Future Pain Pills

By Roger Chriss, PNN Columnist

The Food and Drug Administration announced this week that it would require drug makers to conduct new studies on the effectiveness of opioid pain medication and whether long-term use of the drugs lead to addiction. The FDA’s unprecedented action was due in no small part to a 60 Minutes report that said the agency “opened the floodgates” to the opioid crisis by approving the use of opioids for chronic pain. 

With opioid medication coming under scrutiny again – and perhaps more regulatory action – this is a good time to assess where we stand with development of newer and safer painkillers.  

Many analgesics already on the market have too many risks or too few benefits. A recent meta-analysis in JAMA concluded that opioids “may provide benefit for chronic noncancer pain, but the magnitude is likely to be small.”

And a new Cochrane review on acetaminophen (Tylenol) for hip or knee osteoarthritis found “only minimal improvements in pain and function.”

So new analgesics, whether safer opioids or non-opioid drugs, are urgently needed. Fortunately, there has been significant progress.

NKTR-181, from Nektar Therapeutics, is a new kind of opioid under “fast track” FDA review. It was designed with safety in mind, because it enters the nervous system slowly as a result of its unique chemical structure. NKTR-181 is the only abuse-deterrent opioid in the drug development pipeline designed to reduce the “high” and “drug liking” that can lead to addiction. Practical Pain Management recently gave it four out of five stars as a future analgesic.

Desmetramadol, from Syntrix Pharmaceuticals, is another opioid in early testing. Developed with support from the National Institute on Drug Abuse, desmetramadol is designed as a safer version of tramadol, a Schedule IV opioid. Researchers are looking at the results of a recent clinical trial to see whether the new drug “provides the safety and pain relief of tramadol without its metabolic issues.”

VX-150, from Vertex Pharmaceuticals, is a sodium channel inhibitor that late last year finished a “proof-of-concept” Phase II trial successfully. It acts specifically on sodium channels to block the pain caused by small fiber neuropathy. Because these channels are not expressed in the brain, VX-150 should have few if any cognitive side effects. Phase III clinical trials are expected to start later this year.

Tanezumab, from Pfizer and Eli Lilly, just completed a Phase III clinical study for chronic low back pain. The results showed that tanezumab injections were associated with a statistically significant improvement in low back pain compared with placebo. Tanezumab is also being studied as a treatment for osteoarthritis, although there are some lingering concerns about its side-effects.

Finally, the novel compound AT-121 from Astraea Therapeutics is showing promise as a non-addictive opioid analgesic. Researchers created AT-121 to bind to both the mu opioid receptor and the FQ peptide receptor, a combination that blocks the unwanted side effects of current opioid analgesics. Preclinical testing of AT-121 in animals found that it was more potent than morphine, but did not produce physical dependence or tolerance at high doses. The National Institute on Drug Abuse recently called AT-121 a “promising alternative to opioid pain medications.”

Improved understanding of the nervous system and of chronic painful disorders is also contributing to drug development. A recent review in Frontiers in Pharmacology looks at emerging “safer opioids” that provide effective pain relief with fewer side effects. The review explains that the new goal of drug developers is to target opioid receptors in injured or diseased tissues, while avoiding the brain to reduce cognitive side effects and minimize risk of abuse, addiction and overdose.

And new genetic research is identifying genes involved in painful neuropathies. For instance, a recent case report found that a variant in the gene PMP22 is linked to painful peripheral neuropathy in Charcot-Marie-Tooth Disease.

With the prevalence of chronic pain increasing as the population ages, the development of safer, more effective analgesics is critical. Advances in drug development techniques and better understanding of painful disorders should accelerate the process.  

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.

Counterfeit Pill Lab Exposed in BBC Report

By Pat Anson, PNN Editor

Counterfeit prescription drugs have emerged as a worldwide problem – from fake “Mexican Oxy” sold in United States to bogus cancer drugs recently found in Turkey, Argentina and Switzerland.

This week a chilling BBC documentary took viewers inside a dingy underground lab in the UK where counterfeit Xanax pills are made – often laced with illicit fentanyl and other dangerous chemicals.

One dealer bragged to BBC reporter Livvy Haydock that he could make 42,000 Xanax pills in three hours.

"I import the raw ingredients and chemicals needed and then I press the tablets with a tablet press machine,” he said.

"I've been doing this for many years and I've never been at the point where I can produce and supply enough to meet the demand for my product. I'm always turning away customers.”

BBC ‘INSIDE BRITAIN’S BLACK MARKET”

The fake anti-anxiety pills are manufactured in a converted cement mixer and tested on volunteer “guinea pigs” before being sold on the street, often to teenagers.

"They're taking that risk, they're paying the money. I'll make it and I'll do it as best as I can and I'll give a good service and provide a good product and the rest is on them," the dealer said.

He boasted that overworked customs officials send him warning letters when his shipments are seized, but they rarely tell police.

"I've had plenty of packages stopped from customs to addresses. A lot of the time you just receive a letter saying it's been seized,” he explained. “"They don't really follow it up. Sometimes they do, but the majority of the time they don't.”

A similar problem exists in the United States, where the Postal Service processes and delivers nearly half of the world’s mail. Postal inspectors can’t even open suspicious packages without a search warrant.

“Drug traffickers have familiarized themselves with and exploited vulnerabilities in the Postal Service network,” a recent Inspector General report warned. “Individuals can now order nearly any type of illicit drug online and have it delivered to a location of their choosing, all from the comfort of their own home.

“These illicit purchases often rely on mail shipment companies, including the Postal Service, to deliver products to customers as they provide greater opportunities for anonymity than other delivery options, such as human couriers.”

The Inspector General recommended that Congress pass legislation to give postal inspectors legal authorization to open and inspect domestic packages suspected of carrying illicit drugs.

According to the World Health Organization, the counterfeit drug market is worth $200 billion worldwide, with almost half of the fake and low-quality medicines sold in Africa. Up to 300,000 people may die from pneumonia and malaria every year due to substandard medications primarily made in China, India, Pakistan and the United Kingdom.

Prevalence of Chronic Pain Increasing

By Lynn Webster, MD, PNN Columnist

According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, opioid prescribing quadrupled from 1999 to 2010. Some policymakers suggest that the amount prescribed in 1999 was appropriate and should remain static, and that any prescribing above the 1999 level exceeds the amount required to meet the needs of people in pain.

Perhaps, but it is important to understand that pain was vastly undertreated in the 1990s and there was a clear need to find effective treatment for pain patients. At least some of the increase in opioid prescribing would also seem logical, based on the greater number of people in pain.

According to the National Institutes of Health (NIH), the number of American adults suffering from at least one painful condition increased substantially from 120.2 million in 1997 to 178 million in 2014 – about 41 percent of the adult population. These numbers are from a comprehensive analysis of 18-year trends in the rates of noncancer pain, recently published in the Journal of Pain. 

 Aging Population

The NIH report may make you wonder why there are more people in pain now than there were in 1999. Here are some possible explanations.

Our aging population includes an ever-increasing number of elderly people. Baby boomers, who make up the largest demographic of society, recently began to enter their 70s. That is the decade during which we begin to experience a much greater prevalence of arthritis, spinal pain, obesity, surgical operations and cancer.

Mortality rates for cancer continue to decline, thanks to better treatments. More than 40% of cancer survivors now live longer than 10 years. That is good, of course, but many cancer survivors experience treatment-related chronic pain. 

Aging increases the likelihood that people will experience chronic pain. More than half of all adults older than 65 experience arthritic pain of the spine and other joints. For more age-related statistics regarding arthritis, click on this U.S. government PubMed abstract, the CDC's arthritis information page or the Arthritis Foundation’s website.  

In all age groups, the U.S. has an obesity epidemic (according to the CDC and the Journal of the American Medical Association) which can lead to diabetes. Obesity causes increased load on the back and joints, causing chronic pain. In addition, more people have peripheral neuropathy caused by diabetes. 

Finally, there is the problem of chronic post-surgical pain, which we began to recognize around the turn of the century. The incidence of chronic pain after major surgery is estimated to lie between 20% and 50%. Relatively minor operations, such as inguinal hernia repair or a C-section, seem to lead to this problem in approximately 10% of patients. This is an annuity that will keep growing as more operations occur every year.  

The increased prevalence of chronic pain has probably contributed to a greater number of opioid prescriptions. In addition, we have historically failed to recognize that pain deserves to be treated.

Alternative therapies like massage and acupuncture have not been widely available due to lack of insurance coverage. Thus, many people in chronic pain have not had access to any therapy except opioids. This can partially explain why there was an increase in the amount of opioids prescribed from 2001 to 2014.  

Undertreated Pain

Quadrupling the amount of opioids prescribed over several decades may sound excessive, unless we consider the growing number of people who were undertreated and in severe pain, year after year.  

Additionally, we must recognize opioids have not been distributed equally. It is possible that more opioids have been prescribed than appropriate for some patient populations, while other patients have been denied access to any pain treatment. 

A major shift in opioid prescribing began several years ago and by all accounts is accelerating. Between 2013 and 2017, the amount of opioids prescribed declined by 22%. The people most affected by the decrease appear to be those who reported benefit from opioid therapy.  

The amount of opioids that should be prescribed will remain open to debate. But millions of Americans have been -- and continue to be -- denied access to pain treatment, and there should be no debate about the fact that failure to treat severe pain is unacceptable.   

Everyone in the health care system and policymakers should be concerned about the NIH report on the prevalence of chronic pain. The dramatic increase in the number of people with chronic pain warrants our examination of all polices and resources to ensure that this population is receiving the care they need and deserve.  

Lynn R. Webster, MD, is a vice president of scientific affairs for PRA Health Sciences and consults with the pharmaceutical industry. He is a former president of the American Academy of Pain Medicine and the author of “The Painful Truth.”

You can find Lynn on Twitter: @LynnRWebsterMD. 

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.

Do Rx Opioids Really Increase Risk of Fatal Accidents?

By Pat Anson, PNN Editor

A recent study published in JAMA Network Open made headlines when it claimed that use of prescription opioids more than doubled the risk of causing a fatal car accident.  

Researchers at Columbia University Mailman School of Public Health looked at death certificates and toxicology tests on drivers involved in over 18,000 fatal two-vehicle accidents from 1993 to 2016. They found that 1,467 of the “crash initiators” tested positive for hydrocodone, morphine, oxycodone or other prescription opioids.    

The researchers reported their findings as “compelling evidence that use of prescription opioids by drivers is a significant contributing factor” in fatal crashes, which was a dog whistle for media outlets like CNN to warn, “Opioid epidemic spilling over onto roads.”

It turns out the evidence was not so compelling after all.

Like many states, Maryland faces growing rates of opioid abuse and addiction. But when researchers looked at opioid-related crashes in Maryland from 2006 to 2017, they found no significant increase in fatal accidents.

“The fact that opioid crashes in Maryland over the last 10 years have been more or less steady was a surprise,” Johnathon Ehsani, PhD, a professor at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health told The Washington Post.

“That is striking, because Maryland is one of those states that has been quite severely affected by the overall opioid epidemic.”

Ehsani and his colleagues took another look at the toxicology data and realized it was misleading. The reason was simple: Because hospitals and first responders often give opioid medication to patients injured in accidents, autopsies will detect those opioids in patients who later die from their injuries. In other words, the drivers may not have been under the influence of opioids before the crash.

When researchers only looked at a sub-sample of drivers who died at the scene, they found that the use of prescription opioids was “considerably lower than those who died hours or days following the crash.”

“We applied a stricter definition than our other colleagues did,” said Ehsani, who published his findings in the less prominent journal Accident Analysis & Prevention. “We were more conservative in our case definition.”

The JAMA study apparently over-counted the number of opioid-related crashes by not differentiating between drivers who died at the scene and those who died after getting medical treatment with opioids.

"When determining the prevalence of opioid use in a population, it can be tricky to untangle the two circumstances," says Ehsani. "Thinking differently about the way in which researchers count cases has implications that can offer policymakers and public health professionals more meaningful results."

No one is suggesting that it’s okay to drive a vehicle while impaired by opioids. But it’s also not okay for researchers and prominent medical journals to use flawed data to suggest that patients using prescription opioids are more likely to cause fatal accidents.

In Maryland, they found just the opposite may be true.

“It could be that a number of people who are impaired by opioids choose not to drive,” Ehsani said. “It could be that there is some self-selection going on in that population or it could be that some of those who are most seriously impaired are unable to or don’t have access to a vehicle to drive.”

Should the CDC Opioid Guideline Be Revised?

By Pat Anson, PNN Editor

Carol Levy’s recent column (see “Guideline Paranoia”) drew quite a response from PNN readers, many of them offended by Carol’s contention that pain sufferers complain too often about the CDC’s 2016 opioid prescribing guideline.

“Maybe if we did not take any and all new guidelines as a frontal attack on us, maybe we would not be seen and referenced so often as a major component and cause of the opioid epidemic,” Carol wrote.

Those were fighting words to many pain sufferers who’ve been cutoff from opioid medication or had their dose reduced since the guideline came out. Dozens of patients commented on Carol’s column.

“Sounds a bit like blaming the victim for getting upset,” said Jen Saeger. “We ARE being targeted and having our medication taken away because these CDC guidelines have been taken as law. This isn’t overreacting, this is happening all over the country.”

“This woman needs to be educated about what is actually happening. We aren't overacting,” said Teresa. “Does she not know pain patients are being tapered or have completely lost their pain meds? Has she not heard of the suicides that are occurring in the chronic pain community?”

“Once these guidelines were released my pain doctor cut my medications by nearly 50% as well as many of his other chronic pain patients. He also showed me a letter from the CDC exclaiming that he was writing too many prescriptions for narcotic pain killers,” said Joe Allio. “So when they say this was a suggested guideline and not a mandate, IT'S A BIG FAT LIE!!!!! What I saw in this letter was nothing short of a threat!”

“The policymakers are the ones that need to be reminded that these are just guidelines,” wrote Vickie Tway. “You might especially want to let the DEA know this as they are running roughshod over physicians and causing those who DO want to help intractable pain patients to give up their profession for fear of being raided and facing criminal charges for doing their jobs.”

“The problem is that (doctors), pharmacies and insurance companies are using those said guidelines against chronic pain patients. Whether that's who they were intended for or not. CPP are having their meds cut back or cut off because of this hysteria and the new guidelines,” said Tracey Morales. “Until the CDC makes a statement to set this right people are going to continue suffering.”

CDC ‘Committed to Evaluating the Guideline’

PNN readers are better informed and more knowledgeable about the CDC guideline than most Americans. And they’re right when they say that the guideline was only supposed to promote a dialogue between primary care physicians and patients about the risks of opioid therapy.  The recommendations were never meant to be mandatory rules for everyone to follow, yet they’ve been widely adopted by other federal agencies, states, insurers, pharmacies and throughout the U.S. healthcare system.

Within months of the guideline’s release, CDC was warned by its own public relations consultants that “some doctors are following these guidelines as strict law” and that “pain patients who have relied on these drugs for years are now left with little to no pain management.”

In a joint letter to the CDC last year, over 200 healthcare providers warned the agency that many patients were being abandoned or forcibly tapered off opioids, and some were turning to suicide or illegal drugs to escape from their pain.

“Within a year of Guideline publication, there was evidence of widespread misapplication of some of the Guideline recommendations,” the letter warns. “These actions have led many health care providers to perceive a significant category of vulnerable patients as institutional and professional liabilities to be contained or eliminated, rather than as people needing care.”

The CDC pledged three years ago to “revisit this guideline as new evidence becomes available.”

“CDC is committed to evaluating the guideline to identify the impact of the recommendations on clinician and patient outcomes, both intended and unintended, and revising the recommendations in future updates when warranted.”

Will the CDC keep its pledge? The agency did not immediately respond to a request for comment on what it was doing to assess the impact of guideline or whether it would be revised.

(Update: On February 28th — 9 days after we asked — the CDC sent PNN a brief statement indicating it has “several studies underway with external researchers” evaluating the impact of the guideline on opioid prescribing and patient outcomes.

“CDC is commissioning a chronic pain systematic review by the Agency for Healthcare Research & Quality (AHRQ) to determine what new scientific evidence has been released since the CDC Guideline was released in March 2016. The chronic pain systematic review is underway now,” said CDC spokesperson Courtney Lenard.

“The review will evaluate the effectiveness and comparative effectiveness of non-opioid pharmacologic therapy and pharmacologic (opioid and non-opioid) therapy for chronic pain, considering the effects on pain, function, quality of life, and adverse events.”

The statement gave no indication when the review and other studies would be completed.)

How has the guideline affected you and should it be revised? If you’re a patient or healthcare provider, you can help shape the debate by taking our survey. Either click here or on the banner above.

We’ll release the survey results on March 15th, the third anniversary of the guideline’s release.   

CDC: Opioid Prescriptions Drop in 3 of 4 U.S. Counties

By Pat Anson, PNN Editor

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has released another study documenting how prescriptions for opioid medication have fallen dramatically in recent years. The study partially credits the CDC’s own guideline for the drop in opioid prescribing, but makes no mention of the suffering and suicides of pain patients who’ve been cut off from opioid medication.

Researchers at the CDC’s National Center for Injury Prevention and Control – which developed the agency’s controversial 2016 guideline -- looked at opioid prescribing trends nationally from 2015 to 2017.

They found significant declines in high dose opioid prescribing and in the average daily dose, which fell from 48.1 MME (morphine milligram equivalent) to 45.2 MME, a 6% decline. The guideline recommends that doses not exceed 90 MME except in rare instances.

Nearly 3 out of 4 counties experienced a reduction of 10% or more in the amount of opioids prescribed – the counties colored green in the map below. Relatively few counties, primarily in the Midwest and northern Rockies, had a 10% or more increase in opioid prescribing – counties that are marked in orange.

JAMA INTERNAL MEDICINE

“The reduction in opioid prescribing that began in 2012 has accelerated in the United States. The amount of opioids prescribed decreased an average of 10.0% annually with reductions in 74.7% of counties from 2015 to 2017,” CDC researchers reported in JAMA Internal Medicine.

“Recent reductions could be related to policies and strategies aimed at reducing inappropriate prescribing, increased awareness of the risks associated with opioids, and release of the CDC Guideline for Prescribing Opioids for Chronic Pain—United States, 2016. Despite reductions in prescribing, opioid overdose rates continue to increase and are driven largely by illicitly manufactured fentayl.”

A similar CDC study in 2018 also documented a decline in prescriptions, but made no effort to measure the guideline’s impact on patients and whether it had improved the quality of their pain care or worsened it.  There is only a brief acknowledgement that both studies are limited by “the inability to determine the appropriateness of opioid prescriptions” -- a belated and backhanded admission by the CDC that its guideline is built on the false premise that it knows what an appropriate dose is.

Had the CDC looked in its own Twitter feed touting the latest study, it could have found insight from patients on the guideline’s effect on the quality of pain care.

“Yea this is why my wife has been bedridden for over 2 YEARS now as her doctor does NOT BELIEVE in pain medication.  And when we call all the other practices in the area its more of the same response. Either we don't prescribe opioids or we don't take pain patients,” one poster wrote.

“Let's not forget skyrocketing suicide and patients turning to the streets for relief. Good job you now have a #OpioidCrisis of your own making,” another poster wrote.

“When the numbers of a drug are more meaningful than the human lives they help. So caught up in numerical reduction people who once had managed pain are forced to suffer or #SuicideDueToPain. I guess this makes you folks very proud, to kill off the disabled,” said another.

“And here we see the CDC touting what they think is a great thing. Ironically of course they are likely NOT tracking how many patients committed suicides after being forcibly tapered for no medical reason,” said Dave Wieland, a pain patient and advocate.

“And you can bet they are NOT tracking how many patients who had been able to work on their stable medication dosage, have now been forced to apply for disability after having their medication also taken away for no medical reason. Oh yea that's right the CDC doesn't care about those things.”

When the CDC released its guideline nearly 3 years ago, it pledged to “revisit this guideline as new evidence becomes available" and to evaluate its impact on doctors and patients.

How has the CDC guideline affected you? As the third anniversary of the guideline approaches, PNN is conducting a new survey of patients and healthcare providers. Is the guideline working as intended?

Click here to take the survey, which should only take a few minutes.

‘Mexican Oxy’ Flooding U.S. Black Market

By Pat Anson, PNN Editor

New York City police and DEA agents have announced the seizure of 20,000 counterfeit oxycodone pills made with illicit fentanyl. The pills, which have an estimated street value of $600,000, are blue in color and stamped “M” on one side and “30” on the other, making them virtually indistinguishable from prescription oxycodone.

The fentanyl pills are believed to have originated in Mexico. Known on the street as “Mexican Oxy,” the highly potent counterfeit pills are often cheaper and easier to obtain than pharmaceutical-grade oxycodone. Black market 30 mg oxycodone pills sell on the street for $9 to $30 each and are surfacing around the country.

“If you take prescription pills that did not come directly from a pharmacy, you are risking your life,” said New York City Special Narcotics Prosecutor Bridget Brennan. “Throughout New York City, we have seen a spate of cases involving tens of thousands of potentially lethal fentanyl pills masquerading as oxycodone.

“Just because black market pills have the same color and design as legitimate pills, it does not mean they are safe. The ingredients and potency are all unknown, and minuscule amounts of fentanyl can cause overdose or death. Consuming a counterfeit pill is akin to playing Russian Roulette.”

Overdose deaths in New York City are at record-high levels and fentanyl is involved in over half of them. Fentanyl is a synthetic opioid 50 to 100 times more potent than morphine. A customer accustomed to taking oxycodone would not necessarily have the tolerance to ingest illicit fentanyl without suffering an overdose.

DEA PHOTO

Fentanyl powder is typically produced by illicit labs in China and then smuggled into the U.S. through Mexico. The powder is transformed into tablets by pill presses purchased online and then sold by drug traffickers. Four arrests in New York were made in connection with the latest seizure.

“These arrests highlight a growing trend in illicit street drugs which increases the risk of drug overdose,” said DEA Special Agent in Charge Ray Donovan. “Traffickers are mass producing pseudo-pharmaceutical pills made of heroin, fentanyl and other illicit drugs in makeshift laboratories throughout New York City. These pills attract users because they are more convenient and less conspicuous; but users should beware because they are unregulated and lethal.”

Fentanyl Seizures at Mexican Border

Mexican Oxy is also blamed for a rash of overdoses in Arizona, where fentanyl deaths have tripled in recent years.

“It’s the worst I’ve seen in 30 years, this toll that it’s taken on families,” Doug Coleman, DEA Special Agent in Charge of Arizona told the Associated Press. “The crack (cocaine) crisis was not as bad.”  

Last month, the U.S. Border Patrol announced its biggest fentanyl seizure ever — over 250 pounds were found in a truckload of cucumbers at a border crossing in Nogales, Arizona.

Most of the fentanyl was in powder form and over two pounds were made up of pills. Together, they had the potential to kill millions of people.  

“Just because black market pills have the same color and design as legitimate pills, it does not mean they are safe.”

— Bridget Brennan, NYC Narcotics Prosecutor

Most of the fentanyl seized by law enforcement is found hidden inside vehicles at official border crossings around Nogales and San Diego, according to the AP. Smaller shipments of fentanyl are sent directly to the U.S. from China through the mail. The Postal Service’s Inspector General recently reported that over 90 percent of illegal online pharmacies use the mail to ship illicit drugs.

The Postal Service is prohibited from opening packages without a search warrant and is obligated to accept inbound international mail. This makes it more difficult for postal inspectors to identify and track packages suspected of containing illicit drugs. By comparison, private carriers are able to open and inspect packages and can track shipments from beginning to end.

The Inspector General recommended that Congress pass legislation that would give postal inspectors authorization to open and inspect domestic packages suspected of carrying illicit drugs.

FDA Warns Drug Distributor

By Pat Anson, PNN Editor

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has sent a warning letter to a wholesale drug distributor rebuking the company for its handling of several tampering cases involving oxycodone and other medications.

The letter to the CEO of the McKesson Corporation involves incidents in 2016 when pharmacies notified the company about the tampering and theft of medications it had supplied them with.    

In one such case, a Rite Aid pharmacy in Michigan found that the seal to a bottle labeled as containing 100 tablets of oxycodone had been broken. Inside the bottle a pharmacist found 15 tablets of Aleve, a non-steroidal anti-inflammatory pain reliever.  Two other Rite Aid pharmacies also reported to the company that oxycodone bottles had been tampered with. McKesson investigated the reports and determined the tampering and thefts likely occurred while the bottles were in its possession.  

Similar tampering incidents involved drugs used to treat bipolar disorder, high blood pressure and HIV.

According to the FDA, McKesson did little to identify and quarantine other products in its distribution system that also may have been tampered with and failed to warn other pharmacies that illegitimate products were in the supply chain.

"This is simply unacceptable. A distributor’s failure to have systems in place to investigate and quarantine suspect and illegitimate products within their control is a violation of the law," said FDA commissioner Scott Gottlieb, MD, in a statement.

"But this is even more concerning given that we’re in the midst of a widespread opioid crisis. Opioids that leave the legitimate supply chain could end up being sold illegally, or a patient who was appropriately prescribed these drugs to treat pain may not get the treatment they need or may unknowingly take a medication that’s not meant for them."

The FDA did not say why it waited so long to send the warning letter or notify the public about the 2016 tampering incidents. McKesson is the first company to receive a warning letter under the Drug Supply Chain Security Act (DSCSA), which was enacted by Congress in 2013.

McKesson is one of the largest wholesale drug distributors in the country. It is being sued by dozens of states, cities and counties for its role in the opioid crisis. In 2017, McKesson was fined $150 million for failing to report suspicious orders for oxycodone, hydrocodone and other controlled substances. In 2008, the company agreed to pay $13.25 million in penalties for similar violations.

FDA: Pain Patients Dependent On Opioids Are Not Addicted

By Pat Anson, PNN Editor

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has released new guidance to drug makers to streamline the development of buprenorphine products to treat opioid addiction. Commonly known by the brand name Suboxone, buprenorphine has long dominated the market for addiction treatment.

Of importance to pain patients is a statement about the guideline by FDA commissioner Scott Gottlieb, MD, that seeks to clarify the difference between opioid addiction and patients who need opioids for pain relief.

Gootlieb said there is still stigma and misunderstanding – even in the medical and addiction fields – about the difference between opioid addiction and dependence.

“Because of the biology of the human body, everyone who uses a meaningful dose of opioids for a modest length of time develops a physical dependence. This means that there are withdrawal symptoms after the use stops,” Gottlieb said. “A physical dependence to an opioid drug is very different than being addicted to such a medication.

“Addiction requires the continued use of opioids despite harmful consequences on someone’s life. Addiction involves a psychological preoccupation to obtain and use opioids above and beyond a physical dependence. But someone who is physically dependent on opioids as a result of the treatment of pain but who is not craving the drugs is not addicted.”

“Someone who is physically dependent on opioids as a result of the treatment of pain but who is not craving the drugs is not addicted.”

— Dr. Scott Gottlieb, FDA Commissioner

In recent years new and generic formulations of buprenorphine have been released in tablets, sublingual films, injections and implants, and the FDA is trying to promote the development of more of them.

The guidance released by the agency basically tells drug makers they may be able to submit new drug applications for buprenorphine products without conducting the safety and efficacy trials that are usually required for other medications.

“The guidance we’re finalizing today is one of the many steps we’re taking to help advance the development of new treatments for opioid use disorder, and promote novel formulations or delivery mechanisms of existing drugs to better tailor available medicines to individuals’ needs,” Gottlieb said. “Our goal is to advance the development of new and better ways of treating opioid use disorder to help more Americans access successful treatments.”

There are currently only three drugs approved by the FDA for medication-assisted treatment (MAT) – buprenorphine, methadone and naltrexone. Physicians wishing to prescribe buprenorphine to patients must have a special certification from the DEA and are limited in the number of patients they can treat.

Buprenorphine is an opioid that is also used to treat pain. When combined with naloxone, buprenorphine reduces cravings for opioids and lowers the risk of abuse.

Some addicts have discovered that buprenorphine can also be used to get high or to ease their withdrawal pain from heroin and other opioids. Buprenorphine is such a popular street drug that the National Forensic Laboratory Information System ranked buprenorphine as the third most diverted opioid medication in the U.S. in 2014. 

Federal Prosecutors Warn Top Opioid Prescribers in Wisconsin

By Pat Anson, PNN Editor

Wisconsin’s two U.S. Attorneys have sent letters to 180 physicians, physician assistants and nurse practitioners in the state warning them that their opioid prescribing practices could result in prosecution.

None of the prescribers have been charged with a crime and it’s not clear if any are under investigation or have been linked to overdoses. Copies of the letters were not released and the recipients were not identified.

According to a news release, the letters warn doctors that they are prescribing opioids at “relatively high levels” that could lead to addiction and that “prescribing opioids without a legitimate medical purpose could subject them to enforcement action, including criminal prosecution.”

“We know that for many, addiction began with opioids prescribed by a medical professional,” said Matthew Krueger, U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Wisconsin. “By sending these letters, we are asking medical professionals to join the fight against addiction and ensure they prescribe no more opioids than are necessary.”

“Opioid addiction has touched the lives of far too many families in our state,” said Scott Blader, U.S. Attorney for the Western District of Wisconsin. “Medical professionals play a pivotal role in stemming the flow of legal opioids into unlawful channels.”

According to a spokeswoman, the 180 recipients of the warning letters were selected based on a review of Medicare prescription drug claims, which found that they prescribed opioids above the CDC’s highest recommended dose of 90 MMEs (morphine milligram equivalent). 

“They were identified through Medicare data for two years,” Myra Longfield, a public information officer in the Western District of Wisconsin, told PNN. “And from that data, practitioners were identified where they prescribed on average 90 MMEs (or more) per patient per day. That’s the threshold where the CDC and the Wisconsin Medical Examining Board say there is no real evidence to suggest that above that amount has any better effect on chronic pain.” 

The 2016 CDC opioid guideline is voluntary and only intended for primary care physicians. Longfield said warning letters were not sent to pain management physicians, oncologists or those working in hospice or palliative care, where higher opioid doses may be needed to control pain. 

Chilling Effect on Prescribers

Federal prosecutors in Georgia and Massachusetts have sent similar warning letters to high prescribers. While the intent is to urge caution, critics say the letters are likely to intimidate other doctors.

“This will have a totally chilling effect. The abuse of statistics is pathetic. It would only be an ignorant person that would take the top prescribers and say that they are endangering lives,” said Mark Ibsen, MD, a Montana doctor who nearly lost his medical license over allegations that he overprescribed opioids.  

“After they lop off the top prescribing doctors, guess what that leaves? More top prescribing doctors. Until there are none. Soon we will be seeing tattoos on physicians, similar to POWs.”

“This is an egregious overreach and will lead to more deaths not fewer,” said Lynn Webster, MD, a pain management expert and past president of the American Academy of Pain Medicine. “Using the CDC guidelines as a goal post is not what even the CDC recommended. Most opioid addictions do not begin with a legal prescription of opioids. It usually starts long before exposure to a prescription opioid. The major problem is with illegal opioids smuggled in from Mexico and China. 

“I am worried for tens of thousands of patients in Wisconsin. Many of them will be at risk of suicide or seek illegal drugs, where the real harm exists. Sad. Very Sad.”

Last year, the American Medical Association adopted resolutions opposing the “misapplication” and “inappropriate use” of the CDC guideline. The resolutions by the AMA House of Delegates warn that “no entity should use MME thresholds as anything more than guidance” and that physicians should not be disciplined or prosecuted for prescribing opioids at levels above those recommended by the CDC. The AMA said some patients “can benefit from taking opioids at greater dosages” and “such care may be medically necessary and appropriate.” 

Most opioid overdoses in the United States are now linked to illicit fentanyl and heroin, not prescription opioids. In Wisconsin, 916 people died of opioid overdoses in 2017. Most of those deaths involved either heroin or fentanyl.

How Sackler Family Built an OxyContin Fortune

By Christine Willmsen and Martha Bebinger, WBUR

The first nine months of 2013 started off as a banner year for the Sackler family, owners of the pharmaceutical company that produces OxyContin, the addictive opioid pain medication. Purdue Pharma paid the family $400 million from its profits during that time, claims a lawsuit filed by the Massachusetts attorney general.

However, when profits dropped in the fourth quarter, the family allegedly supported the company’s intense push to increase sales representatives’ visits to doctors and other prescribers.

Purdue had hired a consulting firm to help reps target “high-prescribing” doctors, including several in Massachusetts. One physician in a town south of Boston wrote an additional 167 prescriptions for OxyContin after sales representatives increased their visits, according to the latest version of the lawsuit filed in Suffolk County Superior Court in Boston.

The lawsuit claims Purdue paid members of the Sackler family more than $4 billion between 2008 and 2016. Eight members of the family who served on the board or as executives as well as several directors and officers with Purdue are named in the lawsuit.

This is the first lawsuit among hundreds of others that were previously filed across the country to charge the Sacklers with personally profiting from the harm and death of people taking the company’s opioids.

WBUR along with several other media sued Purdue Pharma to force the release of previously redacted information that was filed in the Massachusetts Superior Court case. When a judge ordered the records to be released with few, if any, redactions, Purdue filed two appeals and lost.

The complaint filed by Massachusetts Attorney General Maura Healey says that former Purdue Pharma CEO Richard Sackler allegedly suggested the family sell the company or, if they weren’t able to find a buyer, to milk the drugmaker’s profits and “distribute more free cash flow” to themselves.

That was in 2008, one year after Purdue pleaded guilty to a felony and agreed to stop misrepresenting the addictive potential of its highly profitable painkiller, OxyContin.

At a board meeting in June 2008, the complaint says, the Sacklers voted to pay themselves $250 million. Another payment in September totaled $199 million.

The company continued to receive complaints about OxyContin similar to those that led to the 2007 guilty plea, according to unredacted documents filed in the case.

While the company settled lawsuits in 2009 totaling $2.7 million brought by family members of those who had been harmed by OxyContin throughout the country, the company amped up its marketing of the drug to physicians by spending $121.6 million on sales reps for the coming year. The Sacklers paid themselves $335 million that year.

The lawsuit claims Sackler family members directed efforts to boost sales. An attorney for the family and other board directors is challenging the authority to make that claim in Massachusetts. A motion on jurisdiction in the case hasn’t been heard. That attorney hasn’t responded to a request for comment on the most recent allegations.

Purdue Pharma, in a statement, said the complaint filed by Healey is “part of a continuing effort to single out Purdue, blame it for the entire opioid crisis, and try the case in the court of public opinion rather than the justice system.”

Purdue went on to charge Healey with attempting to “vilify” Purdue in a complaint “riddled with demonstrably inaccurate allegations.” Purdue said it has more than 65 initiatives aimed at reducing the misuse of prescription opioids. The company says Healey fails to acknowledge that most opioid overdose deaths are currently the result of fentanyl.

Purdue fought the release of many sections of the 274-page complaint. Attorneys for the company said at a hearing on Jan. 25 that they had agreed to release much more information in Massachusetts than has been cleared by a judge overseeing hundreds of cases consolidated in Ohio. Purdue filed both state and federal appeals this week to block release of the compensation figures and other information about Purdue’s plan to expand into drugs to treat opioid addiction.

The attorney general’s complaint says that in a ploy to distance themselves from the emerging statistics and studies that showed OxyContin’s addictive characteristics, the Sacklers approved public marketing plans that labeled people hurt by opioids as “junkies” and “criminals.”

Richard Sackler allegedly wrote that Purdue should “hammer” them in every way possible.

Addiction Treatment ‘Attractive Market’

While Purdue Pharma publicly denied its opioids were addictive, internally company officials were acknowledging it and devising a plan to profit off them even more, the complaint states.

Kathe Sackler, a board member, pitched “Project Tango,” a secret plan to grow Purdue beyond providing painkillers by also providing a drug, Suboxone, to treat those addicted.

“Addictive opioids and opioid addiction are ‘naturally linked,'” she allegedly wrote in September 2014.

According to the lawsuit, Purdue staff wrote: “It is an attractive market. Large unmet need for vulnerable, underserved and stigmatized patient population suffering from substance abuse, dependence and addiction.”

They predicted that 40-60 percent of the patients buying Suboxone for the first time would relapse and have to take it again, which meant more revenue.

Purdue never went through with it, but Attorney General Healey contends this and other internal documents show the family’s greed and disregard for the welfare of patients.

This story is part of a reporting partnership between WBUR, NPR and Kaiser Health News. 

Kaiser Health News (KHN) is a national health policy news service. It is an editorially independent program of the Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation which is not affiliated with Kaiser Permanente.

Overdose Crisis Will Worsen, But Not Due to Rx Opioids

By Pat Anson, PNN Editor

The opioid crisis will “substantially worsen” in coming years and could result in the overdose deaths of over a million Americans by 2025, according to an eye-opening new study. Because most of the deaths will involve illicit opioids, researchers say limiting the supply of prescription opioids will have only a “modest” effect in reversing the trend.      

The study, published in JAMA Network Open, is based on mathematical models developed by a team of researchers at Harvard Medical School, Boston University School of Medicine, Pennsylvania State University and other academic institutions.

“Our study also highlights the changing nature of the epidemic. The opioid crisis is expected to worsen in the next decade owing to multiple factors,” said lead author Jagpreet Chhatwal, PhD, a researcher at Massachusetts General Hospital.

“First, the number of individuals using illicit opioids is expected to increase substantially. Second, unlike historical trends where prescription opioid use has served as a path to heroin use, more people are directly initiating opioid use with illicit opioids. Third, there has been a rapid increase in illicit opioid lethality, likely mainly driven by the infiltration of the heroin supply with the highly potent synthetic opioid fentanyl.”

Under a “base-case” scenario, with the opioid crisis stabilizing by 2020, researchers project that over 700,000 Americans will die from opioid overdoses from 2016 to 2025. Nearly 80 percent of the deaths will involve fentanyl, heroin and other illicit opioids. Overdoses involving prescription opioids would decrease by about 10% during that period.

JAMA NETWORK OPEN

A “pessimistic” scenario developed by researchers is even more jaw dropping. If the opioid crisis does not stabilize until 2025, they project over 1.2 million Americans will die from overdoses. Over 88% of the deaths will involve illicit opioids.

In either scenario, efforts to reduce the misuse of opioid medication, such as limiting the dose and supply of prescription opioids, will only reduce the number of overdose deaths by 3 to 5 percent.

“State and local governments have instituted several interventions aimed at preventing individuals from exposure to prescription opioids, including a recently proposed goal to lower opioid prescriptions by one-third in the coming 3 years,” said Chhatwal.

“Our study does not devalue these efforts and it is possible that their effect could improve over time, which may ultimately yield a substantial benefit in the long term. However, given the large number of individuals who have already engaged in prescription opioid misuse or illicit opioid use, our study indicates that prevention efforts, in isolation, are unlikely to have the desired level of effect on opioid overdose deaths the near term.”

The researchers say a strong, multi-pronged approach is needed to reduce overdoses, including greater scrutiny of patients for signs of opioid use disorder (OUD).

"It could include implementation of screening for OUD in all relevant health care settings, improving access to medications for OUD such as methadone and buprenorphine, increasing OUD training programs at medical and nursing schools, improving access to harm-reduction services, and controlling the supply of illicit opioids,” they concluded.

Another recent study also predicts that reducing the supply of prescription opioids will have little effect on the overdose rate and could lead to increased use of heroin.   

Pain Management Association Shutting Down

By Pat Anson, PNN Editor

An association of pain management providers that was a leading advocate for patient access to pain care is closing its doors. The board of directors of the Academy of Integrative Pain Management (AIPM) voted unanimously this week to cease operations, largely due to financial problems.  

“This is an incredibly difficult and sad decision,” said Bob Twillman, PhD, AIPM’s Executive Director. “Our message has never been more relevant than now, amid the nation’s opioid crisis, yet we have found it increasingly difficult to maintain the resources needed to sustain our efforts.”

For over three decades, AIPM promoted an “integrative model” of pain care that utilizes a variety of different treatments, including both drug and non-drug therapies.

Although that model has become a standard of pain care, AIPM’s membership has steadily declined due to demographic and other industry trends. With doctors under increasing scrutiny for opioid prescribing, pain management is not an attractive specialty for recent medical school graduates.

“Joining associations like ours just is not a high priority for younger health care providers, and decreased interest in attending in-person educational events has contributed to significantly decreased conference revenues for AIPM,” said W. Clay Jackson, MD, President of the Board of Directors.

The demonization of opioid medication by policymakers and politicians also played a major role, causing many drug makers to limit or drop their support for medical associations and patient advocacy groups.

“My understanding is that the decreased industry support is not limited to the pain space, but it is especially acute here because for many years it was the opioid manufacturers who were the greatest source of funding,” Twillman wrote in an email to PNN. “As recently as five years ago, it would not be unusual for a company to drop nearly $100,000 at a single conference, between big exhibit hall booths, grants for continuing education programs, sponsored meal programs, and items such as bags, lanyards, key cards, etc.

“But when the lawsuits against opioid manufacturers started to ramp up, the logical response from the manufacturers was to withdraw support. After all, if they are being accused of using groups like ours as ‘front organizations,’ then it is completely logical for them to stop any behavior that might be perceived that way.”

A 2018 report by Sen. Claire McCaskill (D-MO) even accused the AIPM and other industry supported groups of playing “a significant role” in starting the opioid epidemic.

“These financial relationships were insidious, lacked transparency, and are one of the many factors that have resulted in arguably the most deadly drug epidemic in American history,” McCaskill's report alleged.

"Sen. McCaskill and the others haven’t spent the necessary time talking to us to understand how we do things and what we have to offer," Twillman said at the time. "It appears that they’ve simply looked at how much money we got from a set of pharma companies, constructed a narrative about what that means, and published it."

Over a five-year period, McCaskill’s report found that AIPM received over $1.25 million in support from opioid makers. But the report failed to mention that AIPM also accepted funding from chiropractors, yoga therapists, acupuncturists and massage therapists.

“We’re all very sad at this turn of events, but we’re also very proud of what we accomplished.”

— Dr. Bob Twillman

Among other things, those donations helped AIPM host the 2017 Integrative Pain Care Policy Congress, a meeting that united dozens of providers, insurers, patients, researchers and policymakers.

The Congress adopted a consensus definition of integrative pain management that is “person-centered and focuses on maximizing function and wellness.”

Twillman says AIPM — formerly known as the American Academy of Pain Management — had less of a financial cushion than other pain organizations and was not able to adjust to changing times or the backlash against pain management.

“I fear for the future of those organizations, because I'm not sure this set of problems is going to get better, and I don't see the other organizations adapting as quickly as perhaps they should,” said Twillman, who has long stood up for patient rights and been a reliable source of common sense for PNN.

“I very much want to remain in a pain policy position if possible, because that is my real passion,” he said. “We're all very sad at this turn of events, but we're also very proud of what we accomplished, and can only hope that others will pick up the baton and continue the race while we look for ways to keep pursuing our passion.”

Civil Rights Case Gives Hope to Pain Patients

By Richard Dobson, MD, Guest Columnist

People with chronic disabling pain frequently complain that doctors discharge them from their practice because of the medications they take. Sometimes doctors refuse to accept patients who are taking opioid pain medications, even though the medications treat a legitimate medical condition.

There may be hope that such actions will be considered violations of the civil rights of patients.

This week the Civil Rights Division of the Department of Justice (DOJ) signed a formal agreement with Selma Medical Associates, a large primary care practice in Virginia, that may open the door for people with chronic pain to regain their full access to medical care.

Selma Medical refused to schedule a new patient appointment for a man who was taking the addiction treatment drug Suboxone. He filed a civil rights complaint asserting that his rights were violated because has a disability.

According to the complaint, Selma Medical “regularly turns away prospective new patients who are treated with narcotic controlled substances such as Suboxone.”

The DOJ and Selma Medical settled the complaint out-of-court. The full agreement can be read here.

In essence, Selma Medical agreed to stop discriminating on the basis of disability, including opioid use disorder (OUD). The settlement identifies several specific ways that Selma Medical was violating the civil rights of people with disabilities.

“By refusing to accept the Complainant for a new family practice appointment solely because he takes Suboxone, Selma Medical discriminated against him by denying him the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations of Selma Medical.

By turning away the Complainant and other prospective patients who are treated with narcotic controlled substances, including Suboxone, Selma Medical imposed eligibility criteria that screen out or tend to screen out individuals with OUD.

Further, Selma Medical failed to make reasonable modifications to policies, practices, or procedures, when such modifications are necessary to afford such goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations to individuals with disabilities.”

In the agreement, Selma Medical agreed to stop discriminating now and in the future. The staff and administration are also required to undergo intensive training on the implementation of the Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA).

Importantly for pain patients, the agreement applies to people taking “narcotic medications” for any reason and is not limited to people who are taking Suboxone for OUD. The agreement does seem to imply that people taking opioid medications also have their civil rights violated if they are refused medical care on the basis of their diagnosis and their use of opioids.

A former staff attorney in the DOJ’s Civil Rights Division agrees.  

“This formal settlement agreement from DOJ affirms that discrimination in access to medical treatment based solely on an individual’s use of a particular medication — in this case, a narcotic controlled substance — may violate the law,” says Kate Nicholson, a pain patient and civil rights attorney who helped draft federal regulations under the ADA.

Anyone who has chronic pain and who is discharged from a practice or refused admission to a medical practice should let the medical staff know that this is a violation of the ADA. Show them the agreement between Selma Medical and the DOJ. Then if the medical practice still refuses care, file a formal complaint with the Office of Civil Rights. Instructions on filing can be found here.

As part of the settlement agreement, Selma Medical had to pay $30,000 to the complainant for “the discrimination and the harm he has endured, including, but not limited to, emotional distress and pain and suffering.” Selma Medical also had to pay a civil penalty of $10,000.

It seems to me that the substance of this agreement gives real hope to the chronic pain community that discrimination based on disability, even if the disability is based on pain, is illegal and violates their civil rights.

Richard Dobson, MD, worked as a physician in the Rochester, New York area for over 30 years, treating and rehabilitating people suffering from chronic pain, mostly as the result of work or motor vehicle accidents.  He is now retired.  

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.

Doctors Call Probe of Opioid Deaths a ‘Witch Hunt’

By Cheryl Clark, Kaiser Health News

The Medical Board of California has launched investigations into doctors who prescribed opioids to patients who, perhaps months or years later, fatally overdosed.

The effort, dubbed “the Death Certificate Project,” has sparked a conflict with physicians in California and beyond, in part because the doctors being investigated did not necessarily write the prescriptions leading to a death. The project is one of a kind nationally, although a much more limited program is operated by North Carolina’s board.

So far, the board has launched investigations into the practices of about 450 physicians and referred the names of 72 nurse practitioners, physician assistants and osteopathic physicians to their respective licensing boards.

To date, the regulators have formally accused at least 23 doctors of negligent prescribing, and more accusations are expected. Some of the accusations, like one 63-page document filed against Dr. Frank Gilman, a San Diego internist, detail hundreds of prescriptions for one patient over four years, most of them by him. Gilman did not respond to a request for comment.

The project, first reported by MedPage Today, has struck a nerve among medical associations. Dr. Barbara McAneny, the American Medical Association president and an Albuquerque, N.M., oncologist whose cancer patients sometimes need treatment for acute pain, called the project “terrifying.” She said “it will only discourage doctors from taking care of patients with pain.”

Using terms such as “witch hunt” and “inquisition,” many doctors said the project is leading them or their peers to refuse patients’ requests for painkiller prescriptions — no matter how well documented the need — out of fear their practices will come under disciplinary review.

The influential California Health Care Foundation also has pushed back against the project, saying it could harm patients.

Unusually aggressive for the board, the program is a reaction to the by now well-known phenomenon of physicians overprescribing opioids. Nationally, a host of policy changes and educational efforts have driven down the rate of opioid prescriptions in recent years.

The goal of California’s program, quietly launched four years ago, is not necessarily to link a doctor’s specific prescription to a specific patient’s death — although many of the cases do — but to find doctors whose patterns of prescribing are so dangerous they may lead to patients’ ultimately fatal addictions.

Sometimes a doctor was earmarked for investigation even though the cause of death included multiple drugs prescribed by many physicians, or suicide by overdose, board documents indicate.

Kimberly Kirchmeyer, executive director of the Medical Board of California, defended the project. She said the effort has found patterns of “gross negligence,” incompetence and excessive prescribing.

“I understand their frustrations,” she said of the complaining doctors, “but we do have to continue our role with consumer protection.”

She noted that part of the point of the project is to educate doctors and, through probation requirements, change the behavior of those who prescribe excessively.

“That’s education that could potentially save patients in the future,” said Kirchmeyer, whose agency licenses some 141,000 doctors.

Some consumer groups consider the board’s bold effort to find overprescribing doctors not aggressive enough.

“It’s long overdue,” said Carmen Balber, executive director of the nonprofit Consumer Watchdog. The board should investigate opioid-related deaths that occurred more recently, she said: “They need to get their act together and speed things up.”

The agency thus far has looked at deaths only in 2012 and 2013 in which opioids were confirmed as a cause or contributing cause. It matched the names of the dead with the prescription drugs they filled, which are listed in the state’s prescription database. The database also shows the names of the doctors who prescribed to them. Physician experts reviewed those doctors’ prescribing history and selected those who appeared to prescribe drugs heavily.

Some doctors said they were especially angered that the letters they received concerned prescriptions they wrote as long as nine years ago.

McAneny, of the AMA, noted that prescribing practices now deemed unacceptable came out of public policies years ago that “compelled doctors to treat pain more aggressively for the comfort of our patients.” Also, payers have measured quality of care by whether their patients answered surveys about whether their pain was well-controlled.

“We’re [already] doing a lot of education to undo the damage” from those policies, she said.

Similarly, Dr. David Aizuss, a Los Angeles ophthalmologist who is president of the California Medical Association, said state and federal guidelines that took effect in 2014 and 2016 impose much more stringent prescribing precautions than “what was going on six or seven years ago.”

Many insurance plans and pharmacies in recent years have restricted dosages and durations of certain painkillers a physician may prescribe at one time.

Afraid to Prescribe

The crackdown on doctors has created fear, said Dr. Robert Wailes, a pain medicine specialist in Encinitas and chair of the California Medical Association’s Board of Trustees.

“What we’re finding is that more and more primary care doctors are afraid to prescribe and more of those patients are showing up on our doorsteps,” he said.

Officially, the CMA stops short of saying the medical board should stop the project, perhaps to avoid any perception that the association condones overprescribing. But it has asked the board to hire an independent reviewer to assess the criteria the board is using to decide which physicians to investigate, and whether physicians in certain specialties or regions of the state are being targeted more than others.

Dr. Ako Jacintho, a San Francisco addiction medicine specialist, was notified by the board that he was in trouble over a year ago. A patient for whom he had prescribed methadone fatally overdosed in 2012. The letter said “a complaint” had been filed against him, and asked him to respond to the allegations or, if he delayed, face a citation or fine of $1,000 per day. (The medical board can file its own complaints against a doctor.)

The letter said the patient had died of “acute combined methadone and diphenhydramine intoxication.” Jacintho had refilled the patient’s prescription for methadone the day before but said a 10-milligram pill was not a toxic dose. And he said he never prescribed diphenhydramine, the antihistamine sold as Benadryl.

“The only way he would have died was if he had not taken it as directed, or had mixed it with a medication that was not prescribed,” Jacintho said.

As of Dec. 21, Jacintho was still waiting to hear if he would face a formal accusation.

Last year, the board rewrote those letters in a less accusatory tone — describing the “review” as routine — although it still threatens doctors with $1,000 fines.

In a much smaller subset of cases, it finds problems that result in formal accusations that can result in discipline, such as public reprimands or restrictions on a physician’s ability to practice.

“You can’t even begin to understand how disrupting and upsetting this is. It’s not just a threat on your license; it’s a threat that you’ve not been a good physician.”

— Dr. Paul Speckart

Despite its designation as a “Death Certificate Project,” the California effort has not focused only on doctors whose patients died. In an unknown number of overdose cases, the board has sent letters to living patients asking them to authorize their doctors to relinquish their medical records to the board, adding that those documents would otherwise be subpoenaed.

Dr. Paul Speckart, a San Diego internist, said three of his patients last year received board letters that seemed to question his quality of care when all he did was try to relieve their well-documented pain. The board has not filed any accusations against him.

“You can’t even begin to understand how disrupting and upsetting this is,” Speckart said. “It’s not just a threat on your license; it’s a threat that you’ve not been a good physician.”

This story was produced by Kaiser Health News, which publishes California Healthline, a service of the California Health Care Foundation.