New Anti-Opioid Campaigns Launched

By Pat Anson, Editor

Two provocative anti-opioid campaigns were launched this week -- one aimed at educating parents and the other warning physicians about the risks associated with opioid pain medications.

A report by the National Safety Council claims that 99 percent of doctors are prescribing opioid pain medication longer than the three-day period recommended by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Nearly a quarter (23%) of the doctors surveyed said they prescribe at least a month's worth of opioids to their patients.  

Guidelines for primary care physicians released last week by the CDC state that three days or less supply of opioids “often will be sufficient” for acute pain caused by trauma or surgery, and that 7 days supply “will rarely be needed.”

The small survey of 201 family medicine and internal medicine physicians by the National Safety Council (NSC) did not distinguish between acute and chronic pain in their questions, making the findings somewhat misleading.

“For what period of time do you ordinarily prescribe opioid pain medication?” is what the doctors were asked.

Acute pain was the most common reason (87%) opioids were prescribed, but doctors said they prescribe opioid pain medication for many other conditions that the NSC considers inappropriate, including:

• 72% Chronic back pain
• 63% Chronic joint pain
• 55% Dental pain
• 55% Neuropathic pain
• 32% Fibromyalgia
• 28% Chronic headaches

The NSC’s report on the survey findings also claim that acetaminophen and ibuprofen are far more effective at providing pain relief than opioids and that doctors “overestimate the efficacy of opioids and underestimate the impact of safer alternatives.”

"Opioids do not kill pain; they kill people," said Donald Teater, MD, medical advisor for the National Safety Council. "Doctors are well-intentioned and want to help their patients, but these findings are further proof that we need more education and training if we want to treat pain most effectively."

The NSC survey also found that 99% of the doctors “have seen patients with pill-seeking behavior or evidence of drug abuse,” but handled the situation in very different ways:

• 44% Continued to treat the patient, but without opioids
• 38% Referred patient to addiction treatment
• 10% “Fired” the patient
•    5% Treated patient for addiction themselves
•    1% Refilled the opioid prescription
•    1% Never had a patient abuse opioids

Nearly 90% of doctors said it was difficult or very difficult to refer a patient for addiction treatment. Most blamed their patients, saying they were unwilling or uncooperative. Lack of insurance for addiction treatments and long waiting lists were two other reasons often cited.

The National Safety Council is a nonprofit organization focused on preventing injuries and deaths. It is funded largely through corporate donations and the insurance industry. The NSC has long had an aggressive campaign against opioids and claims they are the root cause of the prescription drug overdose epidemic.

“Opioids are being overprescribed. And it is not children reaching in medicine cabinets who have made drug poisoning the #1 cause of unintentional death in the United States. Adults have been prescribed opioids by doctors and subsequently become addicted or move from pills to heroin,” the NSC says on its website.

"Would you give your child heroin?"

Linking opioid pain medication to heroin is the focus of an advertising campaign launched this week, called "You Decide Before They Prescribe."

Created by the Partnership for a Drug-Free New Jersey, the campaign encourages parents to tell their doctors to prescribe alternative pain medications instead of opioids to their children.

“Would you give your child HEROIN to remove a wisdom tooth?” asks a new billboard unveiled in New York’s Times Square. "Ask your dentist how prescription drugs can lead to heroin abuse."

Similar ads will appear on trains and buses in New Jersey, and the organization eventually hopes the campaign will spread nationwide.

"40% of New Jersey parents still walk into a physician's office not understanding the link between prescription pain medicine and heroin – that opioids are a synthetic version of heroin," said Angelo Valente, Executive Director of Partnership for a Drug-Free New Jersey.

“The majority of New Jersey parents strongly agree that physicians should be legally required to discuss the risk of developing either a physical or psychological dependency on the prescription pain medication with patients prior to prescribing it." 

PARTNERSHIP FOR DRUG-FREE NEW JERSEY

Few Changes as CDC Releases Opioid Guidelines

By Pat Anson, Editor

After months of controversy, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has released the final version of its opioid prescribing guidelines, which discourage primary care physicians from prescribing opioid medication for chronic pain. The dozen guidelines are largely unchanged from a draft version that was released last September.

You can see the guidelines yourself by clicking here.

“Management of chronic pain is an art and a science. The science of opioids for chronic pain is clear: for the vast majority of patients, the known, serious, and too-often-fatal risks far outweigh the unproven and transient benefits,” CDC director Thomas Frieden, MD, wrote in article published in the New England Journal of Medicine.

Although voluntary and intended only for primary care physicians, many experts believe the guidelines will quickly be adopted by other doctors who treat pain, as well as regulatory agencies, local governments,  and professional medical organizations. Many pain patients fear losing access to opioids as a result.

The guidelines state that “nonpharmacologic therapy and nonopioid pharmacologic therapy” are the preferred treatments for chronic pain, and that doctors should only consider opioids if the benefits in pain relief and function outweigh the risks of addiction and abuse. Even if opioids are prescribed, the CDC recommends that they be used in combination with other therapies.

The guidelines also recommend the use of immediate release opioids instead of extended release opioid medication and that doctors be cautious about prescribing doses higher than 50 morphine milligram equivalents (MME) per day. Doctors are strongly advised to avoid increasing doses over 90 MME per day.

For acute pain from injuries or medical procedures such as surgery, the CDC states that three days or less supply of opioids “often will be sufficient” and that 7 days supply “will rarely be needed.”

Doctors are also advised to consult prescription drug monitoring programs (PDMP) to determine if patients are abusing opioids or using dangerous combinations of medications. Urine drug testing is also recommended before starting opioid therapy and at least annually afterwards. The guidelines also discourage doctors from dropping patients if they fail to pass a drug test as that "could constitute patient abandonment and could have adverse consequences for patient safety."

The guidelines state that opioid pain medication and benzodiazepines should not be prescribed concurrently, and addiction treatment should be offered to patients who show signs of drug abuse.

“The new CDC guideline emphasizes both patient care and safety. We developed the guideline using a rigorous process that included a systematic review of the scientific evidence and input from hundreds of leading experts and practitioners, other federal agencies, more than 150 professional and advocacy organizations, a wide range of key patient and provider groups, a federal advisory committee, peer reviewers, and more than 4000 public comments.” Frieden wrote, without mentioning that the CDC initially sought very little input from the public or healthcare providers.

The CDC's own experts also admitted much of the evidence to support the guidelines was weak. The agency planned to implement the guidelines in January, but was forced to delay them after widespread criticism about its secrecy and lack of transparency during the drafting of the guidelines.

In response to critics, a new advisory committee was formed to review the guidelines, but after a handful of private meetings the committee endorsed the guidelines with few changes.  A potential legal problem for the CDC is that none of its advisory committees' meetings were open to the public. The committees also reviewed the guidelines with outside consultants without publicly disclosing who they were.

Last year the Washington Legal Foundation (WLF) threatened to sue the agency for its “culture of secrecy” and “blatant violations” of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), which requires all such meetings to be open to the public.

"From the beginning we have been very disappointed in the manner CDC has conducted itself. We explained in detail last fall why we thought CDC had not acted in compliance with FACA. And while at first I was encouraged when CDC took steps to open up the process and perhaps try to compensate for some of its previous errors, I've seen nothing to suggest that it has really done so and in fact has just replaced one secret committee with another secret committee," said Richard Samp, WLF chief counsel. "I find it disappointing that a federal agency would not think it was incumbent to comply with federal law."

Samp told Pain News Network he was unsure if WLF would follow through on its threat to sue the agency and block the guidelines from being implemented.

"I can't say what if anything we plan to do from here or what anybody else plans to do," said Samp. "I just want to express our disappointment with the agency's procedural handling of this issue."

"We believe that this final version of the CDC guidelines leaves much to be desired," said Bob Twillman, PhD, Executive Director of the American Academy of Pain Management. "Looking across the two preliminary drafts and the final version, we see virtually no evidence that comments submitted by thousands of people with pain, patient advocacy organizations, and pain management societies resulted in any changes to the 12 recommendations in the guideline."

Twillman said he was concerned the "soft limits" on opioid dosages in the guidelines would be adopted as a rule by physicians, leaving some patients untreated or undertreated.

"Our concern is that, based on experience when states have implemented similar guidelines, some clinicians will interpret these 'soft limits' and thresholds as absolute ceiling doses, and that people with pain will suffer needlessly as a result," Twillman said.

"I don't see how they will contribute much to improved outcomes for people in pain," said Lynn Webster, MD, past president of the American Academy of Pain Medicine and Vice President of scientific affairs at PRA Health Sciences. " I wish the CDC would have advocated for the millions of Americans with chronic pain while also trying to curb the opioid crisis.  We will never solve the opioid problem if we don't do a better job of treating pain.

"The CDC should have called upon Congress to insist payers be part of the solution and not continue to be the major barrier to improved outcomes for people in pain and with opioid addiction."

Many of the non-opioid treatments and therapies the CDC recommends -- such as cognitive behavioral therapy, massage and physical therapy -- are not covered by insurers. 

"The CDC’s recommendations are very sound. They're pointing out that when opioids are used long term for chronic conditions they are more likely to harm patients than help. If you continue to take opioids daily for months and months, the opioids don’t work very well," said Andrew Kolodny, Executive Director and founder of Physicians for Responsible Opioid Prescribing (PROP), in an interview with KPCC Radio in Los Angeles.

PROP, which was heavily involved in the initial drafting of the guidelines, is funded by Phoenix House, a chain of addiction treatment centers that stand to benefit from the guidelines' recommendations.

"Opioids don't work well long-term. That's the CDC's message. That's what the evidence tells us. Its the industry and groups that get funding from industry that are promoting this inappropriate treatment," said Kolodny, who is chief medical officer of Phoenix House.

In a survey of over 2,000 pain patients by Pain News Network and the International Pain Foundation, many predicted the guidelines will lead to more opioid abuse and addiction, not less.  Nearly 93% said they would be harmful to pain patients. Most also said that non-opioid treatments and therapies provide very little pain relief or none at all.

Study: Opioids Not Always in Patient’s Best Interest

By Pat Anson, Editor

An industry funded report is calling for greater use of non-opioid medication for post-surgical pain to combat what it calls the “frightening reality” of the opioid epidemic.

The report by an expert panel convened at the Jefferson College of Population Health in Philadelphia claims that relieving a patient’s acute pain with opioids is expensive and “not always in their best interest” because it could lead to addiction.

“The added costs attributable to misuse and abuse of opioid prescriptions originating in the acute care setting are considerable. With steadily increasing numbers of surgical procedures being performed, even small increments in the percentage of chronic opioid users will create an unsustainable societal burden,” wrote lead author Janice Clark, RN, Jefferson College of Population Health.

The report also endorsed efforts to have Medicare eliminate a requirement that hospitals ask patients about the quality of their pain care in patient satisfaction surveys.

“Patient satisfaction has been associated with greater inpatient use, higher health care and prescription drug use and expenditures, and increased mortality. Clearly, giving patients what they want, or think they need, is not always in their best interest,” wrote Clark and her two co-authors.  

“There is so much wrong with this article it is hard to know where to start,” says Janice Reynolds, a patient advocate and retired nurse who specialized in pain management and oncology. She called the report “opiophobic” and unethical.

“It is unconscionable these people say the person in pain cannot say whether his pain was well managed or not,” said Reynolds. “Pain is what the person says it is, existing when he says it does.  It is subjective.  Only the person experiencing it knows if treatment was effective or not, as well as whether he was treated in a compassionate, empathic manor. “

The report’s recommendations -- which are being published in the journal of Population Health Management -- are very similar to guidelines released last month by the American Pain Society, which also promote the use of non-opioid medication for post-surgical pain.

“A wide variety of effective alternatives to opioids for pain management are available and patients need to be educated on what strategies are most appropriate for their procedure,” wrote Clark, who said in an email to Pain News Network the Jefferson College report did undergo peer review prior to publication.

The report calls for greater use of acetaminophen, non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAID’s) and preglabin (Lyrica) for post-surgical pain, as well as an injectable bupivacaine delivery system called Exparel that was developed by Pacira Pharmaceuticals, a New Jersey drug maker. 

The report was sponsored by Pacira and the company’s vice-president of medical health sciences, Richard Scranton, MD, was one of its co-authors.

At times the report reads like a promotion for Exparel, calling it an “innovative delivery system” that achieves “effective pain relief at substantially smaller doses.”

“In the acute pain space, where patients now ask for drugs by name, there is unprecedented risk of overprescribing, overuse, and misuse—particularly of opioid drugs. Exparel is an opioid alternative with equivalent pain control that reduces the need for postsurgical opioids and devices,” the report says.

“There should have been a disclosure up front that the company sponsoring the study makes Exparel,” said Reynolds.   

There is an acknowledgement on Page 2 of the 12-page report that Pacira Pharmaceuticals sponsored it, but the company is not identified as the maker of Exparel, which accounts for virtually all of the company's revenue.

Pacira Pharmaceuticals received a warning letter from the Food and Drug Administration in 2014 for its off-label promotion of Exparel, which was initially only approved for pain caused by bunion or hemorrhoid surgery. The U.S. Justice Department also subpoenaed the company for documents related to its marketing and sales of Exparel. 

“These additional materials suggest an extensive promotional campaign by Pacira to promote the use of Exparel in surgical procedures other than those for which the drug has been shown safe and effective,” the FDA letter states.

Pacira filed a lawsuit against the FDA claiming its first amendment rights were being violated. In an out-of-court settlement late last year, the FDA withdrew the warning letter and Exparel’s label was updated to state that it can be used for other types of postsurgical pain. The case was widely seen as a defeat for the FDA that could greatly expand the use of off-label marketing by drug companies.

A recent story by Stat questioned whether a $285 vial of Exparel provided any better pain relief than a $3 dose of bupivacaine after knee surgery.  The article also points out that other post-operative pain studies were conducted by researchers who received funding from Pacira.

Sneeze Alert: What It’s Like to Taper off Opioids

By Crystal Lindell, Columnist

As a result of feeling a bit better lately, I have been trying to go off all of my opioid pain medications, which at one point totaled as much as 60 mg a day — three, 8-hour time release 15 mg morphine pills and then as many as three, short-acting, 5 mg hydrocodone as needed.

I worked my way down from 60 mg a day to 15 mg a day over the course of a month, and then tried to drop down to zero. It did not go well. You can read more about that here.

A little over a week after trying to go cold turkey, for various reasons involving a fresh pain flare and horrific withdrawal symptoms, I ended up back on the drugs. And I have spent the last few months working with a team of doctors trying to figure all this out and attempting to slowly taper off those last 15 mg. 

This is what it’s been like:

Withdrawal is sneezing. Every three or four minutes. As soon as the opioids wear off at all — I’m sneezing.

And it’s anxiety. And waking up drenched in sweat. And it’s the kind of diarrhea that you have to learn to accept as a part of your life now. The kind that fills the toilet multiple times a day and leaves your legs weak. 

It’s calling your high school boyfriend at 2 p.m. on a Friday because you’re in Target having an anxiety attack for no reason and you need to talk to someone, anyone, or you might actually die right there between the fitting room and the yoga pants display. It’s immediately regretting that phone call and then having anxiety about why you made it in the first place.

It’s not sleeping. God is withdrawal not sleeping. You’re lucky if you get four hours in one night. And waking up at 3 a.m.   

It’s giving up, and then trying again tomorrow.

It’s realizing that cutting your pills in half and taking them in a different time configuration actually helps a lot. And it’s tracking every dose and every symptom in Google Keep.

It’s deciding that maybe dating isn’t the greatest idea when your fight or flight response is literally kicking in every time it takes a guy more than seven minutes to respond to a text message. It’s giving in and going out with a guy on a Tuesday night anyway because the escape is worth it.  

It’s doing a lot of things you aren’t proud of.

It’s your primary care doctor telling you that other people have no problems at all going off these drugs, then qualifying his statement with, “But, I mean, I believe you,” which somehow implies he doesn’t.

It’s reaching out to your old psychologist and pleading for help, and then getting referred to a psychiatrist who specializes in this sort of thing and finally finding one person on the whole entire Earth who actually has some idea of what you’re going through.

It’s a glass of wine, and a handful of Advil, and lots of sugar candy, as you try to find anything to help manage the symptoms.

It’s slow. Withdrawal is maddeningly slow. It’s going down 1.25 mg in a day and feeling like the world is ending and waking up more anxious than you’ve ever been. And wondering if you can actually do this.

And then it’s a post anxiety-crash four hours later, and being so tired that you can’t even move your arm to check your phone.

Withdrawal is multiple people calling you a drug addict to your face because your body is physically dependent on a medication you were given by a doctor. It’s multiple people saying you just need more willpower and more prayer and more desire to get off the drugs.

It’s wondering if maybe you are a drug addict.

It’s trying to eat Taco Bell because Taco Bell usually solves everything and then realizing that you can’t even stomach a cheesy gordita crunch because the withdrawal has destroyed your appetite. 

It’s working out to help the anxiety, and using the stupid Calm App for meditations that never work, and texting your best friend 72 times an hour so that you know you’re not alone. And then texting her again. And it’s breathing her oxygen for awhile because you don’t seem to have any of your own.

It’s intestinal cramping so severe that you’re literally doubled over in pain on the couch, crying out in pain, wondering if this is the end.

It’s deciding to go back to church because for some reason, for that hour each week, you feel maybe a little bit of peace.

Withdrawal is feeling weak.

It’s wondering if you’ll ever feel normal again. It’s wondering that over and over and over and trying to convince yourself that someday you will get a full night's sleep and you won’t wake up covered in sweat and you won’t have diarrhea first thing in the morning and you won’t have the crushing feeling of anxiety as you greet the day.

Withdrawal is trying to live a normal life while your body goes through hell every day. It’s trying to work and be a good friend and a decent human being when all you want to do is die. It’s trying to figure out how much information, exactly, you should give your boss about your opioid dependence.

It’s having a pain flare and thinking that maybe the drugs were doing more than you thought, and wondering if you’re even doing the right thing.

It’s saying that John Green quote about survival to yourself 59 times a day. The one that goes, “I'm not saying that everything is survivable. Just that everything except the last thing is.” And then it’s reminding yourself that this is probably not the last thing. 

And it’s reaching out to your Facebook friend who has the same chronic pain you have and him telling you that you have to do this — it’s important that you do this — because if you don’t the next best option is in-patient treatment and you don’t want that.

It’s trying to distract yourself with The Hobbit, and Spotlight and Downtown Abbey, and Facebook.

Withdrawal is still happening. It’s ongoing. It’s a long-term goal. A hope that one day you’ll be clean — whatever that means. 

It’s praying, and crying, and giving up, and trying again.

And it’s sneezing.

Crystal Lindell is a journalist who lives in Illinois. She loves Taco Bell, watching "Burn Notice" episodes on Netflix and Snicker's Bites. She has had intercostal neuralgia since February 2013.

Crystal writes about it on her blog, “The Only Certainty is Bad Grammar.”

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

E-coli Bacteria Used to Produce Morphine

By Pat Anson, Editor

While politicians and regulators in the U.S. try to decrease access to opioid pain medications, scientists are developing new techniques to mass produce them.

The latest development is at Kyoto University in Japan, where researchers have learned how to tweak E coli bacteria so that they pump out thebaine, a morphine precursor that can be modified to make opioid pain relievers.

The genetically modified Escherichia coli – a common gut microbe -- produces 300 times more thebaine than a recently developed method involving yeast.

"Morphine has a complex molecular structure; because of this, the production of morphine and similar painkillers is expensive and time-consuming. But with our E coli, we were able to yield 2.1 miligrams of thebaine in a matter of days from roughly 20 grams of sugar,” said lead author Fumihiko Sato of Kyoto University.

"Improvements in opiate production in this E. coli system represent a major step towards the development of alternative opiate production systems."

Sato’s study is published in the journal Nature Communications.

 Escherichia coli

Morphine is extracted from opium poppy sap in a process that typically takes up to a year. Morphine can then be converted to opiates such as codeine, hydrocodone or even heroin.

Scientists at Stanford University last year engineered the yeast genome so that it produces opiate alkaloids from sugar. The genetically altered yeast cells grow so rapidly they convert sugar into hydrocodone in just three to five days. That raised fears that opioids could be produced cheaply and easily, provided that one has access to the necessary yeast strain.

With E coli, Sato says that such a production risk is unlikely.

"Four strains of genetically modified E coli are necessary to turn sugar into thebaine," explains Sato. "E coli are more difficult to manage and require expertise in handling. This should serve as a deterrent to unregulated production."

In 2011, Sato and colleagues engineered E coli to synthesize reticuline, another morphine precursor. In the new system, the team added genes from other bacteria and enzyme genes from two strains of opium poppies, Coptis japonica, and Arabidopsis.

"By adding another two genes, our E coli were able to produce hydrocodone, which would certainly boost the practicality of this technique," Sato said. "With a few more improvements to the technique and clearance of pharmaceutical regulations, manufacturing morphine-like painkillers from microbes could soon be a reality."

Opioid pain medications are widely available in the United States, where the focus is often on their potential misuse. But the World Health Organization estimates that 5.5 billion people worldwide have little or no access to opioids because of their limited supply and high cost.

From Bad to Worse for Pain Patients?

By Pat Anson, Editor

Has the pendulum swung too far against pain patients?

The answer is "Yes" according to some leading pain management experts at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Pain Medicine (AAPM) in Palm Springs.  The AAPM represents 2,400 physicians and health care providers, including some who have stopped prescribing opioid pain medication because they fear prosecution or sanctions if they prescribe to patients who might abuse the drugs.

"There are a variety of primary care doctors that are dropping out altogether (from prescribing opioids). They will not allow it. They're saying everybody has to go to a pain management expert or you don't get anything. And its abrupt," said Bill McCarberg, MD, President of the AAPM. "For that group of patients, you're cutting everybody off inappropriately. There are some of those patients who probably need those medications, who do better with medications."

McCarberg, who volunteers at a health clinic in San Diego, says even opioids with abuse deterrent properties are difficult to prescribe because they are expensive and usually not covered by insurance. He is not optimistic about the continued use of opioids in pain management.

"In my experience over the last year its gotten worse and I think a year from now it will be even worse," McCarberg said. "When you come back here in five years, in ten years, we'll be having the discussion about the pendulum being over here, patients suffering.  About you getting shoulder surgery and getting nothing but acetaminophen to treat your shoulder because nobody is willing to give you more (opioids). That's what I worry about."

"I think that's right. I think the pendulum has swung in the direction of things being worse for patients very rapidly and very dramatically. And I don't think its finished swinging yet," says Bob Twillman, PhD, Executive Director of the American Academy of Pain Management.

"I think its the general atmosphere, the whole focus on opioid overdoses and all of that stuff.  That's what is driving the CDC's actions and every bit of the press that's out there is about that problem. And until we get the other side of the story out there and point out that not treating pain has negative consequences too, including people dying, until we can get that story out there and get some traction with it, patients are in a bad place."

PROP President Speaks to AAPM

Although the AAPM has "very significant concerns" about the quality of evidence and "negative bias" in some of the CDC's proposed opioid prescribing guidelines, it invited a controversial figure who helped draft them to its annual meeting. Jane Ballantyne, MD, who is president of Physicians for Responsible Opioid Prescribing (PROP), served on a CDC advisory panel known the "Core Expert Group." The CDC guidelines discourage primary care physicians from prescribing opioids for chronic pain.

Ballantyne, who gave a talk at the AAPM meeting on "Pain Curriculum Development for Primary Care Practitioners," recently come under fire for co-authoring an article in the New England Journal of Medicine that said reducing pain intensity should not be the primary goal of doctors that treat chronic pain. 

Several patient advocates asked AAPM to remove Ballantyne from the program.

"How, in good conscience, can you include someone with her views about pain teach other physicians, or influence future curriculum for physicians, on how to effectively treat pain? It is clear from her writings that she doesn’t understand pain, or painful disease processes. Should someone with views like this be influencing our present and future doctors?" wrote Ingrid Hollis of Families for Intractable Pain Relief in a letter to the AAPM.

"While I appreciate your concerns about including Dr. Ballantyne as a member of the faculty, the Academy will not comply with your request that it remove her from the program," responded Phil Saigh, Jr., Executive Director of AAPM. "The Academy is committed to the free exchange of information and perspectives among pain physicians and other clinicians.  It is this commitment that ensures that diverse perspectives are examined rather than creating a one-size-fits-all approach to education. To remove Dr. Ballantyne from the program would not be true to that commitment."

Ballantyne's presentation was low key and did not focus on opioid use. She spoke about improving pain curriculum in medical schools, an area where there is broad agreement that change is needed. 

"Pain education has been really, really bad. And a large part of the problem, in terms of primary care, is actually managing those with chronic pain and not having received any education on how to do that," said Ballantyne, who explained that her own education and training in the 1970's focused on pain medication and injections, and did not include other disciplines such as psychology.

"The evidence suggests strongly that entry level pain management training is widely inadequate across all disciplines in the United States. Only a few medical schools in Canada and the U.S. offer courses on pain," she said. "The young primary care physicians that I work with are suddenly faced with this extremely complex disease, chronic pain, and they have only been taught to see it in a unitary way. That's what leads to a very simple treatment goal, which is simply to reduce pain intensity.

JANE BALLANTYNE, MD

"When we treat chronic pain we do an awful lot more or want to achieve an awful lot more than simply reducing pain intensity. We want to improve people's lives. We want to help them function better. We want to improve their state of mind and their mood, and have to pay attention to all the other factors that contribute to the disease. Chronic pain is a complex disease that is not simply a focus on pain intensity. And that's one thing we can really help in our teaching."  

Drug Tests Scare Off Some Chronic Pain Patients

By Pat Anson, Editor

Urine drug testing has become standard protocol for many patients who are prescribed opioid pain medication. But a new study suggests the practice may be counterproductive, because it increases the odds a patient won’t come back for further treatment.

In a study involving 723 chronic pain patients being treated at a pain clinic, researchers at the University of Houston and the University of Texas Medical Branch at Galveston found that nearly a quarter (23.75%) who were given a urine drug screen on their first visit failed to show up for the next appointment. 

The odds were even higher for those who tested positive for an illicit drug, but the “no show” trend also applied to patients whose drug tests were negative.

“Even those who tested negative for illicit substances in the UDS (urine drug screen) were more likely to be no-shows compared to those who did not get tested. This raises concerns that the UDS administered early in the doctor-patient relationship might have an inadvertent impact on injuring patient expectations of trust,” the researchers reported in the journal Pain Physician.

Only about 10% of those who weren’t tested skipped their follow-up appointment.

“It is a balancing act,” said Partha Krishnamurthy, director of the Institute for Health Care Marketing at the University of Houston’s Bauer College of Business. “On one hand, concerns about patient safety and public health necessitate the monitoring of patients on opioid medications. On the other hand, aggressive monitoring may interfere with the therapeutic alliance.”

Routine use of urine drug tests is one of the main recommendations in the CDC’s draft guidance for opioid prescribing, which calls for primary care physicians to “use urine drug testing before starting opioid therapy and consider urine drug testing at least annually.”

The scientific research behind that recommendation is considered weak, as is much of the evidence that standard “point of care” urine drug tests are reliable or accurate.

“I've only been saying that UDT (urine drug tests) harms patients and the patient/provider relationship for the past seven years and not a single physician, researcher, or healthcare provider of any kind supported my position.  I guess common sense wasn't enough but now we have evidence,” said Mark Collen, an independent scholar and patient advocate. 

“As I've stated previously in regards to UDT, the entire pain community will end up on the wrong side of history and it looks like that's beginning to occur.”     

Researchers say one possible solution to the high-rate of patient “no shows” is for doctors to delay drug screening of new patients until they’ve had a chance to develop rapport and trust with them.

“Not testing is not an option,” the researchers said, while at the same time warning that routine testing may only make prescription drug abuse worse.

“If the patients are disengaging from the clinic, where are they going? Is the illicit market place their next stop? Thus, while UDS may induce the problematic patients to go away from the clinic, the problem of opioid misuse may continue to persist.”

FDA Endorses CDC Opioid Guidelines

By Pat Anson, Editor

In a move that may have more to do with politics than healthcare, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration has set aside the advice of its own experts by endorsing the CDC’s controversial guidelines for opioid prescribing.

The move is part of several sweeping changes the FDA is making in its opioid policies, including some that the agency has resisted in the past. The most significant change is support for the CDC’s proposed opioid guidelines, which are designed to combat the so-called epidemic of opioid addiction and overdoses.

“We are determined to help defeat this epidemic through a science-based and continuously evolving approach,” said Dr. Robert Califf, FDA Deputy Commissioner for Medical Products and Tobacco.

“Things are getting worse, not better, with the epidemic of opioid misuse, abuse, and dependence. It’s time we all took a step back to look at what is working and what we need to change to impact this crisis.”

Califf’s nomination to be the next Commissioner of the FDA has been held up in the U.S. Senate, in large part by senators who want the FDA to go much further than it has in restricting access to opioid pain medication.  

ROBERT CALIFF, MD

“We need to change the culture of the FDA, and that will not happen if the person at the helm is not a champion who is committed to pushing back against the pressure to continually approve new opioid medications given the significant risks to public health,” said West Virginia Sen. Joe Manchin (D), who has criticized Califf for his ties to the pharmaceutical industry and threatened to filibuster his nomination.

In a news release issued late Thursday, Califf said FDA would “re-examine the risk-benefit paradigm for opioids,” use tougher language in warning labels on extended release opioids, and prioritize development of non-opioid alternatives for pain.  The FDA also promised to convene an expert advisory committee before approving any new drug applications for opioids that do not have abuse deterrent properties, one of Manchin's key demands.   

“I was very disappointed that Califf would release a statement like this as talk of blocking his nomination for FDA Commissioner grows in the Senate amid concerns that he was ‘soft’ on a range of issues, including genetically modified salmon, e-cigarettes, and regulation of opioids,” said Anne Fuqua, a chronic pain sufferer and patient advocate.

“I am concerned his desire for career advancement is interfering with the oath he took to ‘first do no harm’ when he became a physician.  This statement is heavily focused on the potential harms of opioids. Though it says they will seek to balance individual and societal risks, it seems that the need to prevent people from making poor choices will be given priority over providing care to individual pain sufferers for whom opioid therapy has proven to be an essential element of care. “

The FDA’s opioid policy changes are further outlined in a “special report” in the New England Journal of Medicine that was co-authored by Califf.

“We will start by launching a broad reexamination of our approach, considering how best to apply existing policies to this problem, which policies need to be improved and updated, and whether new policies must be developed,” Califf wrote.

“Accordingly, we are supporting the CDC’s Guideline for Prescribing Opioids for Chronic Pain. The draft guideline received extensive public comment, and we look forward to participating in the process when the CDC finalizes it soon. We are also supporting the Surgeon General’s efforts to engage the clinical community in a concerted approach to curbing inappropriate prescribing and proactively treating opioid addiction, while reinforcing evidence-based approaches to treating pain in a manner that spares the use of opioids. Until clinicians stop prescribing opioids far in excess of clinical need, this crisis will continue unabated.”

Some of the FDA’s own experts have been highly critical of the CDC’s proposed guidelines, which discourage primary care physicians from prescribing opioids for chronic pain. As many as 11 million Americans use opioids daily for chronic pain and many fear losing access to them if the guidelines are adopted.

“I think we need to recognize that CDC wants to substantially limit opioid prescribing. Period,” said Sharon Hertz, director of the FDA’s Division of Anesthesia, Analgesia and Addiction Products, at a December meeting of a federal pain research panel. Hertz said the evidence cited to support the guidelines was “low to very low and that’s a problem.” Other panel members said they were “appalled” by the guidelines, calling them an “embarrassment to the government.”

The CDC planned to implement the guidelines last month, but delayed doing so after widespread complaints about its secrecy and lack of transparency during the guidelines' development. The CDC is now reviewing changes to the guidelines recommended by an advisory committee.

“I guess it shouldn't surprise me that the FDA is selling out by endorsing the CDC guidelines,” said Kim Miller, a pain sufferer and patient activist. “Could it be the FDA was not wanting to be made to look irrelevant in light of the CDC taking care of what many see as the FDA’s territory? Either way, it's an extremely gloomy looking horizon if you're a pain patient. Just when you think it can't get any worse, it always does.”

"It is a sad day for chronic pain patients in this country. The unintended consequences of these guidelines will bring about a true epidemic; not the media manufactured so-called epidemic of overdoses from opioids," said Chrystal Weaver, a Florida woman who suffers from Complex Regional Pain Syndrome. "The last figure I heard quoted for veterans taking their life is around 42 per day. When you take away the only tool we have to help lessen the pain from war injuries you'll see that number skyrocket from 42 per day to perhaps 500 per day. It will be the same story for non-veterans as well."

Earlier this week, the Obama administration said it would ask Congress for $1.1 billion in extra funding to help fight the opioid abuse epidemic. Most of the money would be used on expanding addiction treatment programs.

Will ‘Secret Deliberations’ Lead to Lawsuit Against CDC?

By Pat Anson, Editor

The Washington Legal Foundation is “keeping its options open” on a potential lawsuit to block the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) from implementing its controversial guidelines for opioid prescribing. At issue is whether the CDC violated the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) by developing the guidelines in secret and with little public input.

The CDC contends the guidelines are urgently needed to stop the so-called epidemic of opioid addiction and overdoses, while millions of chronic pain patients fear they will lose access to opioids if the guidelines are adopted.

Last week a “workgroup” appointed by the CDC recommended to the agency’s Board of Scientific Counselors (BSC) that the guidelines by adopted with few changes. The 10-member workgroup spent only three weeks reviewing a dozen complex guidelines, which discourage primary care physicians from prescribing opioids for chronic pain. The panel met four times during that period and all of its meetings were closed to the public.

“Why is CDC so afraid of transparency here? That’s my question,” asked Mark Chenoweth, general counsel to the Washington Legal Foundation (WLF), a pro-business group that has threatened to sue the agency for its “culture of secrecy” and “blatant violations” of FACA.

FACA clearly states that “each advisory committee meeting shall be open to the public,” as well as any records, reports, minutes or other documents provided to or created by the committee.

The CDC has taken the position that the BSC is an advisory committee, but the workgroup is not.

“The BSC charged the workgroup with developing a report of its observations on the draft guideline and its underlying evidence,” said CDC spokesperson Courtney Leland. “Under FACA, the time for public input is when the BSC meets to deliberate on the work prepared by the workgroup.  This meeting, held on January 28, was a public meeting announced in the Federal Register, and included a public comment period.“

But the WLF’s legal team disputes that interpretation of the law.

“I don’t see why you can provide input to the government through secret deliberations simply because you’re providing your advice to an advisory committee rather than to the government itself. The whole point of the law is to make sure that advice that comes to the government and is relied on by government is a product of open deliberations,” said WLF chief counsel Richard Samp, who believes the guidelines were quickly reviewed to prevent any further delays in their implementation.  

The CDC planned to adopt the guidelines in January, but was forced to delay them after widespread criticism about its secrecy and lack of transparency during the guidelines' development.

“They want this to go on quickly. Obviously their existing advisory committee doesn’t have the expertise on its own, so it had to go outside of its ranks to do it,” said Samp. “But it realized that if the group was going to meet four or five times, it was going to drag on for months. And so the only way to do it quickly was to do what they have done.”

“If one wanted to test the legality of this sort of working group workaround on FACA, this is an excellent fact pattern on which to test it,” said Chenowith.

Asked by Pain News Network if the WLF would go to court before or after the guidelines are implemented, Chenowith and Samp were non-committal, but hinted they were prepared to take action in federal court in Atlanta, where the CDC is based.

“It never does any good to wait until final agency action. By that time people have really suffered some severe damage,” said Samp. “I assume one’s interest in these sort of cases is to prevent the agency from adopting guidelines and that’s why you sue early to try to prevent them from taking into account the recommendations before they make their final decision. One could easily file that in federal district court in Atlanta if one wanted to.”

WLF has a lengthy history of taking the government to court for regulations and laws effecting free speech, the environment, health care, and drugs. WLF describes itself as a public interest law firm “that regularly litigates to ensure that federal administrative agencies comply with statutes designed to ensure procedural fairness.” It often supports business groups and companies in litigation against  government agencies, and has represented or acted in behalf of pharmaceutical companies such as Johnson & Johnson and Purdue Pharma, the maker of OxyContin. 

"We’re long-standing supporters of WLF, in addition to several other business and legal organizations. We’ve provided them with unrestricted grants," a spokesman for Purdue Pharma told Pain News Network.

That connection to a major opioid producer has led to insinuations that WLF and other organizations that accept funding from the so-called “opioid lobby” are somehow tainted. That charge is often made by Physicians for Responsible Opioid Prescribing (PROP), which supports the guidelines and had some of its board members on CDC committees that helped draft them.

A recent story by the Associated Press pointed out that nearly a third of the members of the Interagency Pain Research Coordinating Committee have financial connections to opioid makers. That same committee criticized the CDC for developing the opioid guidelines with little scientific evidence to support them.

“The apparent conflicts of interest on the panel underscore the pervasive reach of pharmaceutical-industry dollars, even among federal advisers who are supposed to be carefully vetted for such connections before serving,” the AP story said.

The article failed to point out that some of the committee members most critical of the CDC are federal employees of the Food and Drug Administration and the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ), who as government workers are not allowed to accept financial contributions.

“I would be remiss and I’m certain so would many of my government colleagues if I didn’t go back to my director and say there’s a report coming out of the CDC that has very low quality of evidence,” said Richard Ricciardi, AHRQ, during a December meeting. “That’s an embarrassment to the government.”

The AP story also didn’t mention that the CDC itself has a foundation that accepts funding from healthcare companies such as Abbott Laboratories, Amgen, Medtronic, Johnson & Johnson, Merck, Quest Diagnostics and Pfizer, some of which stand to benefit from stricter opioid guidelines because they offer non-opioid treatments for chronic pain. The CDC Foundation accepted over $157 million from donors last year.  

Lyrica and Neurontin Face UK Restrictions

By Pat Anson, Editor

Two drugs often recommended as safer alternatives to opioid pain medication could face new restrictions in the UK because of increasing reports they are being abused.  

British health officials say the prescription drugs pregabalin and gabapentin, which are sold by Pfizer under the brand names Lyrica and Neurontin, are being used by drug abusers to get high, resulting in dozens of overdose deaths.

Since 2012, at least 38 deaths involving pregabalin and 26 involving gabapentin have been reported in the UK.

The prescribing of pregabalin and gabapentin in the UK has soared by 350% and 150%, respectively, in the last five years.  Both medications are anti-seizure drugs widely prescribed to treat epilepsy, neuropathy, fibromyalgia and anxiety.

The UK Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs (ACMD) is recommending that gabapentin (Neurontin) and pregabalin (Lyrica) be reclassified as Class C controlled substances – which would mean prescriptions would only be valid for one month and there can be no refills.

“Both pregabalin and gabapentin are increasingly being reported as possessing a potential for misuse. When used in combination with other depressants, they can cause drowsiness, sedation, respiratory failure and death,” said Professor Les Iverson, ACMD chairman, in a letter to Home Office ministers.

“Pregabalin may have a higher abuse potential than gabapentin due to its rapid absorption and faster onset of action and higher potency. Pregabalin causes a ‘high’ or elevated mood in users; the side effects may include chest pain, wheezing, vision changes and less commonly, hallucinations. Gabapentin can produce feelings of relaxation, calmness and euphoria. Some users have reported that the ‘high’ from snorted gabapentin can be similar to taking a stimulant.”

The letter warns there is a risk of addiction for both drugs, as well as misuse and diversion.

“The use of gabapentin and pregabalin by the opioid abusing population either together or when opioids are unavailable reinforces the behavior patterns of this high-risk population. There is a high risk of criminal behavior stimulated by the wish to obtain gabapentin and pregabalin,” said Iverson.

Lyrica is Pfizer’s top selling drug and generates worldwide sales of over $5 billion annually. Pfizer said the recommendation to reclassify the drugs and limit their prescribing could be harmful to patients.

“We are concerned that the advice contains a number of inaccuracies and some potentially misleading information, and is contrary to the totality of the safety data available for pregabalin and gabapentin,” the company said in a statement reported on the Pulse website. “Controlling the supply of these products across the whole UK, would be a disproportionate measure that would impact on patients and their quality of life, and could also result in additional economic and operational burden on an already strained healthcare system.”

Earlier this month a study of 440 drug abusers in Ireland found that 39 tested positive for pregabalin in their urine. Only ten of them had been prescribed the drug. Other drugs detected in pregabalin positive patients were opiates, cocaine, benzodiazepine and cannabis, according to the Irish Examiner.

The study called the abuse of pregabalin a “serious emerging issue.” Recreational users of pregabalin in Belfast call the drug “Budweisers” because it induces a state similar to drunkenness.

Neurontin (gabapentin) is approved by the FDA to treat epilepsy and neuropathic pain, but is widely prescribed “off-label” for a variety of other conditions, including depression, migraines, fibromyalgia and bipolar disorder. In 1999 a Pfizer executive was so mystified by Neurontin’s growing use he called it the “snake oil of the twentieth century.”  

Committees Support CDC Opioid Guidelines

By Pat Anson, Editor

Two advisory committees expressed broad support Thursday for the controversial guidelines for opioid prescribing being developed by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Those guidelines discourage primary care physicians from prescribing opioids for chronic non-cancer pain and recommend other therapies such as over-the-counter pain relievers, acupuncture, and cognitive behavioral therapy.

One newly formed committee --- which the CDC calls a “workgroup” --- did express “significant concern” about the cost of those alternative pain therapies and whether they are covered by insurance. The workgroup's report to the CDC’s Board of Scientific Counselors (BSC) also suggested that the guidelines be “framed with positive rather than negative language” that supports “integrated care for people with chronic pain.” It also recommends the impact of the guidelines be monitored for “unintended consequences” after they are implemented. 

The BSC voted to support the workgroup’s report, which can be found here.

“The BSC voted unanimously: to support the observations made by the BSC Opioid Guideline Workgroup; that CDC adopt the guideline recommendations that, according to the workgroup’s observations, had unanimous or majority support; and that CDC further consider the guideline recommendations for which the workgroup had mixed opinions,” said CDC spokesperson Courtney Leland in an email to Pain News Network.

“CDC is taking the BSC’s recommendations, as well as comments received from the public, into consideration in revising the guideline. The guideline is a priority for our agency. Given the lives lost and impacted every day, we have an acute sense of urgency to issue guidance quickly.”

The CDC planned to implement the guidelines this month with little public input, but was forced to change course after widespread criticism about its secrecy and lack of transparency during the drafting of the guidelines. In response to critics, the 10-member workgroup was formed three weeks ago and met four times by teleconference to review the guidelines. A potential legal problem for the CDC is that none of the workgroup’s meetings were open to the public. The workgroup also reviewed the guidelines with outside consultants without publicly disclosing who they were.

The Washington Legal Foundation (WLF) has threatened to sue the agency for its “culture of secrecy” and “blatant violations” of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), which requires meetings to be open to the public.

Over 4,300 online comments were received by CDC during a public comment period that ended earlier this month. Many opposed the guidelines as being too restrictive, while others wished the guidelines were stronger to combat the so-called epidemic of opioid abuse and overdoses.  There were passionate arguments on both sides, but in the end the workgroup decided that the case for the guidelines was stronger.

“Comments from patients and family members, in particular, expressed the desire that patient-centered care is enhanced rather reduced by these Guidelines. Members felt that the guidelines could be implemented in a manner consistent with patient centered care,” the workgroup said in its report.

As many as 11 million Americans use opioids for long-term chronic pain and many fear losing access to the drugs if the guidelines are adopted.

“The purpose of the guideline is to help to primary care providers offer safer, more effective care for patients with chronic pain and to help reduce opioid abuse disorder and overdose from these drugs,” said Debra Houry, MD, director of the CDC’s National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, which is overseeing development of the guidelines.

"The guideline itself is not a rule, regulation or law. It is not intended to deny access to opioid pain medication as an option in pain management. It is not intended to take away physician discretion and decision making.”

“Pain specialists and their patients fear the Guidelines will not be used that way though and adoption by boards, professional organizations, and insurers will pressure even specialty pain providers to taper patients,” said Anne Fuqua, a chronic pain sufferer and patient advocate. “Pain patients nationwide have been experiencing dose reductions and losing access to care altogether for several years, with the situation becoming more acute in the past year.  In an environment where physicians are tapering patient doses or ceasing opioid prescribing altogether, I feel these guidelines will serve like an accelerant in a growing fire.”

Although the CDC has said it doesn’t want the guidelines implemented until they are finalized, Fuqua said many doctors are already doing just that. She said her faith in democracy “took a swift kick in the teeth” as she listened to the workgroup’s presentation during a conference call. Fuqua was not given an opportunity to speak, although the president and founder of Physicians for Responsible Opioids Prescribing (PROP) were given time to address the BSC in support of the guidelines they helped draft.

“There were 28 comments supporting the Guidelines and 4 dissenters. One physician made statements partially supportive of our needs. CDC will no doubt use this ‘overwhelming support’ to justify adoption of the guidelines. I fear they see us as simply a casualty of war, much like those with tuberculosis who were quarantined to prevent disease spread. The only difference is that harming us doesn't save other lives,” she said.

CDC has not released a timetable on when it plans to finalize or implement the guidelines.

#PatientsNotAddicts Campaign Launched on Twitter

By Ken McKim, Guest Columnist

There’s a hashtag coming to a screen near you: #PatientsNotAddicts. Its importance to the millions of people who suffer from chronic illness cannot be overstated.

Words matter. Words are powerful. They can educate, but they can also blind. They can sway the opinions of millions of otherwise thoughtful and intelligent people through nothing more than simple repetition, even if the information they repeat is patently false.

In a 1992 study by McMaster University researchers, it was shown that people give more weight to something they hear repeated over and over again, than something they have only heard once. People will do this even if the person repeating the information has proven untrustworthy in the past on multiple occasions. Repeat it often enough, and a lie becomes the truth.

We see this all the time in life. It’s why advertising exists, and why politicians will never completely stop using negative campaign ads. Its how one discredited doctor was able to scare the daylights out of millions of Americans about the so-called dangers of vaccines, thus leading to a resurgence of diseases that had previously been all but eradicated, like measles and whooping cough.

This same tactic is now being used against medications that give relief to millions of people who are fighting cancer and chronic illness: opioid-based painkillers.

There’s no better way to ascertain public opinion on a subject than by Googling it. In this modern century of seemingly unlimited information, Google serves as society's mirror, reflecting back to us the truth of how we feel about any given subject. It’s not hyperbole to say that as Google goes so does the world, and this is especially true when it comes to the subject of opioids.

A recent search of Google using just the word “opioids” found that 50% of the search results had to do with addiction and abuse. Only 4% of the results dealt solely with the proper use of opioid pain medication.

It’s plain to see that media coverage on the subject of opioids skews overwhelmingly negative, and the average person researching the topic will come away with an equally negative (and unknowingly distorted) opinion of them.

It’s this negative societal view that the CDC was probably counting on to divert attention from their covert attempt to issue new prescribing guidelines to severely limit the prescribing of opioids. The webinar they held on the subject last September was an invitation only affair. No press releases were issued, and the period of time allotted for public comment was a paltry 48 hours (which was laughable considering most of the public had no idea this was taking place). 

If not for the vocal pushback from the chronic illness community and organizations like the Washington Legal Foundation, these new guidelines would already be a fact of life for all United States citizens. Sadly, these guidelines are now the law of the land for our wounded veterans, as part of the $1.1 trillion spending bill passed and signed into law by President Obama last December.

Taking opioids for pain does not automatically turn you into an addict, any more than eating M&Ms turns you into chocolate.

Chronic illness may be invisible, but the chronically ill can no longer afford to be. That’s why #PatientsNotAddicts is important. Words are powerful and repetition can be a tool for the truth as well as for lies.

Using this hashtag can help remind everyone that pain patients are ordinary people. They are your loved ones, friends, neighbors and co-workers. What they want more than anything (except for a cure, of course) is to recapture just a small piece of the life they had before their illness took hold, before the never-ending pain of their condition destroyed the lives they had built for themselves -- lives that included careers, birthday parties, graduations, playing with their kids and being intimate with their spouses or significant others.

For hundreds of millions of people, opioids help them do just that. To deprive them of that small ray of hope in the name of “protecting them” is nothing short of inhumane.  I believe we are better than that, America. Prove me right.

Ken McKim is an advocate for anyone with a chronic illness, and has made more than 43 videos on topics such as Crohn’s disease, lupus, depression, Ehlers-Danlos Syndrome, Complex Regional Pain Syndrome and much more. You can see his videos at Don’t Punish Pain and on his YouTube channel.

Ken began advocating for pain patients when his wife was diagnosed with Crohn’s – and he came to realize that the chronically ill were often stigmatized by society. That realization led him to make a 32-minute video called "The Slow Death of Compassion for the Chronically Ill."

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

Major Decline in Hydrocodone Prescribing

By Pat Anson, Editor

Prescriptions for Vicodin and other hydrocodone products declined dramatically in the United States after the opioid pain medication was rescheduled by the Drug Enforcement Administration to make it harder to obtain. But there may have been unintended consequences for cancer patients, according to a new study published in JAMA Internal Medicine.

In October 2014 the DEA rescheduled hydrocodone from a Schedule III controlled substance to a more restrictive Schedule II medication because of its “high abuse potential.”

The rescheduling limits patients taking Vicodin, Lortab, Lorcet and other hydrocodone combination products to an initial 90-day supply and requires them to see a doctor for a new prescription each time they need a refill.

In the first year after rescheduling, the number of hydrocodone prescriptions in the U.S. plunged by 22 percent, from nearly 120 million to 93.5 million.

“Dispensed hydrocodone combination product prescriptions decreased substantially after rescheduling by the US Drug Enforcement Administration, with 26.3 million fewer hydrocodone combination product prescriptions and 1.1 billion fewer hydrocodone combination product tablets dispensed in the year after rescheduling,” wrote lead author Christopher Jones, PharmD, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. “Most of this decline was due to the elimination of hydrocodone combination product prescription refills, consistent with the prohibition on prescription refills for schedule II medications.”

The decline in prescribing was seen in almost all healthcare specialties, including primary care, surgery, dentistry, emergency medicine and oncology. Nearly 187,000 fewer prescriptions for hydrocodone were written for cancer patients in the first year after rescheduling, a decline of nearly 21 percent.

“It appears that up-scheduling of hydrocodone accomplished the goal of the DEA,” said Lynn Webster, MD, past president of the American Academy of Pain Medicine and author of The Painful Truth. “The more important question is what impact this has had on the rate of abuse and patient access to the medication. It may be too early to know whether rescheduling has affected the rate of people abusing opioids or if it just forced some abusers to seek alternatives like heroin.

“The JAMA report suggests that even cancer patients found it more difficult to obtain hydrocodone. That should be alarming to the medical community and illustrate to policy makers and law enforcement there are consequences to every action and in this case some people have been subjected to more cost, inconveniences and abandonment without any data to suggest an improvement in abuse or overdoses.”

Interestingly, the number of hydrocodone prescriptions written by pain management specialists after rescheduling increased by 7 percent. And there was a modest 4.9% increase in the number of prescriptions for opioids other than hydrocodone, as some patients apparently switched to opioids that were easier to obtain.

"The uptick from pain specialists most likely reflects a transfer of narcotic provision from non-specialists to specialists. That is, a decrease in prescribing from those who have less training in prescribing opioid pain relievers offset to some extent by an increase from those who have more such training," said Stuart Gitlow, MD, Executive Director of the Annenberg Physician Training Program in Addictive Disease and past president of the American Society of Addiction Medicine.

Gitlow believes the large overall decline in hydrocodone prescribing was a sign that many of the refills being ordered before rescheduling "were ultimately determined to be unnecessary."

"This was not meant to address the overall opioid prescribing problem, but was rather filling one hole in the dike," Gitlow wrote in an email to Pain News Network. "There remains much left to do, such as removal of the cap for treatment of opioid use disorders in office settings, and availability of tapering to avoid having patients move to heroin when their supply of prescription narcotics is suddenly cut off."

Hydrocodone was once the most widely prescribed medication in the United States, with over 137 million prescriptions annually. Prescribing of hydrocodone was already in decline before rescheduling, because of growing concern the drug was being abused and diverted.

CDC Guideline: A Good Start that Needs Improvement

By Stefan Kertesz, MD, Guest Columnist

President Obama began his 2016 State of the Union address by referencing an American epidemic of opioid overdoses. He was right to do so. The Centers for Disease Control report that 2014 saw a record of 18,893 deaths related to opioid overdose, a category that includes both medications and heroin. Given a rising tide of deaths, it is only sensible to look closely at how opioids come into distribution. There is more than one path. Doctors write prescriptions, and the pills may be consumed properly or improperly. Or they can be sold, given to friends, or stolen. Heroin is incredibly cheap and potent these days. It’s often laced with other drugs and can cause overdose in ways that users can’t predict.

A major portion of the public health response has focused on doctors and their prescriptions (disclosure: I’m a primary care doctor trained in internal medicine and addictions). Most public health authorities believe a major contributor to the rising tide of overdoses has something to do with the prescriptions for opioids we write. Our tendency to write prescriptions for pills like hydrocodone or morphine rose precipitously from 2000 to 2011.

Everyone knows a story of someone who wheedles pills out of credulous physicians. Barring a few so-called pill mills (which alone cannot account for the rise in prescriptions), most doctors writing prescriptions for opioid pills do so in response to a patient with severe chronic pain. There are an estimated 100 million Americans with chronic pain, and between 5 and 8 million take opioids for that pain.

It stands to reason that among the patients who have received opioid prescriptions, surely some (or many) should not have received them. Many doctors have decided to prescribe less, starting in 2012, according to national data.

If prescribing went down while overdoses went up these past few years, it’s fair to say that there is room for argument about precisely how doctor’s prescriptions relate to overdoses. But few would argue there is no relationship at all. Thus, great hopes are pinned on the notion that getting doctors to prescribe differently (and less) for their patients with pain will be key.

Last year the Centers for Disease Control, after consulting an extensive array of experts and interest groups, prepared a draft guideline for doctors on prescribing opioids. In December they placed notice in the Federal Register seeking public commentary. By deadline on January 13, over 4,300 comments were received.

There is a reason this document excites so much passion. In part, organizations such as the American Cancer Society project this guideline will not be voluntary, but will carry force of law.

The hope is to prevent development of addiction and overdose that devastates countless families. Yet, there are those 5 to 8 million patients who receive opioids, some of whom believe that they are at risk of losing access to a crucial medication that is helping manage their pain, improve their quality of life and overall function. As medical boards, insurers and government agencies enforce this guideline, prescribing differently from the topline recommendations is likely to become onerous, leaving many patients in the lurch.

If you listen to this conversation between this 70-year old coal miner who suffered 18 major injuries, and a chief advocate (addiction specialist Dr. Andrew Kolodny) for the reduction of opioid prescribing, you feel the tension. You will hear the distress of a man who fears being confined to bed from his pain, and the concern of an addiction doctor who believes opioid pills have done harm, not good, even perhaps to the man to whom he is speaking.

The experts convened by the CDC include many I know and respect. They have taken a fairly strong stand. They conclude that the literature shows no evidence of enduring benefit from opioids, and that measurable harms are tied closely to dose. They urge careful assessment of risk and benefit. They urge aggressive use of urine drug testing to identify patients who take opioid medication differently from intended or use illicit drugs.

In 56 pages, they say a lot more. My primary care patients include several with chronic pain, and my practice lines up pretty closely with precisely what the guideline recommends. And despite that, I feel this guideline is not yet ready, not given the power we project it to have.

For reasons I shared with the CDC, I think it reaches a bit beyond the available science in some places, neglects it in others, and misconstrues how best to translate it in the care of our patients. It risks making opioids less available to patients who are benefiting from them. It is not far from where it needs to be, but it needs improvement.

Friends, some of them national leaders in primary care, addiction and pain medicine, have urged me to publish this concern broadly.

For people interested in learning more about these concerns, I offer them in linked piece at Medium.com. I offer it to show that one can take a different stand without rejecting the science or the underlying public health commitment that I fully share with the honorable drafters of the CDC’s draft Guideline. For the readers who believe I am right, or perhaps have also misconstrued the science, I welcome your thoughts.

Stefan Kertesz, MD, is an Associate Professor at the University of Alabama at Birmingham School of Medicine. Opinions expressed are solely his own and do not represent positions of any agency of the U.S. Federal Government or the State of Alabama.

This column is republished with permission by the author. It originally appeared in Medium.com, along with the comments submitted by Dr. Kertesz to the CDC about the guideline.

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.

Montana Doctor’s License to Be Suspended

By Pat Anson, Editor

The Montana Board of Medical Examiners voted unanimously Thursday to suspend the medical license of Dr. Mark Ibsen for unprofessional conduct, the latest chapter in a three year investigation into Ibsen’s opioid prescribing practices. A final order on the board’s ruling still needs to be drafted and voted on again. Ibsen has said he will appeal the decision.

The medical board accepted almost all of the recommendations made in a proposed order by Michael Fanning, Special Assistant Attorney General to the Montana Department of Labor and Industry, but it refused to consider lengthy allegations that Ibsen has “destructive psychological and behavioral issues.”

Ibsen was one of the last doctors in Montana willing to prescribe opioid pain medication to new patients, including many who drove hundreds of miles to see him. While that made Ibsen a folk hero of sorts in the pain community, it also attracted the attention of investigators who thought he was overprescribing opioids, and raising the risk of addiction and overdose.

“Opioid deaths are frighteningly common with one source estimating one death for every 500 opioid prescriptions written in America,” Fanning wrote in his 62-page proposed order, without citing a single case where Ibsen’s prescribing practices led to someone’s death or injury.

The case against Ibsen largely centered on nine pain patients and the incomplete records he kept on their treatment.

MARK IBSEN, MD

“Dr. Ibsen’s charts did not contain satisfactory evidence that he attempted more conservative care short of chronic opioid therapy,” Fanning wrote. “While the charts include occasional references to mental or behavioral health and rare references to interventional services, there was no consistent evidence that the more conservative option had been attempted and failed before continuing opioid therapy.”

Ibsen’s charts also did not include records of a written or oral contract with patients about their opioid use, which is a common requirement in pain management. Fanning said Ibsen also overlooked “red flags” in a patient’s behavior that could indicate signs of opioid abuse or diversion.

Last year a hearing officer recommended that Ibsen be put on probation for 180 days, but Fanning went much further, asking the board to suspend Ibsen’s medical license indefinitely. The board spent over seven hours reviewing the case and over 6,000 documents admitted as evidence before making its decision.  

“I just want to say that nothing has made me feel more ashamed to say that I am a Montanan born and raised than this kangaroo court in action,” said Gary Snook, who suffers from Arachnoiditis, a painful and disabling spinal cord disorder caused by botched spinal injections. He now gets medical treatment in California.   

“I am appalled by the total lack of understanding of the treatment of pain by these doctors. No wonder Montana has one of the highest disability rates in the nation,” Snook said in an email to Pain News Network.

“Overreaching is far too gentle a term for what occurred here. It felt like a witch hunt,” said Terri Lewis, PhD, a rehabilitation specialist and patient advocate.  “No doubt Dr. Ibsen, like many, has flaws, but holding this physician to a standard of perfection which exists in neither law nor practice makes no sense.  Maybe they will assign him a scarlet ‘O’ to wear on his chest.

“This is signal in the noise of our public confusion about the management of chronic pain.  This hearing process provides a good deal of insight into the conditions of care, or lack thereof, that both clinicians and patients find so challenging and threatening.”

One board member – who voted to suspend Ibsen’s license -- praised Ibsen for his compassion toward patients and said she hoped he would apply to have his license reinstated if he submits to professional oversight..

Publicity about the case and financial problems forced Ibsen last month to close his Urgent Care Plus clinic in Helena. Ibsen was arrested in November, not for opioid prescribing, but for a misdemeanor domestic assault charge. He has pleaded not guilty.