‘Trapped in a Bottle’ Billboard Misses the Mark

By Dr. Lynn Webster, PNN Columnist

The mission of The Partnership for a Drug-Free New Jersey (PDFNJ) is to reduce substance use and misuse in New Jersey. The non-profit has received more than 200 advertising and public relations awards for its public service campaigns.

Much of the organization’s work is laudable, but their new "Trapped in a Bottle" campaign spreads misleading and harmful information about opioid medication.

Digital billboards of a man or woman trapped in a prescription bottle appeared in Times Square and on mass transit. The billboards end with a warning: “In just 5 days, opioid dependency can begin.”

Physical Dependence vs. Addiction

The ad talks about dependency, but it conflates dependency with addiction.

Physical dependence is a process that starts with exposure to the first pill. Discontinuance of an opioid may lead to withdrawal — but the hyperbolic ad can easily be mistaken to be about addiction rather than dependency.

Dependency is a normal neuroadaptation that takes place when certain brain receptors are exposed to drugs, including opioids. These drugs change the structure and function of a receptor with continual exposure, and that can result in physical dependence. If the drugs are abruptly stopped, that can cause withdrawal.

Using opioid medication for as little as five days will almost never induce withdrawal. And even if withdrawal occurs after taking a short course of opioids, it does not mean the person is addicted or has an opioid-use disorder.

The "5 days" concept is meaningless because it spreads unhelpful myths about opioids. I have prescribed opioids to thousands of patients and have never seen a patient experience withdrawal when stopping within a week or even two. Managed properly, the overwhelming majority of patients experience no negative effects from dependency.

Addiction, on the other hand, requires much more than simply ingesting a pill, and it does not occur in any specific number of days. The development of this disease is a process that involves multiple factors and occurs over time.

It is important to remember that addiction is not resident in the drug, but rather in human biology. Exposure to an opioid is a necessary, but by itself is insufficient to cause the disease.

For people who develop an addiction, opioids provide a reward, and the brain seeks to repeat the pleasurable experience. For a vulnerable person, one pill can be so rewarding that it drives pleasure-seeking behavior that can lead to addiction. But that does not happen in five days or on any other timetable.

This is not the first time PDFNJ has created over-the-top digital billboards to scare people away from using prescription opioids.

A 2016 billboard intended to frighten parents asked: "Would you give your child HEROIN to remove a wisdom tooth?"

This melodramatic question was followed with: “Ask your dentist how prescription drugs can lead to heroin abuse." The innuendo is neither educational nor informative.

It's understandable that an advertising agency would have trouble accurately conveying the problems of drug dependence and addiction when the news media also has difficulty communicating the facts.

Inaccurate Portrayal of the Opioid Crisis

In a recent WPIX article describing the “Trapped in a Bottle” campaign, Mary Murphy wrote that “drug overdoses killed more than 72,000 people in the United States in 2017, a new record driven by the deadly opioid crisis.”

Murphy used the statistic to help illustrate the harm of prescription opioids. But prescription opioids were involved in less than 20,000 of those drug deaths. If Murphy wanted to use a large number, she should have said there were 150,000 deaths from substance abuse in 2018. This would include alcohol-related deaths. Of course, alcohol delivers its poison in a bottle, too.

Murphy writes that a large percentage of drug overdoses can be attributed to heroin or fentanyl. Indeed, these are major sources of opioid deaths, but she fails to point out that neither heroin or illicit fentanyl are prescription opioids. Nor are they commonly found in a bottle. Again, her implication is that prescription opioids are at the heart of this crisis.

Concepts Video Productions, which is based in Towaco, New Jersey, produced the digital billboard. “Each year, we select a pro-bono project that will impact the world,” said Collette Liantonio, creative director of the production company.

The “Trapped in a Bottle” billboard, however, may do nothing for the world besides demonstrate how imperfectly most people understand the reason for the drug crisis and reinforce prevalent myths about it.

Perhaps Concepts Video Productions should consider creating a billboard that shows someone who is unable to find a job that pays a decent wage, and seeks to escape poverty and hopelessness with drugs. Economic and social woes, rather than prescription drugs, are at the core of our country's drug crisis.

Or perhaps Concepts Video Productions should create a giant digital billboard full of people with chronic pain who can’t get out of bed because their doctors refuse to prescribe the medication they need.

Using fear to solve the drug crisis will never be successful.

Moreover, knowing a drug's potential to lead to physical dependence or addiction will not prevent anyone from seeking a psychological experience to escape painful life experiences. The answer is to address the emotional and physical needs that create dependency or addiction in the first place.

Lynn R. Webster, MD, is a vice president of scientific affairs for PRA Health Sciences and consults with the pharmaceutical industry. Lynn is a former president of the American Academy of Pain Medicine, author of the award-winning book “The Painful Truth” and co-producer of the documentary “It Hurts Until You Die.”

You can find him 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.

Study: 40% of Primary Care Clinics Refuse to See Pain Patients

By Pat Anson, PNN Editor

Many chronic pain patients know firsthand how difficult it can be to find a new doctor. In PNN’s recent survey of nearly 6,000 patients, almost three out of four (72%) said it is harder to find a doctor willing to treat their chronic pain.

“Two doctors refused to see me. I have no quality of life and I'm confined to bed. No one will help me,” one patient told us.

“It's to the point mentioning you need pain relief makes health care professionals look at you as an addict. Hell, when I have tried to get help for my pain and told the doctor I don't want opioids, I still get a suspicious look,” another patient said.

Over a third of patients (34%) in our survey said they’ve been abandoned by doctors and 15 percent said they haven’t been able to find a doctor at all.

A novel study by researchers at the University of Michigan confirms many of our findings. Using a "secret shopper" method, researchers posing as the adult children of patients taking the opioid Percocet called primary care clinics in Michigan to see if they could schedule an appointment for their parent. The callers also said their "parent" was taking medications for high blood pressure and high cholesterol.

79 of the 194 clinics that were called – about 40 percent -- said they would not accept a new patient who was taking opioids, no matter what kind of health insurance they had.

Less than half of the clinics (41%) were willing to schedule an initial appointment and 17 percent said they needed more information before making a decision.

"We were hearing about patients with chronic pain becoming 'pain refugees', being abruptly tapered from their opioids or having their current physician stop refilling their prescription, leaving them to search for pain relief elsewhere," said lead researcher Pooja Lagisetty, MD, who published her findings in JAMA Network Open.

"However, there have been no studies to quantify the extent of the problem. These findings are concerning because it demonstrates just how difficult it may be for a patient with chronic pain searching for a primary care physician."

Lagisetty and her team did find that larger clinics and community health centers were more likely to accept new patients taking opioids, perhaps because they have more resources available to treat such patients.

Still, the overall findings are concerning because they mean many patients who need medical care -- not just for pain but for high blood pressure, diabetes and other common conditions -- are being turned away because of the stigma associated with opioids.

Without access to medical care, researchers say patients may turn to other means of obtaining opioids or to illicit substances. 

“Our results suggest that there are significant barriers in accessing primary care for patients taking opioids for chronic pain.”

— Pooja Lagisetty, MD, University of Michigan

“These findings may also reflect practitioners' discomfort with managing opioid therapy for chronic pain or treating patients with OUD (opioid use disorder) as a result of pressures to decrease overall opioid prescribing,” researchers found. “In addition, the findings may reflect frontline staff bias against what may be perceived as drug-seeking behavior and may not actually indicate prescriber decision-making or clinic-level policies.

“However, regardless of the reason for denial, our results suggest that there are significant barriers in accessing primary care for patients taking opioids for chronic pain.”

Lagisetty said the 2016 CDC opioid guideline – widely blamed by many patients for restricting access to opioid medication – is only part of the problem.

"States, including Michigan, have implemented many other policies that are only occasionally based on the guidelines, in an effort to restrict opioid prescribing," she said. "We hope to use this information to identify a way for us to fix the policies to have a more patient-centered approach to pain management.

"Everyone deserves equitable access to health care, irrespective of their medical conditions or what medications they may be taking."

Drug Maker Payments May Influence Gabapentinoid Prescribing

By Pat Anson, PNN Editor

There is growing attention being paid to doctors who accept money from pharmaceutical companies. A recent study, for example, found that doctors who receive direct payments from opioid manufacturers tend to prescribe more opioid medication than doctors who receive no such payments.

But another new study shows the same is true for doctors who prescribe an expensive class of non-opioid drugs that are widely used “off label” to treat chronic pain.

Researchers at Yale University and the University of Connecticut looked at Medicare Part D prescribing data for gabapentinoids from 2014 to 2016, comparing it with payments made to doctors from gabapentin manufacturers. Over the study period, about 51,000 physicians received $11.5 million from the drug makers, mostly for meals, beverages and gifts.

The researchers found that doctors who received the payments were more likely to prescribe a brand name gabapentinoid such as Lyrica (Pfizer), Gralise (Assertio) or Horizant (Arbor). These brand name drugs cost several hundred dollars for a one-month supply, compared to less than $20 for a one-month supply of a generic version. 

“Among physicians who prescribed gabapentinoids, receipt of payments from industry was associated with a higher likelihood of prescribing brand-name products than generic gabapentin,” researchers reported in JAMA Internal Medicine.

“Our findings raise concerns about the reasons some physicians prescribe brand-name gabapentinoids and not less-expensive generic alternatives.”

Generic drugs are generally just as effective as brand name drugs, but the differences in cost can be significant. For a Medicare beneficiary in 2016, about $2,500 a year was spent on a brand name gabapentin vs. just $89 for a generic version of the same drug.

“All of these studies have essentially the same finding -- that marketing to physicians is associated with increased sales of a company’s product and increased Medicare expenditures,” Robert Steinbrook, MD, UC San Francisco School of Medicine, wrote in a JAMA editorial.

“Association studies do not establish cause and effect, they do not account for other influences on prescribing, such as direct-to-consumer advertising, and they do not assess the appropriateness of prescriptions for individual patients. Nonetheless, the pattern is indisputable.”

Does your doctor accept industry payments? You can see for yourself on Medicare’s Open Payments database.

In addition to the costs involved, there is growing awareness that gabapentinoids are over-prescribed and not as effective for some chronic pain conditions.

The drugs were originally developed to prevent epileptic seizures, but their use has tripled over the past 15 years as more doctors prescribed them off label for a wide variety of pain conditions.

“Our findings raise concerns about the reasons some physicians prescribe brand-name gabapentinoids and not less-expensive generic alternatives.”

— JAMA Internal Medicine study

“Gabapentinoids have become frequent first-line alternatives in patients with chronic pain from whom opioids are being withheld or withdrawn, as well as in patients with acute pain who traditionally received short courses of low-dose opioid,” wrote Christopher Goodman, MD, and Allan Brett, MD, University of South Carolina School of Medicine, in a recent clinical review in JAMA Internal Medicine.

“The evidence to support off-label gabapentinoid use for most painful clinical conditions is limited. For some conditions, no well-performed controlled trials exist.”

Goodman and Brett said the 2016 CDC opioid guideline reinforces “an inflated view of gabapentinoid effectiveness” by asserting they are “first-line drugs” for neuropathic pain. Many patients who take gabapetinoids have side-effects such as dizziness or drowsiness, and there are increasing reports that the drugs are being abused and sold on the street.   

Opioid Addiction Rates Redux

By Roger Chriss, PNN Columnist

The Oklahoma opioid trial is garnering attention for what could be a pivotal role in determining the liability of Johnson & Johnson and other drug makers in the opioid crisis. A key point hinges on a seemingly simple question: What percentage of people on long-term opioid therapy develop addiction?

Dr. Timothy Fong, a UCLA psychiatrist and defense expert, refuted claims by prosecution witness Dr. Andrew Kolodny that people who take opioid pain medication over extended periods have a 25% chance of becoming addicted. Fong said other studies suggest that patients who take opioids over long periods might have addiction rates closer to 1 to 3 percent.  

There is an extensive literature on these estimates, including NIH studies and published research from leading experts. I covered some of them in a PNN column last year (see “How Common Is Opioid Addiction?”)

“The best and most recent estimate of the percentage of patients who will develop an addiction after being prescribed an opioid analgesic for long-term management of their chronic pain stands at around 8 percent,” NIDA director Nora Volkow, MD, told Opioid Watch.

Why are there so many different estimates? There is an important distinction between the incidence and prevalence of a medical condition. Briefly, incidence represents the probability of occurrence of a given medical condition in a population within a specified period of time. In contrast, prevalence gives the proportion of a particular population found to be affected by a medical condition.

The distinction is not just semantics and is critical in epidemiology. As explained in Physiopedia, “incidence conveys information about the risk of contracting the disease, whereas prevalence indicates how widespread the disease is.”

Besides obvious difficulties in determining incidence (the necessary clinical trials will never receive approval) and measuring prevalence (the required public health monitoring is well beyond our current capability), we instead have to rely on proxy measures derived from prescription drug databases, medical records and surveys.

We also have to make decisions about the “specified period of time” when determining incidence and the assessment of the “medical condition’ for prevalence.

There is no universally agreed upon time frame for the development of addiction or opioid use disorder after opioid initiation, whether medical or non-medical. Similarly, the definition of opioid use disorder has evolved over the years.

Further, in many cases incidence and prevalence are calculated based on assumptions made by researchers. For instance, in an Annual Review of Public Health article co-authored by Dr. Kolodny, a 2010 study is cited that found 26% of chronic pain patients met the criteria for opioid dependence and 35% met the criteria for opioid use disorder. This seems to be the source of the 25% claim used by Kolodny in the Oklahoma opioid trial.

But the 2010 study doesn’t distinguish between incidence and prevalence. It is also not clear how many of the surveyed pain patients had an opioid use disorder diagnosis before the onset of medical opioid therapy.

A similar critique can be levied against the authors of a 1980 letter in The New England Journal of Medicine that claimed opioid addiction was rare in pain patients. Some have claimed publication of the letter helped launch the opioid crisis. 

The problem with all of these studies is that they are retrospective in nature, limited to a particular patient population, and constrained by the diagnostic criteria in use at the time. And the estimates derived from such studies do not necessarily implicate or exonerate Johnson & Johnson.

Moreover, it is possible that addiction rates have varied over time and were influenced by factors that were not yet understood or even known. For example, recent research has found an association between opioid overdoses and drug diversion among family and friends, cold weather, altitude above sea level, and medical cannabis legalization.

The NIH work that Dr. Volkow refers to in her Opioid Watch interview works to account for all of these factors. So as Volkow stated last year, the “best and most recent estimate" stands at about eight percent. Improved public health surveillance, epidemiological research, and patient monitoring may shift this number up or down, and will increase confidence in the estimate.

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.

Canadian Doctors Prescribe Opioids to Keep Patients Off Street Drugs

By Pat Anson, PNN Editor

So-called “safe injection sites” – supervised clinics where intravenous drug users can inject themselves -- remain controversial in the U.S. Efforts to establish such sites in San Francisco and Philadelphia are mired in political and legal opposition.

But supervised injection sites are already operating in several Canadian cities, where they are seen as an important resource in reducing the risk of overdose and getting drug users into treatment.

Some Canadian doctors, however, believe the injection sites leave out a key population – illicit drug users who don’t normally inject drugs. Rather than run the risk of those patients turning to risky street drugs, they are prescribing opioid medication to them.

“We have to be willing to step outside of our comfort zone and out of the medical establishment comfort zone and say that we need to keep people alive,” Dr. Andrea Sereda, a family physician at the London Intercommunity Health Centre in Ontario told Global News.

Sereda is prescribing hydromorphone tablets to about 100 patients, most of whom were homeless and using street drugs. So far there have been no fatal overdoses, half the patients have found housing, and they have regular contact with healthcare providers.

“It’s not just a prescription for pills, but it’s a relationship between myself and the patient and a commitment to make things better,” Sereda said. “That involves me taking a risk and giving them a prescription, but it also involves the patient committing to doing things that I recommend about their health and us working together.”

Sereda says her “safer supply” program is only intended for patients who have failed at addiction treatment programs where methadone or Suboxone are usually prescribed.

A similar pilot program recently began at a Vancouver clinic, where hydromorphone tablets are given to about 50 patients, who ingest them on site under staff supervision. At another clinic in Toronto, hydromorphone is prescribed to 10 patients who would normally rely on the black market, where drugs are often tainted with illicit fentanyl or its lethal chemical cousin, carfentanil.

“I’ve had people who, literally, their urine is just all carfentanil,” Dr. Nanky Rai, a physician at Parkdale Queen West Community Health Centre told Global News. “That’s really what terrified me into action.”

Other physicians are warming up to the idea. Last week over 400 healthcare providers and researchers sent an open letter to Ontario Premier Doug Ford asking that high dose injectable hydromorphone be made widely available to illicit drug users.

“We could rapidly implement hydromorphone prescribing,” Jessica Hales, a Toronto nurse practitioner, said in a statement. “Clients want this. Prescribers are eager to deliver it. But it is not covered under the Ontario Public Drug Plan, which is how almost all of my clients access prescription drugs.”

What About Pain Patients?

But patient advocates say the safe supply movement should be expanded to include pain patients who have lost access to opioid medication or had their doses drastically reduced.

“The Chronic Pain Association of Canada fully endorses the safe supply initiative, but asks why we’re helping one group while hurting the other, pointlessly. Safe supply is equally critical for the million or so unfortunate Canadians, including children, who suffer high-impact chronic pain and can no longer obtain the drugs they need,” Barry Ulmer, Executive Director of the Chronic Pain Association of Canada, said in a statement. 

“These patients have long been sustained by the pharmaceuticals and don’t abuse them. But now they’re routinely forced down or completely off their medications, blamed for overdoses they have no part in.”

Some pain patients are turning to street drugs. In PNN’s recent survey of nearly 6,000 chronic pain patients in the United States, eight out of ten said they are being prescribed a lower dose or that their opioid prescriptions were stopped. Many are turning to other substances for pain relief. About 15 percent have obtained opioid medication from family, friends or the black market, or used street drugs such as heroin and fentanyl.

“I know seven people personally that have gone to the streets to get pain relief. Four of them died because it was mixed with fentanyl. Two committed suicide,” one patient told us.

“I have been without a prescription for two years and have been getting medication on the street. I cannot afford this and I have no criminal history whatsoever. I have tried heroin for the first time in my life, out of desperation and thank God, did not like it,” wrote another patient.

Barry Ulmer says these patients need a safe supply too.

“Prescribing opiates safely to those with addiction makes sense. But simultaneously denying legitimate pain patients their medications doesn’t. It’s pointless — and cruel. Let’s give people with pain the same respect and care we give people with addiction,” he said.

Study Finds Antidepressants Make Tramadol Less Effective for Pain Relief

By Pat Anson, PNN Editor

Common antidepressants interact with the opioid medication tramadol to make it less effective for pain relief, according to a small new study from University Hospitals (UH) in Cleveland. The findings suggest that some patients who exceed their prescribed dose of tramadol may be under-medicated and are seeking more effective pain relief.

Prescriptions for tramadol – which is sold under the brand names Ultram and ConZip – have increased in recent years because it is widely perceived as a “safer” opioid with less rick of addiction. Many patients, however, say tramadol is not as effective as hydrocodone, oxycodone and other opioids.  

UH researchers reviewed the prescription records of 152 patients who received tramadol for at least 24 hours.

Those patients who were also taking the antidepressants Prozac (fluoxetine), Paxil (paroxetine) or Wellbutrin (bupropion) required three times more tramadol per day to control their breakthrough pain, compared to patients not taking the antidepressants.

Previous studies on healthy volunteers have shown effects on blood levels when combining tramadol with those particular antidepressants. However, this was the first study to document the effects of this interaction in a real-world setting with pain patients.

"We knew that there was a theoretical problem, but we didn't know what it meant as far as what's happening to pain control for patients," said Derek Frost, PharmD, a UH pharmacist and lead author of the study, which was published in the journal Pharmacotherapy.

Frost says millions of Americans may be suffering the ill effects of this drug-to-drug interaction.

"Tramadol relies on activation of the CYP2D6 enzyme to give you that pain control," Frost said. "This enzyme can be inhibited by medications that are strong CYP2D6 inhibitors, such as fluoxetine, paroxetine and bupropion.

“Many chronic pain patients are taking antidepressants, mainly selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs), which many of these CYP2D6 inhibitors fit into. There are a lot of patients who experience both, unfortunately. The likelihood that somebody on one of these offending agents and tramadol is relatively high."

Frost says the problem has a relatively easy fix.

"We have a lot of other antidepressants available that are in the same class of medication that don't inhibit this particular enzyme, such as Zoloft (sertraline), (Celexa) citalopram and Lexapro (escitalopram)," he said. "You also have other options for pain control - non-opioid medications such as NSAIDs. If we need to use opioids, a scheduled morphine or a scheduled oxycodone would avoid this interaction."

Tramadol is a synthetic opioid that was rescheduled by the Drug Enforcement Administration in 2014 as a Schedule IV controlled substance, a category that means it has a low potential for abuse. That same year, hydrocodone was rescheduled as a Schedule II drug, meaning it has a high potential for abuse. Many patients who were taking hydrocodone were switched to tramadol as a result of the rescheduling.

American Pain Society Files for Bankruptcy

By Pat Anson, PNN Editor

The American Pain Society (APS) filed for bankruptcy Friday after an overwhelming vote by its members to dissolve the financially troubled medical organization. In a membership vote last month, 93% voted in favor of a recommendation by the APS board of directors to file a voluntary petition for Chapter 7 bankruptcy.

The APS is a non-profit, research-based organization that focuses on the causes and treatment of acute and chronic pain. Although many of its members are researchers and academics who are investigating non-opioid treatments for pain, the APS was targeted as a defendant by Simmons Hanly Conroy and several other law firms seeking to recover billions of dollars in damages in opioid litigation cases.

In a press release, APS said efforts to resolve the “meritless” lawsuits without lengthy and expensive litigation were unsuccessful.

“It’s the perfect storm and now pointless to continue operations just to defend against superfluous lawsuits.  Our resources are being diverted to paying staff to comply with subpoenas and other requests for information and for payment of legal fees instead of funding research grants, sponsoring pain education programs, and public policy advocacy,” APS President William Maixner, DDS, said in a statement.

“As a result, the Board of Directors no longer believes APS can continue to fulfill its mission and meet the needs of our members and the pain care community.”

Press coverage of the APS often parroted what the opioid lawsuits alleged. The Guardian, for example, called the APS a “pawn of big pharma” and claimed the organization “pushed doctors to prescribe painkillers.”

The Guardian’s coverage was based largely on a report by Sen. Claire McCaskill (D-MO), who accepted over $400,000 in campaign donations from Simmons Hanly in her failed bid for re-election in 2018. APS is named as a defendant in several opioid lawsuits filed by Simmons Hanly, which stands to make hundreds of millions of dollars in contingency fees if the lawsuits are successful. The Guardian failed to mention any connection between Simmons Hanly and McCaskill.

The APS’ bankruptcy filing likely brings an end to its monthly publication, The Journal of Pain, which has been rated among the top five scientific journals in pain science. The current issue features research articles on diverse topics such as meditation for low back pain, diagnostic codes for fibromyalgia, whether opioids are effective for chronic noncancer pain, and the use of virtual reality to relieve arm pain.

“APS has been advocating for increased investment in research for many years, and it is particularly ironic that APS’s voice will go silent at this critical time in our history, when increased investment in pain research has finally become a reality in an effort to combat the opioid crisis,” said Roger Fillingim, PhD, an APS past president and professor of psychology at the University of Florida School of Dentistry.  

“There is a sad irony that the professional organization best poised to provide the spectrum of science to improve the prevention and treatment of pain and related substance abuse is defunct,” said APS President-elect Gary Walco, PhD, director of pain medicine at Seattle Children’s Hospital.

“Now, more than ever, our nation needs the collective efforts of leading scientists and clinicians who hold patients’ well-being at the highest premium.  The principal focus on punishing those in industry that may have contributed to the problem is shortsighted and far from sufficient.”

The APS is the second professional pain management organization to cease operations this year. In February, the Academy of Integrative Pain Management (AIPM) also shutdown. Opioid litigation has not only been costly for APS and AIPM, it has contributed to steep declines in financial support from pharmaceutical companies for other pain organizations, medical conferences and patient advocacy groups.   

How Opioid Critics and Law Firms Profit From Litigation

By Pat Anson, PNN Editor

Dr. Andrew Kolodny has long been known as one of the most strident critics of opioid prescribing. The founder and Executive Director of Physicians for Responsible Opioid Prescribing (PROP) has claimed that drug makers and a web of industry-funded groups are to blame for the nation’s addiction and overdose crisis.

Kolodny has accused the so-called “opioid lobby” of undermining the CDC opioid guideline, claimed pain patients are being “effectively manipulated” by drug makers, and called the American Cancer Society a “shady organization” because it accepts outside funding. 

Kolodny even spoke about an “opioid mafia” as he testified as an expert witness in Oklahoma’s opioid lawsuit against Johnson & Johnson.

“We’ve seen Johnson & Johnson promote opioids in this unbranded campaign, funding front groups, patient groups meant to look like grassroots organizations that promoted opioids, funding professional groups that were promoting opioids,” Kolodny testified.  

“We know that Johnson & Johnson participated in the Pain Care Forum, a group that I have referred to as the opioid mafia, working to protect their stake in the opium supply into the United States.”

Kolodny’s hyperbole is catnip to compliant reporters who can usually count on him to return their calls and provide a good quote.  A psychiatrist and former chief medical officer for the addiction treatment chain Phoenix House, Kolodny is the go-to source for many news organizations covering the opioid crisis. He now co-directs an opioid research program at Brandeis University that is funded by a federal grant.

Kolodny’s has long maintained that he is free of any conflicts of interest and that PROP has never accepted funding from the pharmaceutical industry.

“I don’t believe physicians should be helping drug companies market their products,” he testified in Oklahoma. “It’s very easy to fool yourself when it’s profitable to fool yourself.”

Lawyers for Johnson & Johnson have opened a window into a profitable sideline Kolodny has as a paid consultant and expert witness for law firms involved in opioid litigation.

Kolodny stands to make upwards of half a million dollars working for the law firm of Nix Patterson & Roach, one of three outside law firms hired by Oklahoma Attorney General Mike Hunter to handle the case against Johnson & Johnson.

“It’s very easy to fool yourself when it’s profitable to fool yourself.”

— Dr. Andrew Kolodny

Kolodny testified that he’s being paid $725 an hour by Nix Patterson and could collect up to $500,000 for his services – possibly even more, depending on the length of the Oklahoma trial. Under questioning, Kolodny also acknowledged that he was paid $725 an hour as a consultant for at least one other law firm involved in opioid litigation.

“I don’t think it should be a secret that I’m being compensated,” Koldony said, adding that he worked for Nix Patterson about ten hours a week before the trial started and 40 hours a week since it began four weeks ago. At his hourly rate, Kolodny’s weekly pay would be $29,000.

Nix Patterson can easily afford to pay Kolodny. According to the terms of their contingency agreement with Oklahoma, the three law firms stand to collect up to 25% of any damages and penalties. With $17.5 billion being sought from Johnson & Johnson, Nix Patterson’s share could theoretically add up to nearly $2.5 billion. 

Purdue Pharma and Teva Pharmaceuticals have already settled out-of-court with Oklahoma for far less — $270 million and $85 million respectively.  Nix Patterson’s share of the Purdue settlement alone was $31.6 million.

Compensation Not Disclosed

Koldony’s work as a paid witness in opioid litigation is not disclosed on Brandeis University’s website, PROP’s website or on the website of the Steve Rummler Hope Network, a non-profit that is the “fiscal sponsor” of PROP.  

A non-profit fiscal sponsorship is an IRS loophole that allows the Rummler Hope Network to collect tax deductible donations on PROP’s behalf — even though PROP is not a registered charity. The identity of PROP’s donors and the size of their donations have never been disclosed.

Kolodny serves on the medical advisory committee of the Rummler Hope Network, along with PROP President Jane Ballantyne, MD. Coincidentally, Ballantyne worked as a paid consultant for Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll – a law firm involved in opioid litigation in New Jersey, Indiana, Vermont, California and Illinois.

Kolodny testified in the Oklahoma trial that he also did some consulting for attorney Linda Singer at Cohen Milstein, which The New York Times profiled in 2014 as a politically influential law firm that was laying the groundwork for opioid lawsuits around the country. Singer was the lead outside counsel for the City of Chicago and Santa Clara County, California, two of the first jurisdictions to file opioid lawsuits.

“The lawsuits follow a pattern: Private lawyers, who scour the news media and public records looking for potential cases in which a state or its consumers have been harmed, approach attorneys general. The attorneys general hire the private firms to do the necessary work, with the understanding that the firms will front most of the cost of the investigation and the litigation. The firms take a fee, typically 20 percent, and the state takes the rest of any money won from the defendants,” the Times reported.

Singer left Cohen Milstein in 2017 to join Motley Rice, yet another law firm that specializes in healthcare litigation. PNN was unable to verify whether Kolodny was still on the payroll of Cohen Milstein, Motley Rice or any other law firms. He refused to discuss his work in opioid litigation.

“I’m not interested in answering any questions or talking to you,” Kolodny told this reporter.

(Update: In 2022 testimony in West Virginia, Kolodny testified that he started working on opioid litigation in 2012 with Linda Singer. It’s unknown if he disclosed that relationship to the CDC when he was advising the agency during the drafting of the 2016 opioid guideline. The CDC declined to provide that information to PNN after an FOIA request.

On September 4, 2019 Kolodny changed two of his JAMA disclosure statements to include his work as a paid expert in malpractice lawsuits. “I received compensation for work as an expert in malpractice litigation involving opioid prescribing. When the articles were first published, I did not believe this work could be perceived as a potential conflict of interest. My view has since changed. In the spirit of full transparency, I am requesting a correction to my disclosure statements.”)

PharmedOUT’s Paid Expert Witness

Another vocal critic of opioid prescribing is Dr. Adriane Fugh-Berman, Director of PharmedOUT, a program at Georgetown University Medical Center that seeks to expose deceptive marketing practices in the healthcare industry.

In a recent column in STAT News, Fugh-Berman and two of her grad students echoed many of Kolodony’s complaints about opioid manufacturers — claiming that “industry-funded attacks” on the CDC guideline by physician and patient advocacy groups were eroding public health.   

“The eerily similar attacks on the guideline… raise the question of whether this is a coordinated attempt by opioid manufacturers to use third parties to undermine, discredit, and smear the guideline,” they wrote. “There’s certainly a credible motive for opioid manufacturers to do this: The CDC guideline is an effective, evidence-based tool that has helped decrease inappropriate and dangerous prescribing of opioids for chronic pain patients.”

DR. ADRIANE FUGH-BERMAN

Unlike Kolodny, Fugh-Berman does disclose on PharmedOUT’s website that she is “a paid expert witness.” It is not disclosed, however, which law firms Fugh-Berman works for, what cases she is working on, or how much she is paid.

After initially agreeing to a telephone interview with PNN, Fugh-Berman abruptly cancelled. She did answer a few questions by email.

“I am a paid expert witness at the request of plaintiffs in litigation regarding pharmaceutical and medical device marketing practices, including litigation brought by several states and cities against opioid manufacturers.  My expert witness work has been disclosed to Georgetown, in my publications, and on our website,” Fugh-Berman wrote.

(Update: In testimony in California on August 15, 2019, Fugh-Berman said she billed $500 an hour for her testimony in a pelvic mesh liability trial of Johnson & Johnson. She received about $120,000 for her work on the case to date.)

Like PROP, PharmedOUT does not disclose it donors, which Fugh-Berman calls “a common practice.”

“(We) are funded primarily by individual donations, mostly small donations but we have several major donors. We do not provide the names of our individual donors,” she said.

Fugh-Berman did disclose that Kaiser Permanente sponsored PharmedOUT’s recent opioid conference, which featured a speech by Kolodny entitled “How the Opioid Lobby Protected the Status Quo” and a talk by a Kaiser doctor on “How Kaiser Permanente Promotes Rational Prescribing.”  

Lobbying and Campaign Donations

Law firms involved in opioid litigation have played a significant role in some political campaigns and in shaping news coverage of the opioid crisis. The national firm of Simmons Hanly Conroy — which claims to have “effectively invented large-scale, multi-defendant opioid litigation” — represents dozens of states, counties and cities that are suing drug companies. According to reports, Simmons Hanly’s contingency fee will be as high as one-third of the proceeds from opioid settlements.

In the 2018 congressional election, Simmons Hanly spent nearly $1.2 million on lobbying and donated over $1 million to candidates, according to OpenSecrets.org. Missouri Sen. Claire McCaskill (D) received five times more than any other candidate — nearly $410,000 — from donors affiliated with Simmons Hanly.

In February of that year, McCaskill released a report that was sharply critical of physician and patient advocacy groups for accepting money from opioid manufacturers. At least two organizations cited in the McCaskill report — the American Academy of Pain Medicine and the American Pain Society (APS) — are named as defendants in opioid lawsuits filed by Simmons Hanly. The APS recently filed for bankruptcy, citing the high cost of defending itself against “meritless” law suits.

The report made headlines for McCaskill, who ultimately lost her bid for re-election, but continues to make news today — most recently in the STAT news column written by paid expert witness Dr. Fugh-Berman.

With the Oklahoma trial now heading into its fifth week, enormous amounts of money are at stake. A verdict against Johnson & Johnson could lead to a cascade of settlements in hundreds of other opioid lawsuits that could cost the pharmaceutical industry up to $50 billion. States, cities and counties would certainly benefit from a settlement of that size. So would the law firms that represent them – and their paid witnesses.

U.S. Pain Foundation Founder Pleads Guilty to Fraud and Tax Evasion

By Pat Anson, PNN Editor

Paul Gileno, the former CEO and founder of the U.S. Pain Foundation, has pleaded guilty to fraud and tax evasion charges stemming from his misuse of funds from the Connecticut-based non-profit.

Gileno, 46, waived his right to be indicted and pleaded guilty Monday before U.S. District Judge Victor Bolden in Bridgeport, Connecticut. He faces up to 25 years in prison, but as part of the plea agreement prosecutors agreed to ask for a lesser sentence because of Gileno’s “prompt recognition and affirmative acceptance of personal responsibility.” A sentencing date has not been set.

According to court documents, Gileno embezzled nearly $1.6 million from the foundation from 2015 to 2017 and failed to report the income on his personal tax returns. For that, he owes an unpaid federal tax of over $532,000. Gileno must also pay a fine and make full restitution to the foundation and Internal Revenue Service, as well as tax penalties and interest.

Prosecutors say Gileno used the foundation’s bank account to write checks to himself and issued payments to other people for his own benefit. The money was used to pay for personal expenses, such as Gileno’s mortgage, car payments and a $3,600 visit to Universal Studios in Orlando, Florida. The misuse of funds went undetected for three years.

“Gileno failed to maintain accurate books and records of the United States Pain Foundation and in a number of instances, made false and fraudulent representations to the Board regarding the expenditures,” prosecutors said.

PAUL GILENO

“I hope your readers realize I did make mistakes but that should not take away from all the good work I did and the organization I created,” Gileno said in an email to PNN. “The board has been the same for the past 9 years and I hope they continue to help people with pain and use the programs we created together."

As he awaits sentencing, Gileno said he was “trying to focus my life on my two boys who are 5 and 4 and need their dad."

Acting CEO Nicole Hemmenway did not respond to a request for comment on Gileno’s guilty plea, but the foundation released a statement.

“While the last year has been difficult, the organization has never lost sight of its guiding mission to educate, empower, support, and advocate for the 50 million Americans living with chronic pain,” the foundation said. “We are thankful that resolution of these issues is coming to an end, and are committed to continuing to serve people with pain, stronger than ever.”

As PNN has reported, Gileno was forced to resign in May, 2018 after “financial irregularities” were finally discovered by the board. A few months later, Gileno confessed in an email to misusing charitable funds.

“I am sad to say that I made some big mistakes over the past few years and took money from US Pain for my personal use. I make no excuses for this. I did take money and I will pay the ultimate price,” Gileno wrote.

According to an audit released last month and U.S. Pain’s 2018 tax return, Gileno misappropriated over $2,055,000 from the charity from 2016 to 2018. The misused funds were reported to the IRS as “excess benefit transactions,” a broad category that includes unauthorized compensation, reimbursement for personal expenses, and payments to Gileno’s family members.

In addition to the $32,537 that Gileno was paid for roughly five months of work in 2018, he collected over $166,000 in excess benefits. The latter amount includes a $36,000 payment to an unidentified company owned by Gileno. It is not clear what the payment was for.

Gileno’s wife, sister and step-daughter were paid nearly $71,000 in wages in 2018. It is not clear what work they did. Gileno’s sister also received an unspecified amount of severance pay and maternity leave.

The auditor also reported that U.S. Pain has been unable to recover any money from a $100,000 investment in SMJ Homes, a real estate business owned by Gileno’s brothers. A promissory note from the company was due in February 2019, but has not be repaid, according to the audit.  

Gileno disputes the auditor’s finding and says most of the money was paid back.

“U.S. Pain has failed to tell you that the investment that was made with my brothers have been mostly paid back and they were paid 4 years of interest at 6 percent a year which was paid monthly and was deposited by people from U.S. Pain. It was never a surprise U.S. Pain cashed all the checks,” Gileno wrote. 

The foundation at one time claimed to be the nation’s largest non-profit patient advocacy group. While it’s unclear how many members U.S. Pain actually has, it remains well-funded. Major corporate donors to U.S. Pain include Abbvie, Amgen, Lilly, Sanofi, Novartis, Teva, Abbott, Pfizer and other pharmaceutical companies.   

After Gileno’s departure, the board scrapped a $2.5 million prescription co-pay program with Insys Therapeutics, a controversial drug maker whose founder and four former executives were recently convicted of racketeering.

U.S. Pain says it has implemented new policies, oversight measures and a system of checks and balances to ensure that only appropriate expenses are paid by the foundation.

Chronic Pain Patients in Alberta Revolt

By Marvin Ross, Guest Columnist

Last week the Chronic Pain Association of Canada issued a press release calling upon the Alberta health minister to investigate the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Alberta (CPSA) for “its unwarranted and secret cautioning and sanctioning” of doctors who prescribe opioid medication.

The press release came after a public meeting of pain patients in Edmonton organized by the group Help Alberta's Pain. Numerous patients showed up to complain about the poor quality of pain care in Alberta.

The meeting was so successful that the organizer, Tracy Fosum, told me that more meetings are being arranged in Edmonton, Calgary, Sherwood Park, Lethbridge and one in Northern Alberta.

An estimated 1.25 million Albertans suffer from chronic pain and 125,000 have long used opiate analgesics in order to function. In March, an Edmonton pain practice shutdown, throwing nearly 1,000 of these patients out of care.  

“Thousands of Albertans with pain have lost specialist and primary care because the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Alberta has forced doctors to stop prescribing opiates. The province's pain specialists are retiring in large numbers, citing College intimidation,” Barry Ulmer, Executive Director of the Chronic Pain Association of Canada said in a statement.

In response, the CPSA issued a statement from Registrar Dr. Scott McLeod calling such claims “misinformation” and denying there was an exodus of pain physicians from the profession.   

“Many Albertans suffer with severe daily pain and need medical assistance to allow them to live productive lives with their family, friends and in the workplace. We understand the challenges these Albertans face and encourage physicians to work with their patients to find a sustainable solution,” McLeod said. “Responsible prescribing does not include abrupt discontinuation or tapering of opioids or abandoning patients who use opioids.”

McLeod said the CPSA has been successful in reducing overdoses and opioid prescriptions. Accidental overdose deaths in Alberta from prescription opioids have been cut in half, there has been a 20% decline in opioid prescribing since 2016, and 13% fewer patients received an opioid in 2018 compared to 2016.

Patients Denied Treatment

Tracy Fosum recently appeared on the Roy Green syndicated radio show to talk about her personal experiences as a long time chronic pain patient in Alberta. Suffering from what even I recognized as the classic signs of a heart attack, she went to a local Edmonton hospital. Staff were suspicious of Tracy because of her high opioid use and, after a cursory exam, suggested she go home and take some NSAIDs for what they decided were chest muscle spasms.

Later, Tracy went to another hospital emergency room, where she was forced to wait for six hours as, she contends, they mistook her for a drug seeking addict. While trying to convince them to do an EKG, she went into cardiac arrest and collapsed. Fortunately, Tracy survived but ended up with heart damage because she had to wait too long.

Meanwhile, the Ontario College of Physicians and Surgeons is in the process of revising their opioid prescribing guidelines. A new draft policy states: “Physicians must not taper patients inappropriately or arbitrarily. Physicians are reminded that it is not always possible or appropriate to taper below a specific dose, nor is it usually appropriate to suddenly or rapidly taper prescriptions.”

The proposed guideline also states that “arbitrarily refusing to prescribe these drugs in all cases and without consideration for the circumstances of the patient may lead to inadequate patient care.”

While this is a step in the right direction, the problem is that patients have little recourse other than filing a formal complaint if a doctor provides poor treatment. A formal complaint can take months to years to resolve and ruins a doctor/patient relationship.

I am personally familiar with one case where a chronic pain patient was refused care by a doctor unless she agreed not to take any opioid medication. That doctor was sanctioned for refusing a patient on narcotics and refusing to prescribe narcotics, but the sanction was simply “Don't do that. You cannot refuse.” That patient now has no doctor because no one will take her on.

The Colleges can revise their rules and recommendations all they want, but they also need to ensure that doctors adhere to them.

Marvin Ross is a medical writer and publisher in Dundas, Ontario. He is a regular contributor to the Huffington Post.

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.

Gabapentinoids Raise Risk of Suicide and Overdose in Younger People

By Pat Anson, PNN Editor

Gabapentinoids – a class of nerve medication widely prescribed to treat chronic pain – increase the risk of suicide, overdose, traffic accidents and head or body injuries in younger people, according to a large new study published in The British Medical Journal.

Sales of the two main gabapentinoids, pregabalin (Lyrica) and gabapentin (Neurontin), have tripled in recent years in the United States, where they are often promoted in prescribing guidelines as safer alternatives to opioids.

A team of researchers followed nearly 192,000 people enrolled in the Swedish Prescribed Drug Register who filled prescriptions for gabapentinoids on at least two consecutive occasions from 2006 to 2013. That information was compared to data in the Swedish Patient Register, which collects information on hospital admissions and outpatient care, as well as the Swedish Cause of Death Register.

Over the study period, researchers found that patients taking gabapentinoids had higher rates of suicide or suicidal behavior (5.2%), unintentional overdose (8.9%), traffic accidents (6.3%) and head or body injuries (36.7%) than the general population.

The risks were strongest for people who were prescribed pregabalin and were most pronounced among adolescents and young adults aged 15 to 24.  Patients aged 55 and older taking gabapentinoids were not at greater risk.

Researchers believe the drugs may have more impact on younger people because they have faster metabolisms, which could lead to withdrawal problems that affect their impulsivity and emotions.

“Overall, gabapentinoids seem to be safe for a range of outcomes in older people. However, the increased risks found in adolescents and young adults prescribed gabapentinoids, particularly for suicidal behaviour and unintentional overdoses, warrant further research,” said lead author Seena Fazel, MD, of the University of Oxford in England.

“If our findings are triangulated with other forms of evidence, clinical guidelines may need review regarding prescriptions for young people, and those with substance use disorders. Further restrictions for off-label prescription may need consideration.”

Pregabalin is approved by the FDA to treat diabetic nerve pain, fibromyalgia, post-herpetic neuralgia caused by shingles and spinal cord injuries; while gabapentin is approved for epilepsy and post-herpetic neuralgia. Both drugs are also widely prescribed off-label to treat back pain, depression, migraine and other chronic conditions.

Gabapentinoids are increasingly being used recreationally by addicts who have found the medications enhance the effects of heroin and other opioids. The drugs were recently classified as controlled substances in the UK.

Gabapentin is not currently scheduled as a controlled substance by the DEA, while Lyrica is classified as a Schedule V controlled substance, meaning it has low potential for addiction and abuse.  

A recent clinical review found little evidence the drugs should be used off-label to treat pain and that prescribing guidelines often exaggerate their effectiveness. The CDC’s controversial opioid guideline, for example, calls gabapentin and pregabalin “first-line drugs” for neuropathic pain.

“Despite documentation that these drugs were promoted improperly for off-label treatment of pain, the recent rapid increase in prescribing of gabapentinoids suggests a persisting sense among clinicians that gabapentinoids are highly effective pain medications,” wrote Christopher Goodman, MD, and Allan Brett, MD, of the University of South Carolina School of Medicine.

“Guidelines and review articles have contributed to this perception by often uncritical extrapolation from FDA-approved indications to off-label use.”

Study Debunks Myths About Origins of Opioid Abuse

By Pat Anson, PNN Editor

It’s become a popular myth – and for some, a propaganda tool – to claim that opioid pain medication is a gateway drug to heroin and other street drugs.

An opioid education campaign called The Truth About Opioids – funded with taxpayer dollars from the White House Office of National Drug Control Policy — declares in big bold letters on its website that “80% of heroin users started with a prescription painkiller.”

The 80% figure stems from a 2013 study that found four out of five new heroin users had previously abused prescription opioids by using them non-medically.

Importantly, the heroin users were not asked if they had a valid prescription for opioids or even where they got them – but that doesn’t stop federal agencies from citing the study as proof that illegal drug use often starts with a legal opioid prescription.

The Drug Enforcement Administration last year used the 80% figure to justify steep cuts in the supply of prescription opioids, claiming in the Federal Register that addicts often get hooked “after first obtaining these drugs from their health care providers.”

“The 80% statistic is misleading and encourages faulty assumptions about the overdose crisis and medical care,” Roger Chriss explained in a PNN column last year.

A new study by researchers at Penn State University debunks the myth that the opioid crisis was driven primarily by doctors’ prescriptions. The researchers conducted a series of surveys and in-depth interviews with opioid abusers in southwestern Pennsylvania -- a region hard hit by opioid addiction -- asking detailed questions about their drug use.

The study was small – 125 people were surveyed and 30 of them were interviewed – but the findings provide a an important new insight into the origins of opioid abuse and the role played by painkillers.

"What emerged from our study -- and really emerged because we decided to do these qualitative interviews in addition to a survey component -- was a pretty different narrative than the national one,” said lead author Ashton Verdery, PhD, an assistant professor of sociology, demography and social data analytics at Penn State. "There's a lot about that narrative that I think is an overly simplistic way of thinking about this."

‘Opioids Were Never the First Drug’

Verdery and his colleagues found that over two-thirds of those interviewed (66.7%) first abused a prescription opioid that was given, bought or stolen from a friend or family member. Another 7% purchased the drugs from a stranger or dealer. Only one in four (26%) started by abusing opioid medication that was prescribed to them by a doctor.

“We found that most people initiated through a pattern of recreational use because of people around them. They got them from either siblings, friends or romantic partners," said Verdery. “Participants repeatedly reported having a peer or caregiver in their childhood who had a substance use problem. Stories from childhood of witnessing one of these people selling, preparing, or using drugs were very common. Being exposed to others’ substance use at an early age was often cited as a turning point for OMI (opioid misuse) and of drug use in general.”

And prescription opioids were not the gateway drugs they are often portrayed to be. Polysubstance abuse was common and usually began with drugs such as alcohol, marijuana, cocaine, methamphetamine, prescription sedatives and prescription stimulants.

“It is important to note that interviewees universally reported initiating OMI only after previously starting their substance use career with another drug (e.g., alcohol, marijuana, cocaine). Opioids were never the first drug used, suggesting that OMI is likely associated with being further along in one’s drug using career,” Verdery reported in the Journal of Addictive Studies.

Verdery says additional studies are needed on the origins of drug abuse and that researchers should focus on the role that other substances play in opioid addiction. Only then can proper steps be taken to prevent abuse and addiction before they start.

"We think that understanding this mechanism as a potential pathway is worth further consideration," said Verdery. "It's not just that people were prescribed painkillers from a doctor for a legitimate reason and, if we just crack down on the doctors who are prescribing in these borderline cases we can reduce the epidemic.”

AMA Opposed to ‘Blacklisting’ of Doctors Over Rx Opioids

By Pat Anson, PNN Editor

The American Medical Association is hardening its opposition to public and private policies that seek to limit opioid prescribing. The AMA House of Delegates this week passed resolutions calling for prescribing guidelines to be amended to allow physicians to use their own clinical judgement to decide if higher doses of opioids are medically necessary. The AMA’s ruling body also called for an end to the “blacklisting” of doctors who prescribe high doses.

The AMA didn’t always feel this way about guidelines. When the CDC released its controversial opioid guideline in 2016, the AMA sent a letter to CDC Director Thomas Frieden that “applauded the CDC for treating the epidemic of opioid overdose deaths as a high priority.” And Patrice Harris, MD, a psychiatrist who chaired an AMA Task Force to Reduce Opioid Abuse, said the AMA was “largely supportive of the guidelines.”

Harris, who recently became the AMA President, now says the guidelines “have no basis in science.”

“Physicians can’t be expected to fight the epidemic with one hand tied behind their back, handicapped by policies that limit choices for patients and have no basis in science,” Harris said in a statement.

The AMA House of Delegates finally took a stand against the CDC guideline last November, when it passed resolutions opposing the “misapplication” of the guideline by pharmacists, insurers, pharmacy benefit managers, states and regulatory agencies.  

Although the 2016 guideline is voluntary, it has resulted in many patients being forcibly tapered to lower doses, cutoff entirely or even abandoned by their doctors – all under the guise of preventing opioid addiction and overdoses.

This week’s resolutions by the AMA’s ruling body went a step further, calling for an end to the “inappropriate use” of the CDC guideline to set dosing limits and blacklist physicians who exceed them.  

RESOLVED that our AMA support balanced opioid sparing policies that are not based on hard thresholds, but on patient individuality, and help ensure safe prescribing practices, minimize workflow disruptions, and ensure patients have access to their medications in a timely manner, without additional, cumbersome documentation requirements.

RESOLVED that our AMA oppose the use of “high prescriber” lists used by national pharmacy chains, pharmacy benefit manager companies or health insurance companies when those lists do not provide due process and are used to blacklist physicians from writing prescriptions for controlled substances and preventing patients from having their prescriptions filled at their pharmacy of choice.

RESOLVED that our AMA incorporate into their advocacy that clinical practice guidelines specific to cancer treatment, palliative care, and end-of-life be utilized in lieu of CDC’s Guideline for Prescribing Opioids for Chronic Pain as per CDC’s clarifying recommendation.

The CDC’s so-called clarification came in a commentary published April 24 in The New England Journal of Medicine. Three authors of the guideline did not take any responsibility for the poor implementation of their recommendations, but acknowledged that “some policies and practices purportedly derived from the guideline have in fact been inconsistent with, and often go beyond, its recommendations.”

Nearly two months later, not a single word of the CDC guideline has been clarified or changed, and insurers, pharmacies and many states continue to enforce its voluntary recommendations as mandatory policy.

Doctors who prescribe high doses of controlled substances are also being blacklisted by the DEA and state medical boards, which routinely use prescription drug monitoring programs (PDMPs) to identify and target physicians who are considered “high prescribers.”

Federal prosecutors have also sent letters to hundreds of physicians warning them that their opioid prescribing practices could subject them to criminal prosecution — often without any evidence that their patients were harmed by the drugs.

Misleading CDC Study Links Prescription Opioids to Binge Drinking

By Pat Anson, PNN Editor

A new study by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has found that over half of people who misuse prescription opioids also binge drink, increasing their risk of dying from an overdose.

“We are losing far too many Americans each day from overdoses,” CDC Director Robert Redfield, MD, said in a statement. “Combining alcohol and opioids can significantly increase the risk of overdoses and deaths.”

Binge drinking and misuse of opioid medication are never a good idea, whether done separately or in combination. Unfortunately, the CDC study is written in ways that mislead and further worsen the stigma associated with prescription opioid use. And it fails to acknowledge the role CDC itself has played in the growing use of alcohol for pain relief.

The study, published in the American Journal of Preventive Medicine, is based on survey of over 160,000 people who participated in the National Survey on Drug Use and Health from 2012 to 2014. After analyzing their answers, CDC researchers came to some sweeping conclusions about Americans getting high on pills and alcohol.

“Prescription opioids were responsible for approximately 17,000 deaths in the U.S. in 2016. One in five prescription opioid deaths also involve alcohol,” wrote lead author Marissa Ether, PhD, CDC Division of Population Health.

“More than half of the 4.2 million people who misused prescription opioids during 2012–2014 were binge drinkers, and binge drinkers had nearly twice the odds of misusing prescription opioids, compared with nondrinkers.”

The statement that prescription opioids “were responsible” for 17,000 deaths is misleading because it is based on data from death certificates and coroner reports that only indicate the medications were present or “involved” in overdoses. Other substances may have played a role or perhaps even caused those 17,000 deaths.

In 2016, over twice as many fatal overdoses involved heroin and illicit fentanyl, but CDC researchers “did not consider the use of illicit opioids” for their binge drinking study. Apparently, street drug users are teetotalers who do not drink.

And who were the binge drinkers who misused prescription opioids? They were recreational users of opioid medication who did not take the drugs for pain relief. “Misuse” in the study was defined as “use without a prescription or use only for the experience or feeling it causes.”

To be clear, pain patients with legitimate opioid prescriptions that are used appropriately were not included in the study. These patients are actually less likely to be binge drinkers — defined as four or more drinks by a woman, or five or more drinks by a man — and they are warned repeatedly not to mix their medications with alcohol. Including them would have significantly changed the study findings.

Patients Using Alcohol for Pain Relief

Perhaps the biggest oversight by CDC researchers is the 2012-2014 time frame chosen for their study – which is well before the agency released its controversial 2016 opioid prescribing guideline.

One of the key findings from a recent PNN survey of nearly 6,000 patients is that the guideline has limited their access to prescription opioids so severely that some are turning to alcohol for pain relief. Nearly one out of five patients surveyed said they had used alcohol for pain relief since the guideline came out.

“It has caused many pain patients to be cut off their pain medication,” one patient told us. “After losing my meds 16 months ago, I just started using alcohol and I never used alcohol. I don't like alcohol, but what are my options?” 

“Since my doctor stopped prescribing even my small amount of opioids I deal with days where I can’t even get out of bed because I hurt so much and I’m stuck turning to alcohol, excessive amounts of acetaminophen and NSAIDs,” another patient said. 

“The CDC guidelines are killing people,” one woman wrote. “My fiancé has been refused even the most mild stenosis treatment because he admitted using alcohol to treat his pain when he has no other treatment. He's mildly suicidal as well. We have two young kids.” 

“I lost a good friend to suicide because she was not able to get pain medications to relieve her pain and it was too much for her to handle,” a patient said. “Sadly, she is not the only one. I'm hearing about more and more. I'm also hearing about people turning towards alcohol.” 

“All they are doing is pushing chronic pain patients to find relief in other ways such as alcohol, illicit drugs or harming themselves to get the pain relief they do desperately seek,” wrote another patient. 

In other words, alcohol use is acceptable to the CDC — as long as it is not combined with prescribed opioid medication. This is your nation’s health protection agency at work.

Doctor Accused of Overprescribing Opioids Fights to Keep Her License

By Pat Anson, PNN Editor

A northern California doctor who is beloved by many of her patients could lose her medical license because of allegations by the state medical board that she overprescribed opioid medication and other drugs. Dr. Corrine (Connie) Basch runs a solo primary care practice in Arcata, a small city in rural Humboldt county.

“They were looking to put a head on a spike so they could claim they were doing something about the opioid crisis,” Basch told PNN. “I am not considered a negligent doctor in town, nor am I a pill mill. And it would have taken them all of ten minutes to figure that out if they had asked anyone in my community if there was a problem here.”

A formal complaint against Basch by the Medical Board of California, first reported by the Lost Coast Outpost, centers on her treatment of five pain patients on relatively high doses of opioids and benzodiazepines, an anti-anxiety medication. Although Basch had tapered them to lower doses, the complaint alleges the amounts are still excessive and the combination of drugs places the patients at risk of overdose and death.

Board Executive Director Kimberly Kirchmeyer is seeking the revocation or suspension of Basch’s license for excessive prescribing, gross negligence and failure to maintain adequate medical records.

At no point in the 25-page complaint is it alleged that any of Basch’s patients have overdosed or been harmed while under her care.  The board began its investigation of Basch in early 2018 but didn’t file the accusation until last month – suggesting it didn’t think there was any imminent threat to her patients.

“They went after me for no good reason, conducted an ‘investigation’ that was so obviously flawed, published a defamatory accusation on the Internet prior to giving me a chance to defend myself or even correct the factual errors, revealed private details of my patients’ cases on the Internet when those people live in a small town where people already know each other’s business, and would force a small town doc who treats poor people  to come up with several years’ income to defend herself and her license,” Basch said.   

DR. CONNIE BASCH

All five of the patients in the medical board complaint were already on high doses of opioids and benzodiazepines before Basch started treating them. She tapered these “legacy” patients to lower doses, but some remained on opioid doses as high as 664 MME (morphine milligram equivalent) – well above the CDC guideline’s recommended ceiling of 90 MME.   

The CDC and FDA recently acknowledged that patients should not be forcibly tapered to lower doses and that doctors should “work with patients” before tapering or discontinuing opioids. Basch was already using that approach in her own practice. She says patients who’ve become tolerant to opioids should be weaned slowly and it could take 6-12 months just to get them off benzodiazepines.

“I’ve helped a lot of people get off pain meds,” she said. “Some of my patients stay on meds. I have a patient who is super functional on 145 MME. She’s comfortable, she can sleep through the night, and she works. I don’t see a need to lower her, except that she’s afraid. They’re all feeling insecure. They want to get off (pain meds) because there will be literally no one left to prescribe.”

Afraid to Prescribe

In recent years, California’s medical board has aggressively gone after doctors who prescribe opioids at high doses. The state’s controversial “Death Certificate Project” has resulted in threats of disciplinary action against hundreds of physicians, often years after they wrote an opioid prescription for a patient who fatally overdosed. Some doctors received warning letters even though the cause of death was suicide or involved multiple drugs – both legal and illegal.

These and other enforcement actions have had a chilling effect on doctors statewide.

“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,” Dr. Robert Wailes, a pain specialist and chair of the California Medical Association’s Board of Trustees, told Kaiser Health News.

Should Basch lose her license or stop practicing, all 1,500 of her patients would have to find new doctors, not a simple task in a remote community where healthcare choices are already limited, especially for pain patients.

“There are now two docs I know of in our area who have retired early because of similar accusations, and another older doc who lives in a small coastal community south of us who is going through a similar thing right now,” said Basch. “There’s nowhere even to get primary care up here. And if you call and say you want to be a new patient and chronic pain is anywhere on your problem list, you are denied. So these people are literally going to be left with no one.” 

‘Medical Board Malpractice’

Basch has received over 300 letters of support from patients and several from colleagues in the medical community. Her attorney plans to present them as evidence to the medical board.

“Dr. Corrine Basch is my beloved primary care physician,” one patient wrote. “Taking away her right to assess her individual patients for risk vs benefit, forcing a bureaucratic, possibly ill-conceived set of ‘guidelines’ is what I consider Medical Board Malpractice.

“FEAR caused by actions such as yours are keeping legitimately suffering human beings from having a quality of life they deserve. THIS IS SHAMEFUL.”

“I have had my share of doctors over the years but I never had a doctor like Connie. She has ultimately saved my life and I am not just saying that,” wrote another patient who credits Basch for his sobriety after years of addiction to pills and alcohol.

“You don’t punish someone for doing the right thing and helping people get off of drugs. That is not how you fix the opiate problem plaguing America you do it by employing more people like Dr. Connie who knows the right way to get a person clean.”

Basch, who is 55, continues to practice and is gathering evidence to support her case. A hearing date has not been set on the medical board’s complaint.

“They went after the wrong person this time,” she says. “Shaming and humiliating doctors who have lived lives of service, and placing them in a position where they have to give up their calling because the cost of defense is too great late in their careers, is shameful.”