Senator Alleges Conflict of Interest in Fed Pain Panel

By Pat Anson, Editor

An influential U.S. senator is raising questions about possible conflicts of interest on a federal panel that was highly critical of the CDC’s controversial opioid prescribing guidelines.

“I was alarmed to read of efforts by the members of the Interagency Pain Research Coordinating Committee (IPRCC) to weaken efforts underway at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) to develop guidance on opioid prescribing practices,” wrote Oregon Sen. Ron Wyden (D) in a letter sent to Health and Human Services Secretary Sylvia Burwell.

As Pain News Network has reported, several members of the IPRCC said the guidelines were “ridiculous” and “an embarrassment to the government” at a December meeting.

“Several non-Federal IPRCC members, their organizations, or both, appear to be recipients of funding from major pharmaceutical companies that manufacture opioids or related products at levels that raise serious concerns regarding the potential for conflicts of interest,” wrote Wyden. “These financial and professional relationships raise serious concerns about the objectivity of the panel’s members that deserve additional review.”

december, 2015 meeting of iprcc.

Wyden mentioned several of the panel members by name, including Myra Christopher and Dr. Richard Payne of the Center for Practical Bioethics, Penney Cowan of the American Chronic Pain Association and Cindy Steinberg of the U.S. Pain Foundation. All three non-profit organizations get a substantial portion of their funding from pharmaceutical companies, including Purdue Pharma, the manufacturer of OxyContin. Purdue gave over $100,000 to U.S. Pain Foundation in 2014, according to Wyden.

“I do not and have never been paid by a pharmaceutical company,” said Steinberg, who became a patient advocate after she suffered a serious back injury in an accident. Steinberg, who is National Policy Director for U.S. Pain Foundation, currently receives a small stipend of about $8,000 a year.

“I am fortunate in that my husband works to supports us.  I do this work despite my daily, debilitating chronic pain, often needing to lie flat in meetings to control the pain and lay across two plane seats to travel because I am passionate about improving pain care in this country,” Steinberg said in an email to Pain News Network.

“If anyone watches the video of the IPRCC meeting they will see that they had to bring in a special small sofa for me to lie on every hour so that I could participate. I am proud to do this work and am honored to represent the voice of millions of disempowered Americans who suffer from the pernicious disease of chronic pain and desperately need more and better treatment options."

Penney Cowan, another member of the federal panel mentioned by Wyden, also serves on the CDC “workgroup” that recently endorsed the agency’s recommended guidelines, which discourage primary care physicians from prescribing opioids for chronic pain.  

“When treating a person with pain, a health care provider needs to determine what is best for that individual based on physical examination, test results and what is important to the individual. The recommendations seem very clear on that point,” Cowan wrote in an email to PNN. “The American Chronic Pain Association advocates for a balanced approach to pain management - that means that all therapies such as PT (physical therapy), counseling, biofeedback and stress management, OT (occupational therapy), nutritional guidance and more should be available and used based on their appropriateness for each individual.”

Wyden’s letter does not mention that some IPRCC members who were most critical of the CDC guidelines 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.

The senator’s letter and an Associated Press story about it also fail to 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,  companies which stand to benefit from the CDC guidelines because they offer non-opioid treatments or tests. The CDC Foundation accepted over $157 million from donors last year.  

Up to 11 million Americans use opioids daily to treat their chronic. A survey of over 2,000 pain patients by Pain News Network and the Power of Pain Foundation found that many fear losing access to opioid pain medication if the guidelines are adopted.

Constipation Ad Leads to Laughs and Anger

By Pat Anson, Editor

Next to the game itself, probably the one thing people talk about the most to day after the Super Bowl are the TV commercials.

One commercial that is making quite a few lists as one of the worst is by drug maker AstraZeneca promoting its opioid induced constipation (OIC) drug. The black and white commercial features a constipated man envious of others (even a dog) who can easily go to the bathroom.

“The Super Bowl is known for inspiring lots of eating and lavish spreads of food. So why would advertisers pay millions to air ads focusing on constipation?” asked Eric Deggans of National Public Radio.  “There may never be a great time to air ads like this, but to broadcast such spots in an event where viewers are eating stuff like guacamole dip and pizza surely is the worst.”

“Nothing livens up a Super Bowl like a commercial about opioid-induced constipation,” said ESPN’s Dan Graziano on Twitter.

“Opioid Induced Constipation commercial during the Superbowl? Should have aired that during the Pro Bowl. Nobody gives a sh** about it,” wrote Don on Twitter.

Most of the Tweets aimed for laughs, but one by comedian and talk show host Bill Maher quickly went viral – and not because most people thought it was funny.

“Was that really an ad for junkies who can’t sh**? America, I luv ya but I just can’t keep up,” wrote Maher.

The depiction of opioid patients as “junkies” really got under the skin of pain sufferers and patient advocacy groups, some of whom are sponsored by AstraZeneca.

“You’re a funny guy but for many #chronicpain is real and opioids are needed for quality of life,” replied CreakyJoint.org on Twitter.

“This has to be the dumbest f***ing tweet I have read all day. Don’t ever become sick, sir. Just be glad for your perfect DNA,” wrote Ryan Stevens.

“I’m offended. Ad NOT for junkies but for people with CHRONIC pain who HAVE to have medicine to SURVIVE,” tweeted Caroline Evans.

“I am appalled at this, basically calling all people with pain junkies and making the side effect OIC seem like its no big deal,” said Paul Gileno, U.S. Pain Foundation. 

AstraZeneca paid CBS big money for its one minute spot, perhaps as much as $10 million – yet the commercial never even mentions the drug’s name, Movantik, which the British drug maker introduced in 2014.

The commercial may also have the unintended effect of giving more ammunition to those who want to further restrict access to opioid pain medication, a major goal of the Obama administration.

"Next year, how about fewer ads that fuel opioid addiction and more access to treatment," asked White House Chief of Staff Denis McDonough on Twitter.

"Our Administration is determined to control opioid addiction as a public health threat," replied White House press secretary Josh Earnest.

What Alternatives do Pain Patients Have?

By Pat Anson, Editor

When the Food and Drug Administration last week endorsed the CDC’s controversial guidelines to limit opioid prescribing, the agency promised it would prioritize development of non-opioid alternatives for chronic pain relief.

“We are also working closely with industry and the National Institutes of Health to develop additional alternative medications that alleviate pain but do not have the addictive properties of opioids,” said Dr. Robert Califf, FDA Deputy Commissioner for Medical Products and Tobacco, who co-authored a “special report” on the FDA's new opioid policies the New England Journal of Medicine.   

“The FDA has approved non-opioid medications for treatment of various chronic-pain syndromes, including gabapentin (Neurontin), pregabalin (Lyrica), milnacipran (Savella), duloxetine (Cymbalta), and others, and a number of promising development programs are in the pipeline. But we need more. The FDA will use all the tools at its disposal to move these alternatives along as expeditiously as possible, while remaining mindful that all medicines have risks.”

The four drugs mentioned by Califf all have mixed track records, and many chronic pain sufferers have told Pain News Network the medications either don’t relieve their pain or have intolerable side effects.

“Gaba (Neurontin) did nothing for me and Lyrica seemed to help a very little with nerve pain but it made me very shaky, as if I drank a gallon of coffee,” wrote Pam Cushion.

“The side effects of Cymbalta were more than I could bear. I got terrible pains in the skin on my upper back and shoulders, and it made me feel downright awful,” said Tracy W.

“As opiate medications are lowered, my Lyrica dosage has gone up. It does have side effects like weight gain and next day fogginess,” wrote Kenneth McKenna. “I look for physicians to use other medicines in a similar fashion, (due to of the opioid restrictions) which may turn out to be a worse problem than the opioids themselves.”

Both Lyrica and Neurontin are coming under scrutiny in the UK because of increasing reports they are being abused by addicts to get high. Since 2012, over 60 overdose deaths in the UK have been linked to pregabalin and gabapentin.

Researchers in British Columbia also recently warned about the limitations of gabapentin, pregabalin, duloxetine, and venlafaxine (Effexor) when used to treat neuropathic pain.

“The best available evidence now indicates that as few as one in ten people can expect much pain relief from these drugs,” said Dr. Aaron Tejani, a Clinical Assistant Professor in the Faculty of Pharmaceutical Sciences and a member of the University of British Columbia's (UBC) Therapeutics Initiative Working Group. “Many people who improve are getting a placebo effect, or would improve in time without any drug treatment.  Others end up sedated, with impaired thinking, balance disturbance, dry mouth, or other side effects that cause more harm than good.”

The drugs may be ineffective for most patients, but Tejani says many doctors continue to prescribe them because of an exaggerated belief in their effectiveness. From 2005 to 2014, the number of British Columbians receiving pregabalin increased by 17 fold, according to UBC Therapeutics. Over three times as many prescriptions for duloxetine were written during that period, while gabapentin prescriptions nearly doubled. The use of venlafaxine, mostly for depression or anxiety, has been stable.

“Increasing evidence suggests that drugs have relatively little useful role for most patients with chronic pain. We should be much more cautious about prescribing them, and warn patients about their side effects,” said Dr. Tom Perry, a Clinical Assistant Professor in the Department of Anesthesiology, Pharmacology and Therapeutics and Chair of the UBC Therapeutics Initiative team.

Califf Nomination Still Stalled

The FDA’s sudden reversal on many of its opioid policies may have been intended to reduce opposition in the U.S. Senate to Robert Califf’s nomination as the agency’s new commissioner. Early indications are that strategy may not have worked.

“I will continue to strongly pressure the FDA to strengthen its oversight of opioid medications and will continue to push for the strongest possible framework for drug approval to ensure that the agency doesn’t simply continue to approve ever stronger and more deadly opioid medications under this new process,” said Sen. Joe Manchin (D) of West Virginia, one of five senators who are blocking Califf’s nomination.

Manchin has been particularly critical of the FDA’s failure on several occasions to accept the advice of its advisory committees, which have been reluctant to support the approval of new opioids. Last week Califf promised to appoint new advisory panels to review every new opioid that doesn’t have abuse deterrent properties.

“I believe the FDA should use the advisory committee’s expert advice for all opioid medications, including abuse-deterrent formulations, which are just as addictive and can be just as deadly as non-abuse deterrent opioids. The FDA also needs to commit to adhering to the recommendations that the advisory committee puts forward,” said Manchin.

Sen. Edward Markey (D) of Massachusetts also believes the FDA policy changes “fall short of what is needed.”

“While this is a good start, even more is required to ensure the FDA’s approval process protects Americans from the dangers of opioid painkillers,” Markey said in a statement. "Whether an opioid is abuse deterrent or not hasn’t prevented tens of thousands of people who have had their wisdom teeth removed or experienced lower back pain from getting addicted to these painkillers. That is why the FDA must change its decision not to seek expert advice about the risks of addiction before it approves abuse-deterrent opioids.”

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.  

Wide Disparity in Opioid Doses in Veteran Overdoses

By Pat Anson, Editor

The difference between controlling chronic pain and risking an opioid overdose can vary widely from patient to patient, according to a new study that found the threshold for safe prescribing may be lower than many doctors think.

Researchers at the University of Michigan Medical School and the Veteran Administration’s Ann Arbor Healthcare System studied the medical records of 221 veterans who died from accidental opioid overdoses and compared them to an equal number of veterans who took opioids for chronic pain, but did not overdose.

The average dose that the overdose victims had been prescribed was over 70 percent higher than what the comparison group received. The average daily dose for the overdose patients was 98 MEM (morphine-equivalent milligrams), compared to about 48 MEM for those who did not overdose.

But the researchers did not find a specific dose that clearly differentiated between patients at risk and those not at risk for overdose. In fact, some overdose victims had prescriptions for well under 50 MEM daily.

Despite that discrepancy, the researchers recommend lowering the recommended dosage threshold below 100 MEM. Lowering the number of high doses, they say, would help more people than it hurts.

“As the United States grapples with the rising toll of accidental overdoses due to opioids, our findings suggest that changing clinical practices to avoid escalating doses for patients with chronic pain could make a major difference in the number of patients who die,” said first author Amy Bohnert, PhD, an epidemiologist at the University of Michigan.

Bohnert was part of the “Core Expert Group” that helped draft the CDC’s controversial guidelines for opioid prescribing. Two co-authors, Joseph Logan and Deborah Dowell, work at the CDC’s National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, which oversaw the guidelines’ development.

The CDC guidelines recommend that primary care physicians start at the “lowest effective dosage” of opioids and should avoid increasing dosages over 90 MEM. Even a daily dose as low as 50 MEM increases overdose risk, according to the guidelines.

“Avoiding prescribing large doses also has the benefit of reducing the amount of the medications going to patients’ homes that has the potential to be taken by others who live with the patient, like children and teenagers,” said Bohnert. “This is important because an opioid that is a larger dose per pill, compared to a smaller one, is going to be deadly to a child or adult who hasn’t been taking the medication regularly.”

The study, which was funded by the Veterans Administration, is published in the journal Medical Care.

The study was based on the veterans’ medical, pharmacy and death certificate records. It did not include those who died by suicide using opioids, or veterans receiving hospice or palliative care.

Veterans were selected only if they filled a prescription for an opioid medication and had a diagnosis of chronic pain during the years 2002 to 2009. The researchers included veterans who had been prescribed codeine, morphine, oxycodone, hydrocodone, oxymorphone, hydromorphone, fentanyl, meperidine, pentazocine, propoxyphene, or methadone.

Under a federal spending bill passed by Congress and signed into law by President Obama, the Veteran’s Administration is required to follow the “voluntary” CDC opioid guidelines. The VA provides health services to 6 million veterans and their families. Over half of the veterans treated by the VA are in chronic pain.   

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.

Recalled Lyrica Damaged By 'Extreme Heat'

By Pat Anson, Editor

Nearly 150,000 bottles of Lyrica are being recalled by Pfizer in the United States and Puerto Rico because they may have been damaged by "extreme heat" while being transported, Pain News Network has learned. Each bottle contains 90 capsules.

Pfizer ordered the recall of its blockbuster pain drug on January 11 and notified retailers that may have been shipped the damaged capsules, but made no effort to tell patients about the recall because the problem did not appear serious, according to the company. PNN learned about the recall when a “Dear Customer” letter sent to retailers surfaced.

“Even though the patient impact and safety risk are low, Pfizer has decided, out of an abundance of caution, to voluntarily recall three lots of Lyrica capsules at the retail level due to the potential presence of deformed or damaged capsules. Please note that the use of, or exposure to, this product is not likely to cause adverse health consequences,” the company said in a statement to PNN.

The Lyrica capsules were manufactured at a Pfizer facility in Freiburg, Germany and shipped to U.S. wholesalers in September or October of last year. Pfizer said it learned some of the capsules were damaged in mid-December.

"We believe this was a result of exposure to extreme heat during transit," the company said. “Pfizer places the utmost emphasis on patient safety and product quality at every step in the manufacturing and supply chain process. There is no anticipated impact on supply. Pfizer will continue to meet product demand based on U.S. prescriptions."

Lyrica is Pfizer’s top selling drug, generates over $5 billion in annual sales, and is currently approved for use in over 130 countries. In the U.S. Lyrica is approved to treat epilepsy, diabetic nerve pain, fibromyalgia, post-herpetic neuralgia caused by shingles, and spinal cord injury. It is also widely 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. Lyrica is the brand name of pregabalin, which was originally developed as an anti-seizure medication.

Three lots of Lyrica are being recalled. They include 50 mg capsules in 90-count bottles, Lot #M07861 and with an expiration date of 5/31/2018. Two lots of 75 mg capsules in 90-count bottles are also being recalled. Their lot numbers are #M07862 and #M07865, with expiration dates of 5/31/2018 and 6/30/2018.

Pfizer issued no press releases about the recall and there is no mention of it on the company’s Lyrica website or the Food and Drug Administration's website that lists recalled products. 

Pfizer says the manner in which it conducted the recall was approved by the FDA’s New York District Office. The company proposed that it be classified as a Class III recall, which the FDA defines as “a situation in which use of or exposure to a violative product is not likely to cause adverse health consequences.”

“Recalls are actions taken by a firm to remove a product from the market.  Only in rare cases will FDA request a recall. FDA's role is to oversee a company's strategy and assess the adequacy of the recall,” said Stephen King, an FDA spokesman who said the agency was still evaluating the effectiveness of the recall.

“Not all recalls are announced in the media or on our Recalls press release page.  FDA seeks publicity about a recall only when it believes the public needs to be alerted to a serious hazard.”

Pfizer ordered the Lyrica recall just days after raising the listed price of the pain drug by 9.4 percent. Prices were also raised on over 100 of the company’s other drugs. Pfizer’s pharmaceutical division reported revenue of $45.7 billion in 2014.

#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.

If I Had Cancer

By Vikki Towsey, Guest Columnist

I am not a junkie. I am not a pill seeker. I am not a doctor shopper. I am a chronic pain patient. I am a mother, a wife and a friend. I am a social worker. I work with offenders being released from prison who have HIV or AIDS. I am their advocate. I help navigate the healthcare system for my clients.

I find it odd that for my own healthcare needs I am often left on my own to mediate between my three treating physicians. No one advocates for me or helps me navigate through the labyrinth-like healthcare system. My doctors do not communicate nor do they collaborate with each other to make sure I am provided the best care possible.

I have Ankylosing Spondylitis (AS), a chronic autoimmune disorder that has wreaked havoc on my body. I went undiagnosed for 20 years, but it was not from a lack of trying to find answers to the severe back and hip pain that left me bedridden for months on end.

To say I have suffered is an understatement. My children suffer, my husband suffers, and my career suffers. This is largely due to the belief within the medical community that women do not contract AS or they have no idea what AS is.

My diagnosis came too late to prevent the damage done to my joints, which is not repairable. Ankylosing Spondylitis has also increased my chances of early mortality.

The treatment prescribed doesn't work well. I am on a biologic, sulfasalazine, and a commonly prescribed NSAID. While inflammation has decreased due to the joint damage, my pain is still severe. It disrupts my life and causes widespread fatigue.

VIKKI TOWSEY

People with disorders like mine are often fighting not only our conditions but a system that has become adversarial for many of us. Our pain has become a scarlet letter that identifies us as junkies, pill seekers, and criminals.  The CDC's proposed opioid guidelines will ensure that this continues. We are imprisoned by our suffering and endure a sentence of constantly fighting a system that is set up to deprive us of treatment that provides some quality of life.

If I had cancer, there would be widespread acceptance of any treatment that would provide improvement to my condition and quality of life. No one would think twice about writing me a prescription for opioids. In fact, not prescribing opiates would be considered malpractice. If I had cancer, I would also not be put in a federal database and I would not be looked at with suspicion by my pharmacist.

It almost creates a sense of envy for the chronic pain patient. Aside from the fact that cancer sucks, life might get a little easier for us. Before you argue that no one should wish for cancer, you are right! Cancer is horrible. So is living every day with pain so severe that it leaves a wake of victims in its path.

I didn't ask for this. I didn't choose this life. I didn't ask to be dependent on pain medications that give me the ability to take my children to a movie on a Saturday afternoon. My husband didn't ask to marry someone who cannot participate in household chores without the assistance of a pill.

I relate to the fear of asking for pain medication that will label me an addict, pill seeker, or junkie. We are let down every day by a system that is supposed to provide care for us. We are failed by doctors who took an oath to do no harm. All I want is a pain free day.  Is that too much to ask?

My life is worth more than haphazard and limited care. I demand better. We all should demand better. Our doctors should demand better. If we don't demand these things, then we just create more victims. Write to your doctor, write your representative, senators, and please write the CDC and tell them enough is enough!

Vikki Towsey lives in Virginia with her family. Vikki is a social worker, professional life coach, and co-administrator of the Ankylosing Spondylitis Project, an advocacy group for people with Ankylosing Spondylitis and other chronic illnesses.

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.

Pfizer’s Quiet Recall of Lyrica Capsules

By Pat Anson, Editor

Pfizer has quietly recalled three lots of its blockbuster drug Lyrica because of a manufacturing problem that could have left some capsules deformed or damaged.  The voluntary recall only involves 50 mg and 75 mg Lyrica capsules with a certain lot number and expiration date.

“Please note that use of, or exposure to, product from these lots is not likely to cause health consequences,” said Lou Dallago, Vice-President of Pfizer’s U.S. Trade Group, in a “Dear Customer” letter sent to retailers who may have received a shipment of the recalled Lyrica lots in September or October 2015.

The letter is dated January 11, 2016 and is stamped “Urgent: Drug Recall.”

Pfizer has not publicized or notified patients directly about the recall. The drug maker has issued no press releases about the recall and there is no mention of it on Pfizer’s Lyrica website or the Food and Drug Administration's website that lists recalled products. 

(An update to this story can be found by clicking here).

“The recall was initiated because some Lyrica capsules in the affected lots may be deformed or damaged,” GoodRx.com reported.  “This can affect the integrity of the medication in those capsules, which means they could lose some of the active ingredient—so you may or may not be getting the full dose with each capsule. If you don’t receive the correct dose, your prescription may not be as effective.”

Lyrica is the brand name of pregabalin, which was originally developed as an anti-seizure medication to treat epilepsy. Lyrica is also approved by the FDA to treat diabetic nerve pain, fibromyalgia, post-herpetic neuralgia caused by shingles and spinal cord injury. Lyrica is 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.

The recalled Lyrica includes 50 mg capsules in 90-count bottles, Lot #M07861 and with an expiration date of 5/31/2018.

Two lots of 75 mg capsules in 90-count bottles are also being recalled. Their lot numbers are #M07862 and #M07865, with expiration dates of 5/31/2018 and 6/30/2018.

Lyrica is Pfizer’s top selling drug, generates over $5 billion in annual sales, and is currently approved for use in over 130 countries. Last year Pfizer agreed to pay $400 million to settle a shareholder lawsuit over allegations it illegally 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.

CDC Over-Counted Opioid Overdoses

By Alison Knopf, Editor of Alcoholism & Drug Abuse Weekly

Drug overdose deaths have increased 137 percent — 200 percent for opioids — since 2000, the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) announced in its January 1 Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report (MMWR). The analysis looked at overall increases in overdose deaths from 2000 to 2014, and focused specifically on increases from 2013 to 2014. The majority (61 percent) of the drug overdoses in 2014 involved some type of opioid, according to the report.

Some overdose deaths were counted more than once.  “Some deaths involve more than one type of opioid; these deaths were included in the rates for each category (e.g., a death involving both a synthetic opioid and heroin would be included in the rates for synthetic opioid deaths and in the rates for heroin deaths),” the report stated.

We asked Rose A. Rudd, CDC health scientist and lead author of the report, about the over-counting of overdose deaths.

“Some deaths do include more than one type of drug,” responded Rudd in an email to ADAW. “In 2014, there were 12,159 deaths involving a natural or semi-synthetic opioid; 3,400 deaths involving methadone; 5,544 deaths involving a synthetic opioid (exclusive of methadone); and 10,574 deaths involving heroin. There were 28,647 deaths that involved any opioid: this number of deaths does not the sum to the other categories, as deaths do include more than one type of drug.”

That is not to discount the severity of the opioid epidemic, and the increase in heroin and illicit fentanyl use and overdose deaths. Heroin and illicit fentanyl (not the prescribed medication) were responsible for most of the increase, the report stated. There was a particularly sharp increase in deaths involving synthetic opioids (other than methadone), which, the report said, was in line with law enforcement reports of an increase in illicit fentanyl on the streets. However, pharmaceutical fentanyl cannot be distinguished from illicit fentanyl in death certificates.

Between 2013 and 2014, overdose rates involving methadone were unchanged, but deaths involving opioid pain relievers increased 9 percent, deaths involving heroin increased 26 percent and deaths involving synthetic opioids (other than methadone) increased 80 percent.

“These findings indicate that the opioid overdose epidemic is worsening,” the report stated. “There is a need for continued action to prevent opioid abuse, dependence, and death, improve treatment capacity for opioid use disorders, and reduce the supply of illicit opioids, particularly heroin and illicit fentanyl.”

The greatest increases were in 25–44-year-olds and people 55 and over; in whites and blacks; and in the Northeastern, Midwestern and Southern regions of the United States.

Hardest-hit states

The report singled out the five states with the highest rates of drug overdose deaths in 2014: West Virginia (35.5 deaths per 100,000), New Mexico (27.3), New Hampshire (26.2), Kentucky (24.7) and Ohio (24.6). In addition, states with statistically significant increases in the rate of overdose deaths from 2013 to 2014 included Alabama, Georgia, Illinois, Indiana, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, New Hampshire, New Mexico, North Dakota, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Virginia.

Specific codes

The CDC relied on the National Vital Statistics System multiplecause-of-death mortality files, which classify drug overdose deaths based on International Classification of Diseases, Tenth Revision underlying cause-of-death codes. The basic codes are X40–44 (unintentional), X60–64 (suicide), X85 (homicide) or Y10–Y14 (undetermined intent). Then the type of opioid involved is indicated by a T code (T40.0, T40.1, T40.2, T40.3, T40.4 or T40.6); natural and semisynthetic opioids (including morphine, oxycodone and hydrocodone) are T40.2; methadone is T40.3; synthetic opioids (including fentanyl and tramadol, as well as illicit fentanyl) other than methadone are T40.4; and heroin is T40.1. If more than one opioid was found, both were listed, accounting for the fact that some deaths were reported more than once.

The increase in heroin overdoses mirrors large increases in heroin use across the country, the report stated, and it adds that heroin use is “closely tied to pain reliever misuse and dependence.”

The increased availability of heroin and its low price compared with prescription opioids, as well as high purity, are “major drivers of the upward trend in heroin use and overdose,” the report stated.

Limitations

In addition to counting deaths more than once, there were other limitations to the study. The authors admit that toxicology laboratory tests performed at autopsy vary based on jurisdiction; in addition, in 2013, 22 percent of drug overdose deaths did not include any information on the death certificates about the specific drugs, and 19 percent in 2014 did not include such information. Finally, some heroin deaths might have been misclassified as morphine, because the drugs are metabolized similarly and testing might not have been done that can distinguish between them.

Message still prescription opioids

The conclusion of the report was the same message the CDC has been promoting (as it has been tasked with by the White House) — to reduce the prescribing of opioids. As the CDC’s Leonard J. Paulozzi, M.D., told us last year, people who are initiating the use of heroin started with the use of prescription opioids, and “if we can stop feeding that pool now, it will help,” while at

the same time saying, “If you have a large cohort of people who are already physiologically dependent on heroin or prescription opioids, those people aren’t going to go away. They’re going to seek drugs, and they will need to get into treatment”

However, the fact is that opioid prescribing has been reduced substantially, and at the same time, heroin use is going up, and the CDC’s main focus is still on reducing prescribing of opioids. 

The MMWR was posted online as an early release December 18, shortly after the CDC announced it would issue draft guidelines on opioid analgesic prescribing for primary care providers.

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. 

Epidurals May Harm Newborn Babies

By Pat Anson, Editor

We’ve written before about the risks associated with epidural injections used to relieve back pain and pain during childbirth. Now comes word that epidural analgesia may also have adverse effects on newborns.

A large study by researchers at the University of Granada in Spain found that babies born after their mothers were given epidurals had a small decline in their overall health, were less likely to begin early breast feeding, and were significantly more likely to be admitted to neonatal intensive care. Resuscitation was also significantly more frequent in babies born after epidural analgesia.

The study, published in Midwifery magazine, involved over 2,600 babies born between 2010 and 2013 at San Juan de la Cruz hospital in Úbeda, a province of Jaén, Spain

"A series of adverse effects have been observed both on the mother and on the baby,” said lead author Concepción Ruiz Rodríguez, a professor in the Department of Nursing of the University of Granada.

“Adverse effects observed on the baby are attributed to a direct pharmacological effect, due to a placental transmission of the drug administered to the mother, or due to an indirect secondary effect as a consequence to the physiological changes the drug causes in the mother, such as hormonal changes."

Researchers measured the overall health of the babies by using Apgar index values, a quick test applied to newborn babies to assess their general health. They found the Apgar values were “slightly but significantly lower” in newborns whose mothers had epidurals.

“Epidural analgesia may have adverse effects on newborns, although the risks are low, and further research is required to elucidate the causal nature of this relationship,” said Ruiz Rodriguez. "For that, we consider that it's important that both mothers and health professionals (obstetricians and midwives) know and have in mind those risks when the time for taking a decision comes.”

Epidurals involve the injection of steroids, opioids or other analgesic drugs through a catheter. The injection blocks the transmission of pain signals through nerves in the spinal cord.

Epidurals are commonly used to relieve pain during childbirth and, while the risks are low, they can result in complications for the mother such as headaches, difficulty breathing, seizures, or damage to the spinal cord. Drugs used during epidurals also pass through the placenta to the baby.

Epidurals injections are given to millions of Americans each year for back pain and there is growing controversy over their use. A study by federal researchers last year found that steroid injections provide limited or no relief  from radiculopathy and spinal stenosis, two conditions that cause low back pain.

A number of prominent physicians have told Pain News Network the shots are overused, with some patients getting dozens of injections, which raises their risk of complications.