Marijuana Use May Affect Patient Anesthesia

By Kata Ruder, Kaiser Health News

When Colorado legalized marijuana, it became a pioneer in creating new policies to deal with the drug.

Now the state’s surgeons, nurses and anesthesiologists are becoming pioneers of a different sort in understanding what weed may do to patients who go under the knife.

Their observations and initial research show that marijuana use may affect patients’ responses to anesthesia on the operating table — and, depending on the patient’s history of using the drug, either help or hinder their symptoms afterward in the recovery room.

Colorado makes for an interesting laboratory. Since the state legalized marijuana for medicine in 2000 and allowed for its recreational sale in 2014, more Coloradans are using it — and they may also be more willing to tell their doctors about it.

Roughly 17% of Coloradans said they used marijuana in the previous 30 days in 2017, according to the National Survey on Drug Use and Health, more than double the 8% who reported doing so in 2006. By comparison, just 9% of U.S. residents said they used marijuana in 2017.

“It has been destigmatized here in Colorado,” said Dr. Andrew Monte, an associate professor of emergency medicine and medical toxicology at the University of Colorado School of Medicine and UCHealth. “We’re ahead of the game in terms of our ability to talk to patients about it. We’re also ahead of the game in identifying complications associated with use.”

One small study of Colorado patients published in May found marijuana users required more than triple the amount of one common sedation medicine, propofol, as did nonusers.

Those findings and anecdotal reports are prompting additional questions from the study’s author, Dr. Mark Twardowski, and others in the state’s medical field: If pot users indeed need more anesthesia, are there increased risks for breathing problems during minor procedures?

Are there higher costs with the use of more medication, if a second or third bottle of anesthesia must be routinely opened? And what does regular cannabis use mean for recovery post-surgery?

But much is still unknown about marijuana’s impact on patients because it remains illegal on the federal level, making studies difficult to fund or undertake.

It’s even difficult to quantify how many of the estimated 800,000 to 1 million anesthesia procedures that are performed in Colorado each year involve marijuana users, according to Dr. Joy Hawkins, a professor of anesthesiology at the University of Colorado School of Medicine and president of the Colorado Society of Anesthesiologists. The Colorado Hospital Association said it doesn’t track anesthesia needs or costs specific to marijuana users.

As more states legalize cannabis to varying degrees, discussions about the drug are happening elsewhere, too. On a national level, the American Association of Nurse Anesthetists recently updated its clinical guidelines to highlight potential risks for and needs of marijuana users. American Society of Anesthesiologists spokeswoman Theresa Hill said that the use of marijuana in managing pain is a topic under discussion but that more research is needed. This year, it endorsed a federal bill calling for fewer regulatory barriers on marijuana research.

Should Patients Disclose Marijuana Use? 

No matter where patients live, though, many nurses and doctors from around the country agree: Patients should disclose marijuana use before any surgery or procedure. Linda Stone, a certified registered nurse anesthetist in Raleigh, N.C., acknowledged that patients in states where marijuana is illegal might be more hesitant.

“We really don’t want patients to feel like there’s stigma. They really do need to divulge that information,” Stone said. “We are just trying to make sure that we provide the safest care.”

In Colorado, Hawkins said, anesthesiologists have noticed that patients who use marijuana are more tolerant of some common anesthesia drugs, such as propofol, which helps people fall asleep during general anesthesia or stay relaxed during conscious “twilight” sedation. But higher doses can increase potentially serious side effects such as low blood pressure and depressed heart function.

Limited airway flow is another issue for people who smoke marijuana. “It acts very much like cigarettes, so it makes your airway irritated,” she said.

To be sure, anesthesia must be adjusted to accommodate patients of all sorts, apart from cannabis use. Anesthesiologists are prepared to adapt and make procedures safe for all patients, Hawkins said. And in some emergency surgeries, patients might not be in a position to disclose their cannabis use ahead of time.

Even when they do, a big challenge for medical professionals is gauging the amounts of marijuana consumed, as the potency varies widely from one joint to the next or when ingested through marijuana edibles. And levels of THC, the chemical with psychoactive effects in marijuana, have been increasing in the past few decades.

“For marijuana, it’s a bit of the Wild West,” Hawkins said. “We just don’t know what’s in these products that they’re using.”

Marijuana’s Effects On Pain After Surgery

Colorado health providers are also observing how marijuana changes patients’ symptoms after they leave the operating suite — particularly relevant amid the ongoing opioid epidemic.

“We’ve been hearing reports about patients using cannabis, instead of opioids, to treat their postoperative pain,” said Dr. Mark Steven Wallace, chair of the pain medicine division in the anesthesiology department at the University of California-San Diego, in a state that also has legalized marijuana. “I have a lot of patients who say they prefer it.”

Matthew Sheahan, 25, of Denver, said he used marijuana to relieve pain after the removal of his wisdom teeth four years ago. After surgery, he smoked marijuana rather than using the ibuprofen prescribed but didn’t disclose this to his doctor because pot was illegal in Ohio, where he had the procedure. He said his doctor told him his swelling was greatly reduced. “I didn’t experience the pain that I thought I would,” Sheahan said.

In a study underway, Wallace is working with patients who’ve recently had surgery for joint replacement to see whether marijuana can be used to treat pain and reduce the need for opioids.

But this may be a Catch-22 for regular marijuana users. They reported feeling greater pain and consumed more opioids in the hospital after vehicle crash injuries compared with nonusers, according to a study published last year in the journal Patient Safety in Surgery.

“The hypothesis is that chronic marijuana users develop a tolerance to pain medications, and since they do not receive marijuana while in the hospital, they require a higher replacement dose of opioids,” said Dr. David Bar-Or, who directs trauma research at Swedish Medical Center in Englewood, Colo., and several other hospitals in Colorado, Texas, Missouri and Kansas. He is studying a synthetic form of THC called dronabinol as a potential substitute for opioids in the hospital.

Again, much more research is needed.

“We know very little about marijuana because we’ve not been allowed to study it in the way we study any other drug,” Hawkins said. “We’re all wishing we had a little more data to rely on.”

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.

Feds Warn of Counterfeit Oxycodone Deaths

By Pat Anson, PNN Editor

In the wake of four fentanyl overdoses in southern California, federal authorities have issued a public safety alert warning drug users about a lethal strain of counterfeit medication designed to look like 30mg oxycodone tablets.

The blue bills have the letter “M” in a box on one side and the number “30” with a line down the center on the other. On the street they are referred to as blues, M-30s or Mexican Oxy.

The pills were found at the scene of four fatal overdoses in San Diego County last week. The deaths in Poway, Santee, Lakeside and Valley Center were all reported within 24 hours.

Although tests on the pills are ongoing, authorities suspect they are laced with illicit fentanyl or carfentanil, which can be fatal in tiny doses.

SAN DIEGO SHERIFF’S DEPT. IMAGE

“That heroin, that meth, that coke, that oxy you think you are taking? Well, it just might have fentanyl in it, and it just might be the last thing you ever do,” U.S. Attorney Robert Brewer said in a statement. “I cannot be more clear than this: Fentanyl may be the costliest drug you ever do, because you may pay with your life, and you won’t even know you took it.”

Brewer said border seizures, prosecutions and overdoses are on pace to hit all-time highs in San Diego County by the end of 2019. The Medical Examiner’s Office has confirmed 50 fentanyl-related overdose deaths so far this year, plus another 28 suspected but yet-to-be confirmed cases.

If the trend continues, the death toll could potentially reach 130, which would amount to a 47 percent increase over last year’s total of 90 deaths. The victims are overwhelmingly male, with the average age about 36.

“Just when we think it can’t get any worse, the latest numbers prove us wrong,” Brewer said.  “I am alarmed by the dramatic surge in trafficking activity and deaths, particularly of young people. San Diego is the fentanyl gateway to the rest of the country, and we are working hard to close that gate with interdiction, prosecution and education.”

Federal authorities have confiscated 1,175 pounds of illicit fentanyl – more than half a ton -- at or near the international border so far this year. In addition, there has been a record number of seizures involving counterfeit blue pills labeled M-30 that contain fentanyl. The pills sell on the street for $9 to $30 each and are appearing around the country.

Ports of entry near San Diego are major transit points for illicit fentanyl smuggled in from Mexico. The fentanyl is usually transported in vehicles, often by legal U.S. residents acting as couriers.

A recent report from the Wilson Center found that Mexican cartels are playing an increased role in the fentanyl trade.

“San Diego is the fentanyl gateway to the rest of the country.”

— U.S. Attorney Robert Brewer

“Chinese companies produce the vast majority of fentanyl, fentanyl analogues, and fentanyl precursors, but Mexico is becoming a major transit and production point for the drug and its analogues as well, and Mexican traffickers appear to be playing a role in its distribution in the United States,” the report found.

“Both large and small organizations appear to be taking advantage of the surge in popularity of the drug, which is increasingly laced into other substances such as cocaine, methamphetamine, and marijuana—very often without the end-user knowing it. To be sure, rising seizures of counterfeit oxycodone pills laced with fentanyl illustrate that the market is maturing in other ways as well.”

Last week a former Mexican police officer was indicted for fentanyl trafficking by a federal grand jury in Texas. Assmir Contreras-Martinez, 30, was pulled over by a Texas trooper on Interstate 40 in Amarillo in May. About 73 pounds of illicit fentanyl powder was found inside his 2007 Ford Explorer, enough to kill 10 million people, according to DEA experts. 

Contreras-Martinez admitted he was paid $6,000 to transport the fentanyl from California to Florida and that it was his second such trip. Before his unlawful immigration to the United States nine months ago, Contreras-Martinez had been employed for eight years as a municipal police officer in Cananea, Sonora, Mexico.

‘Opioid of the Future’ Postponed

By Pat Anson, PNN Editor

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration is tapping the brakes on NKTR-181, an experimental opioid pain medication that has less abuse potential than traditional opioids like oxycodone or hydrocodone.

In an SEC filing, Nektar Therapeutics said it received a letter from the FDA on July 23 saying the agency was postponing all advisory committee meetings for opioid analgesics, including one scheduled for August 21 to discus Nektar’s new drug application for NKTR-181.

The FDA was due to make a final decision on NKTR-181 eight days later, but that too is apparently being postponed while the agency considers “a number of scientific and policy issues relating to this class of drugs.”

Nektar called NKTR-181 the “opioid of the future” because it is the first full mu-opioid agonist that can provide pain relief without the euphoria or “high” that can lead to abuse and addiction.

The molecular structure of NKTR-181 is designed to have low permeability across the blood-brain barrier, which slows its rate of entry into the brain.

In a Phase III clinical study, patients with chronic back pain reported that their pain scores dropped an average of 65% when taking NKTR-181 twice daily. Safety studies also found that recreational drug users had significantly less “drug liking” of NKTR-181 when compared to oxycodone.

NEKTAR IMAGE

The research was so promising the FDA gave NKTR-181 “fast track” designation to speed its development. Nektar executives told PNN two years ago they were hopeful the drug would be approved in late 2018, with a commercial launch early this year.

Obviously that didn’t happen. And the FDA’s fast track has turned into a slow walk.

Two FDA advisory committees met last month and decided “much better-quality data” was needed before approving any new opioids — even ones with low risk of abuse.  

The agency has been under growing public and political pressure to tighten its regulation of opioids. In February, a 60 Minutes report claimed the FDA “opened the floodgates” to the opioid epidemic by approving the use of OxyContin for chronic pain. The following month, the agency received a petition from Public Citizen calling for a moratorium on new opioid approvals because the agency “can no longer be trusted” due to its “poor record” of regulating opioids.

On July 25, Howard Robin, Nektar’s President and CEO, sold 100,000 shares of Nektar for $3.1 million. A spokesman said the sale was previously scheduled due to expiring options. The company’s chief financial officer and a director also sold shares this month. Nektar shares (NASDAQ: NKTR) lost about 10% of their value after the SEC filing was made public.

Lawyer Calls for DOJ to End ‘Indiscriminate Raids’ on Doctors

By Pat Anson, PNN Editor

In recent years, hundreds of physicians, pharmacists and addiction treatment doctors have had their offices raided and searched by DEA agents.

Many of the raids were orchestrated by the Justice Department’s Opioid Fraud and Abuse Detection Unit, a special team of investigators created in 2017 to mine opioid prescribing data to identify suspicious orders and practices. The investigations have resulted in the high-profile arrests of healthcare providers for fraud and risky opioid prescribing.

"If you're a doctor and you want to act like a drug dealer, we're going to treat you like one. And sometimes the only difference between a doctor and a drug dealer is a white coat," U.S. Attorney Jay Town said about a federal takedown in April that resulted in charges against 60 practitioners in seven states.

Rarely publicized are the cases where criminal charges are never filed because the evidence against doctors is weak or non-existent.

“It’s quite frustrating to see how their careers were ruined even though they never faced criminal charges. That’s because the government was incapable of bringing credible charges against them,” says attorney Michael Barnes, who is managing partner at DCBA Law & Policy, a law firm that advises healthcare providers. “When I read a criminal complaint, what I would see as ‘best practices’ is construed as criminal exploitative behavior on the part of the prosecutors.

“There’s a heavy bias against medications to treat pain and opioid use disorder that is driving some of the aggressive enforcement actions. Also, an overzealousness combined with a lack of understanding of the practice of medicine.”

Barnes recently wrote an op/ed, published online by American University’s Washington College of Law, calling for an end to the DOJ’s “indiscriminate raids” on doctors.

“DOJ raids and searches of professionals’ homes and medical clinics interrupt the delivery of health care, put patients’ lives at risk, and unjustly destroy careers and livelihoods. They also create confusion and fear,” wrote Barnes. “Not all health care professionals subject to the DOJ’s searches and seizures are ‘dirty docs.’ In fact, some of them are nationally recognized leaders not just in pain management, but also in addiction medicine.” 

Barnes cites the case of Dr. Stuart Gitlow, an addiction psychiatrist whose Rhode Island home and office were raided by FBI agents in March 2018. Sixteen months later, the reasons for the raid remain unclear and Gitlow, the former president of the American Society of Addiction Medicine, has not been charged with a crime.  

MICHAEL BARNES

Neither has Dr. Forest Tennant. In November 2017, DEA agents raided the office and home of Tennant, a prominent California pain physician who was flagged for “very suspicious prescribing patterns.” In a search warrant, the 76-year old Tennant was depicted as the kingpin of a drug trafficking organization that spanned several states.

“I know based on my training and experience that patients traveling long distances to obtain controlled substance prescriptions is another ‘red flag’ of drug abuse and addiction,” wrote DEA investigator Stephanie Kolb, who led a two-year investigation of Tennant.

But Kolb, who was self-employed as a dog walker and pet groomer before she started working for the DEA in 2012, failed to note that Tennant only treated intractable pain patients, many from out-of-state, and often prescribed high doses of opioids because of their chronically poor health. Some patients were in palliative care and near death, and one committed suicide after learning of the raid, fearing she would lose access to opioid medication.

Tennant denies any wrongdoing and was never formally charged, but retired from clinical practice a few months after the raid.

“It’s hard to continue operating when they never closed my case, and so I’m going to retire and move on,” Tennant told PNN at the time. “That’s on the advice of both my lawyers and my doctors."

(Dr. Tennant and the Tennant Foundation have given financial support to Pain News Network and are currently sponsoring PNN’s Patient Resources section.)  

Biased Investigations

Barnes says the biases of some prosecutors extends to the expert witnesses they hire to help build their cases. The role of these witnesses is important because they help DOJ persuade judges to sign off on search warrants that are key to gathering evidence. It’s a lucrative sideline for some paid witnesses, who charge the government hundreds of dollars an hour for their time and expertise.

“Expert witnesses are eager to give DOJ business to get the expert witness fees, and they of course will help to spin the facts in a way that is prejudicial to the defendant,” Barnes said. “What we’re seeing here is people who are really not qualified to be making assessments of other practices serving as experts for the government.” 

Dr. Timothy Munzing, a Kaiser Permanente family practice physician in California, has worked as a medical consultant for the DEA, FBI and DOJ on over 100 investigations, most of which involve prescriptions for opioids and other controlled substances.

According to GovTribe.com, which tracks payments to federal contractors, Munzing has been awarded nearly $1 million in DOJ contracts since 2017 and is currently working on nearly two dozen DEA investigations, mostly reviewing patient files and data from prescription drug monitoring programs.

It would be unusual for a family practice physician to treat an intractable pain patient without making a referral to a pain or palliative care specialist. But Munzing was one of the expert witnesses hired by the DEA to analyze Tennant’s prescribing.

“I find to a high level of certainty that after review of the medical records… that Dr. Tennant failed to meet the requirements in prescribing these dangerous medications,” Munzing wrote in an affidavit. “These prescribing patterns are highly suspicious for medication abuse/and or diversion. If the patients are actually using all the medications prescribed, they are at high risk for addiction, overdose, and death.”  

Munzing’s affidavit and the DEA search warrant identified no patients who were actually harmed while under Tennant’s care. As PNN reported, some patients found the allegation that they were selling their medication and funneling the profits back to Tennant laughable.      

“It’s like everything else they do. They don’t talk to any patients. They don’t talk to any doctors. They just go and throw all this stuff out there and making all these incriminations against people. They don’t have any evidence that I’ve sold anything. It’s just ludicrous,” said Ryle Holder, a Tennant patient who lives in Georgia.  

Barnes says the bias against opioid prescribing “is inherent in the work of many of the investigators and prosecutors.”

“Then there is the incompetence as it relates to many of the law enforcement officers not having the medical expertise to make judgements of a medical nature. And then, when they do consult with the experts, those experts are typically trying to please their clients and getting repeat business as a result,” he told PNN. 

State Medical Boards

To bring more expertise into investigations of healthcare providers, Barnes is proposing that state medical boards play a more prominent role. He wants Congress to amend federal law to require DOJ investigators and prosecutors to get a referral from a state licensing board before investigating a practitioner for misconduct. Similar laws at the state level would also need to be changed to require state and local law enforcement to get a referral from a medical licensing board.

To make sure complaints are handled in a timely manner, Barnes says federal funds should be used to bolster the budgets of state licensing boards so they can investigate allegations of misconduct.  

“There are some detractors who say medical boards didn’t do an adequate job leading up to the overdose crisis. But the reality is neither did law enforcement,” Barnes says. “The medical boards could get up to speed and make these assessments on medical needs and patient care to make sure that healthcare providers can be assessed with medical expertise, rather than law enforcement trying to guess about standard of care and best practices.”

“Making it more difficult for law enforcement to investigate potential diversion of dangerous and addictive controlled substances, including powerful painkillers, is probably not going to happen right now,” says DEA spokesman Rusty Payne.

“This idea that people need to worry about the DEA hiding in the bushes if they write an oxycodone prescription is ridiculous.”

— Rusty Payne, DEA spokesman

Payne points out the DEA is both a law enforcement and regulatory agency, one that oversees 1.3 million practitioners licensed to prescribe controlled substances. He says enforcement actions are relatively rare and not “indiscriminate” as Barnes suggests.

“The numbers are incredibly low. It is a very, very, very small number.  So this idea that people need to worry about the DEA hiding in the bushes if they write an oxycodone prescription is ridiculous,” he told PNN. “We don’t have the resources. We don’t track individual prescriptions. We look for patterns and large-scale significant diversion.”  

Getting state medical boards involved, according to Payne, is not a good idea.

“I don’t think making it harder for us to scrutinize those that are acting outside the law is in anyone’s best interest,” he said.

But Barnes’ proposal makes sense, according to Dr. Lynn Webster, a PNN columnist and former president of the American Academy of Pain Medicine. 

“Barnes makes a sensible recommendation. If the law enforcement suspects a provider is not complying with the law, then the first step should be a referral to the medical board where the provider can be evaluated by their peers,” Webster said. “If a doctor goes to trial, they will not be evaluated by their peers. That is not the way the justice system is supposed to work.” 

Webster was once the target of a federal investigation of his opioid prescribing practices and DEA agents raided his Utah pain clinic in 2010. Four years later, the DOJ said it would not prosecute Webster, who said his “reputation was tarnished forever.”  

“DEA investigations are often designed to entrap a provider on technicalities.  Even if an investigation never leads to any charges the doctor's reputation is damaged.  In the court of public opinion an investigation must mean something was wrong,” Webster said. 

Feds Found ‘Staggering’ Drug Testing Fraud at Tennessee Pain Clinics

By Fred Schulte, Kaiser Health News

The Justice Department has accused a defunct chain of Tennessee-based pain clinics of cheating Medicare and other taxpayer-funded health insurers out of at least $25 million in needless urine drug tests and genetic testing.

The civil lawsuit names Comprehensive Pain Specialists, also known as Anesthesia Services Associates PLLC; four of its physician owners; and a former top executive. The doctors include Tennessee Republican State Sen. Steven Dickerson and Peter Kroll, both anesthesiologists.

At its peak, CPS ran 60 pain clinics in a dozen states and treated some 48,000 patients per month, according to the suit. It shut down abruptly last summer, leaving many chronic pain patients scrambling to find a new source of narcotic medicines.

The Justice Department fraud case centers largely on the company’s lucrative urine-testing lab in Brentwood, Tenn., which CPS financed with a $1.5 million loan. The suit also alleges overbilling from acupuncture and other services offered to patients.

CPS was the subject of a November 2017 investigation by Kaiser Health News that scrutinized Medicare billings for urine drug tests.

Medicare and other federal programs paid over $70 million from 2011 to 2018 for CPS-ordered urine tests, an amount the lawsuit called “staggering.” TennCare, the state’s Medicaid program, paid more than $9 million more during that time.

“For this reason, CPS considered [urine tests] to be ‘liquid gold’ — with revenues of tens of millions of dollars for what was largely unnecessary medical testing,” according to the suit.

The chain’s owners and then-CEO John Davis “viewed every CPS patient as an opportunity to make money, without regard to the individualized need for treatment,” the suit alleges. Davis was convicted last year in Nashville on federal criminal health care fraud charges. He has since filed a motion for a new trial.

Dan Martin, an attorney representing Kroll, said in an emailed statement: “We are aware of the allegations and very familiar with the actual facts. Dr. Kroll did not engage in any wrongdoing whatsoever, and we look forward to correcting the government’s misunderstanding of the facts.”

Dickerson’s attorney, Ed Yarbrough, also issued a statement that read: “Dr. Dickerson is an honest man. We will prove that in court.” 

$8.5 Billion Annually Spent on Drug Tests

In its investigation, KHN, with assistance from researchers at the Mayo Clinic, found that spending on urine screens and related genetic tests quadrupled from 2011 to 2014 to an estimated $8.5 billion a year — more than the entire budget of the Environmental Protection Agency. The federal government paid medical providers more to conduct urine drug tests in 2014 than it spent on the four most recommended cancer screenings combined.

CPS was among the nation’s most aggressive testers. KHN found that in 2014 five of its medical professionals stood among the nation’s top billers. Anita Bayles, a nurse practitioner working at a CPS clinic in Cleveland, Tenn., generated $1.1 million in urine-test billings that year, according to Medicare records analyzed by KHN.

The Justice Department suit says that CPS believed Bayles ordered too many urine tests and overprescribed opioids and in September 2016 decided to fire her. But the decision was reversed by CEO Davis “because of her ability to generate revenues,” according to the suit. Bayles could not be reached for comment.

IMAGE COURTESY OF MARK COLLEN AND PAIN EXHIBIT

Though CPS ran six or more urine tests a year on many patients receiving narcotics, its doctors often did not review the results to make sure patients did not abuse them, according to the suit.

Kroll, who also served as CPS’ medical director, told KHN in 2017 that the high volume of tests was justified to keep patients safe and to reduce chances of black market sales of pills.

Kroll billed Medicare $1.8 million for urine tests in 2015, the KHN analysis of Medicare billing records found.

Kroll said in a 2017 interview that he and Dickerson came up with the idea to open a high-quality pain practice over a cup of coffee at a Nashville Starbucks in 2005.

But the Justice Department alleges that CPS expanded rapidly through bilking the government, conduct that its top executives and founders “failed to take any action to stop,” according to the suit.

In what is called a “particularly egregious example of this fraudulent conduct,” the Justice Department alleged that Kroll caused over 2,500 claims to be submitted to Medicare, for which CPS was paid almost $350,000, during a 10-day period in May 2017 when Kroll was on vacation in Italy.

“Because of these fraudulent claims, Kroll’s billing privileges with Medicare have been revoked,” according to the suit.

The lawsuit states that Medicare officials began investigating overcharging for urine testing at CPS in 2014 and eventually directed the company to repay the government $27.4 million in an extrapolated penalty. But CPS aggressively appealed the decision and managed to get it overturned and stay in business.

Once among the largest pain management groups in the Southeast, CPS crumbled amid financial woes that included nearly a dozen civil suits alleging unpaid debts, as well as the criminal case against Davis. In a court filing in December, the company said that it had terminated all of its employees and that its debts “greatly exceed its assets.”

In total, Medicare paid CPS over $150 million from 2011 to 2018, a large part of which was related to urine testing, while TennCare paid CPS over $32.5 million, according to the suit.

The Justice Department complaint consolidates several whistleblower cases filed against the company by doctors and other former employees. Federal whistleblower cases seek recovery of money paid improperly and can include treble damages, or three times the amount of the original overpayment.

One of the whistleblowers said he toured the lab with CPS executives and observed an “overpowering and unpleasant smell of urine.” In response, a CPS executive said, “To me, it smells like money,” according to the whistleblower’s suit.

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.

Teens Who Abuse Rx Opioids More Likely to Try Heroin

By Roger Chriss, PNN Columnist

A new study from the University of Southern California finds that teens who abuse prescription opioids are more likely to start using heroin by high school graduation.  

Published in JAMA Pediatrics, the study tracked nearly 3,300 students in ten public high schools in the Los Angeles area from 2013-2017. Nearly 600 of those students reported using prescription opioids to get high.

By the end of high school, a total of 70 students had started using heroin, including about 12% of those who abused opioid medication. Only 1.7% of students who did not misuse prescription opioids tried heroin.

The researchers looked closely at not only the nonmedical use of prescription opioids, but also the use of other substances. A family history of smoking, alcohol and drug problems, and interpersonal factors such as impulsiveness, anxiety, depression and delinquent behavior were also assessed.

Among all the different factors, the best predictor of heroin use was the abuse of prescription opioids. This tendency was significantly stronger than the use of alcohol, cannabis, cigarettes or other non-opioid drugs.

"Prescription opioids and heroin activate the brain's pleasure circuit in similar ways," said senior author Adam Leventhal, PhD, director of the USC Institute for Addiction Science. "Teens who enjoy the 'high' from prescription opioids could be more inclined to seek out other drugs that produce euphoria, including heroin.”

Researchers also found that students who initiated heroin use were more likely to be male, have less parental monitoring, more delinquent behavior, and impulsive personalities.

The USC study adds to previous research on the complex drug use trajectories that culminate with heroin. It has long been known that nonmedical prescription opioid use is associated with later heroin use, with some anti-opioid activists claiming that 80% of heroin addicts begin by abusing prescription opioids. That is a misleading statistic, as I discussed in a previous column.

There clearly is an association between the misuse of prescription opioids and heroin use, but as the USC researchers found, many other factors are also involved and more research is needed. Their study, for example, did not look at how teens who misused prescription opioids obtained them.  Most likely, they were obtained from friends or family members.

The USC study findings not only advance our understanding of heroin initiation, but also signal the importance of developing better policies to prevent nonmedical opioid use.

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.

FDA Approves First Generics for Lyrica

By Pat Anson, PNN Editor

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has approved the first generic versions of Lyrica (pregabalin), a medication widely prescribed for the treatment of fibromyalgia, diabetic neuropathy and other types of chronic pain.

Lyrica has been a blockbuster drug for Pfizer since its approval in 2004, generating revenue of $4.6 billion annually. The recent expiration of Pfizer’s patent on Lyrica opened the door to much cheaper generic competitors.

A one year supply of Lyrica currently costs about $2,800 in the United States, according to Healthcare Bluebook, while a similar dose of pregabalin under the UK’s National Health Service costs about $74.

“Today’s approval of the first generics for pregabalin, a widely-used medication, is another example of the FDA’s longstanding commitment to advance patient access to lower cost, high-quality generic medicines,” Janet Woodcock, MD, director of the FDA’s Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, said in a statement.

“The FDA requires that generic drugs meet rigorous scientific and quality standards. Efficiently bringing safe and effective generics to market so patients have more options to treat their conditions is a top priority for the FDA.”

The FDA granted approvals for generic pregabalin to 9 drug makers: Alembic Pharmaceuticals, Alkem Laboratories, Amneal Pharmaceuticals, Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories, InvaGen Pharmaceuticals, MSN Laboratories, Rising Pharmaceuticals, Sciegen Pharmaceuticals, and Teva Pharmaceuticals.

Pfizer’s patent for Lyrica CR — an extended released version of Lyrica — remains in effect until April, 2021.

Side Effects

The most common side effects for Lyrica are dizziness, somnolence, dry mouth, swelling, blurred vision, weight gain and difficulty concentrating. Lyrica’s warning label also cautions users that the drug may cause suicidal thoughts in about 1 in 500 people.

Pregabalin is classified as Schedule V controlled substance in the U.S., which means it has a low potential for abuse. In recent years, however, there is growing concern that pregabalin and its sister drug gabapentin (Neurontin) are being abused and overprescribed. The drugs were recently classified as controlled substances in the UK.

Pregabalin and gabapentin were originally developed to prevent epileptic seizures, but their use has tripled over the past 15 years as more doctors prescribed them off-label as “safer” alternatives to opioids.

A recent study in the British Medical Journal found the drugs increase the risk of suicide, overdose and traffic accidents in younger people. The risks were strongest for those taking 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.

Pharmacists and Rx Wholesalers Charged with Drug Trafficking

By Pat Anson, PNN Editor

Major pharmaceutical companies like Purdue Pharma, Mallinckrodt and Johnson & Johnson are often singled out for their role in the nation’s opioid crisis. But wholesalers, pharmacies and other parts of the drug distribution system are also coming under scrutiny.

This week the former president and former compliance officer for an Ohio drug distributor and two West Virginia pharmacists were arrested after being indicted for conspiring to distribute controlled substances.

The company, Miami-Luken, supplied drugs to over 200 pharmacies in Ohio, West Virginia, Indiana and Tennessee, generating over $173 million in sales annually.

Prosecutors say Miami-Luken distributed opioid pain medication “outside the scope of professional practice and not for a legitimate medical purpose.”

Between 2011 and 2015, the company allegedly ignored “obvious signs of abuse” by distributing more than 2.3 million oxycodone pills and 2.6 million hydrocodone pills to a pharmacy in Oceana, West Virginia, a town of less than 1,400 people.

From 2008 to 2011, over 3.7 million hydrocodone pills were supplied by Miami-Luken to a pharmacy in Kermit, West Virginia, which has about 400 people.

Criminal Charges Rare

According to CNN, it’s only the second time a drug distributor has been criminally charged with illegally distributing opioid painkillers. In April, two former executives of the Rochester Drug Co-Operative in upstate New York were charged with drug trafficking for failing the stop suspicious orders for opioids.

In previous cases, wholesalers, pharmacies and even hospitals paid heavy fines for not being alert to suspicious activity. Last year, for example, Effingham Health System of Georgia agreed to pay a $4.1 million settlement after the DEA uncovered the diversion of tens of thousands of oxycodone tablets from its hospital.

In 2017, CVS Health agreed to pay a $5 million fine to settle allegations that several CVS pharmacies in California failed to detect thefts of hydrocodone. In 2015, CVS paid a $22 million fine because two of its Florida pharmacies filled bogus prescriptions for opioids.  

Cardinal Health, one of the nation’s largest drug wholesalers, was fined $34 million by the DEA in 2012 after it failed to report suspicious orders for hydrocodone at a Florida distribution facility.

The list goes on and on. The point is that no one went to prison or was criminally charged in any of these cases. Which may be about to change. The four defendants in the Miami-Luken case face up to 20 years in prison. 

“Today’s arrests should be a wakeup call to distributors and pharmacists who are allowing opioid prescription pills to be illegally sold and dispensed from their facilities,” said DEA Assistant Administrator John Martin. “These actions will not be tolerated by the DEA, and they will be brought to justice.”

Patients Caught in the Middle

Big fines and prison terms may be appropriate, but not if they result in legitimate patients with legitimate prescriptions being denied access to opioids.  That’s what happened in April to a California woman with Stage 4 terminal breast cancer, who couldn’t get a prescription filled for Norco at her local Rite Aid pharmacy.  

April Doyle’s tearful, 6-minute video about her experience went viral online, and she wound up getting apologies from a Rite Aid vice-president, the store manager and even the pharmacist who sent her away without pain medication.

Rite-Aid’s caution in filling opioid prescriptions may have stemmed from being added a few months earlier as a defendant in New York City’s opioid lawsuit (along with CVS, Walgreens and Walmart) by the law firm of Simmons Hanly Conroy.  

“Many plaintiffs in opioid lawsuits are amending their complaints to include these retailers because they failed to monitor the drugs sold out of their pharmacy windows,” Simmons Hanly said in a statement.

The Washington Post released a report this week on how drug companies, wholesalers and pharmacies “saturated the country” with 76 billion oxycodone and hydrocodone pills from 2006 through 2012. Those pills, according to the Post, “fueled the prescription opioid epidemic” and resulted in nearly 100,000 deaths.

But as Jeffrey Singer points out in Cato at Liberty, the Post is contributing to a false narrative about the opioid crisis by pinning the blame on prescription opioids, while largely ignoring the fact that most deaths are caused by illicit drugs such as heroin and illicit fentanyl.

“The overdose problem has never been a product of doctors treating patients for pain. It has always been a product of (a growing population of) nonmedical users accessing drugs in a dangerous black market fueled by drug prohibition,” Singer wrote.  “The continued obsession about the number of pain pills being prescribed causes patients to go undertreated for their pain and will not make one IV drug user pull the needle out of their arm.”

Closing Arguments in Oklahoma Opioid Trial

By Jackie Fortier, StateImpact Oklahoma

A global megacorporation best known for Band-Aids and baby powder may have to pay billions for its alleged role in the opioid crisis. Johnson & Johnson was the sole defendant in a closely watched trial that wrapped up in Oklahoma state court this week, with a decision expected later this summer.

The ruling in the civil case could be the first that would hold a pharmaceutical company responsible for one of the worst drug epidemics in American history.

Oklahoma Attorney General Mike Hunter’s lawsuit alleges Johnson & Johnson and its subsidiary Janssen Pharmaceuticals helped ignite the opioid crisis with overly aggressive marketing, leading to thousands of overdose deaths over the past decade in Oklahoma alone.

The trial took place over seven weeks in the college town of Norman. Instead of a jury, a state judge heard the case. During closing arguments Monday, Hunter called the company the “kingpin” of the opioid crisis.

“What is truly unprecedented here is the conduct of these defendants on embarking on a cunning, cynical and deceitful scheme to create the need for opioids,” Hunter said.

The state urged Judge Thad Balkman, who presided over the civil trial, to find Johnson & Johnson liable for creating a “public nuisance” and force the company to pay more than $17 billion over 30 years to abate the public health crisis in the state.

Driving the opioid crisis home has been a cornerstone of Oklahoma’s lawsuit. In closing arguments Monday, one of the state’s attorneys, Brad Beckworth, cited staggering prescribing statistics in the county where the trial took place.

“What we do have in Cleveland County is 135 prescription opioids for every adult,” Beckworth said. “Those didn’t get here from drug cartels. They got here from one cartel: the pharmaceutical industry cartel. And the kingpin of it all is Johnson & Johnson.”

Johnson & Johnson’s attorney Larry Ottaway, rejected that idea in his closing argument, saying the company’s products, which had included the fentanyl patch Duragesic and the opioid-based pill Nucynta, were minimally used in Oklahoma.

He scoffed at the idea that physicians in the state were convinced to unnecessarily prescribe opioids due to the company’s marketing tactics.

“The FDA label clearly set forth the risk of addiction, abuse and misuse that could lead to overdose and death. Don’t tell me that doctors weren’t aware of the risks,” Ottaway said.

Ottaway played video testimony from earlier in the trial, showing Oklahoma doctors who said they were not misled about the drugs’ risks before prescribing them.

“Only a company that believes its innocence would come in and defend itself against a state, but we take the challenge on because we believe we are right,” Ottaway argued.

Initially, Hunter’s lawsuit included Purdue Pharma, the maker of OxyContin. In March, Purdue Pharma settled with the state for $270 million. Soon after, Hunter dropped all but one of the civil claims, including fraud, against the two remaining defendants.

Just two days before the trial began, another defendant, Teva Pharmaceuticals of Jerusalem, announced an $85 million settlement with the state. The money will be used for litigation costs and an undisclosed amount will be allocated “to abate the opioid crisis in Oklahoma,” according to a press release from Hunter’s office.

Both companies deny any wrongdoing.

The Legal Liability of ‘Public Nuisance’

Most states and more than 1,600 local and tribal governments are suing drugmakers who manufactured various kinds of opioid medications, and drug distributors. They are trying to recoup billions of dollars spent addressing the human costs of opioid addiction.

“Everyone is looking to see what’s going to happen with this case, whether it is going to be tobacco all over again, or whether it’s going to go the way the litigation against the gun-makers went,” says University of Georgia law professor Elizabeth Burch.

But the legal strategy is complicated. Unlike the tobacco industry, from which states won a landmark settlement, the makers of prescription opioids manufacture a product that serves a legitimate medical purpose, and is prescribed by highly trained physicians — a point that Johnson & Johnson’s lawyers made numerous times during the trial.

Oklahoma’s legal team based its entire case on a claim of public nuisance, which refers to actions that harm members of the public, including injury to public health. Burch says each state has its own public nuisance statute, and Oklahoma’s is very broad.

“Johnson & Johnson, in some ways, is right to raise the question: If we’re going to apply public nuisance to us, under these circumstances, what are the limits?” Burch said. “If the judge or an appellate court sides with the state, they are going to have to write a very specific ruling on why public nuisance applies to this case.”

Burch said the challenge for Oklahoma has been to tie one opioid manufacturer to all of the harms caused by the ongoing public health crisis, which includes people struggling with addiction to prescription drugs, but also those harmed by illegal street opioids, such as heroin.

University of Kentucky law professor Richard Ausness agreed that it’s difficult to pin all the problems on just one company.

“Companies do unethical or immoral things all the time, but that doesn’t make it illegal,” Ausness said.

If the judge rules against Johnson & Johnson, Ausness said, it could compel other drug companies facing litigation to settle out of court. Conversely, a victory for the drug giant could embolden the industry in the other cases.

Oklahoma’s Paid Expert Witness

Earlier in the trial, the state’s paid expert witness, Dr. Andrew Kolodny, testified that Johnson & Johnson did more than push its own pills — until 2016, it also profited by manufacturing raw ingredients for opioids and then selling them to other companies, including Purdue, which makes Oxycontin.

“Purdue Pharma and the Sacklers have been stealing the spotlight, but Johnson & Johnson in some ways, has been even worse,” said Kolodny, who indicated he would be paid upwards of $500,000 for his testimony.

Kolodny said that’s why the company downplayed to doctors the risks of opioids as a general class of drugs, knowing that almost any opioid prescription would benefit its bottom line.

The state’s case also focused on the role of drug sales representatives. Drue Diesselhorst was one of Johnson & Johnson’s busiest drug reps in Oklahoma. Records discussed during the trial showed she continued to call on Oklahoma doctors who had been disciplined by the state for overprescribing opioids. She even continued to meet with doctors who had patients who died from overdoses.

DR. ANDREW KOLODNY

But Diesselhorst testified she didn’t know about the deaths, and no one ever instructed her to stop targeting those high-prescribing physicians.

“My job was to be a sales rep. My job was not to figure out the red flags,” she said on the witness stand.

Johnson & Johnson’s Defense

Throughout the trial, Johnson & Johnson’s defense team avoided many of the broader accusations made by the state, instead focusing on the question of whether the specific opioids manufactured by the company could have caused Oklahoma’s high rates of addiction and deaths from overdose.

Johnson & Johnson’s lawyer, Larry Ottaway, argued the company’s opioid products had a smaller market share in the state compared to other pharmaceutical companies, and he stressed that the company made every effort when the drugs were tested to prevent abuse.

He also pointed out that the sale of both the raw ingredients and prescription opioids themselves are heavily regulated.

“This is not a free market,” he said. “The supply is regulated by the government.”

Ottaway maintained the company was addressing the desperate medical need of people suffering from debilitating, chronic pain — using medicines regulated by the Food and Drug Administration and the Drug Enforcement Administration. Even Oklahoma purchases these drugs, for use in state health care services.

Judge Thad Balkman is expected to announce a verdict in August.

If the state’s claim prevails, Johnson & Johnson could, ultimately, have to spend billions of dollars in Oklahoma helping to ease the epidemic. State attorneys are asking that the company pay $17.5 billion over 30 years, to help abate the crisis in the state.

Balkman could choose to award the full amount, or just some portion of it, if he agrees with the state’s claim.

“You know, in some ways I think it’s the right strategy to go for the $17 billion,” Burch, the law professor, said. “[The state is saying] look, the statute doesn’t limit it for us, so we’re going to ask for everything we possibly can.”

In the case of a loss, Johnson & Johnson is widely expected to appeal the verdict. If Oklahoma loses, the state will appeal, Attorney General Mike Hunter said Monday.

This story is part of a partnership that includes StateImpact Oklahoma, NPR and 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.

WHO Criticized for Withdrawing Opioid Guidelines

By Pat Anson, PNN Editor

A coalition of international palliative care organizations is protesting a decision by the World Health Organization (WHO) to withdraw two guidelines for treating pain with opioid pain medication.

“We are extremely concerned that the withdrawal of these guidance documents will lead to confusion and possible extreme measures that will hinder access to patients with legitimate medical needs,” the coalition said in a joint statement released this week.

The guidelines were withdrawn after two U.S. congressmen released a report that accused WHO of being “corruptly influenced” by Purdue Pharma and other opioid manufactures when it developed the guidelines in 2011 and 2012. The guidelines for treating pain in adults and children state that opioids “are known to be safe and there is no need to fear accidental death or dependence.”

Reps. Katherine Clark (D-MA) and Hal Rogers (R-KY) said the WHO guidelines served as “marketing materials” for Purdue, the maker of OxyContin.

“We are highly troubled that, after igniting the opioid epidemic that cost the United States 50,000 lives in 2017 alone… Purdue is deliberately using the same playbook on an international scale,” the report said. “If the recommendations in these WHO guidelines are followed, there is significant risk of sparking a worldwide public health crisis.”

WHO withdrew the guidelines a month after the report was released, citing “new scientific evidence” that emerged since their publication.

WHO’s decision to withdraw the guidelines gave credibility to a congressional report based largely on innuendo, according to the statement released by over a hundred palliative care organizations, including the American Academy of Hospice and Palliative Medicine and the UK-based International Observatory on End of Life Care.

“The report contains serious factual inaccuracies and draws inaccurate and unfair conclusions. It includes misleading information, and by making false accusations of existing collaborations and alliances to advance pain relief and palliative care, concludes that there was corruption within WHO,” the coalition said. “No staff member of the offices of the U.S. representatives contacted any of the organizations or individuals mentioned in the document to seek our responses to the allegations made in the report.”

According to the coalition, the withdrawal of the guidelines could further impede the availability of pain medication in third world countries, where less than 2% of palliative care patients have access to opioids.

“Under-treatment of severe pain is reported in more than 150 countries,” the coalition said. “At least 5 billion people live in countries affected by the crisis of under-consumption, and more than 18 million annually die with untreated, excruciating pain.”

The coalition cited the case of a cancer patient in New Delhi, India, who wanted to die until she was able to obtain opioids through a CanSupport palliative care program.  

“I am a functioning human being in charge of my life once again. This has been made possible thanks to the oral morphine that I now take.”

— Cancer patient in New Delhi, India

“I was a human wreck. My family was at their wits end as to how to help me. Because of my excruciating pain, I could not sit, sleep, eat or drink, let alone speak or think. When the team first met me my first request to them was for an injection that would put me out of my misery,” the patient said.

“Today, I am a functioning human being in charge of my life once again. This has been made possible thanks to the oral morphine that I now take on a regular basis.”

The palliative care coalition said it was unfair to deny opioids to patients in third world countries because of abuse and addiction problems in the U.S. and other developed nations.  The coalition called on WHO to update and revise the guidelines “with all deliberate speed” and to reinstate them until the revisions are made.

‘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.