Lessons about Palliative Care from Extreme Measures

By Roger Chriss, Columnist

The book Extreme Measures: Finding a Better Path to the End of Life by Jessica Nutik Zitter, MD, provides essential insights into palliative medicine and end-of-life care. It also gives important ideas for pain management that are all too often overlooked in healthcare today. 

Palliative medicine became a board-certified subspecialty of internal medicine in 2006. Zitter defines it as “an interdisciplinary approach to managing suffering in the context of medical illness, whether physical, emotional, familial, or spiritual.”

The importance of palliative care cannot be understated. As Zitter explains, over 50 percent of Americans die in pain, and 70 percent die in hospitals, nursing homes and other institutions.

The book opens with Zitter describing her background in medicine and how she came to appreciate the value of reducing the suffering and easing the process of death in the terminally ill.

“It took the palliative care movement to teach me that treating pain early on was one of the most important things I could do for my patients -- almost as important as maintaining blood pressure or treating infection,” she wrote.

American healthcare has focused on preserving life at all possible costs, often without respecting the desires or values of the patient. This is clearly visible in long-term acute care. Zitter tells us that annual admissions to acute care facilities tripled between 1997 and 2006, rising from 13,000 patients to more than 40,000. Of those 40,000 patients, 30 percent were partially or fully dependent on intensive interventions such as mechanical ventilation.  

Zitter calls this a treatment treadmill, a form of healthcare inertia that moves a person along to more aggressive interventions, even when there is essentially no hope of clinical benefit. She describes cases from her own professional experience, including a pancreatic cancer patient whose treatment team at New York Presbyterian was ready and willing to continue chemotherapy with curative intent, despite the spread of metastatic disease and the patient’s deteriorating health. 

In reference to such treatment, Zitter cites the remarks of Charles Blanke, MD, an oncologist, and Erik From, MD, a palliative care physician: “If an oncologist suspects the death of a patient in the next 6 months, the default should be no active treatment.”

In other words, chemotherapy should be given with palliative, but not curative intent.

“Let us help patients with metastatic cancer make good decisions at this sad, but often inevitable, stage. Let us not contribute to the suffering that cancer, and often associated therapy, brings, particularly at the end,” they advocate.

Unfortunately, aggressive treatment with curative intent is not limited to “A-Team” physicians at world-class oncology facilities.

Zitter discusses cases of older adults suffering from kidney failure, pneumonia, and cerebral hemorrhage, all subjected to painful and virtually pointless interventions that in some instances may have been against the patient’s wishes. 

The reasons, she says, are multifold. Doctors are caught in legal and ethical binds or may not realize the severity of their patients’ condition.

One study published in the British Medical Journal found that physicians' estimates of how long patients would live was over five times longer than the actual time they had left.

Similarly, patients may not have a good understanding of their illness or prognosis. Zitter states that “patients are more likely to learn realistic information about their disease trajectory and prognosis while in their doctor’s waiting room than during the actual office encounter.”

The interactions between patients, their families, and treating physicians may also be problematic. Breaking bad news to a patient is difficult for physicians, as Zitter recounts in several places in her book. And this is a problem in medicine in general.

"Doctors with good news were treated as much more compassionate than those with bad news, even when the news was delivered equally empathetically,” she wrote.

The book does not shy away from the ethical challenges of palliative medicine. Zitter relates the story of a patient she calls Mrs. Z, a woman who survived the Holocaust, but was unable to express preferences regarding her care. Zitter explains how difficult the decisions about a patient’s care become when a physician has to guess at the patient’s values and preferences. 

She gives the four principles of bioethics -- beneficence, nonmaleficence, justice, patient autonomy -- as guiding ideas for medical practice. It is not, in her view, a matter of simply “do no harm,” but rather acting in the best interests of the patient while knowing and respecting the patient’s values and preferences. 

Zitter’s focus is patient-centered care, which she states should be “a grounding principle at the core of every subspecialty in medicine, and within the hearts and minds of all physicians everywhere.” The goal is quality of life, restoring or improving function where possible, and easing the act of dying where unavoidable. 

But these ideas go beyond end-of-life care. As Zitter writes at the end of the book: “Palliative care isn’t only for the dying: any patient with serious symptoms or communication needs can benefit.”

She emphasizes this point with respect to pain management: “We should have protocols for a Code Pain like we do for Code Blue.”

The 1903 version of the American Medical Association’s Code of Medical Ethics states: “The medical attendant ought not to abandon a patient because deemed incurable; for, continued attention may be highly useful to the sufferer, and comforting the relatives, even in the last period of the fatal malady, by alleviating pain and by soothing mental anguish.”

We can do much more one hundred years later, but we have to ask ourselves when more becomes too much. Zitter encourages all of us to discuss our healthcare preferences with our family members and clearly document our choices, including those for end-of-life care. Her goal is ultimately the same as ours: to reduce pain and suffering throughout life. 

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.

Is This the Opioid of the Future?

By Pat Anson, Editor

What do you call a pain reliever that doesn't have a name yet, is not FDA approved and may not be available for years?

Nektar Therapeutics calls it the "opioid of the future."

Nektar is a research-based pharmaceutical company that has developed a new type of opioid medication that shows promise in relieving moderate to severe pain, but without the risk of abuse and addiction of traditional opioids like oxycodone or hydrocodone.

The experimental pill -- which for the time being is called NKTR-181 --  has recieved “fast track” designation  from the Food and Drug Administration, but is at least a couple of years away from full FDA approval and a commercial launch.

That hasn't stopped Nektar from promoting NKTR-181. This week it hosted a lunch symposium on the drug at PainWeek -- an industry trade show underway in Las Vegas -- a sign of just how confident the company is that NKTR-181 will receive final approval from the FDA.

"We think we could see approval as early as the end of next year," says Steve Doberstein, PhD, Chief Scientific Officer of Nektar. "So we could see a launch of this product in the first part of 2019. That would be my aspiration. If we have to do more clinical trial work, it would be delayed."

The FDA usually requires at least two "Phase 3" clinical studies to prove a new drug's effectiveness. Nektar has only completed one -- a Phase 3 study of over 600 patients with chronic back pain who reported that their pain scores dropped by an average of 65% when taking NKTR-181 twice daily.

Nektar has also completed smaller safety studies that found recreational drug users had significantly less “drug liking” of NKTR-181 -- even at high doses -- when compared oxycodone. Participants also had less daytime sleepiness and fewer withdrawal symptoms.

"NKTR-181 is quite boring as far as abuse metrics go. Boring is good. That was our goal. It doesn't appear to cause euphoria," says Doberstein.

NKTR-181 is "boring" because of its slow rate of entry into the brain's central nervous system – which significantly reduces the “high” or euphoric effect that recreational users seek. Many pain sufferers don't feel that high when taking opioid medication, they just get pain relief. But in the current regulatory and political climate, the only way a new opioid will be approved by the FDA is if it has a low or non-existent abuse potential.

"We're very focused on the fact that one of the building blocks of solving this problem is going to be a safe pain medication for chronic pain patients to take," Doberstein told PNN. "The things that work best are opioids. But the existing conventional old-fashioned opioids -- oxycodone is 100 years old -- come with an unacceptable side effect profile for many patients. And we think we've made something that is legitimately better. It's the first time in a very long time that a new opioid molecule has been developed."  

Doberstein thinks NKTR-181 has such low potential for abuse that it will not need to come in an abuse deterrent formula that would make it harder to crush or liquefy. The FDA could still require one, however, which would delay the drug's commercialization even longer. The agency is currently reviewing the effectiveness of all drugs with abuse deterrent formulas.

The FDA also has a new opioid policy steering committee that is examining whether the agency sufficiently considers the risk of abuse during its evaluation of new opioids.  That could result in rule changes that Nektar would have to address. Anti-opioid activists and politicians could also pressure the FDA to require more clinical studies on the safety and potential abuse of NKTR-181.

Another potential obstacle is that Nektar still needs to partner with a larger pharmaceutical company to help produce and commercialize NKTR-181 -- which is when the no-name "opioid of the future" will likely get a makeover with a branded name to make it more marketable.

"This is the kind of medicine that we think could be quite significant. It could really change medical practice. That means we need a lot of education, and a lot of outreach to physicians, hospitals, payers, patient advocates and law enforcement. We have a lot to do. And its probably beyond us to do it ourselves. So we'll have a commercialization partner of some kind," said Doberstein, who told PNN he expects Nektar to announce its new partnership by the end of the year.

Dosing Tables for Painkillers 'Fraught with Danger'

By Pat Anson, Editor

Opioid dosing tables that are widely used by doctors, insurers and regulators to determine what constitutes a safe level of opioid medication are "fraught with danger" and could result in patients being under-dosed or overdosed, according to a leading physician's group.

Equianalgesic dosing tables are used to calculate and convert opioid pain medication into milligrams of morphine equivalent daily doses -- often abbreviated as MEDD or MME. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, for example, has set 90mg MME as the highest recommended daily dose for most chronic pain patients in its opioid prescribing guideline.

But a new white paper by the Academy of Integrative Pain Management (AIPM) questions the science behind MME conversion tables and whether they are appropriate to use in a one-size-fits-all approach to pain care.

“We felt it was necessary to outline our concerns about the key concept of equianalgesic dosing,” said Bob Twillman, PhD, Executive Director of AIPM. “We have seen policymakers and payers both relying on this concept as if it was based on solid science, and as if individual differences in a number of factors wasn’t important in clinical practice. Doing so can expose patients to significant risks."

Some opioids have different mechanisms of action on opioid receptors in the brain. Patients could also have genetic or biological differences that slow or speed-up the absorption of opioids into the body -- making them either more potent or less effective. As a result, two patients taking identical doses of the same opioid could have different levels of it in their bloodstream an hour later.

None of these differences were recognized by the CDC, Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services or the Department of Veterans Affairs when they set limits in their opioid guidelines on what constitutes a recommended "safe" dose of pain medication.   

"The practice of setting arbitrary milligram dosing cut-offs as suggested by various regulatory agencies and legally allowed by some states is an attempt to pigeon hole providers into ignoring the approach to medicine," the white paper states. "Rather than assigning irrational rules based on pseudoscience, the regulatory agencies including the CDC and state governments should be targeting ways to increase knowledge and education with regard to opioids to foster safe and efficacious prescribing practices."

Many different opioid calculators and apps are available to help doctors convert oxycodone, hydrocodone, tramadol and other opioid medications into MEDDs or MMEs. It's a common practice that may give physicians peace of mind in complying with government guidelines and insurance company policies. But for patients the benefits are less clear -- and so is the science.

“I’ve been researching and writing about the problems with equianalgesic dosing for the past several years," said Jeffrey Fudin, PharmD, lead author of the white paper. “As I studied this concept, I was shocked by the poor quality of the studies underlying it and by the dramatic clinical effects that could result from an uncritical use of published conversion tables.

"Add to that the fact that some opioid pain medications just don’t fit the concept because of their mechanisms of action, and you have the potential for some serious negative consequences if policies improperly use this information.”

How Chronic Pain Killed My Husband

By Meredith Lawrence, Guest Columnist

So much has been written about the opioid epidemic, but so little seems to be out there about what living with true chronic pain is like. My husband, Jay, lived and died in incredible pain at the age of 58.  As his wife, I lived that journey with him. 

Jay is no longer here to tell his story, but I want the world to see what I saw.  I want you to know how he went from working 60 hours a week doing hard physical labor, until his pain grew worse and he could not even get out of a chair on his own. 

I want you to know the deterioration Jay went through over the last ten years. I want you to know what a good day and a bad day is like when you live with chronic pain.  I want you to know exactly what happened when the doctor decreased his pain medication. And I want you to know how my husband finally made the decision to commit suicide. 

I want people to understand that when chronic pain runs your life, eventually you just want the pain to stop. 

First a bit of history.  I met Jay in 2005, when we both stopped drinking.  Two years later, Jay began to lose feeling in his legs and started having falls, as a result of compressed nerves in his spine. The pain was so bad Jay had to stop working and go on disability, which started his depressive episodes.

JAY LAWRENCE

Jay had a series of lower back and neck fusion surgeries.  This was when he was first prescribed painkillers, antidepressants and anti-anxiety medications.  From 2008 to 2011, Jay tried various treatments to control the pain that lingered even after a third back surgery.  These included steroid shots, nerve blocks and a spinal cord stimulator.  Ultimately he had a drug pump implanted that delivered morphine, in addition to the pain pills he was being prescribed.

In 2012, Jay was diagnosed with trauma induced dementia.  I believe that diagnosis was right, based on his symptoms, but not all of the doctors agreed.  Some believed the confusion was due to high doses of morphine and/or his sleep apnea.  

By 2016, Jay’s confusion and memory issues were increasing. He was on a steady dose of 120mg morphine daily, in addition to the medication he was receiving from his pain pump. 

Jay’s depression seemed to come and go, depending on the day and his pain levels.  He was weaned down on his Xanax to 2mg a day to help him sleep. He was aware of the risks of combining Xanax and morphine. 

JAY AND MEREDITH LAWRENCE

Let me tell you what a good day was like before they changed his medications. I worked a full time job from 2 pm to 10 pm five days a week. I would get home, and Jay would have my coffee ready for me at night.  We would stay up and watch TV until 2 or so.  When it was time for sleep, I went to bed and he slept in his recliner.

We started sleeping apart after his first surgery in 2007. He was more comfortable sitting up in the chair, but could never sleep more than three hours at a time.  He knew sleeping in bed would just keep me awake. 

A good day always meant it was not cold or raining.  On a good morning, he would be up first and get coffee started.  He would take our two miniature pinchers outside in the yard on their leash for potty time. 

We usually had at least one appointment a week, but if not we could have a nice quiet morning.  That meant coffee in front of the TV.  After a couple of hours of that, he might switch over to playing his computer games, but he was never far from his chair. 

A typical adventure for us would involve going to Walmart.  Jay was not able to walk through the store, but he hated using the handicapped carts. I could always see a look on his face when he had to do it.  After going to the store, we might have lunch or an early dinner at Steak n Shake or Cracker Barrel.  It always needed to be some place familiar and comfortable for him.  More than once we sat, ordered and then took our food home because he was in too much pain. 

In the summer we might walk the dogs after dinner.  Just a quick two block walk, but a lot of times he would have to stop halfway and go back home.  A couple of times I had to go get the car and pick him up because his legs just would not support him anymore. 

A bad day was awful for me to watch, and absolutely horrible for Jay to live. It meant no real sleep, just catnaps in the chair whenever he could.  He always made coffee for us, but on a bad day he would forget to add coffee to the coffee maker and we would just have hot water.  The pain was so much he was just distracted. 

On many bad days, I would look over and see tears just running down his face because he was in so much pain.  It also made Jay’s depression worse.  We spent many cold winter nights talking about how much pain would be too much and would make life not worth living.  It is the most horrible feeling in this whole world to hear the person you love most talk about ending their life. 

In January, 2017 Jay’s pain clinic decided they could no longer prescribe the high doses of morphine he was on.  In addition, they were not going to continue seeing him if he decided to stay on Xanax.  The Xanax was prescribed by another doctor, but they did not care.

I begged the pain doctor -- yes, literally begged -- for some other option. The doctor said that if Jay continued the Xanax he would no longer see him.  He would not give another option for medications, and at one point even said that most of his patients with pain were “making it up.”

The last thing the doctor said to us will stick with me forever.  He said, “My patient’s quality of life is not worth losing my practice over.”

When we left that day, we were barely in the car and I knew what Jay was going to say to me.  I will never forget how sad his voice was when he told me this was it for him. He was not going to continue to live like this.

Through the month of February, as Jay’s medication was decreased, we spent time doing things we did not normally do.  We went out on Valentine’s Day, he bought me the first jewelry he had bought since my engagement ring, and we went out to a fancy restaurant for dinner.  Jay tried to cram in as many good memories as he could into that last month, but I knew it was costing him.

Jay’s next doctor’s appointment was scheduled for March 2, and we knew they were going to decrease his medications again.  The night before, he woke me up to tell me it was time.  I knew what that meant, but I tried to be strong for his sake.  We talked all night long about what it meant, and how it should be.  It was the saddest, strangest, longest night of my life. 

Jay knew he did not have enough pills to kill himself.  He also knew that if he were to try and purchase a gun, they would not sell it to him.  It would have been almost obvious what he was going to use it for. 

In the end, I bought the gun that Jay used -- and yes, we talked about the ramifications of that action.  We went to the park where we had renewed our vows in 2015.  We talked in the car for a while, and then we sat in the same place we had cut our wedding cake.  I was holding his hand when he pulled the trigger. .

Through the shock and horror, my immediate feeling was one of relief for Jay. To know that he was finally out of pain was a weight lifted off both of us.

Because I purchased the gun that Jay used to end his life, I was charged under our state's assisted suicide law.  This charge was later reduced to reckless endangerment, and I am currently on probation. People close to me want me to be quiet about my role in Jay’s death, and I was at first. But I cannot continue that way. 

I know Jay wanted me to put his story out there.  I know he wanted people to know what it was like to live with the pain he lived with daily. When the doctor took away Jay’s medications, they took away his quality of life. That was what led to his decision. Jay fought hard to live with his pain for a long time, but in the end fighting just was not enough. 

Something has to be done to wake up the doctors, insurers and regulators to make them see pain patients as real people. People with husbands, wives and children that love them.  People that are suffering and just barely holding on. 

Pain News Network invites other readers to share their stories with us.  Send them to:  editor@PainNewsNetwork.org

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.

CDC Ignored Warning About Opioid Guidelines

By Pat Anson, Editor

A consulting company hired by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention warned the agency last year that many doctors had stopped prescribing opioid pain medication and that chronic pain patients felt “slighted and shamed” by the CDC’s opioid guidelines.

“Some doctors are following these guidelines as strict law rather than recommendation, and these physicians have completely stopped prescribing opioids,” PRR warned in a report to CDC in August 2016, five months after the CDC released its guidelines.

“Pain patients who have relied on these drugs for years are now left with little to no pain management options. Chronic pain is already stigmatized. Now chronic pain patients face the stigma of addiction, even when they are using opioids responsibly for pain management.”

PRR is a well-connected marketing and public relations firm based in Seattle that has worked for a number of companies and public agencies, including the Environmental Protection Agency, Starbucks, Nike, and the University of Washington.

PRR was hired by the CDC to improve the agency’s public image and to develop a communication strategy to help educate the public about the CDC’s controversial opioid guidelines.

Those guidelines, which discourage doctors from prescribing opioids for chronic pain, are voluntary and only intended for primary care physicians. But they’ve been widely adopted as mandatory throughout the U.S. healthcare system, causing additional pain and anxiety for millions of pain sufferers.

“Chronic pain patients feel or perceive that the CDC has failed them because doctors are making extreme generalizations in determining appropriate care for their pain patients,” PRR found.

The PRR report to CDC was obtained by Pain News Network under the Freedom of Information Act.  Excerpts from the report can be seen by clicking here.

PRR recommended that CDC take a number of steps to understand why the guidelines were being so poorly received by patients.

“CDC should consider conducting more research to understand the fears and concerns of patients with chronic pain conditions. Understanding this group’s perceptions and fears of the PDO (prescription drug overdose) guidelines will help the CDC more successfully communicate with patient advocacy groups and will help insure their targeted messages are being disseminated to patients,” PRR recommended.

“Overall, this will help CDC message and communicate to those living with chronic pain and help providers and patients understand best care options available to enhance and improve quality of life.”

No CDC Response to Recommendations

There is no evidence that CDC has followed through on the recommendations. When asked if the agency had conducted any research or surveys of pain patients in response to the PRR report, the CDC gave us only a brief and vaguely worded statement. Note the use of the word “will.”

“CDC will evaluate the uptake, utility, and public health impact of the guideline and will monitor and assess physician and patient response to the guideline; based on this information, we will update the guideline in the future, as needed.

CDC continues to develop resources for patients and providers about the risks and benefits of opioid therapy for chronic pain to improve the safety and effectiveness of pain treatment and reduce the risks associated with long-term opioid therapy, including opioid use disorder, overdose, and death.”

CDC pledged in March 2016 to make changes to the guideline “if new evidence becomes available” and said it was “committed” to evaluating the guideline’s impact – “both intended and unintended.”

But in the 17 months since that pledge was made, there has apparently been no effort by CDC to assess the guideline’s impact on pain care, doctors, patients, suicides, addiction or overdoses -- at least none that the agency will talk about.

“We’ve provided you our statement,” a CDC spokesperson said in an email.

PRR also declined to answer any questions about its report or if any follow-up research is being done.

“We are proud of our work, and we respect client communications protocols. Therefore, we refer you to the CDC to ask your questions directly,” said Jennifer Lynch, PRR’s business development manager.

For the record, this reporter was one of five individuals interviewed by PRR last summer, and asked a series of questions about the CDC guideline. Others who were surveyed include Barby Ingle of the International Pain Foundation, Paul Gileno of the U.S. Pain Foundation, chiropractor Sean Konrad, and Dr. Lynn Webster, a pain management expert and past president of the American Academy of Pain Medicine.   

I was contacted by the PRR firm as well.  I was told that the CDC wanted to know what they did wrong with the opioid prescribing guidelines,” recalled Webster. “I think it is clear that the CDC should have had more input from the pain community in developing the opioid guidelines.

“Any intervention by the CDC or any government agency that affects millions of people should be accompanied with a plan to assess the effect of the intervention. In other words, the CDC should have planned to measure the effect on intended goals and any unintended consequences from the intervention.”

"CDC recommends close follow-up for patients who are using opioids to treat chronic pain, but they don’t seem to be eager to apply that same advice to their own intervention," said Bob Twillman, PhD, Executive Director of the Academy of Integrative Pain Management. "CDC seems to be eager to evaluate the impact of its guideline in terms of metrics such as number of opioid prescriptions written, but they seem to have little concern about assessing the extent to which decreased prescribing is adversely affecting people with pain.

"In all the discussion about the evidence base supporting the guideline, what seems to have gotten lost is a need to develop the evidence base to show how effective or ineffective that intervention has been. Unfortunately, this lack of evaluation is consistent with CDC’s lack of interest in evaluating the prevalence and demographics of chronic pain itself."

Guidelines Made Pain Care Worse

There have been many unintended consequences caused by the guidelines. In a survey of over 3,000 patients and nearly 300 healthcare providers by PNN, eight out of ten patients said their pain and quality of life had grown worse. Many patients are having suicidal thoughts, and some are hoarding opioids or turning to illegal drugs for pain relief.   

Over half of the healthcare providers said they had stopped prescribing opioids or were prescribing lower doses. Many providers also believe the guidelines are ineffective or have made pain care worse:

  • 40% believe CDC guidelines have been harmful to patients, while only 22% consider them helpful
  • 67% believe guidelines have made it harder for pain patients to find a doctor
  • 63% believe the guidelines have not improved the quality of pain care
  • 66% believe guidelines have not been effective in reducing opioid abuse and overdoses
  • 35% of providers are worried about being prosecuted or sanctioned for prescribing opioids

“I am not sure the CDC is aware of the increased legal trouble many physicians are experiencing as a result of the guidelines. Most of these physicians are just trying their best to help people in pain but are being accused of criminal conduct,” said Webster.

Webster was apparently the only pain management physician interviewed by PRR. The company also reviewed 11 online articles and blogs (about half written by doctors), which gave the guidelines mixed reviews.  PRR's bare bones analysis could hardly be called comprehensive, yet two federal health officials portrayed it as a ringing endorsement of the guidelines by physicians.

“Practitioners are excited to see action taken to address the PDO epidemic,” wrote Tonia Gray and John O’Donnell of the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration in an appendix to the PRR report. “From our scan of responses, PRR found that many agree this is a step in the right direction to help providers make informed decisions and stem the PDO issue.”

That assessment certainly doesn't reflect the thoughts of Dr. Webster.

“I would urge the CDC to reassess their process and attempt to understand the unfortunate consequences their well-intended but misinformed decisions have had,” said Webster.

“One presumably unintended consequence is the recommendations/guidelines have been adopted as rules and laws, which has resulted in a significant change in care for millions of patients.  The guidelines were never intended to do that – they lack the backing of scientific evidence to be treated as a law.”

CDC has made few efforts to remind doctors, insurers, politicians and state regulators that the guideline is voluntary and only intended for primary care physicians. One of the few was a letter from a top CDC official to Richard Martin, a retired Nevada pharmacist disabled by chronic back pain.

“All of you at the CDC and like-minded groups, individuals, etc. are causing hundreds of thousands, if not millions of people, to suffer in pain needlessly,” wrote Martin, who sent 27 letters and emails to the agency before getting a response from Debra Houry, MD, Director of the CDC’s National Center for Injury Prevention.

“The Guideline is a set of voluntary recommendations intended to guide primary care providers as they work in consultation with their patients,” wrote Houry, who oversaw the development of the guideline. “The Guideline is not a rule, regulation, or law. It is not intended to deny access to opioid pain medication as an option for pain management. It is not intended to take away physician discretion and decision-making.”

Houry’s letter to Martin was dated June 1, 2016, a full two months before CDC received the PRR report, suggesting that CDC was already aware that problems were developing with the guideline and that many physicians considered it mandatory.

CDC 'Propaganda'

To be clear, PRR’s review of patient and doctor attitudes about the guideline was only a small part of the work it performed for CDC. PRR also provided media training to CDC officials, analyzed news and social media coverage of CDC projects, developed logos and brands, shot promotional videos and pictures, and performed other work traditionally associated with public relations projects.

PRR also developed a series of fact sheets and graphics to help CDC promote the opioid guideline – many of which are still in use today.

The graphics advise doctors that “opioids are not first-line or routine therapy for chronic pain” and that physicians should “start low and go slow” when opioids are prescribed. They also encourage doctors to tell patients that “there is not enough evidence that opioids control chronic pain effectively long term.”

One PRR graphic claims that "as many as 1 in 4 people" who take opioids long-term become addicted. The graphic is based on a single study that even the author admits may have been biased and used unreliable data. A longtime critic of the CDC calls the graphic "propaganda."

According to the National Institutes of Health, only about 5% of patients taking opioids as directed for a year end up with an addiction problem. Other estimates put the addiction rate higher and some lower.

prr designed graphic

It’s been difficult to assess how much PRR was paid for its work. Invoices sent to CDC indicate the original budget for the project was $240,596, but there were numerous delays and changes in the work performed. The invoices have been heavily redacted by the agency at the request of PRR, which considers the information proprietary.     

5 Reasons to Max Out on Twitter for PainWeek

By Margaret Aranda, MD, Columnist

More than ever, you need to be on Twitter this week if you love to advocate for pain patients. That’s because PainWeek begins Tuesday, September 5th and runs through Saturday, September 9th at the Cosmopolitan Hotel in Las Vegas.

You won’t find many patients at PainWeek, but there are plenty of doctors. PainWeek is the nation’s largest annual conference for healthcare providers who practice pain management. Over 2,300 physicians, nurses, pharmacists, dentists, psychologists, and social workers will attend seminars on topics ranging from analgesics of the future to opioid constipation to a debate on whether urine drug testing is necessary.

Why should you care about PainWeek and why should you be maxed out on Twitter?

Tweets to #PainWeek are going to get a lot of eyeballs, not only from PainWeek organizers, but doctors, pharmaceutical companies and the news media. It's a good opportunity to show them what pain sufferers are feeling and thinking.

Tweeting is also a great way for patients to spread information and awareness about chronic pain to new pairs of eyes. When you do that, it’s called an "impression.” When someone comments or replies to your Tweet, that's an "engagement.” And when you get a “Retweet” – also known as an #RT -- that's the biggest compliment a Twitterer can give to a fellow Twitterer.

Here are 5 ways pain patients can use Twitter:

1) Advocate: The more people see your Tweets, the more you empower people to step out and be bold for themselves and for others that are suffering in pain. Use uplifting images, music, or quotes interspersed with your Tweets to help get positive attention.

2) Prevent Suicides: The ultimate goal of an advocate is to prevent the most severe outcomes of unrelenting, persistent pain. Those would be patient suicide, spousal suicide, and physician homicide. If we can spread the word about these emerging problems, we can help others hang onto their lives until the nation finally recognizes what is happening in the pain community. 

3) Use Hashtags: Worldwide patient advocacy can reign on Twitter. Try to use 6 to 8 hashtags per Tweet. In addition to #PainWeek, here are some great hashtags to use for the widest outreach:

#bedridden #broken #ButYouDontLookSick #chronic #chronicillness #chronicpain #ChronicPain #disabled #Disability #edRecovery #epatient #ehealth #HomicideDue2Pain #IAmNotANumber  #invisibledisability #invisibleillness #livelife #MedEd #MedX #NoCure #opioids #opioidcrisis #pain #PainManagement #patients #PatientEngagement #PatientExperience #PatientsFirst #PatientsIncluded #PatientsLikeMe #patientsafety #PatientsUnitedForDEAReform #ptsafety #spoonie #Spoonies #SpoonieProblems #SpoonieSpeak #StoriesNotStigma #suicide #SuicideDue2Pain #SupportVeterans #Vets #Veterans

4) Grow: What if every one of us had 10,000 followers each? It's one thing to have something to say, and another thing to show it to as many pairs of eyes as possible. Twitter is very reciprocal, so follow everyone who follows you.

For the same reason, if someone Retweets you, try to Retweet back or at least “like” a few of their Tweets. That's Twitter's culture. It’s reciprocal. 

5) Inspire and be inspired. We learn and grow every day. Sometimes we teach and sometimes we learn from our students. If you love to write or advocate for patients, consider starting a free blog where millions of authors go: Wordpress.com. This way, when you Tweet, it could be one of your own articles, and you can drive traffic to your own website by Tweeting your blog’s address.

#PainWeek is poised to be the most Tweeted pain meeting of the year, so join in on the fun!

"Be empowered to empower." 

Dr. Margaret Aranda is a Stanford and Keck USC alumni in anesthesiology and critical care. She has dysautonomia and postural orthostatic tachycardia syndrome (POTS) after a tragic car accident left her with traumatic brain injuries that changed her path in life to patient advocacy.

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.

Noah the Narwhal: A Children’s Book About Migraines

By Jennifer Kilgore, Columnist

It’s not often that children’s books and chronic pain cross paths, but that is exactly what has happened in Noah the Narwhal, a new book from author Judith Klausner and illustrator Sarah Gould.

I was introduced to Judith by my old law school roommate, who was teaching a course at Boston University on anthropology and disability. She knew the author, who suffers from chronic migraines.

“Does anyone have any media contacts in the chronic pain circuit?” Judith asked. Well, my roommate certainly knew someone. Me!

Judith is a 31-year-old artist who lives in Somerville, Massachusetts, and this is her first book -- ever. You’d never know that by looking at it. The book is well written, slick, colorful and filled with friendly underwater characters who are brought to life in surprisingly little time. 

The story follows Noah, a narwhal whale who suffers from migraines (and who also wears a cute little sweater). I asked Judith why she chose narwhals.

“A couple reasons. One is that I kind of like the idea of a creature that unfortunately some people don’t realize is real,” she told me. (Embarrassing truth: I didn’t know narwhals were real until last year. My husband won’t let me forget this.) 

“Also, some people don’t think migraines are real,” Judith explained. “‘Eh, you have a headache. Get over it.’ I liked that analogy. Then, there’s the visual idea of the pain of a migraine. Noah wakes up with the feeling of a horn growing into his head. So that seems convenient! You just have to turn the horn inside out!”  She laughed.

“That, and narwhals are cool. They’re the unicorns of the sea.”

The story is fairly simple: Noah lives a great life and has wonderful friends, but he also has to deal with terrible migraines that drill into his head at unexpected moments. He tries to keep up with his family commitments, his job, and his social obligations, but his pain flares keep setting him back. At first, his loved ones don’t believe the pain can be all that bad, and they say, “But you were fine yesterday!”

“Today is not yesterday,” Noah keeps telling them. (I want to get that tattooed on my wrist.)

He also has adorable metaphors like, “My head feels like it’s full of sea urchins.”

Noah frets over leaving his friends and family in the lurch, but then they remember all the times that he was there when they needed him, and all the good that Noah has brought into their lives. They realize it doesn’t matter if Noah has to deal with migraines -- they love him, no matter what.

I cried when I read it.

Noah’s story parallels the points in Judith’s life that come out so strongly in the book. “It’s definitely pretty autobiographical,” she said. “I’ve had them (migraines) pretty much my whole life.”

In elementary school, Judith’s parents noticed a pattern and had the foresight to take her to a doctor when the migraines became more frequent and were accompanied by nausea. Eventually they were popping up multiple times a week, and auras started in high school.

The migraines kept a very strict pattern, arriving promptly in the evening at 5 o’clock. They never showed up more than three days in a row, so the fourth day was always clear. Then, in college, everything went off the rails. With no daily schedule, her migraines had no schedule, either -- they decided to strike whenever they wanted, lasting days in a row. Her doctors tried her on preventatives, which caused a host of side effects.

When asked how she dealt with college (she was a studio art major at Wesleyan College), Judith replied, “Not well.” She would let one class suffer each semester, in the hopes of just getting through with her degree.

After graduating, she fell into a depression and her friendships withered, because chronic migraines (having one a day for almost three years) interfered with any work or social schedule.

“With something like a chronic pain condition, you can’t schedule around it,” Judith said. “I was finding myself not able to do these things that everyone around me was doing. I thought I wasn’t strong enough, or smart enough, or I was too lazy, that there was something wrong with me, that I was the problem. And I had a lot of self-hatred around that time.”

Then she saw a migraine specialist who told her, “You know, you’re doing really well with what you have.”

“That was a really important thing for me to hear, at a really important time for me to hear it. Someone gave me permission to stop beating myself up so much,” Judith recalled.

It was out of these experiences that Noah was created. Judith always loved sculpting, writing and picture books. As she told me, “Picture books are not just for kids, and children’s books are a medium that have the opportunity to reach people at a formative age.”

Working from her couch, Judith put long hours into Noah the Narwhal, odds and ends that equaled a full-time job, though only when her body allowed. As those of us with chronic pain know, sometimes the demands of a full-time 9-5 job are impossible, a claim to which Judith can attest. 

For the artwork, she turned to her longtime friend, Sarah Gould. Their relationship goes back more than a decade. She works as a computer programmer on the west coast and earned a master’s degree in landscape architecture, but always wanted to work as an illustrator. The two of them thought that some sort of collaboration would be a fun long-distance project.

Sarah’s soft, precious, approachable artwork is the perfect complement to Judith’s words. Even when she was writing, Judith said she was imagining Sarah’s illustrations. 

Noah the Narwhal works because it is a simple story distilled into even simpler parts. Pain isn’t complicated. Doctors, medications, lab visits, insurance bills and prognoses -- those are complicated. At its core, though, pain is a feeling, a reaction, a response to stimuli. It’s a horn drilling into your head.

Judith understood this perfectly when writing the story. That’s why it works. As she said, “The more we can do to help people realize they aren’t alone, by understanding (chronic pain), the better.”

And it would do us all well to remember, today isn’t yesterday.

Noah the Narwhal is featured on PNN"s Suggested Reading list.

Jennifer Kain Kilgore is an attorney editor for both Enjuris.com and the Association of International Law Firm Networks. She has chronic back and neck pain after two car accidents.

You can read more about Jennifer on her blog, Wear, Tear, & Care.  

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.

CDC: Heroin and Fentanyl Crisis ‘Rapidly Expanding’

By Pat Anson, Editor

A new report from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention further documents the “rapidly expanding” death toll linked to heroin and illicit fentanyl – an overdose crisis that the CDC continues to blame on prescription opioids.

The agency reported in its Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report that nearly 13,000 American died from heroin overdoses in 2015, four times the number of heroin deaths in 2010.

Starting in 2013, deaths from illicitly manufactured fentanyl (IMF) also began to spike in the Northeast, Midwest and South -- what the agency calls the “third wave” of the overdose crisis.  Fentanyl is a powerful synthetic opioid 50 to 100 times more potent than morphine.

“The heroin and IMF drug market in the United States is rapidly expanding in the context of widespread prescription opioid misuse. As a result, opioid-involved deaths are cur­rently at peak reported levels,” the CDC reported.

“Increased heroin availability combined with high potency and relatively low price might have made heroin a viable substitute because its effects are similar to those of prescription opioids. The strongest risk factor for heroin use and dependence is misuse of or dependence on prescription opioids.”

But a second report from CDC that focused on more recent overdoses in Ohio tells a different story. Opioid pain medication plays a shrinking role in the Buckeye state’s overdose crisis.

heroin and fentanyl pills (DEA photO)

In the first two months of 2017, the CDC estimated that at least 259 people died in Ohio from overdoses of fentanyl or fentanyl analogs – compared to just 12 deaths involving heroin, 64 deaths linked to opioid pain medication, and 75 deaths involving benzodiazepines, a class of anti-anxiety medication that includes Xanax.

“Evidence from the toxicologic analyses of unintentional overdose deaths in Ohio from the beginning of 2017 indicate the increasing and substantial role of IMFs, and the declining presence of heroin and pharmaceutical opioids in overdose fatalities,” the CDC said.

A recent report from the DEA found a similar trend in neighboring Pennsylvania. Over half the drug deaths in Pennsylvania in 2016 were linked to fentanyl and just 25 percent involved painkillers.

‘The Medical Board Will Come After You’

How are politicians reacting to these new reports about the changing nature of the overdose crisis?

In Ohio they’re tightening the rules on prescription pain medication. New guidelines that went into effect yesterday limit opioid prescriptions for acute pain to just seven days for adults and five days for minors. Patients suffering from cancer or chronic pain are exempt from the rules -- although many doctors have been reluctant to prescribe to those patients because they fear scrutiny. Ohio’s governor didn’t mince words when he warned prescribers that they’ll be held accountable for any slip-ups.

"If you're a dentist, doctor, I don't care who you are, you violate these guidelines, the medical board will come after you," Gov. John Kasich said in the Cleveland Plain Dealer. "And you will be disciplined and perhaps even lose your license."

New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie, who chairs President Trump’s opioid commission, uses similar language that pins the blame on doctors.

“Four out five new heroin addicts start on prescription opioids. This is a problem that’s not just starting on our street corners. Where it’s really starting is our doctor’s offices and hospitals,” Christie told CNN.

Jeffrey Singer, MD, a senior fellow at the Cato Institute,  warns that this sort of “frightening and imprecise rhetoric” often lead to poorly designed policies that only make the problem worse.

No matter how much regulators clamp down on the medical use of opioids the overdose rate grows. Yet the overwhelming majority of overdose victims are not patients receiving opioids for pain,” Singer wrote in Townhall.

“The opioid overdose problem requires a calm and reasoned approach, and a willingness to admit to previous policy mistakes. Rhetoric aimed at frightening the public does not foretell a propitious start.”

Controversial Genetic Testing Company in Receivership

By Pat Anson, Editor

A controversial genetic testing firm under federal investigation for healthcare fraud has been placed into court-ordered receivership – a form of bankruptcy – that could lead to the restructuring and sale of the company. The CEO and founder of Proove Biosciences has also left the company.

In an interview with STAT, former CEO Brian Meshkin blamed the company's financial problems on “erroneous and damaging” reports that were based on “false allegations” by disgruntled former employees.

Proove Biosciences specializes in DNA testing that the company claims can improve the effectiveness of pain management treatment and determine whether a patient is at risk of opioid addiction.

In June, FBI agents raided the company’s headquarters in Irvine, California. Former and current employees who were interviewed by STAT said the agents were focused on possible kickbacks to doctors who encouraged patients to take Proove’s DNA tests. Physicians reportedly could make $144,000 a year in kickbacks that were called “research fees.”

In July, PNN reported that Proove was linked to a Medicare fraud case, in which three Indiana healthcare providers allegedly “caused Proove Bioscience… to falsely and fraudulently bill various health care programs for genetic tests... that were not medically necessary and never interpreted."

Proove was not named as a defendant in the Indiana case. In an email to PNN, Meshkin said Proove had cooperated with investigators.

“Proove has cooperated with both the FBI and US Attorney’s office on this case," said Meshkin. "With regards to tests being 'medically necessary', Proove received written and signed determinations of medical necessity supporting the tests ordered and billed to insurance carriers just like every other laboratory which requires such a determination on a test requisition form. Thus Proove operated appropriately and consistent with usual and customary practices."

Meshkin also defended Proove research, published in the Journal of Addiction Research & Therapy, which claimed to show the effectiveness of its genetic tests.The publisher of the journal, OMICS International, has been accused by the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) of deceiving researchers and readers about the true nature of its publications and peer review process.

"Proove can only speak to its experience with this particular journal,” Meshkin said in an email to PNN. "Specifically for papers submitted to this journal, our R&D team and academic collaborators engaged in documented, extensive peer-review, received suggested edits and provided responses to the suggested edits to the manuscripts submitted for review and publication. Thus, Proove would certainly consider the publications accepted from Proove-affiliated authors in that journal to be 'peer-reviewed'."

According to the FTC complaint filed last August, OMICS  has created hundreds of "open access" online medical journals that publish articles with little or no peer review. Researchers are also charged significant fees to get their articles published by OMICS, a "pay to play" policy that some consider unethical because it diminishes the quality of academic journals and the peer review process.

Proove has aggressively promoted its genetic tests with healthcare providers around the country. A pain clinic in Montana, for example, had a Proove “patient engagement representative” employed on site at the Benefis Pain Management Center in Great Falls.

“We had a meeting one day and here are these people from Proove Biosciences. They told us they were doing a research project,” said Rodney Lutes, a physician assistant who was later fired by Benefis. “They wanted to come to Benefis, into the pain department, and test our patients.  We were told this would be at no cost to the patient. My understanding was that they weren’t going to charge anybody, but I found out afterwards they were charging insurance companies.

“They said providers who participated in this would get some form of payment for participating in the program and for filling out all the paperwork.”

Lutes’ supervising physician at the clinic was Katrina Lewis, MD, a pain management specialist at Benefis who is listed as a member of Proove’s Medical Advisory Board.  Lewis apparently plays a significant role at the clinic, even though she only works there part time. Benefis has denied that Lewis or any of its employees received kickbacks from Proove for referring business to them.

STAT reported that Proove’s restructuring was apparently ordered by Mike Leavitt, a Proove board member, who also served as Utah governor and secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services. Leavitt’s investment firm, Leavitt Equity Partners, provided about $7 million in funding to Proove, according to Meshkin.

A former Proove manager told STAT that she initially felt good about going to work for the company, but soon had misgivings about Proove's research and billing practices.

“It sucked the life out of me, on an integrity level,” said Rhonda Frantz-Smith. “It got more and more corrupt.”

Petition Calls on FDA to Ban High Dose Opioids

By Pat Anson, Editor

A group of anti-opioid activists has filed a citizen petition with the Food and Drug Administration, asking the agency to remove most high dose opioid pain medications from the market.

The petition would apply to all opioid pills that exceed a daily dose of 90mg morphine equivalent units (MMEs), which the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention set last year as the highest recommended dose for primary care physicians and their patients.  

Such a ceiling, if adopted by the FDA, would take all OxyContin 80mg tablets off the market, as well as many other high-dose oral painkillers. A single OxyContin 80mg tablet, according to the petition, is equivalent to 160 MME.

Another example cited in the petition would be immediate release oxycodone 30mg tablets. If four such pills are taken daily, as they are often prescribed, that adds up to 180 MME.

The petition claims high dose opioid pills raise the risk of overdose and addiction, and are especially harmful to children.

“These products are just too dangerous, there's no need for them," said Pete Jackson, who lost his teenage daughter to an OxyContin overdose.

"These are not medicines. These are lethal weapons that should be removed from the market," said Andrew Kolodny, MD, an addiction treatment specialist and Executive Director of Physicians for Responsible Opioid Prescribing (PROP), one of five anti-opioid activists who signed the petition. None are considered experts in pain management.

“Removing UHDU (ultra-high dosage unit) orally-administered opioids from the market will result in patients having to swallow more tablets or capsules. But this is unlikely to result in a significant inconvenience or hardship for patients,” the petition states. “For patients that may have difficulty swallowing it is important to note that opioid analgesics are available in liquid preparations, sublingual preparations, patches and suppositories.”

Opioids ‘Can Be Appropriate’

In a rare acknowledgement that opioids "can be appropriate" for some pain patients, Kolodny and the other petitioners wrote that "the benefits of prescribing high doses may outweigh the risks when treating severe pain from a life-limiting illness."

But then they make the dubious claim that flooding the market with lower-dose pills will somehow be safer. Reducing the potency of painkillers would mean patients need more to get pain relief – resulting in more pills being prescribed, stored in medicine cabinets, and possibly stolen or diverted – hardly a prescription for reducing abuse.

Having to take more pills could also be risky to patients.  

"With a very large number of pills to manage, they are going to be at more risk of taking the wrong number of pills and of having some of those pills swiped by others without them noticing," Stefan Kertesz, MD, an Alabama primary care physician, told the Associated Press.

“Given the significance of the nation’s opioid crisis, this petition and issue should be discussed by the scientific experts at FDA and we look forward to participating in such a discussion,” Purdue Pharma, the maker of OxyContin, said in a statement. “It is critical that we seek the appropriate balance of treating pain severe enough that requires opioid treatment for which alternative treatments are inadequate, with efforts combating the opioid crisis.”

The FDA had no immediate comment on the petition.  Any U.S. citizen can file a petition with the agency to seek the removal of a drug or medical device for safety issues.

In June, the FDA asked Endo Pharmaceuticals to take Opana ER off the market because it was being abused, the first time that sales of an opioid painkiller have been halted. FDA commissioner Scott Gottlieb, MD, has hinted the agency could take other painkillers off the market.

“We will continue to take regulatory steps when we see situations where an opioid product’s risks outweigh its benefits, not only for its intended patient population but also in regard to its potential for misuse and abuse,” Gottlieb said in June.

To make a comment on the PROP petition to the FDA, click here.

FDA Should Tread Carefully with Stem Cell Regulation

(Editor’s note: This week FDA commissioner Scott Gottlieb said the agency would crack down on clinics that offer experimental stem cell treatments. While acknowledging that stem cells offer “significant promise” for treating chronic pain and other chronic conditions, Gottlieb said some clinics were preying on sick people desperate to find cures.

A. Rahman Ford has received stem cell treatment and has been closely following developments in stem cell research and regenerative medicine.)

By A. Rahman Ford, Columnist

On its face, FDA Commissioner Gottlieb's statement seems like a reasonable approach to regulating stem cell therapies.  He emphasizes the need to balance costs and benefits, and the need to protect vulnerable consumers from exploitation. 

I think all can agree with the Commissioner when he states that "these technologies hold the potential to significantly alter the course of a broad range of diseases."  These diseases are often accompanied by intense physical pain that pharmaceuticals cannot relieve.

Specifically, the Commissioner makes three heartening observations. First, he acknowledges the "significant promise for transformative and potentially curative treatments" offered by regenerative medicine.  This is a promise that mainstream pharmaceutical medicine has yet to fulfill, and one that those suffering from chronic pain need addressed immediately. 

Second, it is without question that regulatory clarity and the resolution of legal uncertainty regarding these therapies' use can be a good thing.  If there are in fact an irresponsible "select few," or a minority of unscrupulous, exploitative "bad actors" as the Commissioner claims, then legal action by the FDA against them is reasonable. 

fda commissioner scott gottlieb

Finally, the Commissioner seems to implicitly recognize how critical it is for the FDA to respect the distinction between medical products subject to agency oversight, and those which fall under the "practice of medicine," a distinction which Commissioner Gottlieb acknowledges is fraught with "close calls."

That said, as an advocate for patients seeking stem cell therapies, upon reading Commissioner Gottlieb's statement I am overall circumspect.  It is well known that the FDA has a rather unsettling history of issuing regulations that unduly restrict patients' access to stem cell therapies, specifically autologous stem cell therapies.  These are therapies that use cells harvested from one person, are minimally manipulated, and then administered to the same person. 

I've previously made my position on this "personal" stem cell therapy known, particularly the privacy implications involved. 

Restrictions such as the unduly burdensome "minimally manipulated" federal standard and the "same basic function" requirement are clear evidence of an intent to restrict.  So, the fact that Commissioner Gottlieb's statement reiterates the "same basic function" standard as a factor in requiring that a stem cell therapy be approved through a clinical trial, rather than it being part of the "practice of medicine," seems to indicate more of the same federal overreach.

Make no mistake, the potential dangers of stem cell therapy are real, and proactive effort to protect patients is far better than any reactive effort.  However, the potential dangers should not be overstated or exaggerated ostensibly toward the end of more unnecessary restrictive regulation. 

The FDA has a history of doing this.  For example, the New England Journal of Medicine published a commentary in March by then FDA Commissioner Robert Califf arguing that, aside from a few indications, the clinical use of autologous stem cell therapies has not been proven effective and can even be dangerous. 

Not only did the article ignore years of clinical data from medical practitioners, the one cited example of the danger of autologous stem cells was actually an example of allogeneic stem cell use -- stem cells from another person!

Thus, when the Commissioner asserts that the FDA will "aid in the effort to bring novel therapies to patients as quickly, and as safely, as possible," it simply belies history.  Likewise, overtures made toward any potential regulations being congruent with the 21st Century Cures Act are dubious.  The spirit of the Cures Act is clear; it calls for the "accelerated approval for advanced regenerative therapies." 

More federal regulation rarely, if ever, leads to acceleration of anything.  In fact, it almost always tends to slow things down.  Thus, unnecessary and unreasonably burdensome regulation by the FDA could contravene the will of Congress, and thus the will of the American people.

Texas Legalizes 'Personal' Stem Cell Therapy

Furthermore, the FDA's prospective regulatory guidance must be viewed in the context of recent events in Texas.  On June 13, Texas governor Greg Abbot signed HB 810 into law, which made Texas the first state to legitimize the use of personal stem cell therapies statutorily. The signing of the bill was celebrated not only by stem cell advocates, but by the countless Americans who suffer from chronic, debilitating conditions for which the current medical services delivery model can offer only surgery and medication.  For many, it was a monumental step forward toward fulfilling the promise of regenerative medicine and realization of true health care.  

However, the FDA may have seen this move as reinforcing a "wild west" stem cell landscape, a landscape which it believes it must police.

All of us, including FDA officials, should be reminded that on February 28, at President Trump's first State of the Union speech (and on Rare Disease Day), the President took note of Sarah Hughes, a young attendee who had used her own stem cells to successfully treat Pompe’s Disease. The therapy normalized her immune system, alleviated her symptoms and helped reduce her medications from 22 to 8.

We must also remember the promise President Trump made to America's military veterans, many of whom suffer from painful, debilitating conditions that may be treated or cured by stem cells.  President Trump cares deeply about veterans' health.  He recently signed the Veterans Appeals Improvement and Modernization Act, which streamlines the process of veterans appealing claims over disability benefits.  He also signed a bill that will let more veterans bypass the Department of Veterans Affairs and instead receive treatment from private doctors. 

Finally, he signed legislation approving new tools to expand the VA's existing Telehealth Services, so veterans can schedule appointments and have video consultations from their mobile phones.  It seems obvious that President Trump would never support restricting veterans' access to the medical care they need, including stem cells.

I believe that President Trump, through his devotion to our veterans, the Congress through the Cures Act, and the American people through their need for medical alternatives, would strongly disagree with any unreasonable curtailment of stem cell therapies. 

The FDA must not defer to the opinion of "industry," and must prioritize the needs of Americans like Sarah Hughes and our suffering wounded warriors.  People are in pain and pills can’t always help them.

A. Rahman Ford, PhD, is a lawyer and research professional. He is a graduate of Rutgers University and the Howard University School of Law, where he served as Editor in Chief of the Howard Law Journal. He earned his PhD at the University of Pennsylvania.

Dr. Ford is not affiliated with any stem cell treatment provider. He suffers from chronic inflammation in his digestive tract and is unable to eat solid food.

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

FDA Expands Crackdown on Stem Cell Clinics

By Pat Anson, Editor

The Food and Drug Administration is stepping up its campaign against experimental stem cell therapies, which are increasingly being used to treat cancer, diabetes, neuropathy, back pain and other chronic illnesses.

On Friday, the FDA raided two stem cell clinics operated by California Stem Cell Treatment Centers, and seized five vials of a smallpox vaccine supplied by StemImmune in San Diego. The vaccine is mixed with stem cells derived from a patient’s body fat – known as adipose tissue -- and then injected back into the patient. The FDA considers that “an unapproved and potentially dangerous treatment” for cancer.

On Monday, the FDA also sent a warning letter to a stem cell clinic in Florida, which advertises stem cells derived from body fat to treat a variety of chronic illnesses, including rheumatoid arthritis, lupus and other autoimmune diseases. Three elderly women at the clinic went blind after having stem cells injected into their eyes in an attempt to treat macular degeneration.

in a lengthy statement announcing the crackdown,  FDA commissioner Scott Gottlieb, MD, said stem cell therapy and regenerative medicine hold “significant promise for transformative and potentially curative treatments,” but some “bad actors” were preying on sick people desperate to find cures.

“There are a small number of unscrupulous actors who have seized on the clinical promise of regenerative medicine, while exploiting the uncertainty, in order to make deceptive, and sometimes corrupt, assurances to patients based on unproven and, in some cases, dangerously dubious products,” Gottlieb warned.

“In such an environment a select few, often motivated by greed without regard to responsible patient care, are able to promote unproven, clearly illegal, and often expensive treatments that offer little hope, and, even worse, may pose significant risks to the health and safety of vulnerable patients.”

Dr. Mark Berman, a co-founder of California Stem Cell Treatment Centers, told the Los Angeles Times that Gottlieb’s comments were "disparaging and misrepresentative," and showed "a lack of understanding" of stem cell treatments. 

As PNN has reported, hundreds of stem cell clinics have opened around the country in recent years, often mixing hope with hype to make claims such as “You don’t have to accept chronic pain as a fact of life.”  The treatments are expensive and usually not covered by insurance.  A clinic in Sacramento, for example, charges $5,000 for a single joint injection and $6,000 for a spinal injection.

FDA officials say there is not enough evidence to support some of the newer stem cell therapies – particularly when cells are harvested from a patient’s own body fat (adipose tissue).

“Stem cells derived from sources such as adipose tissue are being used to treat multiple orthopedic, neurologic, and other diseases. Often, these cells are being used in practice on the basis of minimal clinical evidence of safety or efficacy,” wrote Robert Califf, MD, Gottlieb’s predecessor as FDA commissioner, in a commentary published in the New England Journal of Medicine.

Some patients, however, have reported remarkable recoveries from chronic conditions often deemed untreatable. Sara Bomar, for example, was confined to a wheelchair after being diagnosed with arachnoiditis, a painful inflammation of nerves in her spinal column. She started walking again after a high dose infusion of stem cells made from adipose tissue.

“I am able to walk. I am able to workout at the Y. I am still careful. It’s not like I don’t ever have any pain, I do have a little bit from time to time. But it is nothing compared to what I had before,” Bomar told PNN.

Gottlieb said the FDA would release new guidelines in the fall to outline what types of stem cell therapy and regenerative medicine would be allowed. And he warned that more enforcement actions were coming, like the ones in Florida and California.

“I will not allow these activities to go unchecked. I’ve directed the FDA to launch a new working group to pursue unscrupulous clinics through whatever legally enforceable means are necessary to protect the public health,” Gottlieb said.

Some patients who have the resources are heading to Europe to get regenerative treatments that can't get in the U.S.  The Seattle Seahawks this week sent five more players to Germany to have their blood processed and re-injected to treat nagging injuries. The procedure involves withdrawing blood from the patient and then spinning it to produce a high concentration of platelet cells. The plasma is then injected back into the patient at the injury site, speeding up the healing process. Two other Seahawks have already had the procedure, along with athletes such as Kobe Bryant and Alex Rodriguez.

Chronic Pain Patient: ‘They Are Killing Us Off’

By Pat Anson, Editor

Rob Hale isn’t sure how much longer he’ll live. Which is why the 51-year old Missouri man wants to share his story one more time, so people can see the impact the CDC's opioid prescribing guideline -- what Rob calls the “new cruelty” – is having on pain patients like himself.   

“That's it, man. I quit. I am too weak to continue. I'm beat. I hope some of you can live long enough to see some change in this new cruelty,” Rob wrote to me in an email. “Thank you so much, Pat, for providing me a platform in which to vent my frustration, pain, and anger at the system. I'm not sure if it helped anyone or not, but I hope it did.”

Rob first shared his story with us in a PNN guest column last December. At the young age of 27, he was diagnosed with ankylosing spondylitis, a degenerative and incurable form of arthritis that causes severe inflammation in spinal joints.

As the decades passed, the joints in Rob’s spine and neck became fused, and he was disabled and bedridden by chronic pain.

Relief only came from relatively high doses of opioid pain medication – as much as 600 MEMs (morphine equivalent units) a day. It reduced the pain enough for Rob to start working again, do chores around the house, and take care of his elderly father. Rob felt like his life was worth living again.

ROB HALE

Then came the CDC guidelines in 2016. Although they are voluntary and only intended for primary care physicians, Rob’s pain management doctors reduced his daily morphine dose to 120 MEMs, with the ultimate goal of getting it down to 90 MEMs – what the CDC recommends as the ceiling for high doses.

With his pain no longer being treated properly, Rob’s health deteriorated and he started taking high doses of Motrin, a prescription form of ibuprofen. He took so much Motrin it built up to toxic levels in his kidneys.  

“I was hospitalized in May, when my father couldn’t revive me in the morning. I woke up intubated, with IV’s and wires connected everywhere.  I was unconscious for 4 days, and when I finally awoke, I thought I had died and come back,” Rob said. “I was told if my dad hadn’t found me, I would have died within hours."

The cost to Medicare and taxpayers for that one stay in the hospital was $91,000 -- one of the unintended consequences of weaning or tapering a patient off high doses of opioids. Their healthcare costs often go up.

"None of that would have been necessary if I hadn't been denied my meds in the first place," Rob adds.

Rob was hospitalized a second time in June. His pain now grows worse every day, his health is failing, and he feels his time is running out.

“I nearly died, all because of this ‘opiate crisis.’ I just wanted to tell you that I’m home, albeit on oxygen, because my lungs are still filled with fluid, and I’m not sure how long I have to live,” he said.  “My old palliative care doctor and my current GP doctor think all of this that I’m going through right now is because of the trauma of the pain that I’ve been feeling since they started cutting me back.”

Rob feels he and other pain patients are being held responsible for an overdose crisis they didn’t create. He’s written letters to the CDC, FDA, DEA and to President Trump -- and only gotten form letters in return.

“The simple truth is this: They are killing us off - all of us chronic pain patients. We are, quite simply, a drain on the system, and the whole system would function much better without us. They'll get what they want, too. Before long, we'll all be gone - whether by our own hands, or by complications from our untreated pain, like me,” Rob wrote.

"I sure hope something changes soon. I’m not ready to give up the ghost yet, but I’m so weak that I can hardly type.  Why are they doing this to us, man?"

Pain Is a Vital Sign

By Roger Chriss, Columnist

Pain is a vital sign because it is vitally important. In fact, pain is what brings most people to a doctor, whether it’s their primary care physician or an emergency room doctor. And identifying the cause of the pain and figuring out how to address it is fundamental to medical care.

But pain cannot be objectively measured. And so some people trivialize or criticize its relevance.

“Unlike heart rate or blood pressure, there is no objective way to measure (pain). Doctors and nurses must depend on patients to report the intensity level of their pain, which provides an opening for addicts to abuse the system,” Hadley Manning recently wrote in an op/ed in The Oklahoman.  "Pain shouldn't be considered a vital sign."

The American Medical Association (AMA) also takes a dim view of pain, passing a resolution last year recommending that pain be removed as the “fifth vital sign” in professional medical standards.

"Just as we now know (the) earth is not flat, we know that pain is not a vital sign. Let's remove that from the lexicon," James Milam, MD, an AMA delegate told MedPage Today.

While it is true that there is no way to objectively measure pain, this is hardly unique to pain. After all, many health conditions that doctors deal with cannot be objectively measured:

  • In gastroenterology: appetite, nausea, or fullness
  • In neurology: numbness or tingling, muscle spasms, or loss of balance
  • In ophthalmology: double vision, light sensitivity, or blind spots
  • In otolaryngology: tinnitus, dizziness, or difficulty swallowing
  • In psychiatry: anxiety, depression, mania, or psychosis

This is part of why medicine is both an art and a science. Clinicians have to work directly with people and not just numbers and algorithms. Various instruments exist to formalize this process, including disability indexes for the neck and lower back, and a method for measuring adult depression.

Pain is included in many such instruments. And there are instruments that attempt to quantify pain. For instance, the Mankoski Pain Scale tries to characterize pain in a clinically useful way. The 0 to 10 scale goes from “Pain free” to “Can’t be ignored for more than 30 minutes” to “Pain makes you pass out.”

A number of medical conditions involve pain severe enough to be incapacitating or even crippling. Prevention Magazine put together a list of “The 10 Most Painful Conditions,” which includes kidney stones, postherpetic neuralgia, and cluster headaches.

To be clear, the abdominal pain of kidney stones is not just a “tummy ache,” but more like having your kidney sucked out through your navel. The pain of neuralgia is not just “numb toes and other woes,” but the agonizing burning that makes even a light touch a terrifying prospect. And a cluster headache is not a big “ice cream headache,” but an utterly incapacitating attack. You lay on the floor in a fetal position without even the mental resources to wonder if anyone will help.

Of course, pain can also be psychiatric in origin. The book Is It All In Your Head? True Stories of Imaginary Illness by neurologist Suzanne O’Sullivan, MD, describes how medically unexplained symptoms can be psychosomatic in nature but are nonetheless clinically real, and how a skilled specialist can make the distinction between organic and psychiatric causes of pain.

Thus, pain is a vital sign that cannot be ignored. It is the primary way that the human body communicates its needs and troubles. And it is the means by which people describe their medical problems.

Claims that patient complaints about pain create an “opening for addicts to abuse the system” ignore how healthcare works. Physicians don’t just look at a patient’s “pain score” and then write a prescription. They assess and evaluate the patient, and come to a diagnosis based on a combination of their clinical skills, lab work and testing.

And physicians sometimes err on the side of caution about patients’ descriptions of pain. The National Institutes of Health found that pain is often underestimated in women and racial minorities and often undertreated in socioeconomically disadvantaged groups.

While some patients may exploit the desire of a physician to help, it is also true that some physicians may ignore a patient’s legitimate need for help. Facile critiques that oversimplify the complexities of modern pain management diminish both the hard work of healthcare professionals and the suffering of people dealing with painful medical disorders.

Although pain is personal, subjective and not readily measured, it is very real. To diminish its importance because of an impractical standard of objectivity is to miss the fact that medicine is about relieving suffering.

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.

4 F’s That Can Help Lower Pain Levels

By Barby Ingle, Columnist

So far in my monthly series on alternative pain treatments, we’ve looked at 4 A’s (acupressure, acupuncture, aromatherapy, art therapy), 4 C’s (Calmare, Chinese medicine, chiropractic, craniosacral therapy) and 4 E’s (energy therapy, electromagnetic therapy, equine therapy, exercise).

I like my alphabet series because it offers pain sufferers a look outside the tool box for therapies they may not have considered. I know that insurance does not cover many of these treatments. And I know that nothing I am suggesting is going to cure anyone, but it may offer some pain relief. I suppose that’s the cheerleader in me -- keep going even if your team is losing and find a way to win.

Looking through the reader comments to my series, I found one from “Fred” that I liked:

"You read many commenters who say, 'I've tried them all, nothing works.' Wrong! There are hundreds, possibly thousands of potential alternative/complimentary pain modalities. Anyone claiming, 'I've done 'em all,' that person would have to be like 150 years old, given the time and dedication many require to show real effectiveness! NO ONE has done 'em all. There's always something left to try."

I want to thank Fred for his comment and to let him know that I agree with him. Far too often we say that we have tried everything and nothing works. But that doesn’t mean we should stop looking or trying.

The four F’s we’ll look at this month are faith healing, Feldenkrais Method, food, and functional medicine. Please contact a trained provider who can clear you before you try any of these suggestions, especially when it comes to movement and nourishment.  

Faith Healing

Faith healing is the practice of prayer or rituals that solicit divine intervention in spiritual and physical healing. This practice can include the “laying on of hands” and miracles.

I personally don’t know anyone who had a full recovery from divine intervention, but I did have a near death experience that taught me some important lessons.

I learned that I needed to have more patience with people and that human connection has a purpose. It helped me see my purpose in life and why I was here on earth. It didn’t take away my physical pain, but it helped me learn how to stay positive through it.

Many others have claimed miraculous recoveries through prayer. According to a Newsweek poll, 72 percent of Americans believe that praying to God can cure someone. I do believe it can happen, I just haven’t seen it yet.

In a report on faith healing, the American Cancer Society tells us that "available scientific evidence does not support claims that faith healing can actually cure physical ailments" and warns that "death, disability, and other unwanted outcomes have occurred when faith healing was elected instead of medical care for serious injuries or illnesses."

When parents have used faith healing instead of medical care, some children have died that otherwise would have been expected to live. Similar outcomes are found in adults who rely solely on faith healing.

I continue to say my daily prayers and remain a believer that all things are possible, even if I haven’t seen it yet personally. But I will continue with my other treatment options.  

Feldenkrais Method

The Feldenkrais Method is a type of exercise therapy devised and named after Moshé Feldenkrais. The method is claimed to reorganize connections between the brain and body, and to improve body movement and the psychological state.

I am a big believer in these techniques, used by Dr. Victor Pedro, who treats multiple friends of mine. I have seen them go into remission and remain well for years, although this treatment is not cost-effective for many.  

Supporters of the Feldenkrais Method claim it can repair impaired connections between the motor cortex and the body, which benefits body movement and improves their sense of well being. They also believe that it can be helpful with many pain conditions such as autism and multiple sclerosis. 

The Feldenkrais Guild of North America claims that this treatment option allows people to rediscover their innate capacity for graceful, efficient movement and that these improvements will often enhance function in other aspects of life. The treatment consists of repetitive movements with proper body alignment, done with or without a provider.

You can watch many videos online to learn and practice the Feldenkrais Method of exercise. Here is a sample:

Food

The food that we put in our bodies is one of the underlying causes of inflammation, which increases chronic pain. This is also one area that we have complete control over and don’t need insurance to cover.

I myself have used a low-carb, high fat diet – known as the ketogenic or paleo diet -- to help lower inflammation and lose weight. I thought the diet was going to be much more expensive, but it turned out costing about the same as what I was spending on my regular food budget.

I also discovered I was not as hungry or constantly looking for snack foods as I was when I was eating my regular “American” diet. We underestimate how inflammation plays a major role in chronic pain. Knowing what foods can increase inflammation can make a big difference in how we manage pain.

One of the things I have done with my diet is add some “super foods.” Several research studies have shown that the compounds in these natural foods can reduce inflammation and even block pain signals. Research also shows that super foods can increase brain chemicals, such as serotonin, which can stop depression and make you feel happier.

The super foods that you could add to your diet to deal with chronic pain naturally include burdock root, hot peppers, yogurt, fresh ginger root, cannabis, turmeric, fenugreek leaves, onions, strawberries, garlic, olive oil, and salmon.

For more information on the ketogenic diet, I suggest reading Quick & Easy Ketogenic Cooking by Maria Emmerich.

Functional Medicine

I believe functional medicine (FM) is the future of conventional medicine. In FM, the provider works to address the root cause of disease and views the body as one system, not a collection of independent organs to be treated separately. This type of care lets us focus on treating the whole body, not just the symptoms.

I have had providers who were specialists who only looked at one body part or organ and were not willing to consider that it was all interlinked. Finding providers who believe in FM was very important to me. Having this patient centered approach to my care helped me be my own best advocate and helped my providers do a better job getting me into a state of remission and controlled pain levels.

My providers spend time with me, between 45 to 90 minutes per visit. We go over my medical history, genetic vs. environmental aspects, and lifestyle factors. I love functional medicine because it helps support individualized treatment.

With the sharp increase in people who have one or more chronic illnesses such as diabetes, heart disease, mental illness, autoimmune disorders and  cancer, we need a system of care that puts the spotlight on everyone as a whole person.

The old way of practicing medicine is going out the window. We need to demand that all providers are on board with FM practices. We no longer want to be cookie cutter patients. We each need a unique approach to our care, and it is possible with better training for providers, research, and patient engagement.

Most providers are not adequately trained to assess the underlying causes of chronic diseases. Most can’t even adequately provide strategies such as nutrition, diet and exercise to treat and prevent future illnesses in their patients.

As patients we must push for FM and a more holistic approach. Finding a provider who is trained in FM involves them understanding disease origins, prevention, and treatment of chronic illnesses. With FM the unique genetic and environment of each patient is considered and an integrative, science-based care approach is employed using both traditional and alternative treatment options. As we focus on both internal (mind, body, and spirit) and external (physical and social environment) we will see greater improvements with our health, life and overall ability to function.

Do you have any suggestions? What alternative pain therapies have you tried that succeeded?  The more we share, the more others can see what they are able to do, what new treatments are available, and what old ones they may have overlooked.

Barby Ingle lives with reflex sympathetic dystrophy (RSD), migralepsy and endometriosis. Barby is a chronic pain educator, patient advocate, and president of the International Pain FoundationShe is also a motivational speaker and best-selling author on pain topics.

More information about Barby can be found at her website.

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.