Pain Patients Have Low Rates of Illicit Drug Use

By Pat Anson, PNN Editor

Anti-opioid activists have long claimed that opioid medication is a gateway drug to heroin and other street drugs. That myth is so ingrained in the medical community that many pain patients are discriminated against by doctors and pharmacists, who suspect they are abusing their medication or using illicit drugs.

But a large new study by Millennium Health pokes a hole in that myth, finding that patients being treated in pain management practices are far less likely to use heroin, fentanyl, cocaine and methamphetamine than other patients.

The drug testing firm analyzed the lab results of two million urine tests from 2015 to 2021 – nearly 600,000 coming from pain patients -- and found that patients seeing primary care physicians, behavioral health doctors (psychiatrists and psychologists), or getting substance use disorder (SUD) treatment were significantly more likely to test positive for street drugs than patients of pain management providers.

SOURCE: MILLENNIUM HEALTH

“That’s one of the reasons why we decided to put this out there in the public domain, because it’s important. Because clearly there are differences across these groups,” said Eric Dawson, PharmD, Vice President of Clinical Affairs at Millennium Health.

For example, the positivity rate for fentanyl in urine samples is about 2% for pain management patients – a level that remained stable throughout the 6-year study period.

But Millennium found that for primary care and behavioral health patients, the positivity rate for fentanyl has ticked up to about 5 percent.

In patients getting SUD treatment, the positivity rate has skyrocketed to about 17 percent, no doubt a reflection of the growing presence of illicit fentanyl in street drugs.

Positivity rates for methamphetamine are also rising for most patients – but not for pain patients – while cocaine use has remained relatively flat. Positivity rates for heroin have declined steadily for all patients since 2015, according to Millennium.

“Generally speaking, the pain population that’s treated with opioids is an older population and uses illicit drugs at a very low rate,” said Steven Passik, PhD, VP of Scientific Affairs and Head of Clinical Data Programs at Millennium.

“Not only are they low, they remain low,” says Dawson. “So many of the other groups, over time their positivity rates are increasing. The pain population started low and remains low. And that says they are different than the other groups.”

What makes the findings even more striking is that they include the first two years of the covid pandemic, a time when stress, isolation and depression led many people to abuse drugs.

“But that did not happen in the pain patients. You can actually see that,” says Passik, who believes regular drug testing makes pain management patients less likely to take risks that might affect their healthcare. He thinks the Millennium study should be reviewed by both providers and policymakers to get a better understanding of people in pain.

“There isn’t that much data like this out there. I think it’s unique and very positive about this population. And I think that should be factored in when people are talking about access to opioids,” Passik told PNN.

In addition to fentanyl, heroin and other street drugs, the Millennium study also looked at positivity rates for marijuana, which have soared in recent years due to the legalization of medical and recreational cannabis in many states. By the end of 2021, the positivity rate for cannabis had reached nearly 32 percent for most patients. But, like the other drugs, cannabis use remained relatively low for pain patients.  

Why CDC Dropped One-Size-Fits-All Approach to Pain Care

By Pat Anson, PNN Editor

The reaction from patients, advocates and the medical community to a revised draft of the CDC’s opioid guideline has largely been positive, with many cheering the flexibility it gives doctors in deciding whether to prescribe opioids for pain.  

Although voluntary and only intended for primary care physicians, the original 2016 guideline’s dose limits became hard thresholds for doctors in all specialties, who feared scrutiny from regulators and law enforcement if they didn’t follow them. The revised draft still recommends caution when prescribing opioids, but emphasizes that physicians should use their own judgement.

“Treating pain is complex. There are a variety of factors at play. And we know that patients respond differently to different types of pain. We tried to incorporate that nuance so that we’re not coming out with something that’s a one-size-fits-all. It really needs to be individualized and flexible,” said Christopher Jones, PharmD, Acting Director of the CDC’s National Center for Injury Prevention and Control.”

People who’ve been closely following the guideline process were surprised at how extensive the changes are. At a July 2021 public meeting, an independent panel advising the CDC expressed alarm that the agency seemed intent on keeping a recommendation that opioid doses be limited to no more than 90 morphine milligram equivalents (MME) per day.

In the last six months, that dose threshold was taken out of the revised draft, which was published Thursday in the Federal Register.

“It was exciting to open up the draft and see a significant pivot,” said David Dickerson, MD, who chairs the American Society of Anesthesiologists’ Committee on Pain Medicine. “I think the CDC authors have acknowledged that they wanted to do it different this time.”

Dickerson was not only pleased to see the 90 MME threshold go away, but a stronger focus on the many different types of pain, whether its temporary acute pain from surgery or chronic pain from a disabling, incurable disease.  

“I think the text of this manuscript is really well done in its draft form right now. When I read through it, it was a great refresher and highlighted some studies that perhaps I had missed,” Dickerson told PNN. “They are instructive, they’re specific, but they also have an intentional vagueness to them to allow for clinicians to practice medicine.”

Importantly, the guideline also makes clear that it shouldn’t be used by third parties to dictate how pain should be treated.

“This voluntary clinical practice guideline provides recommendations only and is intended to be flexible to support, not supplant, clinical judgment and individualized, person-centered decision-making. This clinical practice guideline should not be applied as inflexible standards of care across patient populations by healthcare professionals, health systems, pharmacies, third-party payers, or state, local, and federal organizations or entities.”

“States and insurers have turned the guideline into laws and unbending regulations, preventing physicians from treating patients as individuals with specific needs,” Bobby Mukkamala, MD, Chair of the American Medical Association’s Board of Trustees, said in a statement. “The list of misapplications of the 2016 guideline is long, and its impact has been tremendous harm.

“The CDC’s new draft guideline — if followed by policymakers, health insurance companies and pharmacy chains — provides a path to remove arbitrary prescribing thresholds, restore balance and support comprehensive, compassionate care.”

Nearly 40 states have codified the 2016 guideline in some way, often by limiting the number of opioid pills that can be dispensed for an initial prescription to seven days’ supply or less.  Dickerson hopes those states will review and revise their laws and regulations to better reflect what the CDC recommends in its revised draft – that enough opioids be prescribed for “the expected duration of pain.”

“We should right-size our care for the individual patient and be procedure specific. Before it was one-size-fits-all, three to seven days’ (supply),” Dickerson said.  

He also thinks the Department of Justice (DOJ) and Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) should reconsider their aggressive prosecution of doctors for prescribing high doses.

“The work that the DOJ and DEA is doing, I want to believe is done in good intent,” he said. “I think that many of their cases will look at the prescriptions or the doses, but they might not look at the context for why the patient was receiving that care or why they were receiving those medicines.”   

The CDC is not expected to finalize its draft guideline until late this year. You can read the guideline and leave an online comment in the Federal Register by clicking here. Comments must be received by April 11.

Revised CDC Opioid Guideline Gives Doctors More Flexibility

By Pat Anson, PNN Editor

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has released a long-awaited draft revision of its 2016 opioid prescribing guideline, making significant changes to recommendations so that healthcare providers have more flexibility in how they manage pain.  

Although voluntary and only intended for primary care physicians treating chronic pain, the original guideline was widely misapplied as a rigid “standard of care” by many states, insurers, providers and law enforcement, causing millions of patients to be taken off opioids or forcibly tapered to lower doses. As result, many went into withdrawal, became bedridden and disabled, committed suicide or were abandoned by their doctors. And while opioid prescribing declined, drug overdoses soared to record levels.  

“We certainly have learned and recognized the harm that has resulted when aspects of the 2016 guideline have been applied as inflexible, rigid standards that really go beyond the intent of what we wanted to occur,” said Christopher Jones, PharmD, Acting Director of the CDC’s National Center for Injury Prevention and Control. “We wanted to be very clear in this guideline that this is a clinical tool. It’s intended to support individualized patient centered care.

“There is a role for opioids in pain management and if the decision between a provider and a patient is to use them, here’s how we think that can be done in a safe manner.”

The updated draft guideline has been published in the Federal Register, where it will be available for public comment for 60 days. A final revised document is not expected until late this year.

Perhaps the most significant change to the guideline is the elimination of dose thresholds. The original guideline strongly encouraged providers not to exceed daily opioid doses of 90 morphine milligram equivalents (MME).

The revised guideline still maintains that opioids should not be used as first-line or routine therapy for pain, but takes a more nuanced and flexible approach to dosing. Providers are urged to be careful about increasing doses above 50 MME and to weigh the individual needs of each patient.

The revised guideline also has a strong warning to providers not to abruptly taper patients. And it drops a previous recommendation that limits the initial supply of opioids to a few days for acute, short-term pain. Rather than a specific number of days, the guideline recommends that opioids be provided for the “expected duration of pain severe enough to require opioids” – essentially leaving it up to providers to determine how long that may be.  

“I think we want to avoid something being seen as a rigid standard of care.  We’re quite explicit that is not the goal here,” Jones told PNN in an exclusive interview. “I think we’ve tried to frame the recommendations with more nuance than what was done in 2016, based on the latest science and feedback from the clinical community and patients that when there are hard thresholds, it is very easy for those to be misapplied and go beyond the intent of why they were there.”

‘They Listened to People in Pain’

Patients advocates who have lobbied the CDC for years to withdraw or revise the 2016 guideline were generally pleased with the updated version.

“I feel like they listened to people in pain,” says Kate Nicholson, Executive Director of the National Pain Advocacy Center and a member of the “Opioid Workgroup” that advised the CDC as the guideline was being rewritten. “It’s better than I feared. It’s trying to be more balanced. And I do feel there’s some intent to listen to people with pain and their experience, and acknowledge the guideline’s flaws. You’ve got to be grateful to them for that, that they listened. It’s a pretty big change for a federal agency.”

“The wording of the recommendations themselves is much improved over the 2016 version. In particular, the elimination of specific dosage numbers is welcomed because those were very easy for policymakers and payers to latch onto in setting policies,” said Bob Twillman, PhD, former Executive Director of the Academy of Integrative Pain Management.  

“While it's good that they are removing those, I fear that it's a bit like closing the barn door after the horse has escaped. There is a lot of work that needs to be done to modify or eliminate policies that were tied to the specific numbers in the 2016 guideline, and I'd like to see CDC play a role in that work.”  

Twillman, who was a stakeholder consulted by the CDC during the drafting of its original guideline, said he was pleased to see the agency caution against the use of “step therapy,” which requires insured patients to try non-opioid treatments first before moving on to stronger pain relievers. He believes treatments should be decided by patients and providers, not insurers.    

“I'm gratified to see that they did what I advised them (twice) to do with the 2016 guideline, in that they are calling for clinicians and patients to jointly determine the goals of care,” Twilllman said in an email. “That is absolutely vital, and it's really nice to see the emphasis on that. Developing some tools that help patients and clinicians do that seems to be a task that needs to be done.” 

The transparent rollout of the revised guideline is in marked contrast to how CDC handled the release of the original guideline in 2015, a process that was cloaked in secrecy and included little input from patients or pain management experts. The agency initially refused to disclose who they consulted with, which included several anti-opioid activists.

The CDC’s secrecy sparked distrust in the pain community, which only worsened when the agency ignored early complaints that the guideline was being misapplied. It wasn’t until 2019 the CDC admitted the guideline was harming patients and that revisions were needed.

Six years have now passed since the original guideline was released. More work remains and the CDC is hoping to get additional feedback from patients, providers and others on its revisions.

“It’s important to point out that the guideline is not final and the step that we’re at now is a real critical point in the process to wrestle with and get feedback on the issues that you’re raising,” said Jones. “And that’s why it’s important that we hear from readers of Pain News Network to get feedback, to get that experience, so as we move toward a final guideline, we can incorporate that feedback. We hope that insurers, medical community, law enforcement and others will also review the guideline and provide feedback.”

You can leaver an online comment in the Federal Register by clicking here. Comments must be received by April 11.

A Rising Storm: Preparing for Revised CDC Opioid Guideline

By Richard Lawhern, PNN Contributor

Last month, the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention announced that a revised draft of its 2016 guideline for prescribing opioid pain relievers would soon be posted in the Federal Register and be available for public comment for 60 days. For patients in pain, their caregivers and their doctors, CDC might as well have issued an invitation to a gunfight at the OK Corral.

Revisions to the CDC opioid guideline have been underway since 2019.  During this period, much has changed in public awareness about chronic pain and addiction. Much more may change in the coming year as the CDC finalizes its draft revisions.

1. Despite the 2019 CDC admission that the opioid guideline has been “misapplied” by many states, insurers and physicians as hard limits on opioid prescribing, the Department of Justice (DOJ) and Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA) have continued selectively targeting doctors for prosecution when they prescribe opioids at high doses. As a result, the number of physicians still willing to treat pain with opioid analgesics has dropped precipitously.  And many thousands of patients have been involuntarily tapered or withdrawn from opioid therapy. 

2. DOJ, state and local prosecutors have recently announced multi-billion dollar settlements with major pharmaceutical companies for false advertising and promoting opioid pain relievers.  However, a judge in Orange County, California threw out an opioid lawsuit against four Pharma companies. The Oklahoma Supreme Court also overturned a lower court verdict on appeal.  In both cases, judges found no evidence to establish that the use or advertising of opioid painkillers is a “public nuisance.”  These cases offer precedents that might overturn other settlements or deny other government lawsuits against pharmaceutical companies. 

3. Two physicians convicted of inappropriate prescribing have taken their appeals to the US Supreme Court. Their case will be heard in March. Prominent medical associations and law firms have submitted “Friend of the Court” (amicus curae) briefs, pointing out that there is presently no accepted “standard of practice” for prescription of opioids, against which to evaluate appropriateness. Thus, a presumption of physician good faith should prevail in the absence of conclusive evidence of intentional opioid misuse.  If accepted, this premise will significantly narrow the grounds under which a physician can be prosecuted by DEA or DOJ for inappropriate opioid prescribing.

4. On July 16, 2021, the Board of Scientific Counselors of the CDC National Center for Injury Prevention and Control met in an online session to consider the report of their appointed Opioid Workgroup (OWG) evaluating progress in revising the 2016 CDC opioid guidelines. The OWG report provided a top-level “sneak peak” into the content of the proposed revisions, without the supporting data or references used by five authors rewriting the guideline.  For patients and advocates, this peek revealed a little shop of horrors. The OWG voiced fundamental concerns for unsupported or incorrect assertions concerning underlying science and medical practice.  

The problems revealed six months ago have since been compounded in at least two ways. First, research has shown that the underlying rationale of the CDC guideline and the proposed revisions is grounded upon a concept that is best characterized as “junk science.” 

Much of the damage done by the 2016 CDC guideline was caused by daily dose recommendations based on morphine milligram equivalents (MME). However, MME is not a single metric or even the correct one to base decisions on. In fact, there are four different models for MME which generate significantly different estimates for the “equivalence” between various opioid medications. Likewise, a June 2021 FDA Workshop on MME research revealed significant  weaknesses in the methods and protocols from which these models were developed.

Finally, a recently published review of the clinical literature for opioids and chronic pain reveals a 15-to-1 range in minimum effective dose for opioids used in long term therapy for moderate to severe pain. Much of this range appears to be caused by genetic differences in key liver enzymes which metabolize opioids. The literature also reveals very low risks of addiction among pain patients actively managed on opioids. Many papers mistake “pseudo-addiction” for drug tolerance or addiction.

Conflict of Interest

There is also evidence that CDC violated its own internal standards for objectivity when it selected the writers of the opioid guideline and recent revisions. Dr. Roger Chou, one of the co-authors of the original and revised guideline, has an established history of collaboration with key figures in anti-opioid organizations. 

Moreover, as pointed out by the OWG, a disproportionate number of publications where Chou was a principal author were used as source research for the guidelines as published. Chou not only led research on opioid outcomes and contributed to writing the guidelines, he also sits on the Board of Scientific Counselors that appointed the OWG.  He was thus in a position to lobby actively for his own work as a national standard of care. This is a fundamental professional conflict of interest.

As we near the release of a revised draft CDC guideline, one central trend seems clear.  If the writers of this guideline insist on doubling down on the errors of their original effort in 2016 – as they apparently did in July 2021 – then it will be time to remove CDC from its oversight of the practice of pain medicine, perhaps in favor of FDA or the National Academies of Medicine. 

As an advocate for people in pain and their doctors, it is from this frame of reference that I will approach my reading of the Federal Register.  I’m going into the review process “loaded for bear.”  I hope patients and their physicians will join me.

Richard “Red” Lawhern, PhD, has for over 25 years volunteered as a patient advocate in online pain communities and a subject matter expert on public policy for medical opioids. Dr. Lawhern has written or co-authored over 150 papers and articles published in medical journals and mass media.

Only 1 in 7 Chronic Pain Patients Use Opioids

By Pat Anson, PNN Editor

Have you tried physical therapy? What about yoga or Tai Chi? Did massage help you feel better?

Just about everyone in chronic pain has been asked that by family members, friends, doctors and sometimes even complete strangers.  The questions are innocent enough and usually well-meaning, but they often imply that a pain sufferer hasn’t looked beyond opioids for pain relief.

A new study shows that most people with chronic pain make extensive use of non-opioids and other “alternative” pain treatments – and that it’s relatively rare for a patient to only use opioids for pain relief.

The findings, published in JAMA Network Open, are based on answers to the 2019 National Health Survey by nearly 32,000 U.S. adults with chronic pain. The 2019 survey was the first to ask people about their use of 11 pain management techniques during the previous three months.

It turns out most people with chronic pain (54.7%) only used non-opioid pain management. And nearly a third (30.2%) used no pain therapy whatsoever. The rest either used opioids alone (4.4%) or a combination of opioids with one or more alternative treatments (10.7%).

That means only about 1 in every 7 adults with chronic pain even use opioids – a startling number when you consider the constant harping from anti-opioid activists and public health officials about how opioids are “overprescribed” in the U.S.   

“This study found that adults with chronic pain in the US use a variety of pain management techniques, including opioids,” wrote lead author Cornelius Groenewald, MB, a pediatric anesthesiologist and associate professor at the University of Washington School of Medicine. “Nonpharmacologic and nonopioid pharmacologic therapies are preferred treatments for chronic pain, and it is encouraging to note that most adults with chronic pain use a combination of various nonopioid modalities for treatment.”

Alternative Chronic Pain Therapies Used in 2019

• 18.8% Physical Therapy

• 17.6% Massage

• 15.6% Meditation or Relaxation Techniques

• 11.6% Spinal Manipulation or Chiropractic Care

• 8.5% Yoga or Tai Chi

• 5.1% Pain Self-Management Workshops

•  3.8% Psychological or CBT Therapy

• 1.8% Peer Support Group      

Nearly 40% of chronic pain sufferers reported using other therapies that were not listed in the survey. That may include treatments such as cannabis, kratom, medical devices, acupuncture or even ice packs. It would be good to include more of those options in future surveys.

Groenewald and his colleagues were disappointed that so few people used psychological techniques such as cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT), which was the only alternative pain therapy that they said was “underused.”   

The researchers found that complementary, psychological or psychotherapeutic therapies were more likely to be used by younger adults, females and people with more education. Adults using physical, occupational or rehabilitative therapies were more likely to be older, female, highly educated and have medical insurance.

Report Warns of Million More Opioid Overdose Deaths

By Pat Anson, PNN Editor

A new report is warning that over a million more people will die of opioid overdoses in the U.S. and Canada by the end of the decade unless public health policies are prioritized to treat opioid addiction and marketing by pharmaceutical companies is prohibited.

“Unrestrained profit-seeking and regulatory failure instigated the opioid crisis 25 years ago, and since then, little has been done to stop it,” says Keith Humphreys, PhD, a Stanford psychiatry professor who chaired the Stanford-Lancet Commission on the North American Opioid Crisis. “Pharma companies are all being sued, and they deserve to be sued, but we have to remember they exploited weaknesses in our health care regulatory system that are still there.”

The commission’s report, published in The Lancet medical journal, projects that from 2020 to 2029, opioid deaths in the U.S. will reach 1.22 million if no action is taken.

The Stanford-Lancet commission lays most of the blame for the North American opioid crisis on the pharmaceutical industry, particularly Purdue Pharma’s heavy-handed promotion of OxyContin, as well as lax regulation by the Food and Drug Administration. The report calls for a ban on all direct-to-consumer drug advertising and for an end to pharmaceutical funding of continuing medical education programs.

The commission’s 50-page report was prepared by a panel of academics, clinicians and policymakers, including several longtime critics of opioid prescribing practices. They include Drs. Anna Lembke and David Juurlink, who are board members of the anti-opioid activist group Physicians for Responsible Opioid Prescribing (PROP), and Erin Krebs, MD, a researcher who hosted a lecture series on opioid prescribing for the Steve Rummler Hope Foundation, which lobbies against the use of opioids. The Rummler foundation is the fiscal sponsor of PROP.

Humphreys is also a frequent critic of opioid prescribing. In 2018, he co-authored a controversial article that dismissed concerns that cutbacks in prescribing would be harmful to patients, saying that reducing the supply of opioids “may increase heroin use and reduce quality of life in the short term, but in the long term could generate positive health benefits.”

Humphreys’ commission took a more even-handed approach to opioids, saying the drugs “are in some cases of great benefit and in others very harmful” and that regulators should avoid “overly lax or overly restrictive prescribing policies, both of which have substantial potential for harm.”

But there is little discussion in the report of how opioid prescribing has already declined significantly in the U.S. and Canada, how it has harmed pain patients, or that the overdose crisis is now largely fueled by illicit fentanyl and other street drugs, not prescription opioids.

"The Stanford/Lancet report on the so-called opioid crisis is not only one-sided. It is fundamentally wrong on facts and deliberately slanted on interpretation. This is unsurprising, given the participation of several long-time anti-opioid zealots on its commission,” said patient advocate Richard “Red” Lawhern, PhD. 

"It is now well established from multiple published sources that over-prescription of pain relievers by physicians treating pain patients is not now and never has been a significant source of addiction or overdose-related mortality in the US.  Deaths solely due to prescription opioids are in fact quite rare. Overdose deaths are dominated by deaths due to poly-pharmacy, alcohol, and illegal street fentanyl.” 

The commission’s work was funded by Stanford University’s School of Medicine.

Few Fatal Overdoses Found in Rx Opioid Study

By Pat Anson, PNN Editor

The odds of having an overdose are relatively small for most people after getting their first opioid prescription, but are significantly higher if patients are over age 75, insured by Medicaid or Medicare, and have a history of depression or substance use disorders, according to a large new study.

Researchers analyzed health claims for nearly 237,000 opioid “naïve” patients in Oregon from 2013 to 2018, and found that about 3 in 1,000 (0.3%) experienced an overdose within three years of their first prescription. The vast majority of the 667 reported overdoses were non-fatal, and researchers could not determine if they involved illicit opioids or the opioids that patients were prescribed.  

“There were relative few fatal overdoses - I believe it was less than 100. So we didn't look further than that because there wasn't statistical power,” said lead author Scott Weiner, MD, an emergency physician at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston. “Unfortunately, it is not possible to ascertain if the overdose was from illicit or prescribed opioids from the data.”  

One of the more surprising aspects of the study is that there was little association found between overdoses and high dose prescriptions. The CDC says opioids prescribed at daily doses that exceed 90 MME (morphine milligram equivalent) raise the risk of overdose, but Weiner and his colleagues found little evidence to support that.  

“Incidence of overdose was not associated with varying levels of MME that were received in the first 6 months, which may indicate that patient factors may be more important than the strength of the opioids prescribed. These are both novel findings,” researchers reported in in JAMA Network Open.

The research team did find a higher risk of overdose when patients were prescribed long-acting opioids such as oxycodone, or used opioids concurrently with benzodiazepines, a class of anti-anxiety medication.  

Patients in the study who refilled an opioid prescription 6 or more times also had a higher overdose risk, as did those who got refills from three or more pharmacies. 

Patients with alcohol or substance use disorders had the highest risk of overdose, as did those with a history of depression or psychosis. 

Medicaid, Medicare and Elderly Patients at High Risk

Another high risk factor associated with overdose is insurance coverage. Patients covered by Medicaid had an overdose risk almost four times higher than those covered by a private insurer, while those insured by Medicare Advantage had an overdose risk nearly 8 times higher than commercially insured patients. 

The finding that patients over age 75 had an overdose risk nearly three times higher than other age groups is not surprising, according to one pain management expert.

“Obviously, this older age group has more comorbidities which is also associated with increased risk,” said Lynn Webster, MD, past president of the American Academy of Pain Medicine. “What we don’t know is why opioids were prescribed and if severity of pain or suicidality or denial to prescribe opioids for severe pain could be contributing factors for the higher risk of overdose with elderly patients.”

Weiner cautioned doctors against taking the findings too literally. For example, although African-Americans were found to have a higher risk of overdose compared to white patients, they make up only a small percentage of Oregon’s population, making the data for them statistically weak.

“I absolutely do not advocate for suboptimal pain control for any patient, regardless of their risk profile. However, I do want prescribers to be careful when prescribing opioids to any previously naive patient, and to be extra careful when prescribing to the higher risk groups,” Weiner told PNN in an email.

“For patients in the higher risk groups, particularly those with diagnosis of substance use disorders, I would counsel the patient and inform them of their elevated risk and come up with a game plan for safety. I am only unwilling to prescribe to anyone when I don't believe an opioid is indicated for their condition.”  

Does Opioid Medication Make You Euphoric?

By Carol Levy, PNN Columnist

“Dose escalation, dose reduction or discontinuation of long term opioid analgesics, have potential to harm or put patients at risk if not made in a thoughtful, deliberative, collaborative, and measured manner.

Clinicians have a responsibility to provide or arrange for coordinated management of patient's pain and opioid-related problems, and they should never abandon patients.”

That was written in a tapering guideline put out by the U.S. Department of Health & Human Services (HHS) in 2019. In some respects, it was an attempt to undo some of the damage caused by the release of the CDC opioid guideline three years earlier, which led to many patients being rapidly tapered and/or abandoned by their doctors.

Out of curiosity, I went back to the CDC guideline. A Google search took me to a 2016 New England Journal of Medicine article, co-authored by then-CDC Director Thomas Frieden, who explained the rationale for the guideline this way:

“Whereas the benefits of opioids for chronic pain remain uncertain, the risks of addiction and overdose are clear…. nearly all the products on the market… are no less addictive than heroin.”

How can patients fight against this kind of propaganda? The purpose seems clear: opioid medication and heroin are basically the same. And when chronic pain patients take them, they get addicted. Not only that, we are told, they enjoy it!

“Heroin and prescription opioid pain relievers both belong to the opioid class of drugs, and their euphoric effects are produced by their binding with mu opioid receptors in the brain,” reads information from the National Institute on Drug Abuse.

In other words, we enjoy our opioids because they make us feel “euphoric.”

I could not find any articles or research that asked people in chronic pain, “Do you feel euphoric when you take opioids? Do you enjoy the opioids you are on? Would you take them if you didn't have chronic pain?”  

No one in the online chronic pain group I administer or the others to which I belong has ever said or written, “Dilaudid makes me feel wonderful, it makes me feel high. I love it.”

But they have said or written, “Demerol makes me feel cloudy-headed and my mouth feels like cotton. But I can do more with my life now that I am on it.”

I cannot find research that asked us if our doctors have made us partners with them when tapering or ending our opioid prescriptions. Where are the papers that use us as the experts about the side effects we have when the reduction or withdrawal of opioids is forced on us?

HHS is right. It has to be a collaborative effort when doctors reduce or end opioid prescriptions. But it seems that most doctors are too afraid or unable to act as partners, instead seeing themselves as the ultimate authority.

Changes in opioid prescribing policy should have input from all of us: researchers, policy makers, doctors and patients. It should be thoughtful, deliberative and collaborative -- just as tapering should be a collaboration between our docs and ourselves.

Carol Jay Levy has lived with trigeminal neuralgia, a chronic facial pain disorder, for over 30 years. She is the author of “A Pained Life, A Chronic Pain Journey.”  Carol is the moderator of the Facebook support group “Women in Pain Awareness.” Her blog “The Pained Life” can be found here.

Teen Charged with Murder in Fentanyl Death of 12-Year-Old

By Pat Anson, PNN Editor

A California teenager was arrested and charged with murder this week in the death of a 12-year-old girl who fatally overdosed after consuming a counterfeit painkiller made with illicit fentanyl. The 16-year-old suspect allegedly sold the pill to the girl in 2020, and she overdosed after crushing and snorting the tablet at a party in San Jose.

Like many other counterfeit pills involved in overdoses, the tablet was made to look like a 30 mg oxycodone pill, stamped with a “30” on one side and an “M” on the other. The girl passed out and began snoring soon after ingesting the drug, which prosecutors say is a “telltale sign of a fentanyl overdose.”

“After thousands of deaths, everyone should know that fentanyl is a deadly poison,” Santa Clara County District Attorney Jeff Rosen said in a press release. “Thanks to the San Jose Police Department, the Santa Clara County Specialized Enforcement Team, and our investigators, this child’s tragically short life may help save others.” 

The DA’s office calls the 12-year-old victim “Jane Doe” because of her age, but local media have identified her as Dalilah Guerrero of San Jose. The girl was with two other teens when she bought the “M-30” pill from the alleged dealer. The group later took a video of Dalilah lining up the crushed pill for ingestion.   

The 16-year old suspect’s name has not been released because he is a minor. Investigators looking into his online social media accounts reportedly found screen shots of public service warnings about fentanyl that predated the girl's death.

Failed Policies Made Drug Crisis Worse

The overdose of such a young victim is the latest example of how the “opioid epidemic” has morphed into an even more deadly overdose crisis fueled by illicit fentanyl and other street drugs. Efforts by law enforcement and public health officials to prevent more deaths by prosecuting doctors and restricting the supply of opioid medication have not only failed – they may have made the drug crisis worse.

In recent years, the number of opioid prescriptions has fallen dramatically nationwide and now stand at 20-year lows, while fatal overdoses rose to record levels. Last year the number of U.S. drug deaths crossed 100,000 for the first time, largely driven by illicit fentanyl.

As the charts show below, Santa Clara exemplifies both trends, with prescriptions falling dramatically in the county while fentanyl deaths spiked.

SOURCE: CALIFORNIA DEPT. OF PUBLIC HEALTH

Santa Clara County was the first local government in the nation to file a lawsuit against drug makers alleging that they caused the opioids crisis. The law firm of Motley Rice filed the initial lawsuit in 2014 on behalf of Santa Clara, and the case snowballed from there into nationwide litigation against opioid makers, distributors and pharmacies.

Last year a California judge ruled that drug makers did not use deceptive marketing to promote pain relievers and there was “no evidence” the companies were liable for the state’s opioid crisis.

The tragic death of Dalilah Guerrero is not the first time Santa Clara County has lost a young person to counterfeit pills. In 2019, county health officials announced that 9 fatal overdoses had been linked to fake oxycodone pills, including the deaths of two teenagers.  

In 2020, murder charges were filed against a San Jose man who allegedly sold over Snapchat a counterfeit pill laced with fentanyl to an 18-year-old girl and her 17-year old boyfriend. Both teens overdosed. Paramedics were able to revive the boyfriend, but the girl died.

In 2020, the last year for which full data is available, there were 143 opioid related deaths in Santa Clara County, a 139% increase from 2018.  Fentanyl was involved in most of them.

Saving My Soul From a Real-Life Dopesick

By Cynthia Toussaint, PNN Columnist

While watching Dopesick, the Hulu series that dramatizes Purdue Pharma’s driving of the opioid crisis through their cash-cow OxyContin, I was traumatized to the point of hitting the pause button at least half a dozen times.

The filmmakers were so spot-on with their story telling, I anticipated and said names and organizations out loud before the actors did. You see, I was in the middle of this evil. And I was asked to be a part of the killings for money.

Watching Dopesick reminded me of those god-awful times. Recounting the untold number of people who got addicted to OxyContin and overdosed made me sick. Knowing Purdue and its accomplices nearly got away with it made me sick. How close I was to it all turned my stomach.

In 2003, about a year after I founded For Grace, I was deep in the planning of a California Senate hearing that would shed light on gender care bias toward women with high-impact pain. I loved every crazy-busy moment of this endeavor to give voice to women dismissed by the words, “It’s all in your head.” I was ecstatic to have three female state senators co-sponsoring my hearing that, to this day, remains the most requested event video in Capitol history.     

Out of the blue, Purdue Pharma’s Director of Community Outreach phoned. I’d never heard of Purdue before, but upon overhearing the call, my partner John handed me a note, telling me they were a pharmaceutical company that funded nonprofit pain organizations.

I was flattered that Brenda (not her real name) loved the work I was doing with the hearing, but more than a bit miffed when she recommended her own advocacy people be able to testify. As a start-up nonprofit, For Grace sure as hell needed underwriting, so I agreed to call and get to know her folk. What could it hurt?

I was pleasantly surprised when they were friendly and knowledgeable and, in the end, I chose to go with half my people and half Brenda’s that I and the senators’ staff vetted.

Things went sideways the morning of the hearing when Purdue and those who would testify met with us at the Capitol. After brief intros, Brenda asked for my written testimony and quickly edited it in red pen. I was infuriated by this unwelcomed intrusion.

Still fuming, I arrived late to my own senate hearing as I’d been yelling at John that they had no right to change my testimony just because they’d paid to fly some people in. Who the hell do these creeps think they are?                  

After the successful, standing room only hearing, I was beyond stoked and let the bad energy of the morning pass over dinner with legislators and staffers I adored.

Also in attendance were Purdue and their speakers. That night, at Purdue’s suggestion, we began laying the groundwork for a “Women In Pain” coalition. I was in heaven with the prospects of giving my movement a bigger platform.   

cynthia toussaint (right) testifying at 2004 hearing

Women In Pain (WIP for short) was For Grace’s exciting new project and the cause I wanted most to lead. Springing from a 2001 medical study entitled “The Girl Who Cried Pain” and a follow-up article in The New York Times on the neglect women face in getting their pain treated, I couldn’t wait for the world to learn about WIP. To have a coalition of nonprofit pain leaders and a deep funder behind our movement was a dream.

A dream that would slowly erode into the ugliest kind of nightmare.

When the coalition and Purdue began meeting, the first order of business was to establish an understanding that everyone would be working under For Grace’s umbrella, as we initiated the WIP concept and felt a deep ownership. In fact, we were strongly considering expanding our mission from CRPS awareness to the plight of all women in pain.

Though I’m known for my work ethic, I soon felt overwhelmed by my load. To keep up with For Grace’s everyday activities and the coalition’s needs, John and I were grinding through long hours, seven days a week.

Almost out of the gates, we were getting pushback from coalition members about seemingly everything. Jealousies erupted as I was getting the lion’s share of media attention due to my hustle and drive. Per their demands, I generated media coverage for all members, but that wasn’t enough. Some of them wanted me to script out their answers for interviews. I was beginning to feel beaten.  

‘The Correct Response’

One day I received a call from Purdue inviting me to give the keynote address for pain advocacy conferences they were underwriting in Denver and Philadelphia. The purpose of these events – or so I was told – was to train and inspire pain leaders to effectively interface with media and policy makers.

The person who’d be overlooking this affair was Dr. Richard Sackler, the grand dragon of the family-owned Purdue empire. At the event, Purdue minions were twisted like pretzels in their desire to please this unimpressive man, who struck me as distant and cold.

I was insulted when Purdue insisted that I take a media training class. In a taped, mock interview with their crisis management consultant, I was asked, “What treatment do you advise when a person gets a CRPS diagnosis?”

“Well, there’s a whole range of options out there, including alternative ones,” I answered, spreading my hands a yard wide. “Remember, what works for one person may not work for the next.”

Purdue’s consultant chided me. “As the up-and-coming pain star, you should rethink your answer. The correct response is to take OxyContin,” she said.

Stunned, I responded, “But that would kill people. There’s nothing to rethink.” I felt trapped in a queasy Twilight Zone episode, as not a soul in the crowded room of pain advocacy leaders and healthcare professionals backed me up.

That night, ensconced in our five-star hotel room, it dawned on John and me that everyone in this scheme was training to be a de facto sales force for OxyContin. We were the only schmucks not in on it, though Purdue was actively grooming me to be their #1 patient sales person.           

This bizarre, shady gathering left me with a rancid taste and my enthusiasm curbed for the coalition. But I forged on, at the behest of my advisors, to give Purdue a fair chance to find common ground, a notion I now laugh at.

Next, Purdue offered me an extraordinary opportunity to make WIP fly in an influential, national arena. I was invited to bring our project to “Women In Government”, a powerful organization comprised of female state legislators throughout the country. Thrilled, I introduced my cause at their western regional meeting in Honolulu, then prepared to close the deal at their annual conference in Tucson.

I must admit, I was enjoying Purdue’s lavish courtship – travel, the chauffeur-driven town cars, the choicest suites and the finest meals. After all, I’d earned these perks, I told myself. I was working damn hard and was extremely effective with my message. I knew I was good at what I was doing and it was gratifying to be recognized.

But Purdue continued their insidious attempts to control me. Before my speech, Brenda chided that I’d better knock it out of the park as they were spending a small mint. Further, I was not to go one nanosecond over my 20 minute speaking limit, or else! Hmmm, not the good luck pat on the back I’d hoped for.

Fuming, I made a beeline for the event coordinator, telling her of Brenda’s abuse. Her face turned beet red, angrily telling me that Purdue didn’t run their show. This kind woman reassured me to take a deep breath, then go out and do my thing. So I did.

During my standing ovation, the director came over and hugged me with eyes welling. Joy confided with the room her ongoing bout with chronic pain, along with her ringing endorsement of the WIP movement. Then I was circled by legislators, shaking my hand and thanking me. Most important, they said they’d do whatever I asked.

Later that day, Brenda showed me first-hand what my advocacy future would look like if I played nice with Purdue. During a special session, I watched a Broadway-level singer/actor/cancer survivor entertain the audience, giving them an update about her cause to promote a cervical vaccine. She was living my advocacy dream job – traveling the world, performing, making great money, all the while helping people. That afternoon, she captivated the room.

I had stars in my eyes. For the first time since losing my performance career at 21 due to CRPS, I was being offered a job that would completely feed me. And it was a more noble pursuit than entertaining, as I’d be helping, even saving, many people. But could I get Purdue to come around? They wouldn’t want my services solely to peddle OxyContin, right?

There’s much bigger fish to fry with our shared mission (or so I thought) to put chronic pain and gender care bias on the map. This was my great passion, and I was determined more than ever to thread that needle.

Purdue Wants More

But my naïve hope didn’t float for long. When we restarted our coalition meetings, the women were stone cold toward me, and I felt punished. Their jealousies were amping, and managing all the egos and expectations added to my overload.  I began feeling itchy that the coalition was grinding me to dust in an attempt to heist the project, leaving For Grace behind. The walls were closing in.

I called Brenda and voiced my concern. Oddly, she was warm and reassuring, voicing that, per our agreement, the project would never be taken away from For Grace. To the contrary, she said we were approaching a tipping point where the WIP movement would explode.

I was calm, for about a minute.

On the next call, the gates of hell broke open. The women were backing unethical suggestions from Purdue, including supplying a prominent link from our WIP website to Purdue’s OxyContin marketing page.

John went nuts, sternly stating that was a “slippery slope.” He exploded, “If we give them that link for their money, they’ll want more. And more!"

The women yelled him down, saying For Grace didn’t know how business worked. The back and forth warring finally ended when I pronounced, knowing full well Purdue was on the call, “I won’t be a whore for a pharmaceutical company.” The sounds of phones hanging up followed.

Soon after, I saw in a coalition member’s nonprofit newsletter that she and the others were launching a new organization. It was called “Women With Pain” and parroted our mission. Around that same time, I was abruptly dropped from planned media stories and speaking engagements. Clearly, Purdue’s tentacles ran far and wide. When I threatened to speak to the media about their dirty deeds, Purdue called with a bevy of their attorneys in tow, telling us thuggishly to put a cork in it.

I cried, I yelled, I screamed, I even begged God for mercy. What I’d given birth to had been heisted, and was going to be used to kill people. John and I got deeply ill with what I thought was an epic flu, but looking back, I see it was despair. I became despondent and we were convinced there was no path forward with the good work. Worse, I started thinking deeply about ending my life. I didn’t want to live in a world this soulless.

Saving My Soul

But the fire within hadn’t burned out, and after ample time to grieve, I was able to get out of bed. I was further lifted by For Grace board members who prodded me to not let the bad guys win. Ultimately, I saw that good things could be possible again.

While formally expanding our mission to Women In Pain, I used my persuasiveness to get the pro-bono services of a top-end intellectual property attorney. He sent every coalition member a cease-and-desist letter, advising them not to use the name and idea inspired by For Grace.

I was elated that the letter hit its mark. In fact, the rival organization’s name and announcement were taken down the very next day. Shortly after, I was informed the new coalition was dead on arrival and I knew I’d gotten Purdue, a multi-billion dollar corporation, to buckle.

That’s how I saved my soul from the Sackler family and their savage empire. And I’ve never looked back. Until now.

Those terrible years of trauma surged back while watching the evil dramatized in Dopesick. I was reminded that everything Purdue touched turned to rot. Worse, with few exceptions, everyone enabled them. Without hesitation, they all lapped up Purdue’s dirty money. To make this level of killing possible, Purdue bought support from a wide range of villains: the FDA, policy makers, healthcare professionals and, yes, pain patient advocates. You know who you are.

For years, I’ve watched bad people with bad organizations take bad money to do bad things. And the opioid crisis that Purdue spearheaded has made collateral damage of all of us with pain. Many who need opioids to functionally survive no longer have access.  Many good doctors who responsibly prescribed have been indicted. And for ethical pain organizations who still want to do good work, funding has dried up. I think it’s fair to emphatically state that everyone with pain is suffering in the wake of Purdue’s and their enablers’ sins.               

With apologies, I don’t have my usual up-beat take-away, no words of comfort. Just tears, and a plea. Watch Dopesick, study it, commit this atrocity to memory. Take my word, the pharmaceutical industry is doing just that, and there’s another Purdue in the making that will attempt to make billions off the suffering and murdering of millions. All in the name of pain care. 

I was this close to being one of Purdue’s statistics. But I lived to tell my story. Perhaps it’s not foolish to hope next time more souls will be saved.

Cynthia Toussaint is the founder and spokesperson at For Grace, a non-profit dedicated to bettering the lives of women in pain. She has lived with Complex Regional Pain Syndrome (CRPS) and 19 co-morbidities for nearly four decades, and became a cancer survivor in 2020. Cynthia is the author of “Battle for Grace: A Memoir of Pain, Redemption and Impossible Love.”

FDA Approves Pain Reliever for Cats Considered Too Risky for Humans

By Pat Anson, PNN Editor

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has approved a new medication to treat osteoarthritis pain in cats, the first monoclonal antibody drug approved by the FDA for use in any animal. The same type of drug has been rejected for use in humans because of safety risks.

Solensia (frunevetmab) is an injectable monoclonal antibody made by Zoetis that targets nerve growth factor (NGF), a protein that increases in animals and humans due to injury, inflammation or pain. Solensia is designed to bind to NGF and inhibit pain signals from reaching the brain.

Osteoarthritis (OA) is a progressive joint disorder that leads to thinning of cartilage and joint damage.  Feline OA is a common condition in older cats, but treatment options for them are limited, as they are for humans.

“Advancements in modern veterinary medicine have been instrumental in extending the lives of many animals, including cats. But with longer lives come chronic diseases, such as osteoarthritis," said Steven Solomon, DVM, director of the FDA's Center for Veterinary Medicine.

"Today's approval marks the first treatment option to help provide relief to cats that are suffering from this condition and may significantly improve their quality of life. We also hope that today's approval of the first monoclonal antibody by the FDA for any animal species will expand research and development of other monoclonal antibody products to treat animal diseases."

Safety Issues with NGF Inhibitors

Last year the FDA refused to approve tanezumab, a monoclonal antibody and NGF inhibitor, as a treatment for OA in humans after two of its advisory panels said the drug caused OA joint damage to accelerate. Rapidly progressing osteoarthritis (RPOA) was so severe that some patients in clinical trials had to stop taking the drug and needed total joint replacements.

The side effects of NGF inhibitors have been known for over a decade. The FDA slowed the development of NGF inhibitors in 2010 because of concerns they make osteoarthritis worse in some patients. But under pressure to approve more non-opioid pain relievers, the FDA allowed clinical studies of tanezumab to resume in 2015.

Eli Lilly and Pfizer invested heavily in tanezumab research, but ended their joint development of the drug in 2021 after the FDA and European Medicines Agency said they would not approve tanezumab for humans because of safety concerns.

In a press release announcing the approval of Solensia for cats, the FDA makes no mention of RPOA in its list of side effects, which includes vomiting, diarrhea, injection site pain, scabbing, dermatitis and itchy skin. The release said side effects were mild and did not require ending treatment during observational animal studies.  

In the FDA’s more detailed Freedom of Information Summary for Solensia, the agency said “RPOA has not been characterized or reported in cats,” but has this stark warning for humans who administer the drug:

“Women who are pregnant, may become pregnant, or are breastfeeding should take extreme caution to avoid accidental self-injection of Solensia. It is well-established that NGF is important in the normal development of the fetal nervous system, and laboratory studies in nonhuman primates have shown that human anti-NGF mAbs can cause reproductive and developmental toxicity. Fetal abnormalities, increased rate of stillbirths, and increased postpartum fetal mortality were noted in rodents and nonhuman primates receiving anti-NGF mAbs.”

Solensia is not recommended for pregnant or lactating cats. It will only be available by prescription from a licensed veterinarian who administers the injection monthly.

“The approval of Solensia is a significant step forward in the control of feline OA pain. Cat owners and veterinarians alike can feel confident that Solensia, with active substance frunevetmab, a monoclonal antibody (mAb) designed specifically for felines, has been studied and demonstrated to control OA pain and help cats get back to moving more freely again,” Mike McFarland, DVM, Chief Medical Officer for Zoetis, said in a statement.

The use of Solensia in cats was approved by the European Medicines Agency last year. The drug is expected to be available to U.S. veterinarians in the second half of 2022.

Study Finds Opioids Not Always Needed After Heart Surgery

By Pat Anson, PNN Editor

It’s become common in recent years for U.S. hospitals to reduce or even eliminate the use of opioids for post-operative pain. For the most part, these non-opioid policies only apply to “minimally invasive” arthroscopic or laparoscopic surgeries, in which small incisions are made and patients are often sent home from the hospital the same day.

A new study by researchers at the University of Michigan suggests that many patients who have more complicated and invasive heart surgeries may also be able to control post-operative pain without opioids after they are discharged.

“In some cases, patients assume that after surgery, especially a big operation like cardiac surgery, that they will need to go home with prescription pain medicine,” said Catherine Wagner, MD, a cardiothoracic surgery resident at University of Michigan Medicine. “This study shows that discharge without opioid pain medicine after cardiac surgery is extremely well tolerated by some patients. In other words, we should not be reflexively prescribing pain medicine to people after surgery just in case they need it.”

Wagner and her colleagues looked at for over 1,900 patients who had coronary bypass and/or heart valve repair surgery at Michigan hospitals in 2019. Both procedures require a sternotomy, in which a doctor uses a saw to cut through the breastbone (sternum), which is then spread apart to gain access to the heart. When the surgery is finished, doctors reconnect the sternum with stainless steel wires. Full recovery from a sternotomy will usually take months.  

The study findings, published online in The Annals of Thoracic Surgery, showed that more than one-fourth of the surgery patients (28%) did not receive an opioid prescription at the time of discharge and used non-opioid pain relievers instead. Researchers say not getting an opioid appears to have been “well tolerated” by these patients, because less than 2% needed an opioid prescription before their 30-day follow-up appointment.

The study did not look at patient outcomes, whether patients were satisfied with their pain management, or if patients who did receive opioids developed signs of addiction or dependence. But researchers concluded that opioids were often not necessary after heart surgery.

“These data suggest that not all patients require an opioid prescription after cardiac surgery and that discharge without an opioid prescription is well tolerated in select patients. Cardiac surgery providers should consider shifting focus from the amount of opioid to prescribe to patients to instead determine which patients do not need any opioid prescription at discharge,” researchers concluded.

Before concerns rose about opioid addiction and overdose, it was common for surgery patients to be discharged with 50 to 100 opioid pills. Many of those pills would go unused.

“One should consider if these opioid prescriptions were truly necessary for patient pain relief,” said Wagner. “Our study shows that, particularly for patients who did not take any opioids on the day before leaving the hospital, discharge without opioids is safe. I think we need to ensure that only patients who truly need opioids get sent home with a prescription.”

Patients rarely become addicted to opioids after surgery. A large 2016 study found that less than one percent of older adults were still taking opioid medication a year after major elective surgery.  Another large study in 2018 found only 0.6% of surgery patients prescribed opioids were later diagnosed with opioid dependence, abuse or a non-fatal overdose.

A recent survey found nearly 8 out of 10 U.S. adults believe opioids are sometimes necessary to manage post-operative pain. Most people are more worried about treating surgical pain than they are about becoming addicted to opioids.

What’s Missing in ‘Opioids: The Big Picture’

By Roger Chriss, PNN Columnist

Canadian family physicians Mark Dubé and Henry Chapeskie recently created a video called “Opioids: The Big Picture” to give what they describe as a “short history of how we got into trouble with opioids, how even a small number of opioid pills can lead to addiction, and why they should not be used in non-cancer chronic pain.”

Drs. Dubé and Chapeskie spend the first third of their hour-long video on the history of opioids, mostly the 19th century Opium War in China, and the remaining time on modern prescription opioids. They refer to opioids as a “global environmental toxin” which cause “narcotic neurotoxicity.”

They also claim that opioid-induced hyperalgesia is common, that no studies show any benefit to opioids for pain management, and that opioids cause permanent brain damage. They argue that the current opioid crisis is driven by the steadily increasing supply of prescription opioids and should be addressed the way we handle air pollution. They conclude by saying that “opioids are neurotoxic, cause pain, and are toxic to the individual and society.”

None of this holds up well to close scrutiny. The Opium War was about more than a “state-sponsored monopoly with an illicit drug.” In fact, there were two Opium Wars, with the first being about trading rights, open trade and especially diplomatic status, and the second war directed at expanding trade, including opium, between Europe and China.

The notion that opioids are a “global environmental toxin” comparable to air pollution assumes exposure is passive and inevitable. But opioids are not like mercury or asbestos, emitted as a contaminant from industrial processes that could be cleaned up. Their claims about neurotoxicity are also problematic. Although small-scale imaging studies do show changes to some brain structures upon opioid exposure, the significance of this is unclear.

Their emphasis on opioid-induced hyperalgesia (OIH) – the theory that prolonged use of opioids leads to greater pain sensitivity -- is also greatly overstated. A 2021 review of published studies found only 72 patient cases of OIH, all of which were easily diagnosed and managed by opioid rotation, opioid cessation or switching to non-opioid pain medications.

Last and most important, Dubé and Chapeskie claim that “there is no evidence (zero!) to support use of opioids” for chronic non-cancer pain. They cite the 2018 SPACE trial as their major source of evidence, although that study showed opioids were no better or worse than non-opioids for pain relief. More importantly, the SPACE study didn’t find any evidence of abuse, misuse, addiction or overdose among the 108 people on opioids for a whole year, which argues against the very risks that Dubé and Chapeskie describe as inevitable.

Dubé and Chapeskie point to a single study on opioid tapering that showed good outcomes. That 2020 study found only minor improvement in cognitive function after opioid tapering. Multiple other studies show the risks and harms of tapering often outweigh its benefits, especially when tapering is rapid.

Moreover, there are clinical studies showing that opioids are effective and safe when used appropriately. A 2021 German study, for example, found that tapentadol relieves chronic low back pain, and a 2017 review found tapentadol was effective and well-tolerated by patients with moderate to severe pain for up to two years.

The video “Opioids: The Big Picture” could have been a useful introduction to opioid pharmacology, chronic non-cancer pain, and clinical practice. It could have introduced current best practices for opioid initiation and tapering. And if the focus was to be on the public health risks and harms of opioids, then it should have followed the fine work of David Courtwright's book "Dark Paradise”, Sam Quinones's "Dreamland”, or Chris MacGreal's "American Overdose".

It is unfortunate that even in the 2020s we are still struggling to get basic information about opioids right. This is arguably part of why we have a worsening opioid crisis and deteriorating pain management situation.

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.  

Gabapentinoids and Anti-Depressants Recommended for Diabetic Neuropathy

By Pat Anson, PNN Editor

People with painful diabetic neuropathy (PDN) should be treated with gabapentinoids, anti-depressants and sodium channel blockers, according to updated guidelines from the American Academy of Neurology (AAN). The guidelines also recommend some alternative treatments, such as ginkgo biloba, capsaicin patches and cognitive behavioral therapy, but strongly discourage the use of opioids.

The AAN’s new guidelines, published online in the journal Neurology, acknowledge that many of the recommended therapies for PDN don’t directly treat physical pain, but they improve mood and sleep, and that helps reduce “pain perception.”

“In treating patients with PDN, it is important to assess other factors that may also affect pain perception and quality of life. Patients with diabetes are more likely to have mood disorders (most commonly, major depression) and sleep disorders (especially obstructive sleep apnea) than the general population,” an AAN panel of experts found. “Therefore, treating concurrent mood and sleep disorders may help reduce pain and improve quality of life, apart from any direct treatment of the painful neuropathy.”

Nearly 26 million Americans have diabetes and about half have some form of neuropathy, according to the American Diabetes Association. PDN causes nerves to send out abnormal signals, causing patients to feel stinging or burning pain, as well as loss of feeling in their toes, feet, legs, hands and arms. More severe cases can result in ulcers or amputation of the affected limbs.

The last update to the AAN guideline was in 2011, when opioids such as morphine and oxycodone were said to be “probably effective and should be considered.” Much has changed over the last decade, and the AAN no longer supports their use for PDN.

"Current evidence suggests that the risks of the use of opioids for painful diabetic neuropathy therapy outweigh the benefits, so they should not be prescribed," said lead author Brian Callaghan, MD, an associate professor of neurology at University of Michigan Health.

‘Probably’ Better Than Placebo

The only oral medications the AAN now recommends for PDN are gabapentinoids (pregabalin and gabapentin); serotonin-norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors (SNRIs) such as duloxetine; tricyclic anti-depressants such as amitriptyline; and sodium channel blockers such as valproic acid, which are usually used to treat seizures. An SNRI can also be combined with a weak opioid like tramadol for PDN.

There are caveats to all of these drugs since the evidence for them is limited and they were originally developed for other conditions such as depression or epilepsy. For example, the guidelines state gabapentin is “probably more likely than placebo to improve pain” and pregabalin is “possibly more likely” to help with PDN.

Topical medications such as capsaicin and buprenorphine patches also get the lukewarm endorsement of “possibly” being better than a placebo.

When one class of medication doesn’t work for PDN, experts say patients should try another.

“Managing expectations is also important,” Callaghan said. “Our second recommendation urges the provider to be frank with patients that the goal is to reduce their pain. It may not be possible to completely resolve the symptoms.”

A 2017 study by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality found that duloxetine (Cymbalta) and some other anti-depressants are moderately effective at relieving PDN, but found little or no evidence that opioids and gabapentinoids are helpful in treating neuropathic pain.

Researchers say a significant limitation for all pain relievers – not just opioids – is that few studies examine their safety and efficacy longer than three months. PDN is a progressive disorder that is likely to last a lifetime.  

“Given the chronicity of pain in those with diabetic neuropathy and the potential for evolving side effects, long-term studies are needed to better inform the long-term pain management in this population. Specifically, future studies should focus on the long-term effects (positive and negative) of opioids in this population to determine whether there is any role for these medications in this population,” the AAN’s expert panel concluded.

Supreme Court Case May Decide Future of Opioid Prescribing

By Pat Anson, PNN Editor

Over a dozen patient and physician advocacy groups have filed legal briefs with the U.S. Supreme Court in support of two doctors appealing their convictions for criminal violations of the Controlled Substances Act.

The nation’s high court has consolidated the cases of Dr. Xiulu Ruan of Alabama and Dr. Shakeel Kahn, who practiced in Wyoming and Arizona. Both doctors were sentenced to lengthy prison terms after being convicted on a variety of charges – including the prescribing of high doses of opioid pain medication to patients “outside the usual course of professional practice.”

Oral arguments will be heard by the Supreme Court on March 1, with a decision expected later in 2022. Monday was the deadline for interested parties to file “amicus curiae” briefs on the case, which could have a significant impact on opioid prescribing practices nationwide if the appeals are successful. Many doctors have stopped or reduced their prescribing of opioids because they fear being prosecuted under the Controlled Substances Act (CSA).

“It is no exaggeration to say that CSA prosecutions of physicians have already impaired the treatment of chronic pain,” Ruan’s attorneys said in their appeal. “In response to the opioid crisis, fear of prosecution has increasingly prompted pain management doctors to avoid or reduce opioid prescriptions, even when those decisions leave chronic pain patients without recourse.”

A successful appeal would mean Ruan and Kahn could ask for new trials, along with dozens of other doctors convicted of similar charges under the CSA.

“It will also avoid what I see as the chilling effect that it’s had on lots of doctors who are not doing anything even remotely suspicious, but are afraid that they are going to get caught because they prescribe a higher dose, and so they’re dropping people from care or tapering them,” said Kate Nicholson, Executive Director of the National Pain Advocacy Center (NPAC).

NPAC, along with other advocacy groups and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, are asking the high court to clearly state how the practice of medicine should be regulated under the CSA. Some argued it is best left to state medical boards, not federal prosecutors or law enforcement.

“Patients with pain, addiction, or both desperately need appropriate care and treatment. If practitioners are held strictly liable under (the CSA), patient abandonment will become ever more common as practitioners act to avoid scrutiny,” Jennifer Oliva and Kelly Dineen, professors of health law and policy, said in their brief. “Progress in medical care in these areas can only recover if the regulation of medical practice is returned to the province of the states except in narrow circumstances.”

‘Good Faith’ Practice

At issue in the Ruan/Kahn case is what constitutes the “standard of care” and “usual course of professional practice” under the CSA. Doctors traditionally have been given wide latitude in determining what’s appropriate for a patient, as long as they act in “good faith” with a medical purpose. But that laissez-faire approach came to an end as the overdose crisis intensified and doctors came under more scrutiny for their opioid prescribing practices. 

“No other country criminalizes physician behavior like the federal prosecutors have done in the US. This is especially the case as these prosecutions are all based on a whim with an ‘expert’ opinion rendered by a hired government expert and orchestrated by a new generation of overzealous and unchecked federal prosecutors pointing fingers at wealthy doctors as greedy drug pushers and fraudsters,” Physicians Against Abuse argued in its brief.

“Doctors are just a ‘sitting duck’ for these federal prosecutors who raid medical offices and unlike the career drug pusher on the streets who gets caught and charged with one or two counts, federal prosecutors pile up count after count because doctors are required to keep records and those records are used against them in these out of control prosecutions against physicians.”  

Pain Clinic ‘Factory’

Complicating Ruan’s appeal is that he often gave patients Subsys, an expensive and potent fentanyl spray that was only approved by the FDA for breakthrough cancer pain. Ruan prescribed Subsys “off label” to patients who didn’t have cancer, which made him an easy target for federal prosecutors who were building a massive fraud and bribery case against Insys Therapeutics, the manufacturer of Subsys.

In his new book, “The Hard Sell: Crime and Punishment at an Opioid Startup,” author Evan Hughes depicts Ruan as a greedy and ruthless physician who was more interested in acquiring luxury cars and Insys stock than he was in treating patients. According to Hughes, Ruan and his business partner ran their pain clinic and adjoining pharmacy like a factory.

“Instead of collecting a mere $200 or so for an office visit, Couch and Ruan treated each patient as a profit center, an opportunity to bill for tests and procedures in-house, or to refer out to some other provider who would cut them in on the business. They reinvested to grow their factory, buying new machines that added lucrative capabilities,” Hughes wrote.

In addition to the charges against him under the CSA, Ruan was convicted of taking kickbacks from Insys in exchange for prescribing “massive quantities” of Subsys. Ruan was one of the top prescribers of Subsys in the United States.

Kahn was convicted of more than 20 counts involving excess prescribing of oxycodone and other controlled substances, and running a criminal enterprise that resulted in the death of a patient. When federal agents raided his properties in Wyoming and Arizona, they found firearms and over $1 million in cash.

Advocates hope the Supreme Court will overlook the seedier aspects of both cases and rule in a way that clearly defines the rights of doctors under the CSA to prescribe medications they deem appropriate.

“I think our biggest concern is having the correct standard moving forward so that doctors have space to practice medicine appropriately and patients stop suffering,” Nicholson told PNN. “My guess is that they’ll do something to clarify, but how objectively or subjectively they go, I think that’s anyone’s guess.”