How West Virginia Became the Epicenter of the Opioid Crisis

By Douglas Hughes, Guest Columnist 

Aggressive promotion by the distributors of OxyContin, the best pain medication ever formulated (when properly used), led to excessive prescribing by West Virginia doctors. 

This caused a methamphetamine drug problem in the state to morph into a prescription opioid epidemic, mostly due to unused opioids squirreled away in medicine cabinets.  Adolescents ignored by their guardians had complementary party favors of these excess opioids. This is why so many families were affected. 

After a few years of this, once the addiction problems were exposed, the excess prescribing stopped. Those desiring to misuse OxyContin went to pain clinics and lied to receive more.  Since we don’t have tachometers on our foreheads to gauge real subjective pain, lying to doctors was effective for many to get drugs to abuse.  

Not wanting to assist pain specialists and willing to deny legitimate intractable pain treatment, the West Virginia legislature passed the “Chronic Pain Clinic Licensing Act.”

When implemented on January 1, 2015, the goal to deny licenses to a dozen new and existing pain clinics was achieved. This left only pills being hoarded in medicine cabinets, which were quickly depleted.  

OxyContin distribution was suspended to pharmacies in most of West Virginia in 2015. 

These two efforts stopped most OxyContin prescribing and decimated legitimate disabled intractable pain sufferers in West Virginia, the state with the highest incidence of industrial and worker compensation injury cases. 

For the sake of argument, let’s estimate pain clinic patients were 50% legitimate pain sufferers and 50% abusers lying in order to get opioids.  Each of those twelve pain clinic closures turned a thousand or more patients onto the streets.  Some wanted to abuse, while others desperately sought to replace critical pain treatment denied to them by state law.  Some turned to street drugs as their answer. 

In 2015, West Virginia police departments reported that pain pills seized from drug arrests fell a remarkable 89 percent. The opioid crisis was shifting rapidly to heroin, as the drug sub-culture always does when a drug source changes. The prescription opioid epidemic in West Virginia essentially ended in 2015.  There was no memo from the CDC.

Those thousands of good and bad patients from pain clinics were both naive to the strength and use of heroin.  Dosing, once regulated by prescription, now was more lethal. Learning how to prepare and inject heroin without becoming infected, overdosing and dying was problematic. There were record overdose deaths in 2015, even though there were fewer pain pills. 

Counterfeit medication and heroin laced with illicit fentanyl appeared and record overdose deaths continued in 2016 and 2017 because there were so many inexperienced street drug users.  

Since 2015, West Virginia has wasted millions of dollars annually chasing imaginary diversion and investigating and prosecuting good physicians. This satisfied everyone except legitimate pain patients, who were left suffering and dying in their beds.  A suicide epidemic ensued.

West Virginia lacks a prevention component to their drug crisis response, which insured the re-occurrence of another epidemic. Apparently, we are satisfied with this catastrophe. May we have another?   

Douglas Hughes is a disabled coal miner and retired environmental permit writer in West Virginia.

Do you have a story you want to share on PNN? Send it 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.

FDA Seeks Feedback on Opioid Blister Packs

By Donna Gregory Burch

I’ve been hoarding a bottle of oxycodone tablets from my back surgery last year. I probably shouldn’t admit it, but I keep them tucked away in the back of a bathroom drawer in case my chronic back and fibromyalgia pain gets so intense that I need something stronger than the tramadol or medical marijuana I normally use for daily pain.

I’m doing exactly what the Food and Drug Administration doesn’t want me to do. In fact, if an FDA proposal is adopted, there will be far fewer patients like myself with stashes of leftover opioids.

The FDA is soliciting public comments on a proposal to require drug makers to manufacture certain opioids in “blister packs” for acute pain situations such as patients recovering from injuries and minimally-invasive surgery. Opioids listed in the FDA’s Federal Register notice include hydrocodone, tramadol, oxycodone and codeine.

In a nutshell, the FDA would like doctors to have the option to prescribe 5, 10 or 15-count opioid tablets in foil wrappers, similar to those annoyingly difficult-to-open packages used for cold-and-flu medications.

If you’ve ever been sick as a dog with a cold and used all of your strength to wrestle a Dayquil capsule out of its foil wrapper, then you know the type of packaging I’m talking about.

The FDA’s proposal is intended to reduce the number of unused opioids that could wind up in the hands of children and others who might abuse or divert them. Based on published studies, most “opioid naïve” patients who are new to opioids don’t actually take all of the tablets prescribed to them for acute pain. The FDA believes all of those leftover pills stashed in medicine cabinets could be contributing to the so-called opioid crisis. 

“In the post-surgical setting, following several common minimally or less-invasive surgical procedures, most opioid-naïve adults who used an opioid analgesic appeared to use only one to three days’ worth, or 15 or fewer, opioid analgesic tablets or capsules despite receiving prescriptions exceeding the number they used,” reads the FDA’s notice for public comment.  

“(We) anticipate that utilization of these fixed-quantity unit-of-use blister package configurations would substantially reduce the quantity of opioid analgesics dispensed per prescription compared to the status quo.”.

Obviously, physicians already have the authority to prescribe smaller quantities of opioids, but the FDA says these blister packages would encourage more rational “right-size” opioid prescribing. The notice stipulates that blister packs would not be required and that other options would still be available.

Other potential benefits of blister packaging cited by the FDA include:

• Reducing accidental childhood poisoning

• Being able to include additional labels on packaging on how to safely use and dispose of opioids

• Making it easier for patients and caregivers to determine if a third party has taken their opioid medication

The FDA is soliciting comments on its proposal through July 30. Read the public comment notice here. The notice includes instructions for submitting comments online, by email or in paper form.

So, what do you think? Would prescribing opioids in blister packaging for acute pain help curb the opioid crisis? Am I the only person who breaks out in a sweat when I have to pry medications from that kind of packaging? Share your thoughts (and struggles) in the comments! 

Donna Gregory Burch lives with fibromyalgia and chronic Lyme disease. Donna covers news, treatments, research and practical tips for living with fibromyalgia and Lyme on her blog, FedUpwithFatigue.com. You can also find her on Facebook and Twitter.

Donna is an award-winning journalist whose work has appeared online and in newspapers and magazines throughout Virginia, Delaware and Pennsylvania. She lives in Delaware with her husband and their many fur babies.

How Opioid Critics and Law Firms Profit From Litigation

By Pat Anson, PNN Editor

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

— Dr. Andrew Kolodny

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

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

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

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

Compensation Not Disclosed

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

PharmedOUT’s Paid Expert Witness

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

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

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

DR. ADRIANE FUGH-BERMAN

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Lobbying and Campaign Donations

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

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

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

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

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

5 Million U.S. Cancer Survivors Live with Chronic Pain

By Pat Anson, PNN Editor

Over five million cancer survivors in the United States live with chronic pain, a fast-growing population that is expected to double by 2040 due to the aging of the population, early cancer detection and advances in treatment, according to a new study by the American Cancer Society.

Chronic pain is one of the most common side effects of chemotherapy and other forms of cancer treatment, but until now there has been little information on its prevalence among cancer survivors.

Researchers looked at data from the National Health Interview Survey from 2016-2017 and found that about a third of cancer survivors (34.6%) have chronic pain. About one in six (16.1%) have “high impact” chronic pain (HICP) – defined as pain that limits life or work activities on most days.

Based on that survey data, researchers estimate the total number of cancers survivors in the U.S. at 15.5 million. About 5.39 million of them have chronic pain and 2.51 million have high impact chronic pain.

“We found the prevalence of chronic pain and HICP among cancer survivors to be almost double that in the general U.S. population. Chronic pain and HICP were more prevalent in survivors who were unemployed and who had low socioeconomic status, inadequate insurance, and had some specific types of cancer,” researchers reported in JAMA Oncology.

“The patterns of chronic pain that we observed in cancer survivors may be explained by barriers to cancer care and pain management as well as by the type and extent of cancer treatment received.”

One barrier to pain management stems from efforts to rein in opioid prescribing to prevent abuse and addiction. While the 2016 CDC opioid guideline is intended for “noncancer” patients, it is also applies to patients “who have completed cancer treatment, are in clinical remission, and are under cancer surveillance only.”

Two experts in oncology and palliative care at the University of Pennsylvania say the CDC’s inclusion of cancer survivors was a mistake because it is not uncommon for cancer pain to persist long after a cancer is treated.  

“Unfortunately, this arbitrary distinction is not consistent with the evidence of pain trajectory in cancer survivors,” Neha Vapiwala, MD, and Salimah Meghani, PhD, wrote in an op/ed also published in JAMA Oncology. “Similar levels of pain were reported in survivors who were still receiving cancer treatment and those who had completed active cancer treatment.”

It’s not uncommon for cancer patients undergoing active treatment to be denied pain medication. Many doctors are reluctant to prescribe opioids, regardless of the diagnosis.

“My cancer doctor will no longer prescribe pain meds for me because I now see a pain doctor. The pain doctor doesn't understand the new cancer drug I'm on and that the side effects of this drug are pain, so he is very reluctant to manage my cancer pain,” a patient with lymphoma told us. “Many days I wonder if it would just be better to let the cancer take its course than to be scrutinized and treated like a criminal.”

April Doyle is being treated for Stage 4 terminal breast cancer, but a Rite Aid pharmacist refused to fill her prescription for Norco because he was worried about being fined or even losing his job. April’s video about the experience went viral.

“I have to take 20 pills a day just to stay alive,” she explains in the video. “Every time I take my pain pill prescription there, they give me the runaround. They don’t have enough in stock or they need me to come back tomorrow because they can’t fill it today. Or something stupid. It’s always something and it’s always some stupid excuse.”

The American Cancer Society study found that chronic pain was most common among cancer survivors treated for bone, kidney, throat-pharynx and uterine cancers.  About half still had pain after their cancer treatment ended.

Employers Adding Stem Cell Options to Insurance Plans

By Liz Szabo, Kaiser Health News

A Midwestern grocery chain, Hy-Vee, is taking an unusual approach to reducing health care costs. Before employees in certain cities can undergo knee replacement, they first must visit a stem cell provider.

Hy-Vee has contracted with one of the United States’ leading stem cell companies — Regenexx, based in Des Moines, Iowa — that claims injections of concentrated bone marrow or platelets can help patients avoid expensive joint surgery.

Regenexx has persuaded over 100 employers to include its services in their health insurance plans. In a marketing booklet, Regenexx, whose injections range in price from $1,500 to $9,000, notes that its treatments cost a fraction of major surgery.

A single knee replacement ranges from $19,000 to $30,000 in the U.S.

Health insurance typically doesn’t cover stem cell injections, with the exception of certain accepted treatments, such as bone-marrow transplants for cancer and aplastic anemia.

Aetna, the United States’ third-largest health insurer, dismisses stem cells and platelet injections as experimental; Anthem, the country’s second-biggest health insurance provider, classifies the injections as “not medically necessary.” Without insurance coverage, patients are forced to pay out-of-pocket or forgo treatment.

So instead of dealing with disapproving insurance executives, Regenexx appeals directly to employers large enough to fund their own health plans. These businesses have the freedom to customize their plans, covering services that aren’t part of a standard insurance package.

In a statement, Regenexx said its goal is to “replace more invasive surgical orthopedics” with nonsurgical options, noting that recent research has found many joint operations are ineffective. On its website, Regenexx claims its procedures “repair and regenerate damaged or degenerated bone, cartilage, muscle, tendons, and ligaments.”

In a bone marrow stem cell procedure, for example, a doctor withdraws bone marrow cells from a patient’s hip, concentrates them, then reinjects them into a problem area, such as an arthritic knee. Doctors target the exact location in the joint using ultrasound. For a “platelet-rich plasma” treatment, doctors draw blood, concentrate the platelets, then inject them into the target area.

Regenexx, previously known as Regenerative Sciences, is one of the oldest stem cell companies in the U.S. When it opened its doors in 2005, it had only a handful of competitors.

Today, there are more than 1,000 stem clinics in the U.S., said Leigh Turner, an associate professor at the University of Minnesota’s Center for Bioethics, who has published a series of articles describing the stem cell market.

At times, Regenexx has clashed with the Food and Drug Administration. In 2010, for example, Regenexx sued the FDA, claiming the agency lacked the authority to regulate its procedures, which involved culturing stem cells before reinjecting them into patients. Regenexx lost its case and was countersued by the FDA, which charged that Regenexx was marketing an unapproved drug. In 2014, the U.S. Court of Appeals in Washington sided with the FDA, forcing Regenexx to stop performing the controversial procedures.

Today, Regenexx performs this procedure only in the Cayman Islands, where the government allows it. The Cayman Islands, where there is less government regulation of health care, has become known as a medical tourism destination, Turner said.

Regenexx says that the treatments offered at its U.S. clinics comply with FDA regulations, which require that cells injected into patients undergo no more than “minimal manipulation.”

On its website, Regenexx lists more than two dozen studies led by its doctors. For example, its chief medical officer, Dr. Chris Centeno, published a small study last year that found patients with knee arthritis who received bone marrow and platelets fared better than those randomly assigned to exercise therapy.

Other research suggests stem cells and platelets may work no better than placebos. In a recent analysis, over 80% of patients with knee arthritis experienced a noticeable improvement in pain after receiving simple saltwater injections.

There’s also no definitive evidence stem cells and platelets can regrow lost cartilage. A 2018 review concluded platelets have “marginal effectiveness,” and experts note that most published studies are so small or poorly designed that their results aren’t reliable.

Corporate Boosters

Corporate executives have become some of Regenexx’s biggest boosters. Hy-Vee’s former chairman and CEO, Ric Jurgens, appears in a Regenexx marketing brochure and says that he turned to Regenexx because of heel pain. The brochure, which was removed from a Regenexx website after Kaiser Health News began reporting this story, quotes Jurgens as saying, “I knew that giving our employees the chance to explore options besides surgery was in their best interest.”

Hy-Vee did not make Jurgens or other employees available to interview.

Perhaps Regenexx’s best-known corporate client is Des Moines-based Meredith Corp., which owns multiple TV and radio stations, as well as magazines such as Better Homes & Gardens.

Steve Lacy, Meredith’s former CEO and current board chairman, said he underwent a Regenexx procedure two years after his company began covering stem cell treatments. He had been facing knee surgery and thought stem cells were worth a try.

The procedure got him back to doing everything he wants to do, Lacy said, even running several days a week. He also has done daily physical therapy for over two years. “The rehab and recovery is far less onerous” with the Regenexx procedure than with surgery, Lacy said. “If the procedure doesn’t work for an individual, there’s no harm.”

Meredith has spent about $400,000 in four years on 85 employees who have had Regenexx treatments, or about $4,700 a patient, said Meredith spokesman Art Slusark. That’s a small share of the roughly $75 million a year that Meredith spends on its medical plan, he said.

At its headquarters, Meredith has promoted Regenexx procedures through email, posters and “lunch-and-learn” sessions in the office, said Jenny McCoy, Meredith’s corporate communications director.

McCoy herself has become a poster child for Regenexx’s benefits. She and two other Meredith employees appear with Lacy in a marketing video on the Regenexx site:

Although McCoy had begun to experience knee and hip pain during exercise, she said in an interview that her pain was not severe enough to need surgery. McCoy underwent platelet injections two years ago and is pain-free today, she said.

“I thought, ‘If Meredith is covering it, I might as well have it done early before [the pain] causes me too many problems,’” said McCoy, 52. Given the price tag, she said, “I would not have done it otherwise. I wouldn’t have even known about it.”

‘Very Pushy’ Marketing

Some employers are, in fact, skeptical. The Des Moines Public Schools has opted not to add Regenexx to its employee health plan, said Catherine McKay, director of employee services for the school system. She said a salesman for a local stem cell clinic, which has since merged with Regenexx, told her the treatments could save the school system lots of money. McKay wasn’t sold.

“My experience with them has not been great, in terms of marketing and sales. They’re very, very pushy,” McKay said. “They claim they can get people back to work earlier” than surgery. “But if I still need knee surgery a year down the road, that doesn’t cut my costs.”

The Des Moines school system has agreed to consider covering Regenexx procedures as part of its workers’ compensation program on a case-by-case basis, McKay said. The school system has not signed a contract with Regenexx, however, and hasn’t included Regenexx in its health plan.

McKay said she knows of two school employees who have tried Regenexx. While one employee was satisfied with the results, McKay said, another “went through a couple procedures and ended up needing surgery anyway.” 

In response, Regenexx noted that many patients who undergo knee surgery are also unhappy with the results. Research suggests that up to one-third of those who have knees replaced continue to experience chronic pain, while one-fifth report that they are dissatisfied with the results of their surgery.

Kaiser Health News, a nonprofit health newsroom whose stories appear in news outlets nationwide, is an editorially independent part of the Kaiser Family Foundation.

A Gut Feeling About Fibromyalgia

By Pat Anson, PNN Editor

Over the years there’s been a lot of speculation about what causes fibromyalgia – everything from gluten and genetics to childhood trauma, spinal fractures and a weakened immune system.

About 5 million Americans suffer from fibromyalgia, a poorly understood disorder characterized by deep tissue pain, fatigue, mood swings and insomnia. It can take years for a patient to be diagnosed and treatments are often ineffective – in part because of uncertainty about what actually causes fibromyalgia.

For the first time, researchers at McGill University Health Centre in Montreal have found an association between gut bacteria and fibromyalgia. It’s not clear whether the microbes cause fibromyalgia or if they are a symptom, but the discovery opens the door to new forms of treatment and diagnosis. The findings are being reported in the journal Pain.

"We found that fibromyalgia and the symptoms of fibromyalgia — pain, fatigue and cognitive difficulties — contribute more than any of the other factors to the variations we see in the microbiomes of those with the disease,” said lead author Amir Minerbi, MD, of the Alan Edwards Pain Management Unit at McGill University Health Centre. 

“We also saw that the severity of a patient's symptoms was directly correlated with an increased presence or a more pronounced absence of certain bacteria - something which has never been reported before."

Minerbi and his colleagues enrolled 156 women in their study – about half had fibromyalgia and the rest were a healthy control group. Participants were interviewed and gave stool, blood, saliva and urine samples, which were then compared.

Researchers found that the two groups had strikingly different types and amounts of gut bacteria. Nineteen different species of bacteria were found in either greater or lesser quantities in the gut microbiomes of fibromyalgia patients than in the healthy control group.

For example, Faecalibacterium prausnitzii, one of the most abundant and well-studied bacteria in the human gut, was found to be depleted in fibromyalgia patients. It is believed to block pain and inflammation in the intestines.

Other bacteria associated with irritable bowel syndrome, chronic fatigue syndrome and interstitial cystitis were found to be abundant in the fibromyalgia patients, but not in the healthy control group.  

The bacterial differences don’t appear to be related to diets, lifestyles or genetics, since some of the healthy participants lived in the same house as the fibromyalgia patients or were their parents, offspring or siblings.

"We used a range of techniques, including Artificial Intelligence, to confirm that the changes we saw in the microbiomes of fibromyalgia patients were not caused by factors such as diet, medication, physical activity, age, and so on, which are known to affect the microbiome," says Minerbi.

Researchers say it's not clear whether the changes in gut bacteria seen in fibromyalgia patients are simply markers of the disease or whether they play a role in causing it. Because fibromyalgia involves a cluster of symptoms, the next step will be to investigate whether there are similar changes in the gut microbiome of patients with other types of chronic pain, such as back pain, headaches and neuropathic pain.

“This is the first evidence, at least in humans, that the microbiome could have an effect on diffuse pain, and we really need new ways to look at chronic pain." said senior author Yoram Shir, MD, Director of the Alan Edwards Pain Management Unit

If their findings are confirmed, researchers think their discovery could speed up the process of diagnosing fibromyalgia.

"By using machine learning, our computer was able to make a diagnosis of fibromyalgia, based only on the composition of the microbiome, with an accuracy of 87 per cent. As we build on this first discovery with more research, we hope to improve upon this accuracy, potentially creating a step-change in diagnosis," says Emmanuel Gonzalez, PhD, Canadian Center for Computational Genomics and the Department of Human Genetics at McGill University.

Several previous studies have suggested an association between diet and fibromyalgia. Donna Gregory Burch says her fibromyalgia symptoms improved when she went on a gluten-free diet. Studies show that consuming food additives such as monosodium glutamate (MSG) can worsen symptoms, while foods rich in Vitamin D can help reduce joint and muscle pain.

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

By Pat Anson, PNN Editor

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

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

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

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

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

PAUL GILENO

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Lessons from ‘The United States of Opioids’

By Roger Chriss, PNN Columnist

Harry Nelson’s new book “The United States of Opioids: A Prescription for Liberating a Nation in Pain” looks closely and productively at the opioid overdose crisis. It comments on origins and causal factors, and offers pragmatic policy ideas for addressing it. The book is succinct and well-organized, designed for easy reading and reference.

Nelson starts with a dire description of addiction and overdose, calling the U.S. opioid crisis “American healthcare’s self-inflicted wound.” He then gives a brief history of opioids, explaining the three waves of the crisis, culminating in illicit fentanyl and “an increasing crackdown on physician overprescribing.”

Nelson touches on the history and science of opioids, then looks at causes of the crisis. These include not only Purdue Pharma and the Sacklers, but also drug distributors, retailers and health insurers. Institutional and regulatory failures on opioids are not ignored.

“The overarching problem when it comes to physician overprescribing has been insufficient training and education on how to prescribe opioids,” he writes. “The FDA approved these drugs and oversaw the data concerning the risks of their misuse, abuse, addiction, and overdose.”

But Nelson digs deeper, looking at the underlying social and cultural determinants that play into the longer term. He cites a 2018 University of Pittsburgh study that underscores that opioids are part of a broader trend in which abuse of multiple drugs and a rising drug overdose rate “that shows no signs of slowing, with sub-epidemics of different drugs over time.”

Unlike other books, Nelson writes in depth about how to address the crisis: “I believe that our attention should first be focused on a host of intersecting trends that point to suffering in America — parallel crises that include suicidality, anxiety, depression, and pain.”

He explores other options for pain management, from NSAIDs and nerve blocks to non-pharmacological techniques: “It is critical to push insurers and government programs to cover non-opioid treatment, even if it means spending more to achieve this priority.”

Nelson includes a whole chapter on cannabis and other alternative therapies for opioid addiction, in particular kratom and psychedelics. He is optimistic but tentative about cannabis: “Despite the potential to address health issues, consumers need to be cautious about both the claims and contents of cannabis products.”

He also looks at addiction treatment, including AA-type abstinence programs and medication-assisted therapy, and notes that “the biggest challenge in addiction treatment is the complexity of addiction itself.”

Nelson is highly critical of much of the response to the crisis to date: “When I think about the government and health system’s approach for taking on the opioid crisis, the thing that strikes me most is how much it feels tactical rather than strategic.”

Nelson condemns the rampant fraud and patient brokering in the recovery industry. But he also points out that addiction treatment itself needs improvement.

“We will know that addiction treatment has ‘arrived’ in terms of its integration into healthcare when we have relatively uniform professional and program licensure requirements from state to state — something seemingly decades away,” he wrote.

Nelson lists seven general recommendations for the crisis in his OPIOIDS acronym:

• Outreach for prevention and early intervention

• Physician improvements

• Innovation in pain and addiction care

• Overdose interventions

• Interdiction off illicit opioids

• Data analytics to better track the crisis

• Strengthening access to addiction care

He emphasizes the value of harm reduction, improving social capital, and organizing prevention in schools and the workplace — instead of “stop gap” measures that do little beyond preventing fatal overdoses.

“The key to solving the opioid crisis lies in not being satisfied with tackling the overdose death issue, but in addressing two of the fundamental problems that got us here: the inadequate management of ongoing issues for people living with chronic pain, which overlaps with the second problem of people living with an opioid use disorder (OUD),” he writes.

Finally, Nelson gives a warning: “If we think about the opioid crisis as the ‘canary in the coal mine,’ it’s warning us that we need to address a much bigger, toxic set of problems.”

For all the book offers, it also has problems. Nelson overstates the number of people with opioid use disorder, misrepresents the complex nature of opioid initiation, and misconstrues the varied trajectory of heroin addiction. Most importantly, Nelson gives little attention to rising rates of cocaine and methamphetamine overdose deaths, and ignores that most overdoses involve multiple drugs.

“The United States of Opioids” offers a suite of tools and ideas for moving forward, a refreshing change from the many righteous rants or poignant laments about the crisis.

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.

Chronic Pain Patients in Alberta Revolt

By Marvin Ross, Guest Columnist

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Patients Denied Treatment

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Gabapentinoids Raise Risk of Suicide and Overdose in Younger People

By Pat Anson, PNN Editor

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Study Debunks Myths About Origins of Opioid Abuse

By Pat Anson, PNN Editor

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

‘Opioids Were Never the First Drug’

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

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

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

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

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

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

What ‘Rocketman’ Tells Us About Pain and Addiction

By Lynn Webster, MD, PNN Columnist

“Rocketman” is a new biopic about the legendary singer Elton John. The emotionally-driven musical fantasy takes some liberties with certain details of John's life, but it illuminates an essential truth: childhood trauma can lead to pain, addiction and other severe health problems.

The movie is generating some Oscar buzz, but it offers more to viewers who want to see how painful childhood experiences can adversely affect people when they become adults.

The film begins with the flamboyantly wealthy and gifted Elton John strutting down a hallway -- in full costume complete with a colorful headpiece from a recent stage show -- to his first Alcoholics Anonymous meeting.

He becomes the center of attention at the AA meeting when he begins to describe -- through flashbacks told, in part, through song and dance -- his childhood, which was devoid of love and acceptance.

“rocketman” Paramount pictures

Elton John is a musical prodigy, but his talent couldn't save him from the harm caused by a father who rejected him and a mother who didn't protect him. As John told The Guardian, "My dad was strict and remote and had a terrible temper; my mum was argumentative and prone to dark moods. When they were together, all I can remember are icy silences or screaming rows."

As John remembers it, "The rows were usually about me, how I was being brought up."

How Childhood Trauma Affects Health

In her TED Talk, Dr. Nadine Burke Harris describes how childhood trauma can affect health over a lifetime — laying the foundation for seven out of 10 leading causes of death in the United States, including addiction and even suicide.

As Dr. Harris points out, our healthcare system treats childhood trauma as a social or mental health problem rather than as a medical issue. Doctors are trained to refer traumatized children to specialists rather than providing intervention and treatment themselves. But childhood trauma may lead to serious medical problems and can even reduce life expectancy by 20 years, according to a study published in the American Journal of Preventive Medicine.

The CDC’s Adverse Childhood Experiences Study (also known as the ACE Study) defined and examined this problem. The study acknowledged 10 types of childhood trauma, including verbal, physical, and sexual abuse; parental rejection and neglect; mental illness or incarceration of a family member; divorce; and substance dependence.

Of the 17,000 adults who participated in the study, two-thirds had experienced at least one of these childhood traumas. Eighty-seven percent had lived through more than one. The consequences of this can be staggering. People who experienced four childhood traumas were 2.5 times more likely to have pulmonary disease and hepatitis. And they were four times more prone to depression and had 12 times the risk for suicidality.

“Adverse childhood experiences are the single greatest unaddressed public health threat facing our nation today,” says Dr. Robert Block, President of the Academy of Pediatrics.

Trauma Rewires the Brain

Adverse childhood experiences rewire the brain. The heightened response to stress that some children develop can affect the reward center of the brain and the executive functioning of the prefrontal cortex. It can also result in maladaptive behaviors associated with pain and addiction.

About a decade ago, Dr. Norman Doidge provided an understanding of how our brains have the capacity to change in his book, “The Brain that Changes Itself: Stories of Personal Triumph from the Frontiers of Brain Science.”  His highly acclaimed research offers scientific hope that there is treatment for the adverse effects of childhood trauma and chronic pain.

Dr. Doidge describes neuroplasticity as the process through which an injured brain can heal itself. An example of this healing process was reported by National Public Radio's Patti Neighmond. It is called emotional awareness and expression therapy (EAET).

Developed in 2011 by psychologist Mark Lumley and Dr. Howard Schubiner, EAET combines talk therapy with cognitive behavioral therapy to change brains that have been structurally altered by trauma. The NIH’s Pain Management Best Practices Inter-Agency Task Force has recognized EAET as potentially beneficial to some people in chronic pain.

Preventing the Need for Drugs

“Rocketman” reflects more than the consequences of a single individual's traumatic childhood. It illuminates a broader social problem that sows the seeds for substance use disorders in adults. 

The approach we take to solving substance use disorders today is focused on treatment and law enforcement. Neither approach seems to be curbing the problem, which suggests the need for a better strategy. Long-term solutions to substance use disorders must include prevention. This means we need to understand what creates the demand for drugs.

Elton John’s story poignantly illustrates two of the causes of addictive behavior:

1. Memories of pleasurable experiences are the reason drugs are repeatedly abused

2. Memories of painful life experiences are commonly the genesis of drug initiation

There is compelling evidence that the trajectory of our mental and physical health begins with how we are treated as children. It may seem Pollyannish to say this, but our first line of defense is to love and accept our children, regardless of their gender identity, abilities or individual traits.

As “Rocketman” testifies, anything else can set children on the path to developing a substance use disorder and, in some cases, chronic pain. 

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

You can find him on Twitter: @LynnRWebsterMD.

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

Why Do Doctors Keep Pushing Invasive Procedures on Me?

By Mike Emelio, Guest Columnist 

I'm not a cynical person by nature, but I'm seeing a very clear pattern with interventional pain management doctors. Why is it that every doctor I've seen who is certified in interventional pain medicine (at least 8 of them already) demonize opioid medication and insist on pushing their non-FDA approved injections, radiofrequency ablations, pain pumps and spinal cord stimulators? 

This approach is even more absurd when you consider the fact that invasive procedures tend to have low rates of efficacy and are known to create scar tissue and nerve damage, both of which can cause more pain.  

As if this weren't ridiculous enough, in spite of explaining to these doctors how epidural steroid injections not only didn't work for me, but robbed me of my life by tripling my pain and making my condition much worse (see “Disabled by the War on Opioids”), every single one of the doctors I've seen still tries to push more of those injections on me.  

My head spins every time I hear them try to sell me on more injections. Are they deaf, insane, just trying to make their wallets fatter, or all three?

On what planet does it make sense to do more of what made a thing worse? 

Ever since my life was ruined by those injections 5 years ago, I've been desperately trying to find a doctor who truly cares about my well-being and wants to help me. My search has been fruitless so far.  

Sadly, it just keeps getting worse. The latest doctor I started seeing keeps pushing a pain pump on me. That is as absurd as it gets. Multiple doctors have told me that the reason those injections made my back pain worse is because they caused adhesive arachnoiditis or nerve damage – both of which can be made worse with invasive procedures.  

Why would any doctor push a pain pump on me? I could understand it for a patient with a history of drug abuse, but that is not the case with me. Not only do I have zero history of drug or alcohol abuse, but I have taken my pain meds responsibly for many years. Why should I submit to being put under anesthesia, cut open and have a device implanted in me, all which can have serious complications, when I can get the same medication in a pill that I took responsibly for many years? 

All of the surgeons say that my best option for improved quality of life is pain medication and staying as active and mobile as possible. Yet every interventional pain management doctor ignores their advice and pushes for injections, spinal cord stimulators or pain pumps. Why would they do that?  

It's simple.  According to my Medicare statements, a doctor makes about $75 per visit to write and maintain prescription medications. But with the injections, it's $1,000 and up!

Many times I've personally seen doctors perform unnecessary tests that pay them a lot of money and only for that reason. This is not just my opinion, as other doctors I've seen have confirmed this. Not all doctors are like this and I wouldn't even venture to say most, but the fact is there are plenty of them out there. 

I'm not saying any of this to bash doctors. I'm sharing this information in hopes that people take the time to get educated, be vigilant and be their own advocate when it comes to their healthcare. Doctors are only human. They're just as susceptible to flaws as anyone else. I can't impress enough on all of you to look out for yourselves and get second, third, fourth and even fifth opinions if needed.

If you think that sounds excessive, just think about what happened to me. They took away what was working for me and used a non-FDA approved procedure on me that wasn't even designed for what they were using it for. The end result was that it crippled me, robbed me of my ability to work, forced me into a life of poverty and disability, and took away my freedom, my dignity and my ability to properly care for myself. 

Simply put... It has devastated my life.

I don't post any this for sympathy. I am only trying to educate and inform people about what can happen if they put too much faith in doctors without doing some research. What happened to me is a prime example of just how essential it is that we patients be as proactive as possible, be our own advocates and protect ourselves. 

Michael Emelio 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.

AMA Opposed to ‘Blacklisting’ of Doctors Over Rx Opioids

By Pat Anson, PNN Editor

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Is CBD Psychoactive?

By Roger Chriss, PNN Columnist

The CBD boom is making Dutch Tulip Mania seem dull. CBD water is becoming a thing, and Ben & Jerry’s may soon introduce a CBD-infused ice cream. Basically, CBD is in everything.

The boom is built on the assumption that CBD, the cannabis cannabinoid known as cannabidiol, is not psychoactive. The FDA isn’t so sure and the DEA demurs, putting the CBD-based seizure drug Epidiolex into Schedule V last year.

So is CBD psychoactive? The answer hinges on the definition of the term psychoactive.

According to the World Health Organization: "Psychoactive substances are substances that, when taken in or administered into one's system, affect mental processes, e.g. cognition or affect.”

The National Institute on Drug Abuse explains psychoactive drugs this way: “Drugs in this category act on the central nervous system and alter its normal, everyday activity, causing changes in mood, awareness, and behavior.”

The term “psychotropic” is used with a similar meaning. MedicineNet states that a psychotropic drug is “any drug capable of affecting the mind, emotions, and behavior.”

But does CBD affect mental states, alter everyday activity, or change mood, awareness, or behavior?

The FDA last year approved Epidiolex -- the first CBD-based medication -- for the treatment of two rare and severe forms of childhood epilepsy, Lennox-Gastaut syndrome and Dravet syndrome. CBD potentially has many other uses, including neurological conditions such as Alzheimer’s and dementia, and neuropsychiatric illness such as autism, ADHD, and PTSD.  It could also be beneficial for anorexia, anxiety, and mood disorders.

Purveyors of commercial CBD products go further, claiming that CBD may help with insomnia, social anxiety, and panic attacks. Although most product labels avoid specific claims of treatment efficacy to avoid FDA scrutiny, clear statements of possible benefits are easy to find online.

The FDA recently sent a warning letter to a New Jersey company for claiming that CBD can treat anxiety, depression, PTSD, schizophrenia, psychosis and obsessive compulsive disorder.

In order for CBD to do even half of this, it would have to have an effect on mental states, mood and awareness. In other words, CBD could not do what its proponents claim without being psychoactive, at least in the narrow, technical sense of the term.

Dose Matters

But details matter here. First, psychoactive does not mean intoxicating, hallucinogenic or dissociative. And many prescription drugs have benefits precisely because they are psychoactive. Even caffeine is arguably psychoactive, though only very weakly.

Second, dose matters. The pharmaceutical Epidiolex is administered in doses that have 10 to 100 times more CBD than a typical over-the-counter or commercial CBD product. So CBD may be psychoactive in therapeutic doses, but not in “commercial” doses. Of course, this assumes the product actually contains CBD, which in practice is not necessarily the case.

Third, route of administration matters. CBD is only weakly bioavailable and unstable in light or temperature extremes. A clear bottle of CBD water or CBD bath oil could easily lose much of the CBD it may contain, and the remaining CBD may not even be absorbed. And if the CBD is applied to non-vascularized tissue, as is the case with CBD mascara, then it cannot be psychoactive because of a lack of blood vessels for transport to the brain.

Thus, whether or not CBD is psychoactive depends on the amount and method that CBD is introduced to the human body. Since most of the claims from proponents remain unverified and in many cases untested even in animals, it could be premature to state that CBD is psychoactive in a specific way.

On the other hand, the existing work on CBD argues for calling CBD psychoactive. Recent findings by Yasmin Hurd showed that CBD, specifically Epidiolex, reduces cravings in people addicted to heroin. Ongoing research is demonstrating possible benefits of CBD for seizure disorders in humans and even in dogs.

Project CBD noted in 2016 that “as our scientific understanding and therapeutic experience deepens, the description of CBD as non-psychoactive may fall by the wayside.”

For now, it would be reasonable to say that CBD is probably “weakly psychoactive” at commercial doses but more “strongly psychoactive” at therapeutic doses. As more studies are completed on what CBD actually does, the pharmacological description of CBD can be updated accordingly.

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.