP President Discloses Conflicts of Interest

By Pat Anson, PNN Editor

The president of Physicians for Responsible Opioid Prescribing (PROP) – an influential anti-opioid activist group – has worked as a paid consultant for the national law firm of Motley Rice, which stands to make billions of dollars in contingency fees from opioid litigation.

Dr. Jane Ballantyne disclosed her work with Motley Rice in a revised disclosure statement recently made public by the Annals of Internal Medicine, a prominent medical journal. Ballantyne co-authored an op/ed in the journal in September that called for “every patient receiving long-term opioid therapy” to be assessed by doctors for tapering off the drugs.

In her original conflicts of interest statement, Ballantyne did not disclose her work for Motley Rice, her affiliation with PROP or any other conflicts. 

“In a recent Ideas and Opinions commentary, Dr. Ballantyne did not disclose that she has received personal fees for the multidistrict opioid litigation because her consultancy in the litigation was under a confidentiality agreement. Dr. Ballantyne has now updated her disclosure because her role in the multidistrict litigation has since become public knowledge,” the medical journal said in a statement.

Ballantyne did not disclose the amount of compensation she received from Motley Rice.

Dr. Anna Lembke, a Stanford psychiatrist who co-authored the Annals article, said in her initial disclosure statement that she was also a paid expert witness in opioid litigation, but did not reveal what law firm she works for. In a new statement, Lembke discloses that she is a PROP board member.

“In the spirit of full transparency, Drs. Ballantyne and Lembke have decided to disclose their involvement in Physicians for Responsible Opioid Prescribing (PROP) as well. PROP is a 501c3 charitable organization. Their roles are volunteer positions without financial remuneration,” the journal said.

The claim that PROP is a 501c3 non-profit organization is puzzling because PROP is not a registered charity with the Internal Revenue Service. Instead it uses the Steve Rummler Hope Network as its "fiscal sponsor" -- an IRS designation that allows PROP to piggyback onto another organization’s 501c3 status. Because it is not a charity, PROP has never filed a federal or state tax return and is not required to disclose anything about its revenue, donations or spending.

Ballantyne and Lembke are not the first PROP members to revise their financial disclosure statements or to work as paid consultants in opioid litigation. PROP founder and Executive Director Dr. Andrew Kolodny recently revised his conflict of interest statements for the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) to include his work in opioid malpractice lawsuits.  

DR. JANE BALLANTYNE

Ballantyne, a retired anesthesiologist and professor at the University of Washington School of Medicine, is a controversial figure in the pain community because of her role in drafting the CDC’s controversial 2016 opioid prescribing guideline. Many blame the guideline for a surge in suicides by patients who were abandoned by their doctors or forcibly taken off opioids.

Although Ballantyne was known to have strong negative opinions about prescription opioids and worked in the past as a paid consultant for Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll  -- another law firm involved in opioid litigation – she was still allowed to serve on the “Core Expert Group” that advised the CDC when it drafted the guideline. Several other PROP members also served as advisors to the CDC, which the agency did not disclose until it was threatened with a lawsuit.

Lucrative Sideline

As PNN has reported, working as a paid consultant or expert witness has become a lucrative sideline for Kolodny and other anti-opioid activists. The lawyers that hire them are eager to have them testify in opioid litigation cases that will likely reward their law firms with billions of dollars in contingency fees.  

Kolodny recently testified as the “star witness” for Oklahoma in its opioid negligence lawsuit against Johnson & Johnson. For that, he was paid $725 an hour by Nix Patterson & Roach, one of three law firms hired by Oklahoma to handle the case against J&J. Kolodny, who stands to make up to $500,000 for his testimony in the Oklahoma case, also acknowledged working as a consultant for Cohen Milstein at a rate of $725 an hour.

Cohen Milstein and Motley Rice are lead counsels in a national opioid litigation case in Cleveland that has consolidated about 2,600 lawsuits filed by states, cities and counties against opioid manufacturers and distributors. According to Legal NewsLine, the law firms could take home 40% of any settlements, which are projected to reach about $50 billion.

“The firm that stands to win the most will likely be Motley Rice, which pioneered the strategy of joining forces with government attorneys to sue the tobacco industry in the 1990s. Motley Rice name partner Joe Rice has never revealed his personal take from the $260 billion tobacco deal but private lawyers in total will receive $14 billion from the multi-year agreement,” Legal Newsline reported.   

Ohio Attorney General Dave Yost has complained that legal fees in the opioid litigation case are too high. The judge has also warned attorneys to fly coach and limit their hotel rooms to $450 a night.

Many of the lawyers involved in the case are major political donors. Motley Rice attorneys gave over $700,000 to political candidates in 2018, while the law firm of Simmons Hanly Conroy donated over $1 million, much of it going to Missouri Sen. Claire McCaskill (D) in her failed bid for reelection.

Coincidentally, McCaskill released a report last year that was sharply critical of physician and patient advocacy groups for accepting money from opioid manufacturers. Three organizations cited in the McCaskill report — the American Academy of Pain Medicine, American Geriatric Society, and the American Pain Society — were named as defendants in opioid lawsuits filed by Simmons Hanly.  

High Number of Youths Using Rx Opioids

By Pat Anson, PNN Editor

A large new analysis of drug use by teenagers and young adults in the U.S. has found a surprisingly high level of prescription opioid use. In a survey of over 56,000 youths, researchers found that 21% of teens and 32% of young adults said they had used opioid medication in the past year.

"The percentages were higher than we expected," said first author Joel Hudgins, MD, of Boston Children's Hospital's Division of Emergency Medicine. "They really highlight how common use of prescription opioids is in this vulnerable population."

The data from the 2015-2016 National Survey on Drug Use and Health doesn’t necessarily reflect the environment that exists today. Opioid prescriptions have fallen by 43% since their peak and last year alone declined by a record 17 percent. Many pain patients — of all ages — now have trouble getting opioids prescribed and filled.

During the study period, nearly 4% of teens and 8% of young adults reported misusing prescription opioids or having an opioid use disorder.

Misuse was defined as using opioids “in any way that a doctor did not direct you to use them,” while a use disorder was classified as recurrent use that causes significant impairment and failure to meet major responsibilities at home, work or school.

Researchers were surprised by some of the findings, which are published in the online journal PLOS One. Among youths who reported misusing prescription opioids, 57% said they obtained them from friends or relatives and only 25% percent came from healthcare providers.

"In previous studies in adults, opioids were more commonly obtained from a physician," Hudgins says. "Our findings show that the focus of prevention and treatment should include close friends and family members of adolescents and young adults, not simply prescribers."

Youths who misused opioids, particularly the young adults, often reported using other substances, including cocaine (36%), hallucinogens (49%), heroin (9%) and inhalants (30%). At least half had used tobacco, alcohol, or cannabis in the past month.

In a previous study, the same researchers found relatively high rates of opioid prescribing to youths visiting emergency rooms and outpatient clinics. About fifteen percent of youths were given opioids during ER visits from 2005 to 2015.

"Given these rates of opioid use and misuse, strong consideration should be given to screening adolescents and young adults for opioid use when they receive care," says Hudgins.

More recent surveys have found a steady decline in the misuse of prescription opioids by young people. The most recent Monitoring the Future Survey found that only 3.4% of high school seniors misused opioid medication in 2018.

Misuse of Vicodin and OxyContin among 12th graders has fallen dramatically over the past 15 years, from 10.5% in 2003 to 1.7% in 2018 for Vicodin, and from 4.5% in 2003 to 2.3% in 2018 for OxyContin.   

Feds Using ‘Cone of Silence’ Again for Rx Opioid Review

By Pat Anson, PNN Editor

Federal health officials are at it once again, releasing a draft report on the risks and benefits of opioid pain medication without seeking substantive input from the public or medical community.

So far they’ve done it with no public hearings, feeble attempts at soliciting public comment, and without disclosing the identities of the experts they consulted with.

If that reminds you of the CDC’s botched rollout of its opioid guideline in a comically secretive webinar that one critic compared to Get Smart’s “Cone of Silence” – you’re not alone.

Or as agent Maxwell Smart said to his boss, “You know this thing doesn't work, why do you always insist on using it?”

This time it’s not the CDC, but a little-known research agency in the Department of Health and Human Services called the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ).

Last month, AHRQ quietly released a 287-page draft report on the effectiveness of opioid medication in treating chronic pain.

Like the CDC, the AHRQ concluded that evidence on the long-term effectiveness of opioids is limited, but there was enough evidence to warn of “increased risk of serious harms” at high doses.  Even when used short-term for acute pain, the report found “no differences between opioids versus nonopioid medications in improvement in pain function, mental health status, sleep, or depression.” In other words, Tylenol is just as effective as Vicodin.

Who is the author of the AHRQ report? What experts were involved in drafting it? Who are the peer reviewers? We don’t know because the AHRQ won’t identify any of the participants until the final report is released.

According to the draft report, “Key Informants” and “Technical Experts” that consulted with AHRQ were required to disclose financial or professional conflicts of interest. But even if they had conflicts, they were not automatically disqualified by AHRQ because “individuals with potential conflicts may be retained” due to their “unique clinical or content expertise.”

‘Identifying Authors Not Essential’

An AHRQ spokesman told PNN that the agency does not identify the researchers and experts it consults with until after a final report is released.

“This policy is aimed at helping the authors maintain their independence by not being subject to lobbying by industry reps or others with conflicts of interest, either financial or intellectual,” Bruce Seeman said in an email. “AHRQ maintains that identifying the authors is not essential to the primary goal of receiving comments on the science of the reports.”

But critics of the policy say the refusal to identify participants only raises doubts and suspicion. It is also eerily similar to what the CDC did in 2015, when it released a draft of its controversial opioid guideline without identifying the “core expert group” it consulted with.

It turned out few of the CDC’s experts had any experience in clinical pain management and several had conflicts, such as being affiliated with Physicians for Responsible Opioid Prescribing (PROP), an anti-opioid activist group. Faced with allegations that it violated federal open meeting laws, the CDC created a new expert panel and delayed releasing the final guideline for several months.

“I would hope that they, the AHRQ, would be able to provide far more notice and transparency as it relates to both substance and process than what was provided by the CDC and its secret Core Expert Group in the development of their ‘Guideline’ for Prescribing Opioids,” said Stephen Ziegler, PhD, a Professor Emeritus at Purdue University. “Governments rarely evaluate their own policies to see if they work or cause unintended harms. That needs to change.”  

“This failure to identify authorship in the draft essentially disqualifies the document. Without knowing who wrote and reviewed this document, we cannot identify their biases or predispositions,” said Richard “Red” Lawhern, PhD, a patient advocate with the Alliance for the Treatment of Intractable Pain (ATIP).

“If anyone among these groups was also among the writers group that supported CDC in 2015-2016, then we have reason for concern that the AHRQ comparative review will be equally biased and unsupported by real research. It should be noted that no less an authority than the American Medical Association has publicly repudiated many of the assumptions and all of the core methodology incorporated into the Guidelines.” 

Lawhern emailed a “flash alert” to ATIP members this morning, urging them to comment on the AHRQ draft report while there is still time. Unlike other federal agencies that routinely seek public comments in the Federal Register, where they would get broader exposure, the AHRQ is seeking comments on its own website. Comments will be accepted until Tuesday, November 12 at noon EDT. 

“We need large numbers of knowledgeable medical professionals, patients and caregivers to file protest at the public gateway,” said Lawhern, who learned of the AHRQ report after being tipped off by a patient. 

The AHRQ sent out no press releases notifying the news media that it was soliciting comments on the draft report. In an online search, this reporter could find no news coverage of the report itself.  

“AHRQ doesn’t issue press releases, publish newsletter articles or pursue other high visibility promotion of draft reports. We normally save those efforts for final products,” said Seeman.

The AHRQ spokesman said the agency did send a mass email on October 17th to about 100,000 subscribers notifying them that the opioid report was available for comment. 

Lawhern says there was not enough transparency or public involvement in the draft process.

“This draft report should be withdrawn immediately and re-published on the regulations.gov website after announcement in the Federal Register.  When re-published, the names and qualifications of all ‘key experts’ and peer reviewers should be disclosed,” said Lawhern.

Limited Evidence

In drafting the report, the AHRQ’s experts reviewed over 150 clinical studies and reviews of pain patients prescribed opioids. Few of the studies were long-term, an evidence gap that exists not only for opioids but for all medications used to treat pain. Long-term studies are lacking because it would be unethical for researchers to knowingly treat someone’s severe pain with a placebo — which would essentially amount to torture.

The old saying that “absence of evidence is not evidence of absence” would seem to apply to the effectiveness of opioid medication, but not in the AHRQ’s draft report. “Limited evidence” is repeatedly cited as a reason not to use opioids, while similar low-quality evidence is cited as proof that opioids are risky. 

“Limited evidence indicated no differences between long- and short-acting opioids in effectiveness, but long-acting opioids were associated with increased risk of overdose,” the report concludes.

“For patients with chronic pain, opioids are associated with small beneficial effects versus placebo but are associated with increased risk of short-term harms and do not appear to be superior to nonopioid therapy. Evidence on intermediate-term and long-term benefits remains very limited and additional evidence confirms an association between opioids and increased risk of serious harms that appears to be dose-dependent.”

Lawhern says the AHRQ is cherry picking the evidence. 

“The draft top level summary reveals a deliberate and scientifically unsupported bias against opioid analgesic therapy that continues and expands on the cherry picked ‘research’ quoted in the 2016 CDC guidelines on prescription of opioids,” he said.

Lawhern is particularly concerned about references in the draft to the Krebs report, a controversial study that found opioids no more effective than acetaminophen in treating back or knee pain. Critics say the Krebs study was small, poorly designed and failed to prove anything.

“The profoundly flawed and biased Krebs report is among the references quoted in the draft report. This inclusion by itself would be grounds for deep alarm,” Lawhern said.