CDC Relying on Same Experts for Opioid Guidelines

By Pat Anson, Editor

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) will continue to rely on the same panel of experts to advise the agency about its opioid prescribing guidelines – even though some of the experts are allegedly biased and have conflicts of interest.

The CDC announced last week that it would review and delay implementing the controversial guidelines, after they drew widespread criticism from pain patients, advocacy groups, and medical societies. On Monday the agency also began accepting new public comments on the guidelines, which discourage primary care physicians from prescribing opioids for chronic pain.

The review of the guidelines will be conducted by the Board of Scientific Counselors (BSC) for the CDC’s National Center for Injury Prevention and Control. The CDC is developing the guidelines to combat what has been called an "epidemic" of prescription drug abuse, addiction and overdoses. As many as 11 million Americans use opioids for long-term chronic pain.

“We will be asking the BSC, the members of which represent expertise along the spectrum of injury and violence issue areas, to approve formation of a workgroup to review the draft guideline and comments received on the guideline, and present recommendations about the guideline to the BSC,” said Leslie Dorigo, a CDC spokesperson.

“Our intent is for the workgroup to be comprised of members of the original Core Expert Group, members of the BSC, and individuals who represent the perspectives of patients living with chronic pain and who have additional pain medicine expertise.”

The “Core Expert Group” has 17 members and is composed primarily of public health researchers and state regulators. At least two of its members have drawn the ire of critics who say they shouldn’t serve on the panel.

Jane Ballantyne, MD, and Gary Franklin, MD, are the President and Vice-President, respectively, of Physicians for Responsible Opioid Prescribing (PROP), an advocacy group funded by Phoenix House, which runs a chain of addiction treatment centers. Three other board members of PROP will also continue to advise the CDC in their roles as stakeholders and peer reviewers, according to Dorigo.

“For the life of me, I can’t understand why CDC insists on retaining such obvious bias on their panel, as it flies in the face of their scientific integrity,” said Jeffrey Fudin, a pharmacist and founder of Professionals for Rational Opioid Monitoring & Pharmacotherapy (PROMPT).

“I find it hard to believe that CDC can’t find a single qualified physician to speak against opioids that is free from potential conflict.  With all that has been drudged up in the professional literature and lay press regarding potential or postulated physician conflicts, CDC’s behavior is nothing less than reverse discrimination.”

Ballantyne and Franklin, who have been vocal critics of opioid prescribing, played key roles in the development of opioid regulations in Washington State, which has some of the toughest prescribing laws in the nation.

dr. jane ballantyne

Ballantyne 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 goal of doctors that treat chronic pain. That caused a prominent pain physician to call on Ballantyne to resign or be fired from her academic position at the University of Washington School of Medicine.

“To suggest that physicians should no longer treat pain intensity and let patients suffer goes beyond any sort of decency or concern for humanity,” said Forest Tennant, MD, who has treated pain patients for over 40 years.

Ballantyne’s ties to the pharmaceutical industry have also drawn attention. She has served as a paid consultant to Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll, a law firm that specializes in antitrust litigation, including lawsuits against pharmaceutical companies over their marketing of opioids.

“I do have difficulty with someone like Ms. Ballantyne in particular because, quite apart from PROP, she appears to have a very strong conflict of interest and is on the payroll of plaintiff’s attorneys who have a lot of money to be made by suing manufacturers,” said Richard Samp, chief counsel for the pro-business Washington Legal Foundation, which has threatened to sue the CDC over its alleged violations of a federal open meetings law while drafting the guidelines.

“They have a strong interest in making sure that the CDC is critical of current prescribing practices, because that would strengthen their current lawsuits. For that reason, I can’t see how somebody who is on the payroll of plaintiff’s law firms is an appropriate person to be on the committee,” Samp told Pain News Network.  

Ballanytne could not be reached for comment.

“CDC takes conflict of interest seriously, and worked to eliminate or minimize sources of bias of the experts involved in the guideline development and peer review,” said the CDC’s Dorigo. “Our Core Expert Group was composed of a diverse group of subject matter experts—with substantial knowledge on several aspects of opioid prescribing. The group includes primary care professional society representatives, state agency representatives, an expert in guideline development methodology, and other subject experts.”

Dorigo said the CDC plans to add pain patients and pain management physicians to the new workgroup, but had not determined how many. The agency will hold a public conference call on January 7th to get input from the public on the composition of the panel. The workgroup will present its recommendations to the BSC in a public hearing at an undetermined date.

The Washington Legal Foundation’s chief counsel called that a “step in the right direction,” but emphasized that any deliberations of the workgroup need to be held publicly or it would be a violation of federal law. The Core Expert Group never met publicly.

“The problem was that this group met in secret and the materials submitted to that group were not made publicly available and the deliberations of that group and the materials they produced were never made public,” Samp said.

Fudin believes the CDC needs to start from scratch and appoint a completely new set of experts to advise it.

"In order to regain whatever shred of credibility CDC has left with pain clinicians, a new board should consist of all new members and include board certified pain clinicians that have active current practices with a focus on pain therapeutics in non-cancer pain.  In addition, it requires experts in public health, a psychiatrist, psychologist, and legal counsel with expertise in pain, plus matched expertise in addiction medicine,” Fudin said.

“We are happy to see that the CDC has asked its Board of Scientific Counselors to impanel a committee including additional members, which it should have done in the beginning,” said Bob Twillman, Executive Director of the American Academy of Pain Management.

“We hope the new members will be representative of the pain community, including both clinicians and people with pain, and that their contributions to the committee process will be weighed equally with the opinions of the existing group. We’re a little concerned because all of this is taking place in yet another opaque process, but we have little choice but to trust the CDC to get it right this time.”

The CDC’s public comment period on the guidelines continues until January 13th. You can make a comment by clicking here. 

The proposed prescribing guidelines and the reasoning behind them can be found in a 56-page report you can see by clicking here.

CDC Made Few Changes in Opioid Guidelines

By Pat Anson, Editor

The Centers for Disease Control Prevention (CDC) has made few changes in its draft guidelines for opioid prescribing, three months after they were widely criticized by pain patients and healthcare providers.

The agency still maintains that “non-pharmacological therapy” and non-opioid pain relievers are the “preferred” treatments for chronic pain, while admitting there is little evidence to support many of its recommendations. The guidelines also fail to address other issues, such as the lack of insurance coverage for many of the treatments the CDC advocates.

The proposed guidelines for primary care physicians were publicly released for the first time today as the CDC opened a 30-day public comment period on them. You can make a comment by clicking here.

The dozen guidelines can be found in a 56-page report, along with the reasoning behind them. You can see the report by clicking here.

“This guideline provides recommendations that are based on the best available evidence that was interpreted and informed by expert opinion. The clinical scientific evidence informing the recommendations is low in quality,” the report states.

“To inform future guideline development, more research is necessary to fill in critical evidence gaps. The evidence reviews forming the basis of this guideline clearly illustrate that there is much yet to be learned about the effectiveness, safety, and economic efficiency of long-term opioid therapy.”

The CDC was roundly criticized for the way it prepared and handled the initial release of the guidelines in September to a select online audience.  The agency never made the guidelines available on its website or in any public form outside of the webinar, and only a 48-hour public comment period was allowed afterwards. The CDC also came under fire for secretly consulting with “experts” that included special interest groups and addiction treatment specialists, but few pain patients or pain physicians.

After getting feedback from critics, the CDC said it would make changes in its recommendations, but only a few changes can be found in the dozen guidelines released today:

1. Nonpharmacologic therapy and nonopioid pharmacologic therapy are preferred for chronic pain. Providers should only consider adding opioid therapy if expected benefits for both pain and function are anticipated to outweigh risks to the patient.

2. Before starting opioid therapy for chronic pain, providers should establish treatment goals with all patients, including realistic goals for pain and function. Providers should not initiate opioid therapy without consideration of how therapy will be discontinued if unsuccessful. Providers should continue opioid therapy only if there is clinically meaningful improvement in pain and function that outweighs risks to patient safety.  

3. Before starting and periodically during opioid therapy, providers should discuss with patients known risks and realistic benefits of opioid therapy and patient and provider responsibilities for managing therapy.

4. When starting opioid therapy for chronic pain, providers should prescribe immediate-release opioids instead of extended-release/long-acting (ER/LA) opioids.

5. When opioids are started, providers should prescribe the lowest effective dosage. Providers should use caution when prescribing opioids at any dosage, should implement additional precautions when increasing dosage to ≥50 morphine milligram equivalents (MME)/day, and should generally avoid increasing dosage to ≥90 MME/ day

6. Long-term opioid use often begins with treatment of acute pain. When opioids are used for acute pain, providers should prescribe the lowest effective dose of immediate-release opioids and should prescribe no greater quantity than needed for the expected duration of pain severe enough to require opioids. Three or fewer days usually will be sufficient for most nontraumatic pain not related to major surgery.

7. Providers should evaluate benefits and harms with patients within 1 to 4 weeks of starting opioid therapy for chronic pain or of dose escalation. Providers should evaluate benefits and harms of continued therapy with patients every 3 months or more frequently. If benefits do not outweigh harms of continued opioid therapy, providers should work with patients to reduce opioid dosage and to discontinue opioids.

8. Before starting and periodically during continuation of opioid therapy, providers should evaluate risk factors for opioid-related harms. Providers should incorporate into the management plan strategies to mitigate risk, including considering offering naloxone when factors that increase risk for opioid overdose, such as history of overdose, history of substance use disorder, or higher opioid dosages (≥50 MME), are present.

9. Providers should review the patient’s history of controlled substance prescriptions using state prescription drug monitoring program (PDMP) data to determine whether the patient is receiving high opioid dosages or dangerous combinations that put him or her at high risk for overdose. Providers should review PDMP data when starting opioid therapy for chronic pain and periodically during opioid therapy for chronic pain, ranging from every prescription to every 3 months.

10. When prescribing opioids for chronic pain, providers should use urine drug testing before starting opioid therapy and consider urine drug testing at least annually to assess for prescribed medications as well as other controlled prescription drugs and illicit drugs.

11. Providers should avoid prescribing opioid pain medication for patients receiving benzodiazepines whenever possible.

12. Providers should offer or arrange evidence-based treatment (usually medication-assisted treatment with buprenorphine or methadone in combination with behavioral therapies) for patients with opioid use disorder.

Most of the dozen guidelines are strongly recommended by the CDC, even though the evidence used to support them was considered “limited” or there was “very limited confidence in the effect” of the recommendations.

Changes in Draft Guidelines

Some changes were made in guideline #5, which warns physicians to avoid giving patients high doses of opioids. The new guideline suggests that patients already taking high dosages “should be offered the opportunity to re-evaluate their continued use of opioids at high doses,” instead of having their medication abruptly changed to a lower dose.

However, no mention is made of a CYP450 genetic test, which can determine if a patient may need high doses of opioids.

“The CYP450 omission is disturbing since 20 percent of the population has some defect. How can you have a prescribing policy without CYP450 testing?” asked Gary Snook, a Montana man who needs extremely high doses of opioids to relieve pain from adhesive arachnoiditis. “It makes me wonder, are these doctors really qualified to put forth this draft that will have such an impact on so many that live in severe 24/7 pain? I think not!”

One significant change, in guideline #10, acknowledges that the results of urine drug tests are often wrong or misinterpreted. It recommends drug testing before opioid therapy begins and then annually, but random drug testing is discouraged. The guideline also recommends that providers not test for substances such as marijuana, which may not affect the efficacy of pain management.  

If there are “unexpected results” from a urine drug test, the guideline says patients should not be terminated from a doctor’s practice, but should be counseled or offered treatment for substance abuse.

Pain Patients Urged to Comment

“I feel it's critical that members of the pain community, or people whose loved ones suffer from chronic pain, to take this rare second chance to refer to each of the guidelines and make their feelings known,” said Kim Miller, a pain patient and advocate..

“I feel it's important to keep your feelings out of comments to official government entities. Professionals are more receptive to calm remarks.  There's no need to be inflammatory; other agencies, law firms, and numerous medical providers have already expressed their disappointment and disapproval of the previous draft guidelines.  At this point, sticking to the facts is all that's necessary.”

The CDC is emphasizing the revised guidelines are voluntary and “intended to improve communication” between doctors and their patients.

Debra Houry, MD, the CDC official who oversaw development of the guidelines, even put out a Tweet, saying, “Patients & providers should decide together how to best treat long-term chronic pain.”

But critics say the guidelines, when adopted, could quickly become a standard of practice for state medical boards and professional healthcare societies, giving physicians little choice but to comply with them.

“These ‘guidelines’ are not looked at merely as suggestions,” Miller said. “When the CDC suggests there's no need for concern, after all these are only guidelines, it couldn't be further from the truth.  The pain community must be sure to give these guidelines very serious consideration, your medical providers will be.”

After the public comment period ends, the CDC says the guidelines will be reviewed by a scientific advisory group, which will then appoint another working group to refine the guidelines further.  The agency has not released a timetable or said if outside consultants who helped draft the initial guidelines will still be part of the process.

The CDC was criticized for consulting with five board members of Physicians for Responsible Opioid Prescribing (PROP), an advocacy group funded by Phoenix House, which runs a chain of addiction treatment centers. Critics say PROP has a conflict of interest when it advocates that pain patients be given greater access to addiction treatment.

My Life with Fibromyalgia: An Open Letter to CDC

(Editor’s Note: The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention today reopened for public comment its proposed guidelines for opioid prescribing. Comments, which will accepted until January 13, 2016,  can be made by clicking here.)

By Emma Christensen, Guest Columnist

The over-regulation of opioid medications is so very wrong for pain patients. To withdraw their access to opioid medications is reckless and punitive.

Having lived with fibromyalgia for over 15 years, searching for credible medical help and treatment has been one of the most trying experiences of my life.

One physician I sought help from was so at a loss for treating the pain I was experiencing that he put me on heavy doses of morphine. When I learned more about the medication he put me on, I began to question if I truly needed that much in order to live. 

When another physician told me I was very young to be on that high of a dosage, I searched and found literature that supported using a low dosage of morphine to take the edge off of the pain. This method of pain reduction was done in order to allow patients to function using additional alternative solutions such as Tai Chi exercise, foam rolling and trigger point therapy to help reduce significant amounts of their pain. Eventually, I tried these methods and was able to step down to the lowest dose (15mg) that is available for doctors to prescribe.

emma christensen

This low dosage worked well. I felt like I was improving and having the first bits of success in pain reduction that did not require a pill or large amounts medication.  It was just enough to take the edge off the pain. This allowed me to begin to move, exercise, and use other alternative methods of pain relief.  However, it was not possible to do this without the opioid cutting into that first layer of pain. 

I describe pain as an onion -- I had just begun to peel it.  I could not do this without relying upon the small amounts of morphine I was prescribed.

I hate the fact that I have to take this medication. I hate the fact that there is not a better solution. However, all things considered, would you rather pay for a person to be on disability and all that goes with that? Or would you rather have them remain functional and working at a job supporting themselves? I chose to be functional and working, thereby keeping my self-respect and dignity.

The day someone wants to walk a day in my shoes with this painful condition, is the day that they can tell me how my doctor and I can treat my condition.  The pain is unbearable, horrific, and relentless. If I stop any of the methods I use to fight it, it can revert to the levels it was at before I began fighting it; as if I had never done anything to fight it at all.

The low dose morphine has helped me stay functional and keep my job all these years. It takes the edge off of the horrific pain that comes with having fibromyalgia. If anything, I have been more responsible than you have, as the “monitors of society” that wish to deprive me of the one thing that allows me to remain functional.

For years, I have taken only a 15 mg dose and not more, as was originally prescribed. I am prescribed two pills a day for 30 days. I have the extra burden of having to pick up the prescription in person and to sign for it, for each refill. For me, this means I must take time off from work to get the script (if my doctor’s office is not open on Saturday morning). This is another burden.  How much more difficult do you want to make my life?  Why can’t a quarterly prescription be available for someone like me who has a history of appropriate medication usage?

I am frightened to go without the medication because my pain is real. It hurts, fibromyalgia hurts, and it brings me to tears. Just moving my arms and legs is excruciating due to the myofascial knots and inflamed fascia that I endure with this condition.

If you want to question my need for this medication, go nose to nose with me and tell me why. Tell me what other solution you suggest that is just as good and will do what I need it to do, so I can work and keep my job. I have been out there trying every solution I can find for the last 15 years.

If you think you can solve the pain, solve it! Let me or any other person who lives with chronic pain be the judge of your solution, not you. It is very obvious to those of us living in chronic pain that the CDC’s opioid guidelines are being made by people who do not experience chronic pain themselves!

If I had a choice, I would not use this medication. I would not take morphine if I did not need it. I am against using illegal drugs.  In my lifetime, I have worked in two police departments, was married to a cop, and my father-in-law was a chief of police. Additionally, I hold a Master’s degree in Public Administration. I know full well what the abuse of drugs does to families and society.

However, that doesn’t give you the right to tell me and my doctors how to treat my condition.

Blanket mandates of restriction, without credible analysis of the situation, is not a substantial enough reason to deny a class of people who are suffering and in pain their medication.  Proposed regulations should not only solve an administrative problem; but, enhance the medical profession and the support the pain patient simultaneously. Any proposals that do not measure up to this standard are beneath consideration for good practices and reasonable implementation by professional public administrators. 

Like any other crime, incidences of abuse and misuse must be regulated and substantiated in a court of law following the principles of due process. To do otherwise is punitive and unjust towards people who are innocent of such allegations.

There is another reason I felt inspired to write this open letter to the CDC.  It is my education that requires me to respond. If I do not respond and say something now while I have a chance, I could be responsible for my own loss if they take away my medication. 

We all have to stand firm to let the CDC administrators know that they cannot make decisions in a vacuum.  If we allow them to get away with this, then we are less of a democracy and more dictatorship run by administrators who do not know the negative effect that they are having on our society.  My degree is all about building a "good society." Arbitrary rules against pain patients are not the solution to this problem.  You cannot solve a law enforcement issue by doing the minimum of public administration.

If you want to help chronic pain patients, such as myself, put your energies into finding a cure for the pain patients that require these medications to cope with their daily lives; remove the barriers to treatment. You can have my medical case files; my treatments are an open book, as far as I am concerned. I have never misused my medications and do not ever plan to. Please stop persecuting those of us who are ill and find a better way to spend your time.  I am one voice, but I speak for many people who are in pain.

This open letter to the CDC is intended to invite, stimulate and encourage further discussion and commentary on this most important issue of pain management and law enforcement of illegal drugs.

Emma Christensen lives in Illinois. She was diagnosed with fibromyalgia in 2000 after a whiplash injury from a vehicle accident. Emma is currently working to be certified as a fibromyalgia health coach and hopes to help others navigate their way through treatments in order to feel and be better.  She has a Facebook support group called Fibromyalgia Solutions.

Pain News Network invites other readers to share their stories with us.  Send them to:  editor@PainNewsNetwork.org.

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.

Will CDC Start Listening to Chronic Pain Patients?

By Pat Anson, Editor

Friday’s announcement by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) that it will reconsider and delay implementing its controversial draft guidelines for opioid prescribing throws open a process that’s been largely concealed from the public.

But will it lead to changes in the guidelines themselves? And will the agency start listening to pain patients who fear losing access to opioid pain medication?

There are many different opinions from experts and activists who’ve been closely following the debate.

“A delay will not stop the inevitable, nor will a few months serve as a cooling blanket for the medical professionals and patients that are outraged by the approach CDC has taken on these guidelines.  CDC’s behavior was so outlandish that is caused an avalanche of pushback,” said Jeffrey Fudin, a pharmacist and founder of Professionals for Rational Opioid Monitoring & Pharmacotherapy (PROMPT).

“It is heartening to see that CDC has decided to do now what it really should have done in the beginning, and I hope the result is a set of recommendations that everyone can support,” said Bob Twillman, PhD, Executive Director of the American Academy of Pain Management.

“Some have said that this delay is a victory for ‘the opioid lobby,’ but I think it’s not really a victory for anyone; it might be a victory for tried-and-true methods of developing practice guidelines, and a victory for transparency, but a delay in producing reasonable, workable guidelines actually does everyone a disservice. That could have been prevented, had CDC used a proper process from the beginning.”

The process that CDC used in developing the guidelines was unusually secretive and one-sided for a public agency. As Pain News Network has reported, the CDC handpicked outside advisers dominated by special interest groups and addiction treatment specialists, most of whom were determined to rein in opioid prescribing. The CDC’s panel of experts and stakeholders included five board members of Physicians for Responsible Opioid Prescribing (PROP), an advocacy group funded by Phoenix House, which operates a chain of addiction treatment centers. Few patient advocates and pain physicians were included in the process.

Not surprisingly, the resulting draft guidelines discourage primary care physicians from prescribing opioids for chronic pain. “Non-pharmacological therapy” such as exercise and cognitive behavioral therapy were recommended instead, along with non-opioid drugs such as over-the-counter pain relievers.

The guidelines were unveiled to a select online audience in September and only a brief 48-hour window was allowed for public comment. That sparked an outcry from the pain community. In a survey of over 2,000 pain patients by Pain News Network and the Power of Pain Foundation, large majorities complained that non-opioid treatments didn’t work for them or were not covered by insurance. Others predicted the guidelines would cause even more addiction and overdoses, not less.

The CDC largely ignored the complaints and said it would continue with plans to implement the guidelines in January, as planned.

Only in recent weeks, when the CDC started getting “feedback” from others did the agency reconsider. It was threatened with a lawsuit by the pro-business Washington Legal Foundation and officials from other federal agencies mocked the guidelines as “ridiculous” and “an embarrassment to the government.”

“CDC appreciates the feedback we have received to date, which has informed and strengthened the document thus far, and we look forward to receiving further input to improve the way opioids are prescribed,” said Debra Houry, MD,  the CDC official in charge of developing the guidelines, in an email Friday to stakeholders.

The agency now says it will reopen the public comment period for 30 days, starting on Monday, December 14th. The draft guidelines will also be reviewed by a scientific advisory panel, which will appoint a new work group to consider changes, a process that could take several months or more.

“I think it's a good idea to get broader input. Some have been critical of CDC, but the criticism has swirled primarily around the process itself, particularly the need for more input. More input can't hurt. It's my sense that the draft guidelines themselves have generally been well-received,” said David Juurlink, MD, a PROP board member who served on one of the CDC’s advisory committees. 

“Regarding the Washington Legal Foundation, I note that they've lobbied previously on behalf of Exxon Mobil, Philip Morris and Purdue Pharma. People can infer from this what they will.”

Jeff Fudin thinks the review process is yet a smokescreen.

“It seems to me that CDC is forming more committees and more layers to shield liability and hide behind their transgressions.  Rather than do this, I’d like to see a committee formed to examine how CDC’s actions around the guidelines happened in the first place, including but not limited to the choice of committee members and all potential conflicts and alliances among participants. Only after we understand how the CDC went awry can a fair scientific board be put in place to avoid a snowball of transgressions,” Fudin said in an email to Pain News Network. 

“The CDC realizes that they created a fire storm with their politically driven guidelines,” said Lynn Webster, MD, past president of American Academy of Pain Medicine. “It is good that they have heard the crescendoing opposition to what they have done.  We will have to see if it is just a maneuver to appease the concerns or if they are truly interested in working to be more inclusive and scientific in developing the guidelines.

“There are two fundamental concerns with the proposed guidelines.  The first is the secretive process and inclusion of advisers who are biased and prejudicial against opioids.  The other major concern is that the recommendations do not match the level of evidence.  This is what is most bizarre from the CDC, since the CDC is supposed to be a scientific body which uses best evidence in proposing health recommendations for the country. They failed to follow this principle in this case.”

Another bizarre part of the process is that – outside of September’s webinar -- the CDC has never made the guidelines available on its website, in a news release, or in any public forum. That will finally change on Monday when the draft guidelines are published in the federal register.

CDC Delays Opioid Prescribing Guidelines

By Pat Anson, Editor

Faced with the threat of lawsuits and growing ridicule from patients, physicians and other federal agencies, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has apparently decided to delay for several months plans to implement its controversial opioid prescribing guidelines for chronic pain.

Today the agency filed a formal notice in the federal register that it was opening a 30-day public comment period on the guidelines, which had been scheduled for adoption in January. The guidelines would discourage primary care physicians from prescribing opioid pain medication in an effort to end what has been called an “epidemic” of addiction and overdoses.

“In response to feedback, CDC is posting its draft opioid prescribing guideline for chronic pain in the Federal Register for 30 days of public comment. In addition, in early 2016 the CDC National Center for Injury Prevention and Control’s Board of Scientific Counselors (BSC), a federal advisory committee, will review the draft guideline. CDC will ask the BSC to form a workgroup to review the guideline and public comments and present recommendations to the BSC,” the CDC said in a statement to Pain News Network.   

The public comment period will run from December 14th  until January 13, 2016.

The CDC unveiled the guidelines in September to a select online audience and then only allowed a 48-hour public comment period. The agency was roundly criticized for its secrecy during the drafting of the guidelines and for consulting with special interest groups, but few pain patients or pain physicians. The agency never made the guidelines available on its website or in any public form outside of the webinar.

A spokesperson told PNN the guidelines will finally become available for public scrutiny on Monday when they are published in the federal register.

A list of the dozen draft guidelines that were released in September can be found here. They recommend “non-pharmacological therapy” as the “preferred” treatment for non-cancer pain, and state that limited quantities and doses of opioids should be prescribed for both acute and chronic pain. The CDC later said the draft guidelines were being revised, but didn't release the changes.

Last week, a key government panel that oversees pain research indicated it would file a formal objection to the guidelines. Politico reported that the National Institute of Health’s Interagency Pain Research Coordinating Committee believes there is little or no evidence to support many of the prescribing guidelines. Some committee members reportedly called the agency’s recommendations “ridiculous” and “an embarrassment to the government” during a meeting.

Sharon Hertz, a top FDA official, was quoted as saying the evidence used to support the guidelines "is low to very low and that's a problem."

Another top official in the Department of Health and Human Services told the research committee the CDC’s guidelines were “shortsighted” and there was a rush to judgement.

"You know, damn the torpedoes. Full speed ahead," said Wanda Jones, principal deputy assistant secretary for health at HHS.

The Washington Legal Foundation (WLF) also signaled it was prepared to file a lawsuit to stop the guidelines from being implemented, accusing the CDC of “blatant violations” of federal law for not holding public hearings and refusing to publicly identify members of its advisory committees.

“The overly secretive manner in which CDC has been developing the Guideline serves the interests of neither the healthcare community nor consumers,” wrote WLF chief counsel Richard Samp to CDC director Tom Frieden.

In a survey of over 2,000 patients by Pain News Network and the Power of Pain Foundation, over 90% said the guidelines were discriminatory and would be more harmful than helpful to pain patients. Most said they had already tried non-opioid treatments, such as massage, acupuncture and cognitive behavioral therapy, and found that they didn’t work or were not covered by insurance. Many predicted the guidelines would lead to more suicides in the pain community, and cause more addiction and overdoses, not less.

Naltrexone ‘Changed Life’ of Fibromyalgia Patient

By Donna Gregory Burch

The pain in Janice Hollander’s legs was so excruciating that she wanted to cut them off. Diagnosed with fibromyalgia in 2013, she’d progressed through the normal litany of prescription drugs doled out by physicians – Lyrica, Cymbalta, gabapentin, muscle relaxers and narcotics – all without finding relief.

Then she happened to catch an episode of the Dr. Oz Show where a guest discussed using low-dose naltrexone (LDN) as a treatment for chronic pain. A few days later, she convinced her doctor to write a prescription and took her first dose of LDN.

“After about seven days, my pain lessened,” said Hollander of Michigan. “It lessened by 10 or 20 percent. That was huge! Even just that little bit of lessening was huge.”

After four weeks, the depression that had been stymying her for years lifted. At six weeks, she saw a noticeable increase in her energy levels. Her brain fog improved, and her memory returned.

Hollander has been taking LDN for about year now, and she’s probably one of its biggest fans within the fibromyalgia community. She regularly shares her success story in online support groups.

Hollander still has fibromyalgia symptoms, but they are more manageable thanks to LDN.

“I would say my leg pain is pretty much gone,” she said. “[LDN] has completely changed my life. I don’t know that I would be here today if it wasn’t for it. I don’t think I could go for another year in the misery I was in.” 

A growing number of fibromyalgia sufferers like Hollander are finding relief using LDN. It’s an unusual discovery since LDN is best known in the addiction treatment community. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration approved LDN to treat addiction to certain opiate drugs in 1984.

janice hollander

Dr. Jarred Younger, who conducted two LDN/fibromyalgia studies at Stanford University, believes LDN has an anti-inflammatory effect on the brain.

“This is one of the few drugs that can do that in the brain because it crosses the blood-brain barrier,” Younger said.

In simple terms, the brain contains microglial cells that look for problems within the central nervous system. When they discover an abnormality, these cells release chemicals into the body that cause fatigue, pain, cognitive disturbances and other symptoms common among fibromyalgia patients. In a healthy person, these chemicals are intended to slow down the body, to force it to rest, so that it can heal from whatever has caused the abnormality. In fibromyalgia, some researchers hypothesize this normal central nervous system response gets activated and doesn’t shut off.

“It’s like the central nervous system thinks you have an infection when you don’t,” Younger explained.

Fibromyalgia sufferers often speculate about what caused their condition, and researchers have debated various triggers for years. Viruses (herpes, Epstein Barr, etc.), chronic stress, genetics, obesity, aging and pollution are suspects, but according to Younger, it could be all of these.

He believes LDN works because it calms the microglial cells and reduces brain inflammation.

Penn State University researcher Ian Zagon posits a different mechanism behind LDN. Zagon’s opioid blockade hypothesis surmises that LDN blocks the brain’s opioid receptors, essentially tricking the body into increasing production of natural pain-suppressing chemicals.

Theoretically, both hypotheses could be correct.

Younger’s two Stanford University studies showed LDN outperformed Lyrica, Cymbalta and Savella, the three drugs currently approved to treat fibromyalgia in the U.S., and it did so with minimal side effects. The most common side effects are headache, insomnia, vivid dreams and nausea – all of which usually disappear over time.

“Probably 65 percent of people get an appreciable decrease of symptoms,” Younger said.

But more research is needed to confirm these early findings.

Next year, Younger will conduct at least two LDN/fibromyalgia studies at his new facility, the Neuroinflammation, Pain and Fatigue Lab at the University of Alabama at Birmingham.

One study will try to parse out the most effective dose of LDN for fibromyalgia. Most LDN users are prescribed the drug off-label, between 1.5mg and 4.5mg daily. But some rheumatologists have shared anecdotal accounts that certain patients respond better to higher doses, ranging up to 9mg.

A second trial will pair LDN with dextromethorphan, a common cough suppressant that’s believed to work similarly to LDN.

But many fibromyalgia sufferers aren’t waiting for the research. They’ve found ways to secure a prescription and try LDN for themselves.

Linda Elsegood, founder of the U.K.-based LDN Research Trust, has helped thousands of people gain access to LDN. She credits LDN with stabilizing her multiple sclerosis. At her worst, Elsegood was wheelchair bound, had no control of her bowels or bladder and had lost much of her sight and hearing. After 18 months on LDN, she was able to walk again on her own and had a reversal of most of her symptoms.

After her remarkable recovery, she wanted to educate others on the benefits of LDN.

“I wanted people to know that there is a choice, if you’ve been told, like me, that there’s nothing else that can be done for you,” she said. “Look into LDN. Do your research. … It is amazing the number of people who’ve found LDN works for them for so many different conditions.”

In addition to fibromyalgia, early research has found LDN to be useful in reducing the symptoms of certain autoimmune and central nervous system conditions, including multiple sclerosis, Crohn’s disease, rheumatoid arthritis and others.

But few doctors know about LDN as an emerging treatment, so it can be difficult to get a prescription.

“Some doctors are too busy to read the information,” Elsegood explained. “Some will not think outside of the box. It’s not what they learned in medical school, so they’re not prepared to consider something that is alternative. Other doctors won’t prescribe it because there aren’t enough trials.”

Unfortunately, it’s unlikely that any of the major drug companies will ever study LDN because it’s an older, generic drug and little profit can be made from it. So it falls to innovative researchers, like Younger, who secure donations and grants to fund trials.

Patients often encounter doctors who refuse to prescribe LDN even though it has a proven safety record and a low risk of side effects. The LDN Research Trust includes a list of LDN-friendly doctors and pharmacies on its website. For those who can’t find an LDN-friendly doctor locally, there are physicians who offer phone and online LDN consults.

“My advice is to always research it yourself, and then address it with your doctor,” Hollander said. “And if your doctor won’t agree to letting you try it, then find a doctor who will.

“I would drive to Florida to get it if I had to. It makes that big of a difference. I just wish more doctors would prescribe it, and more people would find help with it.”

For a list of helpful LDN resources, visit www.fedupwithfatigue.com/low-dose-naltrexone.

Donna Gregory Burch was diagnosed with fibromyalgia in 2014 after several years of unexplained symptoms. Donna is the founder of Fed Up with Fatigue, a blog devoted to helping those with fibromyalgia and ME/CFS live better with these conditions.

Donna is an award-winning journalist whose work has appeared online and in local newspapers and magazines throughout Virginia, Delaware and Pennsylvania. She lives in Delaware with her husband and their many fur babies.

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.

Controversy Grows over Journal Article on Pain Treatment

By Pat Anson, Editor

It’s not uncommon for colleagues in the medical profession to disagree. Egos and different medical backgrounds can sometimes lead to heated discussions about the best way to treat patients. But those arguments are usually kept private. 

That is why it is so unusual for a prominent pain physician to publicly call for another doctor to resign or be fired from her faculty position at a prestigious medical school.

“I believe she should resign her academic post,” says Forest Tennant, MD, referring to Jane Ballantyne, MD, a professor at the University of Washington School of Medicine, who recently co-authored a controversial article in the New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM) that said reducing pain intensity should not be the goal of doctors who treat chronic pain. The article also suggests that patients should learn to accept their pain and move on with their lives.

“For somebody in her position as a professor at a university to call for physicians to quit treating pain – or pain intensity – whether acute, chronic, whether rich, poor, disabled or what have you, is totally inappropriate. And it’s an insult to the physicians of the world and an insult to patients. And frankly, she should not be a professor.” Tennant told Pain News Network.

“To suggest that physicians should no longer treat pain intensity and let patients suffer goes beyond any sort of decency or concern for humanity.”

Tennant is a pain management specialist who has treated patients for over 40 years at his pain clinic in West Covina, California. He’s authored over 300 scientific articles and books, is editor emeritus of Practical Pain Management, and is highly regarded  in the pain community for accepting difficult, hard-to-treat patients that other doctors have given up on.

dr. forest tennant

Tennant was surprised the influential, peer-reviewed New England Journal of Medicine, which reaches over 600,000 people each week, even published the article.

“I know that they’re biased and they’ve got all their medical device people there and all their academia and all that, but I think they have a responsibility also. They are supposedly representing medicine,” says Tennant. “Why do I have a medical degree if I’m not supposed to treat pain intensity? Give me an answer to that. She didn’t have an alternative did she?”

dr. jane ballantyne

Exactly what Ballantyne and co-author Mark Sullivan, MD, meant to say is open to interpretation. Pain News Network has been unable to get comment from either about the controversy.

They began their article by saying “pain that can be relieved should be relieved,” but then veer off in another direction, stating that chronic pain should not be treated with opioid pain medication.

“Is a reduction in pain intensity the right goal for the treatment of chronic pain? We have watched as opioids have been used with increasing frequency and in escalating doses in an attempt to drive down pain scores — all the while increasing rates of toxic drug effects, exposing vulnerable populations to risk, and failing to relieve the burden of chronic pain,” they wrote, dismissing the pain intensity scales that are widely used by physicians to measure pain levels.

“We propose that pain intensity is not the best measure of the success of chronic-pain treatment. When pain is chronic, its intensity isn't a simple measure of something that can be easily fixed.”

Ballantyne and Sullivan offered no alternative “fixes” for pain treatment, other than patients learning to live with pain and sitting down for a chat with their doctors.

“Nothing is more revealing or therapeutic than a conversation between a patient and a clinician, which allows the patient to be heard and the clinician to appreciate the patient's experiences and offer empathy, encouragement, mentorship, and hope,” they wrote.

Angry Comments from Readers

The article infuriated both patients and physicians, including dozens who left angry comments on the NEJM website.

“Great job. I will be going into the coffin business thanks to these believers that people should suck it up. How NEJM even recognizes these people as doctors and not quacks is beyond me,” wrote Michael Shabi, who identified himself as a family practice physician.

“I take just enough narcotic pain meds to cut the edge off of my pain to be coherent enough to love my wife and respond to your constant misinformation. I have had 21 neurological surgeries and procedures and live in constant pain. So why in the heck do you people have such a problem in hearing us?” asked pain patient Kerry Smith.

“Only an idiot might conclude that one can dismiss the effects of living with a healthcare problem that reminds you of its presence with every move you make,” wrote Terri Lewis, PhD, a specialist in rehabilitation.

Both Ballantyne and Sullivan have lengthy careers in medicine and have been active in organizations that discourage the use of opioids. 

According to the University of Washington website, Ballantyne received her medical degree from the Royal Free Hospital School of Medicine in London and trained in anesthesiology at John Radcliffe Hospital in Oxford. She moved to Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston in 1990 and then to the University of Washington in 2011, as a Professor of Education and Research and as Director of the UW Pain Fellowship. 

Last year Ballantyne was named president of Physicians for Responsible Opioid Prescribing (PROP), an advocacy group funded by Phoenix House, which operates a chain of addiction treatment centers. She also serves as an expert adviser to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) as it develops controversial new guidelines that discourage primary care physicians from prescribing opioids. Ballantyne is one of five PROP board members who are advising the CDC on the guidelines.

Sullivan is a Professor of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences -- also at the University of Washington School of Medicine -- and is executive director of Collaborative Opioid Prescribing Education (COPE), a program that educates healthcare providers about safe opioid prescribing practices. He is also a PROP board member.

Sullivan has authored several research articles on opioids, including a recent one warning about the co-prescribing of sedatives and opioids.

“He’s not as well known,” says Tennant. “He doesn’t carry the public influence that she does. She’s sitting on federal committees, advising CDC that pain patients should not be treated and the intensity scale should not be used. I cannot imagine anyone making that statement. I can’t imagine the New England Journal of Medicine publishing it. The atrocity here is just awful.

dr. mark sullivan

“Any semblance of decency left among physicians in PROP, if that’s what they believe, then I think the whole organization ought to close its doors. I didn’t know they were going to say we didn’t want pain treated at all. They said they wanted to use opioids responsibly. Well, that’s fair. But that’s not what she said.”

Tennant is urging the pain community to contact Paul Ramsey, the CEO of UW Medicine and Dean of the School of Medicine to ask that Ballantyne be fired. He’s gotten a few takers, including Becky Roberts, who suffers from arachnoiditis.

“I do not feel she should be teaching new medical students. Professor influence is big when you are a student. I am sure if any one of them read her article, most were probably shocked,” Roberts said in an email to Pain News Network.

“They did not get into medicine because they are uncaring. Compassion for other human beings is why they went to medical school. To help heal human beings is their goal. I really do think she needs to be removed from that position. How long has she been teaching this kind of logic?”

The UW School of Medicine has about 4,500 students enrolled in undergraduate, professional, and post-graduate programs. 

New Skin Patch Delivers Pain Relief with Ibuprofen

By Pat Anson, Editor

There are many different types of skin patches already on the market to treat pain --- containing everything from lidocaine to capsaicin to powerful opioids like fentanyl. Now British researchers say they’re a step closer to developing the first transdermal patch containing ibuprofen.

Researchers at the University of Warwick have formed a company called Medherent to produce and patent an adhesive patch that can deliver a high dose of ibuprofen through the skin for as long as 12 hours to treat conditions such as back pain, arthritis and neuralgia.

Their patch differs from others already on the market because the medication is embedded into the polymer matrix that sticks the patch to the patient’s skin. The embedding technology allows the patch to contain 5 to 10 times the amount of analgesic currently used in medical patches.

"Many commercial patches surprisingly don't contain any pain relief agents at all, they simply soothe the body by a warming effect,” says University of Warwick research chemist Professor David Haddleton.

image courtesy of medherent

“Our technology now means that we can for the first time produce patches that contain effective doses of active ingredients such as ibuprofen for which no patches currently exist. Also, we can improve the drug loading and stickiness of patches containing other active ingredients to improve patient comfort and outcome."

The researchers are now testing other analgesics to see if they too can be embedded into the polymers. So far they’ve had good results with methyl salicylate – a wintergreen-scented chemical used in some topical liniments and gels.

“We believe that many other over the counter and prescription drugs can exploit our technology and we are seeking opportunities to test a much wider range of drugs and treatments within our patch," says Haddleton.

In an email to Pain News Network, Medherent’s CEO said the technology is compatible with a wide range of drugs, including opioids. The company is currently seeking partners to help develop the patches.

"Our first products will be over-the-counter pain relief patches and through partnering we would expect to have the first of those products on the market in around 2 years,” said Nigel Davis. “In addition to our pain relief products, our technology also works with drugs in many other therapeutic areas. We can see considerable opportunities in working with pharmaceutical companies to develop innovative products using our next generation transdermal drug-delivery platform."

Adding opioids to the mix is tricky business, because some opioid patches already on the market are being abused. According to CBCNews, transdermal patches containing fentanyl are blamed for over 600 deaths in Canada. Addicts have learned they can cut up fentanyl patches to smoke or ingest them  

Asked if Medherent’s patch technology would prevent similar abuse, Davis said, “We hope so but need to do more work on that before we make claims of that sort. “

Decision on Opioid Implant Nears

Meanwhile, Titan Pharmaceuticals (NASDAQ: TTNP) has announced that the Food and Drug Administration has scheduled a meeting with the company next month to discuss its new drug application for Probuphine, an implant containing buprenorphine, a weak acting opioid used to treat addiction.

Ironically, some addicts have learned they can get high by abusing buprenorphine and it is prized as a street drug that can ease withdrawal pains from heroin. Buprenorphine, which is more widely known under the brand name Suboxone, is currently only available in pills and oral films.

The Probuphine implant would be difficult to abuse. About the size of a matchstick, it is designed to be inserted subcutaneously under the skin of the upper arm, where it can release steady doses of buprenorphine for as long as six months.

Titan and its partner, Braeburn Pharmaceuticals, believe the implant technology could someday be used to deliver other medications, including opioids for pain relief.

image courtesy of titan pharmaceuticals

Probuphine’s path to the marketplace hasn’t been a smooth one. Braeburn and Titan were stunned in 2013 when the FDA denied approval of the implant and asked for a new clinical study of Probuphine’s effectiveness. Since then, the companies have conducted a study showing that the implant was more effective than buprenorphine tablets in treating addiction. The companies are hoping for FDA approval in 2016.

Fed Panel Opposes CDC Opioid Guidelines

By Pat Anson, Editor

A key government panel that oversees pain research will file a formal objection to proposed opioid prescribing guidelines being drafted by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Those guidelines, which are set to be released next month, would discourage primary care physicians from prescribing opioid pain medications.

The National Institute of Health’s Interagency Pain Research Coordinating Committee believes there is little or no evidence to support many of the prescribing guidelines, according to Politico. Some committee members reportedly called the agency’s recommendations “ridiculous” and “an embarrassment to the government” during a meeting Thursday.

The pain research committee includes representatives from the Food and Drug Administration, Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, Department of Veterans Affairs, Department of Defense, and the CDC itself.

Evidence cited to support the guidelines "is low to very low and that's a problem," said Sharon Hertz, the FDA's director of the Division of Anesthesia, Analgesia and Addiction Products.

The CDC unveiled the draft guidelines in September to a select online audience and then allowed only 48 hours for public comment. The guidelines, a list of which can be found here, recommend “non-pharmacological therapy” as the “preferred” treatment for non-cancer pain, and state that limited quantities and doses of opioids should be prescribed for both acute and chronic pain.  

Complaints immediately arose from physician organizations and patient advocacy groups that the guidelines were developed in secret, with too much input from special interest groups, addiction control specialists, and Physicians for Responsible Opioid Prescribing (PROP),  an advocacy group funded by Phoenix House, which operates a chain of addiction treatment centers. Five PROP board members, including its President, Vice-President and founder, are on committees that helped the CDC draft the guidelines.

The CDC developed the guidelines to combat what is often called an epidemic of prescription drug abuse and overdoses, but the agency’s own documents acknowledge there is “low quality of evidence” or “very low quality” to support many of its recommendations. For example, one guideline would greatly expand access to addiction treatment drugs such as buprenorphine and encourages physicians to refer patients to addiction treatment programs. Although "strongly recommended" by the CDC, the quality of evidence for that guideline is considered low.

The agency also admitted it rushed through the process, apparently to meet a January deadline.

“CDC conducted ‘rapid reviews’ of the contextual evidence on alternative treatments, benefits and harms, values and preferences, and resource implications. Rapid reviews are used when there is a need to streamline the systematic review process to obtain evidence in a short time frame. Methods used to streamline the process include limiting searches by databases, years, and languages considered, and truncating quality assessment and data abstraction protocols. Given the public health urgency of developing opioid prescribing recommendations, a rapid review was required for the current guideline,” the agency said in briefing documents obtained by Pain News Network.

A top official in the Department of Health and Human Services told the NIH research committee the CDC’s guidelines were “shortsighted” and there was a rush to judgement.

"You know, damn the torpedoes. Full speed ahead," said Wanda Jones, principal deputy assistant secretary for health at HHS, according to Politico.

Pain patients agree the CDC guidelines are shortsighted and could have a disastrous impact on the pain community. In a survey of over 2,000 patients by Pain News Network and the Power of Pain Foundation, over 90% said the guidelines were discriminatory and would be more harmful than helpful to pain patients. Most said they had already tried non-opioid treatments, such as massage, acupuncture and cognitive behavioral therapy, and found that they didn’t work. Many predicted the guidelines would lead to more suicides in the pain community, and cause more addiction and overdoses, not less.

Last month the Washington Legal Foundation (WLF) accused the CDC of “blatant violations” of federal law for not holding public hearings and refusing to publicly identify members of its advisory committees.

“The overly secretive manner in which CDC has been developing the Guideline serves the interests of neither the healthcare community nor consumers,” wrote WLF chief counsel Richard Samp to CDC director Tom Frieden.

The WLF has a lengthy history of taking government agencies to court to overturn regulations and policies it considers unfriendly to business.

Additional reporting for this story can be found in DrugWonks.

Cancer Painkiller Blamed for Hundreds of Deaths

By Pat Anson, Editor

An Arizona drug maker that developed a powerful painkiller for cancer patients falsified records so the drug would be prescribed to non-cancer pain patients, possibly resulting in hundreds of overdose deaths, according to a new report by the Southern Investigative Reporting Foundation.

Subsys has FDA approval for breakthrough cancer pain, but Insys Therapeutics allegedly misled insurers into paying for the drug and encouraged off-label prescribing for patients suffering from conditions such as joint pain and post-traumatic stress disorder.

Subsys is a fentanyl based spray-on painkiller, said to be 100 times stronger than morphine.

The new report, headlined “Murder Incorporated,”  adds to the growing body of evidence and critical media reports about the aggressive business tactics of Insys Therapeutics. Last month CNBC accused the company of “putting profits before patients as it makes millions off your pain.”

"I've been investigating drug cases for about 15 years now, and the conduct that we saw in this case was among the most unconscionable that I've seen," Oregon Assistant Attorney General told CNBC. "There was harm done to patients on a level I'm not used to seeing."

image courtesy of insys therapeutics

Insys is under federal and state investigations in Oregon, California, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Arizona and Illinois. The company has settled a class action lawsuit in Oregon for $1.1 million and another in Arizona for $6.1 million.

The Southern Investigative Reporting Foundation has spent the past year investigating Insys and its business practices. It reported the company set up a special unit to help patients get prior authorization for Subsys prescriptions, often by falsely claiming they were medically urgent cancer diagnoses.

“Our findings suggest that the federal prosecutors are on to something. The prior authorization unit was set up to assist patients with complex insurance paperwork. Its value proposition was simplicity itself: the patient signs a few forms and Insys handles the messy paperwork. Patients would get the medicine, prescribers wouldn't have to scramble for a replacement and Insys would book thousands of dollars in revenue per prescription,” the report says.

Since Subsys was introduced in 2012, the FDAs Adverse Events Reporting System lists 203 deaths where Subsys was listed as the probable cause for triggering an adverse reaction. The pace of Subsys-related deaths is accelerating, with 52 deaths in the second quarter of this year alone.

“Depending on the dosage, one package of 30 Subsys sprays can cost between $900 and $3,000. Insys generates almost all of its revenue from Subsys. Last month the company reported over $91 million in revenue during the third quarter, beating estimates.

CEO Mike Babich resigned the day before earnings were released, saying he wanted to spend more time with his family.

“Insys is committed to developing products for the supportive care of patients through the use of its drug delivery technologies.  Insys takes patient safety very seriously and is committed to working with the health care community,” the company said in a statement. “Based on its interactions with patients and prescribers, Insys believes that the success of Subsys is directly attributable to the clinical benefits of its product.”

Going Off Morphine is Hell

By Crystal Lindell, Columnist

This past weekend, as I tried to get off morphine once and for all, one thought kept going through my mind — if the devil is any good at his job, hell will just be eternal opioid withdrawal.

It’s like, have you ever had the flu, and also food poisoning, and also been hit by a train, and also had the fight or flight anxiety that comes from being chased by a bear for a week straight — all the same time? Well it’s worse than that.

It’s effing hell.

And it’s all made even worse by the fact that I had the cure the whole time. Every single minute that went by, I knew that I all had to do to make it all go away was pop one of those little blue pills in my purse.

I made it to the 72 hour mark last night at midnight. That’s 72 hours without morphine or a hydrocodone. I haven’t gone a full 72 hours without an opioid in almost two and a half years.

I spent all of November tapering down my dose. Going so effing slow. Like three pills, then two pills, then three pills, then two pills. Then after a week, I’d do one pill then two pills, then one pill.

I was down to one pill every other day, of the lowest dose, and I knew the next step was going through withdrawal. I thought maybe it wouldn’t be that bad since I had been going so slowly with the tapering. I was wrong.

Honestly, the first 24 hours weren’t so bad. My body was just chilling, expecting another dose in a day or so. But then, at midnight, exactly 24 hours in, the involuntary leg movements started. I was lying in bed, in the middle of the night, and my right leg would just move. Also, my anxiety started skyrocketing so high you’d have thought I was in a war zone.

By the morning, about 31 hours in, the muscle aches had set in, and everything I had ever eaten over the last two years had started to come out. Diarrhea doesn’t sound like the worst thing in the world, until you literally spend so much time on the toilet that your legs go numb. And then when you do get up, you are so dehydrated that you can’t even walk without holding on to the wall.

There’s other stuff too, the kind of stuff that maybe sounds minor until it happens to you. Like, my nose was randomly running, and I was sneezing like there was a secret cat hidden in the bathtub. And I could not sleep. At all. And if somehow I did get a couple minutes of shut eye, I would wake up drenched in sweat. Also, everything made cry. Seeing the sun? Tears. Facebook posts about makeup? I’d start weeping. Basically the fact that I was alive was enough of a reason.

Again, all these things don’t sound so horrible, but when they are all happening at once, it is literally hell on earth. 

I spent most of the 72 hours watching Breaking Bad — which is either the worst show to watch during withdrawal because it’s all about drugs, or the best because it’s all about the horrible things drugs lead to.

I also spent most of the 72 hours trying to process how I got to this point. Morphine has been so good to me over the last two years. And I stand by the fact that it literally saved my life. If it wasn’t for the pain relief I got from the drug, I don’t know if I would have been able to endure. And I am thankful to morphine for that.

But I wouldn’t wish the morphine withdrawal on Hitler.

And I thought about everyone who has ever had to endure this for whatever reason. And my heart filled with compassion and love for them. Some people like to say that drug addicts are just weak, or lack self-control. Those people are a**holes.

I also thought a lot about how much I wanted to just pop a morphine and make everything better. I thought about it so hard. Vividly picturing the little blue pill in my head and fantasizing about how good it would feel to take just one.

And I thought about how going through withdrawal was a good thing because I wouldn’t even be going off morphine if I wasn’t feeling better. (See Crystal's last column: "Is Vitamin D Making Me Feel Better?")

I felt like this was a final step. A last stand by my pain to suck me in. I had to get off this drug to move on with my life. But it was so incredibly hard.

And I kept thinking about how, I am a good person. I am a strong person. I should be able to get through this. Why am I struggling so much?

My best friend was extremely supportive during the whole thing, constantly checking on me, praying for me, and sending me encouragement. And at one point she sent me a text that said, “I think the last two years were the toughest times of each of our lives (in different ways). Glad I get to see you on the other end.”

The other end. Wow. I honestly never thought I would ever get to see the other end. For a long time, I didn’t even think there was an “other end” to get to.

The idea that I could get to this proverbial “other end” though, it was enough to keep me going.

Honestly, I still feel like I was jumped, and then tossed in front of a train. But I’m doing a lot better than I was doing on day two. From what I can tell, the withdrawal symptoms can last anywhere from a week to months, but it’s those first 72 hours that are the most horrible. And I have made it through those.

I also discovered that there’s a cocktail of over-the-counter drugs that help. Specifically, I have been popping handfuls of Advil, Imodium and Benadryl.

I saw my brother this morning. And as I walked toward him, I felt like I was just regaining my footing after being in a plane crash. Still shaken up, disoriented and feeling like hell, I said, “Well, I’m finally feeling a little better. I made it to 72 hours.”

“Great. Now you have to make it a week,” he said.

Crap, I thought. He’s right.

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.

Should Patients Learn to Live with Chronic Pain?

By Pat Anson, Editor

Chronic pain patients should learn how to live with their pain and pain relief should not be the primary focus of doctors who treat them, according to two influential physicians in a commentary published in the New England Journal of Medicine.

“Is a reduction in pain intensity the right goal for the treatment of chronic pain?” ask Jane Ballantyne, MD, and Mark Sullivan, MD. "We have watched as opioids have been used with increasing frequency and in escalating doses in an attempt to drive down pain scores — all the while increasing rates of toxic drug effects, exposing vulnerable populations to risk, and failing to relieve the burden of chronic pain at the population level."

“We propose that pain intensity is not the best measure of the success of chronic-pain treatment. When pain is chronic, its intensity isn't a simple measure of something that can be easily fixed," they wrote in answer to their question.

Ballantyne is President of Physicians for Responsible Opioid Prescribing (PROP), an advocacy group that seeks to end the overprescribing of opioid pain medication. She is also a member of the “Core Expert Group” the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) is consulting with in drafting new guidelines for opioid prescribing.

Sullivan is a professor of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences at the University of Washington School of Medicine, and is executive director of Collaborative Opioid Prescribing Education (COPE), a program that educates healthcare providers about safe opioid prescribing practices.

In their commentary, Ballantyne and Sullivan say it’s a mistake for doctors to treat chronic pain sufferers the same way they would treat patients who are terminally ill or have short-term acute pain. They also recommend that doctors be less reliant on pain scales, such as the Wong-Baker pain scale, to measure pain intensity.

“Reliance on pain-intensity ratings tends to result in the use of opioid treatment for patients with mental health or substance abuse problems who are least likely to benefit from opioid treatment and most likely to be harmed by it,” they wrote.

“Borrowing treatment principles from acute and end-of-life pain care, particularly a focus on pain-intensity scores, has had unfortunate and harmful consequences. The titrate-to-effect principle fails when pain is chronic, because our best chronic-pain treatments don't produce an immediate or substantial change in pain intensity.”

Instead of relying on opioids for pain relief, Ballantyne and Sullivan say chronic pain patients need “multimodal treatment” that includes physical and behavioral therapy. They also stress that patients should learn to accept pain and get on with their lives.

“Many of the interdisciplinary and multimodal treatments recommended in the National Pain Strategy use coping and acceptance strategies that primarily reduce the suffering associated with pain and only secondarily reduce pain intensity. Willingness to accept pain, and engagement in valued life activities despite pain, may reduce suffering and disability without necessarily reducing pain intensity,” they wrote.

Ballantyne is one of five PROP board members who are advising the CDC about its opioid prescribing guidelines. Those guidelines, which recommend “non-pharmacological” and non-opioid treatments for chronic pain, are scheduled to be finalized in January 2016. A draft version of the guidelines was released in September and can be found here.

In a survey of over 2,000 pain patients by Pain News Network and the Power of Pain Foundation, 9 out of 10 said more people will suffer than be helped by the guidelines. Large majorities also predicted that doctors would prescribe fewer or no opioids, there would be more suicides in the pain community, and that the guidelines will result in more addiction and overdoses, not less.

Lyrica Fails in Nerve Pain Study

By Pat Anson, Editor

Lyrica was originally marketed as an anti-seizure medication for epilepsy, although that’s never stopped Pfizer from looking for new ways to have doctors prescribe its blockbuster drug -- for everything from anxiety to shingles to fibromyalgia.

But efforts to get Lyrica approved as a treatment for post-traumatic nerve pain appear to have reached a dead end. Pfizer says a Phase III clinical study found that pregabalin – the generic name for Lyrica – worked no better than a placebo in controlling chronic nerve pain caused by traumatic accidents or surgery.

“The study did not meet its primary efficacy endpoint,” Pfizer said in a brief statement about its 15-week, double-blind, placebo-controlled study

There is no treatment currently approved by the Food and Drug Administration for post-traumatic neuropathic pain.

Lyrica is currently approved for use in over 130 countries. The FDA has approved Lyrica to treat chronic nerve pain caused by diabetes, fibromyalgia, epilepsy, spinal cord injury and post-herpetic neuralgia caused by shingles. The drug is also prescribed “off label” to treat a variety of other conditions, including lumbar spinal stenosis, the most common type of lower back pain in older adults.

According to ClinicalTrials.gov, dozens of new studies are underway to test the effectiveness of pregabalin on conditions such as muscle cramps, coughs, irritable bowel syndrome, scoliosis, addiction, and phantom limb pain.

Lyrica is Pfizer’s top selling drug with annual worldwide sales of over $5 billion. Earlier this year, the company agreed to pay $400 million to settle a shareholder lawsuit over allegations it marketed Lyrica and several other drugs off-label. The lawsuit stemmed from a $2.3 billion settlement with the federal government in 2009 for fraudulent marketing and illegal kickbacks paid to doctors who prescribed Lyrica and other Pfizer products.

Common side effects of Lyrica are dizziness, blurred vision, nausea, headache, weight gain and fatigue. Pfizer says Lyrica may also cause suicidal thoughts in about 1 in 500 patients who use it. The company also advises patients not stop taking Lyrica without talking to their doctor. Suddenly stopping the medication may result in withdrawal symptoms such as headaches, nausea, diarrhea, trouble sleeping, increased sweating, and anxiety.

Pfizer Expands Financial Aid to Patients

Pfizer recently announced it was expanding its financial assistance to patients by doubling the allowable income level for people to receive medications without a copayment.

Under Pfizer's RxPathways program, the company will cover copayments for Lyrica and 43 other medicines for both uninsured and underinsured patients earning up to four times the federal poverty level. The new limits are $47,080 annually for a single person and $97,000 for a family of four.

The RxPathways program helped about 350,000 patients last year, and Pfizer expects more this year because of the soaring cost of many drugs.

For more information about financial aid and discounts offered by other drugmakers, see our Patient Resources section.
 

Will CDC Guidelines Promote Addiction Treatment?

By Alison Knopf, Editor of Alcoholism & Drug Abuse Weekly

The quick answer to the question “Will treatment providers be able to treat patients coming in addicted to opioids because they have been thrown off their pain medications next year?” is no. The treatment system can’t even treat all the patients who need help now. But this question is on the minds of federal policymakers as the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) works on its forthcoming guidelines for physicians on prescribing opioids, due out next January (see ADAW, Nov. 16).

While the pain community is creating the loudest noise about the forthcoming guidelines, charging that they are not addicts and don’t want to be lumped in with them, the treatment community has on the one hand seen the benefits of decreasing the amount of prescription opioids available, but also seen the downside: patients who are dependent or addicted, who cannot successfully taper off the pain medications, will switch to heroin. Many started as legitimate pain patients.

But for some, when their doctors felt they no longer needed the pain medication, or thought the patient was doctor-shopping, or simply decided to go along with the calls to reduce the amount of prescriptions for opioids, it was difficult to stop, and they sought illicit sources of opioids.

The CDC confirmed to ADAW that there will be a guideline that “addresses treatment for opioid use disorder.” The draft guidelines leaked in September specifically recommended that an opioid agonist (methadone or buprenorphine) be arranged for patients who need treatment for an opioid use disorder. The CDC said the guidelines are continuing to be revised. Below is the wording of that recommendation from the September draft:

“Providers should offer or arrange evidence-based treatment (usually opioid agonist treatment in combination with behavioral therapies) for patients with opioid use disorder.”

SAMHSA Working With CDC

But how the primary care physician determines whether a patient has an opioid use disorder is unclear. The Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA) expects there to be a change in prescribing practices — that’s the whole point of the guidelines. But according to Robert Lubran, director of the Division of Pharmacologic Therapies at SAMHSA’s Center for Substance Abuse Treatment (CSAT), it’s up to the physicians who are prescribing the medications to come up with a referral plan for their patients.

“I go back to what Westley Clark always said,” Lubran told ADAW, referring to the former director of CSAT. “He said the physician has to have an exit strategy for a patient he isn’t going to be prescribing opioids for anymore.” The physician has to determine if the patient is dependent on or addicted to the medication. Dependence is a normal result of regular opioid intake, addiction is pathological, but both will result in withdrawal symptoms when opioids are stopped suddenly. Someone who is dependent can be slowly tapered off the opioids and endure the craving that ensues. Someone who is addicted cannot stop and will seek opioids from another source.

“There has to be a place where the doctor can refer someone when the doctor determines that the patient can’t be safely tapered down because they are addicted,” said Lubran. A treatment provider specializing in opioid use disorders, such as an opioid treatment program (OTP) or office-based opioid treatment (OBOT), would be a good solution, he said. “We’re working with the CDC to make sure the guidelines include information on where to refer these patients,” Lubran told ADAW.

“We’re already struggling on the traditional medicine side with how a patient goes from being a pain patient to being an addict,” said Lubran. “They discharge them, but what about referrals? More states and counties need to be involved in recommendations for care,” said Lu, adding that insurance companies need to be involved as well.

Guidelines Not Mandatory

Mark Parrino, president of the American Association for the Treatment of Opioid Dependence (AA-TOD), said that as far as he knows, OTPs have not been involved in the development of the CDC guidelines. However, he expressed skepticism about the effect of the guidelines. “Will there be a reaction by physicians? Will this really change their practice patterns? Will there necessarily be a wholesale dumping of patients who are getting pain medications? I would hope not. But if that is the result, I would ask how we are going to know whether these patients will show up in treatment, or go into the street for drugs?”

Furthermore, said Parrino, these are just guidelines from the CDC. “Doctors aren’t even required to read the stuff,” he said. “They’ll issue a big press statement, yes. But it’s like package inserts. Do you really think every physician will be watching their computer for the guide-lines, saying ‘Now I need to change my medical practice?’”

The CDC itself says as much. “It is important to note that, like other CDC guidelines, including prevention and treatment of sexually treated diseases, the guidelines are intended to support informed clinical decision-making but are not mandatory (that is, physicians are not required to follow these guidelines),” according to Courtney Lenard of the CDC’s press office. The CDC’s guide-line is meant to “help primary care doctors provide safer, more effective care for patients with chronic pain” and at the same time “help reduce use, abuse and overdose from these powerful drugs,” the CDC’s press office told us last week. “The guideline is intended for primary care providers who treat adult patients (age 18 and older) for chronic pain in outpatient settings, and is not intended for patients who are in active cancer treatment, palliative care or end-of-life care.”

Asked if restrictions on prescription opioids will lead to increased use of heroin, however, the CDC continued to stick to the federal official answer, which is: No. “There is no robust evidence that recently enacted policies regarding prescription opioids are responsible for large-scale shifts to heroin,” said Lenard, adding that only 1 in 25 people who use prescription opioids nonmedically start using heroin within five years. However, she added that this “translates into a major and growing epidemic of heroin use given how widespread the misuse of prescription opioids has become.” Stopping the misuse of prescription opioids is the best way to stop the heroin epidemic, according to the CDC.

This article is republished with permission of Alcoholism & Drug Abuse Weekly, which provides news and analysis of federal and state public policy developments, private sector business developments, and provider issues and innovations in addiction treatment.

Most Americans Touched by Opioid Abuse

By Pat Anson, Editor

Over half of Americans say they know someone who has abused, been addicted to, or died from an overdose of opioid pain medication, according to a new survey by the Kaiser Family Foundation.

The survey also found a surprising awareness among many Americans that it is easier for abusers to get access to opioids than it is for pain sufferers. Three out of four (77%) believe it is easy for people to get access to prescription opioids without a prescription.  

“The perception among the public is that the balance is currently in the abuser’s favor. More of the public says it’s easy for people to get access to painkillers not prescribed to them than say it is easy for people who medically need them,” the Kaiser report says.

Over half (58%) of Americans believe it is very easy or somewhat easy to get prescription opioids for medical purposes.

Over a third (40%) believe it is somewhat difficult or very difficult for a patient to get an opioid prescription.

Kaiser surveyed over 1,350 Americans adults by telephone in mid-November for its monthly tracking poll. For the first time the survey included questions about the public’s awareness and attitude about painkiller abuse.

The survey found that whites were far more likely than African-Americans or Hispanics to have a “personal connection” to the abuse of opioids. Nearly two thirds (63%) of whites said they know someone who has abused, been addicted to, or died from an overdose of painkillers. That compares to 44% of African-Americans and 37% of Hispanics.

That finding appears to support evidence of a surprising spike in the death rate of middle aged white Americans that was uncovered by two Princeton University researchers. They estimate that nearly half a million white baby boomers died early between 1999 and 2013, coinciding with a spike in the prescribing of opioid painkillers. Financial stress, pain and disability are also believed to have played a role in the those deaths.

Other findings in the Kaiser survey:

• 16% of Americans know someone who has died from a prescription opioid overdose
• 9% know a family member or close friend who died from an opioid overdose
• 27% know someone who has been addicted to opioids
• 2% admit they are addicted to opioids  
• 45% know someone who has taken an opioid not prescribed for them
• 6% admit taking an opioid not prescribed for them

The survey also found that the public was divided over the role government should have in addressing prescription painkiller abuse. Over a third (36%) believe the federal government should be primarily responsible, while 39% believe state government and 16% believe local government should be responsible for solving the problem.