Drug Overdose Rates Rise in Rural Areas

By Pat Anson, Editor

Rates of drug overdose deaths in rural areas of the United States now exceed those in urban areas, according to a new report by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

CDC researchers say the overdose rate in non-metropolitan (rural) areas was 17 deaths per 100,000 people in 2015, which was slightly higher than urban areas (16.2 deaths). Both rates are substantially higher than they were a generation ago. About 52,000 Americans died of drug overdoses in 2015.

“The drug overdose death rate in rural areas is higher than in urban areas,” said CDC Director Brenda Fitzgerald, MD. “We need to understand why this is happening so that our work with states and communities can help stop illicit drug use and overdose deaths in America.”

In 2015, both urban and rural areas experienced significant increases in the percentage of people aged 26 and older who reported illicit drug use in the past month.

One of the few bright spots in the CDC report is that use of illicit drugs by adolescents (aged 12-17 years) has declined for the last ten years.

The report did not go into detail on what drugs were being abused, although it acknowledges the declining role of prescription opioids in the overdose crisis.

“Although prescription drugs were primarily responsible for the rapid expansion of this large and growing public health crisis, illicit drugs (heroin, illicit fentanyl, cocaine, and methamphetamines) now are contributing substantially to the problem,” the report found.

“Recent studies suggest that a leveling off and decline has occurred in opioid prescribing rates since 2012 and in high-dose prescribing rates since 2009.”

Curiously, while those studies have documented the increased role of heroin, illicit fentanyl and other illegal opioids in the overdose crisis, the federal government’s public awareness campaigns remain focused on prescription opioids.  

Heroin and fentanyl are barely even mentioned in the Department of Health and Human Services’ “5-Point Strategy to Combat the Opioid Crisis.” The strategy focuses instead on “advancing better practices for pain management,” and increasing access to addiction treatment and overdose prevention drugs.

The CDC also recently launched an advertising campaign using billboards and videos that completely ignore the scourge of heroin and fentanyl.  The CDC explained the omission by saying it wanted to focus on prescription opioids and avoid “diluting the campaign messaging.”

“Prescription opioids can be addictive and dangerous,” a woman says in one CDC ad.

“One prescription can be all it takes to lose everything,” a man says in another ad.

Five public health experts interviewed by Pacific Standard questioned whether the CDC campaign will be effective, because the ads don't empower people or give them an alternative to prescription opioids.

"The campaign isn't going to make a damn bit of difference," said Bill DeJong, a professor of community health sciences at Boston University.

The Secret Role of Insurers in Medicare Opioid Policy

By Pat Anson, Editor

This month marks the one year anniversary of a closed door meeting between law enforcement agencies, federal and state regulators, and health insurance companies in a Baltimore suburb – a “special session” of an obscure advisory group to the U.S. Justice Department and the Department of Health and Human Services.

Although the mission of the Healthcare Fraud Prevention Partnership – HFPP for short -- is to prevent healthcare fraud, the October 20, 2016 meeting went much further. It gave the insurance industry – so-called “Partner Champions” -- a direct role in drafting recommendations that could decide how millions of pain patients will be treated by their doctors and what opioid medications will be prescribed to them, if any.

Major insurers like Aetna, Anthem, Cigna, Humana, Blue Cross Blue Shield and Kaiser Permanente were invited to attend, but no other stakeholders in healthcare, such as physicians, pharmacists, hospitals or patients, were asked to appear or share their insights. Few details about the meeting were made public, until now.

Pain News Network has obtained documents through the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) that shed some light on how the meeting was organized and what was discussed, but we were denied access to a list of individuals that attended, who they represented, or any recordings of what they said.

“The nature of some of the information provided during the Special Session on opioids would be of the sort that could have a negative impact on the competitive posture or business interests of a company if made public,” Jay Olin, Director of FOIA Analysis for the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS), wrote in a letter to PNN.

CMS COMMAND CENTER IN WOODLAWN, MD

“The release of this sensitive information could put the company at significant financial risk if interested parties use this information to develop and execute schemes and individuals and organizations use this information to game the system and reap financial or other benefit.”

Olin also said the HFPP is not a federal advisory committee and therefore not subject to federal open meeting laws, even though the October 20 meeting was called by CMS, organized by CMS, funded by CMS, and held on federal property at the CMS Command Center in Woodlawn, Maryland.

“Furthermore, most (HFPP) partners are from the private sector and private industry is not subject to FOIA, nor is CMS authorized to release such information,” Olin wrote.

PNN is appealing that decision.

‘Government-authorized use only’

CMS may be trying to distance itself from the HFPP, but it’s clear they work closely together in their unusual “public-private partnership.”

A CMS website hosts a portal for HFPP members to sign-in that plainly states “this system is provided for Government-authorized use only.” The website also goes into detail on how to become an HFPP partner, the benefits of membership and provides an extensive list of partners that includes 45 different insurance companies.

According to a recent report from the General Accounting Office (GAO), CMS has spent over $30 million funding the HFPP since 2012, the year the partnership was created by the Obama administration to help the federal government detect and prevent healthcare fraud. A side benefit for insurers is that it helps them lower the cost of healthcare coverage. A CMS flyer plainly states that one of the reasons the HFPP exists is to help payers “identify potential savings.”       

The goals and activities of the partnership are important to understand because CMS contracts with dozens of insurers to provide Medicare coverage to about 57 million elderly and disabled Americans, at an annual cost of nearly $700 billion. And if the insurance industry is making healthcare decisions while being subsidized with billions of taxpayer dollars, Americans have a right to know what’s going on.

Yet CMS won’t even say who attended that October 20 meeting.

“A total of 58 participants across 26 federal, state, public and private organizations, including CMS, attended the event,” is all that an executive summary of the meeting says about the attendees.

The first half of the daylong meeting wasn’t even about opioids. It focused on the HFPP’s mission: combating fraud. According to the executive summary, a CMS technical advisor briefed attendees about common fraud schemes in the addiction treatment and drug testing industries, such as “substance abuse facilities that may be exposing their patients to physical or other harm” and insurance claims from treatment facilities “for services not rendered and unnecessary service, including lab claims.”

Another fraud scheme flagged by CMS was “physicians who appear to be referring Marketplace (Medicare/Medicaid) members, as well as other individuals who may be paid by substance abuse facilities to sign people up for Marketplace coverage.”

After a break for lunch, the discussion veered away from fraud prevention and into treatment decisions normally left between a patient and their doctor. A CMS official “emphasized the need to look at improving the quality of care” and identified several priority areas, including “best practices for acute and chronic pain.”

“Eliminate or restrict opioid prescribing for acute conditions,” was one of the many strategies discussed. So was the concept of “pay for performance,” in which doctors would receive payments from insurers “for following guidelines or quality practices, not for prescribing opiates.”

“Higher copay for opioid prescriptions” was another recommendation, as was “step therapy and dosage control.”

"Media outreach" and “social media and digital advertising tools” were suggested as ways to promote patient and provider compliance through “social normalizing.”

It is not clear from the documents provided to PNN if these were strategies advocated by insurers, law enforcement or CMS.

‘Serious Conflict of Interest’ for Insurers

Attendees were told the ultimate goal of the meeting was “to produce an HFPP-branded White Paper that identifies best practices payers can take to effectively address and minimize current and future opioid abuse.”

In other words, the meeting was not just about fraud prevention. The insurance industry was being asked to help design federal policy on opioid prescribing and “encourage practices that connect patients to the level of care best suited to their needs…. while avoiding unnecessary services or opioid prescriptions.”

“It is very disturbing to see CMS working with insurance companies to reduce the amount of opioids prescribed without physician and organized medicine's input,” said Lynn Webster, MD, a pain management expert and past president of the American Academy of Pain Medicine (AAPM). 

“It is a serious conflict of interest to have insurance companies determine what medications are appropriate and how much to use.”

Webster was also alarmed by some of the strategies discussed at the October 20 meeting.  

“The proposal that insurance might eliminate opioids for acute pain would leave many patients without any effective treatment. That is not helpful and will produce a huge backlash,” he said.

“To encourage CMS to reward doctors to not prescribe opioids is a very ominous trend, knowing that untreated pain can have lethal effects on the body,” said Ingrid Hollis, a patient advocate and mother of a chronic pain sufferer. “To perpetuate these myths about reining in the addiction crisis, when in fact it is looking more and more like cost saving measures, is a conflict of interest for sure.

“I also find it disturbing that a private group with so much influence on insurance would not disclose to you who was in attendance at their meetings. Because they are influencing public programs and healthcare funded by taxpayers, they need to disclose who they are.”

When asked why the October 20 meeting was closed to the public, a CMS spokesman said "all HFPP meetings are limited to members of the Partnership, as they deal with sensitive issues relating to fraud, waste and abuse in the healthcare sector."

Payer ‘Partner Champions’

The HFPP white paper was released in January on the CMS website. The 62-page report -- Healthcare Payer Strategies to Reduce the Harms of Opioids -- begins by praising the “Partner Champions” who helped draft it. 

Among the payers listed as “champions” were Aetna, Anthem, Blue Cross Blue Shield, Cigna, Centene, Highmark, Horizon, Humana, and Kaiser Permanente.

“To overcome the problems of prescription opioid misuse, it is also vital to understand that provider prescribing practices and patient drug seeking behavior can exacerbate the development and persistence of OUD (opioid use disorder),” the white paper warns.

“Providers may write prescriptions without assessing their patient’s risk for misuse, prescribe opioid analgesics for minor pain, prescribe a greater medication quantity or dose than warranted by the patient’s medical indication, or provide opioids fraudulently with the knowledge they are likely to be misused. Patients may exaggerate or falsify symptoms to obtain opioid prescriptions, seek prescriptions from multiple physicians, forge prescriptions, or obtain prescriptions for resale on the black market.”

The white paper goes on to endorse the CDC’s opioid prescribing guideline, and recommends that over-the-counter pain relievers such as aspirin, acetaminophen and ibuprofen be used as alternatives to opioids, as well as non-drug therapies such as cognitive behavioral therapy, chiropractic care and TENS nerve stimulation units. Few of these treatments are covered by insurance.

The white paper also encourages pharmacists to “deny payments for (opioid) prescriptions that do not conform to general prescribing practices” and to profile doctors and patients to identify “problematic actors and schemes.”

Patients could be profiled in one of three ways, according to the HFPP:

1. Stewards (those who follow guidelines)
2. Stockers (those who hoard medication)
3. Demanders (those who ask for medication)

The white paper does not discuss fraud in the addiction treatment industry, the initial focus of the October 20 meeting. Also unmentioned is a recent HFPP policy decision that allows insurers to share information about Medicare beneficiaries.

Individual patient data on 57 million Americans is now being pooled, studied and analyzed by the insurance industry, something that payers were previously reluctant to do.

“Several HFPP participants we spoke with indicated their support for the new strategy and willingness to provide beneficiaries’ personally identifiable information and protected health information for more in-depth HFPP studies,” the GAO report says.

“Several HFPP participants we spoke with indicated their support for the new strategy and willingness to provide beneficiaries’ personally identifiable information and protected health information for more in-depth HFPP studies.”

— GAO Report

Is the HFPP overstepping its authority? Do insurers have any business sharing and analyzing the personal health information of millions of Americans? No one at HFPP would comment. CMS referred us to this statement in the white paper:

“Payers can help to combat the opioid crisis by identifying and sharing strategies, such as reimbursement and coverage policies, conditions for provider plan participation, and dissemination of information to a variety of audiences, to address the large-ranging issues that lead to fraud, waste, and abuse in the healthcare system. Such interventions are particularly suited to payers due to their relationships with providers of healthcare services, pharmacies, insured patients, employers, and law enforcement (in cases where potential fraud is identified). Payers collect and administer a large amount of healthcare information that can be used to identify and intervene on behalf of patients at risk of opioid-related harm, as well as to target fraud, waste, and abuse in opioid prescribing.”

CMS announced plans to align its Medicare Advantage and Part D prescription drug plans with the CDC guideline soon after receiving the HFPP white paper. But some of the more extreme strategies discussed by the HFPP were not adopted. CMS won’t be paying doctors to follow the guideline or be eliminating opioids as a treatment for short term, acute pain.

But the agency is moving ahead with plans for a new monitoring system to identify opioid “overutilizers” -- physicians who prescribe high doses, patients who get them, and pharmacies that fill their prescriptions. Payers are authorized to drop suspicious pharmacies, doctors and patients from Medicare coverage and their insurance networks.

How many overutilizers are there? At last count, there were 15,651 Medicare beneficiaries getting multiple high dose opioid prescriptions. That may sound like a lot, but it amounts to only 0.04% of the 41.8 million patients enrolled in Medicare Part D plans.

Why are insurers targeting Medicare beneficiaries when only a tiny percentage may be abusing prescription opioids? Dr. Webster suspects the real motive is money.

“Clearly the insurance companies are benefiting from tunnel vision and a laser focus on Pharma companies and doctors,” says Webster. “There is a vast under appreciation that commercial insurers are also driven by the bottom line.  This is why they should not be making medical decisions without input from pain physicians and organized medicine.”

What is Opioid Use Disorder?

By Rochelle Odell, Columnist

You’ve probably heard or seen the phrase “Opioid Use Disorder.”  It’s a broad term currently being used to describe not only opioid addiction, but patterns of behavior that might be a sign of addiction or could lead to it.

If that sounds like they’re putting the cart before the horse, it’s because they are.

In order to understand Opioid Use Disorder, one must understand the government's stance on opioids. The National Institute on Drug Abuse – which is part of the National Institutes of Health (NIH) – lays it out in a recently revised statement on the opioid crisis:

“Every day, more than 90 Americans die after overdosing on opioids. The misuse of and addiction to opioids--including prescription pain relievers, heroin and synthetic opioids such as fentanyl--is a serious national crisis that affects public health as well as social and economic welfare."

Notice how they lump prescription pain relievers in with heroin and illicit fentanyl?  The more I research, the more I find this common thread of illogical thinking. The government consistently lumps pain medication in with illicit drugs.

Here’s another example from the NIH: 

“In 2015, more than 33,000 Americans died as a result of an opioid overdose, including prescription opioids, heroin, and illicitly manufactured fentanyl, a powerful synthetic opioid.

That same year, an estimated 2 million people in the United States suffered from substance use disorders related to prescription opioid pain relievers, and 591,000 suffered from a heroin use disorder.”

Substance use disorders “related” to pain relievers? Heroin use disorder? That got me wondering how many drug “disorders” there are.

According to the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMSHA), there are six major substance use disorders. Nearly 93,000,000 Americans have a substance use disorder of some kind:

1) Alcohol Use Disorder (AUD): About 17 million Americans have AUD. According to the CDC, alcohol causes 88,000 deaths a year. 

2) Tobacco Use Disorder: Nearly 67 million Americans use tobacco. According to the CDC, cigarette smoking causes more than 480,000 deaths a year.

3) Cannabis Use Disorder: Over 4 million Americans meet the criteria for a substance use disorder based on their marijuana use. No estimate is provided on the number of deaths caused by marijuana, if any.

4) Stimulant Use Disorder:  This covers a wide range of stimulant drugs that are sometimes used to treat obesity, attention deficit hyperactivity and depression. The most commonly abused stimulants are amphetamine, methamphetamine and cocaine. Nearly 2 million Americans have a stimulant use disorder of some kind.

5) Hallucinogen Use Disorder: This covers drugs such as LSD, peyote and other hallucinogens. About 246,000 Americans have a hallucinogen use disorder.

6) Opioid Use Disorder: Again, this covers both illicit opioids and prescription opioids. In 2014, an estimated 1.9 million Americans had an opioid use disorder related to prescription pain relievers and 586,000 had a heroin use disorder (notice the SAMSHA numbers are somewhat different from what the NIH tells us).

But what exactly is Opioid Use Disorder?  Does it mean 2.5 million Americans are addicted to opioids?

No.

The diagnostic codes used to classify mental health disorders were revised in 2013 to cover a whole range of psychiatric symptoms and treatments. Two disorders – “Opioid Dependence” and “Opioid Abuse” -- were combined into one to give us “Opioid Use Disorder.” Few recognized at the time the significance of that change, it's impact on pain patients, or how it would be used to inflate the number of Americans needing addiction treatment.

Elizabeth Hartley, PhD, does a good job explaining what Opioid Use Disorder is in an article for verywell.

Hartley wrote that Opioid Use Disorder can be applied to anyone who uses opioid drugs (legal or illegal) and has at least two of the following symptoms in a 12 month period:

• Taking more opioids than intended
• Wanting or trying to control opioid use without success
• Spending a lot of time obtaining, taking or recovering from the effects of opioids
• Craving opioids
• Failing to carry out important roles at home, work or school because of opioid use
• Continuing to use opioids despite relationship or social problems
• Giving up or reducing other activities because of opioid use
• Using opioids even when it is unsafe
• Knowing that opioids are causing a physical or psychological problem, but using them  anyway
• Tolerance for opioids.
• Withdrawal symptoms when opioids are not taken.

The last two criteria will apply to almost every chronic pain patient on a prescription opioid regimen. So might some of the others. Most of us develop a tolerance for opioids, and if they are stopped or greatly reduced, we will experience withdrawal symptoms.  We simply cannot win for losing. 

If you learn your physician has diagnosed you with Opioid Use Disorder, be sure to ask them what criteria were used and why was it selected. Ask if you should see a doctor more knowledgeable about diagnostic codes and psychiatric disorders. 

Remember, knowledge is power. Take this information with you on your next visit to the doctor if you suspect you have been diagnosed with Opioid Use Disorder and your medications have been cut or reduced.

I hope what I have written helps you further understand exactly what we are facing and why. To be honest, it makes me want to wave the white flag, but I know that cannot happen.  We have to fight. Fight for proper care for a chronic disease or condition we didn't ask for or want. We can’t live the rest of our lives in severe, debilitating pain when effective treatment is available.  

Rochelle Odell lives in California. She’s lived for nearly 25 years with Complex Regional Pain Syndrome (CRPS/RSD).

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

What Makes Buprenorphine Risky for Pain Patients

By Jane Babin, Guest Columnist

Buprenorphine is the darling of the addiction treatment industry, rapidly replacing methadone as the "medication assisted treatment" of choice for opioid use disorder (OUD) and addiction.  

Unlike methadone, which can only be dispensed through an opioid treatment program, buprenorphine can be prescribed in the privacy of a physician's office and filled at a pharmacy.  As a class III controlled substance, prescriptions for buprenorphine can be phoned or faxed in, and scripts can be refilled up to 5 times in 6 months without a new prescription.

Class II controlled substances, like hydrocodone, oxycodone and morphine, require a new prescription each month and can neither be refilled nor phoned in.

The only federal limitations on prescribing buprenorphine for OUD is that a physician must complete mandatory education and treat only a limited number of patients (currently 275). 

Ironically, these restrictions do not apply when buprenorphine is prescribed off-label for pain, leading some physicians and patients to turn to buprenorphine for chronic pain as class II opioids become increasingly harder to get.

Yet without training on buprenorphine’s unique pharmacology and its implications, physicians treating chronic pain may be unaware of the risks it presents. Let me explain why.

Buprenorphine’s Effect on Other Opioids

Buprenorphine is an opioid that acts as an agonist of the mu opioid receptor (MOR), which causes pain relief, just like class II opioids.  It also has side effects similar to other opioids, including tolerance, dependence, abuse potential, constipation, sedation and potentially fatal respiratory depression. 

What distinguishes buprenorphine from other opioids is that it is only a partial MOR agonist (50%).  Thus the effects of buprenorphine -- both pain relief and the undesirable side effects – don’t exceed half that of other, full agonist opioids.

Buprenorphine also has a ceiling of maximum effectiveness that reaches a plateau as the dosage is increased. That ceiling is well below what can be obtained with morphine and other opioids, but the side effects can still lead to death in opioid-naïve patients.  Buprenorphine has a long plasma half life, binds very strongly to MOR, and remains bound for extended periods of time.  Its usefulness in treating OUD is believed to lie in these properties, because it activates MOR sufficiently to curb drug craving, but not enough to elicit the euphoric effects that can lead to addiction. 

When an opioid that has higher analgesic potency, but lower MOR affinity, such as morphine or heroin, is also administered, buprenorphine wins the battle to bind and remains bound to MOR.  It can displace both heroin and naloxone from MOR, but neither can displace buprenorphine.  Naloxone can be effective when co-administered with buprenorphine -- as it is in combination drugs such as Suboxone -- but not after the administration of buprenorphine. 

Buprenorphine is also a kappa opioid receptor antagonist, which is thought to further reduce euphoria and addictive reinforcement. That’s great for patients with OUD, because it helps them resist the temptation to abuse opioids, and dampens or eliminates the euphoric effect of heroin or other opioids should they relapse.  

Increasingly, buprenorphine is being advocated for chronic pain patients.  With no more "proof" of efficacy for treating chronic pain than any other opioid, it has emerged as a less objectionable opioid because it appears safer in the eyes of addiction treatment specialists, such as Dr. Andrew Kolodny, who object to full MOR agonists for chronic pain. 

Yet safety is in the eyes of the beholder.  Despite its decreased abuse potential, buprenorphine can still be abused and cause overdoses because the ceiling effect for respiratory depression does not apply universally, particularly to opioid-naïve patients and children. Buprenorphine has caused the death of at least one child from unintentional exposure. 

Buprenorphine should not be used as the first opioid prescribed for chronic pain.  Because it cannot achieve the full analgesic effects that other opioids can, there is significant risk of buprenorphine leaving pain undertreated or even untreated.  A chronic pain patient on long-term buprenorphine therapy who experiences acute or breakthrough pain may not be able to get relief by taking another opioid.  Even more disturbing is the lack of pain control in patients who need surgery, have an acute injury from trauma or an acute painful medical emergency.

Buprenorphine Injection

Recently Indivior, a spin-off of Reckitt Benckiser Pharmaceuticals (which makes Suboxone), submitted a New Drug Application to the Food and Drug Administration on a subcutaneous injection formulation of buprenorphine. 

A once-a-month injection would be a significant advance for opioid administration because it would significantly reduce the risk of diversion.  A patient could hardly be accused of giving away or selling a drug that is deposited in his body, or of taking an incorrect dose.  

For this reason alone, an opioid depot formulation for a chronic pain patient with monthly administration sounds very appealing.  It might eliminate the need for pain contracts, pill counts, urine drug testing, and other indignations chronic pain patients suffer every day.  Even if another medication was needed for breakthrough pain, and drug testing was deemed necessary, the depot formulation would provide a virtually indisputable level of medication that could serve as an "internal control" for test error.  Detecting the depot med at unexpected levels would alert the prescribing physician to the inaccuracy of the test rather than suggest misuse or abuse.

Nevertheless, buprenorphine is not the right opioid for once-a-month dosing.  In a 2015 paper, lead author Dr. Yury Khelemsky described a horrifying case that illustrates the dangers inherent in daily buprenorphine use.  In this case, a patient with a history of drug addiction who was being treated successfully with Suboxone suffered a broken neck that required emergency surgery.

During the procedure, the anesthetized patient began to move in response to surgical stimulation, i.e., due to pain.  Despite increasing the amount of two anesthetics, Propofol and Reminfentanil, the patient continued to move.  Only after receiving yet another drug (Ketamine) did the patient remain motionless during the delicate procedure.  During a subsequent back surgery following discontinuation of Suboxone and replacement with short-acting opioids, roughly half as much Propofol and Remifentanil provided adequate anesthesia without the addition of Ketamine. 

Khelemsky noted that as little as 8 mg Suboxone (one third of the daily dose the patient was receiving), blocks the activity of hydrocodone for up to five days, and recommended discontinuing buprenorphine at least 72 hours prior to elective surgery.  This is cold comfort to a patient requiring emergency surgery -- which could be anyone.  

An injectable depot formulation of buprenorphine would substantially increase the risk of severe and possibly untreatable pain in an emergency situation, since a depot, once injected, cannot simply be discontinued as a pill would be.  Indeed, surgery may be needed to remove the depot and halt continued administration, while existing amounts of long-acting buprenorphine in plasma may necessitate higher, riskier doses of anesthetic to surgically treat the acute injury -- all while risking inadequate pain treatment.

Inexplicably, the extensive prescribing information on a random sample of buprenorphine products contains no warnings to either patients or prescribers of the risk that pain relief from an acute medical condition, trauma or surgery may be inadequate, or that buprenorphine should be discontinued days or weeks before elective surgery. 

Ironically, one package insert warns that additional analgesia may be required during childbirth, yet it fails to warn of any other situation that may require analgesia, or how analgesia can be accomplished when considering the unique pharmacology of buprenorphine.  

This seems to reflect the mindset of Kolodny and others in the addiction treatment industry, who always seem to minimize the significance of even the most severe pain encountered by an individual when compared to the perceived societal consequences of addiction.  I wonder how many pain patients or addicts would choose such a long-acting opioid if they understood the possibility that their severe acute pain could not be controlled.

The FDA committee tasked with reviewing Indivior’s new drug application is taking public comments.  I urge anyone concerned about this new buprenorphine formulation, and the failure to warn of the possibility of untreatable acute pain when taking any buprenorphine product, to provide comments by clicking here.

Comments can be submitted through October 27, 2017.  If received by October 17, they will be provided to the committee, which is scheduled to meet on October 31.  Comments received after October 17 will be taken into consideration by the FDA. 

Jane Babin, PhD, is a molecular biologist and a biotechnology patent attorney in southern California.

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

Business Booming for Illegal Online Pharmacies

By Pat Anson, Editor

One of the many unintended consequences of efforts to reduce opioid prescribing is that they may be fueling the growth of illegal online pharmacies.

According to one estimate, as many as 35,000 online pharmacies are in operation worldwide. Over 90 percent are not in compliance with federal and state laws, many do not require a prescription, and about half are selling counterfeit painkillers and other fake medications. About 20 illegal online pharmacies are launched every day.

“There is no sign that this is slowing down,” says Libby Baney, Executive Director of the Alliance for Safe Online Pharmacies (ASOP), an industry supported non-profit.

“You have people (losing) their access to healthcare, not just pain care, but just general care. You have the opioid epidemic. You have the well-intended policy responses to that. All of this has the potential, unintended consequence of sending people to the Internet.

“My biggest fear is that if you limit prescriptions to five days or seven days, or prevent access to medication altogether, and people search.”

Since 2015, counterfeit painkillers and other medications made with illicit fentanyl have killed Americans in at least 16 states, according to a recent report that found the highly dangerous pills have spread from coast to coast.

"A lot of these people are buying it on the street or the Internet," Dr. Karen Gunson, Oregon’s medical examiner, told The Oregonian. "They think they're buying oxycodone or Xanax pills but they don't know what they're getting.''

What pain medications can you buy online? Oxycodone, hydrocodone, Percocet, Vicodin, tramadol and other painkillers can easily be found online, along with other controlled substances that are becoming harder for patients to obtain legally.

“There are thousands of websites that have figured it out and people are using them,” says Baney. “Most of these sites are based offshore. They may be using some U.S. servers, U.S. bank accounts or U.S. domain registrars, but nearly all are offshore. And that creates law enforcement hurdles.”

Last month the Food and Drug Administration announced a crackdown on over 500 online pharmacies that were accused of selling illegal and potentially dangerous medications. Warning letters were sent on September 19, giving the website operators 10 days to stop selling unapproved or misbranded prescription drugs.

Twenty days later, most of them are still online selling the same medications.

In a chat today with “Peter” at one of the websites that received a warning letter, I was told that I could purchase 80mg tablets of oxycodone without a prescription. Another website offered to ship us medications “placed inside baby doll as gift to ensure customer privacy and safe delivery.”

Baney says many of the illegal online pharmacies act as marketing agents for foreign drug suppliers.

“You don’t even need to have your own drug supply,” she said. “All you have to do is join an affiliate network and basically become a third-party marketer for an existing drug network.

“They give you the website template. They have the bank account setup. All you need to do is put up the site and process orders, and you get a cut and they get a cut, and they ship the drugs. It’s a pretty slick deal.”

Baney says it’s relatively easy to tell the difference between a legitimate online pharmacy and an illegal one. The URL’s for websites that end with “.Pharmacy” (not .com or .net) are certified by the National Association of Boards of Pharmacy and are in compliance with laws and practice standards.

You can also visit buysaferx.pharmacy to verify whether a website is legitimate.

The ease and convenience of ordering medications online – as well as the demand and profitability -- haven't gone unnoticed. According to CNBC, Amazon in the next few weeks will decide whether to enter the $560 billion prescription drug market with an online pharmacy of its own.

FDA Approves Extended-Release Lyrica

By Pat Anson, Editor

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has approved a new extended-release version of Lyrica for the treatment of neuropathic pain. Lyrica CR is designed to be taken once a day, instead of the two or three doses recommended for Lyrica’s original formulation.

“Lyrica CR was developed to offer patients an effective treatment option with the convenience of once-daily dosing,” said James Rusnak, MD, Chief Development Officer in Pfizer’s Global Product Development. “It provides an important option for patients and health care providers managing these often debilitating pain conditions.”

Pfizer said the effectiveness of Lyrica CR was established in a clinical trial of over 800 patients with neuropathic pain. Patients who took Lyrica CR had a 74% reduction in pain, compared to about 55% who took a placebo. The most common side effects of Lyrica CR were dizziness, somnolence, headache, fatigue, peripheral edema, nausea, blurred vision, dry mouth and weight gain.

Lyrica (pregabalin) is one of Pfizer’s top selling drugs, but the company will likely face strong competition from cheaper generic versions of pregabalin when its U.S. patent expires next year.

Pfizer is undoubtedly hoping that current Lyrica users will switch over to the new extended release version, which will have full patent protection for many years to come. The company did not release any information on the cost of the new drug, which is expected to be available in January.

Unlike the original formulation of Lyrica, which is widely prescribed to treat fibromyalgia, Lyrica CR is only approved to treat nerve pain caused by diabetic peripheral neuropathy and postherpetic neuralgia caused by shingles. But that won’t stop doctors from prescribing it off-label to fibromyalgia and other chronic pain conditions.

Pregabalin Under Scrutiny

The extended release version of Lyrica comes at a time when pregabalin is drawing new scrutiny from researchers and doctors who believe the medication is over-prescribed and being abused. Pregabalin belongs to a class of nerve drug known as gabapentinoids, which are increasingly being prescribed as alternatives to opioid pain medication.

 “We believe… that gabapentinoids are being prescribed excessively — partly in response to the opioid epidemic,” Christopher Goodman, MD, and Allan Brett, MD, recently wrote in a commentary published in The New England Journal of Medicine. “We suspect that clinicians who are desperate for alternatives to opioids have lowered their threshold for prescribing gabapentinoids to patients with various types of acute, subacute, and chronic noncancer pain.”

As PNN has reported, the World Health Organization and the FDA are also investigating reports that pregabalin is being abused. Addicts have learned pregabalin enhances the effects of heroin and other opioids.

“Reports indicate that patients are self-administering higher than recommended doses to achieve euphoria, especially patients who have a history of substance abuse, particularly opioids, and psychiatric illness. While effects of excessively high doses are generally non-lethal, gabapentinoids such as pregabalin are increasingly being identified in post-mortem toxicology analyses,” the FDA said in a recent notice published in the Federal Register.

The warning label for Lyrica CR will caution users that the drug can be abused.

“Patients should not drink alcohol while taking Lyrica CR. Patients may have more dizziness and sleepiness if taking Lyrica CR with alcohol, narcotic pain medicines, or medicines for anxiety. Patients who have had a drug or alcohol problem may be more likely to misuse Lyrica CR,” the label warns.

Pregabalin is classified as Schedule V controlled substance in the U.S., which means it has a low potential for abuse.

‘Opiophobia’ Leaves Millions Dying in Chronic Pain

By Pat Anson, Editor

More than 25 million people – most of them poor and living in developing countries – die each year in severe pain because they have little or no access to morphine and other painkillers, according to a new report.

A special commission created by The Lancet medical journal looked at pain care around the world and found major gaps in the availability of opioid pain medication. While opioid analgesics are relatively available in the United States and Canada, patients in many parts of the world have no access to them. In addition to the 25 million who die in pain, the commission estimated that another 35 million live with chronic pain that is untreated.

“The fact that access to such an inexpensive, essential, and effective intervention is denied to most patients in low-income and middle-income countries and in particular to poor people -- including many poor or otherwise vulnerable people in high-income countries -- is a medical, public health, and moral failing and a travesty of justice,” the Lancet commission found.

"Unlike many other essential health interventions already identified as priorities, the need for palliative care and pain relief has been largely ignored, even for the most vulnerable populations, including children with terminal illnesses and those living through humanitarian crises."

The voluminous report by 61 health experts from 25 countries took three years to prepare. It shared the story of a doctor in India who treated a patient named “Mr S” who suffered crippling pain from lung cancer. The doctor was able to provide him with morphine to relieve his pain, but when Mr S returned the next month, no morphine was available.

“Mr S told us with outward calm, ‘I shall come again next Wednesday. I will bring a piece of rope with me. If the tablets are still not here, I am going to hang myself from that tree.’ He pointed to the window. I believed he meant what he said,” the doctor said.

The commission said there were several barriers that stood in the way of effectively treating pain, including “opiophobia” – prejudice and misinformation about the medical value of opioids.

“A prevalent but unwarranted fear of non-medical use and addiction to opioids and opioid-induced side-effects, both among health-care providers and regulators and among patients and their families, has led to insufficient medical use. Unbalanced laws and excessive regulation perpetuate a negative feedback loop of poor access that mainly affects poor people,” the commission said.

“Efforts to prevent non-medical use of internationally controlled substances, such as morphine and other opioid analgesics, have overshadowed and crippled access to opioids for palliative care. These efforts have focused on preventing diversion and non-medical use rather than ensuring access by people with legitimate health needs.”

The commission also blamed the poor state of pain care on a tendency in the medical community to focus on curing and preventing disease, rather than preserving a patient’s quality of life and dignity.  

The report recommends that palliative care be included as part of universal health care coverage and that inexpensive morphine should be available “for any patient with medical need.”

PNN Survey Shows Strong Support for CVS Boycott

By Pat Anson, Editor

There is widespread support for a boycott of CVS for planning to have its pharmacists impose strict limits on the supply and dosage of opioid pain medication, according to a PNN survey of over 2,500 pain patients, caretakers and healthcare providers.

Nine out of ten (93%) said they would support a boycott of the pharmacy chain, which has nearly 10,000 retail locations nationwide.

“I already have to jump through multiple hoops to get my pain medication prescriptions. It is not the place of CVS to monitor or alter my prescriptions. That is my doctor's job,” one patient told us.

“My Rx needs have been determined by my physician and my case history,” another patient wrote. “CVS does not have my history, nor have they been seeing me as a patient. Therefore, they have no business dictating or changing the regimen my physician has set to try to help me control my chronic pain.”

CVS Health announced last month that its pharmacists would only provide a 7-day supply of opioids for acute, short-term pain. CVS will also limit the dose of opioid prescriptions – for both acute and chronic pain -- to no more than 90mg morphine equivalent units (MME). 

The policy begins February 1 and applies to about 90 million customers enrolled in CVS Caremark’s pharmacy benefit management program, which provides pharmacy services to over 2,000 health and insurance plans.

Many of the healthcare providers who responded to the online survey resent the idea of a pharmacist changing a doctor’s prescription or refusing to fill it.

WOULD YOU SUPPORT A BOYCOTT OF CVS?

“It is no one’s business how I prescribe but mine and the patient,” one doctor wrote.

“It is wrong on all levels. As a health care provider I am appalled by it,” said another.

“Pharmacies should not be interfering in doctor patient relationship and treatment. There are more and more rules and regulations, and where does it stop before you have tyranny? Their rule basically will accomplish nothing positive. I would also encourage others to boycott,” a healthcare provider wrote.

CVS Customers Support Boycott

Patients, caretakers and healthcare providers all support a boycott about equally. So did nearly 92 percent of those who identified themselves as current CVS customers.

“Treating patients like they are drug-seeking criminals is just plain cruel. Our lives are hard enough without having to jump through hoops to get even a few minutes of relief. I will never fill another prescription at CVS pharmacy,” one patient wrote.

“I have gone to the local CVS for my scripts for years because they had the best prices,” wrote another patient. “But since I heard about this new policy I refuse to even set foot in a CVS.”

“They (CVS pharmacists) think they are my doctor with rude comments to me and other customers. They are too big for their britches. I am switching to Walgreens,” another patient wrote.

“A boycott will happen whether organized or not. Patients who need more than 90 morphine equivalent mgs will have to take their business elsewhere,” said another patient.

“Boycotting solves nothing. A letter writing campaign or calls to corporate to voice our opinions would be a better way to explain why we disagree with the new policy,” another patient suggested.

There is still a fair amount of confusion about the CVS policy. Many chronic pain patients are worried the 7-day limit on opioids applies to them (it does not) and others believe a pharmacist doesn’t have the legal right to refuse to fill a doctor’s prescription (they do).  

CVS says “the prescriber can request an exception” if a patient needs a larger dose or more than a 7-day supply, but hasn’t released details on how that would work or how long it would take.

The pharmacy chain says its opioid policy is designed to “give greater weight” to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's opioid guideline, which discourages primary care physicians from prescribing opioids for chronic pain. But the CVS policy actually goes far beyond the voluntary recommendations of the CDC, making them mandatory for all physicians and for all types of pain.  

As PNN has reported, preventing abuse and addiction may not be the only reason behind CVS’ decision. In recent years, the company has been fined hundreds of millions of dollars for violations of the Controlled Substances Act and other transgressions, many of them involving opioid medication.

“Corporate self-interest is impetus for this policy. This CVS ploy is to avoid further scrutiny by the DEA and avoid additional monetary penalties,” one patient wrote.

“Money and bad press is the only thing that large companies like CVS pay attention to. Until the leadership and major investors feel some considerable financial pain themselves, they will continue to make or support decisions that hurt and endanger the lives of people in pain,” said another.

U.S. Pain Foundation Endorses 7 Day Limit

CVS is not the first pharmacy to adopt policies that limit the dispensing of opioids, but it is the first major chain to set a 7-day limit on opioids for acute pain. Several states have already adopted laws that limit new prescriptions to a few days' supply. The Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA), an industry trade group,  recently announced its support for a 7-day limit, as did a patient advocacy group.

“We are on board with limiting new prescriptions for acute pain, but we do believe there should be a specific, written exemption for chronic pain, palliative pain, and cancer pain in order to ensure they are protected,” said Paul Gileno, founder and president of the U.S. Pain Foundation, which lists CVS Health and PhRMA as corporate sponsors on its website.

“A number of states, including Massachusetts, have adopted laws limiting first-time opioid prescription to seven days, and this part of the new CVS policy is consistent with these restrictions” said Cindy Steinberg, U.S. Pain’s national director of Policy and Advocacy. “We are in agreement with this limit for new, acute conditions; however instituting dosage limits for all patients is troubling.”

Not all of the comments in our survey were negative about CVS. Some patients expressed appreciation for CVS pharmacists who helped them save money with discounts or by suggesting cheaper medications. Others are happy to see any kind of action aimed at reducing opioid addiction. 

“It may anger some, but there is a major opioid problem in my area and sometimes it takes making a bold decision to create change, even at the risk of losing customers,” wrote one patient. “Notice nobody complains about CVS not selling cigarettes. They have lost billions in revenues since, but it was for the greater good of peoples’ health.” 

One healthcare provider is worried what will happen when her patients can’t get the pain medication they need.

“When that happens, we as providers become part of the problem because these patients will go to the street for help. They will do anything to get pain relief - not to get high. I won't boycott them but I think they ought to rethink what they are doing and the impact it will have,” she wrote.

“I have children with horrific chronic pain issues and other children who have had addiction issues that were not started with pain meds. I know both sides of this issue.”

What Are the Odds of Failing a Drug Test?

By Roger Chriss, Columnist

What are the odds that a person who tests positive for an illicit drug is actually using that drug?

That is a vital question in pain management and the opioid crisis, because millions of pain patients undergo drug tests regularly and some are falsely accused of failing them. The answer is not just a matter of looking at the accuracy of the test.

In a simple situation, like a toss of a coin or a roll of a die, computing the probability of an outcome is elementary. Most people realize that a toss of a coin has an equal chance of coming up heads or tails.

But drug testing is not as simple. It is an example of conditional probability. A drug test that is 95% accurate will not find drug users 95% of the time. That is because the test is applied to both drug users and non-users. We have to use a calculation known as Bayes’ Theorem to determine the real probabilities.

Bayes’ Theorem calculates the probability of one event happening given that another event has already happened. In terms of drug testing, this means the probability that a randomly selected person who has a positive test did in fact use that drug.

To perform the calculations, we need to know two things:

1. The accuracy of the drug test
2. The “base rate” at which drug use occurs in the population at large.

The accuracy of drug tests varies widely. A 2010 study estimated that drug tests generally produce false-positive results in 5% to 10% of cases and false negatives in 10% to 15% of cases.

Data on the base rate of drug use also varies. The CDC claims as many as 25% of chronic pain patients develop signs of opioid use disorder. However, a Cochrane review found addiction in less than 2% of long-term opioid users.

This gives us four general scenarios to consider when estimating the probability that a chronic pain patient with a positive test result is actually misusing opioids:

Scenario I (25% base rate; 95% accurate drug test):  90%
Scenario II (25% base rate; 90% accurate drug test): 83%
Scenario III (2% base rate; 95% accurate drug test):  29%
Scenario IV (2% base rate; 90% accurate drug test):  17%

With a high base rate of opioid misuse and a more accurate test, the probability is high at 90 percent. On the other hand, as the base rate falls and test accuracy decreases, the probability drops significantly, down to 17 percent. This means that the probability of a person getting a false positive result increases.

The Base Rate Fallacy

Bayes’ Theorem clearly shows that the base rate of drug use has a large effect on the probability that a person will get a false test result. Because clinical decisions and healthcare policy are often based on the results of such tests, knowing the probabilities is vitally important.

The base rate fallacy occurs when a decision is made without taking the real base rate into consideration. As shown above, the upper value of 25% is more than 10 times the lower value of 2 percent, indicating a high degree of uncertainty in the base rate.

Moreover, the base rate is not the same in all locations or across all populations. Drug abuse is known to be higher in some places and among some age groups. The accuracy of drug tests also represents an average, but factors such as biochemical individuality and testing conditions may influence actual performance.

Further, drug testing is not an entirely random process. For instance, prior to prescribing opioid medication, a doctor may perform a risk assessment using an Opioid Risk Tool. A doctor may also have hints that a patient is abusing opioids to motivate testing. In either case, randomness is lost and the base rate shifts.

Conditional probability produces counter-intuitive results, with a high degree of dependence on the base rate -- itself a number that requires constant attention.

The bottom line is that drug testing alone is not foolproof. Clinical judgment by experienced physicians, combined with information such as pharmacy data, pill counts and medical records, will always get better odds than drug testing alone.

Roger Chriss lives with Ehlers Danlos syndrome and is a proud member of the Ehlers-Danlos Society.

Roger is a technical consultant in Washington state, where he specializes in mathematics and research.

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

Cigna Won’t Pay for OxyContin in 2018

By John Burke, Guest Columnist

A major health insurance company -- Cigna -- announced this week that they it is removing OxyContin from its list of approved medications and replacing it with another extended release oxycodone product.

“Our focus is on helping customers get the most value from their medications — this means obtaining effective pain relief while also guarding against opioid misuse," said Jon Maesner, Cigna's chief pharmacy officer.

OxyContin is the only opioid-based prescription painkiller that Cigna is removing in 2018 as "a preferred option" from its formulary, a list of medications that its health plans will pay for.

On the surface, this declaration might appear to be a great stride toward reducing prescription drug abuse. Cigna is replacing OxyContin with Collegium’s product, Xtampza ER, which is also an abuse deterrent extended release oxycodone product. 

My problem with this announcement is that OxyContin, along with the other abuse deterrent formulations (ADFs), have very little abuse issues. OxyContin certainly did up until its reformulation in August 2010, but that was over 7 years ago! Since then, there is much documentation from a variety of sources that show the diversion of OxyContin has fallen extensively.

Xtampa ER and the other abuse deterrent formulations also have little to no abuse issues since they have been on the market. 

If Cigna wants to change drugs, that’s likely a financial decision and one they should make, but please don’t tout your move as striking a blow for reducing drug diversion.

It will do nothing to reduce drug diversion, since the clear majority of diversion falls into the immediate release opioids, primarily oxycodone and hydrocodone. 

What is even more concerning to me is the vilifying of any drug that hundreds of thousands of legitimate pain patients take to live a semblance of a normal life, especially when that drug does not have a recent history of abuse and diversion. It also tends to make suspect any and all abuse deterrent products, which is deceptive at best. 

One thing the abuse deterrent formulations have done is to help narrow their focus to legitimate pain patients. Those seeking to get “high” moved to immediate release opioids or black market heroin/fentanyl combinations, not the ADF products. That’s why the FDA is now considering requiring companies that produce generic opioids to develop ADF properties for their drugs. 

No matter what Cigna declares, the bottom line is that ADF’s have been successful. They are not an end all to diversion and abuse, but they do help pain patients get easier access to pain medication. I am hoping that is everybody’s ultimate goal. 

John Burke recently retired after nearly 50 years in drug and law enforcement in southwestern Ohio.

John is a former president of the National Association of Drug Diversion Investigators and current president of the International Health Facility Diversion Association.

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.

Gabapentin Raises Risk of Opioid Overdose

By Pat Anson, Editor

Another study is raising questions about the safety of the anti-seizure drug gabapentin, especially when it’s taken with opioid pain medication.

According to research published online in PLOS Medicine, combining gabapentin with opioid painkillers is associated with a significantly higher risk of dying from an opioid overdose than opioid use alone.

"Clinicians should consider carefully whether to continue prescribing this combination of products, and when deemed necessary, should closely monitor their patients and adjust opioid dose accordingly," wrote lead author Tara Gomes, PhD, principal investigator for the Ontario Drug Policy Research Network and an assistant professor at the University of Toronto.

Gomes and her colleagues analyzed data from 1,256 people in Ontario, Canada who died from opioid-related causes, and compared them with a control group of 4,619 people who also used opioid medication, but did not die of an opioid-related cause.

Overall, 12.3% of the people who died and 6.8% in the control group were prescribed gabapentin in the prior 120 days. After adjusting for additional risk factors, the researchers estimated that the combination of gabapentin and opioids was associated with a 49% higher risk of dying from an opioid overdose.

Although gabapentin is an anticonvulsant originally developed as a treatment for epilepsy, it is now widely prescribed for neuropathy and other chronic pain conditions, sometimes in combination with opioids.

Until now, no previous study had examined the risks of using gabapentin and opioid medication simultaneously, even though both are known to cause respiratory depression that can lead to an overdose.

“Our study has important implications for public health, particularly given the high degree of co-prescription. Almost 10% of patients treated with an opioid in our study also used gabapentin, while nearly half of patients treated with gabapentin were co-prescribed opioids,” said Gomes.

“Gabapentin is frequently used as an adjunct to opioids for neuropathic pain syndromes, but physicians may not be aware of the potential for respiratory depression with this drug; thus, increased awareness among patients and clinicians about the potential for a life-threatening interaction between these drugs is essential.”

The researchers believe pregabalin, an anticonvulsant that acts similarly to gabapentin, may also raise the risk of overdose when taken with opioids. But they were unable to test their theory because of the limited use of pregabalin during the study period.

Both pregabalin and gabapentin are produced by Pfizer -- under the brand names Lyrica and Neurontin -- and are two of its top selling drugs. Pfizer did not respond to a request for comment on the Canadian study.

A previous study linked pregabalin and gabapentin to an uptick in opioid overdoses in England and Wales. Some addicts believe the drugs can boost the “high” they get from heroin and other illicit substances.

Gabapentin is approved by the FDA to treat epilepsy and neuropathic pain caused by shingles. It is also prescribed “off-label” for depression, migraine, fibromyalgia and bipolar disorder. About 64 million prescriptions were written for gabapentin in the U.S. in 2016, a 49% increase since 2011.

Pregabalin is approved by the FDA to treat diabetic nerve pain, fibromyalgia, epilepsy, post-herpetic neuralgia caused by shingles and spinal cord injury. It is also prescribed off label to treat a variety of other conditions.

The CDC’s opioid prescribing guidelines recommend both pregabalin and gabapentin as alternatives to opioids, without saying a word about their potential for abuse or side effects. Pfizer has signed agreements with local prosecutors in Chicago and Santa Clara County, California to support the CDC guidelines and withdraw funding from patient advocacy groups and non-profits that question their validity.   

A recent commentary in the The New England Journal of Medicine warned that gabapentinoids -- the class of medication that Neurontin and Lyrica belong to -- are being overprescribed.

"We believe… that gabapentinoids are being prescribed excessively — partly in response to the opioid epidemic,” wrote Christopher Goodman, MD, and Allan Brett, MD. “We suspect that clinicians who are desperate for alternatives to opioids have lowered their threshold for prescribing gabapentinoids to patients with various types of acute, subacute, and chronic noncancer pain."

Patient Advocates Call on Brandeis to Fire Kolodny

By Pat Anson, Editor

A coalition of physicians, patient advocates and pain sufferers has written an open letter to Brandeis University asking for the dismissal of Andrew Kolodny, MD, a longtime critic of opioid prescribing who is co-director of opioid policy research at the university’s Heller School for Social Policy and Management.

Kolodny is the founder and Executive Director of Physicians for Responsible Opioid Prescribing (PROP), an anti-opioid activist group that has lobbied politicians and regulators for years to enact stronger measures to limit prescribing of opioid pain medication.

“Dr. Kolodny has been prominent in a national campaign to deny chronic pain patients even minimal management of their pain.  His actions are directed toward forcing draconian restrictions or outright withdrawal of this class of medications from medical practice,” reads the letter to Brandeis President Ronald Liebowitz and other top administrators at the university.

“He calls for forced tapering of patients formerly prescribed opioids. Policy positions for which he advocates are leading to the deaths of hundreds of chronic pain patients by suicide or pain-related heart failure and medical collapse.”

The letter was drafted by Richard Lawhern, PhD, and signed by over 60 healthcare professionals and patient advocates, including pain management specialists Forest Tennant, MD, and Aimee Chagnon, MD. Lawhern is the corresponding secretary of the “Opioid Policy Correspondents List,” an ad hoc volunteer group that advocates for better pain care. The group receives no funding from outside sources.

To read the letter in its entirety, click here.

Kolodny is a controversial figure in the pain community and is often quoted in the news media as an expert on issues involving pain management, even though his professional background is in psychiatry and addiction treatment.  He often refers to opioid medication as “heroin pills” and has suggested that patients shouldn’t trust doctors who prescribe opioids.

“I wish I could tell you that you should trust your doctor and talk to your doctor about this, but that may not be the case,” Kolodny said on C-SPAN in 2015. “We have doctors even prescribing to teenagers and parents not recognizing that the doctor has just essentially prescribed the teenager the equivalent of a heroin pill.”

“Although Dr. Kolodny has a work history in public health and addiction psychiatry, he is neither qualified nor Board Certified in pain management -- a closely related field that has been profoundly and negatively impacted by his assertions concerning public policy. From his published articles and interviews, it is clear to many readers that he knows or cares little about chronic pain patients and their treatment,” Lawhern’s letter states.

In a series of Tweets earlier this year, Kolodny said patients on “dangerously high doses” of opioids should be tapered to lower doses even if they refuse. He then asked for specific examples of doctors “forcing tapers in a risky fashion.”

Dozens of people responded with examples of patients becoming seriously ill or committing suicide after forced tapering, which Kolodny ignored.   

The letter to Brandeis calls Kolodny "one of the most polarizing and hated figures in medicine" among people in pain.

“In our view and those of many people whom he has harmed, Dr. Kolodny makes no positive contribution to the work or reputation of Brandeis or its research centers.  To the contrary, we believe it is ethically and morally imperative that he be dismissed immediately from the University, before his presence further damages both your reputation and your financial endowments,” the letter states.

The university did not respond to a request for comment on the letter. Neither did Kolodny.

Brandeis is a well-regarded liberal arts and private research university located near Boston. The Heller School for Social Policy and Management is often ranked as one of the top ten schools in social policy.  Kolodny joined Heller last year as a senior scientist after resigning as chief medical officer at Phoenix House, which runs a chain of addiction treatment centers.

Kolodny and PROP played central roles in developing the 2016 CDC opioid guidelines, which discourage primary care physicians from prescribing opioids for chronic pain. Although voluntary and only intended for primary care doctors, the guidelines have been widely adopted as mandatory by insurers, federal agencies and throughout the U.S. healthcare system.

In an online survey of over 3,100 pain patients and healthcare providers on the first anniversary of the guidelines’ release, most said the guidelines were harmful to patients, had not improved the quality of pain care, and failed to reduce opioid abuse and overdoses. Critics also cite anecdotal evidence that the guidelines have contributed to an increase in patient suicides.

Heroin Overdoses in ER's Surpass Rx Opioid Overdoses

By Pat Anson, Editor

The number of patients admitted and discharged from U.S. hospitals for abuse of opioid pain medication has declined significantly this decade, while the abuse of heroin and illicit fentanyl has surged, according to a new study that documents the shifting nature of the nation’s overdose crisis.

Researchers at Stanford University analyzed national trends in hospital inpatient and emergency department (ED) discharges for opioid abuse, dependence and poisoning from 1997 to 2014, the last year data was available.

They found that hospital admissions for overdoses from pain medication started falling in 2010, the same year that opioid prescriptions began declining.

At the same time, hospital discharge rates for heroin poisoning increased at an annual rate of over 31 percent. By 2014, heroin overdoses exceeded those from prescription opioids in emergency rooms by almost a 2 to 1 margin.

“After 2008, ED discharge rates for heroin poisoning increased more sharply than the rates for any opioid poisoning -- signaling that the scope of heroin harm is worse than previously suggested -- while discharges for prescription opioid poisoning recently began to decline in both the ED and inpatient settings,” researchers reported in the journal Health Affairs.

“While these changes could be the result of national and local policies aimed at reducing the prescribing of opioids, the expanded availability of heroin and new lethal illicit drugs, such as nonpharmaceutical fentanyl, could mean that they are being used instead of prescription opioids.”

The findings add evidence to recent public health concerns that people misusing or addicted to prescription opioids are switching to heroin and synthetic opioids such as fentanyl because they are cheaper and easier to get.

"This suggests that the expanded availability of lethal illicit drugs are being used to replace prescription opioids in some cases," said Tina Hernandez-Boussard, PhD, associate professor of medicine, of biomedical data sciences and of surgery at Stanford University School of Medicine.

source: health affairs

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has been reluctant to admit that efforts to reduce opioid prescribing could be backfiring, although their own statistics indicate otherwise.  Deaths involving heroin and synthetic opioids overtook overdoses linked to prescription opioids in 2016, the same year the CDC released its opioid prescribing guidelines.

As PNN has reported,  the CDC last week launched a public awareness campaign to combat the abuse of prescription opioids, a marketing effort driven by surveys and focus groups that completely ignores the scourge of heroin and illicit fentanyl.

“The campaign does not include messages about heroin. Specificity is a best practice in communication, and the Rx Awareness campaign messaging focuses on the critical issue of prescription opioids. Given the broad target audience, focusing on prescription opioids avoids diluting the campaign messaging. Heroin is a related topic that also needs formative research and message testing,” the CDC explained.

The Stanford study found that discharge rates for prescription opioid poisonings declined annually by about 5 percent from 2010 to 2014, while discharge rates for heroin poisoning increased at an annual rate of 31.4 percent from 2008 to 2014. The trend has likely worsened since 2014, as heroin and illicit fentanyl are even more widely available on the black market.

"I'm cautiously optimistic that prescribing clinicians are positively reacting to the opioid crisis and therefore prescription opioids are contributing less to the overall drug epidemic," Hernandez-Boussard said. "That's the good news. The bad news is that although prescription opioid use decreased, heroin and methadone greatly increased.”

Anna Lembke, MD, an associate professor of psychiatry at Stanford and a board member of Physicians for Responsible Opioid Prescribing (PROP), says she has no doubt many people addicted to prescription opioids have switched to using heroin or illicit fentanyl.

"My patients have told me that's exactly what they did," said Lembke. "Heroin was cheaper and easier to get."

Would You Support a Boycott of CVS?

By Pat Anson, Editor

One of the most talked about issues in the pain community over the last two weeks has been CVS Health’s announcement that its pharmacists would soon start restricting doses of opioid pain medication and limit the supply of opioids for acute pain to 7 days.

The policy only applies to customers enrolled in CVS Caremark’s pharmacy benefit management program, but it quickly triggered an online backlash from pain patients – including many who called for a boycott of CVS.

“I refuse to patronize companies that practice medicine without a license,” wrote Jeannette on PNN’s Facebook page.

“Don’t go there anymore. Hit them in their pocketbook,” wrote Lauren.

“I very rarely use a CVS and will never go there for prescriptions or anything else,” said Jackie.

“I left CVS years ago for Walgreens and I’m guessing many more will be doing so,” wrote Amanda.

"CVS has some nerve. The use of opioids, or any other drug, really, is up to the doctor and his or her patients, not a pharmacist. This is a terrible precedent, which will drive an even bigger wedge between physicians and patients,” cardiologist Arthur Kennish, MD, told the American Council on Science and Health.

The CVS boycott soon had its own hashtag on Twitter.

“Wrong way to handle, CVS! I will join the #BoycottCVS. You make it more difficult for the sick w/ no impact on the crisis,” Stephanie tweeted.

The online outrage even spilled over onto CVS’ Facebook page, where many negative posts were apparently deleted by the company.

“CVS Pharmacy, why did you take down all your Posts and comments regarding your big announcement over overriding doctor's orders and limiting patients' rights to their pain medication?” asked Lauri. “Where did they all go?”

People are so passionate about this issue that we started an online poll asking if they would support a boycott of CVS. Click here if you’d like to participate.

Would a Boycott Work?

But while there’s plenty of online enthusiasm for a boycott, it’s unlikely to be effective without the support of patient advocacy groups.  An informal survey of pain organizations by PNN found most were critical of CVS’ decision, but opposed to a boycott.

“I think boycotting CVS is not a good idea. I think a better idea is working with them for better care and finding the good in what they are doing and amplifying the bad.  They want better education, they want better disposal, and many other things we all fight for,” said Paul Gileno, President of the U.S. Pain Foundation.  “I don't think a boycott would work or be effective and can come across in a negative way. We need a loud conversation with CVS.”

“I don’t typically like boycotts” said Barby Ingle, President of the International Pain Foundation and a PNN columnist. “But if enough people have a bad experience or don’t like the CVS policies, they will see a drop in the market and will have to reevaluate what their policies will be.

“I wouldn’t call it a boycott, I would call it a shift in patients understanding that we have power and that we can choose to go to the healthcare places that fulfill our needs. Unless CVS changes their practices, I can see them continuing to lose business.”

Penney Cowan of the American Chronic Pain Association did not respond to a request for comment.

One patient advocate who gave full support for a boycott was Cynthia Toussaint, the founder of For Grace, a non-profit that supports women in pain.

“The lack of patient advocacy support for the boycott is totally surprising,” Toussaint wrote in an email. “We’ve all been beating the ‘don’t get between a doctor and a patient’ drum for years, and now that we can put our names behind that, we’re being sheepish.

“For Grace is ON BOARD with the boycott! This is chilling news for the pain world - and I hope our support helps many people. We understand CVS’s very real concern about the opioid crisis, but this new policy is too heavy handed and will greatly harm the chronic pain community!”

CVS is not the first pharmacy to restrict access to opioid medication. In 2013, Walgreens gave its pharmacists a “secret checklist” to help them screen patients with opioid prescriptions. Any red flags, such as a prescription written by a new doctor or a patient paying in cash, could result in a prescription not being filled. The policy was implemented after Walgreens was fined $80 million by the Drug Enforcement Agency for violating the rules for dispensing controlled substances.

CVS has also been fined hundreds of millions of dollars for violations of the Controlled Substances Act and other transgressions, many of them involving opioid medication.

A Florida pharmacist who was fired this year by Sam’s Club for not following the company's opioid policy says pharmacies are driven by profit, not patient care, and a boycott is unlikely to change their bottom line. 

“Patients won't need to boycott. CVS doesn't want the business anyway,” says Karl Deigert, who was fired after complaining that patient rights were being violated at Sam’s Club, which is owned by Walmart.  “Corporations are only acting in their own best interest and have no concern for the patient. Patients can save their breath and energy as any complaints filed will fall on deaf ears. 

“Overzealous corporate policy makers have no desire or interest to protect the patients' well-being. Their policy making is self-serving to protect their assets from DEA scrutiny and monetary penalties. The corporations and the majority of retail pharmacists simply do not care to help the chronic pain patient population.”

The new opioid policy at CVS doesn’t go into effect until February 1, 2018. But CVS Caremark is already tightening the rules for some opioid prescriptions. 

A Caremark client who has been getting fentanyl pain patches at CVS for years was recently notified by letter that new limits are being placed on the patches “to help ensure that your use of opioid medication for pain management is safe and appropriate.” 

But is it really about safe and appropriate use?

The letter goes on to say the patient will still be able to get the fentanyl patches, but without prior authorization they “will have to pay 100 percent of the cost.”

Painful Opioid Statistics

By Roger Chriss, Columnist

The opioid crisis continues to worsen, and media coverage continues to be overly simplistic.

Vox recently reported the U.S. “absolutely dwarfs” all other countries in opioid prescriptions, in a story headlined “America’s huge problem with opioid prescribing, in one quote.”

"Consider the amount of standard daily doses of opioids consumed in Japan. And then double it. And then double it again. And then double it again. And then double it again. And then double it a fifth time. That would make Japan No. 2 in the world, behind the United States," Stanford psychiatry professor Keith Humphreys told Vox.

Although Humphreys’ statement is accurate, it is a misleading oversimplification that omits important context, including the rising rate of heroin and fentanyl-related deaths, and the shifting landscape of opioid prescribing.

First, this statistic represents an average (or mean). It does not include the variance, a measure of how many people use what quantity of opioids. The average person in the U.S. does not use any opioids at all. But people suffering from opioid addiction may use a large quantity of opioids every single day of the year.

In statistical work, reporting an average without the variance is considered sloppy at best, misleading or manipulative at worst.

Humphreys’ statement also fails to distinguish between the legal and illegal use of “pharmaceutical opioids,” a convenient term to refer to legally manufactured opioids, regardless of whether they are used for valid medical purposes, or diverted, shared or sold.

In other words, the much higher number of pharmaceutical opioids in the U.S. compared to Japan reflects both medical use and misuse.  

Further, this statistic assumes that Japan’s level of pharmaceutical opioid consumption is somehow better. In fact, Japan has a well-documented history of undertreating pain because of fears about opioid addiction. Pain is so poorly treated in Japan, according to The New York Times, that the government launched a campaign in 2007 urging patients to request pain relief, with hospital posters urging patients to “Tell Us About Your Pain.”

Japan continues to struggle with high levels of chronic pain. A 2015 review found a “high prevalence and severity of chronic pain, associated factors, and significant impact on quality of life in the adult Japanese population."

The Vox article also fails to point out that opioid prescribing in the U.S. peaked in 2010 and has been declining ever since. Yet opioid addiction and overdose deaths have been steadily rising, fueled largely by illegal opioids such as heroin and illicit fentanyl.

Vox is not alone in oversimplifying a complex problem. CNBC, for example, reported last year that “80 percent of the global opioid supply is consumed in the United States.”

Many others have repeated that claim, including Missouri Sen. Claire McCaskill, who recently tweeted that, "We have 5% of world population. 80% of opioids."

PolitiFact ran a fact check on McCaskill’s numbers and found them “greatly exaggerated.”

“While the United States is clearly the largest consumer of opioids, it, at most, accounts for roughly 30 percent of global consumption. We rate McCaskill’s claim False," PolitiFact said.

This is a significant issue in the opioid crisis. While some journalists, politicians, and even physicians name villains, people suffering from opioid addiction continue to get substandard treatment. And people who benefit from opioid therapy are struggling more and more to find physicians willing to prescribe and pharmacies willing to fill opioid prescriptions so they can have a reasonable quality of life.

No one is suggesting that the U.S. needs more opioids, particularly in the acute care setting. Opioids should be prescribed with close monitoring by physicians with experience in pain management. The research literature and public health studies agree that over-prescribing occurred, especially in pill mills and dubious pain clinics. In addition, drug theft and diversion are huge problems.

So while a statistic that invokes multiple doublings for comparative purposes sounds impressive, its context is much more important. We need to focus on the crisis as it really is, without exaggeration, if we hope to have meaningful progress ending it.

Roger Chriss lives with Ehlers Danlos syndrome and is a proud member of the Ehlers-Danlos Society.

Roger is a technical consultant in Washington state, where he specializes in mathematics and research.

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