Few Patients on Long-Term Opioids Engage in Risky Behavior

By Pat Anson, PNN Editor

Only a small percentage of pain patients on long-term opioid therapy ask for higher doses, renew their prescriptions early or divert their medication to another person, according to a new study that challenges many common assumptions about prescription opioids.

For five years, Australian researchers followed over 1,500 patients taking opioid pain medication, with annual interviews asking them about their opioid use and behavior. The study is believed to be the first of its kind to follow patients on opioid therapy for such a long period.   

Most of the patients suffered from chronic back, neck or arthritis pain, and were taking opioids for at least 6 weeks at the start of the study, including about 15% who were taking high doses exceeding 200 MME (morphine milligram equivalent) per day. The CDC opioid guideline recommends that daily doses not exceed 90 MME.  

Researchers found that “problematic opioid use” was infrequent and steadily declined over time, with less than 10% of patients asking for higher doses or for a prescription to be renewed early. Less than 5% of patients tampered with their medications or diverted them to another person.     

“Contrary to the predominant thinking in pain management, the findings of this study suggest considerable fluidity in opioid use over time among many patients with CNCP (chronic non-cancer pain) who use opioids,” wrote lead author Louisa Degenhardt, PhD, Deputy Director of the National Drug and Alcohol Research Centre at University of New South Wales.

By the end of the study, patients were more likely to have stopped taking opioids (20%) than they were to be diagnosed with opioid dependence (8%), suggesting that long-term opioid use does not always lead to dependence or addiction. Even when they were diagnosed as opioid dependent, most patients did not meet the criteria for dependence the following year, suggesting the original diagnosis was faulty.

JAMA Network Open

Researchers noted there was “substantial variation” in how patients answered questions from year to year about their opioid use and behavior. Most who reported risky behavior did so in only one of the annual interviews.  

“This finding challenges a common view that the risk of opioid-related behaviors is static and that risk assessment at the start of opioid treatment can predict which patients will develop opioid use disorder,” researchers concluded in JAMA Network Open. “By contrast, individuals who engage in opioid-related behaviors change over time, which also suggests that opioid behaviors of concern need not persist.”

“This study shows what most clinicians treating CNCP with opioids already know, which is that most individuals do fine with chronic opioid therapy. It is only a few people who develop a problem, and that can’t be easily predicted based on a person's early behaviors associated with opioids prescribed for pain,” said Dr. Lynn Webster, a PNN columnist and past president of the American Academy of Pain Medicine.

“It refutes the argument that patients on chronic opioid therapy inevitably will abuse, become addicted, or never cease using opioids once started.” 

Webster noted that most people in the study were stable and few demonstrated any abuse or harm from opioids, including those on high doses who were less likely to ask for more medication.

“I think the overriding message of this study is that the one-size-fits all approach to using opioids for CNCP is flawed. The idea that everyone should be at a low level doesn't address individual needs,” Webster said.

No Relationship Between Rx Opioids and Injury Deaths

Another new study that challenges conventional thinking about prescription opioids found that high doses are not associated with higher rates of trauma-related death.

Researchers at Case Western Reserve University looked at mortality rates in all 50 states from 2006 to 2017, comparing them to the amount of opioids prescribed during the same period.

The researchers believed they would find a relationship between opioids and higher death rates. Their theory was that people on opioids were more likely to be impaired, which would lead to more car crashes, accidents, drownings, suicides and other types of trauma death.

But in findings reported in the journal Injury, there was no association between the two.

“In every state examined, there was no consistent relationship between the amount of prescription opioids delivered and total injury-related mortality or any subgroups, suggesting that there is not a direct association between prescription opioids and injury-related mortality,” wrote lead author Esther Tseng, MD, a trauma surgeon and professor at CWRU.

It's important to note that Tseng and her colleagues did not look at fatal overdoses caused by prescription opioids. Previous research by the CDC has found that deaths linked to opioid pain medication have been relatively flat for nearly a decade. The vast majority of overdoses involve illicit fentanyl and other street drugs.    

UK Guidelines Recommend Exercise and Antidepressants for Chronic Pain

By Pat Anson, PNN Editor

Doctors in the United Kingdom are being advised not to prescribe any type of painkiller to patients suffering from fibromyalgia, chronic headache, Complex Regional Pain Syndrome (CRPS), chronic musculoskeletal pain and other types of “primary chronic pain” for which there is no known cause.   

Those conditions should be treated with exercise, cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT), acupuncture and antidepressants, according to new guidelines released by the UK’s National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE). The NICE guideline is far more strict on the use of analgesics than current treatment guidelines in the U.S. and Canada.

The recommendation against using painkillers goes beyond just opioids, and includes many widely used pain relievers such as paracetamol (acetaminophen), non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), gabapentinoids and corticosteroids, as well as benzodiazepines such as Valium and Xanax.

“There is little or no evidence that they make any difference to people’s quality of life, pain or psychological distress, but they can cause harm, including possible addiction,” NICE said in a statement.

The guideline says antidepressants such as duloxetine (Cymbalta) and fluoxetine (Prozac) “can be considered” for adults 18 and over with chronic primary pain, even when there is no diagnosis of depression. NICE said antidepressants may help with quality of life, pain, sleep and psychological distress.

“This guideline is very clear in highlighting that, based on the evidence, for most people it’s unlikely that any drug treatments for chronic primary pain, other than antidepressants, provide an adequate balance between any benefits they might provide and the risks associated with them,” Dr. Paul Chrisp, director of NICE’s Centre for Guidelines, said in a statement.

“People who are taking medicines to treat their chronic primary pain which aren’t recommended in the guideline should ask their doctor to review their prescribing as part of shared decision making. This could involve agreeing a plan to carry on taking their medicines if they provide benefit at a safe dose and few harms, or support for them to reduce and stop the medicine if possible.”

The NICE guideline sticks to more traditional recommendations for treating “chronic secondary pain” for which there is a known underlying cause, such as osteoarthritis, rheumatoid arthritis, ulcerative colitis and endometriosis. Pain management for palliative care is not covered in the guideline.

‘Patently Ridiculous’

Although a draft version of the NICE guideline was released last August, pain sufferers were startled by some of the final recommendations, especially those for acupuncture, CBT and exercise.

“The idea that a run around the block will zap the torment of people in chronic pain is patently ridiculous. It doesn’t do a damned thing for my hip,” said James Moore, a UK disability activist who uses a wheelchair. “Did none of the people who contributed to this not read it through this guidance and spot any of the gaping holes in its logic? How is it that I can see them and they can’t?”

“I fear the consequences for those with unsympathetic GPs who suddenly find themselves without medication that may work for them,” Moore wrote in the Independent. “This guidance urgently needs a rethink. Sadly, there may be torture looming for those in torment before we get one.”

The NICE guideline is at odds with recent studies that found antidepressants are minimally effective as pain relievers and often have adverse side effects. A common complaint of pain patients who take duloxetine, for example, is how quickly they became dependent on the drug and have severe withdrawal symptoms when they stop taking it.

The UK guideline also differs from treatment recommendations made by U.S. health agencies. The FDA and CDC recommend gabapentinoids for fibromyalgia, and acetaminophen and NSAIDs for low back pain and migraine.   

The CDC is currently in the process of updating and possibly expanding its opioid guideline to include recommendations for opioid tapering, short-term acute pain, migraine and other pain conditions. 

Study Finds Little Evidence to Support Use of Acetaminophen

By Pat Anson, PNN Editor

Acetaminophen is the most widely used over-the-counter pain reliever in the world — the active ingredient in Tylenol, Excedrin, and hundreds of pain medications. The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention considers acetaminophen a “first-line” treatment for low back pain, osteoarthritis and migraine.

But a comprehensive review published in the Medical Journal of Australia found little or no evidence to support the use acetaminophen for most pain conditions. Researchers at the University of Sydney analyzed 36 studies involving over 19,000 people and concluded that the pain-relieving benefits of acetaminophen – known as paracetamol outside the U.S. -- are modest, at best.

“For most conditions, evidence regarding the effectiveness of paracetamol is insufficient for drawing firm conclusions. Evidence for its efficacy in four conditions was moderate to strong, and there is strong evidence that paracetamol is not effective for reducing acute low back pain,” wrote senior author Christopher Maher, PhD, a professor at the Sydney School of Public Health.

Maher and his colleagues looked at 44 pain conditions often treated with paracetamol, and could find only four for which there is high-quality evidence:

• Knee and hip osteoarthritis

• Tension headache

• Perineal pain after childbirth

• Craniotomy

Evidence for the other 40 pain conditions was low quality or inconclusive, including:

• Acute and chronic low back pain

• Major surgery

• Dental surgery

• Migraine

• Rheumatoid arthritis

• Hip fracture

• Cancer pain

• Neuropathic pain

“While paracetamol is widely used, its efficacy in relieving pain has been established for only a handful of conditions, and its benefits are often modest. Although some trials have evaluated regimens that may have underestimated its utility, the clinical application of paracetamol is primarily guided by low quality evidence, at best,” researchers said.  

A 2015 study in the British Medical Journal also found that paracetamol was ineffective for low back pain and provided little benefit to people with osteoarthritis.

In recent years, some U.S. hospitals have started using paracetamol as an alternative to opioids for post-operative pain, a practice not supported by the Australian study.

One limitation of the University of Sydney review is that most of the studies that were evaluated only used a single dose of paracetamol, which does not reflect its typical use.  Perhaps for that reason, researchers found that adverse events were similar for patients receiving paracetamol or a placebo.

Over 50 million Americans use paracetamol (acetaminophen) each week to treat pain and fever. Long-term use has long been associated with liver, kidney, heart and blood pressure problems. Acetaminophen overdoses are involved in about 500 deaths and over 50,000 emergency room visits in the U.S. annually.

CDC Won’t Say Who Is Writing Update of Opioid Guideline

By Pat Anson, PNN Editor

When the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention released the draft version of its opioid prescribing guideline in September 2015, the agency was roundly criticized for its secrecy and lack of transparency.

There were no public hearings. The CDC initially refused to identify who wrote the guideline or who its advisors were. And the public was given just 48 hours to comment on the guideline after a botched online webinar that presented only a summary of the recommendations.     

After a congressional investigation and threats of a lawsuit for “blatant violations” of federal laws, the CDC changed course and opened up the guideline to public scrutiny and a 30-day comment period. After a few minor changes, the guideline was released in March 2016.

Five years later, after a tsunami of complaints that the guideline’s recommended dosage limits have been harmful to patients and failed to reduce opioid addiction and overdoses, the CDC is now in the process of rewriting the guideline.

There’s more transparency this time around. The public was given an early invitation to comment and nearly 5,400 people wrote to the CDC about their concerns.  The agency also released the names of the “Opioid Workgroup,” a diverse group of physicians, academics and patients that is advising the agency as it updates the guideline.     

But one thing hasn’t changed: the CDC won’t identify who is writing the guideline update.

“Primarily CDC scientists are involved in drafting the update,” Courtney Lenard, a CDC spokesperson, explained in an email to PNN. “Many CDC staff are working on the process of updating the 2016 Guideline, including reviewing the scientific evidence; analyzing patient, caregiver, and provider input gathered during the public comment period and conversations held earlier in 2020; and drafting its content.”

The updated guideline will be only reviewed by the Opioid Workgroup, which has been given no direct role in writing it or in making revisions. The workgroup is expected to give its recommendations to the Board of Scientific Counselors at the CDC’s National Center for Injury Prevention and Control sometime this summer.

“At that time the authors of the draft Guideline will also be announced,” said Lenard, adding that the public likely won’t see the draft until late 2021, when it is published in the Federal Register.

Potential Conflicts of Interest

Only after another round of public comments will the revised guideline finally be released in 2022 – a full six years after the initial guideline. Some patient advocates worry about a lack of urgency at CDC and that too much is occurring behind closed doors.  

“I remain concerned about an ongoing lack of transparency in the development of an update to the CDC Pain Guidelines,” said Dr. Chad Kollas, a palliative care specialist in Florida. “There will be no disclosure about the authorship of the revised guidelines until their release, which effectively eliminates the opportunity to challenge any of their authors’ potential conflicts of interest proactively.”

“The CDC has put together a writing team without addressing transparency or conflicts of interest to our satisfaction,” says Terri Lewis, PhD, a patient advocate and researcher. “This is unacceptable and nonresponsive to the concerns that have been so clearly expressed by both the patient community and the medical communities since 2016.”  

The CDC’s evasive response about who is writing the update raises the possibility that the three authors of the original 2016 guideline are working on the revision: Deborah Dowell, MD; Tamara Haegerich, PhD; and Roger Chou, MD.

In 2019, the trio penned an awkward defense of the guideline in The New England Journal of Medicine, in which they admitted the “misapplication” of guideline was causing harm to patients, but deflected taking any responsibility for it.

Chou’s involvement in the updated guideline would be particularly alarming to critics, because of his advocacy for opioid tapering and collaboration with Physicians for Responsible Opioid Prescribing (PROP), an anti-opioid activist group.

“I'd give long odds that Roger Chou is a member of the current CDC writers group,” says Richard Lawhern, PhD, a prominent advocate in the pain community. “Talk about giving the fox the keys to the hen house!” 

In addition to his work on the 2016 guideline, Chou has authored numerous articles on pain management in peer-reviewed medical journals, many of them critical of opioid prescribing.

Chou is listed as an “external reviewer” on a PROP guide promoting “Cautious, Evidence-Based Opioid Prescribing” that at one time was posted — unedited — on the CDC’s website.

In 2019, Chou 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.”

And in 2011, Chou co-authored another op/ed with PROP founder Dr. Andrew Kolodny and PROP vice-president Dr. Michael Von Korff, calling for a major overhaul of opioid guidelines, which were then primarily written by pain management specialists.

“Guidelines for long-term opioid therapy should not be developed by the field of pain medicine alone. Rather, experts from general medicine, addiction medicine, and pain medicine should jointly reconsider how to increase the margin of safety,” Chou and his co-authors wrote, a call to action that came to pass five years later at CDC with a guideline that he helped write.

“I do not believe the CDC should be writing opioid guidelines,” says Dr. Lynn Webster, a PNN columnist and past president of the American Academy of Pain Medicine.  

“The authors of the CDC guideline should not have been tasked with creating the guideline for a few reasons. First, this was outside their areas of expertise. Second, they failed to understand how misguided arbitrary limits of morphine milligram equivalents were in recommending dosing to people in pain. Third, they lacked compassion for people in pain and an understanding that, for some patients, opioids were the only effective, available treatment.”  

Should Chou Be Recused? 

Chou is a primary care physician who heads research at the Pacific Northwest Evidence-based Practice Center at Oregon Health & Science University. He was the lead investigator for a recent report by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) that found opioids have only “small beneficial effects” when prescribed for chronic pain and “do not appear to be superior to nonopioid therapy.”

Chou’s report, along with four other AHRQ reviews of pain therapies, were commissioned by the CDC. The reports are being used as key resources by the agency as it updates and possibly expands the opioid guideline to include recommendations for opioid tapering, short-term acute pain, migraine and other pain conditions. 

Some advocates believe Chou is so biased against opioids he should be recused from any further work on the guideline.

“I agree with that. He’s clearly published things and said things. He is not objective on dealing with people who need high dose opioids. It’s just as simple as that. He’s going to oppose anything that allows people to take opioid drugs,” says Forest Tennant, a PNN columnist and intractable pain expert. “They never put people on there who are for opioids. It’s always against.”

“Absolutely he should (be recused). Dr Chou is in the position of being given an opportunity to defend his earlier misdirected, unscientific, and ethically unsound work by influencing the revised guidelines to confirm his earlier positions. This is a ‘professional’ self-interest at least equally as meaningful of any financial relationship,” said Lawhern. 

“The harm the 2016 guideline caused should be sufficient reason to find a new group of individuals to work on the updated recommendations. Having the same authors work on the same guidelines makes it almost inevitable that the same mistakes will be made,” says Webster.

“To paraphrase Albert Einstein, it is insanity to do the same thing again and expect different results. If you want better results, you have to do something differently. I can see that the updated guideline will lack consideration for patients as individuals, just as the 2016 guideline did.”

For much of the past year, the CDC has been preoccupied dealing with fallout from the COVID-19 pandemic. The agency’s once-sterling reputation has been damaged by political interference and shifting recommendations on how to control the virus. The agency’s focus in 2021 is likely to remain on COVID-19.

Pain sufferers and their advocates worry that revising the opioid guideline will not be a top priority at CDC, and that many of the same mistakes made five years ago are being repeated.    

“There is no indication that CDC is treating this with the respect it deserves or with the scientific rigor it demands in spite of mounting evidence that the management of prescription opioids in the USA is 'going off the rails' and that very real systemic and structural harms are accruing to patients and the health care delivery system in general,” says Terri Lewis. 

“I think it fair to say that we all fear that, based on what we are aware of at the moment, this next round of 'revision' will simply amount to an 'expansion' into territory for which there is almost no verifiable evidence and very weak support in the existing literature.”

The Unintended Consequences of the CDC Opioid Guideline

By Dr. Lynn Webster, PNN Columnist

Jack Schwartz (a pseudonym) is a child of Holocaust survivors. As a small boy, he was traumatized by observing his older brother become addicted to heroin. He also developed a substance use disorder of his own that he believes was due, in part, to childhood PTSD.

A 64-year-old psychotherapist, Schwartz has been in chronic pain since a 1996 car accident injured his neck. Although he has a history of substance use disorder, he has used opioids to manage his pain for the past several years.

His personal physician, who retired at the end of 2020, wrote a letter stating Schwartz has been prescribed Norco (a combination of acetaminophen and hydrocodone), has been compliant, and has shown no signs of abuse for the previous four years. The retiring doctor hoped Schwartz would be able to find someone to continue prescribing his Norco.

Schwartz has not yet found a new physician. In the meantime, his insurance company notified him that they would not pay for his medication, citing the CDC’s opioid prescribing guideline and their own opioid policy, which states that "narcotics are not the treatment of choice for chronic nonmalignant pain."

Schwartz contacted me after reading a PNN column I wrote, "Ironic Partners: Suicide Prevention and Pain Awareness Month." He said he was suicidal and asked me for advice. We agreed that sharing his story might help others in similar positions.

Who Should Write Clinical Guidelines?

Regrettably, Schwartz’s situation is not uncommon. Many insurers and regulators have adopted rigid policies that cite the CDC’s voluntary guideline as if it was the standard of care. The CDC has admitted its guideline is being misapplied and is working on an update, but so far the agency has done little to correct the problem.

In fact, the CDC has gone even further than the guideline, producing a fact sheet for physicians, “Nonopioid Treatments for Chronic Pain,” in which it recommends alternative medications for common chronic pain conditions including migraine, low back pain, osteoarthritis, fibromyalgia, and neuropathic pain.

Why is the CDC making medical treatment recommendations?

Cardiologists and heart surgeons should develop recommendations for managing heart disease. Endocrinologists should offer recommendations for managing diabetes. Infectious disease specialists should make recommendations for managing infections. Addiction specialists should provide recommendations for treating addiction. And it is pain specialists who should develop treatment guidelines for treating pain.

The way it should work is this: Professional organizations representing medical specialties develop treatment guidelines. Whenever possible, input should be solicited from patient stakeholders. The role of government organizations such as the National Institutes of Health, FDA, CDC, and DEA should be to provide data and resources to these groups, so they can initiate and revise treatment guidelines as the science evolves.

Specialists should lead the way to ensure patient care is clinically driven and patient-centered. Non-clinicians, such as government officials — even if they have medical degrees— should not be making treatment decisions or creating guidelines for specialists and their patients.

Walking Back the CDC Guideline

In my view, it was a mistake for the CDC to release the guideline in 2016. Before it was published, I predicted people in pain would suffer and that the guideline would not reduce the number of opioid-related overdose deaths. Unfortunately, I was correct.

Many providers, patients and their loved ones have urged the CDC to revise or withdraw the guideline. The American Medical Association has urged the CDC to make "significant revisions."  

The three co-authors of the guideline, Deborah Dowell, MD, Tamara Haegerich, PhD, and Roger Chou, MD, even wrote a commentary for The New England Journal of Medicine in 2019 acknowledging that their recommendations were being misapplied and were “likely to result in harm to patients.”

The admission that the CDC guideline was harmful was long overdue. Now the question of how the recommendations should be changed must be addressed. Hopefully, the CDC will consider input from people who have been harmed the most by the guideline and will revise their recommendations accordingly.

Jack Schwartz continues to struggle with intractable pain and suicidal feelings. He, and millions of people like him, need for your opinion and your provider’s perspective, to be heard. Maybe then more rational decisions will be made regarding the use of opioids for the treatment of pain.

Lynn R. Webster, MD, is a vice president of scientific affairs for PRA Health Sciences and consults with the pharmaceutical industry. Lynn is author of the award-winning book The Painful Truth, and co-producer of the documentary It Hurts Until You Die. Opinions expressed here are those of the author alone and do not reflect the views or policy of PRA Health Sciences. You can find him on Twitter: @LynnRWebsterMD.

Kolodny: Critics of CDC Opioid Guideline ‘Twisting the Facts’

By Pat Anson, PNN Editor

The founder of the anti-opioid activist group Physicians for Responsible Opioid Prescribing (PROP) says his organization played only a minor role in drafting the CDC opioid guideline and claims much of the controversy over the guideline was stirred up by pain organizations funded by the pharmaceutical industry.

“Not every group that has harmful advocacy is funded by industry, but the vast majority are. The ones that are not funded by industry work arm-in-arm with industry funded groups,” said Dr. Andrew Kolodny. “They have an agenda. A lot of individuals, journalists, organizations that have weighed in on the opioid crisis have an agenda. And they will try and twist the facts to fit their agenda.”

Kolodny spoke for over an hour Tuesday during a webinar hosted by PharmedOut, a program at Georgetown University that seeks to expose deceptive marketing in healthcare. The webinar was billed as an effort to refute “False Narratives & Manufactured Controversies about the Opioid Crisis,” but it turned into a rambling dialogue by Kolodny that gaslighted pain sufferers, doctors, patient advocates and anyone else critical of the CDC guideline.

“Much of the controversy or the critique of the guideline, almost all of it, was focused on the secretive way in which the guideline had been drafted, not on the actual recommendations. They seemed to stay clear from attacking recommendations, almost all of which were pretty benign,” said Kolodny.

Although voluntary and only intended for primary care physicians, the CDC guideline has become the “standard of care” in the United States for treating pain, with millions of patients taken off opioids or reduced to lower doses in the name of preventing addiction and overdoses.

Many patients say their pain and quality of life are now significantly worse, they have a hard time finding doctors, and some have turned to alcohol and illegal drugs for pain relief. The opioid crisis also continues to grow worse, with a record number of fatal overdoses last year – most of them caused by illicit fentanyl and other street drugs, not prescription opioids.

Even the CDC has recognized that its 2016 guideline has caused “unintended harms,” and the agency is now in the process of updating and possibly expanding its recommendations.

Kolodny brushed aside many of those concerns and instead focused on deflecting attention away from PROP –- at various times blaming Purdue Pharma, the Koch brothers and the Washington Legal Foundation for “manufacturing a controversy around the CDC recommendations.”

“To try and make the guideline controversial, the messaging came out that the guideline has been secretly written by PROP. We started to see mentions in social media and publications describing PROP as a fringe group or as anti-opioid zealots. So the messaging was that the CDC relied on this fringe, anti-opioid zealot group to secretly write the guideline,” Kolodny said. 

As PNN has reported, the CDC guideline was in fact drafted in secret, with no public hearings and little input from patients or pain management experts. Only when threatened with a lawsuit by the Washington Legal Foundation and a congressional investigation did the CDC open up the guideline process to public scrutiny and disclose the identities of its advisors and consultants.

At least five PROP board members were involved in drafting the guideline, although Kolodny claimed there were only three in Tuesday’s webinar.  PROP President Jane Ballantyne and Vice-President Gary Franklin were members of a key advisory panel; David Tauben was on the guideline’s peer review panel; and Kolodny and David Juurlink were on a stakeholder review group.

While technically true that PROP did not write the guideline, PROP had input and key relationships within the CDC. Dr. Roger Chou, one of the guideline authors, has collaborated with PROP members on several occasions, such as writing an op/ed with Ballantyne that encouraged doctors to consider tapering “every patient receiving long term opioid therapy.”

Koldony is also a longtime associate and friend of then CDC Director Thomas Frieden, and has co-authored op/eds with Frieden, including one that recommended taking all high-dose opioid medications off the market.

We may never know the true extent of these relationships, because CDC has refused to disclose key material about its guideline deliberations. The agency’s response to a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request from PNN was to send us nearly 1,500 pages of documents that were heavily redacted or scrubbed of information. Over 1,200 pages were completely blank.

The agency cited “deliberative process privilege” and “personal privacy” as reasons to withhold the information.

Friendly Questions

Kolodny took only a handful of friendly, softball questions during the webinar, most of them from students at Georgetown University who are interning at PharmedOut. Several pain patients also submitted more critical questions, but they were not passed on to Kolodny.

Although opioid prescriptions in the U.S. have been declining since their peak in 2011, Kolodny says they need to go down further, even though nearly 85% of overdose deaths in the U.S. involve illicit fentanyl and other street drugs.

“We continue to massively overprescribe,” he said. “Opioids are not good treatments for chronic pain. It’s not true that more cautious prescribing somehow jeopardizes compassionate care for chronic pain. Compassionate care for chronic pain really demands more cautious prescribing.”

Kolodny is quick to blame “industry funded groups” for opposition to the CDC guideline, but PROP has remained secretive about its own funding. PROP uses a loophole in IRS regulations that allows it to hide behind front organizations such as the Steve Rummler Hope Network as its “fiscal sponsor.” Because it is not registered as a nonprofit — although it sometimes claims to be one — PROP has never filed a federal or state tax return and is not required to disclose anything about its funding or spending.

Kolodny currently works in opioid research at Brandeis University, but has a lucrative sideline testifying as an expert witness in opioid litigation and malpractice lawsuits. He was paid $725 an hour for his testimony during Oklahoma’s lawsuit against Johnson & Johnson, and may have collected as much as $500,000 for that case alone.

Dr. Adriane Fugh-Berman, who is a PROP board member and Director of PharmedOut, is also a paid expert witness and earned $500 an hour for her testimony in another trial involving Johnson & Johnson. She reportedly received about $120,000 for her work in that case. Like PROP, PharmedOut does not disclose its funding or donors.

DEA: Drug Cartels Targeting Pain Patients as Potential Customers

By Pat Anson, PNN Editor

The Drug Enforcement Administration’s “National Drug Threat Assessment” is an interesting annual report that gives insight into drug trafficking and drug abuse trends in the United States that you don’t often see in the mainstream media..

The DEA’s 2020 report, released this month, is no exception. One hundred pages long, it covers a broad range of “unclassified” information about drug cartels, counterfeit medication and emerging trends in drug abuse.

“Although we have made progress in driving down the abuse of controlled prescription opioids, the United States continues to face challenges from both new and persistent threats,” said acting DEA Administrator Christopher Evans.

According to the DEA report, the diversion and abuse of opioid painkillers and other controlled prescription drugs (CPDs) are at their “lowest levels in nine years.”

While opioid pain relievers remain the most commonly abused type of prescription drug, most people don’t take them to get high.

The DEA said nearly two-thirds (64%) of drug users “identified relieving pain as the main purpose” for their misuse of painkillers – a staggering statistic that may say more about the poor state of pain care in the U.S. than anything else.

Ironically, the second most widely abused opioid medication was buprenorphine, which is combined with naloxone in addiction treatment drugs such as Suboxone and Zubsolv. The National Forensic Laboratory (NFLIS) reports that buprenorphine is abused far more often than methadone or hydrocodone, and appears poised to soon replace oxycodone as the most commonly abused prescription opioid. 

“Drug data reveals that buprenorphine reports from all participating federal, state, and local laboratories increased each year except a minor drop from 2018 to 2019. (NFLIS) reported a 50 to 67 percent decrease of hydrocodone, methadone, and oxycodone reports from 2014 to 2019, so the 27 percent increase of buprenorphine during that time frame was significant,” DEA said.     

Fentanyl Laced Counterfeit Pills

Not surprisingly, the DEA said illicit fentanyl was “primarily responsible for fueling the ongoing opioid crisis,” with Mexican drug cartels controlling most of the supply for the potent synthetic opioid. With hydrocodone, oxycodone and other legal opioid medications in short supply — and a lot of people with poorly treated pain — the DEA believes drug cartels are actively targeting pain sufferers as potential customers for counterfeit medication.

“The spread of fentanyl-laced counterfeit pills in the United States is likely due to Mexican TCOs (Transnational Criminal Organizations) seeking to further distribute fentanyl into prescription opioid user populations,” the DEA said. “The increasing number of counterfeit pills resembling prescription medications and users who may be pivoting to abusing illicit substances with waning CPD availability may prove to be a significant threat into 2021.”  

The counterfeit pill of choice for the drug cartels are fake 30mg oxycodone tablets, stamped with an “M” on one side and “30” on the other.

Known on the street as “Mexican Oxy” or “M30s,” the DEA says the blue tablets “demonstrate that traffickers are taking advantage of an established market for these pills.”

Illicit fentanyl tablets appear to be getting more lethal, with laboratory tests showing 26 percent of them containing a potentially fatal dose of fentanyl in 2019, compared to just 10 percent in 2017.

In one chilling paragraph, the DEA seemed to acknowledge it was losing the war on drugs to Mexican cartels and local criminal gangs.

“Barring significant, unanticipated changes to the illicit drug market, Mexican TCOs will continue to dominate the wholesale importation and distribution of cocaine, heroin, marijuana, methamphetamine, and fentanyl in U.S. markets. No other criminal organizations currently possess a logistical infrastructure to rival that of Mexican TCOs. Mexican TCOs will continue to grow in the United States through expansion of distribution networks and continued interaction with local criminal groups and gangs,” the agency warned.

Sometimes what is not disclosed in the DEA’s report is just as revealing as what is actually said. For example, while the DEA officially lists kratom as a “drug of concern” and even tried to ban the herbal supplement in 2016, the agency has never said a word about kratom in its annual threat assessment. Not in 2020. Not ever.  

Why is that? Is kratom not addictive or dangerous, despite all the public hand-wringing over the years by the Food and Drug Administration? In a 2018 letter to the DEA recently made public, federal health officials quietly withdrew their request to schedule kratom as a controlled substance because of “lack of evidence” it can be abused or posed a public health threat.

How You Can Change the Public Conversation About Pain

By Richard Lawhern, PhD, PNN Contributor

Because I am highly visible as a healthcare writer and advocate for people in pain, I receive many inquiries from people who have been deserted by their doctors and denied effective treatment.  Many ask me, “What can I do?” 

My answer is that many of our problems with pain treatment began with the guideline on opioid prescribing for chronic non-cancer pain, published in 2016 by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The CDC is currently updating its recommendations, with the goal of releasing a revised guideline for public comment late this year. Without major change or outright repeal of the guideline, nothing will change and much may grow worse.

CDC management knows that they messed up -- they’ve been told so repeatedly over the last five years by both doctors and patients.  But still they dither and delay, and refuse to act on behalf of millions they have harmed.

Congress has added insult to injury with misdirected legislation blaming doctors for the substance abuse of people who never saw a doctor for pain.  And the Drug Enforcement Administration continues to drive doctors out of pain practice by targeting and persecuting those who prescribe opioid medication for people in agony.   

We can no longer depend on the CDC and DEA to do the right thing. They are too concerned with defending their earlier and ongoing misbehavior.  Instead, we’re going to have to change a lot of minds in Congress, the Executive Branch, and at the state level to force change by legislation. Thousands of patients, caregivers and doctors must lobby if change is to happen.  

How Do We Lobby Effectively? 

We don’t have the money to hire lobbyists. Law firms won’t sue without millions of dollars in retainers up front.  Most legislators don’t actually read emails, even from their own constituents, and increasingly they lock out emails from anyone who doesn’t vote in their districts. Petitions don’t work either, even when we have 100,000 signatures behind them.   

So what can we do? We can phone our legislators to demand change, and we can reach out to editors, publishers, radio and TV news anchors to ask that they show the public “the other side” of the opioid crisis.

It may seem that one person acting alone can’t do much.  But thousands of people acting consistently sometimes can.  We need patients, caregivers and medical professionals to contact their legislators and regulators.  Not just once, but every week.  Your congressional representatives in the U.S. House and Senate, as well as state legislators, can all be candidates for a phone call.  

To learn their names, first do a Google search for “legislators” plus your zip code. You might need to explore several “hits” to find the phone numbers for local congressional offices and the offices of your state legislators. Other possible contacts to explore:  

• U.S. National Office of Drug Control Policy 

• Office of the Governor  

• State Health Department

• Executive Director of your State Medical Board 

• State office of the Drug Enforcement Administration 

• State Attorney General 

Two important websites may reduce the burden of multiple Google searches to locate these people. The Chronic Illness Advocacy & Awareness Group (CIAAG) has links to a national directory of legislators and regulators by state; a library of resources and research; “How to” advocacy guides; and templates for calling and meeting with legislators. Similar resources can be found at Pain Warriors Unite, which also has a large archive of related information and advocacy guides.  

What Should We Tell Them?

When you locate the phone numbers of legislators and regulators, the next task is to phone their offices and talk to them or their staff. 

When you call, you might find that the office isn’t answering their phones.  If you can leave a message, then state your name and callback number. Tell them you are a voter in their state or district, and you want to talk with their healthcare policy staffer about how bad policy and restrictions on pain treatment are destroying your life. Hang up politely.

If you reach anyone in real time, it will almost always be a staffer.  As you speak, try to listen for their responses and be respectful.  Here is a possible script.  Practice it aloud before you make your calls, so you are comfortable with what you want to say: 

“Good morning” (or Good afternoon). My name is ___________ and I vote in ______ (State or District number).

“May I ask your name, please?”   [Make a note for later follow-up]

“I’ve been a chronic pain patient for __ years and under doctor’s care for several complex pain issues.  Right now, my life is a wreck because doctors have been terrorized by government authorities. Nearly half of primary care clinics in the U.S. are refusing to accept new patients on opioid pain relievers, even though pain is the number one reason why people see a doctor.  Many practices that still treat pain are rapidly force-tapering patients off opioids, or below effective treatment levels.”

You should include some personal details about what your life is like without adequate pain management. An example might be:

“I literally cannot get out of bed many days, because I am in agony from under-treatment of my pain. I can’t work, do simple chores, or leave the house for basic necessities without help. 

The so-called ‘prescription opioid crisis’ is bogus.  Doctors prescribing opioids for their patients didn’t create our public health crisis with addiction and overdose deaths. Pain patients almost never become addicted. For millions of us, opioids are the only thing that gives us any quality of life.”

End with a call for action. Ask them to do something with the information you give them.

“People like me need your boss to sponsor legislation to fix this mess.  We need him (her) to help stop the widespread persecution of doctors who prescribe medical opioids for people like me.

Restrictions on access to effective pain care are driving thousands of us to buy street drugs for relief or to even consider suicide. If your boss doesn’t act to stop this disaster, then he (she) will become an accessory to it.”

End the call by asking the staffer to add notes from the call to their office phone logs, and to brief the office Chief of Staff or legislator. Ask for a call-back from that individual, confirming that they got the message and are working on your behalf. Be sure to leave a call-back number if they don’t ask for one.

Richard “Red” Lawhern, PhD, has for over 20 years volunteered as a patient advocate in online pain communities and a subject matter expert on public policy for medical opioids. Dr. Lawhern has written or co-authored over 100 papers and articles published in medical journals and mass media.

How Should the CDC Opioid Guideline Be Changed?

By Pat Anson, PNN Editor

It was five years ago today – March 15, 2016 – that the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention released its controversial opioid guideline, which discourages doctors from prescribing opioids for chronic pain.   

“This guideline is intended to improve communication between clinicians and patients about the risks and benefits of opioid therapy for chronic pain, improve the safety and effectiveness of pain treatment, and reduce the risks associated with long-term opioid therapy, including opioid use disorder, overdose, and death,” the CDC said.

Although voluntary and only intended for primary care physicians, the guideline soon became the “standard of care” in the United States, with many states, doctors, insurers, pharmacies and regulators adopting its recommendations, such as limiting opioid doses to no more than 90 morphine milligram equivalents (MME) per day.

Soon after the guideline was released, the CDC was warned by its own consulting company that “some doctors are following these guidelines as strict law rather than recommendation, and these physicians have completely stopped prescribing opioids.” Over three hundred healthcare professionals also warned that forced opioid tapering was causing “an alarming increase in reports of patient suffering and suicides.”

A PNN survey two years ago found that over 85 percent of patients believed the CDC guideline made their pain and quality of life worse, significantly reduced their access to pain care, and drove some to alcohol and illegal drugs for pain relief.

Not until 2019, however, did then CDC Director Robert Redfield acknowledge the guideline was causing problems and pledged to “clarify its recommendations to help reduce unintended harms.”

Two years later, the CDC is still in the process of revising and possibly expanding the guideline, with the goal of releasing an update for public comment late this year.

Should the guideline be changed? Has it been successful in improving pain treatment? Did it reduce addiction, overdose and death?

We thought this would be a good time to conduct another survey of patients and healthcare providers, to see what changes they’d recommend to the CDC and the “Opioid Workgroup,” a panel of experts that is advising the agency.

Among the questions we’re asking is whether the recommended dose limit of 90 MME/day should be scrapped; if the guideline should be expanded to include treatment of short-term acute pain; and whether the CDC should give advice on treating specific conditions, such as low back pain or fibromyalgia.

Click here to take the survey. It should only take a few minutes to complete. Your identity and any personal health information will be kept confidential.

VALUE Study Seeks Patient Perspective on Long-Term Opioid Use

By Pat Anson, PNN Editor

In 2011, the Institute of Medicine released its landmark report, “Relieving Pain in America,” an ambitious project aimed at improving pain care, education and research in United States.

One of the report’s co-authors was Stanford University’s Dr. Sean Mackey, who remembers telling colleagues at the time that more research was needed on the long-term use of opioid pain relievers.     

“One of the questions I put forward to the group was, ‘One of the biggest questions that we need to answer is do opioids help relieve chronic pain for some people?’ Do they actually work? And if so, for whom do they work?” Mackey recalls.

“And surprisingly, ten years later, here we are in 2021 and I would submit to you that we still don’t know the answer to that question. We still do not know how well long-term prescribing of opioids work for chronic pain and for which person they work for. We understand much better who they don’t work for. But we don’t know the flip side.”

Mackey is now leading a study aimed at finally answering the question. The VALUE study is designed to give patients a voice in determining whether opioids can be a safe, effective and long-term treatment for chronic pain.

Mackey and co-investigator Beth Darnall, PhD, along with a team of patient advocates, hope to get up to 500 chronic pain sufferers to enroll in their year-long study. Patients will be asked to participate in three online surveys and three phone calls, answering questions about their pain, symptoms, mood, sleep, quality of life, and whether they encountered any problems or stigma from using opioids.

Long-Term Studies Lacking

Many doctors, regulators and opioid critics claim – disingenuously – that there is no evidence supporting the long-term use of opioids. But the truth is the same could be said for all pain relievers, including non-opioids. Few placebo-controlled studies have been conducted on the long-term use of any pain medication -- simply because it would be unethical to subject a participant to untreated pain for a lengthy period.

That leaves it to patients to share their own experiences with opioids, and a shrinking pool of doctors like Mackey who are not afraid to prescribe them.

“In my caring for people who suffer from pain and for whom it takes a big toll, I have clearly seen a subset of people for whom they do work,” Mackey told PNN. “What we’re trying to do here is transcend what has become a one-size-fits-all approach to patient treatment and the issue of opioids. We’ve become rather guideline-based and we treat all people as if they were an average in a clinical trial. I don’t treat averages. I treat people.

“Everybody is unique and deserves to be treated as an individual. That doesn’t mean that we can’t be guided by those research studies and averages, but we need to get at a more personalized approach. We need to recognize, at least in many of our experiences, there are sub-groups of people who respond to opioids. The problem is we don’t have good data on who they are.”

People who volunteer for the VALUE study should be prepared to spend a fair amount of time answering questions. Each survey will take about 45 minutes to complete. Participants will complete the first survey when they enroll, the second one after 6 months, and the third survey after one year. For each completed survey, patients will be compensated with an Amazon or gift card.

All information collected will be confidential, and won’t be shared with doctors, regulators or insurers. Participants can even use a pseudonym if they don’t feel comfortable using their real names. The VALUE study website has a list of other frequently asked questions.

People interested in participating should contact study coordinator Hannah Cunningham by email at hcunning@stanford.edu or by calling 1-833-668-0277.

“We believe our findings will have broad policy indications at local, state and national levels that will hopefully make opioid prescribing guidelines more patient centered, more effective and safer,” says Mackey.

New European Guideline Says Opioids ‘Do Not Work’ for Many Types of Chronic Pain

By Pat Anson, PNN Editor

Calling opioid medication a “two edged sword,” the European Pain Federation (EFIC) has released new guidelines that strongly recommend against using opioids to treat fibromyalgia, low back pain, migraine, irritable bowel syndrome and other types of chronic non-cancer pain.

“The new recommendations advise that opioids should not be prescribed for people with chronic primary pain as they do not work for these patients,” the EFIC said in a statement.

However, the guideline states that low doses of opioids may be suitable for treating “secondary pain syndromes” caused by surgery, trauma, disease or nerve damage, but only after exercise, meditation and other non-pharmacological therapies are tried first.

“Opioids should neither be embraced as a cure‐all nor shunned as universally dangerous and inappropriate for chronic noncancer pain. They should only be used for some selected chronic noncancer pain syndromes if established non‐pharmacological and pharmacological treatment options have failed,” the guideline states. “In this context alone, opioid therapy can be a useful tool in achieving and maintaining an optimal level of pain control in some patients.”

Opioid pain relievers are not as widely used in Europe as they are in the United States or Canada. The EFIC said it was trying to “allay concerns over an opioid crisis” developing in Europe, as it has in North America.       

“As the leading pain science organisation in Europe, it is crucial that EFIC sets the agenda on issues such as opioids, where there are growing societal concerns. These recommendations clarify what role opioids should play in chronic pain management,” EFIC President Brona Fullen said in a statement.

The guideline’s lead author, Professor Winfried Häuser, said he and his colleagues tried to strike a middle ground on the use of opioids.

“The debate on opioid-prescribing for chronic non-cancer pain has become polarized: opioids are either seen as a dangerous risk for all patients, leading to addiction and deaths, or they are promoted as most potent pain killers for any type of pain,” said Häuser, who is an internal medicine specialist in Germany.

“Opioids are still important in the management of chronic non-cancer pain – but only in some selected chronic pain syndromes and only if established non-pharmacological and non-opioids analgesics have failed or are not tolerated.”

PROP Consulted for European Guideline

The guideline was developed by a 17-member task force composed of European experts in pain management, including 9 delegates selected by EFIC’s board “who advocate and who are critical with the use of opioids.” Only one delegate from Pain Alliance Europe represented patients.

The recommendations developed by the task force were reviewed by five outside experts, including Drs. Jane Ballantyne and Mark Sullivan, who belong to Physicians for Responsible Opioid Prescribing (PROP), an anti-opioid activist group in the U.S.  Ballantyne is PROP’s President, while Sullivan is a PROP board member. Several changes suggested by the outside experts were adopted.

Coincidentally, Ballantyne, Sullivan and three other PROP board members were involved in the drafting of the opioid guideline released in 2016 by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. That controversial guideline is now being rewritten by the CDC after voluminous complaints from patients and doctors that the recommendations led to forced tapering, withdrawal, uncontrolled pain and suicides.

Sullivan and two other PROP board members were also involved in drafting Canada’s 2017 opioid guideline, which was modeled after the CDC’s and provoked similar complaints from Canadian pain patients.

90 MME Recommended Limit

The CDC and Canadian opioid guidelines appear to have been used as resources by the EFIC task force, which adopted many of the same recommendations, even while acknowledging the low quality of evidence used to support them.   

One recommendation is straight out of the CDC guideline, advising European doctors to “start low and go slow.” Prescribers are urged to start patients on low doses of 50 morphine milligram equivalents (MME) or less a day and to avoid increasing the dosage above 90 MME/day.

One significant difference with the North American guidelines is that the EFIC recommends that opioids not be prescribed for fibromyalgia, migraines and other chronic “primary pain” conditions for which there is no known cause – suggesting those disorders have an emotional or psychological element that will lead to opioid abuse.

“Prescription of high doses of opioids to patients with primary pain syndromes might have been a factor driving the opioid crisis in North America,” the EFIC guideline warns.

“This was further compounded by patient characteristics that included physical and psychological trauma, social disadvantage and hopelessness that served as a trigger for reports of pain intensity prompting prescriptions of more opioids.”

Secondary pain conditions for which opioids “can be considered“ include multiple sclerosis, stroke, restless leg syndrome, Parkinson’s disease, rheumatoid arthritis, phantom limb pain, non-diabetic neuropathy, spinal cord injuries and Complex Regional Pain Syndrome (CRPS). 

Unlike the North American guidelines, the EFIC acknowledges that there are physical and genetic differences between patients. Some patients who are rapid metabolizers “might require higher dosages of opioids than the ones recommended by the guidelines.“

EFIC GRAPHIC

The EFIC also warns that its guideline should not be used to justify abruptly tapering or discontinuing opioids for anyone already prescribed at higher dosages. The recommendations are also not intended for the management of short-term acute pain, sickle cell disease or end-of-life care.

Individualized Pain Care After Surgery Raises Patient Satisfaction

By Pat Anson, PNN Editor

An opioid prescribing guideline tailored to a patient’s specific needs – that doesn’t take a one-size-fits-all approach – resulted in high patient satisfaction rates and reduced the use of opioids after surgery.

The post-operative pain management guideline was developed by surgeons at Dartmouth-Hitchcock Medical Center in New Hampshire, who based the number of opioid pills sent home with patients on how many they needed the day before they were discharged from the hospital. Other guidelines typically base the number of pills on the type of operation that was performed and do not take into account a patient’s individual needs.

“In this new prospective study we found that 93 percent of patients had their post-surgery opioid needs satisfied,” said lead author Richard Barth Jr., MD, section chief of general surgery. “This finding means that this guideline can be used for a wide variety of operations to guide surgeons on how many opioids to prescribe when sending patients home after surgery.”

Barth and his colleagues enrolled 229 patients in the study who had elective general surgery, including colorectal, gynecological, thoracic and urological operations. Upon discharge, patients received prescriptions for acetaminophen and ibuprofen, as well as opioids, based on the guideline.

If they needed no opioids the day before discharge, they were sent home with the morphine milligram equivalent (MME) of five oxycodone 5mg pills. If they took one or three pills, they were given a prescription for 15 more. And if they needed four or more pills, they were given a prescription for 30 pills.  

Patient satisfaction was highest among those who needed the fewest number of pills. Despite being given an opioid prescription, 73 percent of the patients who were prescribed five pills used no opioids at home, and 85 percent used two pills or less.

In all, 60 percent of patients in the study had leftover opioid pills, according to findings published in the Journal of the American College of Surgeons. They were given instruction on how to dispose of them safely.

Barth says surgeons played a pivotal role in minimizing opioid use by talking to patients before surgery and setting their expectations for pain management. They told patients they were likely to be discharged with either no opioids or a small amount based on their opioid use in the hospital.

“The other part of that discussion involves letting patients know that they should expect some pain, that our goal isn’t to get rid of every last bit of their pain,” Barth said. “That was something that surgeons tried to accomplish years ago, but that’s not what we’re aiming for now. A low level of discomfort is acceptable, and patients need to have that expectation.”

That process also including prescribing, not just recommending, over-the-counter pain relievers.  

“By prescribing non-opioid analgesics, the surgeon sets the expectation that they should be used,” he said. “It’s a big difference if a surgeon prescribes non-opioid analgesics compared with just recommending that a patient take acetaminophen or ibuprofen that they might have at home.” 

In recent years, many U.S. hospitals have adopted policies that reduce or completely eliminate the use of opioids after surgery. Those policies unfairly leave some patients in pain, according to a recent study presented at the annual meeting of the American College of Surgeons. Researchers found that about half of patients need opioid medication after major surgeries.

“Our goal is to give them the exact right amount so that we limit the number of un-used opioids in our community while also making sure we don’t reduce it down too far and then leave them in pain,” said lead author Cornelius Thiels, DO, a surgical oncology fellow at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center.

“The right answer may be more non-opioid based pain medications, better patient education and setting of expectations, or in some cases patients may actually require slightly more opioid medications, and that is OK.”

Abuse of Rx Opioid Painkillers Unchanged During Pandemic

By Pat Anson, PNN Editor

An alarming spike in U.S. overdose deaths during the COVID-19 pandemic does not appear to be fueled by increased abuse of opioid painkillers, according to a new nationwide analysis of urine drug tests.

The Drug Enforcement Administration approved an exemption last year allowing patients to connect with doctors via telehealth – without a physical examination -- to get prescriptions for opioids and other controlled substances. While the relaxed rules made it easier for patients to get pain medication during the pandemic, they have not resulted in more diversion or abuse of oxycodone and hydrocodone, according to the Millennium Health Signals Report. Urine positivity rates for the two opioids remained flat during 2020.

“Despite the hardships faced during the pandemic, it is encouraging to see that positivity rates for non-prescribed use of hydrocodone and oxycodone have not changed,” said Michael Parr, MD, an addiction treatment specialist and consultant to Millennium.

“Patients requiring opioids for the treatment of pain have faced difficulty obtaining medications, as well as stigma, before the pandemic. Perhaps this data will reassure clinicians who have taken additional steps to safely prescribe these medications during the pandemic.”

There was an uptick in positivity rates for non-prescribed tramadol, a weaker opioid, particularly in Ohio, Tennessee and Kentucky. Millennium said there were more cases of people with substance use disorders using tramadol as their “drug of preference.”

Millennium researchers also found that positivity rates for non-prescribed gabapentin (Neurontin) showed little change in 2020 – but they remain at levels nearly three times higher than positivity rates for oxycodone, hydrocodone and tramadol. The abuse of non-prescribed gabapentin did rise significantly in Ohio and Virginia.

POSITIVITY RATES FOR NON-PRESCRIBED PAIN MEDICATIONS

SOURCE: MILLENNIUM HEALTH

The abuse of gabapentin has been going on for years, but with little public attention. Gabapentin is a non-opioid nerve medication increasingly prescribed for pain, despite the fact many patients say it doesn’t help and has too many side effects. Drug abusers, however, have found that gabapentin can heighten the effect of heroin and other street drugs.

While positivity rates for non-prescribed pain medication were mostly unchanged during the pandemic, they soared for illicit fentanyl and methamphetamine, increasing 78% and 29%, respectively.

After initially increasing in the early stages of the COVID-19 crisis, Millennium found that positivity rates for cocaine and heroin soon returned to pre-pandemic levels.

Another encouraging sign is that positivity rates for carfentanil, a deadly fentanyl analogue, have flatlined to nearly zero. It is unclear why carfentanil abuse has fallen so sharply, but Millennium said it may be because the pandemic has disrupted manufacturing and supply routes from China.     

Opioid Promotion Cited in FDA Warning Was Stopped in 2019

By Pat Anson, PNN Editor

A California pharmaceutical company that received a warning letter from the Food and Drug Administration over its promotion of a controversial opioid painkiller stopped using the marketing material over a year ago.

The FDA sent the warning letter to AcelRx Pharmaceuticals last week. The agency told the company to stop making “false and misleading claims” about Dsuvia, a potent opioid tablet used to relieve acute pain in hospital settings.

The “Tongue and Done” banner ads and tabletop displays emphasized how easy Dsuvia is to administer by using a plastic applicator that releases a single tablet directly into a patient’s mouth. The FDA said the promotions were misleading and dangerous.

“AcelRx has disseminated promotional communications that undermine key prescribing conditions required for the safe use of this opioid product. Dsuvia was approved with special restrictions requiring that it only be prescribed in a certified medically supervised setting by health care practitioners trained to properly administer it,” the FDA said in a statement.

“This promotion dangerously undercuts FDA-required conditions on the proper administration of the drug, which requires particular diligence to minimize the risk of serious or even fatal adverse events.”

The letter warns AcelRx to either stop using the marketing material or cease distributing Dsuvia. It gave the company 15 days to respond or face “further regulatory action.”    

ACELRX PROMOTION

But in a filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission, AcelRx said it could “easily address” the FDA’s concerns because it stopped using the “Tongue and Done” promotions in late 2019.

“The Company intends to respond to the FDA within the timeframe requested in the Letter and seek guidance and clarification from the FDA on the concerns raised in the Letter,” the SEC filing states. “The Company cannot give any assurances, however, that the FDA will be satisfied with its response to the Letter or that such response will resolve the issues identified in the Letter.”

Few Adverse Events Involve Dsuvia

The FDA approved the use of Dsuvia in 2018 over the objections of anti-opioid activists who said it was a “dangerously unnecessary opioid medication" that would be diverted, abused and lead to more overdoses. There is little evidence any of that has occurred.

Dsuvia contains sufentanil, an opioid 10 times stronger than fentanyl. It was developed to fulfill an unmet need in military and civilian hospitals, where patients need quick relief from acute trauma pain and can’t wait for opioids to be administered intravenously. Each Dsuvia tablet comes in a single dose applicator. The tablets quickly dissolve under the tongue and are not available for home use.

Those safety measures appear to be working. The FDA’s Adverse Events Reporting System lists only six cases involving Dsuvia in 2019 and 2020. There were no deaths and none of the cases were considered serious.

AcelRx recently published the results of a clinical study that showed surgery patients treated with Dsuvia used significantly fewer opioids than those treated with traditional IV opioids. They were also discharged sooner.

The FDA’s belated warning letter to AcelRx about its Dsuvia marketing comes as the agency faces renewed scrutiny for its regulation of opioids.

Acting FDA Commissioner Dr. Janet Woodcock is reportedly under consideration by President Biden for a formal nomination to the job, which has drawn the ire of some anti-opioid activists. A letter sent to the Acting Secretary of Health and Human Services accuses Woodcock of “dereliction of duty” for failing to address the opioid crisis by halting the approval of new opioids. Woodcock has been Director of the FDA’s Center for Drug Evaluation and Research for over 25 years.

Would Drug Legalization Reduce Overdoses?

By Roger Chriss, PNN Columnist

As the overdose crisis worsens, public health data and biostatistics become more important. Debates about opioid prescribing and drug legalization often center on two key concepts: incidence and prevalence as applied to drug use, substance use disorder (SUD) and overdoses.

Brandeis University researcher Andrew Kolodny, MD, recently argued against drug legalization on Twitter.

“Some critics of reducing Rx opioids don't believe that repeated use of highly addictive drugs cause addiction and/or they believe all drugs, including heroin & cocaine should be available over the counter. They don't believe that easy access can increase prevalence of SUD,” said Kolodny, who founded Physicians for Responsible Opioid Prescribing (PROP), an anti-opioid activist group.

Conversely, Columbia University professor Carl Hart, the author of “Drug Use for Grown-Ups,” believes legalizing recreational drugs would help reduce overdoses by making the drug supply safer.

“A large proportion of these deaths are caused by adulterated substances purchased on the illicit market. A regulated market, with uniform quality standards, would virtually put an end to contaminated drug consumption and greatly reduce fatal accidental drug overdoses,” Hart told Columbia Magazine.

Both claims hinge on a proper understanding of incidence and prevalence. In epidemiology, incidence is the rate of new-onset diagnosis of a medical condition. It is measured over a given period of time -- typically a year -- though sometimes the time period is shortened to a week for an urgent problem, such as a viral pathogen like the coronavirus.

By contrast, prevalence measures the total number of people in a population who have a specific medical condition. For prevalence, the duration of the condition is important. For an infectious disease, it may be brief. But for cancer, SUD and many other chronic conditions, it may last a lifetime.

For instance, the incidence of opioid use disorder (OUD) among people who are on long-term opioid therapy is 8-12%, according to the National Institutes of Health. But unlike claims frequently made by PROP, only a small fraction of patients who abuse prescription opioids start using heroin, less than 4% over a five-year period. So, making a clear distinction between OUD involving prescription opioids versus heroin becomes important.

The prevalence of OUD is a cumulative total of all people with OUD over time. This is because OUD and other substance use disorder diagnoses are lifetime diagnoses that remain on a person’s medical records forever. When we count people with OUD, we are counting everyone ever diagnosed with the condition, though in practice sometimes the OUD diagnosis is dropped due to administrative error, poor record-keeping or deliberate obfuscation.

This means that OUD prevalence can go up over time even when the incidence of OUD is going down. In fact, that is what is happening at present.

A recent report from the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Association showed modest declines for both prescription opioid misuse and heroin use. This came at a time when U.S. drug deaths were rising, fueled primarily by overdoses involving illicit fentanyl.

These counterintuitive trends make for intense debate about the success or failure of the 2016 CDC opioid guideline and state laws restricting prescription opioid use. A recent study from Indiana University concluded that limits on legal opioid prescribing may have actually driven more people to illicit drugs.

"Our work reveals the unintended and negative consequences of policies designed to reduce the supply of opioids in the population for overdose. We believe that policy goals should be shifted from easy solutions such as dose reduction to more difficult fundamental ones, focusing on improving social conditions that create demand for opioids and other illicit drugs," said co-author Brea Perry, PhD, a professor of sociology at Indiana University.

Even if drug legalization were to reduce drug risks, an increase in the number of drug users could lead to more harms. For instance, if an illicit drug harms 10% of users and there are 1 million users, that results in 100,000 people harmed. If that drug is then legalized and made safer, harming only 1% of users, that seems like an improvement. But if the number of users rises to 15 million, then 150,000 people would be harmed.

Since we don’t know how these numbers would change under a legalized drug regime, any claims about changes in incidence or prevalence are speculative at best.

What is counted and how it is expressed are very important in debates about the role of prescription opioids or drugs in general in SUD and overdose deaths. A failure to be specific about methodology or using data that is not well-founded can result in specious or even deceptive claims. And counterintuitive results are possible, as we are seeing at present in the ever-evolving 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.