Some Pharmacies Won’t Sell Suboxone, But Street Dealers Do

By Nina Feldman, WHYY

Louis Morano knew what he needed, and he knew where to get it.

He made his way to a mobile medical clinic parked on a corner of Philadelphia’s Kensington neighborhood, in the geographical heart of the city’s overdose crisis. People call it “the bupe bus.”

Buprenorphine is a drug that curbs cravings and treats the symptoms of withdrawal from opioid addiction. One of the common brand name drugs that contains it, Suboxone, blends buprenorphine with naloxone. Combined with cognitive behavioral therapy, it is one of the three FDA-approved medicines considered the gold standard for opioid-addiction treatment.

Morano had tried Suboxone before — he had purchased some from a street dealer and had used it to get through his workday, when he couldn’t use heroin. It kept the misery of withdrawal sickness at bay.

Morano, 29, has done seven stints in rehab for opioid addiction in the past 15 years. So he had a sense of how the drug would make him feel. He’d always sort of thought of it as a crutch. But after a slip following his latest stint in rehab, he said, he committed to recovery.

“I can’t do this anymore, and I need something,” Morano said.

The bupe bus — a project of Prevention Point Philadelphia, the city’s only syringe exchange program — is part of Philadelphia’s efforts to expand access to this particular form of medication-assisted treatment, known as MAT, for opioid addiction.

Morano was first in line at the mobile clinic. When the doors of the bus heaved open, Dr. Ben Cocchiaro waved Morano inside, where they squeezed into a tiny exam room.

Cocchiaro and Morano discussed how buprenorphine might help Morano’s recovery succeed this time, and whether he’d be open to seeing a therapist. Cocchiaro gave Morano instructions on how to take the medication, and then called a pharmacy to authorize a prescription.

Barriers to Treatment

To date, much of the research on barriers to buprenorphine access has focused on the fact that too few medical providers are certified to write the prescriptions. According to federal law, doctors must apply for a special waiver from the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, or SAMHSA, to prescribe buprenorphine. To get the waiver, a doctor must undergo eight hours of training — and can prescribe the drug to a maximum of 30 patients at a time, to start. Given these constraints, many doctors don’t bother.

But pharmacists are also a part of the problem. Because they fill the prescriptions, pharmacists are the gatekeepers for the drug, and not all of them are willing to take on that role. Increasing pharmacists’ involvement in distributing buprenorphine might be just as important as persuading more doctors to prescribe it, according to Dan Ventricelli of the Philadelphia College of Pharmacy.

“We can write a bunch of prescriptions for people,” he said. “But if they don’t have a pharmacy and a pharmacist that’s willing to fill that medication for them, fill it consistently and have an open conversation with that patient throughout that treatment process, then we may end up with a bottleneck at the community pharmacy.”

Just a few blocks from the bupe bus in Kensington, Richard Ost owns an independent pharmacy. He said his store was one of the first in the neighborhood to stock buprenorphine. But after a while, Ost started noticing that people were not using the medication as directed — they were selling it instead.

Buprenorphine acts as a partial opioid agonist, which means it’s a low-grade opioid. When taken in pill or tablet form, it’s unlikely to cause the same feelings of euphoria as heroin would, but it might if it were dissolved and injected. Many people buy it on the street for the same reason Morano did: to keep from going into withdrawal between injecting heroin or fentanyl. Others buy it to try to quit using on their own.

“We started seeing people do it in our store in front of us,” said Ost. He said it’s unethical to dispense a prescription if a patient turns around and sells it illegally, rather than use it. “Once we saw that with a patient, we terminated them as a patient.”

Ost explained that the illegal market for Suboxone also meant customers trying to stay sober were being continually targeted and tempted.

“So if we were having a lot of people in recovery coming out of our stores, the people who were dealing illicit drugs knew that, and they would be there to talk to them and they would say, ‘Well, I’ll give you this’ or ‘I’ll give you that,’ or ‘I’ll buy your Suboxone’ or ‘I’ll trade you for this.’”

Ost said that eventually his staff didn’t feel safe, and that neither did the customers. He understands the value of bupe but said it just wasn’t worth it. He mostly has stopped carrying it.

Even those pharmacies that aim to stock buprenorphine can run into problems. Limits set by wholesalers require pharmacies to order the drug in small, frequent batches. Though pharmacies can apply for exemptions to order more at a time, or to have a higher percentage of their total stock consist of controlled substances, doing so invites a higher level of scrutiny from the wholesaler and, in turn, the Drug Enforcement Administration.

Another issue is that doctors and pharmacists receive different education about how long buprenorphine should be prescribed before tapering a patient off it. Many medical providers might prescribe the drug for long-term treatment, based on recent SAMHSA guidelines, while pharmacists may view longer courses of treatment as posing the risk of long-term dependency.

“It’s not even that they’re on different pages,” said Ventricelli of the College of Pharmacy. “It’s that they’re reading completely different books.”

If a patient going through withdrawal can’t get buprenorphine quickly, the stakes are high. Silvana Mazzella, associate executive director at Prevention Point, said that when it’s not available, patients are more likely to turn back to heroin or fentanyl.

“We’re in a situation where if you are in withdrawal, you’re sick, you need to get well, you want help today, and if you can’t get it through medication-assisted treatment, unfortunately you will find it a block away, very quickly, and very cheaply,” she said.

Doctors with Prevention Point have found a pharmacy near the bupe bus that will reliably dispense buprenorphine to their Philadelphia patients. It’s a neighborhood branch of a local chain, called the Pharmacy of America.

The head pharmacist, Anthony Shirley, said he’s comfortable filling the scripts because he trusts that the doctors at Prevention Point will write prescriptions only for patients who need the medication. He has heard firsthand from patients who say buprenorphine saved their lives.

“That’s something you can’t really put a price tag on,” Shirley said. For him, the calculation is simple: His store is in an area where many people need buprenorphine. That means it’s his job to get it to them.

This story is part of a partnership that includes WHYY, NPR and Kaiser Health News. KHN is a nonprofit news service covering health issues. It is an editorially independent program of the Kaiser Family Foundation, which is not affiliated with Kaiser Permanente.

Surgeons Reduce Rx Opioids Without Increasing Pain

By Pat Anson, PNN Editor

Surgeons in Michigan have reduced the amount of opioid medication prescribed to patients recovering from common operations by nearly a third -- without causing patients to feel more postoperative pain.

In a new research letter published in the New England Journal of Medicine, a team from the Michigan Opioid Prescribing Engagement Network (OPEN) reported on the results of a statewide effort to get surgical teams to follow prescribing guidelines for postoperative pain.

In just one year, surgeons at 43 Michigan hospitals reduced the number of opioid pills prescribed to patients after nine common operations, from an average of 26 pills per patient to an average of 18.

The surgeries included minor hernia repair, appendix and gallbladder removal, and hysterectomies. Most were minimally invasive laparoscopic surgeries.

The ratings patients gave for their post-surgical pain and satisfaction didn't change from the ratings given by patients treated in the six months before opioids were reduced.

Researchers say patients only took about half the opioids prescribed to them, even as the prescription sizes shrank. They attribute this to improved counseling about pain expectations and non-opioid pain control options.

"The success of the statewide effort suggests an opportunity for other states to build on Michigan's experience, and room for even further reductions in prescription size," said Michael Englesbe, MD, a University of Michigan surgery professor. "At the same time, we need to make sure that patients also know how to safely dispose of any leftover opioids they don't take."

The study involved over 11,700 patients who had operations at hospitals participating in the Michigan Surgical Quality Collaborative. About half of the patients also filled out surveys sent to their homes after their operations, asking about their pain, satisfaction and opioid use after surgery.

The Michigan-OPEN team has been working since 2016 to reduce opioid prescribing and quantify the appropriate number of pills patients should take. Their research led to the the development of new guidelines that were first tested on gallbladder surgery patients before being expanded to other types of surgery.

Some hospitals have stopped giving opioids to surgical patients. Patients at Cleveland Clinic Akron General Hospital get acetaminophen, gabapentin and nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) to manage their pain before and after colorectal operations – and their surgeons say the treatment results in better patient outcomes

It’s a common misconception that many patients become addicted to opioids after surgery. A 2016 Canadian study, for example, found that long term opioid use after surgery is rare, with less than one percent of older adults still taking opioid pain medication a year after major elective surgery.

Another large study in the British Medical Journal found similar results. Only 0.2% of patients who were prescribed opioids for post-surgical pain were later diagnosed with opioid dependence, abuse or a non-fatal overdose.

Another fallacy is that leftover pain medication is often stolen, sold or given away. The DEA says less than one percent of legally prescribed opioids are diverted.

Panel Recommends All Adults Be Screened for Illicit Drug Use

By Pat Anson, PNN Editor

The next time you visit a doctor, he or she may want to know more than what medications you take or if you consume alcohol.

An influential national panel of health experts is recommending for the first time that U.S. doctors screen all adult patients for illicit drug use, including the nonmedical use of opioids and other prescription drugs. “Nonmedical” means the use of a friend’s or relative’s prescription or buying medications off the street. It can also mean using a legal medication more frequently or in higher doses than prescribed.

The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force concluded with “moderate certainty” that screening for illicit drug use would be beneficial because it would lead to a more accurate diagnosis and treatment for substance abuse.

Screening typically involves questions about drug use and frequency. This can include questions on routine intake forms or asking patients directly when they visit with a healthcare provider. Screening does not include drug testing, although nothing would stop a doctor from ordering such tests.

“Illicit drug use can have a devastating impact on individuals and families,” said task force co-vice chair Karina Davidson, PhD, a professor of behavioral medicine at the Zucker School of Medicine at Hofstra University. “Clinicians can help by screening their adult patients and connecting people who use illicit drugs to the care they need to get better.”

About 11.5% of Americans age 18 years or older reported using cannabis or illicit drugs in a national survey. Illicit drug use is more common in young adults ages 18 to 25 years (24.2%) than in older adults (9.5%).  About one in five illicit drug users reported the nonmedical use of psychotherapeutic drugs, including opioids, pain relievers, or other medications. Less than 8% reported using cocaine, hallucinogens, or inhalants.

Although illicit drug use is relatively common among adolescents (7.9%) aged 12 to 17, the task force said there was not enough evidence to support screening for Americans under the age of 18.

“We want to help prevent illicit drug use in teens, so we’re calling for more research on the benefits of screening,” said task force member Carol Mangione, MD, chief of general internal medicine at the David Geffen School of Medicine at UCLA. “Clinicians should continue to use their professional judgement to determine what’s best for their teen patients.”

The task force’s draft report is available for public comment through September 9. After the task force reviews the comments, it will issue a final report. The panel’s recommendations are not mandatory for healthcare providers, but like many federal guidelines – such as the 2016 CDC opioid guideline -- they could be adopted as a “standard of care” by medical associations and healthcare systems.  Some already recommend that providers routinely screen their patients about illicit drug use.

AG’s Call for Weakening of HIPAA Laws

Federal laws that have long protected the privacy of patients undergoing addiction treatment may also be changing. The National Association of Attorneys General wants Congress to end regulations that prevent doctors from sharing information about their patients’ addiction treatment histories.

In a letter recently sent to congressional leaders, 39 state attorneys general called on Congress to “replace the cumbersome, out-of-date, privacy rules” contained in the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA). One section of the law – known as 42 CFR Part 2 – sets strict rules about disclosing patient records for substance abuse treatment.

“These privacy rules were created more than 40 years ago in a time of intense stigma surrounding substance use disorder treatment. They were created to assure patients that they would not face adverse legal or civil consequences when seeking treatment by protecting confidentiality of substance use disorder patient records,” the AG’s said.

“Unfortunately, they now serve to perpetuate that stigma, as the principle underlying these rules is that substance use disorder treatment is shameful and records of it should be withheld from other treatment providers in ways that we do not withhold records of treatment of other chronic diseases. While maintaining confidentiality is imperative to encouraging individuals to seek and obtain treatment, the inability to share records among providers can burden coordination of care, potentially resulting in harm to the patient.”

Two bills under consideration in Congress, the Overdose Prevention and Patient Safety Act and the Protecting Jessica Grubb’s Legacy Act would amend 42 CFR Part 2 to allow for addiction treatment records to be shared. The bills have been endorsed by over 40 national healthcare organizations, including the American Hospital Association, the American Psychiatric Association, and the American Society of Addiction Medicine.

Study: Prescription Drug Databases Overestimate Opioid Misuse

By Pat Anson, PNN Editor

Prescription drug monitoring has long been seen as the gold standard for tracking the opioid crisis. Patients who fill an opioid prescription for more than three months are considered long-term users with a higher risk of misuse, addiction and overdose. Many pharmacy chains assign a “risk score” to these patients and their doctors could even get a warning letter from the government.

But in a small study of emergency room patients, Canadian researchers found the risk of opioid misuse by long-term users is small and one out of five patients who fill opioid prescriptions don’t even use them. Their findings suggest that prescription databases alone are a poor way to measure opioid misuse.

“The rate of long‐term opioid use reported by filled prescription database studies should not be used as a surrogate for opioid misuse,” said lead author Raoul Daoust, MD, a professor and researcher in the Department of Family Medicine and Emergency Medicine at the University of Montreal.

Daoust and his colleagues surveyed 524 patients who were discharged from a hospital emergency department (ED) with an opioid prescription for acute pain. Instead of just relying on a database to track their prescriptions, the researchers asked the patients about their opioid use.

Three months after discharge, only 47 patients – about 9 percent – said they were still using opioids. Of those, 72% said they used opioids to treat their initial pain and 19% were using the drugs to treat a new pain condition.

The remaining four patients said they used opioids for another reason, suggesting possible misuse. That’s less than one percent (0.8%) of the original 524 patients.

“Within the limit of our study, our results suggest that the risk of long‐term opioid use for reasons other than pain is low for ED discharged patients with an opioid prescription treating an acute pain condition,” Daoust reported in the journal Academic Emergency Medicine.

Daoust’s findings are controversial because they throw into question the widely accepted theory that all opioid prescribing is risky, whether it’s for chronic or acute pain. The methodology used in his study was questioned by one critic.

"Emergency physicians should not be reassured by the authors' findings. The lack of a denominator, poor response rate (56%), and applied definition of misuse are significant limitations,” said Gail D'Onofrio, MD, a professor of emergency medicine and chair in the department of emergency medicine at Yale University.

D'Onofrio cites a 2017 CDC study, which found that the probability of long-term opioid use increases sharply after the first few days of treatment.

“Transitions from acute to long-term therapy can begin to occur quickly: the chances of chronic use begin to increase after the third day supplied and rise rapidly thereafter,” CDC researchers warned.

But that analysis is based solely on the number of opioid prescriptions – not actual opioid use. And Daoust found that studies like that are a poor way to measure risk.

“These studies used filled prescriptions databases that could overestimate opioid use since not all patients filling an opioid prescription consumed them. As a case in point, in this study, 21% of patients who filled their opioid prescription after the initial ED visit did not consume them,” Daoust reported.

What is the risk of long-term opioid use after an emergency room visit? In a large 2017 study by the Mayo Clinic, only about 1 percent of ER patients given an opioid prescription progressed to long term use – similar to what Daoust found.

"Our paper lays to rest the notion that emergency physicians are handing out opioids like candy," said lead author Molly Moore Jeffery, PhD, scientific director of the Mayo Clinic Division of Emergency Medicine Research. “Most opioid prescriptions written in the emergency department are for shorter duration, written for lower daily doses and less likely to be for long-acting formulations."

A 2018 study also questioned the value of prescription drug monitoring programs (PDMPs) which have long been promoted as critical tools in the fight against opioid abuse. The study found little evidence that PDMPs are reducing overdoses and that they may lead to unintended consequences such as patients turning to street drugs for pain relief.

Are You Mad as Hell Yet?

By Fred Brown, Guest Columnist

I experienced in mid-life something that I wish on no one. Because of this event, I live with a disease called chronic pain.  I am considered a “pain patient” by the medical community, but I try not to see myself as such. I am a human being, living my life to the best of my ability.

I had several surgeries to fix a problem in my spine.  These procedures not only failed to fix the problem, they left me with severe and chronic intractable pain.

There is a way to relieve my pain and make me more functional, and it has been part of my life for over two decades: Opioid pain medication prescribed by a board-certified pain management physician.

Opioids give me quality of life and let me be a spouse, father, grandfather and great-grandfather.

The problem I have is that there are people in state and federal agencies, along with legislators in our government, who think they know better than my trained doctor. These officials make claims without any science to back them up. They don’t want me to take opioids or say I should only use them at very low doses that do not work.

FRED BROWN

There are millions of legitimate chronic pain patients like me who need these drugs. They are essentially being told, “Sorry, we do not want your physician to treat you the way they know best. And if you don’t do what we think is best for you, we can do nasty things to you and your doctor.”

These officials can use state and federal powers to take away your physician’s license to practice medicine. And if that is not enough, they can even put them in jail.  The government is persecuting doctors for legitimately prescribing opioids for chronic pain.

There is strong evidence -- using our own government's information -- to prove physicians have not caused the crisis. The writing of opioid prescriptions has been coming down for several years. What has been increasing are patients turning to street drugs or, even worse. committing suicide. They are not able to obtain relief the right way, so they go to the streets!

There has been so much disinformation about opioid medication that our media has distributed to the public.   Over and over, we hear that physicians have overprescribed opioids and caused the “opioid crisis.”

Over 40 years ago, there was a motion picture made called “Network.”  In the movie, there is a fantastic scene where an anchorman named Howard Beale becomes so frustrated and angry during a show that he shouts over and over, “I’m as mad as hell, and I’m not going to take this anymore!”

Then he encourages Americans across the country to open their windows and do the same. Millions do.

To my fellow patients, advocates, friends, doctors and other healthcare workers. It is time to write, call and communicate with your Senator and Congressmen.

Like Howard Beale, tell them you’re mad as hell and you’re not going to take it anymore.   

Fred Brown lives with degenerative disc disease, bone spurs, stenosis and other spinal problems. He is a patient advocate and volunteer with The Alliance for the Treatment of Intractable Pain (ATIP). 

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.

Are Rx Opioids Scapegoats for the Opioid Crisis?

By Dr. Lynn Webster, PNN Columnist

The Washington Post recently published a series of stories about the volume of opioid medication distributed over the past several years in the United States. Over 76 billion pills were distributed from 2002 through 2012.

That sounds like a huge amount, but it is difficult to know what the number means. What is clear is that the stories are meant to suggest the number of pills is excessive and responsible for the rise in opioid overdose deaths. 

This presumed correlation is one reason for the recent lawsuits that have been filed against opioid manufacturers and distributors. It has also spawned policies that appear to have worsened, not prevented, overdoses.

Though the situation has been framed largely as a prescribing problem, the reasons for the drug crisis are many. While overprescribing has certainly been a factor, it is probably less important than other factors, such as joblessness, homelessness and despair, which are more challenging to address.

Let’s look at the data about the relationship between opioid prescriptions and overdose death rates. The number of opioid prescriptions in the United States peaked in 2012 and began a steady decline. By 2017, they reached a 15-year low.

Despite the decline in the number of opioids prescribed, overdoses from all opioids – both legal and illegal -- continued to increase. Overdoses involving prescription opioids represent only about 25% of the total number of drug overdoses.  

Obviously, something more than the supply of prescription opioids is driving overdoses higher.

No Correlation Between Opioid Prescriptions and Overdoses

After winning a year-long court battle with the Justice Department, the Post and HD Media, publisher of the Charleston Gazette-Mail in West Virginia, were able to access data from the DEA’s Automation of Reports and Consolidated Orders System (ARCOS).

The information in the database shows that, between 2006 and 2012, West Virginia received the largest per capita amount of prescription opioids. The state also experienced the highest opioid-related death rate during that period. Is there a correlation?

Kentucky also had a high number of pills and a high death rate, but as Jacob Sullum recently reported in Reason, Kentucky’s death rate in 2017 was actually lower than Maryland’s and Utah’s, where prescription rates are substantially lower. He also pointed out that although Oregon’s prescription rate was among the highest in the country, the rate of deaths involving pain pills in Oregon was just 3.5 per 100,000, lower than the rates in most states. 

Sullum further showed that Kentucky, Nevada, Oklahoma, Oregon, South Carolina and Tennessee were among the 10 states with the highest per capita prescribed pills during the 2006-2012 period. But they were not the states with the highest overdose rates. 

In a separate analysis, the CDC and Agency for Healthcare Research Quality found no correlation -- not even a weak one -- between opioid prescribing rates and overdoses when comparing data from each state. 

In addition, the rate of opioid prescribing is highest nationally for people 55 years and older, but that age group has the lowest rate.  

This lack of correlation between opioid overdoses and the volume of prescribed opioids is consistent internationally. In 2016, England prescribed the most opioids and saw the most overdose deaths in its history. However, the drug responsible for many of those deaths was heroin, not prescription opioids. 

There is a raging opioid crisis in West Africa where, despite a low prescription rate, the number of overdoses has surged. 

In 2018, Scotland's drug overdose rate exceeded that of the United States -- largely because of heroin. There is no evidence of an overall increase in opioid prescribing in Scotland. 

No Simple Answers to the Opioid Crisis

It is clear that the data does not support a simple answer to the opioid crisis. Focusing all of our efforts on decreasing the supply of prescriptions will not solve the problem and is already creating unintended consequences.

In fact, cocaine and methamphetamine were involved in more overdose deaths in the U.S. in 2018 than prescription opioids. As the supply of prescription opioids has decreased due to the policies of the last few years, people have moved from prescription opioids to other illicit drugs.

The solution to the opioid crisis must be multi-pronged. Overprescribing played a role in causing the crisis, but sociological factors appear to have driven the demand. We must consider what prompts people to turn to drugs in despair. A recent study published in SSM-Population shows job loss bears a significant correlation to opioid-caused deaths.

In addition, in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, Princeton University economists Anne Case and Angus Deaton (recipient of the 2015 Nobel prize in economics) showed mortality from substance use was linked to declining economic opportunity and financial insecurity.

Solving the drug crisis will not be easy. However, the disenfranchised members of our most impoverished communities deserve viable solutions to their problems. It is crucial to understand the degree to which job loss and hopelessness contribute to the drug problem.

Reputable data proves that the volume of opioids prescribed is not solely, or even primarily, responsible for the opioid crisis. Let’s focus on what is responsible.

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

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.

Advocating for Your Disabled Child at Public Schools

By Barby Ingle, PNN Columnist

With school starting in the coming weeks, I have been thinking about the special assistance I recieved as a child and how hard my mom and family had to fight for the help I needed. As a child, I was diagnosed with a severe learning disability and had to take special education classes through middle school and have special provisions and testing in high school and college.

According to the U.S. Department of Education, about 5.5 million children with disabilities receive special education and related services, and are protected through the Individuals with Disabilities Act (IDEA). Some kids with special needs do not qualify under IDEA, but are served under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973.

If you are a parent with a disabled child, you may need to inform school administrators that IDEA and the Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA) establish a legal premise that ensures that children with invisible disabilities are afforded the same rights and access to services as children with other disabilities.

Being a part of this system has given me some insight as to how it works. For instance, my parents had to fight for my right to special education teachers and sessions. It should have been much easier for me to get that assistance, but in the 1970’s schools often didn’t want to help.

Federal law prohibits discrimination based upon disability. I eventually got the care I needed, but had to switch from private school to a public school, and my parents had to file and win a lawsuit for the special needs program to start at my elementary school. Their activism not only helped me, but all of the disabled kids that also needed assistance.

What Section 504 Requires

Section 504 is now commonly used across the country for children with learning disabilities, but I still hear of cases where a child has a chronic illness and their parents have to fight for access to a special needs program.

Section 504 is an anti-discrimination, civil rights statute that requires the needs of students with disabilities to be met as adequately as the needs of the non-disabled. It’s purpose is to give children the tools they need to prepare them to be adults who can participate in society through employment and independent living.

A child with a pain disease, disorder, syndrome or condition is protected under Section 504 if they have a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more major life activities. Special assistance should be individualized to your child’s specific needs. This includes deciding how many days they go to special sessions, if they are in the main classroom full-time or part-time, if they get to take their tests in private rooms or have someone read to them the questions, and being allowed to respond verbally if writing is difficult for them.

Many children with chronic pain match the legal definition of a disability, which qualifies them to be protected by federal laws in school and in society as a whole. Even though the pain can’t be seen by others and is subjective, these kids are protected under the law.

How to Help Your Child

A child with chronic pain or an invisible disabling illness will experience physical, social and emotional challenges. You can help educate administrators, teachers and classroom aides about your child’s condition by giving them a list of symptoms and special needs. Be sure to include invisible symptoms and how the child learns best. For instance, they may need a quiet area where the lights are lowered during testing to help them concentrate. Or a child may need to wear sunglasses if they experience migraines.

A parent can also list their child’s strengths, aspirations, likes and dislikes. You should be prepared with medical documentation to educate staff about your child’s conditions and be prepared to appeal decisions made by the school if they are not providing what it takes to assist your child.

Know which kind of special accommodations are needed and should be available. Does your child need adjusted class schedules or grading, behavior management support, extended time on tests and assignments, modified textbooks or audio-video materials, reduced homework or classwork, verbal or visual testing, or technology aids?

Some children may also need help making the transition between homeschooling, special classes and regular classes. It is your responsibility as a parent to stay on top of this and keeping all involved in the loop. Remember, you are the voice of your child and can speak up at any time throughout the year.

Unlike when I was a child who started in private school and had to switch to public schools to get the assistance I needed, today students with disabilities who attend charter schools have the same Section 504 rights as those who attend public schools.

My final tip is to keep a positive attitude when facing challenges and use your right to appeal school decisions when appropriate. Keep track of your child’s progress and advocate for additional services or changes when needed. These needs may change over time. I needed more assistance and help up until 9th grade, and as I learned and grew my plan changed.

From kindergarten through college, keep an eye out for when changes are needed or when services need to upgrade or downgrade, and whether something your child needs is being neglected. For more information and assistance, contact the National Education Association.

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

More information about Barby can be found at her website.  

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

Experts Advise Against It, But Opioids Often Used to Treat Migraine

By Pat Anson, PNN Editor

Too many Americans are still using opioids to treat their migraine headaches, according to migraine experts who say opioids are generally not recommended for migraines and could even cause more headaches.

In a recent online survey of 20,000 migraine patients, 19 percent said they were currently using opioids to treat migraine -- up from the 16 percent reported in 2009 in the American Migraine Prevalence and Prevention Study.

“These data show that, despite the known potential risks of using opioids for migraine, far too many continue to do so,” said Sait Ashina, MD, a neurologist and Director of the Comprehensive Headache Center at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center. “It’s concerning that people may be using these drugs in place of conventional therapies proven to be safer and more effective for migraine.”

Clinical guidelines from the American Headache Society (AHS) encourage the use of triptans and nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) such as aspirin and ibuprofen as first-line treatment for migraine.

Because opioids can increase the frequency of migraines or lead to medication overuse headaches, opioids are typically reserved for patients when triptans and NSAIDs don’t work or are contraindicated. 

The survey found that nearly a quarter of the patients who reported four or more migraines per month were using opioids to treat pain, and more than half of them reported taking opioids at least once to treat a migraine headache. 

The survey is part of the ObserVational Survey of the Epidemiology, tReatment and Care Of MigrainE (OVERCOME) study, which is funded by Eli Lilly. The company makes Emgality, an injectable non-opioid drug that reduces the frequency of migraine.

“OVERCOME showed that, overall, opioids are being used in place of medicines that are approved and indicated to treat migraine – particularly among those who experience migraine headaches more frequently,” said Ashina, who is a paid consultant for Eli Lilly.

A separate analysis of over 21,000 migraine sufferers in the OVERCOME study found that patients who used opioids were more likely to experience depression or anxiety when compared to those who never used opioids.

Opioids Overprescribed to Children

Other studies presented last month at the American Headache Society’s annual meeting indicate that opioids are overprescribed to children with migraine.

In an analysis of nearly 14,500 emergency room visits by adolescents and young adults with migraine, opioids were ordered 23% of the time within 12 hours of admission. In more than half of those cases (58%), an opioid was ordered as first-line therapy. Rates of opioid prescribing for migraine did significantly decrease during the study period, from 2010 to 2016.

Another study presented at the AHS annual meeting found that nearly one of every six children who receives medication for migraine or headache during their first medical visit was prescribed an opioid. The rates were even higher among older teens, with one of every four prescribed an opioid during the 2009 to 2014 study period.

“Opioids are generally not recommended for the treatment of migraine due to limited evidence for efficacy, the risk of dependence and the evidence that opioid treatment is a risk factor for headache exacerbation. The very medication that relieves pain short term may lead to the onset of chronic migraine,” said Richard Lipton, MD, a former president of the American Headache Society.

Migraine affects 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 cause vomiting, blurriness or visual disturbances, as well as sensitivity to light and sound. Women are three times more likely to suffer from migraine than men.

A Survey for Canadian Pain Patients

By Ann Marie Gaudon, PNN Columnist

The last few years have been very difficult for pain patients in Canada. If you are one of the severely pained, you well know that government officials, in a misguided attempt to deal with the problems of addiction and overdose deaths, decided that doctors have been over-prescribing opioid medications and that pain patients taking opioid therapy were the cause of the problems.

The Chronic Pain Association of Canada (CPAC) knows this was never true.

Given the fact that overdose deaths continue to increase as opioid prescriptions have been drastically reduced, government policy has been a total failure while causing tremendous harm to innocent victims.

As a volunteer for CPAC, I want to let you know that our goal is to educate the public, people in medicine, regulatory bodies, and Health Canada on the nature and severity of chronic pain and its treatment. We are working hard behind the scenes to spread awareness with the correct information. No hype, no hysteria – just the facts.

CPAC has created an anonymous survey for Canadians needing opioid medication for pain treatment. We are running out of time and need your help.

The survey is designed to gain a snapshot of how your medical care has unfolded over the past couple of years and how this has affected your overall health. It will take approximately 5 to 10 minutes to complete.

If you are a Canadian pain patient in need of opioid medicines or a caretaker of same, this survey is for you. Please share it widely.

This survey is anonymous: we will not collect personal information, your email address or your computer's IP address.

Once we have collected the data, it will be shared with Health Canada, other government health officials, the media, and all of our allies. If you are not on our emailing list, please join us here.

The time is NOW for your valuable input. Take and/or share the survey by clicking clicking here.

Thank you for helping Canada’s only national advocate for pain patients. We can’t do it without you!

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 over 30 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.

Use of NSAIDs Risky for Osteoarthritis Patients

By Pat Anson, PNN Editor

It’s long been known that nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) such as ibuprofen and naproxen can raise the risk of cardiovascular problems. A large new study in Canada has documented how NSAIDs can significantly raise the risk of heart disease, congestive heart failure and stroke in people with osteoarthritis.

Osteoarthritis (OA) is a joint disorder that leads to thinning of cartilage and progressive joint damage. NSAIDs are frequently used to treat the pain and inflammation caused by OA.

The Canadian study, published in the journal Arthritis & Rheumatology, looked at nearly 7,750 osteoarthritis patients in British Columbia and compared them with a control group of over 23,000 patients without OA. The average age of the participants was 65 and a little over half were women.

The risk of developing cardiovascular disease was found to be about 23% higher among people with OA than the control group. Researchers attributed about 41% of that increased risk to the use of NSAIDs.

NSAIDs appeared to play a significant role in several cardiovascular problems. The risk of congestive heart failure was 42% higher among people with OA, followed by a 17% greater risk of heart disease and a 14% greater risk of stroke.

"To the best of our knowledge, this is the first longitudinal study to evaluate the mediating role of NSAID use in the relationship between osteoarthritis and cardiovascular disease in a large population-based sample," said senior author Aslam Anis, PhD, of the School of Population and Public Health at the University of British Columbia.

"Our results indicate that osteoarthritis is an independent risk factor for cardiovascular disease and suggest a substantial proportion of the increased risk is due to the use of NSAIDs. This is highly relevant because NSAIDs are some of the most commonly used drugs to manage pain in patients with osteoarthritis."

The association of cardiovascular disease with NSAIDs is consistent with previous research.  A large international study in 2017, for example, found that prescription strength NSAIDs raises the risk of a heart attack as soon as the first week of use.

NSAIDs are used to alleviate pain and reduce inflammation, and are found in a wide variety of over-the-counter products, including cold and flu remedies. They are found in so many products -- such as Advil and Motrin -- that many consumers may not be aware how often they use NSAIDs. 

Canada adopted guidelines in 2017 that recommend NSAIDs as an alternative to opioid pain medication. The guideline makes no mention of the health risks associated with NSAIDs, but focuses on their cost effectiveness.

“NSAID-based treatment may have lower mean costs and higher effectiveness relative to opioids,” the guideline states. “Naproxen-based regimens in particular may be more cost effective compared to opioids and other NSAIDs, such as ibuprofen and celecoxib.”

Opioid guidelines released in 2016 by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention also recommend NSAIDs as an alternative to opioids, but acknowledge the medications “do have risks, including gastrointestinal bleeding or perforation as well as renal and cardiovascular risks.”

In 2015, the Food and Drug Administration ordered warning labels for all NSAIDs to indicate they increase the risk of a fatal heart attack or stroke. The FDA warning does not apply to aspirin.

The European Society of Cardiology recommends limited use of NSAIDs by patients who are at risk of heart failure. People already diagnosed with heart failure should refrain from using NSAIDs altogether.

A Pained Life: We Need More Than Opioids

By Carol Levy, PNN Columnist

There is no question we need to be active and stay on top of what the CDC and other federal agencies are doing that impedes our ability to get opioid medication.  For many chronic pain patients, opioids are the only effective pain reliever.

I wonder though: In focusing almost all of our energies on the issue of opioids, are we ignoring another front that needs to be addressed?

Cancer seems like the best analogy to me, maybe the only one. There are many forms of cancer but at the end of the day they all involve the excessive growth of cells that spread into surrounding tissue. All cancers, to my knowledge, start from that one errant misfire.

In recent years we have seen cancer treatments change and become more specific -- this combination of chemotherapy for lung cancer, a different type of chemo for sarcoma or leukemia, and so on. But ultimately, they are all some form of chemotherapy.

Unlike cancer, we can’t put all of our eggs into one basket. There is no universal type of “chronic pain.” We need to have different treatments and regimens for each pain disorder.

Trigeminal neuralgia and other cranial neuropathies have a different cause and mechanism than rheumatoid arthritis and other autoimmune diseases. So do multiple sclerosis and arachnoiditis.  Conditions like fibromyalgia and Chronic Regional Pain Syndrome (CRPS) are still poorly understood and difficult to treat.

Unlike cancer, we need to have multiple approaches to chronic pain syndromes. No one has come up with anything better than opioids for pain control and relief – at least not yet -- so this choice must remain accessible. But we must also not lose sight of the need for better treatments and possibly even cures for every pain condition.

We have to let it be known that we need opioids, not because they make us high, but because there is nothing else out there to take their place.  It is well past time for the government to understand, if they want to end the use of opioids, they must first ensure that there are other viable options out there.

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

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.

CDC: Still Not Enough Naloxone

By Pat Anson, PNN Editor

The Trump Administration is stepping up efforts to increase prescribing of naloxone, an overdose recovery drug credited with saving thousands of lives.

Although naloxone prescriptions have increased dramatically, a new CDC Vital Signs report estimates that nearly 9 million additional prescriptions could have been dispensed last year if every patient with a high-dose opioid prescription was offered naloxone.  Patients are considered “high risk” if they take an opioid dose of 50 morphine milligram equivalent (MME) or more per day.

Naloxone has been used for years by first responders and emergency medical providers to revive overdose victims. Current efforts are focused on expanding access to the drug by prescribing it directly to patients considered at risk of an overdose.

In 2018, CDC researchers say only one naloxone prescription was dispensed for every 70 high-dose opioid prescriptions nationwide. Naloxone “under-prescribing” was even more acute in rural counties, which are nearly three times more likely to be ranked low in naloxone dispensing than metropolitan counties.

“It is clear from the data that there is still much needed education around the important role naloxone plays in reducing overdose deaths. The time is now to ensure all individuals who are prescribed high-dose opioids also receive naloxone as a potential life-saving intervention,” CDC Director Robert Redfield, MD, said in a statement.

Ironically, federal policies contribute to the under-prescribing. In 2018, most (71%) Medicare prescriptions for naloxone required a copay, compared to 42% for commercial insurance.

In January, the Food and Drug Administration encouraged drug makers to make naloxone available over-the-counter without a prescription. The FDA even developed an OTC label for Narcan, a naloxone nasal spray that sells for about $135. Seven months later, the FDA could not confirm to PNN that any company had submitted an application for an OTC version of naloxone.

Last year the Department of Health and Human Services released guidance urging doctors to “strongly consider” prescribing naloxone to patients on any dose of opioids when they also have respiratory conditions or obstructive sleep apnea, are co-prescribed benzodiazepines, have a mental health or substance abuse disorder, or a history of illegal drug use or prescription opioid misuse.

Many states are also taking steps to increase naloxone prescribing. California now requires doctors to “offer” naloxone prescriptions to pain patients deemed at high risk of an overdose. State law does not make the prescriptions mandatory, yet some patients say they were “blackmailed” by pharmacists who refused to fill their opioid scripts unless naloxone was also purchased. Patients around the country report similar experiences.   

Unintended Consequences

The drumbeat for naloxone comes at a time when sales are already booming. There were 556,000 naloxone prescriptions in 2018, twice as many as in 2017.

There’s no doubt naloxone saves lives, but some researchers say the drug has had little effect on the overdose crisis and may in fact be making it worse. In a recent study published by SSRN, two economics professors warned of “unintended consequences” if naloxone becomes more widely available.

“We expect these unintended consequences to occur through two channels. First, the reduced risk of death makes opioid abuse more appealing, leading some to increase their opioid use — or use more potent forms of the drug — when they have naloxone as a safety net. Some of those abusers may become criminally active to fund their increased drug use,” wrote Jennifer Doleac, PhD, Texas A&M University, and co-author Anita Mukherjee, PhD, University of Wisconsin.

“Furthermore, expanding naloxone access might not in fact reduce mortality. Though the risk of death per opioid use falls, an increase in the number or potency of uses means the expected effect on mortality is ambiguous.”

The researchers said there were anecdotal reports of “naloxone parties” where attendees used heroin and prescription opioids to get high knowing they could be revived. News reports have also quoted first responders who are frustrated that the same opioid abusers “are saved again and again by naloxone without getting treatment.”

Co-Pay Assistance Programs Fail to Help Uninsured Patients

By Pat Anson, PNN Editor

Co-pay assistance programs – also known as co-pay charities – are ostensibly designed to help needy patients pay for prescription drugs. But a new study by researchers at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health found that nearly all co-pay programs fail to cover uninsured patients who need financial help the most.

The researchers also found that co-pay programs were more likely to cover high-cost, brand-name prescription drugs, despite the availability of lower-priced generic medications. The findings are published online in JAMA.

“Independent patient assistance programs favor higher-priced drugs, and the higher the drug price, the higher the likelihood of it being covered,” says co-author Gerard Anderson, PhD, professor in the Bloomberg School’s Department of Health Policy and Management. “Unfortunately patients with the greatest financial needs -- people without health insurance -- do not qualify for these programs.”

Anderson and his colleagues looked at the six largest charity organizations, which ran 274 different patient assistance programs in 2018.

Most of the programs only covered drugs for cancer-related conditions or genetic and rare diseases. None offered free drugs and typically they only covered the most expensive medications.

“Only covering insured patients may help these programs cover more patients with their limited funds,” said lead author So-Yeon Kang, MPH, a research assistant in the Bloomberg School’s Department of Health Policy and Management. “But leaving out the uninsured diminishes the charitable aspects of these organizations supported by tax-exempted donations.”

Misconduct Widespread

Patient assistance programs run by independent charities are usually funded by pharmaceutical companies. Federal investigations into several co-pay assistance programs led to multimillion-dollar settlements with drug companies for allegedly steering patients to their higher-priced drugs.

Over the past year, Pfizer, Amgen, Jazz Pharmaceuticals, Astellas Pharma, Lundbeck and Alexion have all paid heavy fines to settle allegations that they used co-pay programs to defraud Medicare. Federal anti-kickback laws prohibit pharmaceutical companies from making any kind of payment to induce Medicare patients to purchase their drugs. The prohibition includes co-pays.

“We are committed to ensuring that pharmaceutical companies do not use third-party foundations to pay kickbacks masking the high prices those companies charge for their drugs,”  U.S. Attorney Andrew Lelling said in a statement. “This misconduct is widespread, and enforcement will continue until pharmaceutical companies stop circumventing the anti-kickback laws to artificially bolster high drug prices, all at the expense of American taxpayers.”

Similar allegations were made against Insys Therapeutics and the “Gain Against Pain” co-pay program run by the U.S. Pain Foundation. Insys donated over $3.1 million to U.S. Pain, with most of the money going to its co-pay program to help patients pay for Subsys, an expensive fentanyl spray made by Insys. A four-day supply of Subsys can cost nearly $24,000.

The founder of Insys and four former executives were recently found guilty of racketeering charges unrelated to the co-pay program. The company also agreed to pay $225 million in fines and penalties to settle criminal and civil investigations. U.S. Pain ended the “Gain Against Pain” program in 2018 and said it would no longer accept funding from Insys.

In an editorial, Katherine Kraschel, a lecturer at Yale Law School, and Gregory Curfman, MD, deputy editor of JAMA, called for more oversight of co-pay programs to make sure they help patients who truly need it.

“Although patient assistance programs may provide important financial relief for patients, the current patient assistance program structure largely neglects uninsured individuals,” they wrote.  “Absent other regulatory interventions, the Department of Justice needs to continue to scrutinize patient assistance program practices, and the Internal Revenue Service and state attorneys general should examine the tax-exempt status of patient assistance programs.”

Professional Athletes Get Stem Cell Therapy, But Should You?

By Liz Szabo, Kaiser Health News

Baseball superstar Max Scherzer — whose back injury has prevented him from pitching for the Washington Nationals since he last played on July 25 — is the latest in a long list of professional athletes to embrace stem cell injections in an attempt to accelerate their recovery.

But many doctors and ethicists worry that pro athletes — who have played a key role in popularizing stem cells — are misleading the public into thinking that the costly, controversial shots are an accepted, approved treatment.

“It sends a signal to all the fans out there that stem cells have more value than they really do,” said Dr. James Rickert, president of the Society for Patient Centered Orthopedics, which advocates for high-quality care. “It’s extremely good PR for the people selling this kind of thing. But there’s no question that this is an unproven treatment.”

Stem cells and related therapies, such as platelet injections, have been used for the past decade by top athletes: golfer Tiger Woods, tennis pro Rafael Nadal, hockey legend Gordie Howe, basketball player Kobe Bryant and NFL quarterback Peyton Manning. Stem cells are offered at roughly 1,000 clinics nationwide, as well as at some of the country’s most respected hospitals.

Depending on the treatment, the cost can range from hundreds to thousands of dollars. Insurance does not cover the treatments in most cases, so patients pay out of pocket.

Yet for all the hype, there’s no proof it works, said Paul Knoepfler, a professor in the department of cell biology and human anatomy at the University of California at Davis.

By Arturo Pardavila III from Hoboken, NJ, USA

Referring to Scherzer, Knoepfler said, “There’s really not much evidence that it’s going to help him, other than as a psychological boost or as a placebo effect.”

Scherzer, 35, said he received a stem cell shot Friday for a mild strain in his upper back and shoulder. According to a news story on the Major League Baseball website, Scherzer also previously had a stem cell injection to treat a thumb injury.

If the diagnosis of Scherzer’s mild muscle strain is correct, it should completely heal itself with 10 days of rest, Rickert said, so Scherzer would probably feel ready to play by Monday even without the stem cells. But Rickert said he worries about other athletes who are tempted to return to the field too soon.

“The risk from the stem cell procedure is that it could give someone a false sense of confidence, and they could go back to play too early” and reinjure themselves, he said.

A spokeswoman for the Washington Nationals declined to provide information about Scherzer’s treatment, such as the type of stem cells used or the name of the clinician who administered them.

Clinics that offer stem cell treatments prepare injections by withdrawing a person’s fat or bone marrow, then processing the cells and injecting them back into aching joints, tendons or muscles.

Another popular treatment involves concentrating platelets — the cells that help blood clot. Many people confuse platelet injections with stem cell injections, perhaps because the shots are promoted as treatments for similar conditions, said Dr. Kelly Scollon-Grieve, a physical medicine and rehabilitation specialist at Premier Orthopaedics in Havertown, Pa.

Placebo Effect on Pain

When it comes to pain, injections can act as powerful placebos, partly because suffering patients put so much faith in treatment, said Dr. Nicholas DiNubile, an orthopedic surgeon and former consultant for the Philadelphia 76ers.

In a recent analysis, more than 80% of patients with knee arthritis perceived a noticeable improvement in pain after receiving a placebo of simple saline shots.

Team doctors often treat athletes with a variety of therapies, in the hope of getting them quickly back on the field, said Arthur Caplan, director of the division of medical ethics at New York University School of Medicine. Athletes may assume that stem cells are responsible for their recovery, when the real credit should go to other remedies, such as ice, heat, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory medications, cortisone shots, massage, physical therapy or simple rest.

“These are the richest, most highly paid athletes around,” Caplan said. (Scherzer and the Nats agreed to a $210 million, seven-year contract in 2015.) “So anything you can think of, they’re getting. But I wouldn’t use them as a role model for how to treat injuries.”

While athletes often talk about their stem cell treatments, Caplan said he wonders, “Would the inflammation or problem have just gone away on its own?”

Sports fans shouldn’t expect to have the same reaction to stem cells — or any medical intervention — as a professional athlete, DiNubile said.

In general, athletes recover far more rapidly than other people, just because they’re so young and fit, DiNubile said. The genes and training that propelled them to the major leagues may also aid in their recovery. “They have access to the best care, night and day,” DiNubile said.

Whenever a top athlete is treated with stem cells, word spreads quickly on social media. Fans often end up doing the stem cell industry’s marketing for them: A 2015 analysis found that 72% of tweets about Gordie Howe’s stem cell treatments were positive. Of 2,783 tweets studied, only one mentioned that Howe’s treatment, delivered in Mexico after Howe’s stroke, was unproved and not approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration. Howe died in 2016.

The Mexican stem cell clinic provided Howe’s treatment at no charge. Clinics use such donations as a form of marketing, because they generate priceless publicity, said Leigh Turner, an associate professor at the University of Minnesota’s Center for Bioethics who has published articles describing the size and dynamics of the stem cell market.

“Clinics provide free stem cell treatments or offer procedures at a discounted rate, and in return they can generate YouTube testimonials, press releases and positive media coverage,” Turner said. “It’s also a good way to build relationships with wealthy individuals and get them to refer friends and family members for stem cell procedures.”

Stem cell clinics often feature athletes and other celebrities on their websites and in marketing materials.

In a 2018 column, Los Angeles Times writer Michael Hiltzik noted that stem cell treatment has failed three baseball players with the Los Angeles Angels. Players Shohei Ohtani, Andrew Heaney and Garrett Richards, who is no longer with the Angels, tried stem cells in the past three years in an effort to avoid surgery. All ended up needing surgery anyway.

As DiNubile said, “the marketing is clearly ahead of the science, no question.”

Kaiser Health News (KHN) is a national health policy news service. It is an editorially independent program of the Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation which is not affiliated with Kaiser Permanente.

Would Decriminalization Solve the Overdose Crisis?

By Pat Anson, PNN Editor

Vancouver, British Columbia was the first major North American city to be hit by the overdose crisis. In 2016, after a wave of overdose deaths involving illicit fentanyl and even more deadly synthetic opioids like carfentanil, the western Canadian province declared a public health emergency.

Despite efforts to decrease the supply of prescription opioids in BC, over 3,600 more people have overdosed since the emergency was declared, with fentanyl detected in 87% of the deaths last year.

So when BC’s largest healthcare system recommends some radical solutions to the overdose crisis, it’s worth noting. Vancouver Coastal Health (VCH) released a report last month recommending that illegal drugs be decriminalized and that drug users be given access to prescription opioids as an alternative to the black market.

"Legalization and regulation of all psychoactive substances would reduce people's dependence on the toxic illegal supply, criminal drug trafficking and illegal activities that people with addictions must engage in to finance their drug use," said Dr. Patricia Daly, VCH’s chief medical health officer.  

Some Canadian drug policy experts think the idea makes sense.

"The illegal market is an absolute toxic mess right now," Donald MacPherson, executive director of the Canadian Drug Policy Coalition, told the CBC. "It's really in line with consumer protection strategy ... just like we do with every other substance that we ingest, whether it be food or drugs."

Also notable about the VCH report is that – unlike most regulators and politicians in Canada and the U.S. – prescription opioids are not singled out as the root cause of the overdose crisis. Instead, opioid medication is seen as part of the solution.

The report recommends pilot programs to see if prescription fentanyl and other opioid medications made available at supervised consumption sites could help high-risk illicit drug users “transition” to legal opioids.

“Piloting legal access to opioids is different from OAT (opioid agonist therapy) as treatment and would be low-barrier and flexible. Initial pilots would include observation of consumption, followed by pilots allowing distribution of opioids for people to take away for later consumption,” the report recommends.

The idea is controversial, but some doctors are warming up to it. A pilot program recently began at a Vancouver clinic, where hydromorphone tablets are given to about 50 patients who ingest them on site under staff supervision. In Ontario, over 400 healthcare providers and researchers recently signed an open letter asking that high dose injectable hydromorphone be made widely available to illicit drug users.

Substance Abuse and Socioeconomic Problems

The primary cause of the opioid crisis, according to the VCH report, is a “complex interaction” of socioeconomic problems, such as unemployment and homelessness, combined with substance abuse and an increasingly dangerous black market supply.

VCH analyzed the deaths of 424 overdose victims from 2017 and found that less than half (45%) even sought treatment for acute or chronic pain. They were far more likely to be unemployed (72%) and have a substance abuse problem (84%). About four out of ten overdose victims used opioids, alcohol or stimulants daily.

“Most of those who died used multiple substances including opioids, alcohol and stimulants such as cocaine and crystal meth. A significant percentage of those who died of opioid overdoses had primary alcohol use disorder and/or stimulant use disorder,” the report found.

Importantly, most of those who died were no strangers to the healthcare system. The vast majority (77%) had seen a healthcare provider in the year before they overdosed and one out of five (21%) had seen a provider a week before their death. Six out of ten (59%) had received Suboxone or methadone to treat opioid addiction, but the medications were either not effective or they dropped out of treatment.

In addition to decriminalization, the VCH report recommends improving access to addiction treatment, better substance abuse training of healthcare providers, and increased access to the overdose reversal drug naloxone.