CEO of U.S. Pain Foundation Resigns

By Pat Anson, Editor

The founder and CEO of the U.S. Pain Foundation – an advocacy group representing chronic pain patients -- has resigned under pressure.

Paul Gileno resigned Tuesday, May 29th at the request of the foundation’s board of directors, according to a statement released on Thursday by U.S. Pain. It is highly unusual for a non-profit’s board of directors to remove its CEO. No explanation was offered for Gileno’s sudden departure

Nicole Hemmenway, U.S. Pain’s chairperson, has been appointed as interim CEO. A search for Gileno’s replacement is underway.

“The organization is stable and excited to be moving forward on its mission – to empower, educate, connect and advocate for people living with chronic conditions that cause pain,” said  board member Ellen Lenox Smith. “The Board has complete faith in Nicole and the wonderful staff that makes up our organization.”

U.S. Pain has recently faced criticism over its relationship with Insys Therapeutics, an Arizona drug maker under investigation for its marketing of Subsys, an oral fentanyl spray blamed for hundreds of overdose deaths. Former Insys executives and sales representatives have been charged with racketeering and bribing doctors to prescribe Subsys off-label. A four day supply of Subsys can cost nearly $24,000.

In recent years, Insys has donated over $3.1 million to U.S. Pain, with most of the money going to a prescription discount program to help patients pay for Subsys and other medications prescribed for breakthrough cancer pain. Critics say the program was primarily designed to benefit Insys by allowing the company to bypass Medicare rules governing illegal kickbacks.

“Co-pay assistance programs (also called copay charities) were created to get around this restriction. Medicare allows copay charities to cover Medicare co-pays, so pharmaceutical companies funnel money through these groups to cover co-pay costs for Medicare patients while bilking Medicare, which bears the full cost of unnecessarily expensive drugs,” a group of critics said in a blog post by The Hastings Center.  

Last week Pfizer agreed to pay a $24 million fine to resolve federal charges that it used a similar co-pay assistance program to pay kickbacks to Medicare patients. “Pfizer used a third party to saddle Medicare with extra costs," said U.S. attorney Andrew Lelling.

In a statement released in February, Gileno defended U.S. Pain’s acceptance of funding from Insys for the co-pay assistance program.

"This funding, like any funding we receive, does not influence our values,” Gileno said. “The funding we receive is not used to promote one type of treatment over another.”

According to a report released by Missouri Sen. Claire McCaskill, U.S. Pain received $2.5 million from Insys in 2017 – an amount three times larger than what the non-profit received from all donors in 2015.

(Update: U.S. Pain has a statement on its website saying its copay assistance program with Insys ended “as of August 2018” and that “U.S. Pain will not accept funding from Insys going forward.”)

Gileno founded the Connecticut Pain Foundation in 2006 after a back injury forced him to abandon his catering business. In 2011, he launched U.S. Pain, which now claims to be the nation’s largest patient advocacy group. It's growth was fueled by marketing partnerships and donations from dozens of pharmaceutical companies and healthcare organizations.

In its 2016 promotional material, U.S. Pain claimed to have over 90,000 members and over 225,000 social media followers, including 59,000 followers on Twitter. However, that was reduced to less than 14,000 followers in early 2018 after Twitter purged from its system millions of fake accounts.

(Update: U.S. Pain has revised the way it counts actively “engaged members.” The organization now says its has over 15,000 members, 1,500 volunteers and a social media reach of more than 217,000 followers.)

In 2015, Gileno was paid a salary of nearly $404,000, according to U.S. Pain's tax return. Gileno says the 2015 compensation was for “back pay” from 2006 to 2012. The foundation has not publicly released its tax returns for 2016 or 2017, so we don’t know how much Gileno was paid for those years.

In a 2018 New Year’s message to U.S. Pain members, Gileno said he “would never sell out.”

“Not once has the creation of this foundation been about boosting my ego, finding public notoriety or obtaining fame. I am here to serve you. I will never jeopardize our mission or passion to gain five minutes of fame for myself," Gileno said.

"The work of U.S. Pain Foundation is 100% genuine. There are no strings attached or ulterior motives. All that I care about is further enhancing the lives of people suffering with pain, and we will continue to do so in a discreet and powerful manner."

PAUL GILENO

Gileno has been criticized by some in the pain community for a passive approach to patient advocacy that avoided public controversy and protest. Some say he also has an overbearing personality that rubbed people the wrong way.

“There are so many reasons I could cite as to why it’s good to have Paul out, but I am biased because he was one of my biggest bullies and a thief to others in the chronic pain community,” a longtime patient advocate who asked to remain anonymous told PNN. “I am hoping the leadership at U.S. Pain Foundation will do better than they have in the past.”

Interim CEO Nicole Hemmenway has been a key member of U.S. Pain since its inception. She has lived with Complex Regional Pain Syndrome (CRPS) most of her life.

“We’re very focused on the future. We have a lot of wonderful programs and events coming up – a training program for chronic pain support group leaders in June; our Pain Awareness Month campaign and related activities this September; and our first retreat for pediatric patients this November,” Hemmenway said in a statement.

Is CDC Opioid Guideline Harming Cancer Patients?

By Pat Anson, Editor

It was only intended for primary care physicians who treat chronic non-cancer pain, but the CDC’s opioid prescribing guideline has had a sweeping effect on the practice and quality of pain management in the United States.

The guideline is also causing confusion among oncology specialists who treat cancer and adding to the “already appalling burden of unrelieved cancer pain,” according to an op/ed being published in JAMA Oncology.

Two experts in oncology and palliative care at the University of Pennsylvania say some of the CDC’s recommendations are based on weak evidence and conflict with national cancer pain guidelines.

"This lack of evidence, coupled with conflicting and competing contemporary guidelines from diverse authoritative agencies and organizations carry the potential to confuse, if not seriously jeopardize, pain management for patients with cancer who are living with moderate to severe pain, adding to an already appalling burden of unrelieved cancer pain," wrote Neha Vapiwala, MD, and Salimah Meghani, PhD.

Meghani is a Professor of Nursing and Chair of Palliative Care at the University of Pennsylvania School of Nursing, while Vapiwala is a Professor of Radiation Oncology and Vice Chair for Education in the Perelman School of Medicine at the University of Pennsylvania.

Although the CDC guideline is intended for chronic pain patients outside of active cancer treatment, it includes patients “who have completed cancer treatment, are in clinical remission, and are under cancer surveillance only.”

Meghani and Vapiwala say the CDC’s inclusion of “cancer survivors” is a mistake because it is not uncommon for cancer pain to persist long after the cancer is treated.  

“Unfortunately, this arbitrary distinction is not consistent with the evidence of pain trajectory in cancer survivors,” the wrote. “More important, similar levels of pain were reported in survivors who were still receiving cancer treatment and those who had completed active cancer treatment.”

The CDC guideline also conflicts with the guideline of the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN), which is widely used by oncology physicians. The NCCN recommends that doctors use both short and long-acting opioids when treating flares from cancer pain, while the CDC recommends against long-acting opioids because of the potential risk of addiction.

The CDC also recommends that non-pharmacologic therapy such as meditation and non-opioid drugs such as gabapentin (Neurontin) be used for chronic pain. But Meghani and Vapiwala say there is little evidence those therapies work in managing moderate to severe pain.  They're urging the CDC, NCCN, American Medical Association and other organizations to develop more uniform guidelines based on solid evidence.

"Many of the current recommendations around opioid prescribing practices stem from expert consensus rather than empirical research, which is urgently needed to generate and develop informed guidelines for patients with chronic cancer-related pain," they wrote. "Clinicians who care for patients with cancer are frustrated by an increasingly overwhelming set of institutional, regulatory, and policy requirements around opioid prescribing that can interfere with being good stewards and advocates for their patients with pain.”

Cancer Patients Denied Opioids

Some cancer patients say the CDC guideline has interfered with their treatment.

“I had a painful radical surgery for cancer and was only provided 3 days of low-dose opioids per CDC guidelines and suffered terribly for 2-3 months. Still have persistent pain 5 months later due to poor acute pain control,” one PNN reader told us.

“My brother in law was just diagnosed with stage 4 pancreatic cancer with metastasis to the liver and his first oncologist refused to treat his pain adequately due to the CDC guidelines, telling him I'm not risking my license for you,” another reader said.

“I have a family friend who is a cancer patient in her mid-sixties. Her doctor pulled her off of her morphine without warning, and she has been left to suffer,” wrote another.

“I'm stuck with a bad physician in order to get pain management. No other doctor in this county will do pain management,” said a patient who has to drive 45 miles to get treatment. “My doctor misdiagnosed my stomach illness and missed my cancer all together.”

Other patients say their pain is just as bad or worse than cancer pain – and don’t understand why they are treated differently under the CDC guideline.

“These are guidelines, not meant for all patients. And to exclude ONLY cancer patients is outrageous,” wrote one patient who was born with a rare and painful digestive disease. “Why should I have to be penalized because I have a rare disease and not cancer? These rules and regulations that are coming out make me wish I had a cancer diagnosis.”

Don’t Take Away Our Medicine

By Lynn Joyce, Guest Columnist

I am a 62-year-old woman who -- aside from my intensely painful back --- enjoyed a full life of work, swimming, going to the gym, outings to various places with my husband and friends, and running my household.

A few years ago, my back pain became so severe I had to move from my primary care doctor to pain management after all the solutions we tried, including physical therapy, various pain treatments, x-rays and MRIs could not diagnose or in the end treat me. I went to a doctor in Sarasota who gave me pain medicine. which helped a little. I also had several procedures under anesthetic, which again did not totally relieve the pain.

I was desperate, as I spent much of the day and night with ice packs on my back to ease the pain. My ordinary life went down the drain, my husband got fed up with me not being able to accompany him and looking after my home went downhill.

I cried as I went to bed early with a sleeping pill to take away the pain -- though this did not always work as the pain woke me up. I tried various types of pain medicine and the one that worked best was oxycodone.

Nearly a year ago my doctors finally found a combination of drugs that made me pain free and able to resume my normal life. I was ecstatic to be able to do all the things I enjoyed again and to be able to run my home and look after my family.

I then had a shock a month ago when my doctor told me that my medicine would have to be reduced. I had two tearful visits to his office, where he told me that starting July 1st I would receive only one oxycodone a day.  

LYNN JOYCE

My doctor knows that this is not even a therapeutic dose and yet is being forced to break his sacred oath to "First do no harm." After getting my life back, I was so upset that I would have to go back to my previous existence, where every day is full of pain and there is very little joy.

I am not a drug addict. I am a person that needs medication for a condition that curtails my enjoyment of life, just as much as another person who needs a drug to alleviate their condition or keep them alive. My doctor should be allowed and supported in the care of his patients, not vilified by government and media alike.

There are legitimate people who are truly suffering and need the medication that is being taken from them. I am one of these people -- the other side of this so-called crisis – and we are being ignored and used as scapegoats by the government.

I do not understand how such arbitrary, draconian laws can be passed in a modern society. This government’s heavy-handed solution to the "opioid crisis" is targeting the wrong people. We are not the ones selling drugs like fentanyl and heroin, we are just people with an illness. We are not lawbreakers, although some of us may be driven to escape the pain with illegal drugs or, in some tragic cases, suicide.

There are studies that totally refute the reasoning behind these opioid laws and guidelines, doctors who have tried to stop this from happening to their patients, and those who know the science and social reasons that show we are not the cause. We are not out there selling our drugs or "doctor shopping."

I see and read daily about politicians and stores that are jumping onto the false bandwagon to further their own careers and profits. Pharmacies that are too afraid or are taking a false moral stance about the prescriptions they will or won't fill.

There has been mishandling of prescriptions in the past, but systems have been put in place to remedy that. Yet the media screams about this person or that who has overdosed and stores like Walmart that will limit a person’s medication to seven days. I hope there are the few that get opioids for short term use if they need it, but they are not long-term pain sufferers who need their therapeutic doses daily to ameliorate their pain.

I have read that companies are being forced by the DEA to reduce their drug production so much that there are worries about hospitals not having enough to treat patients or with surgeries being delayed.

Those of us that need long term drug treatment are your family member, a friend, or a familiar stranger like the postal worker who you see every day. We are not the archetypal addict that people think of when the words “drug user” comes up. Think of a time in your life when you or someone you care about was in pain and were helped by medication to make it go away.

We have that pain every day and it doesn't go away without our medicine. The government or anyone else in a position of power who keeps on pushing this inhumane agenda should walk in our shoes for a day.

Lynn Joyce lives in Florida.

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.

Rats, Depression and Chronic Pain

By Pat Anson, Editor

An unusual study involving rats, depression and chronic pain is making headlines – the latest in a long line of flawed research studies being used to debunk the effectiveness of opioid pain medication.

“NIH study suggests opioid therapy not effective against chronic pain,” is the headline in UPI.

“Pain-induced changes in the brain explain the limited effectiveness of opioid therapy,” is how the Tech Explorist put it.

At issue is a small study by the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and McGill University in Montreal on pain-induced changes in 17 laboratory rats. That's right, 17 rats. The study findings, published in the journal Pain, concluded that chronic pain reduced the number of opioid receptors – the molecules that opioids bind to -- in the rats’ brains. In theory at least, that would make the rats less responsive to opioid pain medication.

Note that the research did not include any people, the rats were not given any opioids, and the effectiveness of opioids wasn't even measured in the rats. But that didn’t stop the NIH from drawing some sweeping conclusions.

“These results provide insights into why we see limited effectiveness of opioid therapy in chronic pain and the mechanism of the depression that may accompany it,” said David Shurtleff, PhD, acting director at the National Center for Complementary and Integrative Health (NCCIH).

“These basic research findings support NIH’s efforts to better understand chronic pain and comorbid symptoms and to develop better ways to help chronic pain patients effectively manage their pain.”

McGill University was more cautious, saying further studies were needed in humans to confirm the study findings.

“Although the study… was conducted in rats, and the results of animal studies may not be directly applicable to people, the findings provide new insights into how the brain may respond to pain and opioids,” a McGill press release states. “These findings, if confirmed in people, will enhance the understanding of the impact of chronic pain on the brain, its relation to depression, and the effects of opioids.”

Researchers have many theories about the origins and treatment of chronic pain, but conducting tests on humans to prove them is problematic. Laboratory animals are often used as an imperfect substitute.

In the NIH/McGill study, 17 rats had brain surgeries to produce a nerve injury that causes chronic pain, while another group of rats had sham surgeries (a similar procedure that did not cause chronic pain). Three months later, PET scan imaging showed opioid receptors had decreased in multiple regions of the brain in the nerve-injured rats, but no changes occurred in the sham-surgery rats.

These results suggest that pain itself, not treatment or pre-existing trauma, altered the brain’s opioid system. Other tests showed a weaker link between chronic pain and depression in the nerve-injured rats.

How did researchers determine the rats were depressed? 

When given a choice, healthy rats will normally drink water sweetened with sugar rather than plain water. But animals with a decreased ability to experience pleasure, a recognized symptom of depression, may not. The rats in the study with chronic pain showed a decreased preference for sugar water over plain water, while rats in the sham group still showed a preference for sweetened water. This, the researchers believe, was enough evidence to conclude the nerve-injured rates were depressed.

“It’s well known that there’s a link between chronic pain and depression,” explained co-author M. Catherine Bushnell, PhD, scientific director of NCCIH’s Division of Intramural Research.  “The results of this study indicate that pain-induced changes in the brain’s opioid system may play a role in this association. Animals with the greatest decrease in opioid receptor availability showed the greatest increase in depression-like symptoms after experiencing chronic pain.”

While intriguing, the results of this rat study are far from definitive and do not prove that opioids are an ineffective treatment for chronic pain in people. What they do show is that we need more and better research about opioids and chronic pain, not more misleading headlines and statements from the NIH.

When Do Guidelines Become Guidelines?

By Marvin Ross, Guest Columnist

Blaming doctors for failing to prescribe to guidelines that did not exist is the latest in the strange research coming out on the use of opioid pain medication.

That was the case for a recent study led by Dr. Tara Gomes, Dr. David Juurlink and others at the Institute for Clinical and Evaluative Studies (ICES) in Toronto, Canada. Both of these authors have a long list of research reports on opioids and Juurlink was one of the central players in the development of the Canadian guidelines for prescribing opioids for non-cancer pain. Juurlink is also a board member of Physicians for Responsible Opioid Prescribing (PROP), which is notorious for their anti-opioid views.

This particular study, called “Clinical indications associated with opioid initiation for pain management in Ontario, Canada,” is published online in the journal Pain. Gomes and Juurlink set out to evaluate prescribing patterns for patients who are “opioid naïve” to see if their prescriptions complied with guidelines adopted in the U.S. and Canada. In many cases, they did not.

“The U.S. and Canadian clinical guidelines for prescribing opioids for chronic non-cancer pain suggest that doctors should avoid initiating opioids at daily doses above 50 MME,"  Gomes is quoted saying in an ICES press release.

"Our study found that nearly one-quarter of Ontarians taking an opioid for the first time received a daily dose exceeding this threshold, and for certain indications such as knee, hip and shoulder surgeries and Caesarean sections, the dose was even higher.”

Here is the problem with their work. Gomes and Juurlink looked at prescription opioid claims for over 650,000 people in Ontario from April 1, 2015 to March 31, 2016 and compared them to guidelines that did not exist during the study period.

They defined as inappropriate any initial opioid dose that exceeded 50 MME (milligram morphine equivalent) or had a duration exceeding 7 days’ supply.  According to their findings, 17 percent of the opioid prescriptions were for periods longer than 7 days and almost one quarter (23.9%) were for dosages over 50 MME. This prescribing, they said, was not in line with North American guidelines.

By guidelines, they mean the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention guidelines that were released on March 18, 2016 --- two weeks before the end of the study period. The U.S. guidelines have never been formally accepted in Canada, although they were used to help shape the Canadian opioid guidelines that were released in 2017, a full 13 months after the study period.

How can one say that doctors were not compliant with prescribing guidelines when those guidelines did not exist at the time they prescribed? Doctors may be very clever, but I do not know of any who are capable of abiding by guidelines that only exist in the future

Aside from the study being biased and wrong, the misleading findings were picked up and portrayed by several Canadian news outlets as another example of doctors fueling the so-called opioid crisis. The Ottawa online policy paper Ipolitics ran a story with the headline, “A quarter of prescription drugs in Ontario exceeded dosage guidelines.”

Dr. Gomes also appeared on a popular radio show in Toronto saying, “We’re not really aligned right now with the guidelines in Canada.”

I have filed a formal retraction request with Dr. Michael Schull, the CEO of ICES. Schull referred my complaint to Gomes herself, who replied via e-mail on May 17 with:

“Your point regarding the timing of the guidelines in contrast with the timeframe of our study is an important one, and one that we made sure to address through our communications related to this study. In particular, in our study, we speak to the evidence related to harm associated with opioid doses above 50MME as being a core reason why attention should be paid to the high proportion of new opioid patients who are exceeding these doses. It is not simply that these doses exceed thresholds now recommended in guidelines, but that they have been shown in the literature to be associated with considerable risk of harm. We therefore need to consider how to mitigate this harm whenever possible.”

I pointed out in my reply that neither the media reports nor the press release cautioned about the discrepancy between the study period and the release of the guidelines, and I requested a public clarification and retraction. Schull replied that you cannot retract a study just because someone disagrees with it.

This is more than a simple disagreement. You cannot compare apples to oranges as they did. Schull’s final e-mail to me was we will agree to disagree, and I should take it up with the editors of Pain. Francis Keele, the editor in chief of Pain, informed me via e-mail on May 26 that they will be looking into the matter.

Broadcaster Roy Green, who has taken up the defence of chronic pain patients in both the U.S. and Canada through his syndicated radio show, offered Gomes the opportunity to bring with her 3 medical doctors to have an on-air debate on her research with him and me. So far, she has refused to respond.

I did point out to her boss that she works at the expense of taxpayers and since she is willing to discuss her work with a journalist who knows little or nothing of the topic, she has an obligation to talk to us.

I am not holding my breath.

(Update: Mr. Ross has been informed by the editor of Pain that the Gomes study has been revised to clarify to that the CDC and Canadian opioid guidelines were not in effect during the study period.) 

Marvin Ross is a medical writer and publisher in Dundas, Ontario. He has been writing on chronic pain for the past year and is a regular contributor to the Huffington Post.

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.

Spinal Injection Bill Would Raise Healthcare Costs

By Pat Anson, Editor

Republicans and Democrats often claim that reducing the cost of healthcare is one of their major goals. But a bipartisan bill that is sailing through Congress with little debate will do just the opposite, raising the cost of some epidural, facet joint and other spinal injections used to treat pain by as much as 25 percent for Medicare beneficiaries.

Critics say the legislation is little more than a money grab by doctors who perform the procedures, under the guise of preventing opioid addiction.

The “Post-Surgical Injections as an Opioid Alternative Act” (HR 5804) is one of nearly 60 bills to combat the opioid crisis approved last week by the House Energy and Commerce Committee. It moves to the full House for a vote.

The bill would partially reverse a decision made by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) in 2016 to cut the Medicare reimbursement rate for epidurals and other injections.  The interventional procedures – which do not involve opioids -- can cost several hundred dollars per injection.

The American Society of Interventional Pain Physicians (ASIPP) lobbied unsuccessfully to get the reimbursement cuts overturned – until it found two Illinois Republican congressmen willing to sponsor HR 5804, Rep. John Shimkus and Rep. Raja Krishnamoorthi.

“We first went to the CMS, then HHS, with no success in reversing draconian cuts for interventional techniques. CMS and the administration told us that it requires an Act of Congress,” ASIPP says on its website. “As a first step toward this, Shimkus and Krishnamoorthi have introduced H.R. 5804, which reverses some of the cuts for Ambulatory Surgery Center procedures. This is only the beginning. We have many other cuts to be reversed.”

According to OpenSecrets.org, Shimkus and Krishnamoorthi have both received $10,000 in campaign donations from ASIPP. The organization has spent over $500,000 on lobbying and donations so far in the 2017-2018 election cycle.

‘I Find It Hard to Trust CMS’

Shimkus introduced the ASIPP bill on May 15th and two days later helped shepherd it through its first and only hearing before the House Energy and Commerce Committee.

During the hearing, Shimkus claimed that by cutting the cost of spinal injections, CMS created a disincentive for doctors to perform the procedures and encouraged them to prescribe opioids instead.

“A lot of us were surprised to see CMS reduce the reimbursement rate for non-opioid pain treatments like epidurals for post-surgery pain,” Shimkus said. “I find it hard to trust CMS when those of us in this arena think their cut has led to more opioid use.

“A lot of us believe the inability to use epidurals to treat pain and prescribe opioids is not healthy for our country.”

To be clear, the CMS reimbursement cuts do not prevent any doctor from performing injections – it only made the shots less profitable. And Shimkus offered no evidence that the lower reimbursement rates encourage more opioid use – although he convinced many of his colleagues that they did.  

“I do think it's important in this crisis to be specific with CMS to make sure that we are not discouraging the use of non-opioid alternatives based on reimbursement-related issues,” said Rep. Larry Bucshon, MD (R-IN), who is a cardiologist. “In my experience over the years, CMS makes reimbursement decisions based on the financial incentives to do so, not necessarily, in my opinion, based on what is the appropriate therapy.”

“I don't agree that epidurals are not an alternative (to opioids) already. They are. They are. I just had a conversation with a surgeon about that. So that's not so,” said Rep. Anna Eshoo (R-CA).  “Imagine being able to manage pain without taking an opioid. We could do 20 other things together and it wouldn't equal that."

Rep. Frank Pallone (D-NJ) wasn’t buying any of it.

“I don’t think we have gotten any objective criteria to suggest that what CMS did is going to lead to more people taking opiates,” Pallone said. “I don't think there is any evidence to suggest that this legislation will lead to decreased opioid prescribing or a decreased prevalence of addiction.

“I think we are setting a bad precedent with the bill. I don't think that we, as Congress, are in a good position to pick and choose winners amongst therapies and procedures. I just don't think we know enough to understand the consequences of doing that to understand the relative value and the efficacy of different therapies and procedures on the market.”

Despite those concerns -- and after just 30 minutes of debate that included no public testimony -- committee members overwhelmingly supported the bill by a vote of 36 to 14. Nine Democrats joined with all Republicans on the committee in voting yes.

“What we are doing is temporarily reversing cuts to non-opioid treatment that we all agree save money and lives, then collecting to help ensure we are reimbursing providers at the most appropriate levels possible,” Shimkus said.

“That’s ASIPP talking,” says Terri Lewis, PhD, a researcher and longtime advocate for the pain community. “What does Shimkus know? Shimkus doesn’t know anything. There is no data to support that.”

Health Risks of Spinal Injections

There was no discussion by the committee about the effectiveness of epidurals and other spinal injections -- or of the health risks associated with their use.

Epidural injections have long been used to relieve pain during childbirth, but they are also increasingly being used to treat back pain, despite reports there is little evidence the shots are effective.

The FDA has also warned that the use of steroids in spinal injections – a procedure that’s never been approved by the agency -- “may result in rare but serious adverse events, including loss of vision, stroke, paralysis, and death.”

“Here we have a procedure that they’re trying to slip under the swimming pool fence that is not FDA approved, that relies on materials that are not regulated and/or contraindicated, and they’re trying to pull a fast one. And they could very easily do it in this climate of opioid hysteria,” said Lewis.

As PNN has reported, some pain management experts believe spinal injections are overused – in part because they’re more profitable for doctors than using opioids or other procedures.  

“Probably everything that gets compensated well is over-utilized because it’s the compensation system. It’s a reimbursement system that pays more for treatment procedures than outcomes,” said Lynn Webster, MD, a past president of the American Academy of Pain Medicine.

A 2012 report by the General Accounting Office – a report requested by Rep. Pallone – found that unsanitary injection practices in ambulatory care clinics expose thousands of patients every year to blood borne pathogens such as hepatitis and HIV.  A perfectly sanitary needle can also go astray and puncture sensitive membranes in the spinal cord, leaving patients with serious and sometimes permanent injuries.      

“When it comes to spinal injections after surgery the risk to the patient, related to adverse events, increases substantially because spine surgery comes with risks of dural tears and accidental cuts,” says Terri Anderson, a Montana woman whose spine was damaged after receiving steroid injections for a ruptured disc in her back.  She now suffers from adhesive arachnoiditis, a chronic inflammation in the spinal membrane that causes severe pain.

“It is unconscionable that harmful injections would be pushed on unsuspecting pain patients,” Anderson said in an email to PNN. “It looks like the large hospital corporations and interventional pain professional societies have been busy lobbying our congressional representatives.  Apparently our healthcare system has become a profitable venture that indirectly contributes to many election campaigns in the U.S.”

No date has been set for a full House vote on HR 5804. To become law, it must pass both the House and Senate and then be signed by President Trump.  There is little opposition to the bill because many critics only recently learned that it was even being considered by Congress. 

“If this is allowed to stand, we have a problem,” says Lewis. “Another thing is Congress directing the practice of medicine. We’ve had just about enough of that.”

The Link Between Trauma and Chronic Pain

Ann Marie Gaudon, Columnist

It has long been accepted in my field that chronic pain is a frequent outcome of trauma. There is extensive evidence to suggest that people suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) report chronic pain with striking frequency regardless of the nature of the traumatic experience. You don’t need to have been diagnosed with PTSD to be negatively and chronically affected by trauma.

One strong and commonly referred to theoretical model explaining the connection between trauma and chronic pain is known as the Mutual Maintenance Model. A person may respond to reminders of trauma through stress response, which may include avoidant coping (trying to avoid your distress by zoning out with video games or drinking to numb yourself), fatigue and lethargy associated with depression, pain perception elevated by anxiety, and intrusive memories of the trauma itself.

These considerable mental demands limit one’s capacity to control or decrease their physical pain and have the opposite effect of exacerbating and maintaining pain. To put it simply, experiencing pain prompts memories of the trauma, and memories of the trauma prompt experiences of pain.

The end result is that a person is trapped in a vicious cycle whereby the symptoms of trauma and chronic pain interact to produce self-perpetuating psychological distress and physical pain.

A second model, called the Shared Vulnerability Model, suggests that the interaction of trauma, psychological vulnerability (anxiety, loss of control over thoughts and feelings), and a lowered physiological threshold for alarm reactions all influence negative emotional responses, resulting in the development of PTSD and the co-occurrence of chronic pain.

This chronic arousal of the nervous system may be responsible for the symptoms of both PTSD and chronic pain. There is research which suggests that chronic pain and PTSD are not necessarily distinct from each other, but rather connected and overlapping. The fact that sympathetic activity (the gas pedal to your distress) is increased, and parasympathetic activity (the brake pedal to your distress) is decreased, both in general and in response to trauma-related stimuli, is one of the most robust findings within the PTSD literature.

Disastrous events can strike any of us, at any time in life, and no one is immune. Some events are relational such as a school shooting or a rape, while others are natural disasters like earthquakes or floods. After any distressing or life-threatening event, psychological trauma may set in. One may go on to develop extreme anxiety, depression, anger, or PTSD and may have ongoing problems with sleep, physical pain and even relationships.

Healthy ways of coping include getting support, avoiding alcohol and drugs, seeing loved ones, exercising, enhancing sleep habits, and other methods of self-care. Certainly not everyone with chronic pain has experienced trauma and vice versa. However, there is extensive research to show that PTSD and chronic pain are intimately connected.

Seek an experienced trauma therapist if you feel you are not coping well. Trauma therapy is highly specialized, takes place in healing stages at your pace, and works to re-wire what’s become maladaptive in your brain by laying down new and healthier neural pathways. Click here to see a YouTube video that explains that process.

The work will be hard and challenging, but the good news is that many people heal from trauma and go on to live rich and rewarding lives. Some offer inspiration to others who have also endured life-altering negative experiences.

People become sick and pained, and people also heal. Suffering can skyrocket, and suffering can also take a nosedive. You do the work as if your life depended on it, because experience tells us it often does.

Ann Marie Gaudon is a registered social worker and psychotherapist in the Waterloo region of Ontario, Canada with a specialty in chronic pain management.  She has been a chronic pain patient for 33 years and works part-time as her health allows. For more information about Ann Marie's counseling services, visit 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.

CDC Ends Salmonella Investigation of Kratom

By Pat Anson, Editor

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has officially ended its investigation of a nationwide salmonella outbreak linked to the herbal supplement kratom.  A total of 199 people were infected and 50 of them hospitalized. There have been no deaths.

Although this particular outbreak was small – there are over one million Salmonella illnesses every year in the U.S. – it covered a lot of territory. Illnesses were reported in 41 states.

SALMONELLA BACTERA

Salmonella is a bacterial infection usually spread through contaminated food or water. Most people who become infected develop diarrhea, fever and stomach cramps. Severe cases can result in death.

Although the CDC investigation did not identify a single, common source of contaminated kratom, it found enough evidence to declare that kratom was the “likely source.”

State and local health officials interviewed 103 people who were sickened in the outbreak and found that 74 percent reported consuming kratom in pills, powder or tea. The kratom was purchased online and from retail locations in several states. Over a dozen brands of kratom were recalled as a result.

“This outbreak investigation is over. However, some kratom products that were contaminated with Salmonella have not yet been recalled and may still be available for purchase or in people’s homes,” the CDC said in a statement.  “Salmonella was identified in nearly half of the kratom products tested during this investigation. Eighty-five different DNA fingerprints of Salmonella were identified in samples of kratom products. This information indicates widespread Salmonella contamination in kratom from multiple retailers."

The CDC has modified a previous recommendation that no one consume kratom “in any form.” The agency now recommends that only people at risk of a Salmonella infection – such as pregnant women, children, older adults, and people with compromised immune systems -- avoid consuming kratom products.

“If you are considering using kratom, talk to your health care provider first, especially if you are in a group more likely to get a severe Salmonella infection,” the CDC said.

Millions of Americans use kratom to treat chronic pain, addiction, depression, anxiety and other medical conditions. Kratom comes from the leaves of a tree that grows in southeast Asia, where it has been used for centuries as a natural pain reliever and stimulant.

To see an FDA list of recalled kratom products, click here.

Poorly Rated Hospital May Become Model for Pain Care

By Pat Anson, Editor

A New Jersey hospital that has been widely praised for significantly reducing the use of opioid pain medication in its emergency room continues to receive poor ratings from Hospital Compare, a Medicare website that tracks the quality of care in the nation’s hospitals.

The one star overall rating for St. Joseph’s Regional Medical Center in Paterson, New Jersey puts it in the bottom 6 percent of hospitals nationwide.

Despite the poor rating and complaints from patients about poor pain care, St. Joseph’s anti-opioid initiative – known as ALTO (Alternatives to Opioids) -- is being held up as a national model for combatting opioid abuse. ALTO requires emergency room doctors to first consider non-opioid treatments, such as NSAIDs, ibuprofen and nerve block injections, for patients suffering pain from accidents, trauma and chronic conditions.

“We launched ALTO two years ago to offer a real solution to a rapidly growing opioid epidemic,” said Mark Rosenberg, DO, Chair of Emergency Medicine at St. Joseph’s, who was recently named to a federal task force charged with developing "best practices" in pain management for federal agencies.

"I’m very proud to report that we have reduced opioid prescriptions by 82 percent here in the St. Joseph’s Emergency Department. We are stopping addiction before it starts.”

St. Joseph’s has drawn congressional attention for its opioid policy. Last month, New Jersey Senators Robert Menendez and Cory Booker and Rep. Bill Pascrell – all Democrats – introduced legislation in Congress that would create a nationwide pilot project based on the ALTO program.

“The opioid crisis in our country is staggering and epic in its evil,” Sen. Booker said at a news conference. “The work being done here at St. Joseph’s Medical Center is innovative, it is inspiring, and it is shining light against the darkness.”

SEN. CORY BOOKER SPEAKS AT APRIL, 2018 NEWS CONFERENCE

“The ALTO program here at St. Joe’s is at the forefront of innovative thinking and new approaches to treating pain -- to fighting opioid addiction,” said Sen. Menendez.  “We want to see every hospital and provider across New Jersey and across this nation follow St. Joe’s lead, and our bill provides the necessary federal resources to help make it possible.” 

The Alternatives to Opioids in the Emergency Department Act is one of dozens of bills being considered in Congress to combat opioid addiction and overdoses. It would provide $30 million in funding to other hospitals to build their own ALTO programs. After a three-year demonstration project, the Secretary of Health and Human Services would submit a report to Congress on the results and issue recommendations for broader implementation.

St. Joseph's One Star Rating

In patient satisfaction surveys and other quality measures, St. Joseph’s consistently ranks poorly. It is one of 260 hospitals in the country given a one-star rating by Hospital Compare. Over 3,400 hospitals were ranked higher, getting two to five stars.

To be fair, St. Joseph’s is a teaching hospital in a low-income neighborhood and has one of the busiest emergency rooms in the country. The American Hospital Association believes Hospital Compare unfairly penalizes teaching hospitals and those that serve low-income areas, where many people lack access to insurance and medical care.

Hospital Compare evaluates hospitals on 7 major quality measures. St. Joseph’s is rated below the national average on safety, readmission, patient experience, timeliness of care and efficient use of medical imaging. The hospital was rated as average for mortality and effectiveness of care.

ST. JOSEPH'S REGIONAL MEDICAL CENTER

The quality of pain care is difficult to assess at St. Joseph’s because Medicare dropped all pain questions from its patient satisfaction survey last year – largely due to political pressure and unproven claims that the questions encouraged doctors to prescribe more opioids.

One pain quality measure that still exists is the average amount of a time a patient with a broken bone had to wait before getting pain medication in St. Joseph’s ER. It is 51 minutes, slightly longer than the national average of 49 minutes.

HospitalInspections.org, a website maintained by the Association of Healthcare Journalists, also found deficiencies in St. Joseph’s emergency room. An October 2017 report faulted the ER for failing to stabilize several patients or provide them with a screening exam or pain assessment. Some patients left the hospital in frustration after waiting for hours without being treated.  

One patient who fell down a flight of steps suffered injuries to her face and arm when she landed on concrete. She waited in St. Joseph’s emergency room for over seven hours before leaving without treatment. There was no record of her getting Tylenol or Motrin while waiting, which is hospital policy.

Another patient suffering from abdominal pain after a Caesarean section waited over five and a half hours in the ER before leaving. There was no record of her getting Tylenol or Motrin either.

Delays in Getting Pain Treatment

St. Joseph’s emergency room gets mixed reviews on Yelp, with many patients complaining of delays in getting treatment.

“This is by far the worst hospital in the state of NJ, my little cousin and I came here because she was in excruciating pain and the waiting room was EMPTY, they literally took over an hour to check her temp and register her,” wrote one reviewer, who even posted a photo of the empty waiting room. 

“Arrived at St Joe's due to vomiting, stomach pain and headache all night. After waiting 50 minutes to get vital signs taken I start vomiting in the lobby,” wrote another patient who eventually left. “I just got frustrated and asked to be discharged and went to primary doctor. Needless to say, I had a gallbladder infection and severe dehydration all diagnosed by primary doctor. 6 hours in the ER for nothing.”

ST. JOSEPH'S EMPTY WAITING ROOM

“St. Josephs isn't in the best part of town, but the care here, especially for children is excellent. During a scare with our 1 month old, the emergency room staff were excellent and comforting,” wrote one father.

“The nurses and doctors were nice to me, but they moved like snails,” wrote a pregnant woman who went to the ER because she was cramping and bleeding. “The pain was unbearable, and it took them until I threw up on the floor for them to move a little faster. And I was there for 3 hours before I was finally told I was unfortunately miscarrying.”  

Granted, these may be just isolated cases in a busy hospital that treats over 60,000 patients a year. But before Congress passes legislation holding up any hospital as a national model for how pain should be treated, they might want to start asking St. Joseph's patients what they think.

The widespread belief that giving opioids in the ER often leads to addiction is a myth anyway. A recent large study of opioid prescriptions filled in emergency rooms found that only 1.1% of patients progressed to long term opioid use. That compares to 2% of patients given opioids in other hospital settings.  

Physical Therapy for Back Pain Lowers Healthcare Costs

By Pat Anson, Editor

If you have lower back pain and get it treated with physical therapy first, you are significantly less likely to later need opioid medication or high cost medical services, according to a new study in Health Services Research.

Researchers at the University of Washington and George Washington University analyzed health insurance claims for over 50 million people from 2009 to 2013, tracking patients who had a new diagnosis of lower back pain.

Compared with patients who saw a physical therapist later or not at all, those who saw a physical therapist first had an 89% lower probability of having an opioid prescription, a 28% lower probability of having an MRI or advanced imaging, and a 15% lower probability of having an emergency department visit. Their healthcare costs were also significantly lower for out-patient care, pharmacy and out-of-pocket expenses.

“We found important relationships among physical therapy intervention, utilization, and cost of services and the effect on opioid prescriptions," said co-author Ken Harwood, PT, a professor of physical therapy at George Washington University.

One unexpected finding is that patients who had physical therapy first had a 19% greater chance of being hospitalized.

“Having an in-patient hospitalization is not necessarily a bad outcome for a patient. PTs (physical therapists) provide care that aims to resolve LBP (lower back pain) by addressing musculoskeletal causes first, but if the problem does not get resolved, PTs may refer patients appropriately for more specialized care,” the study found.

One out of every four Americans will experience at least one day of lower back pain every three months. Researchers say about half will be treated with opioid medication, while physical therapy (12%), exercise (19%) and psychological therapy (8%) will be recommended far less often.    

"Given our findings in light of the national opioid crisis, state policymakers, insurers, and providers may want to review current policies and reduce barriers to early and frequent access to physical therapists as well as to educate patients about the potential benefits of seeing a physical therapist first," said lead author Bianca Frogner, PhD, a professor and health economist at the University of Washington Center for Health Workforce Studies.

Lower back pain is the world’s leading cause of disability, affecting about 540 million people at any given time. But there is little consensus on the best way to treat it.

A recent series of reviews appearing in The Lancet medical journal found that lower back pain is usually treated with inappropriate tests, risky surgeries and painkillers.

“The majority of cases of low back pain respond to simple physical and psychological therapies that keep people active and enable them to stay at work,” said lead author Professor Rachelle Buchbinder of Monash University in Australia. “Often, however, it is more aggressive treatments of dubious benefit that are promoted and reimbursed.”

FDA Continues Crackdown on Kratom Vendors

By Pat Anson, Editor

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has stepped up its campaign against the herbal supplement kratom by sending warning letters to three distributors of kratom products – the latest effort in what appears to be a concerted government effort to stop all sales of the herb.

Front Range Kratom, Kratom Spot and Revibe are accused of illegally selling unapproved “drug products” and making unproven claims about kratom’s ability to treatment opioid addiction, chronic pain and other medical conditions.

The FDA and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention have previously warned consumers not to consume any kratom products. The CDC said kratom was the “likely source” of a small salmonella outbreak, while the FDA alleged that kratom has opioid-like qualities and could lead to addiction and overdose.

“Despite our warnings that no kratom product is safe, we continue to find companies selling kratom and doing so with deceptive medical claims for which there’s no reliable scientific proof to support their use,” FDA Commissioner Scott Gottlieb, MD, said in a statement.

“We cannot allow unscrupulous vendors to take advantage of consumers by selling products with unsubstantiated claims that they can treat opioid addiction. Far from treating addiction, we’ve determined that kratom is an opioid analogue that may actually contribute to the opioid epidemic and puts patients at risk of serious side effects.”

Kratom comes from the leaves of a tree that grows in southeast Asia, where it has been used for centuries as a natural stimulant and pain reliever. In recent years, millions of Americans have discovered kratom and started using the herb as an alternative to prescription drugs for treating chronic pain, anxiety, depression, and addiction.

Like most herbal and dietary supplements, there is little scientific research to support the use of kratom and it is not approved for any medical condition by the FDA. As a result, many kratom distributors are careful to avoid making unsubstantiated medical claims. Front Range Kratom, for example, currently has a clear disclaimer on its website stating that:

“Information on this website is not for health-related guidance. The products mentioned on this website are not intended to diagnose, prevent, treat or cure any diseases or health conditions. You need to consult with a medical practitioner for all issues with regards to your overall health.”

But even sharing customer testimonials about kratom is considered illegal marketing by the FDA. The agency alleges in its warning letter to Front Range Kratom that the website contained comments from new customers such as “Certainly kratom is useful for pain — myself and everyone else on the internet can attest to that.” Another customer wrote that “the two things I think kratom works the best for are pain and to help people get through some of the post acute withdrawl (sic) symptoms they get when they come off of their pain medications.”

Those testimonials from kratom users can’t be found on the website today.

“If people believe that the active ingredients in kratom have drug-like effects that can treat pain or addiction, then the FDA is open to reviewing that data under our new drug approval process,” said Gottlieb. “In the meantime, I promised earlier this year that the FDA would step up our actions against unapproved and unsafe products that are being deceptively marketed for the treatment of opioid addiction and withdrawal symptoms.”

FDA investigators are also monitoring the social media sites of kratom vendors. Last October, Kratom Spot shared on its Facebook page a CNN story about kratom as a possible treatment for pain and opioid addiction. The company only said the story was “positive news for kratom as... an all natural alternative.” But the FDA said that amounted to the illegal marketing of an unapproved drug.

“The claims on your website and social media sites establish that your kratom products are drugs…  because they are intended for use in the diagnosis, cure, mitigation, treatment, or prevention of disease—in particular, for opiate withdrawal and addiction,” the warning letter states.

It probably didn’t help that Kratom Spot shared a picture on its Facebook page of hundreds of kratom orders being readied for shipment by another federal agency -- the U.S. Postal Service.

Kratom Spot, Front Range Kratom and Revibe were all given 15 days to respond to the warning letters, which state that “failure to correct violations may result in law enforcement action such as seizure or injunction.”

KRATOM SPOT/FACEBOOK

The threat of legal action can be all that it takes to drive a kratom vendor out of business. In February, the FDA forced  Divinity Products Distribution to recall and stop selling kratom products. The FDA said the company agreed to the “voluntary destruction” of its kratom products, even though there were no reports of illnesses associated with them.

Reducing Supply of Opioids Will Not Stop Drug Diversion

By Roger Chriss, Columnist

Drug diversion is a massive problem. It plagues the entire drug supply chain, from manufacturer through wholesaler and distributor, to drug stores and dispensaries, all the way to consumers. It is particularly important for opioid pain medications because of the ongoing opioid crisis.

It is well established that the non-medical use of pharmaceutical drugs is an increasing public health concern. Most pharmaceutical drugs used non-medically are obtained from family and friends. There is little to no organized crime involved. And importantly, doctor shopping is rare.

An under-appreciated issue here is scale. According to the DEA, less than 1 percent of legally prescribed opioids are diverted. The sharing or selling of individual prescription pills is small compared to the impact of diversion higher up in the supply chain. For instance, Effingham Health systems just agreed to pay a $4.1 million settlement as a result of a DEA investigation into reports that tens of thousands of oxycodone tablets were believed to have been diverted for four years.

Similar reports about large-scale diversion abound. The Associated Press reported incidents of diversion at about 1,200 VA facilities rose from 272 in 2009 to 2,926 in 2015.

And in 2013 Walgreens was charged $80 million for poor record-keeping and dispensing violations that let millions of doses of controlled substances to enter the black market.

In 2007, the Drug Enforcement Administration estimated that prescription drug diversion in the United States was a $25 billion-a-year industry. About one of every four thefts of methadone and OxyContin were attributed by the DEA to employee pilferage at pharmacies, hospitals and other healthcare facilities.

More recently, a 2017 survey by Porter Research, 96 percent of healthcare workers said drug diversion occurs frequently in healthcare. And 65 percent believe most diversion goes undetected.

Pill mills are even worse. In the book “American Pain,” journalist John Temple describes the impact of Florida pill mills on the east coast a decade ago.

“Florida pumped millions upon millions of doses of those narcotics—oxycodone, mostly—northward, not through a major criminal organization like the cartels of Mexico, but via thousands of individuals who streamed up and down Interstate 75 or flew from Tri-Sate Airport in Huntington, West Virginia, to Miami International, on a flight nicknamed the Oxy Express,” Temple wrote.

And none of this is remotely new. In the book “Dark Paradise,” historian David Courtwright explains: “Diversion from maintenance programs posed a real danger, given that perhaps half of all licitly manufactured barbiturates and amphetamines ended up on the black market.”

So the claim by Attorney General Jeff Sessions that "It’s a common sense idea: the more a drug is diverted, the more its production should be limited” is both simplistic and misguided.

Sessions is assuming that limiting production will reduce diversion. But economic theory suggests the opposite may be true. Reducing supply leads to scarcity, which generally increases value. This in turn may create stronger incentives to divert more opioids into the black market.

Moreover, there is no evidence that people who divert medication are aware of and responding to DEA production quotas. Instead, the consensus is that people divert what they need and think they can get away with. In other words, diversion is an exercise in what economists call the “Tragedy of the Commons,” in which individuals each use a collective resource for their own benefit without regard for the effects on others.

And Sessions’ idea implies that reducing production won’t have any effect on medical practice. But there is an abundance of evidence to the contrary. There is an ongoing shortage of injectable opioids at hospitals around the country. And despite claims to the contrary, opioid analgesics cannot always be replaced or substituted with other pain relievers.

Thus, more intelligent and nuanced approaches are needed. For instance, the NIH is sponsoring research to use advanced data analytics to detect drug theft and diversion in hospitals. Similar efforts at wholesalers, distributors, pharmacies and dispensaries are worth considering.

So while diversion is a major problem, it is neither new nor limited to individual consumers with prescriptions for opioids or other medications that have a street value or abuse potential. The seemingly obvious response of reducing supply could easily backfire. Instead, securing the entire supply chain, from manufacturer through distributor to point-of-sale to consumers, is a vital step in making sure that only the intended recipients of pharmaceutical drugs have access to them.

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.

What Every Patient Should Know About NarxCare

By Rochelle Odell, Columnist

Walmart and Sam’s Club recently announced that by the end of August their pharmacists will start using NarxCare, a prescription tracking tool that analyzes real-time data about opioids and other controlled substances from Prescription Drug Monitoring Programs (PDMP’s).

Recent studies question the value of PDMP’s, but 49 states have implemented them so that physicians, pharmacists and insurers can see a patient's medication history. Granted, there is a need for monitoring the select few who doctor shop and/or abuse their medications, albeit that number is only in the 2 percent range.

What is NarxCare? Appriss Health developed NarxCare as a “robust analytics tool” to help “care teams” (doctors, pharmacists, etc.) identify patients with substance use disorders. Each patient is evaluated and given a “risk score” based on their prescription drug history. According to Appriss, a patient is much more willing to discuss their substance abuse issues once they are red flagged as a possible abuser.

“NarxCare automatically analyzes PDMP data and a patient’s health history and provides patient risk scores and an interactive visualization of usage patterns to help identify potential risk factors,” the company says on its website.

“NarxCare aids care teams in clinical decision making, provides support to help prevent or manage substance use disorder, and empowers states with the comprehensive platform they need to take to the next step in the battle against prescription drug addiction."

Sounds great doesn't it? Except prescription drugs are not the problem and never really have been. Illicit drug use has, is, and will continue to be the main cause of the addiction and overdose crisis. 

Even the name NarxCare has a negative connotation. “Narx” stands for narcotics. And in today's environment, narcotics is a very negative word. NarxCare makes me feel like a narcotics police officer is just around the corner.

Each patient evaluated by NarxCare gets a “Narx Report” that includes their NarxScores, Overdose Risk Score, Rx Graph, PDMP Data and my favorite, the Red Flags. The scores are based on the past two years of a patient’s prescription history, as well as their medical claims, electronic health records and even their criminal history.

Ohio, Michigan, Indiana, Iowa, and several other states are using NarxCare to supplement their own PDMPs. And Walmart isn’t the only big retail company to adopt it. Kroger, Ralphs, Kmart, CVS, Rite Aid and Walgreens are already using NarxCare. There’s a good chance your prescriptions are already being tracked by NarxCare and you don’t even know it.

But NarxCare doesn’t just analyze opioid prescriptions. It also tracks other controlled substances, such as antidepressants, sedatives and stimulants. If a patient is on any combination of those drugs, their risk scores and their chances of being red flagged will be higher – even if they’ve been safely taking the medications for years.

There are several other ways a patient can be red flagged, such as having multiple doctors or pharmacies. But what if you moved and changed physicians? What if you had the same physician for many years and he/she retired or moved away? What if your pharmacy refused to fill your prescription and you had to go pharmacy hunting every month? What if you had dental surgery and your dentist placed you on a short-term pain medication?

Unfortunately, the NarxCare scores do not reflect any of that. How can raw data on prescription medications be an indicator of abuse? I believe there is some merit in tracking and weeding out the rare abuser, but NarxCare doesn't factor in all the “what if’s” that can happen to law-abiding and responsible patients. 

As pain patients, we need to be acutely aware of the negative impact this analytics tool can have. Many of us have already been required to sign pain contracts, take drugs tests, and undergo pill counts. In 2019, Medicare will adopt policies making it even harder for patients to get high doses of opioid medication. Some insurers are already doing it. We're already being policed enough as it is.

I intend to ask my physician, pharmacist and case manager if they utilize NarxCare. So should you. If they say yes, ask them why. Ask your doctor if they believe you are at risk for substance use disorder. Why is their judgement and treatment of you being second guessed by anyone?

Rochelle Odell lives in California. She’s lived for nearly 25 years with Complex Regional Pain Syndrome (CRPS/RSD).

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.

TV Host Tries Stem Cell Therapy for Chronic Back Pain

Reality TV star Tarek El Moussa – host of HGTV’S “Flip or Flop” – recently posted photos on Instagram detailing his experience with stem cell therapy. 

El Moussa has a history of back injuries causing severe pain. He lost 50 pounds while recovering from one back injury and was taking “large amounts of pain meds to try and help the pain.” 

“Truthfully those meds really affected my mental and physical state and changed who I was,” El Moussa posted.

When he recently injured his back again and could “barely walk,” El Moussa decided stem cell therapy was a better option. In one photo of the stem cell procedure, El Moussa shows a 12-inch needle being inserted into his lower back to remove fat cells, a procedure similar to liposuction.

TAREK EL MOUSSA

“I believe they put over 1,000,000 stem cells back in my body after the lipo. It's wild seeing the technology and future of medicine,” he wrote.

A post shared by Tarek El Moussa (@therealtarekelmoussa) on May 9, 2018 at 7:24pm PDT

A post-operative photo shows El Moussa’s discolored and bruised lower back three days later. He said he was still “a little sore” but that his back was “actually feeling better!” He’s hoping for a “major improvement” from the procedure in a few weeks.

El Moussa’s therapy involved a controversial stem cell product known as stromal vascular fraction (SVF).  It’s the same product at the center of two lawsuits recently filed by the Department of Justice on behalf of the FDA against stem cell clinics in Florida and California.

What is Stromal Vascular Fraction?

SVF uses autologous stem cells derived from a patient’s own body, including adipose (fat) cells obtained through liposuction.  When injected back into the body, these stem cells stimulate the immune system, have anti-inflammatory properties, and promote the development of new blood vessels. All help to heal injured tissues.

For clinicians, the attraction of SVF is that the procedure is “point of care” or delivered at the time of care.  In theory, this would exempt the therapy from FDA rules for stem cell products under the “same surgical procedure” exception.  The FDA, however, doesn’t agree with that interpretation and has yet to approve SVF use. It considers the procedure unproven and experimental. But that hasn’t stopped dozens of stem cell clinics from offering SVF therapy.

SVF generally has a good safety profile.  Potential risks of SVF therapy include lack of standardization of SVF products and terminology, unwanted tissue differentiation, poor cell handling and insufficient data on dose versus effect. 

Evidence regarding the clinical efficacy of SVF in treating painful conditions is limited.  Jaewoo Pak, MD successfully treated patients with knee osteoarthritis.  Their pain scores, functional ability and cartilage regeneration were all improved through SVF therapy.  Pak also achieved success in treating meniscus tears and osteoarthritis of the hip.  

In 2015, three researchers for the Cell Surgical Network (who are defendants in the FDA lawsuits) reported on their treatment of 1,524 patients with SVF who lived with painful conditions such as osteoarthritis.  About 25% of the patients showed evidence of new cartilage formation in their joints and 80% had a significant reduction in pain.  The beneficial effects of SVF were sustained for well over six months and some for several years.  The researchers also reported success in treating neurodegenerative diseases, with 80% of the patients with interstitial cystitis showing pain reduction.

Despite the controversy and lawsuits, El Moussa and thousands of other patients are willing to give SVF therapy a try. We’ll keep you updated on his progress.

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.

Rahman lives with chronic inflammation in his digestive tract and is unable to eat solid food. He has received stem cell treatment in China. 

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 Approves Injectable Migraine Drug

By Pat Anson, Editor

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has approved a monthly self-injected drug for the prevention of migraine in adults.

Aimovig (erenumab) is the first FDA-approved migraine treatment in a new class of drugs – known as fully human monoclonal antibodies -- that target receptors in the brain where migraines are thought to originate. It blocks the activity of calcitonin gene-related peptide, a molecule involved in migraine attacks.

"The FDA approval of Aimovig represents a long-awaited and important therapeutic development for patients and their physicians who are in need of additional treatment options for the prevention of migraine," said Sean Harper, MD, executive vice president of Research and Development for Amgen, which shares the licensing rights to Aimovig with Novartis.

The effectiveness of Aimovig for the prevention of migraine was evaluated in three clinical trials, which found that patients experienced one to 2.5 fewer migraine days per month compared to those who took a placebo. The most common side effects were irritation at the injection site and constipation. 

Like many specialized drugs used to treat chronic conditions, Aimovig comes with a hefty price tag. Amgen says the drug will cost about $6,900 a year, or $575 for each monthly dose.

Out-of-pocket costs will vary for patients depending on their insurance. Amgen has a co-pay program for Aimovig that could reduce the cost to as little as $5 per month for eligible patients.

The company says Aimovig will be available to patients within one week.

"Aimovig offers self-administration with proven efficacy across a spectrum of patients, including in those who have previously tried other preventive therapies without success," said Stewart  Tepper, MD, professor of neurology at the Geisel School of Medicine at Dartmouth Medical School. "Importantly, in clinical trials, Aimovig patients were able to start and stay on therapy – with a discontinuation rate of two percent due to adverse events – and experienced sustained migraine prevention."

Migraine is thought to affect a billion people worldwide and about 36 million adults in the United States, according to the American Migraine Foundation. In addition to headache pain and nausea, migraine can also cause vomiting, blurriness or visual disturbances, and sensitivity to light and sound. Women are three times more likely to suffer from migraine than men.

About one-third of migraine sufferers can predict the onset of a migraine because it is preceded by an aura – a sensory or visual disturbances that appear as flashing lights, zig-zag lines or a temporary loss of vision. People with migraine tend to have recurring attacks, triggered by stress, hormonal changes, bright or flashing lights, lack of food or sleep, and diet.

Amgen and Novartis expect Aimovig to be approved in the European Union in the next few months. Amgen holds the sales rights for Aimovig in the United States, Canada and Japan, while Novartis will sell the drug in Europe and the rest of the world.