Millions of People Worldwide Are ‘Left Behind in Pain’

By Pat Anson, PNN Editor

A new report by the World Health Organization (WHO) warns that limited access to morphine and other opioids is leaving millions of people in many parts of the world suffering in preventable pain.

The report, “Left Behind in Pain,” calls morphine a low cost, essential medicine for relieving moderate to severe pain. But access to morphine and other opioids is inadequate in many low and middle-income countries, with consumption patterns in wealthier nations that don’t correspond to medical need. Over 95% of the world’s supply of opioids is distributed in wealthy countries, with only 0.03% distributed in low-income ones.

“Leaving people in pain when effective medicines are available for pain management, especially in the context of end-of-life care, should be a cause of serious concern for policy-makers,” says Yukiko Nakatani, MD, WHO Assistant Director-General for Medicines and Health Products. “We must urgently advocate for safe and timely access to morphine for those in medical need through balanced policy, everywhere.”

The report calls for expanded access to morphine through local and regional distribution centers, changes in restrictive laws and guidelines, and reduced stigma surrounding opioid use.

“Some historical events, cultural beliefs, misinformation and disinformation about pain, and social stigma related to opioid use are known to have caused mistrust of opioids and contributed to fear of using them,” the report found.

Lawsuits and regulatory controls on the pharmaceutical industry are so strong in some countries that drug makers have stopped manufacturing morphine because the profit is low and risk of liability is high.

That may have played a role in Mundipharma’s recent decision to discontinue supplying Ordine, a liquid formulation of morphine, to Australia. Mundipharma is owned by the Sackler family, which has been enmeshed in opioid litigation over its role in the opioid crisis in the U.S. through its operation of Purdue Pharma.

A Mundipharma spokesperson told the Australia Broadcasting Corporation that the company’s third-party manufacturer decided to stop producing Ordine and that "sourcing another manufacturer would not be commercially viable."

Evolving Stance on Opioids

WHO’s position on opioids has evolved over the years. WHO’s guidelines for treating chronic pain, for example, used to say that opioids “are known to be safe and there is no need to fear accidental death or dependence.”

That changed in 2019, after two U.S. congressmen – without any real evidence -- accused WHO of being “corruptly influenced” by opioid manufactures. WHO withdrew the guidelines a month later, citing “new scientific evidence” – although critics said caved in to political pressure and threats to withdraw U.S. funding of WHO.

In 2021, WHO backpedaled further, recommending that morphine only be given to sick children when they are dying. Physical therapy and “biopsychosocial” treatments such as cognitive behavioral therapy were suggested as alternatives for children who are in pain, but expected to live.

WHO’s latest report recognizes the potential harms of opioids, couched in language about the world facing two opioid crises.

“The world is facing two crises related to the use of opioids. In the first, inappropriate use and over-prescription combined with the wide availability of illicit unregulated opioids, such as fentanyl, in some countries is causing significant harm and loss of life. In the second, a lack of access to opioids such as morphine in many parts of the world means that millions of people continue to suffer preventable pain,” said Nakatani.

About 80% of the world’s morphine supply was consumed in North America in 2021, primarily in the United States, although the rest of the developed world is catching up. Opioid consumption in the U.S. has fallen so sharply in recent years that Canada, Australia and several European countries have become the highest consumers of opioid analgesics, according to a 2022 study that ranked the U.S. as being 8th in per capita opioid sales.

Restoring Safe Supply of Rx Opioids Would Reduce Overdoses

By Pat Anson, PNN Editor

A decade long effort to reduce the supply of opioid pain medication in the U.S. has contributed to a surge in overdose deaths and made the illicit drug supply more toxic, according to a new study.

“A big reason that we have such a problem with addiction in this country is because people can't access legitimate pain medication,” said lead author Grant Victor, PhD, an assistant professor at Rutgers University School of Social Work. “Our findings support a change in policy.”

Victor and his colleagues analyzed toxicology data from nearly 2,700 accidental overdose deaths in the Indianapolis metropolitan area (Marion County, Indiana) from 2016 to 2021, comparing them to patient records in the state’s prescription drug monitoring program (PDMP).

Their findings, published in the Journal of Substance Use and Addiction Treatment, show that less than half the people who overdosed (43.3%) had any kind of PDMP record, meaning they were never prescribed an opioid pain reliever or buprenorphine (Suboxone), a medication used to treat opioid use disorder.

Most of the decedents who did have a prescription for an opioid analgesic or buprenorphine had not filled one in the 30 days prior to their deaths, indicating that prescription opioids are not driving overdose deaths in Marion County. Overdoses there increasingly involve illicit fentanyl, a synthetic opioid 100 times more potent than morphine, which accounts for nearly 90% of the county’s overdoses.  

There were 637 drug deaths in Marion County in 2021, nearly twice the number that died in 2016. During that period, opioid prescriptions in the county fell by nearly a third.

MARION COUNTY PUBLIC HEALTH DEPT.

Toxic Drug Market

Victor says many of the overdose deaths could have been prevented if a safer supply of prescription opioids was still accessible – both to legitimate patients and those who misuse the drugs.

“There was a wave of policy initiatives that effectively tamped down on the diversion of prescription opioids, but did so primarily by increasing surveillance of prescribing practices for opioids. And through a number of mechanisms, that made it more difficult for individuals with legitimate pain concerns to access these types of medications,” Victor told PNN.

“When you remove a certain class of drugs that is federally regulated and can be monitored and dosed appropriately, it leaves folks with few options. Options that are currently available are illicit and the potency of these drugs is highly variable. The drug market in general, as we know it today, is very toxic and that is one of the main drivers in the overdose crisis.”

Victor says some of his own family members have chronic pain and after years of taking opioids safely, they’ve been cutoff and told to take Tylenol. He said it’s rare for a pain patient to die from an overdose and few meet the diagnostic criteria for substance use disorder.   

“There are a number of researchers who are trying to drive this point home and hope to reverse some of the policy initiatives that have unfolded over the last few years that have been perhaps unintentionally harmful to public health and to chronic pain patients,” he said.

“We've been swept up in this kind of frenzy about prescription opioids. They're still making movies about the Sackler’s (owners of Purdue Pharma). My opinion of them is not all that high, but I think it is a convenient kind of scapegoat to portray pharmaceutical companies as the evil here, when they’re not a primary concern. When you're looking at public health and what's currently driving overdose deaths, it’s not prescription opioids.”

Few previous studies have compared overdose deaths directly to prescription drug data, which would seem to be an obvious way to get to the bottom of what’s causing the overdose crisis.  One such study looked at opioid overdoses in Massachusetts, finding that only 1.3% of those who died had an active prescription for opioids.

Low Dose Opioids Ineffective for Acute Lower Back and Neck Pain

By Pat Anson, PNN Editor

A low dose of prescription opioids works no better than a placebo in relieving acute lower back or neck pain, according to a new study in Australia.  

The blinded, placebo-controlled trial was relatively small – just 345 participants – but was unusual because patients were followed for up to a year, a rarity for a clinical trial that studies pain.  Half the participants received a combination of oxycodone and naloxone for six weeks at a low daily dose of 20mg or about 30 morphine milligram equivalents (MME). The other half received placebo tablets that looked similar to oxycodone.   

It's important to note that the study only included people with mild or moderate pain of less than 12 weeks duration -- not the severe, long-term back and neck pain caused by degenerative disc disease, spinal injuries, arthritis, and other chronic conditions. Participants were excluded if they had that type of pain.  

The study findings, published in The Lancet, showed no significant difference in pain severity between the opioid and placebo groups. On a scale of zero to 10, the average pain score was 2.8 in the opioid group after six weeks, compared to 2.3 in the placebo group. After a year, the average pain score was 2.4 in the opioid group, versus 1.8 in the placebo group. 

Pain Severity Over 52 Weeks

THE LANCET

Researchers say patients who received opioids had a slightly higher risk of opioid misuse at the end of the study, a finding based on a mental health survey that screens patients for drug related behavior.

“Our findings show that even judicious, short-term use of an opioid conferred no benefits in pain reduction and led to a small increase in pain at the medium-term and long-term compared with placebo. The opioid group had worse quality-of-life mental health scores than the placebo group,” researchers reported. “Although no difference was found in overall time to recovery, more people in the placebo group recovered in the first 14 days compared with those in the opioid group.”

Most medical guidelines recommend exercise and over-the-counter pain relievers for short-term back or neck pain, with opioids only used as a last resort. The authors of the Lancet study say even that limited use is inappropriate.

“Opioids should not be recommended for acute back and neck pain, full stop,” said lead investigator Christine Lin, PhD, a professor in the School of Public Health at University of Sydney. “Not even when other drug treatments are not able to be prescribed or have not been effective for a patient.”

The Lin study is somewhat similar to the 2018 Krebs study, which found that low doses of oxycodone were no more effective than over-the-counter pain relievers in treating chronic back and osteoarthritis pain. Critics say the Krebs study was biased from the start and this one is no better.

“They generalise enormously,” Michael Vagg, MD, Dean of Pain Medicine at the Australian and New Zealand College of Anaesthetists, told the Medical Republic. “They studied oxycodone and naloxone in a modified-release formulation. But modified-use opioids have never been on-label for use in acute pain and they are not recommended as such… to which I and everyone in pain medicine would say ‘We figured that out ages ago’. That’s not how you use opioids in acute pain.

“In layman’s terms, they’ve done a study where they tried to look at doing push-ups to help with back pain and then they’ve decided that all exercise is no good for the back pain.”

Lower back pain is the world’s leading cause of disability and neck pain is the fourth largest, but there is surprisingly little evidence about the best ways to treat them.

A previous study published in The Lancet by an international team of researchers found that lower back pain was often treated with bad advice, inappropriate tests, risky surgeries and painkillers. The authors said there was limited evidence to support the use of opioids for low back pain, and epidural steroid injections and acetaminophen (paracetamol) were not recommended at all. Most patients responded better to physical and psychological therapies that kept them active.

Australian Guideline Calls for Safer Opioid Tapering

By Pat Anson, PNN Editor

Public health experts in Australia have released what is being called the first international guideline to help primary care doctors safely reduce or stop prescribing opioids to adults with chronic non-cancer pain.

The Guideline for Deprescribing Opioid Analgesics contains 11 recommendations developed by a panel of general practitioners, pain specialists, addiction specialists, pharmacists, nurses and physiotherapists. The guideline emphasizes slow and individualized tapering for patients when long-term opioid use does not improve their pain and quality of life or when they experience adverse side effects. Tapering is not recommended for anyone nearing the end-of-life.

“Internationally, we were seeing significant harms from opioids, but also significant harms from unsolicited and abrupt opioid cessation. It was clear that recommendations to support safe and person-centred opioid deprescribing were required,” said lead author Aili Langford, PhD, a pharmacist and Research Fellow at Centre for Medicine Use and Safety, Monash University.

Millions of pain patients in the U.S. were tapered or cut off cold turkey after the CDC released its 2016 opioid prescribing guideline. Both the American Medical Association and the FDA warned that rapid tapering was causing “serious harm” to patients, including withdrawal, uncontrolled pain, substance abuse and suicide.

In response to that criticism, the revised 2022 CDC guideline took a more cautious approach to tapering, recommending a dose reduction of just 10% a month, a much slower rate than the 10% a week that the agency previously recommended.

The U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs and Department of Defense (VA/DoD) also modified their approach to tapering, which at one time called for tapers of up to 20% every four weeks.  The updated VA/DoD guideline says there is “insufficient evidence to recommend for or against any specific tapering strategies.”

The Australian guideline doesn’t get caught up in fractions or percentages. It simply calls for “gradual tapering” that is tailored to each patient’s needs and preferences. A key recommendation is to discuss tapering as early as possible with patients, to develop a plan when they are first prescribed opioids.  

“Shared decision-making and ensuring that patients have ways to manage their pain are essential when a deprescribing plan is being discussed,” said Liz Marles, MD, a general practitioner and clinical director at the Australian Commission on Safety and Quality in Health Care.  

“These new guidelines further support appropriate use of opioid analgesics and how to safely prescribe and stop prescribing them. They ask clinicians to consider reducing or stopping opioids when the risk of harm outweighs the benefits for the individual.”

One in five adults in Australia have chronic pain, but few actually wind up taking opioids long-term. The guideline authors estimate that only 5% of opioid “naive” patients become long-term users, well below misleading claims by anti-opioid activists that over 25% of pain patients develop opioid dependence or opioid use disorder.

“I am curious to know how many people who are on chronic opioid therapy feel a need to be tapered,” said Lynn Webster, MD, a pain management expert and Senior Fellow at the Center for U.S. Policy.  “Only 5% of opioid-naïve patients remain on opioids for 3 months or longer. Considering the fact that about 10% of the population has severe enough pain to affect quality of life, this statistic argues against the theory that just being exposed to an opioid leads to chronic opioid use.”

Webster says most of the recommendations in the Australian guideline are practical, but he’s concerned that some of the evidence used to support them is “misunderstood and misleading.”

“They make it abundantly clear that tapering should not be forced and that there are serious consequences to forced tapering. But they also use the common yet flawed statement that there is little evidence that opioids are effective for chronic non-cancer pain. Of course, the lack of evidence is not evidence,” Webster said.

Although opioids have been used for thousands of years for pain relief, the clinical evidence for or against their use remains thin. Most of the evidence used to support the Australian guideline was deemed by the authors to be insufficient, unclear or weak. Only one of the 11 tapering recommendations was supported by evidence of “moderate certainty.”

Burden of Pain: How the CDC and DEA Criminalized Medicine

(Jay K. Joshi, MD, is a primary care physician in Indiana who spent nearly a year in prison after pleading guilty to prescribing opioids without a “legitimate medical need” to an undercover DEA agent who was posing as a pain patient. Joshi now regrets that guilty plea and is trying to vacate his conviction due to alleged DEA misconduct.

While in prison, Joshi began writing “Burden of Pain: A Physician’s Journey through the Opioid Epidemic.” His book is a cautionary tale about misguided public health policy and overzealous law enforcement, which often portray doctors as drug dealers and patients as addicts.

PNN editor Pat Anson recently spoke with Joshi, who is practicing medicine again and hopes to regain his license to prescribe opioids. This interview has been edited for content and clarity.)

JAY K. JOSHI, MD

Anson: Dr. Joshi, who is your book intended for and what is the main message you're trying to send?

Joshi: The book really is for the general public and those that have a vested interest in helping to rectify misguided federal policy, as it pertains to not just the opioid epidemic, but the overdose crisis as a whole.

My main message is that we have to understand that healthcare has a lot of uncertainty and complexity. And if we just use simplified rubrics, like cookie cutter medical guidelines or restrictive laws, we're going to create unintended consequences. It's time that we start to re-examine clinical decisions and health policy as a whole, so that we can make better informed decisions.

Anson: Do you think the general public has a good understanding of the opioid crisis and what caused it? Or is there misinformation going around that they've bought into?

Joshi: I would say there's a strong degree of misrepresentation among policymakers, who should have known better before and certainly should know better now. I think the narrative of opioid prescriptions running amok and creating this overdose crisis is a story that’s taken on a life of its own.

Did prescription opioids contribute to the overdose crisis that we see now? Yes. Was it the main driving factor? No. But there were trends in drug use and drug policy through the 2000’s and 2010’s that falsely conflated prescription opioids with illicit opioids. Policymakers should now understand that there are fundamental differences in how opioids are abused versus how they're used in a proper clinical setting.

Anson: Given what's transpired over the last few years, with overdoses soaring from illicit fentanyl and opioid prescriptions declining, do you think policymakers now know better?

Joshi: You know, in life as a general rule of thumb, often you learn more about what a person doesn't say, than what they do say. And this kind of hollow resonance in connecting fentanyl overdoses to previous manifestations of the overdose crisis to me is a glaring omission of responsibility from federal policymakers at the CDC level and law enforcement at the DEA and state level.

They’ve failed to acknowledge that the current fentanyl crisis is a manifestation of restrictive and overly simplified opioid policies that began nearly a decade ago. And I think the fact that people are not correlating that when the data clearly shows it indicates there is a willful understanding and a willful intent to not accept responsibility for prior failures and opioid policies.

Anson: Do you think the CDC and the DEA made the fentanyl crisis worse?

Joshi: It's difficult to say because when you use the word “worse,” then you almost have to apply some sort of causality. I like to look at the overdose crisis a little differently.

Did the CDC with their opioid policy guidelines contribute to the trends and overdoses that we're seeing now? Yes. By not recognizing that the guidelines would be codified into law and policy, and deliberately affect clinical decision making. They're not taking accountability for all the damaging effects. So, by that logic, you can say the CDC made the opioid epidemic worse.

But I would instead reframe it to say the CDC needs to better educate itself. What you see from them is a conflation of words, reflecting a lack of proper understanding. That's how I would define the revised 2022 CDC opioid prescribing guideline.

They talk a lot about nuances. They talk a lot about “uncertainty,” although not using that word as much as I believe that they should. But then eventually they revert to the same policy trend of creating overly simplified stipulations using morphine milligram equivalents (MME) as this rubric of clinical care, even though it was never intended to be used as a clinical decision-making tool.

The CDC needs to be better aware of its own conflicts of interest in the leadership making policy decisions. We can go down line by line looking at these individuals and assessing their conflicts of interest. And I certainly have seen things that would be quite alarming for anybody who values scientific objectivity.

But I feel like when you go down that pathway, you're simply entrenching people in their own lease, meaning the CDC will simply double down and say,”No, what we're doing is right” and the DEA will simply double down and say,” No, what we're doing is right.”

Anson: Do you think the CDC should even have an opioid guideline?

Joshi: It is odd that a public health organization would get involved with something that has, for all intents and purposes, a direct patient to physician relevancy. It's hard for me to understand how the CDC initially thought that when the guidelines made it a public health issue. It was almost as if it became a self-fulfilling prophecy.

The CDC felt like prescription opioids were a public health issue, and therefore created guidelines that affected the patient-physician relationship, thereby creating undue stigmatization in a clinical encounter that should otherwise be based upon a foundation of trust and respect.

And by doing so, they almost exacerbated the overdose crisis into a public health issue. It's very difficult to understand why they felt like those guidelines would help, as opposed to focusing on keeping prescription opioids within the framework of the patient-physician encounter, as it already had been.

I guess they were looking at rising overdose rates and conflated illicit opioids, heroin and fentanyl with prescription opioids. I'm not sure where that direct line of logic really came from. It's difficult to really justify that.

Anson: And what about the DEA? As you very well know, a lot of doctors have stopped prescribing opioids or have really scaled back the doses that they give to patients, because they don't want to go to prison like you did.

Joshi: Definitely, and I can understand that. What's interesting is that I've had direct engagements with DEA officers, and from my perspective they lack the necessary understanding of prescription opioids and the benefit it provides patients. They lack the healthcare context.

What the DEA does is correlate the clinical encounter with what you would see in a routine drug transaction. In their eyes, having a hammer as the only tool, everything looks like a nail. So the drug dealer in Mexico running Chinese products through a drug cartel entering the United States is cognitively equivalent to a physician treating patients with chronic pain.

They don't have the ability to discern context and the role clinical need plays in how patients are treated. And I think that really does an injustice to both the patients and the physicians, because effectively the only tool the DEA has to address prescription opioid use is fear. And when you use fear in the clinical context, you’ve harmed the most vulnerable patients. It's a shame that the DEA is not acknowledging this.

I wrote an op/ed in Medpage Today about a month ago, in which I asked the DEA to take a stance on harm reduction. Many medical societies talk about how harm reduction is a better overall policy to help patients. But medical societies are not implementing the laws, the DEA is implementing the laws.

So regardless of how high-minded the policies may be, unless implementation of the policies aligns with intent, you're not going to have patients being treated the way that they should be. And I think what the DEA really needs to do is to assess its role in the clinical encounter and make honest determinations on whether they have the capabilities to understand clinical need for opioids as it pertains to patients with chronic pain or acute pain. I think the DEA is lacking in that capacity.

Anson: Is the DEA practicing medicine? They say they don't.

Joshi: I know. And I disagree. I would say that the DEA is very much involved in the practice of medicine. If you are influencing clinical decisions through fear, you are engaging in the practice of medicine.

What is clinical medicine? If you present to me with headache and vision changes, and I checked your vitals and see that you have extremely high blood pressure, I'm going to consider you as somebody in hypertensive crisis. I'm making that decision based upon the facts presented to me and then, based upon that decision, I will implement a certain form of treatment. Clinical medicine is a series of decisions made in the face of uncertainty.

Should I trust my blood pressure monitor that the readings are correct? Should I trust you when you say that you have a headache and vision changes? How much of that uncertainty is simply assumed to be true when any clinical decision is made?

Now, the moment you incorporate fear into that clinical decision making, you're influencing how the decisions are made and the eventual course of clinical action.  So very much the DEA is practicing medicine, and I would greatly appreciate if they were honest about that.

Anson: You've obviously given this a lot of thought and, at the same time, you don't sound that bitter about what happened to you. Why is that?

Joshi: You know, when I was in federal prison, I was extremely depressed. I lost my medical practice. I lost my freedom. But I always felt like, in the end, things would turn out right and the truth would come out. Whether that was a delusional belief sitting in a federal prison, I don't know. But I held onto that belief.

It's through that belief that I improved my writing abilities and hand wrote the first version of “Burden of Pain.” It’s through that belief that I regained my medical license and was reinstated as a Medicare provider.

I don't feel bitter because I feel that I have a responsibility to patients and to physicians who might be going through similar situations. And if I can behave in a certain way that is productive, that can turn what I went through into an overall good for patients and for society as a whole, then I’ll feel like what I went through was worth it.

“Burden of Pain” and other books are featured in PNN’s Suggested Reading section.

DEA Ending Lenient Telehealth Rules in November

By Arielle Zionts, KFF Health News

Federal regulators want most patients to see a health care provider in person before receiving prescriptions for potentially addictive medicines through telehealth — something that hasn’t been required in more than three years.

During the COVID-19 public health emergency, the Drug Enforcement Administration allowed doctors and other health care providers to prescribe controlled medicine during telehealth appointments without examining the patient in person. Controlled medications include many stimulants, sedatives, opioid painkillers, and anabolic steroids.

The emergency declaration ended May 13, and in February, the agency proposed new rules that would require providers to see patients at least once in person before prescribing many of those drugs during telehealth visits.

Regulators said they decided to extend the current regulations — which don’t require an in-person appointment — until Nov. 11 after receiving more than 38,000 comments on the proposed changes, a record amount of feedback. They also said patients who receive controlled medications from prescribers they’ve never met in person will have until Nov. 11, 2024, to come into compliance with the agency’s future rules.

The public comments discuss the potential effects on a variety of patients, including people being treated for mental health disorders, opioid addiction, or attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder. Thousands of commenters also mentioned possible impacts on rural patients.

Opponents wrote that health care providers, not a law enforcement agency, should decide which patients need in-person appointments. They said the rules would make it difficult for some patients to receive care.

Other commenters called for exemptions for specific medications and conditions.

Supporters wrote that the proposal would balance the goals of increasing access to health care and helping prevent medication misuse.

Special Referrals for Rural Patients

Zola Coogan, 85, lives in Washington, Maine, a town of about 1,600 residents northeast of Portland. Coogan has volunteered with hospice patients and said it’s important for very sick and terminally ill people in rural areas to have access to opioids to ease their pain. But she said it can be hard to see a doctor in person if they lack transportation or are too debilitated to travel.

Coogan said she supports the DEA’s proposed rules because of a provision that could help patients who can’t travel to meet their telehealth prescriber. Instead, they could visit a local health care provider, who then could write a special referral to the telehealth prescriber. But she said accessing controlled medications would still be difficult for some rural residents.

“It could end up being a very sticky wicket” for some patients to access care, she said. “It’s not going to be easy, but it sounds like it’s doable.”

Some health care providers may hesitate to offer those referrals, said Stefan Kertesz, a physician and professor at the University of Alabama at Birmingham whose expertise includes addiction treatment. Kertesz said the proposed referral process is confusing and would require burdensome record-keeping.

Ateev Mehrotra, a physician and Harvard professor who has studied telehealth in rural areas, said different controlled drugs come with different risks. But overall, he finds the proposed rules too restrictive. He’s worried people who started receiving telehealth prescriptions during the pandemic would be cut off from medicine that helps them.

Mehrotra said he hasn’t seen clear evidence that every patient needs an in-person appointment before receiving controlled medicine through telehealth. He said it’s also not clear whether providers are less likely to write inappropriate prescriptions after in-person appointments than after telehealth ones.

Mehrotra described the proposed rules as “a situation where there’s not a clear benefit, but there are substantial harms for at least some patients,” including many in rural areas.

Beverly Jordan, a family practice doctor in Alabama and a member of the state medical board, supports the proposed rule, as well as a new Alabama law that requires annual in-person appointments for patients who receive controlled medications. Jordan prescribes such medications, including to rural patients who travel to her clinic in the small city of Enterprise.

“I think that once-a-year hurdle is probably not too big for anybody to be able to overcome, and is really a good part of patient safety,” Jordan said.

Jordan said it’s important for health care practitioners to physically examine patients to see if the exam matches how the patients describe their symptoms and whether they need any other kind of treatment.

Jordan said that, at the beginning of the pandemic, she couldn’t even view most telehealth patients on her computer. Three-fourths of her appointments were over the phone, because many rural patients have poor internet service that doesn’t support online video.

The proposed federal rules also have a special allowance for buprenorphine, which is used to treat opioid use disorder, and for most categories of non-narcotic controlled substances, such as testosterone, ketamine, and Xanax.

Providers could prescribe 30 days’ worth of these medications after telehealth appointments before requiring patients to have an in-person appointment to extend the prescription. Tribal health care practitioners would be exempt from the proposed regulations, as would Department of Veterans Affairs providers in emergency situations.

Many people who work in health care were surprised by the proposed rules, Kertesz said. He said they expected the DEA to let prescribers apply for special permission to provide controlled medicine without in-person appointments. Congress ordered the agency to create such a program in 2008, but it has not done so.

Agency officials said they considered creating a version of that program for rural patients but decided against it.

Denise Holiman disagrees with the proposed regulations. Holiman, who lives on a farm outside Centralia, Missouri, used to experience postmenopausal symptoms, including forgetfulness and insomnia. The 50-year-old now feels back to normal after being prescribed estrogen and testosterone by a Florida-based telehealth provider. Holiman said she doesn’t think she should have to go see her telehealth provider in person to maintain her prescriptions.

“I would have to get on a plane to go to Florida. I’m not going to do that,” she said. “If the government forces me to do that, that’s wrong.”

Holiman said her primary care doctor doesn’t prescribe injectable hormones and that she shouldn’t have to find another in-person prescriber to make a referral to her Florida provider.

Holiman is one of thousands of patients who shared their opinions with the DEA. The agency also received comments from advocacy, health care, and professional groups, such as the American Medical Association.

The physicians’ organization said the in-person rule should be eliminated for most categories of controlled medication. Even telehealth prescriptions for drugs with a higher risk of misuse, such as Adderall and oxycodone, should be exempt when medically necessary, the group said.

State Laws Burden Patients

Some states already have laws that are stricter than the DEA’s proposed rules. Amelia Burgess said Alabama’s annual exam requirement, which went into effect last summer, burdened some patients. The Minnesota doctor works at Bicycle Health, a telehealth company that prescribes buprenorphine.

Burgess said hundreds of the company’s patients in Alabama couldn’t switch to in-state prescribers because many weren’t taking new patients, were too far away, or were more expensive than the telehealth service. So Burgess and her co-workers flew to Alabama and set up a clinic at a hotel in Birmingham. About 250 patients showed up, with some rural patients driving from five hours away.

Critics of the federal proposal are lobbying for exemptions for medications that can be difficult to obtain due to a lack of specialists in rural areas.

Many of the public comments focus on the importance of telehealth-based buprenorphine treatment in rural areas, including in jails and prisons.

Rural areas also have shortages of mental health providers who can prescribe controlled substances for anxiety, depression, and ADHD. Patients across the country who use opioids for chronic pain have trouble finding prescribers.

It also can be difficult to find rural providers who prescribe testosterone, a controlled drug often taken by transgender men or people with various medical conditions, such as menopause. Controlled medications are also used to treat seizures, sleep disorders, and other conditions.

KFF Health News is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues.

Drugmakers Are Abandoning Cheap Generics

By Arthur Allen, KFF Health News

On Nov. 22, three FDA inspectors arrived at the sprawling Intas Pharmaceuticals plant south of Ahmedabad, India, and found hundreds of trash bags full of shredded documents tossed into a garbage truck.

Over the next 10 days, the inspectors assessed what looked like a systematic effort to conceal quality problems at the plant, which provided more than half of the U.S. supply of generic cisplatin and carboplatin, two cheap drugs used to treat as many as 500,000 new cancer cases every year.

Seven months later, doctors and their patients are facing the unimaginable: In California, Virginia, and everywhere in between, they are being forced into grim contemplation of untested rationing plans for breast, cervical, bladder, ovarian, lung, testicular, and other cancers. Their decisions are likely to result in preventable deaths.

Cisplatin and carboplatin are among scores of drugs in shortage, including 12 other cancer drugs, attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder pills, blood thinners, antibiotics and opioids. Covid-hangover supply chain issues and limited FDA oversight are part of the problem, but the main cause, experts agree, is the underlying weakness of the generic drug industry.

Made mostly overseas, these old but crucial drugs are often sold at a loss or for little profit. Domestic manufacturers have little interest in making them, setting their sights instead on high-priced drugs with plump profit margins.

The problem isn’t new, and that’s particularly infuriating to many clinicians. President Joe Biden, whose son Beau died of an aggressive brain cancer, has focused his Cancer Moonshot on discovering cures — undoubtedly expensive ones. Indeed, existing brand-name cancer drugs often cost tens of thousands of dollars a year.

But what about the thousands of patients today who can’t get a drug like cisplatin, approved by the FDA in 1978 and costing as little as $6 a dose?

“It’s just insane,” said Mark Ratain, a cancer doctor and pharmacologist at the University of Chicago. “Your roof is caving in, but you want to build a basketball court in the backyard because your wife is pregnant with twin boys and you want them to be NBA stars when they grow up?”

“It’s just a travesty that this is the level of health care in the United States of America right now,” said Stephen Divers, an oncologist in Hot Springs, Arkansas, who in recent weeks has had to delay or change treatment for numerous bladder, breast, and ovarian cancer patients because his clinic cannot find enough cisplatin and carboplatin.

Results from a survey of academic cancer centers released June 7 found 93% couldn’t find enough carboplatin and 70% had cisplatin shortages.

“All day, in between patients, we hold staff meetings trying to figure this out,” said Bonny Moore, an oncologist in Fredericksburg, Virginia. “It’s the most nauseous I’ve ever felt. Our office stayed open during covid; we never had to stop treating patients. We got them vaccinated, kept them safe, and now I can’t get them a $10 drug.”

The 10 cancer clinicians KFF Health News interviewed for this story said that, given current shortages, they prioritize patients who can be cured over later-stage patients, in whom the drugs generally can only slow the disease, and for whom alternatives — though sometimes less effective and often with more side effects — are available. But some doctors are even rationing doses intended to cure.

Isabella McDonald, then a junior at Utah Valley University, was diagnosed in April with a rare, often fatal bone cancer, whose sole treatment for young adults includes the drug methotrexate. When Isabella’s second cycle of treatment began June 5, clinicians advised that she would be getting less than the full dose because of a methotrexate shortage, said her father, Brent.

“They don’t think it will have a negative impact on her treatment, but as far as I am aware, there isn’t any scientific basis to make that conclusion,” he said. “As you can imagine, when they gave us such low odds of her beating this cancer, it feels like we want to give it everything we can and not something short of the standard.”

Brent McDonald stressed that he didn’t blame the staffers at Intermountain Health who take care of Isabella. The family — his other daughter, Cate, made a TikTok video about her sister’s plight — were simply stunned at such a basic flaw in the health care system.

At Moore’s practice, in Virginia, clinicians gave 60% of the optimal dose of carboplatin to some uterine cancer patients during the week of May 16, then shifted to 80% after a small shipment came in the following week. The doctors had to omit carboplatin from normal combination treatments for patients with recurrent disease, she said.

ISABELLA MCDONALD AND HER FATHER, BRENT

On June 2, Moore and her colleagues were glued to their drug distributor’s website, anxious as teenagers waiting for Taylor Swift tickets to go on sale — only with mortal consequences at stake.

She later emailed KFF Health News: “Carboplatin did NOT come back in stock today. Neither did cisplatin.”

Doses remained at 80%, she said. Things hadn’t changed 10 days later.

Generics Manufacturers Are Pulling Out

The causes of shortages are well established. Everyone wants to pay less, and the middlemen who procure and distribute generics keep driving down wholesale prices. The average net price of generic drugs fell by more than half between 2016 and 2022, according to research by Anthony Sardella, a business professor at Washington University in St. Louis.

As generics manufacturers compete to win sales contracts with the big buyers, including wholesale purchasers Vizient and Premier, their profits sink. Some are going out of business. Akorn, which made 75 common generics, went bankrupt and closed in February.

Israeli generics giant Teva, which has a portfolio of 3,600 medicines, announced May 18 it was shifting to brand-name drugs and “high-value generics.” Teva notified the FDA earlier that month that it was discontinuing production of oxycodone tablets, a move that could exacerbate shortages of opioid pain medication.   

Lannett Co., with about 120 generics, announced a Chapter 11 reorganization amid declining revenue. Other companies are in trouble too, said David Gaugh, interim CEO of the Association for Accessible Medicines, the leading generics trade group.

The generics industry used to lose money on about a third of the drugs it produced, but now it’s more like half, Gaugh said. So when a company stops making a drug, others do not necessarily step up, he said.

Officials at Fresenius Kabi and Pfizer said they have increased their carboplatin production since March, but not enough to end the shortage. On June 2, FDA Commissioner Robert Califf announced the agency had given emergency authorization for Chinese-made cisplatin to enter the U.S. market, but the impact of the move wasn’t immediately clear.

Cisplatin and carboplatin are made in special production lines under sterile conditions, and expanding or changing the lines requires FDA approval. Bargain-basement prices have pushed production overseas, where it’s harder for the FDA to track quality standards. The Intas plant inspection was a relative rarity in India, where the FDA in 2022 reportedly inspected only 3% of sites that make drugs for the U.S. market.

Sardella, the Washington University professor, testified last month that a quarter of all U.S. drug prescriptions are filled by companies that received FDA warning letters in the past 26 months. And pharmaceutical industry product recalls are at their highest level in 18 years, reflecting fragile supply conditions. The FDA listed 137 drugs in shortage as of June 13, including many essential medicines made by few companies.

Intas voluntarily shut down its Ahmedabad plant after the FDA inspection, and the agency posted its shocking inspection report in January. Accord Healthcare, the U.S. subsidiary of Intas, said in mid-June it had no date for restarting production.

Asked why it waited two months after its inspection to announce the cisplatin shortage, given that Intas supplied more than half the U.S. market for the drug, the FDA said via email that it doesn’t list a drug in shortage until it has “confirmed that overall market demand is not being met.”

Prices for carboplatin, cisplatin, and other drugs have skyrocketed on the so-called gray market, where speculators sell medicines they snapped up in anticipation of shortages. A 600-milligram bottle of carboplatin, normally available for $30, was going for $185 in early May and $345 a week later, said Richard Scanlon, the pharmacist at Moore’s clinic.

“It’s hard to have these conversations with patients — ‘I have your dose for this cycle, but not sure about next cycle,’” said Mark Einstein, chair of the Department of Obstetrics, Gynecology and Reproductive Health at Rutgers New Jersey Medical School.

Should Government Step In?

Despite a drug shortage task force and numerous congressional hearings, progress has been slow at best. The 2020 CARES Act gave the FDA the power to require companies to have contingency plans enabling them to respond to shortages, but the agency has not yet implemented guidance to enforce the provisions.

As a result, neither Accord nor other cisplatin makers had a response plan in place when Intas’ plant was shut down, said Soumi Saha, senior vice president of government affairs for Premier, which arranges wholesale drug purchases for more than 4,400 hospitals and health systems.

Premier understood in December that the shutdown endangered the U.S. supply of cisplatin and carboplatin, but it also didn’t issue an immediate alarm, she said. “It’s a fine balance,” she said. “You don’t want to create panic-buying or hoarding.”

More lasting solutions are under discussion. Sardella and others have proposed government subsidies to get U.S. generics plants running full time. Their capacity is now half-idle. If federal agencies like the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services paid more for more safely and efficiently produced drugs, it would promote a more stable supply chain, he said.

“At a certain point the system needs to recognize there’s a high cost to low-cost drugs,” said Allan Coukell, senior vice president for public policy at Civica Rx, a nonprofit funded by health systems, foundations, and the federal government that provides about 80 drugs to hospitals in its network. Civica is building a $140 million factory near Petersburg, Virginia, that will produce dozens more, Coukell said.

Ratain and his University of Chicago colleague Satyajit Kosuri recently called for the creation of a strategic inventory buffer for generic medications, something like the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, set up in 1975 in response to the OPEC oil crisis.

In fact, Ratain reckons, selling a quarter-million barrels of oil would probably generate enough cash to make and store two years’ worth of carboplatin and cisplatin.

“It would almost literally be a drop in the bucket.”

KFF Health News is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues.

Patients Who Received Opioids During Surgery Had Better Outcomes

By Pat Anson, PNN Editor

As pressure grows on the Biden Administration to implement the NOPAIN Act and require Medicare to pay higher costs for non-opioid pain relievers during surgery, a new study shows that restricting the use of opioids during surgical procedures may do more harm than good.

Researchers at Massachusetts General Hospital (MGH) analyzed the health records of over 61,000 patients who had surgery under general anesthesia at MGH, and found that those who received opioids were less likely to experience post-operative pain and needed fewer opioids during recovery.

The study findings, published in in JAMA Surgery, showed that surgery patients who were given the opioids fentanyl and hydromorphone had less pain, lower rates of persistent opioid use, and fewer opioid prescription refills. They were also less likely to have chronic pain 12 months after surgery.

Researchers were particularly surprised to find that patients who received higher doses of fentanyl had fewer chronic pain diagnoses and needed fewer opioid prescriptions 30, 90 and 180 days after surgery.

“We were surprised by the extent to which intraoperative administration of opioids was associated with medium- and long-term outcomes. This may relate to the fact that if inadequate amounts of opioids are administered in the operating room, patients may emerge from general anesthesia in pain, a phenomenon that has a known association with persistent postsurgical pain,” wrote lead author Patrick Purdon, PhD, Department of Anesthesia, Critical Care, and Pain Medicine at MGH.

“The main implication of this study is that in the drive toward overall reduction of opioid usage in surgical pain management in the US, the role of intraoperative nociception in determining postoperative pain may have been overlooked to the detriment of patient outcomes.”

Researchers say their findings underscore the importance of ensuring that patients don’t emerge from general anesthesia in pain, not only for their short-term wellbeing, but to prevent long-term opioid use.

“The opioid crisis is a major motivator for mitigating the risks of opioid usage,” said co–first author Laura Santa Cruz Mercado, MD, an anesthesiology resident at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center and former research fellow at MGH. “But appropriate opioid administration in the operating room may reduce total opioid usage after surgery.”

Lobbying for Early Implementation of NOPAIN

Although previous studies have found that the risk of opioid misuse or overdose after surgery is rare, pressure on U.S. hospitals to reduce their use of opioids has resulted in a 50% decrease in opioid prescribing after surgery.  

Supporters of the NOPAIN Act would like it to decrease further and faster. Passed by Congress late last year, the Act requires the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) to expand reimbursement policies for non-opioid treatments in outpatient surgical settings, starting in 2025. Supporters of the bill have launched a campaign to have the timetable moved up to 2024.

“Healthcare leaders must help CMS understand the inevitable damage that will result if the agency does not implement the policy in 2024. Millions of Americans will be put needlessly at risk of opioid addiction for another year,” Nirav Amin, MD, an orthopedic surgeon at Pomona Valley Hospital in Pomona, CA, wrote in a recent op/ed in Healthcare Dive. “The policy will incentivize greater use of non-opioids by creating separate reimbursements for the administration of these therapies.”

Unmentioned in Amin’s column is that he’s been paid over $360,000 in recent years as a consultant for Pacira BioSciences, a company that stands to directly benefit from the NOPAIN Act. Pacira makes Exparel, an expensive injectable formulation of bupivacaine, a non-opioid analgesic used to treat post-operative pain.

Bupivacaine is a generic drug that only costs about $35 a vial, while Exparel is priced 10 times higher, at $365 a vial. According to two recent studies that Pacira claimed were “false and misleading,” Exparel works no better than the much cheaper bupivacaine products.

Pacira has made over $32 million in various payments to Amin and other doctors to help promote Exparel, according to Open Payments, a CMS database that tracks industry payments to healthcare providers. Pacira is also bankrolling Voices for Non-Opioid Choices, an advocacy group that is leading the campaign for early implementation of the NOPAIN Act.

Pacira is also very active politically, spending over $2.6 million on lobbying and campaign donations since 2018, according to OpenSecrets. In 2019, Pacira hired former New Jersey governor and current presidential candidate Chris Christie as a consultant for $800,000 and lucrative stock options. At the time, Christie had recently chaired President Trump’s opioid commission, which recommended that Medicare and Medicaid reimbursement policies be changed to encourage hospitals to use more non-opioid pain relievers.

Chemotherapy and Opioid Shortages Impacting Cancer Care

By Pat Anson, PNN Editor

Over two-thirds of cancer centers in the U.S. are reporting shortages of methotrexate and other drugs used in chemotherapy, according to a survey by the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCNN).

Methotrexate is a versatile drug that prevents cells from dividing. It was originally developed to treat cancer, but is also widely used to treat autoimmune and neurological conditions such as lupus, rheumatoid arthritis, migraine and multiple sclerosis.

The NCNN surveyed 27 cancer centers across the U.S. in late May, and found that 67% of them were reporting shortages of methotrexate. Most centers are also reporting chronic shortages of carboplatin and cisplatin, chemotherapy agents that are widely used in cancer treatment. The shortages have resulted in treatment delays or forced doctors to modify their treatment plans using other drugs.

"This is an unacceptable situation. We are hearing from oncologists and pharmacists across the country who have to scramble to find appropriate alternatives for treating their patients with cancer right now," Robert Carlson, MD, CEO of NCCN, said in a statement. "We were relieved by survey results that show patients are still able to get life-saving care, but it comes at a burden to our overtaxed medical facilities." 

Drugs shortages in the U.S. are currently near record levels, primarily due to shipping delays and other disruptions caused by the pandemic. But the shortage in chemotherapy agents largely stems from a halt in production at a plant in India operated by Intas Pharmaceuticals. FDA inspectors found quality-control violations at the plant late last year and the agency recently slapped an import alert on the company. The agency is working with drug makers in China to make up the difference.

The FDA added methotrexate injectable solution to its drug shortage list in March. Supplies are currently limited and the shortage is not expected to end until December 2023. No shortages are currently reported for methotrexate tablets.

Hydrocodone Shortage

In addition to chemotherapy drugs, some drug makers are also reporting shortages of opioid pain medication. The American Society of Health-System Pharmacists (ASHP) recently added hydrocodone-acetaminophen combinations – commonly known under the brand names Vicodin and Norco-- to its own drug shortage database.

Generic drug makers Amneal, Camber, KVK-Tech, Major and Rhodes currently report shortages of 5 mg, 7.5 mg, and 10 mg hydrocodone tablets. None of the companies provided a reason for the shortage or an estimate for when it might end. Many of the same drug makers reported shortages of oxycodone in March.

The limited supply of opioids is also affecting cancer patients. The University of Utah Health system recently informed its drug wholesaler that it was adding 50 new beds to its cancer clinic and would be needing more pain medication to treat the extra patients.

“And the wholesaler said, ‘Well, let's just wait until we start receiving your orders to increase the amounts that you're going to buy,’” said Erin Fox, PharmD, Senior Pharmacy Director at University of Utah Health, which tracks drug shortages for the ASHP. “We're unable to be proactive. We're trying to think ahead. And we don't want to have that situation where we we're getting very close to running out or not having enough. That's basically what our wholesaler says has to happen.”

“We wish that we could fix all these things, but we don't make the medicines and we can't tell someone that they must make medicines. There are some things that are out of our control,” FDA Commissioner Robert Califf, MD, said in a recent interview with Medscape.

The Drug Enforcement Administration, in consultation with the FDA, sets the annual production quotas for opioids and other controlled substances. The DEA reduced this year’s supply of oxycodone and hydrocodone by about 5 percent, after being advised by FDA that demand for Schedule II opioids would decline. Since peaking a decade ago, DEA production quotas have fallen by 65% for oxycodone and 73% for hydrocodone.

FDA Head Says Drug Shortages ‘Out of Our Control’

By Pat Anson, PNN Editor

With drug shortages in the U.S. near record levels, the head of the Food and Drug Administration says there is little his agency can do to ease shortages, particularly those involving generic drugs.

“We wish that we could fix all these things, but we don't make the medicines and we can't tell someone that they must make medicines. There are some things that are out of our control,” FDA Commissioner Robert Califf, MD, said in an interview with Medscape.  

There are currently 207 medications in short supply, according to the FDA’s drug shortage list, but the American Society of Health-System Pharmacists (ASHP) has a much higher estimate of over 300 active drug shortages, the most since 2014.

Shortages of generic medications used to treat cancer and attention deficit disorder (ADHD) have gotten the most attention, but there are also emerging shortages of generic oxycodone and other opioid pain medications. About 90% of prescribed drugs in the U.S. are low-cost generics.

“And this has caused a big problem, where a number of generic drugs are in shortage at any given time, because there's not enough profit for a company to say they want to go into the business of making that drug,” said Califf.

Teva Pharmaceutical, one of the world’s largest manufacturers of generic drugs, announced last month that it would change its business model to focus on more profitable branded drugs. Teva has already informed the FDA that it was discontinuing production of 30, 15, and 5 mg tablets of generic oxycodone.  

Another generic drug maker, Perrigo Pharmaceuticals, recently notified the FDA that it was stopping production of a cough syrup made with hydrocodone.

Pain patients have had trouble for years getting prescriptions filled for opioids, but the problem appears to have gotten more acute in recent months – and not just for generic opioids. Joy CobbWilliams told PNN she has trouble getting prescriptions filled for OcyContin, a branded formulation of oxycodone that she’s been taking for nearly a decade for chronic back pain.

“Month after month I run out of my medication while I wait for the pharmacy to get more. Some months I wait three or four days and other months I wait almost two weeks. The pain I suffer is unbearable,” she said. “Something needs to be done. We have got to do better for the patients suffering and not abusing the medication. This is the United States and there should be no reason someone suffering should have to wait days to weeks to get their 10mg OxyContin.” 

Kim Luarks told us she’s had problems with her pharmacy running out of fentanyl patches and Xtampza ER (oxycodone). She’s been on opioids for 20 years due to chronic back pain. 

“Here I sit, still waiting and have been without any long-acting opioid for (7 days) and not feeling too hot,” she said. “This could be detrimental to my life, let alone my heart and lungs that are already damaged due to the doctors just throwing pain meds at me in the early 2000’s. I've been through all the changes and federal regulations causing this nonsense.” 

The Drug Enforcement Administration, in consultation with the FDA, determines the annual production quotas for opioids and other controlled substances. Despite Califf’s contention that drug shortages are “out of our control,” it was the FDA that advised the DEA that demand for Schedule II opioids such as oxycodone would fall by 5.3% in 2023. 

DEA adopted the FDA’s recommendations and reduced the supply of opioids for the seventh consecutive year, saying it would be “sufficient to meet all legitimate needs.” Since their peak in 2013, DEA production quotas have fallen by 65% for oxycodone and 73% for hydrocodone.

In his interview with Medscape, Califf suggested that some medications are now in short supply not because of production quotas, but because they are prescribed to people who don’t really need them. He said stronger medical guidelines may be needed to discourage doctors from overprescribing.   

“If only the people that needed these drugs got them, there probably wouldn't be a shortage. There's a large amount of use which is on the margins. And this is why I say we need better clinical standards,” Califf said.

“But having said all that, we're working with the DEA frequently as they try to work out what the quotas are. And we're working with the companies to optimize production. So that shortage should go away. It's better now than it was a few months ago, and it's going to continue to get better.”

Studying Natural Opioids Could Lead to New Non-Addictive Analgesics

By Dr. John Streicher, University of Arizona

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

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

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

What Are Natural Opioids?

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

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

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

Targeting Opioid Signals

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

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

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

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

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

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

Inhibiting a Protein Relieves Pain

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

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

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

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

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

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

My Life Is on the Line Due to Rx Opioid Shortages

By Christine Kucera, Guest Columnist

On May 24, I had my regularly scheduled pain management appointment. The prescription for my normal regimen of 10mg oxycodone was sent electronically to my local CVS pharmacy. About an hour later, I received a text from CVS saying they received the prescription from my doctor.

I followed up later through their automated system. That is the moment of shocking revelation when I learned that my prescription was not going to be filled on time, and that it may not be ready until a week after my fill date.

Utterly panicked, heart racing, thinking and speaking a mile a minute, I contacted the pharmacy. They confirmed they were out of 10mg oxycodone tablets.

“What am I supposed to do?” I asked. A woman who I don’t know replied that I should try contacting other pharmacies.

Really? I can’t do that. Pharmacies won’t tell me, the patient, if they have a supply of a controlled substance. So she looked it up and said it looks like “X” pharmacy has it and that I should have my doctor send the prescription there. Unfortunately, by the time my provider received the message, it was too late.

I made multiple calls to another pharmacy and they were extremely rude. I called my pharmacy again. This time I spoke with a pharmacist that knew me. He was very understanding, as we discussed what to do next.

CHRISTINE KUCERA

We came up with a plan. He said to have my doctor send him a prescription for 5mg oxycodone. I immediately emailed my provider about the shortage and asked him to send a new prescription for 5mg, since they were out of 10mg tablets.

It was a very long night and I was extremely anxious waiting for a reply from my provider. As a long-term opioid patient of 30 years with intractable pain, I’ve been through the unimaginable, especially after the CDC published its first opioid guideline. Since 2016, I’ve been force tapered to suboptimal treatment levels, denied pain medication during multiple hospitalizations, and told to take Tylenol.

A surgeon even used prescription fentanyl on me during an interventional procedure after being told it doesn’t work on me – leaving me awake and screaming during the procedure. That’s just to name a few examples. Believe me, there are many more.

My thoughts are racing out of control. I can’t do this anymore. I can’t live life with unrelenting, unmanaged pain all day, every day. I’m barely holding on now, trying hard not give up hope. It’s not easy living in a body that’s under assault from an invisible invader, leaving my entire body riddled with rare diseases, along with severe bone, nerve, connective tissue and organ pain.

As a person with severe medically induced PTSD, I can fully recall all of the previous times I was forced off my managed regime of opiate medication. This time it’s going to be at the hands of the DEA, which has intentionally created shortages of oxycodone.

Next day arrives, a new prescription for 5mg is sent and I sigh with relief. It was short lived. Another pharmacist said my insurance company won’t cover the 5mg substitute without prior authorization. Completely losing control of my emotions, I asked why do I need another prior authorization?  My daily limit of 90 morphine milligram equivalents (MME) didn’t change, just the dose of the tablets

“It’s because of daily quantity limits,” the pharmacist replied.

Are you freaking serious?  I’m out of oxycodone as of today and you’re saying I can’t have 2 weeks of a substitute because there is no supply anywhere of 10mg and my insurance has quantity limits on 5mg doses?  I was angry and upset. This is so wrong! What am I supposed to do?

To that, the pharmacist says, “You can pay out of pocket.”

I didn’t have a choice, although I knew what happens from paying out of pocket with cash and sending prescriptions to new pharmacies. Those are red flags for prescription drug monitoring programs (PDMPs).

What’s next CDC and DEA? You’ve fabricated the great Opioid Lie and created policies that affect all pain care in all settings. Created new burdens for disabled and chronically ill patients. Created an opioid guideline that doesn’t allow for individualized treatment and places limits on prescriptions. You’ve shackled doctors with no options but to provide inadequate pain care or abandon patients altogether.

Now patients and their providers are having to deal with DEA created shortages of essential medicines. This has got to stop! Pain patients have never been the driver behind the overdose crisis. Anti-opioid prohibition policies are harming, torturing and killing U.S. citizens.

What do I do? There are no protections or even a set of procedures in place to assist patients and providers when there are shortages of controlled substances. It really is a nightmare situation. I feel helpless. The shortage is not my fault, the restrictions have gone too far, and my life is on the line.

Christine Kucera lives with psoriatic arthritis, spondyloarthropy, spondylitis, polyarthritis, sacroiliitis, degenerative joint disease, dermatomyositis, mixed connective tissue disease, spinal radiculopathy, hypoparathyroidism, rare endocrine tumors, psoriasis, endometriosis stage IV, pelvic adhesive disease, and other painful conditions. 

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

Do you have a “My Story” to share? Pain News Network invites other readers to share their stories about living with pain and treating it. We are particularly interested in your experiences dealing with current drug shortages. Send your stories to editor@painnewsnetwork.org.

Drug Distributor Vows to Fight DEA

By Pat Anson, PNN Editor

The fourth-largest drug distributor in the U.S. is vowing to fight efforts by the Drug Enforcement Administration to strip it of its license to sell opioids and other controlled substances to pharmacies, hospitals and health systems in 27 states.

Such a move by the DEA, if carried out, would not only put Morris & Dickson out of business but could exacerbate already tight supplies of pain medication and drugs used to treat cancer and attention deficit disorder (ADHD). The company said it would “vigorously appeal” the license revocation and seek a stay in federal court.

“We strongly believe any attempt to revoke our registration would be unwarranted and unjustified. Most importantly, any decision the DEA makes will not disrupt our operations. Business will continue as usual, and orders will continue to go out on time,” the Louisiana-based company said in a statement on its website.

The DEA announced Friday that it would revoke Morris & Dickson’s license, but allowed 90 days before the order takes effect. The action stems from a DEA investigation that identified thousands of suspiciously large orders for oxycodone and hydrocodone that the company sold to independent pharmacies in Louisiana from 2014 to 2018. In some cases, according to the DEA, the pharmacies were allowed to purchase six times the amount of opioids that they would normally order.

The DEA suspended Morris & Dickson’s license in 2018, but then delayed making a final decision on revoking it, which allowed the company to continue to operate. That five year delay came to a sudden end this week, after the Associated Press reported that the DEA failed to stop the company from “shipping highly addictive painkillers,” even after a judge recommended that its license be revoked for its “cavalier disregard” of the suspicious orders.

Further complicating the case is that a top DEA official retired from the agency in 2017 and went to work for Morris & Dickson, leading efforts at the company to improve the way it identifies and reports suspicious orders. Louis Milione “unretired” in 2021 and went back to work at the DEA as principal deputy administrator.    

Morris & Dickson spent millions of dollars improving its compliance system, but that was not enough for DEA Administrator Ann Milgram, who has come under increasing fire for her personnel decisions at the agency.

“Respondent (Morris & Dickson) has not adequately convinced the Agency that it can be entrusted with a registration — its acceptance of responsibility did not prove that it or its principals understand the full extent of their wrongdoing, the effect that it had on the Agency and the American public, and the potential harm that it caused. It was Respondent's burden to prove that it could be entrusted to protect the public interest in maintaining a DEA registration — and it has failed to do so,” Milgram said in her 68-page order.

Milgram said she would deny any application by Morris & Dickson to renew or modify its registration, and said her order would become final on August 28, 2023.

The company, however, said it would continue its “ongoing discussion” with the DEA to keep its license.

“Morris & Dickson is grateful to the DEA Administrator for delaying the effective date of the Order to allow time to settle these old issues, which has been our goal since this started years ago,” the company said. “We remain confident we can achieve an outcome that safeguards the supply chain for all of our healthcare partners and the communities they serve.”

That supply chain has been severely strained in recent years, not only by the pandemic, but by DEA actions that reduced the supply of opioids and other controlled substances.

In March, the American Society of Health-System Pharmacists added oxycodone to its list of drug shortages, after generic drug makers Amneal, Camber and Rhodes Pharmaceuticals reported they were running out of some doses of oxycodone tablets.

This month Teva Pharmaceutical said it would discontinue production of immediate release oxycodone and scale back its generic drug business to focus on more profitable medications.

The nation’s three largest drug distributors – McKesson, AmerisourceBergen and Cardinal Health — have already imposed strict limits on the amount of opioids and other controlled substances they sell as part of a $21 billion opioid litigation settlement. Whether they would be able to take on additional customers and supply them with essential medications that Morris & Dickson now provides is an open question.

“It’s hard to say what the overall impact would be. I don’t know how many pharmacies or hospitals are only serviced by Morris & Dickson,” says Erin Fox, PharmD, Senior Pharmacy Director at University of Utah Health, who has been tracking drug shortages for over 20 years. “They would have to establish contracts with another wholesaler. If pharmacies and hospitals have a secondary wholesaler, then they should be able to access opioids to dispense for patients.”  

Why Changes at Teva Could Worsen Rx Opioid Shortages

By Pat Anson, PNN Editor

A change in the business model of one of the world’s largest manufacturers of generic drugs could lead to further shortages of opioids and other medications in the United States, according to an industry expert.

Last week Israel-based Teva Pharmaceutical Industries said it would reduce its production of generics from 80% of its drug portfolio to 60% over the next few years. Teva’s CEO says the company plans to focus on more profitable branded drugs as part of its “pivot to growth.”

“The drugs we’re pulling out of are drugs which are low-margin,” CEO Richard Francis told Bloomberg.

Teva has not publicly identified which generic drugs it will stop producing, but said it would “very carefully” avoid dropping any medications that are already in short supply.

“We don’t want to let the pharmacists, the wholesalers and the patients down. We want to make sure they always have their drug when they’re looking for it,” Francis said in an interview with Endpoints News.

But Teva has already moved to reduce its production of generic oxycodone, informing the Food and Drug Administration earlier this month that it would discontinue producing 30, 15, and 5 mg tablets of immediate release oxycodone. Teva did not respond to multiple requests from PNN to explain the reasons for the discontinuation.

The FDA does not currently list oxycodone on its drug shortage database, but the American Society of Health-System Pharmacists (ASHP) does.

As PNN reported, ASHP added oxycodone to its nationwide list of drug shortages in March, with generic drug makers Amneal, Camber and Rhodes Pharmaceuticals reporting shortages of 5, 15, 20 and 30 mg oxycodone tablets.

“They are a large producer and other companies may not be able to make up the difference. I think it really will result in shortages.”

— Dr. Erin Fox, University of Utah Health

“I know that (Teva’s) CEO came out with a statement saying that they wouldn't leave the market for products that are in short supply, but it hasn't exactly been a great market overall. The overall capacity of just the generic market is very difficult. When you look at controlled substances, that gets even more difficult,” says Erin Fox, PharmD, Senior Pharmacy Director at University of Utah Health, which tracks drug shortages for the ASHP.

“They (Teva) are a large producer and other companies may not be able to make up the difference. I think it really will result in shortages.”

As an example of how tight the supply of opioids and other controlled substances is, Fox says the University of Utah Health system reached out to its drug wholesaler to let them know that it was adding 50 new beds to its cancer clinic and would be needing more pain medication and other drugs to treat the extra patients. The answer it received was not reassuring.

“It's mostly opioids that we anticipate needing more of. And the wholesaler said, ‘Well, let's just wait until we start receiving your orders to increase the amounts that you're going to buy,’” Fox told PNN. “I think the wholesalers’ settlement that they've done has really limited the amount of products that pharmacies can access. Even if you have the patients, it can be very difficult to increase the amount that you're ordering.”

Fox is referring to a $21 billion opioid litigation settlement that three large drug distributors reached with 46 states last year, which requires them to impose strict limits on the amount of opioids and other controlled substances they can supply to pharmacies in any given month. An unusually large order for opioids could result in a pharmacy getting red-flagged by a distributor and the order cancelled, regardless of patient needs.

“We're unable to be proactive. We're trying to think ahead. And we don't want to have that situation where we we're getting very close to running out or not having enough. That's basically what our wholesaler says has to happen,” Fox explained.

DEA Production Cuts

Fox says years of cuts in production quotas by the Drug Enforcement Administration have also contributed to shortages. With opioids and some other controlled substances in tight supply, there is little margin for error or unexpected developments in the pharmaceutical industry – like Teva reducing its production of generics.

Keeping track of the drug supply is made more difficult because production quotas for each company are not disclosed by the DEA and there is little transparency in the business.

“What we don't have is the amount that the DEA is giving to each supplier. And then we also don't know the amount that each supplier is then manufacturing. Because we don't have that transparency, it's really hard to know,” Fox said. “Drug manufacturing is a business. And even though patients are at the end of it, these drug companies don't have to tell people why they're discontinuing something. They don't have to have to say what market share they had or if they think there might be a shortage. They can just stop at any time.”

Another issue is that DEA’s annual production quotas are not transferable from one company to another. That’s why Fox believes the changes at Teva are likely to worsen drug shortages.

“DEA assumes that everything is going perfectly with manufacturing, that no companies are having a glitch, and no companies are having a problem. And so one company might be having manufacturing problems, but still holding onto their quota. They can't necessarily give it to another company who's able to ramp up production,” she said.

“There’s just a lack of transparency. It's very hard. I've been monitoring drug shortages for over 20 years. Almost always, when a company quits, we end up with some kind of a shortage. Hopefully it won't be long term.”

Another factor that could be influencing Teva’s decision is the $4.25 billion nationwide settlement the company agreed to pay in opioid litigation last year. Teva’s production of generic and branded opioids dwarfed that of Purdue Pharma and other better known drug companies. Now heavily in debt, Teva may have decided that profits in a low-margin product like opioids are simply not worth the risk.      

‘No Reliable Evidence’ That Antidepressants Work for Chronic Pain

By Pat Anson, PNN Editor

Medical guidelines in the United States and United Kingdom may recommend antidepressants for treating chronic pain, but there is “no reliable evidence” that the medications actually work for that purpose, according to a new Cochrane review.

Cochrane reviews are considered the gold standard in medical research because they use robust methodology to gather good quality evidence, while dismissing poor quality research.

A team of UK researchers, led by scientists at the University of Southampton, spent two years examining 176 clinical trials involving nearly 30,000 patients who were prescribed antidepressants for pain. Among the drugs studied were fluoxetine (Prozac), sertraline (Zoloft), amitriptyline (Elavil), milnacipran (Savella), citalopram (Celexa), paroxetine (Paxil) and duloxetine (Cymbalta).

“Our review found no reliable evidence for the long-term efficacy of any antidepressant, and no reliable evidence for their safety for chronic pain at any point. Though we did find that duloxetine provided short-term pain relief for patients we studied, we remain concerned about its possible long-term harm due to the gaps in current evidence,” said lead author Tamar Pincus, PhD, a Psychology Professor at the University of Southampton.

“This is a global public health concern. Chronic pain is a problem for millions who are prescribed antidepressants without sufficient scientific proof they help, nor an understanding of the long-term impact on health.”

In the United States, duloxetine is FDA-approved for fibromyalgia, diabetic neuropathy and musculoskeletal pain. The recently updated CDC guideline recommends that duloxetine and other SNRI antidepressants be used for fibromyalgia and neuropathy, because they provide “small to moderate improvements in chronic pain and function.”

The UK’s National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) guideline goes even further, stating that antidepressants are better than opioids and other analgesics in treating fibromyalgia, chronic headache, Complex Regional Pain Syndrome (CRPS), musculoskeletal pain and other types of “primary chronic pain” for which there is no known cause.   

The authors of the Cochrane review say regulators in the US and UK should reconsider their recommendations.

“We are calling on governing health bodies NICE and the FDA to update their guidelines to reflect the new scientific evidence, and on funders to stop supporting small and flawed trials. Evidence synthesis is often complex and nuanced but the evidence underpinning the use of these treatments is not equivalent, so current treatment modalities are hard to justify,” said co-author Gavin Stewart, PhD, a statistician at Newcastle University.

Amitriptyline is one of the most commonly prescribed antidepressants for chronic pain in the world. In the last year, around 10 million prescriptions for amitriptyline were given to patients in England for pain, about twice the number prescribed for depression. Many other antidepressants are also prescribed “off-label” for pain, despite limited evidence to support their use.

“Though previous investigations show that some antidepressants might relieve pain, there has never been a comprehensive study examining all medications across all chronic conditions – until now,” said co-author Hollie Birkinshaw, PhD, a Research Associate at the University of Southampton.

“The only reliable evidence is for duloxetine. Adopting a person-centered approach is critical to treatment and, when patients and clinicians decide together to try antidepressants, they should start from the drug for which there is good evidence.”

The reviewers say duloxetine was the highest-rated antidepressant for treating fibromyalgia, musculoskeletal and neuropathic pain. Standard doses of duloxetine were just as effective as higher ones. Milnacipran was also effective at reducing pain, although the evidence was weaker.

“We simply cannot tell about other antidepressants because sufficiently good studies are not available – but it does not mean that people should stop taking prescribed medication without consulting their GP,” said Pincus.

A common complaint of patients who take duloxetine is that it makes them dizzy and nauseous. Many quickly become dependent on the drug and then have severe withdrawal symptoms when they stop taking it.

Several previous studies have also raised questions about using antidepressants for pain. A recent review of over two dozen clinical trials by Australian researchers found little evidence to support the use of antidepressants in pain management. Nearly half of the trials had ties or funding from the pharmaceutical industry.