Flexible Implant Could Be Alternative to Spinal Cord Stimulators

By Pat Anson

Spinal cord stimulators have long been fraught with problems. First developed in the 1960’s, the devices are surgically implanted near the spine to deliver mild electric impulses that block pain signals from traveling to the brain.

Although their design and technology have improved over the years, making them smaller, rechargeable and programmable, spinal cord stimulators (SCSs) still have high failure rates and poor safety records. Recent studies have also questioned their effectiveness in treating back pain.

Researchers at the University of Southern California have developed an alternative: a small, flexible, wireless, and battery-free implant that could overcome some of the limitations of SCSs.

NATURE ELECTRONICS

The experimental device, recently introduced in a paper published in Nature Electronics, is powered by a wearable ultrasound transmitter and uses machine learning algorithms to customize treatment for each patient. The implant is designed to bend and twist, unlike traditional stimulators that tend to be bulky and are hard-wired to batteries.

“Implantable percutaneous electrical stimulators… are expensive, can cause damage during surgery and often rely on a battery power supply that must be periodically replaced. Here we report an integrated, flexible ultrasound-induced wireless implantable stimulator combined with a pain detection and management system for personalized chronic pain management," wrote a team of researchers at USC’s Alfred E. Mann Department of Biomedical Engineering.

The researchers tested the wireless stimulator in laboratory rodents experiencing different levels of pain. They found the device accurately predicted the levels of stress experienced by the animals and adapted the electrical stimulation it delivered, easing most of their pain.

“We classify pain stimuli from brain recordings by developing a machine learning model and program the acoustic energy from the ultrasound transmitter and, therefore, the intensity of electrical stimulation," researchers said. "The implant can generate targeted, self-adaptive and quantitative electrical stimulations to the spinal cord according to the classified pain levels for chronic pain management in free-moving animal models."

The research team is planning further tests on other lab animals, with the goal of eventually testing the device in clinical trials on humans.

About 50,000 traditional spinal cord stimulators are implanted every year in the U.S., where they are promoted as alternatives to opioids and other pain treatments. However, a 2022 study found that SCSs do not reduce patient use of opioids, epidurals, steroid injections or radiofrequency ablation. About a fifth of patients experienced complications so severe the devices had to be removed or revised.

Are 1 in 10 Americans Really Using Illicit Opioids?

By Crystal Lindell

A new study claims to have found that nearly 11% of Americans reported using illicit opioids in 2024, with 7.5% of them using illicit fentanyl.

It's a startling claim, in large part because those numbers are significantly higher than what's been reported in previous research. When the National Survey on Drug Use and Health asked about illicit fentanyl use in 2022, they found that just 0.3% of American adults used it in the past year

The study by researchers at the RAND corporation and USC led to a number of splashy headlines, including one in U.S. News and World Report reading: "U.S. Illicit Opioid Use Could Be 20 Times Higher Than Previously Estimated"

That is indeed a pretty striking claim – which is a large reason I am so skeptical of the research.

How did the study authors arrive at those figures? They developed and fielded a survey with Respondi, an online platform often used in academic research. So essentially, they did an online survey of 1,515 adults.

Participants were asked about their use of nonprescription opioids within the past 12 months, with heroin and illicitly manufactured fentanyl given as examples.

Among the respondents, they found that 166 (10.96%) reported illicit opioid use and 114 (7.5%) said they used illicit fentanyl. 

While I understand that population data is often collected with a relatively small sample size, it feels rushed to claim that 7.5% of adults used illicit fentanyl based on responses from 114 people in an online survey.

It feels equally rushed to claim that because 166 people reported illicit opioid use, that must mean that 11% of the population did so. 

There are about 262 million adults in the United States. If those survey numbers are accurate, that would mean 19.7 million Americans are using illicit fentanyl. And 28.8 million are using illicit opioids. That’s a lot of people. 

Overdose Deaths Declining

Keep in mind that the CDC just reported that U.S. overdose deaths fell by nearly 27% in 2024, the largest annual decline since they started tracking overdoses 45 years ago. 

Of the 80,391 drug deaths reported in 2024, the CDC estimates that 48,422 of those deaths involved synthetic opioids, primarily fentanyl. That’s nearly 28,000 fewer fentanyl deaths than the year before.

How can fentanyl deaths be declining when so many Americans claim they used the potent and often deadly street drug?     

The numbers just don’t add up. They suggest that illicit fentanyl isn’t nearly as dangerous as we’ve been led to believe, although I doubt that that’s the point the study authors were hoping to make. 

The RAND and USC researchers say their findings add to evidence that the CDC may significantly underestimate illicit drug use and that new methods are necessary to keep better track of them.  

“Estimates of illicit opioid use are rare and typically are available only years after the information is collected, limiting our ability to monitor trends on a near-term basis,” says lead author David Powell, PhD, a senior economist and Professor of Policy Analysis at RAND. “Our study offers a method to quickly and repeatedly monitor illicit opioid prevalence at low cost.”

All of this matters because studies like this are often used to punish people who use any opioids – both legal and illegal. 

For example, if 11% of the population truly is using illicit opioids, then the medical community may use that statistic to claim that opioid prescribing is still too high and that too many prescription opioids are finding their way onto the black market. 

They might also claim more public funding is needed for the addiction treatment industry. Or that the overdose reversal drug naloxone should be required for anyone getting an opioid prescription. 

There’s also the prevailing myth that prescription opioids are what lead people to use fentanyl and other street drugs, a claim that the RAND/USC researchers believe is true.

“As the opioid crisis has evolved, attention to the role of prescription opioids has waned, even though overdose deaths from prescription opioids remain high and prescription opioids may operate as critical pathways to illicit opioid use,” they reported.  

That’s why it is so important for researchers to be more cautious in how they frame their results, and it’s also important for the media to be skeptical of research that shows extreme outlier data. 

Maybe 11% of people are using illicit opioids, and 7.5% are using illicit fentanyl. Both of those things could very well be true. But I think additional research replicating those results is needed before regulators and opioid prohibitionists act on them – especially if that means further restricting access to pain medication. 

Letters to Doctors Reduced Their Opioid Prescribing for a Year

By Pat Anson, PNN Editor

Many doctors in the U.S. have scaled back or stopped prescribing opioid pain medication because they fear scrutiny or even imprisonment by the DEA and other law enforcement agencies.

A team of USC researchers believes there’s a better way to address risky opioid prescribing: have coroners and medical examiners notify all doctors by letter when a patient dies from an overdose.  

“This is not meant to be a law enforcement exercise but a simple nudge. The point is not to scare, blame or shame doctors, but to make them aware of real risks in their patient cohorts, risks they may not be aware of otherwise,” says Jason Doctor, PhD, Professor and Chair of Health Policy and Management at USC’s Sol Price School of Public Policy.

Doctor and his colleagues found that when 809 prescribers received a letter from San Diego county’s medical examiner notifying them about the overdose death of a patient, they reduced the doses of opioid prescriptions they wrote for up to a year afterward. Their findings, published in JAMA Network Open, builds upon a previous study that found the same clinicians reduced their prescribing for three months after receiving such a letter.

"Clinicians don't necessarily know a patient they prescribed opioids to has suffered a fatal overdose," said Doctor. “We knew closing this information loop immediately reduced opioid prescriptions. Our latest study shows that change in prescribing behavior seems to stick."

Nationwide, opioid prescribing has fallen dramatically over the past decade. But USC researchers found the reduction was faster and more extensive among clinicians who received the letter. After one year, their prescriptions were 7.1% lower in morphine milligram equivalent units (MME) than clinicians who hadn't received the letter. The number of new patients they prescribed opioids to also fell by two percent.

"The new study shows this change is not just a temporary blip and then clinicians went back to their previous prescribing," said Doctor. "This low-cost intervention has a long-lasting impact."

Other Drugs Often Involved

There are three major caveats to the USC study. The first is that other substances besides prescription opioids – such as illicit drugs -- were involved in many of the overdose deaths. That’s because the criteria for the study were broad and subjective, including any patient who died when "prescription drug overdose was the primary cause or contributed to the cause of death."

Second, clinicians were included in the study if they had written any opioid prescription within 12 months of the patient’s death. That would explain why 809 prescribers received letters about the overdoses of 166 patients. Doctors received a letter even if a patient was no longer under their care and without conclusive evidence that the prescription they wrote was involved in the death.

Third, the study does not address the growing number of deaths caused by illicit fentanyl, which is now responsible for the vast majority of U.S. overdoses. Letters to doctors are unlikely to have any major effect on overdoses involving street drugs. A 2022 study confirmed there is very little correlation between overdoses, prescription opioids and MME dosage levels.

There have been several previous efforts to rein in opioid prescribing by sending warning letters to doctors. Federal prosecutors in Wisconsin and other states have done it, telling high-dose prescribers they could face prosecution, even when they have not been charged with a crime or linked to an overdose.

The Medical Board of California’s “Death Certificate Project” sent threatening letters to doctors about overdoses that occurred months or years after an opioid prescription was written -- an effort that some likened to a “witch hunt.” Some doctors were targeted even when multiple drugs were involved or the cause of death was suicide.

USC’s Doctor says a gentler “nudge” is needed, not threats. And he wishes the letters sent to San Diego doctors were mandatory statewide.

“That was a terrible approach to delivering letters that the medical board carried out,” Doctor wrote in an email. “We had none of the outcry or problems the (board) did because we were supportive and met clinicians on a professional level.”

Study Warns of Fake Cannabis Posts on Twitter

By Pat Anson, PNN Editor

Russian trolls and bots aren’t the only ones using social media to try to sway public opinion.

A USC analysis of thousands of cannabis-related posts on Twitter found that social media bots regularly make unsubstantiated health claims that suggest that cannabis can help treat pain, cancer, sleep, anxiety, depression, trauma and post-traumatic stress disorder. 

Researchers say their findings, published in the American Journal of Public Health, illustrate how false statements can be used to drown out facts and science on social media.

"We're in a period of time where these misleading messages are pervasive online," said lead author Jon-Patrick Allem, PhD, assistant professor of preventive medicine at USC’s Keck School of Medicine. "We want the public to be aware of the difference between a demonstrated, scientifically-backed piece of health information and claims that are simply made up."

In the United States, cannabis-based medicines are only approved to treat nausea and vomiting caused by chemotherapy, to stimulate appetite in patients experiencing weight loss, and to reduce seizures caused by childhood epilepsy. Many of the tweets made by bots suggest cannabis can help with a variety of other health problems, including foot pain and Crohn's disease.

For the study, researchers identified over 60,000 cannabis-related tweets posted from May 2018 to December 2018. Then they used an academic research tool called “Botometer” to analyze the posts to determine which ones came from real people and which ones were generated by bots that use software to automatically generate posts.

‘Content Polluters’

About 9,000 of the cannabis tweets appeared to come from bots, which were twice as likely to mention health and medical benefits of cannabis than non-bots. Researchers found no references to FDA approved uses for cannabis in the tweets.

The USC study did not look at the individuals or organizations behind the bot-generated posts about cannabis.

"Raising the issue of these false claims by social bots is an important first step in our line of research," Allem said. "The next step will be to examine the self-reported levels of exposure and beliefs in these claims and perceived risks and benefits of cannabis use, intentions to use and actual use."

Another recent study found that bots and other “content polluters” were active on Twitter in fueling the debate over the health benefits of vaccines.

“Content from these sources gives equal attention to pro- and antivaccination arguments. This is consistent with a strategy of promoting discord across a range of controversial topics—a known tactic employed by Russian troll accounts. Such strategies may undermine the public health: normalizing these debates may lead the public to question long-standing scientific consensus regarding vaccine efficacy,” said lead author David Broniatowski, PhD, School of Engineering and Applied Science at The George Washington University.

In 2018, Twitter suspended more than 70 million fake accounts that appeared to be using bots to make posts.

PNN’s Twitter account was recently suspended for 12 days for violating Twitter’s rules against “platform manipulation and spam.” The account was reinstated after we appealed. PNN does not use bots or promote any products or services in its tweets.

Teens Who Abuse Rx Opioids More Likely to Try Heroin

By Roger Chriss, PNN Columnist

A new study from the University of Southern California finds that teens who abuse prescription opioids are more likely to start using heroin by high school graduation.  

Published in JAMA Pediatrics, the study tracked nearly 3,300 students in ten public high schools in the Los Angeles area from 2013-2017. Nearly 600 of those students reported using prescription opioids to get high.

By the end of high school, a total of 70 students had started using heroin, including about 12% of those who abused opioid medication. Only 1.7% of students who did not misuse prescription opioids tried heroin.

The researchers looked closely at not only the nonmedical use of prescription opioids, but also the use of other substances. A family history of smoking, alcohol and drug problems, and interpersonal factors such as impulsiveness, anxiety, depression and delinquent behavior were also assessed.

Among all the different factors, the best predictor of heroin use was the abuse of prescription opioids. This tendency was significantly stronger than the use of alcohol, cannabis, cigarettes or other non-opioid drugs.

"Prescription opioids and heroin activate the brain's pleasure circuit in similar ways," said senior author Adam Leventhal, PhD, director of the USC Institute for Addiction Science. "Teens who enjoy the 'high' from prescription opioids could be more inclined to seek out other drugs that produce euphoria, including heroin.”

Researchers also found that students who initiated heroin use were more likely to be male, have less parental monitoring, more delinquent behavior, and impulsive personalities.

The USC study adds to previous research on the complex drug use trajectories that culminate with heroin. It has long been known that nonmedical prescription opioid use is associated with later heroin use, with some anti-opioid activists claiming that 80% of heroin addicts begin by abusing prescription opioids. That is a misleading statistic, as I discussed in a previous column.

There clearly is an association between the misuse of prescription opioids and heroin use, but as the USC researchers found, many other factors are also involved and more research is needed. Their study, for example, did not look at how teens who misused prescription opioids obtained them.  Most likely, they were obtained from friends or family members.

The USC study findings not only advance our understanding of heroin initiation, but also signal the importance of developing better policies to prevent nonmedical opioid use.

Roger Chriss lives with Ehlers Danlos syndrome and is a proud member of the Ehlers-Danlos Society. Roger is a technical consultant in Washington state, where he specializes in mathematics and research.

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