Is Your Spinal Pain Inflammatory or Neuropathic?

By Forest Tennant, PNN Columnist

Every person with Adhesive Arachnoiditis (AA) or other spinal canal disorder needs to determine if their pain is primarily inflammatory, neuropathic or both. Why? The treatments are different.

AA is fundamentally an inflammatory disease that involves two different intraspinal canal tissues: the cauda equina nerve roots and the arachnoid-dural covering of the spinal canal. The inflammation causes damage to the nerve roots, so electricity either can’t pass or it doesn’t pass in a smooth, natural flow.

Nerve damage that blocks or alters electricity conduction is called “neuropathic” pain. AA usually has both inflammatory and neuropathic pain, but the inflammation may resolve and leave behind damaged nerve roots and neuropathic pain.

The inflammatory and neuropathic pain of AA may also develop into Intractable Pain Syndrome, which is constant, incurable pain with cardiovascular, endocrine (hormonal) and autoimmune complications.

Persons with AA usually need to treat both kinds of pain – inflammatory and neuropathic --   but one type may be predominant. A blood test for inflammatory markers is helpful, but not totally diagnostic.

If your pain improves with a trial of ketorolac (1 or 2 injections) or a corticosteroid (Medrol Dose Pak or dexamethasone), you have active inflammation that must be treated. We also recommend botanical anti-inflammatory agents, such as curcumin/turmeric, Andrographis and serrapeptase.

Prescription medications for neuropathic pain include gabapentin (Neurontin), diazepam, carisoprodol, topiramate, Lyrica and Cymbalta.

Every person with AA of the cervical and/or lumbar spines should experiment with topical medications, such as the Salonpas patch, lidocaine gel or patch, Voltaren gel and diclofenac (prescription needed).

Topical medication that is applied and massaged into the skin may dissolve through the tissues to the inflamed or damaged area. On average, you can expect 10 to 25% additional pain relief, plus the potential to permanently reduce your pain. Sometimes topical  medication will relieve painful areas that other drugs taken orally or by injection cannot reach.

Forest Tennant is retired from clinical practice but continues his research on the treatment of intractable pain and arachnoiditis. This column is adapted from bulletins recently issued by the Arachnoiditis Research and Education Project. Readers interested in subscribing to the bulletins should send an email to tennantfoundation92@gmail.com.

The Tennant Foundation gives financial support to Pain News Network and sponsors PNN’s Patient Resources section.  

A Virtual Headache on the Hill

By Mia Maysack, PNN Columnist

Last week I was fortunate to attend the 14th annual “Headache on the Hill,” a lobbying event held by the Alliance for Headache Disorders Advocacy (AHDA).  We had the largest turnout ever in participants and number of meetings, although it was a far different affair than previous ones.  

Due to the pandemic and Covid precautions, visits to congressional offices that normally would've taken place in person on Capitol Hill were conducted online via Zoom -- which was an adjustment I was grateful to make.

As a result of doing things virtually, it gave people who ordinarily may not be well enough to attend an opportunity to do so. I feel this is a more inclusive approach and should perhaps remain an option even after this pandemic settles. 

Traveling is extraordinarily strenuous on my health and always requires an extensive amount of recovery time. So the opportunity to lie down in between meetings and have the comforts of home around me -- such as soft lighting and blackout curtains -- made all the difference and helped make getting through the day possible. It also ensures I won't be confronted by weeks on end of flare ups and pain cycles. 

I am proud to represent the state of Wisconsin as a volunteer patient advocate, human rights activist and someone who has lived with intractable head pain to some extent each and every day for almost 21 years as a direct result of a traumatic brain injury.  

Given that there are around 40 million people in the U.S. alone who live with migraine disease, the odds are that you either experience it yourself or know of someone who does.  For those who are privileged not to have migraine, Covid-19 has given you a small taste of how we often exist:  shut in and unable to see loved ones, go to work or do things we enjoy. 

I live with both migraine disease and cluster headaches, which are called “suicide headaches” for good reason.  There's no limit to the chaos, interruption, inconvenience and discomfort these conditions have caused in my life, requiring my full time attention just to manage the symptoms.

The difficult experiences I and countless others have faced in seeking, finding and attempting different forms of treatment is why I continue to advocate -- even when I don't feel up to it. Migraine and other forms of head pain are at the top of the list regarding burden and disability, yet we've been severely limited with treatment options that usually mask the symptoms temporarily, as opposed to addressing the root cause.   

We've seen progress in recent years with more injectable treatment options, after being limited for decades to oral triptans. But insurance for the shots can be a nightmare (if you're fortunate enough to have insurance) and I received what was labeled as a "bad batch" of shots that gave me side effects I am still living with today.   

What We Asked For

Our medical system is set up in such a way that we’re able to receive a prescription relatively easily, but alternative tools such as water therapy, massage, oxygen and mindfulness meditation aren't seriously considered, let alone covered. This is a very real problem.

It also makes no sense that migraine conditions are some of the least funded research areas for the National Institutes of Health. Our “asks” during Headache on the Hill were to devote more funding toward the research and treatment of migraine. Currently there's only $20 million or so being spent. We’re requesting $50 Million designated specifically for NIH research on migraine and headache disorders.  

Additional funding could also help incentivize more providers to obtain neurology-related medical degrees, as there is a severe shortage and need for more headache specialists. More funding is needed to develop new treatments, help cultivate data on the benefits of more holistic approaches, and assist in providing more dignity to those of us who feel invisible and shunned by a system that's supposed to be on our side.  

Furthermore, and perhaps even more disgracefully, hundreds of thousands of our military veterans suffer from traumatic brain injuries as a result of being exposed to explosions and toxic open burn pits.  We asked for another $25 million to double the number of specialized treatment sites that the VA has for veterans with headache disorders. 

These are the individuals who ensure that we possess and maintain the liberties of this country and they deserve the absolute best we have to offer. I know that we can do better on all of these issues and we must. It's time to urge our representatives to follow through and do the right thing.  

You can help by visiting the AHDA website and following the prompts for sending an email to your representatives and senators.  Urge them to fully fund the VA’s Headache Disorders Centers. 

Mia Maysack lives with chronic migraine, cluster headache and fibromyalgia. Mia is the founder of Keepin’ Our Heads Up, a Facebook advocacy and support group, and Peace & Love, a wellness and life coaching practice for the chronically ill. 

The Unintended Consequences of the CDC Opioid Guideline

By Dr. Lynn Webster, PNN Columnist

Jack Schwartz (a pseudonym) is a child of Holocaust survivors. As a small boy, he was traumatized by observing his older brother become addicted to heroin. He also developed a substance use disorder of his own that he believes was due, in part, to childhood PTSD.

A 64-year-old psychotherapist, Schwartz has been in chronic pain since a 1996 car accident injured his neck. Although he has a history of substance use disorder, he has used opioids to manage his pain for the past several years.

His personal physician, who retired at the end of 2020, wrote a letter stating Schwartz has been prescribed Norco (a combination of acetaminophen and hydrocodone), has been compliant, and has shown no signs of abuse for the previous four years. The retiring doctor hoped Schwartz would be able to find someone to continue prescribing his Norco.

Schwartz has not yet found a new physician. In the meantime, his insurance company notified him that they would not pay for his medication, citing the CDC’s opioid prescribing guideline and their own opioid policy, which states that "narcotics are not the treatment of choice for chronic nonmalignant pain."

Schwartz contacted me after reading a PNN column I wrote, "Ironic Partners: Suicide Prevention and Pain Awareness Month." He said he was suicidal and asked me for advice. We agreed that sharing his story might help others in similar positions.

Who Should Write Clinical Guidelines?

Regrettably, Schwartz’s situation is not uncommon. Many insurers and regulators have adopted rigid policies that cite the CDC’s voluntary guideline as if it was the standard of care. The CDC has admitted its guideline is being misapplied and is working on an update, but so far the agency has done little to correct the problem.

In fact, the CDC has gone even further than the guideline, producing a fact sheet for physicians, “Nonopioid Treatments for Chronic Pain,” in which it recommends alternative medications for common chronic pain conditions including migraine, low back pain, osteoarthritis, fibromyalgia, and neuropathic pain.

Why is the CDC making medical treatment recommendations?

Cardiologists and heart surgeons should develop recommendations for managing heart disease. Endocrinologists should offer recommendations for managing diabetes. Infectious disease specialists should make recommendations for managing infections. Addiction specialists should provide recommendations for treating addiction. And it is pain specialists who should develop treatment guidelines for treating pain.

The way it should work is this: Professional organizations representing medical specialties develop treatment guidelines. Whenever possible, input should be solicited from patient stakeholders. The role of government organizations such as the National Institutes of Health, FDA, CDC, and DEA should be to provide data and resources to these groups, so they can initiate and revise treatment guidelines as the science evolves.

Specialists should lead the way to ensure patient care is clinically driven and patient-centered. Non-clinicians, such as government officials — even if they have medical degrees— should not be making treatment decisions or creating guidelines for specialists and their patients.

Walking Back the CDC Guideline

In my view, it was a mistake for the CDC to release the guideline in 2016. Before it was published, I predicted people in pain would suffer and that the guideline would not reduce the number of opioid-related overdose deaths. Unfortunately, I was correct.

Many providers, patients and their loved ones have urged the CDC to revise or withdraw the guideline. The American Medical Association has urged the CDC to make "significant revisions."  

The three co-authors of the guideline, Deborah Dowell, MD, Tamara Haegerich, PhD, and Roger Chou, MD, even wrote a commentary for The New England Journal of Medicine in 2019 acknowledging that their recommendations were being misapplied and were “likely to result in harm to patients.”

The admission that the CDC guideline was harmful was long overdue. Now the question of how the recommendations should be changed must be addressed. Hopefully, the CDC will consider input from people who have been harmed the most by the guideline and will revise their recommendations accordingly.

Jack Schwartz continues to struggle with intractable pain and suicidal feelings. He, and millions of people like him, need for your opinion and your provider’s perspective, to be heard. Maybe then more rational decisions will be made regarding the use of opioids for the treatment of pain.

Lynn R. Webster, MD, is a vice president of scientific affairs for PRA Health Sciences and consults with the pharmaceutical industry. Lynn is author of the award-winning book The Painful Truth, and co-producer of the documentary It Hurts Until You Die. Opinions expressed here are those of the author alone and do not reflect the views or policy of PRA Health Sciences. You can find him on Twitter: @LynnRWebsterMD.

Cannabis Users Deserve Better Research

By Roger Chriss, PNN Columnist

This has been a challenging month for supporters of medical cannabis, with two professional pain societies – the Australian and New Zealand College of Anaesthetists and the International Association for the Study of Pain (IASP) both releasing statements saying they do not endorse the use of cannabis to treat pain.

IASP’s position statement came after a two-and-a-half-year review of cannabis studies by researchers at the University of Bath's Centre for Pain Research, who found little evidence to support the use of cannabis for pain control.

“Cannabis seems to attract strong opinions. If ever a field needed evidence and a rigorous scientific opinion it is this one. For many this will be an unpopular conclusion, but we need to face up to the fact that the evidence is simply lacking. Science is not about popularity but keeping people safe from false claims,” said Professor Christopher Eccleston, Director of the Centre for Pain Research

Eccleston and his colleagues published their findings in a series of 13 articles in IASP’s journal PAIN. They found that many cannabis studies had too few participants, tested a single-dose exposure in a laboratory, or the trials only lasted a couple of weeks. Such work can justify further research, but not the clinical use of a drug by patients, which requires long-term studies of safety and efficacy.

"Cannabis, cannabinoids, and cannabis-based medicines are becoming an increasingly popular alternative to manage pain. However, our review shows that there is limited evidence to support or refute their use for the management of any pain condition. The studies we found were poor quality and the evidence was of very low-certainty," said Dr. Emma Fisher of the University of Bath.

Although cannabis has been used for thousands of years for pain and other conditions, there are few good quality studies to support its use, as anesthesiologist Abdul-Ghalliq Lalkhen, MD, notes in his new book, “An Anatomy of Pain.”

“There have so far been only twelve randomized controlled trials on cannabis in the past five years, and most of these studies have indicated that cannabinoids are not effective in the management of neuropathic pain," wrote Lalkhen.

Even when cannabis studies are conducted, they often have disappointing results. Zynerba Pharmaceuticals had high hopes for developing CBD drugs and a transdermal CBD skin patch, but quietly dropped them after disappointing clinical trials.

“Zynerba’s drugs have struggled mightily in the clinic, missing key endpoints and sometimes failing to show dose-dependent responses. Plans for an epilepsy and osteoarthritis drug fell away with clinical failures in 2017. A year later, so did a patch that was meant to deliver their THC through the skin,” Jason Mast reported in Endpoints News.

The lack of good evidence was noted by the Food and Drug Administration when it recently warned two companies illegally marketing over-the-counter CBD products for pain relief:

“It’s important that consumers understand that the FDA has only approved one drug containing CBD as an ingredient. These other, unapproved, CBD products may have dangerous health impacts and side effects. We remain focused on exploring potential pathways for CBD products to be lawfully marketed while also educating the public about these outstanding questions of CBD’s safety,” said FDA Principal Deputy Commissioner Amy Abernethy, MD.

Even when high-quality, placebo controlled trials are conducted, they often fail to replicate the results of lower-quality studies. For instance, cannabis is often touted for post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). But a recent clinical trial of cannabis for PTSD found it worked no better than a placebo.

“No active treatment statistically outperformed placebo in this brief, preliminary trial. Additional well-controlled and adequately powered studies with cannabis suitable for FDA drug development are needed to determine whether smoked cannabis improves symptoms of PTSD,” researchers concluded.

The American Medical Association takes a similar view. “Scientifically valid and well-controlled clinical trials conducted under federal investigational new drug applications are necessary to assess the safety and effectiveness of all new drugs, including potential cannabis products for medical use,” the AMA said.

Cannabis users deserve high-quality research. And the medical community deserves respect for not endorsing cannabis before the evidence base is well established. Arguing over low-quality studies does not have the persuasive power of a high-quality clinical trial.

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.

FDA Panels Say New Arthritis Drug Too Risky

By Pat Anson, PNN Editor

Two FDA advisory committees have voted against recommending an experimental non-opioid pain reliever as a new treatment for osteoarthritis, dealing a potential death blow to a drug that’s been under development for 15 years.

On a nearly unanimous 19 to 1 vote, the FDA’s Arthritis Advisory Commitee and Drug Safety and Risk Management Advisory Committee decided that the benefits of tanezumab do not outweigh its possible safety risks, which include the acceleration of osteoarthritis in some patients.  Advisory committee recommendations are not binding on the FDA, but they are likely to carry a good deal of weight when the agency makes a final decision on tanezumab.

Pfizer and Eli Lilly are jointly developing tanezumab, an injectable humanized monoclonal antibody that targets nerve growth factor (NGF), a protein that increases in the body due to injury, inflammation or chronic pain. Tanezumab binds to NGF and inhibits pain signals from muscles, skin and organs from reaching the brain.

FDA reviewers released a report this week saying tanezumab works as a pain reliever, but the effect “is modest, and there is no convincing evidence of a superior efficacy” over non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), the current standard treatment for osteoarthritis.

More concerning are the potential side effects of tanezumab, the most serious being rapidly progressing osteoarthritis that is so severe some patients need total joint replacements. Investigators say tanezumab also appears to affect healthy joints and causes “abnormal peripheral sensation” similar to carpal tunnel syndrome.

The side effects of tanezumab have been known for over a decade. The FDA slowed the development of tanezumab and other NGF inhibitors in 2010 because of concerns they make osteoarthritis worse in some patients.

Under pressure to approve more non-opioid pain relievers, the FDA allowed clinical studies of tanezumab to resume in 2015 and two years later gave it “fast track” designation to help speed its development.

Pfizer and Eli Lilly have conducted dozens of clinical trials evaluating the safety and efficacy of tanezumab on more than 18,000 patients. The companies at one time considered, but then abandoned plans to develop tanezumab as a treatment for chronic low back pain after 10% of patients given high doses developed joint pain and other side effects.

Critics say its time to finally throw in the towel on tanezumab.

“The drug is unsafe. It accelerates the underlying joint disease. And according to the FDA, even if you stop the drug early on, there’s evidence you can still progress to having these joint problems,” Michael Carome, director of Public Citizen’s Health Research Group, told PNN.  “The decision here is clear cut. The drug should not be approved. And in our view, no further studies on this drug should be done. Because it would be unethical to continue to expose people to this drug where the harm is clear and there’s no real benefit.”

A Pfizer spokesman said the company would continue to seek approval for tanezumab, despite the committees’ recommendation.

“While we are disappointed in today’s outcome, we continue to believe that the clinical data presented for tanezumab supports its benefit-risk profile,” Jim Rusnak, chief development officer for Pfizer, said in a statement. “The patients whom we aim to help with tanezumab are suffering from significant, debilitating osteoarthritis pain and have exhausted available medical therapies and are hopeful for new, non-opioid treatments. We will continue to work with the FDA to determine next steps.”

Osteoarthritis is a progressive joint disorder caused by painful inflammation of soft tissue, which leads to thinning of cartilage and joint damage in the knees, hips, fingers and spine. The World Health Organization estimates that about 10% of men and 18% of women over age 60 have some form of osteoarthritis.

Kolodny: Critics of CDC Opioid Guideline ‘Twisting the Facts’

By Pat Anson, PNN Editor

The founder of the anti-opioid activist group Physicians for Responsible Opioid Prescribing (PROP) says his organization played only a minor role in drafting the CDC opioid guideline and claims much of the controversy over the guideline was stirred up by pain organizations funded by the pharmaceutical industry.

“Not every group that has harmful advocacy is funded by industry, but the vast majority are. The ones that are not funded by industry work arm-in-arm with industry funded groups,” said Dr. Andrew Kolodny. “They have an agenda. A lot of individuals, journalists, organizations that have weighed in on the opioid crisis have an agenda. And they will try and twist the facts to fit their agenda.”

Kolodny spoke for over an hour Tuesday during a webinar hosted by PharmedOut, a program at Georgetown University that seeks to expose deceptive marketing in healthcare. The webinar was billed as an effort to refute “False Narratives & Manufactured Controversies about the Opioid Crisis,” but it turned into a rambling dialogue by Kolodny that gaslighted pain sufferers, doctors, patient advocates and anyone else critical of the CDC guideline.

“Much of the controversy or the critique of the guideline, almost all of it, was focused on the secretive way in which the guideline had been drafted, not on the actual recommendations. They seemed to stay clear from attacking recommendations, almost all of which were pretty benign,” said Kolodny.

Although voluntary and only intended for primary care physicians, the CDC guideline has become the “standard of care” in the United States for treating pain, with millions of patients taken off opioids or reduced to lower doses in the name of preventing addiction and overdoses.

Many patients say their pain and quality of life are now significantly worse, they have a hard time finding doctors, and some have turned to alcohol and illegal drugs for pain relief. The opioid crisis also continues to grow worse, with a record number of fatal overdoses last year – most of them caused by illicit fentanyl and other street drugs, not prescription opioids.

Even the CDC has recognized that its 2016 guideline has caused “unintended harms,” and the agency is now in the process of updating and possibly expanding its recommendations.

Kolodny brushed aside many of those concerns and instead focused on deflecting attention away from PROP –- at various times blaming Purdue Pharma, the Koch brothers and the Washington Legal Foundation for “manufacturing a controversy around the CDC recommendations.”

“To try and make the guideline controversial, the messaging came out that the guideline has been secretly written by PROP. We started to see mentions in social media and publications describing PROP as a fringe group or as anti-opioid zealots. So the messaging was that the CDC relied on this fringe, anti-opioid zealot group to secretly write the guideline,” Kolodny said. 

As PNN has reported, the CDC guideline was in fact drafted in secret, with no public hearings and little input from patients or pain management experts. Only when threatened with a lawsuit by the Washington Legal Foundation and a congressional investigation did the CDC open up the guideline process to public scrutiny and disclose the identities of its advisors and consultants.

At least five PROP board members were involved in drafting the guideline, although Kolodny claimed there were only three in Tuesday’s webinar.  PROP President Jane Ballantyne and Vice-President Gary Franklin were members of a key advisory panel; David Tauben was on the guideline’s peer review panel; and Kolodny and David Juurlink were on a stakeholder review group.

While technically true that PROP did not write the guideline, PROP had input and key relationships within the CDC. Dr. Roger Chou, one of the guideline authors, has collaborated with PROP members on several occasions, such as writing an op/ed with Ballantyne that encouraged doctors to consider tapering “every patient receiving long term opioid therapy.”

Koldony is also a longtime associate and friend of then CDC Director Thomas Frieden, and has co-authored op/eds with Frieden, including one that recommended taking all high-dose opioid medications off the market.

On September 14, 2015, two days before the first draft of the CDC guideline was even made public, Frieden wrote an email to Kolodny thanking him for his role in preparing it. The email was then forwarded by Kolodny to other PROP members

“I want to personally thank you and your organization’s leadership for serving as members of the Stakeholder Review Group,” Frieden wrote. “We greatly appreciate not only your engagement in this process, but also your willingness to do so within the allotted timeframe. Given the public health toll, we have undertaken a process that will expedite publication while maintaining fidelity to the scientific process.”

We may never know the full extent of Kolodny and PROP’s relationship with the CDC, because the agency has refused to disclose key material about its guideline deliberations. The CDC’s response to a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request from PNN was to send us nearly 1,500 pages of documents that were heavily redacted or scrubbed of information. Over 1,200 pages were completely blank, including some of the conflict of interest statements of CDC advisors like Kolodny.

The agency cited “deliberative process privilege” and “personal privacy” as reasons to withhold the information

(Update: In 2022 testimony in West Virginia, Kolodny testified that he started working on opioid litigation in 2012 with Linda Singer from the law firm Cohen Milstein. It’s unknown if he disclosed that relationship to the CDC on his conflict of interest statement. In 2017, Singer joined Motley Rice, yet another law firm involved in opioid litigation.) .

Friendly Questions

Kolodny took only a handful of friendly, softball questions during the PharmedOut webinar, most of them from students at Georgetown University who are interning at PharmedOut. Several pain patients also submitted more critical questions, but they were not passed on to Kolodny.

Although opioid prescriptions in the U.S. have been declining since their peak in 2011, Kolodny says they need to go down further, even though nearly 85% of overdose deaths in the U.S. involve illicit fentanyl and other street drugs.

“We continue to massively overprescribe,” he said. “Opioids are not good treatments for chronic pain. It’s not true that more cautious prescribing somehow jeopardizes compassionate care for chronic pain. Compassionate care for chronic pain really demands more cautious prescribing.”

Kolodny is quick to blame “industry funded groups” for opposition to the CDC guideline, but PROP has remained secretive about its own funding. PROP uses a loophole in IRS regulations that allows it to hide behind front organizations such as the Steve Rummler Hope Network as its “fiscal sponsor.” Because it is not registered as a nonprofit — although it sometimes claims to be one — PROP has never filed a federal or state tax return and is not required to disclose anything about its funding or spending.

Kolodny currently works in opioid research at Brandeis University, but has a lucrative sideline testifying as an expert witness in opioid litigation and malpractice lawsuits. He was paid $725 an hour for his testimony during Oklahoma’s lawsuit against Johnson & Johnson, and may have collected as much as $500,000 for that case alone.

Dr. Adriane Fugh-Berman, who is a PROP board member and Director of PharmedOut, is also a paid expert witness and earned $500 an hour for her testimony in another trial involving Johnson & Johnson. She reportedly received about $120,000 for her work in that case. Like PROP, PharmedOut does not disclose its funding or donors.

Doctors Advised Not To Prescribe Cannabis for Chronic Pain

By Pat Anson, PNN Editors

Pain management experts around the world are becoming more vocal about the growing use of medical marijuana as a treatment for chronic pain, saying there is little evidence to support the use of cannabis as an analgesic.

Today the Faculty of Pain Medicine at the Australian and New Zealand College of Anaesthetists (ANZCA) released new guidance urging doctors not to prescribe medical cannabis for patients with chronic, non-cancer pain unless they are enrolled in a clinical trial.

“Until there are results from high-quality, unbiased clinical trials which establish the effectiveness and safety of medicinal cannabis in treating chronic pain, the Faculty of Pain Medicine does not believe cannabinoid products should be prescribed,” Mick Vagg, MD, Dean of the Faculty of Pain Medicine, said in a statement.  

“We want to highlight to healthcare providers that currently available medical cannabis products are not even close at this stage to showing that they deserve a place in the management of the complex patients who suffer from ongoing pain. We believe clinicians will welcome this clear guidance.”

ANZCA is a professional society for nearly 8,000 anesthesiologists and pain management specialists in Australia and New Zealand, and sets standards for pain medicine in both countries.

Australia and New Zealand have some of the highest rates of cannabis consumption in the world. But New Zealand only allows medical cannabis for terminally ill patients, while Australia requires a prescription for cannabis that is often difficult to obtain.

About one if five Australians live with chronic pain.   

Medical cannabis products are not even close at this stage to showing that they deserve a place in the management of the complex patients who suffer from ongoing pain.
— Dr. Mick Vagg

“By far the most common reason for the use of medicinal cannabis in this country is chronic pain − however there is a critical lack of evidence that it provides a consistent benefit for any type of chronic non-cancer pain, especially compared to the treatments we already strive to provide in pain clinics,” Vagg said.

“The research available is either unsupportive of using cannabinoid products in chronic non-cancer pain or is of such low quality that no valid scientific conclusion can be drawn. Cannabidiol-only formulations have never been the subject of a published randomised controlled trial for chronic pain treatment, yet they are the most commonly prescribed type of cannabis product.”

Vagg also said research is lacking in how cannabinoids react with pharmaceutical drugs, particularly in relation to their sedative and psychiatric side effects.

‘Hypothesis’ of Analgesia

ANZCA’s new guidance came just days after the International Association for the Study of Pain (IASP) released a position statement saying it could not endorse the use of cannabinoids to treat pain. IASP said there were preliminary studies supporting the “hypothesis of cannabinoid analgesia,” but not enough to overcome the lack of evidence on the safety and efficacy of cannabinoids.

“While IASP cannot endorse the general use of cannabinoids for treatment of pain at this time, we do not wish to dismiss the lived experiences of people with pain who have found benefit from their use,” said Andrew Rice, MD, chair of IASP’s Presidential Task Force on Cannabis and Cannabinoid Analgesia.

“This is not a door closing on the topic, but rather a call for more rigorous and robust research to better understand any potential benefits and harms related to the possible use of medical cannabis, cannabis-based medicines and synthetic cannabinoids for pain relief, and to ensure the safety of patients and the public through regulatory standards and safeguards.”

Rice said IASP was concerned that laws allowing the use of medical marijuana were being adopted without the same rigor and regulatory procedures that are followed for pharmaceutical products. Patients who self-treat their pain with cannabis are also at risk, according to Rice, because their doctors often don’t know about their cannabis use.  

“IASP is also calling for the delivery of a comprehensive research agenda. Priorities include identifying patients with pain who may receive the most benefit from cannabis or cannabinoids, and who may be at risk of the most harm,” said former IASP president Lars Arendt-Nielsen, MD, who co-chaired the Cannabis Task Force.

Supporters of medical cannabis dispute the contention that there is inadequate evidence about the use of cannabis for pain.

“These recommendations are political, not scientific. Several peer-reviewed trials have concluded that inhaled cannabis is safe and effective for treating various types of pain, in particular neuropathic pain,” Paul Armentano, Deputy Director of NORML, said in an email to PNN.

Armentano cited a 2017 study from the U.S. National Academy of Sciences, which found “conclusive or substantial evidence” that cannabis is an effective treatment for chronic pain.

“In the real world, the therapeutic use of cannabis is rising among chronic pain patients, many of whom are substituting it in place of opioids. In jurisdictions where cannabis is legally available, chronic pain is the most qualifying condition among medical cannabis patients enrolled in state-specific access programs. To willfully ignore these data is indicative that political considerations, rather than scientific considerations, influenced this group’s decision,” Armentano said.

Injections of Tiny Particles Reduce Osteoarthritis Knee Pain

By Pat Anson, PNN Editor

A minimally invasive procedure significantly reduces pain and inflammation caused by knee osteoarthritis, according to preliminary research being presented this week at the annual meeting of the Society of Interventional Radiology.

Geniculate artery embolization (GAE) is a relatively new procedure in which thousands of microscopic particles are injected into arthritic knees. The particles reduce inflammation by disrupting the abnormal flow of blood caused by osteoarthritis (OA), a joint disorder that causes thinning of cartilage and progressive joint damage. As the cartilage breaks down, it releases enzymes that cause inflammation and pain.

GAE takes about one to two hours, and many patients with knee OA report significant improvement in pain and physical function that can last up to a year.

"Prior to treatment, patients' knee pain had taken over their whole life," said lead researcher Siddharth Padia, MD, a professor of radiology at UCLA Health. "But after treatment, patients who initially could walk only three or four blocks were walking three miles. Some were able to do away with walking aids, such as canes, while others reported being in a better mood now that they were living without pain."

For their Phase 2 study, Padia and his colleagues enrolled 40 patients with knee OA who were not candidates for total knee replacement, and who failed to benefit from pain relievers, joint injections and physical therapy.

Catheters were inserted into arteries leading to the knees through pinhole incisions in the patients’ hips. The microscopic particles — called Embozene microspheres — were then slowly injected through the catheter into the knees. Each patient was evaluated for pain and adverse events at one week; one, three and six months; and one year after the treatment.

Researchers say patients saw benefits as soon as three days after the procedure. Average pain levels decreased from 8 out of 10 before GAE to 3 out of 10 within the first week. Most patients reported more than 50% reduction in their pain levels at the one-year follow up.

Adverse events, such as skin ulceration and small bone infarction – the death of bone tissue due to reduced blood supply -- were reported by 9 patients, but resolved without treatment.

Embozene microspheres are made by Boston Scientific and are currently used in the treatment of vascular tumors, uterine fibroids and arterial malformations. They must be carefully injected into affected tissue to prevent them from circulating in the blood and reaching healthy tissue and organs.

“This prospective trial demonstrates that GAE is highly effective and durable in reducing symptoms due to moderate to severe knee OA that is refractory to other conservative therapy, and has an acceptably low toxicity profile,” researchers concluded.

The UCLA researchers plan to conduct a larger, randomized trial to determine which patients may benefit most from GAE and the impact it has on slowing the progression of arthritis.

Results from other studies on the use of GAE are also being presented at the meeting of the Society of Interventional Radiology. One review found that GAE can be effective for patients who don't respond well to conservative treatments for knee OA, but cautioned that “definitive conclusions can't be made on the true efficacy of GAE until studies are done with longer follow up and larger patient numbers.”

DEA: Drug Cartels Targeting Pain Patients as Potential Customers

By Pat Anson, PNN Editor

The Drug Enforcement Administration’s “National Drug Threat Assessment” is an interesting annual report that gives insight into drug trafficking and drug abuse trends in the United States that you don’t often see in the mainstream media..

The DEA’s 2020 report, released this month, is no exception. One hundred pages long, it covers a broad range of “unclassified” information about drug cartels, counterfeit medication and emerging trends in drug abuse.

“Although we have made progress in driving down the abuse of controlled prescription opioids, the United States continues to face challenges from both new and persistent threats,” said acting DEA Administrator Christopher Evans.

According to the DEA report, the diversion and abuse of opioid painkillers and other controlled prescription drugs (CPDs) are at their “lowest levels in nine years.”

While opioid pain relievers remain the most commonly abused type of prescription drug, most people don’t take them to get high.

The DEA said nearly two-thirds (64%) of drug users “identified relieving pain as the main purpose” for their misuse of painkillers – a staggering statistic that may say more about the poor state of pain care in the U.S. than anything else.

Ironically, the second most widely abused opioid medication was buprenorphine, which is combined with naloxone in addiction treatment drugs such as Suboxone and Zubsolv. The National Forensic Laboratory (NFLIS) reports that buprenorphine is abused far more often than methadone or hydrocodone, and appears poised to soon replace oxycodone as the most commonly abused prescription opioid. 

“Drug data reveals that buprenorphine reports from all participating federal, state, and local laboratories increased each year except a minor drop from 2018 to 2019. (NFLIS) reported a 50 to 67 percent decrease of hydrocodone, methadone, and oxycodone reports from 2014 to 2019, so the 27 percent increase of buprenorphine during that time frame was significant,” DEA said.     

drugs+DEA.jpg

Fentanyl Laced Counterfeit Pills

Not surprisingly, the DEA said illicit fentanyl was “primarily responsible for fueling the ongoing opioid crisis,” with Mexican drug cartels controlling most of the supply for the potent synthetic opioid. With hydrocodone, oxycodone and other legal opioid medications in short supply — and a lot of people with poorly treated pain — the DEA believes drug cartels are actively targeting pain sufferers as potential customers for counterfeit medication.

“The spread of fentanyl-laced counterfeit pills in the United States is likely due to Mexican TCOs (Transnational Criminal Organizations) seeking to further distribute fentanyl into prescription opioid user populations,” the DEA said. “The increasing number of counterfeit pills resembling prescription medications and users who may be pivoting to abusing illicit substances with waning CPD availability may prove to be a significant threat into 2021.”  

The counterfeit pill of choice for the drug cartels are fake 30mg oxycodone tablets, stamped with an “M” on one side and “30” on the other.

Known on the street as “Mexican Oxy” or “M30s,” the DEA says the blue tablets “demonstrate that traffickers are taking advantage of an established market for these pills.”

Illicit fentanyl tablets appear to be getting more lethal, with laboratory tests showing 26 percent of them containing a potentially fatal dose of fentanyl in 2019, compared to just 10 percent in 2017.

In one chilling paragraph, the DEA seemed to acknowledge it was losing the war on drugs to Mexican cartels and local criminal gangs.

“Barring significant, unanticipated changes to the illicit drug market, Mexican TCOs will continue to dominate the wholesale importation and distribution of cocaine, heroin, marijuana, methamphetamine, and fentanyl in U.S. markets. No other criminal organizations currently possess a logistical infrastructure to rival that of Mexican TCOs. Mexican TCOs will continue to grow in the United States through expansion of distribution networks and continued interaction with local criminal groups and gangs,” the agency warned.

Sometimes what is not disclosed in the DEA’s report is just as revealing as what is actually said. For example, while the DEA officially lists kratom as a “drug of concern” and even tried to ban the herbal supplement in 2016, the agency has never said a word about kratom in its annual threat assessment. Not in 2020. Not ever.  

Why is that? Is kratom not addictive or dangerous, despite all the public hand-wringing over the years by the Food and Drug Administration? In a 2018 letter to the DEA recently made public, federal health officials quietly withdrew their request to schedule kratom as a controlled substance because of “lack of evidence” it can be abused or posed a public health threat.

Low-Dose Ketamine Effective in Treating Trauma Pain

By Pat Anson, PNN Editor

Low doses of ketamine are just as effective at treating trauma pain in emergency room patients as larger standard doses, according to a new study by researchers at Loyola University Medical Center in Chicago.

Ketamine is a non-opioid that’s been used for decades as a surgical anesthetic, but in recent years it’s increasingly being used to treat short-term acute pain in hospital emergency rooms. A standard dose of ketamine administered intravenously is 0.30 mg/kg, but Loyola researchers wanted to see if half the normal dose could be just as effective.

"We challenged the conventional ketamine dose used to treat pain," said lead study author Shannon Lovett, MD, an emergency physician at Loyola University Medical Center (LUMC). "Our study should help demonstrate that a lower dose is sufficient to treat pain."

Lovett and her colleagues recruited 98 patient volunteers who were in moderate to severe acute pain. Half received just 0.15 mg/kg of IV ketamine, while the other half received the standard dose. Both patients and providers were “blinded” on which dose was being administered.

After 15 minutes, patients in the standard dose group had a greater reduction in pain, but experienced more side effects such as dizziness, mood changes and hallucinations. After 30 minutes, adverse events and pain levels were similar in both dosing groups.

Asked if they would take ketamine again, 76% of patients in the low-dose group said yes, while only 62% in the standard dose group said they would.

ketamine.jpg

"As we continue with our research, we hope to find data that supports diminished side effects with the lower dose of ketamine with equal efficacy in treating pain," said senior author Megan Rech, PharmD, an emergency medicine pharmacist at LUMC.

The study findings are reported in the journal Academic Emergency Medicine.

Researchers said there is “robust evidence supporting the use of ketamine as an alternative to traditional opioids across a wide range of doses,” but its effectiveness is usually short-lived. Ketamine does not have a significant analgesic effect after 60 minutes. It also puts patients into a hypnotic, dream-like state in which they appear awake, but are unresponsive. For that reason, ketamine is only administered under medical supervision.

A growing number of outpatient clinics provide off-label infusions of ketamine for depression, post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and difficult chronic pain conditions such as Complex Regional Pain Syndrome (CRPS). The infusions are usually not covered by insurance.

A pilot study is underway to see if an oral version of ketamine and aspirin, combined in a tablet, could be used to treat pain at home.

My Cancer Is Back: Facing Surgery With CRPS

By Cynthia Toussaint, PNN Columnist

After hearing the worst words of my life, “Your cancer has grown back,” I felt hopeless and hated the world. Worse, I had to tell my longtime partner and caregiver, John, the grim news. How could we pull up our frayed boot straps again and survive yet another impossible health crisis?

Since getting Complex Regional Pain Syndrome (CRPS) four decades ago, people often use words like “fighter,” “pain warrior” and “super human” to describe me. The most recent catch phrase is, “Cynth, you got this!”

I’ve come to detest this perceived awesomeness. I don’t want to be an uber-person. I never did. I’m tired. I’m so, so tired. And I long for a slice of vanilla-flavored normal.

As the owner of CRPS and 19 comorbidities, I could not afford the diagnosis of triple negative breast cancer, the most aggressive form. But that’s what was delivered, since luck has never been this lady’s lot.

Without consulting me, the universe long ago decided that I’m supposed to slay every dragon while surviving never ending illness and trauma. This latest hell-news has filled me with anger, rage and major depression.

thumbnail.jpg

So much so, that for the first time ever, I’m isolating. This social butterfly has returned to her cocoon, unable to feel joy.

I can’t sleep as I’m plagued by night terrors. Each afternoon, my body trembles uncontrollably. Once heavenly activities, like meditation, exercising and eating, are now chores.

John massages my taut muscle tension through the days and nights – and my IBS has gone haywire. My bubbly spirit is absent and what’s left is demoralized.

And not so long ago, I thought I had this thing licked.

Early last year, after six months of weighing my impossible-with-CRPS treatment options, I started aggressive chemotherapy knowing that this regimen could leave me with a life not worth living. The dream was that my pain would stay in check and I’d achieve a Clinical Complete Response (cancer that cannot be seen with imaging). I’m certain chemotherapy almost ended me, as I was left with virtually no immune system. As a bonus, this was during COVID. 

I was coined a “super responder” when I miraculously accomplished a complete response. At that point, the odds were strongly in my favor that the cancer was gone. But the only way to be sure was to do the follow-up standard of care surgery, which I chose to forego because, with CRPS, surgery is, well, not an option.

The doctors were floored by how well I did, and every indicator leaned toward a clean pathology report. I was ready to move on with my life, one that I felt I’d earned by doing everything right (diet, exercise, stress management, good sleep – the whole kit and caboodle!) One doctor commented, “Don’t even look at the survival numbers. They don’t apply to you anymore.”   

True to form, things went as far south as possible. Because I’m one of the unlucky ones who’s cancer stem cells never went away, my malignancy is growing back. This is not a “recurrence,” but a “persistence” because the chemo didn’t hold.

And now that my complete response is gone, I’ll never have my prior odds. John has lamented for years, “You NEVER get a break!” and I’m finally seeing it his way.

For a chance of survival, I must now have – ta daaa!! – surgery. The doctors tell me my best shot is to do a lumpectomy with follow-up radiation or a stand-alone mastectomy.

Tragically, radiation is off the table as it often causes neuropathic pain. In fact, a radiologist who I respect told me flat out, “I can’t ethically do it to you.” And during a recent visit with my surgeon, she strongly advised that, due to CRPS, I’m not a candidate for a mastectomy, let alone reconstructive surgery. Wow.

Finding a New Care Team

Adding insult to injury, out of nowhere, my lead oncologist dropped me! She did so due to questionable guidance (something I can’t detail here) and is fearful of litigation, which doesn’t make it hurt less. This woman had become my hero and I trusted her with my heart and life. Her betrayal has been soul-crushing and created a crisis of faith. I don’t know who or what to believe in anymore.

But through the shadows, I’m quietly planning my next move – and will take on Round Two one slow... step… at… a... time. I’m assembling a new-and-improved care team to up my odds, including an oncologist, acupuncturist, physical therapist, pain specialist and psychologist. I’ve sweetened the pot with an EMDR (an effective technique for trauma release) practitioner who specializes in people with CRPS. Heck, I’ve even lined up the use of a heated pool in these COVID shutdown days.    

I’m going to have a lumpectomy, a word I can still barely say, let alone write. The scariest part is that my surgeon will also remove a possibly involved lymph node in a nerve rich area, ripe for ample, new pain. My new oncologist is concerned that due to a surgery-induced CRPS flare, my arm may freeze up and become a non-functional torture machine.

Even if the surgery mercifully works without condemning me back to bed, this wouldn’t flip me a “get-out-of-jail-free” card. Because I can only do the “minor” surgery without radiation, my odds of a quick recurrence remain high. This means I’ll be on the prowl for some off-the-grid insurance, perhaps low-dose chemo or an immunotherapy clinical trial. But neither can measure up to the standard of care radiation.

God, to be well enough to be sick!         

So, here I am again, looking down the barrel of a gun, knowing it likely has a bullet with my name on it. Like I said, I’m tired and angry. I’m up to my ass with picking the lesser of two evils, and having to crack the code of the near impossible.

Give me a break, already! And I don’t mean this in a small way. I’m shouting out to the big, bad, ice cold universe that I hope, somewhere, somehow, has a heart.

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

How You Can Change the Public Conversation About Pain

By Richard Lawhern, PhD, PNN Contributor

Because I am highly visible as a healthcare writer and advocate for people in pain, I receive many inquiries from people who have been deserted by their doctors and denied effective treatment.  Many ask me, “What can I do?” 

My answer is that many of our problems with pain treatment began with the guideline on opioid prescribing for chronic non-cancer pain, published in 2016 by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The CDC is currently updating its recommendations, with the goal of releasing a revised guideline for public comment late this year. Without major change or outright repeal of the guideline, nothing will change and much may grow worse.

CDC management knows that they messed up -- they’ve been told so repeatedly over the last five years by both doctors and patients.  But still they dither and delay, and refuse to act on behalf of millions they have harmed.

Congress has added insult to injury with misdirected legislation blaming doctors for the substance abuse of people who never saw a doctor for pain.  And the Drug Enforcement Administration continues to drive doctors out of pain practice by targeting and persecuting those who prescribe opioid medication for people in agony.   

We can no longer depend on the CDC and DEA to do the right thing. They are too concerned with defending their earlier and ongoing misbehavior.  Instead, we’re going to have to change a lot of minds in Congress, the Executive Branch, and at the state level to force change by legislation. Thousands of patients, caregivers and doctors must lobby if change is to happen.  

How Do We Lobby Effectively? 

We don’t have the money to hire lobbyists. Law firms won’t sue without millions of dollars in retainers up front.  Most legislators don’t actually read emails, even from their own constituents, and increasingly they lock out emails from anyone who doesn’t vote in their districts. Petitions don’t work either, even when we have 100,000 signatures behind them.   

So what can we do? We can phone our legislators to demand change, and we can reach out to editors, publishers, radio and TV news anchors to ask that they show the public “the other side” of the opioid crisis.

It may seem that one person acting alone can’t do much.  But thousands of people acting consistently sometimes can.  We need patients, caregivers and medical professionals to contact their legislators and regulators.  Not just once, but every week.  Your congressional representatives in the U.S. House and Senate, as well as state legislators, can all be candidates for a phone call.  

To learn their names, first do a Google search for “legislators” plus your zip code. You might need to explore several “hits” to find the phone numbers for local congressional offices and the offices of your state legislators. Other possible contacts to explore:  

  • U.S. National Office of Drug Control Policy 

  • Office of the Governor  

  • State Health Department

  • Executive Director of your State Medical Board 

  • State office of the Drug Enforcement Administration 

  • State Attorney General 

Two important websites may reduce the burden of multiple Google searches to locate these people. The Chronic Illness Advocacy & Awareness Group (CIAAG) has links to a national directory of legislators and regulators by state; a library of resources and research; “How to” advocacy guides; and templates for calling and meeting with legislators. Similar resources can be found at Pain Warriors Unite, which also has a large archive of related information and advocacy guides.  

What Should We Tell Them?

When you locate the phone numbers of legislators and regulators, the next task is to phone their offices and talk to them or their staff. 

When you call, you might find that the office isn’t answering their phones.  If you can leave a message, then state your name and callback number. Tell them you are a voter in their state or district, and you want to talk with their healthcare policy staffer about how bad policy and restrictions on pain treatment are destroying your life. Hang up politely.

If you reach anyone in real time, it will almost always be a staffer.  As you speak, try to listen for their responses and be respectful.  Here is a possible script.  Practice it aloud before you make your calls, so you are comfortable with what you want to say: 

“Good morning” (or Good afternoon). My name is ___________ and I vote in ______ (State or District number).

“May I ask your name, please?”   [Make a note for later follow-up]

“I’ve been a chronic pain patient for __ years and under doctor’s care for several complex pain issues.  Right now, my life is a wreck because doctors have been terrorized by government authorities. Nearly half of primary care clinics in the U.S. are refusing to accept new patients on opioid pain relievers, even though pain is the number one reason why people see a doctor.  Many practices that still treat pain are rapidly force-tapering patients off opioids, or below effective treatment levels.”

You should include some personal details about what your life is like without adequate pain management. An example might be:

“I literally cannot get out of bed many days, because I am in agony from under-treatment of my pain. I can’t work, do simple chores, or leave the house for basic necessities without help. 

The so-called ‘prescription opioid crisis’ is bogus.  Doctors prescribing opioids for their patients didn’t create our public health crisis with addiction and overdose deaths. Pain patients almost never become addicted. For millions of us, opioids are the only thing that gives us any quality of life.”

End with a call for action. Ask them to do something with the information you give them.

“People like me need your boss to sponsor legislation to fix this mess.  We need him (her) to help stop the widespread persecution of doctors who prescribe medical opioids for people like me.

Restrictions on access to effective pain care are driving thousands of us to buy street drugs for relief or to even consider suicide. If your boss doesn’t act to stop this disaster, then he (she) will become an accessory to it.”

End the call by asking the staffer to add notes from the call to their office phone logs, and to brief the office Chief of Staff or legislator. Ask for a call-back from that individual, confirming that they got the message and are working on your behalf. Be sure to leave a call-back number if they don’t ask for one.

Richard “Red” Lawhern, PhD, has for over 20 years volunteered as a patient advocate in online pain communities and a subject matter expert on public policy for medical opioids. Dr. Lawhern has written or co-authored over 100 papers and articles published in medical journals and mass media.

Rare Disease Spotlight: X-Linked Hypophosphatemia

By Barby Ingle, PNN Columnist  

Coming off a successful Rare Disease Awareness worldwide campaign in February, I decided to go with X-Linked Hypophosphatemia (XLH) for my rare disease spotlight this month.

I do know a little about this disease, having a friend from childhood that lived with a form of it. Back then, it was known as rickets, a softening and weakening of the bones in children. I also served on a patient advisory board a few years ago for a company that created the only FDA-approved treatment for XLH.

Rickets is caused by Vitamin D deficiency, while XLH is caused by a genetic mutation that causes the body to lose phosphorous, an important ingredient for bone health. XLH cannot be cured, but its progression can be slowed with phosphate, Vitamin D and calcium supplementation.

Like rickets, XLH can cause bone deformities. Being bow-legged is the most recognizable symptom, giving providers a visible clue as to which rare disease to test for when they are uncertain. About 1 in 20,000 people carry the genetic mutation that causes XLH.   

The symptoms for XLH vary for each patient, just as they do for other conditions. The most common ones include osteoarthritis, poor bone health, bone pain, low bone density, bones that easily fracture, short stature, bow-leggedness, major tooth abscesses, large dental pulp, tinnitus, waddling gait, muscle pain and body weakness.

As I mentioned, there is only one approved medication for this disease. The drug Crysvita (burosumab) helps normalize phosphate levels and is indicated for the treatment of XLH in adults and children 6 months of age and older.

The severe bow-leggedness caused by XLH can be treated with surgery to correct and reshape the legs. For less severe cases, phosphate supplements and growth hormones can help strengthen bones. Corrective dental treatments can also help with tooth abscesses and dental pulp issues.

If you’d like to learn more about XLH, there are a few sites that I have found helpful. These include the XLH Network, a nonprofit support group, and the National Institutes of Health’s Rare Diseases Information Center. You can also get information about XLH by visiting the website for Ultragenyx, the company that makes Crysvita.

I really like this video of a family affected by XLH. The children do a great job sharing their story.

When I was growing up, we did not have as much knowledge or awareness about rare diseases as we do now. We expected people with rare conditions back then to get by with little to no assistance. Today we know more and have more treatments, but we still have a long way to go.

I know what it meant to my young friend to get support when we knew far less about XLH. She was able to live a full life, attend school, and participated in gymnastics and cheerleading with me. But she suffered more injuries than most kids, was made fun of for her bow legs, and endured daily physical pain.

I dedicate this rare disease spotlight to my friend.

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.

How Should the CDC Opioid Guideline Be Changed?

By Pat Anson, PNN Editor

It was five years ago today – March 15, 2016 – that the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention released its controversial opioid guideline, which discourages doctors from prescribing opioids for chronic pain.   

“This guideline is intended to improve communication between clinicians and patients about the risks and benefits of opioid therapy for chronic pain, improve the safety and effectiveness of pain treatment, and reduce the risks associated with long-term opioid therapy, including opioid use disorder, overdose, and death,” the CDC said.

Although voluntary and only intended for primary care physicians, the guideline soon became the “standard of care” in the United States, with many states, doctors, insurers, pharmacies and regulators adopting its recommendations, such as limiting opioid doses to no more than 90 morphine milligram equivalents (MME) per day.

Soon after the guideline was released, the CDC was warned by its own consulting company that “some doctors are following these guidelines as strict law rather than recommendation, and these physicians have completely stopped prescribing opioids.” Over three hundred healthcare professionals also warned that forced opioid tapering was causing “an alarming increase in reports of patient suffering and suicides.”

A PNN survey two years ago found that over 85 percent of patients believed the CDC guideline made their pain and quality of life worse, significantly reduced their access to pain care, and drove some to alcohol and illegal drugs for pain relief.

Not until 2019, however, did then CDC Director Robert Redfield acknowledge the guideline was causing problems and pledged to “clarify its recommendations to help reduce unintended harms.”

Two years later, the CDC is still in the process of revising and possibly expanding the guideline, with the goal of releasing an update for public comment late this year.

Should the guideline be changed? Has it been successful in improving pain treatment? Did it reduce addiction, overdose and death?

We thought this would be a good time to conduct another survey of patients and healthcare providers, to see what changes they’d recommend to the CDC and the “Opioid Workgroup,” a panel of experts that is advising the agency.

Among the questions we’re asking is whether the recommended dose limit of 90 MME/day should be scrapped; if the guideline should be expanded to include treatment of short-term acute pain; and whether the CDC should give advice on treating specific conditions, such as low back pain or fibromyalgia.

Click here to take the survey. It should only take a few minutes to complete. Your identity and any personal health information will be kept confidential.

Covid Long-Haulers Face New Battle for Disability Benefits

By David Tuller, Kaiser Health News

Rickie Andersen took a brief break from work last March after she fell ill. Her cough, fever and chills were typical covid-19 symptoms, but coronavirus tests were so scarce she could not obtain one to confirm the diagnosis.

After Andersen returned to her job as an information systems project manager in the San Francisco Bay Area, she struggled with profound fatigue, cognitive difficulties and other disabling complaints. For six months, she tried to keep awake during meetings and finish basic tasks that took much longer than before.

Finally, she decided to retain legal help so she could take advantage of the disability insurance coverage offered as an employee benefit. “I realized this is not going to be a short-term thing,” Andersen said.

Hundreds of thousands of people around the world are experiencing what is being called “long covid” — a pattern of prolonged symptoms following an acute bout of the disease. Many have managed to continue working through accommodations like telecommuting, cutting down on hours and delegating responsibilities.

Others have found it impossible to fulfill their professional obligations and are making the tough decision to stop working and seek disability benefits. But as they pursue the application process, they are discovering a particular set of challenges.

Given the lack of testing in the first months, many “long haulers,” like Andersen, have no laboratory proof of infection. While antibody tests can provide such evidence, their accuracy varies. Moreover, many of the reported symptoms, including fatigue and cognitive impairment, are subjective and not clearly linked to specific organ damage.

Beyond that, compiling a thorough record for a disability application and navigating the bureaucratic hurdles require sustained brain power, something many long-haul patients can no longer muster.

Barbara Comerford, a New Jersey disability lawyer, said she received dozens of inquiries starting last fall from long haulers seeking advice on filing for disability and often citing what is being called “brain fog” as their main complaint.

“Most are people calling to say, ‘I thought I could do it. I can’t. My mind doesn’t function for more than really brief periods of time,’” Comerford said.

In the U.S., close to 30 million people have tested positive for the coronavirus, although many cases of infection are asymptomatic. What proportion might be affected by long-term illness isn’t known. Scientific understanding of the phenomenon is in its infancy.

In January, The Lancet reported that around three-quarters of more than 1,700 covid patients who had been hospitalized in Wuhan, China, reported at least one ongoing symptom six months later. More recently, investigators from the University of Washington reported in JAMA Network Open that around 30% of 177 patients who had tested positive for the coronavirus still reported symptoms when they were surveyed one to 10 months later.

Strict Criteria for Benefits

The Social Security Administration provides long-term disability to American workers who qualify under its strict criteria, but applicants often get turned down on the first try. A few states, including California and New York, provide short-term disability benefits, in some cases for up to a year.

Tens of millions of Americans also have private disability coverage, most often as part of their employment benefit packages.

The maximum currently available to an individual through the Social Security Disability Insurance program is just over $3,000 a month. A typical private long-term disability plan might cover 60% of a beneficiary’s base salary, with a much higher maximum amount.

Sandy Lewis, a pharmaceutical industry researcher, fell ill last March with what she assumed was covid. She recovered but relapsed in April and again in May.

Through her employer-based insurance coverage, she received short-term disability for November and December, but the insurer, Prudential Financial, rejected her request for an extension. Soon after, she was diagnosed with myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome, or ME/CFS, a debilitating illness that can be triggered by viral infections.

Lewis, who lives outside Philadelphia, is planning to appeal Prudential’s rejection of the short-term extension and apply for long-term disability. But the matter is unlikely to be resolved before fall. The situation has left her feeling “devastated,” she said, and in serious financial distress.

“This has been such an arduous journey,” she said. “I have no income and I’m sick, and I’m continuing to need medical care. I am now in a position, at 49 years old, that I may have to sell my home during a pandemic and move in with family to stay afloat.”

In Lewis’ case, a Prudential reviewer noted that her symptoms were “subjective” and that there were “no physical exam findings to correlate with any ongoing functional limitations,” according to Cassie Springer Ayeni, an Oakland disability lawyer who is representing her as well as Andersen.

Prudential would not comment on a specific case. Evan Scarponi, chief claims officer, said in a statement that “our collective understanding of covid-19 and any associated long-term effects are still evolving” but that Prudential is “well-versed in evaluating both subjective and objective aspects of disability claims.”

Lawyers and advocates in the field expect the numbers of covid-related long-term disability applicants to rise this year. But it’s still too soon to detect any such increase, said a spokesperson for the American Council of Life Insurers, a trade association. Workers typically must be unable to work for half a year before becoming eligible for long-term disability benefits, and applying can itself be a lengthy process.

‘No Objective Evidence’

Brian Vastag, a former Washington Post science and health reporter with ME/CFS, stopped working in 2014 and then sued Prudential after it rejected his long-term disability claim. Insurance companies, he said, can easily find reasons to dismiss applications from claimants with chronic illnesses characterized by symptoms like fatigue and cognitive impairment.

“The insurance companies will often say, ‘There’s no objective evidence, so we have nothing to support your claim,’” said Vastag, who won his case against Prudential in 2018. “I’m worried about the long-covid patients who can’t work anymore.”

Claimants can appeal a rejection. If the insurer rejects the appeal, claimants have the right to sue, as Vastag did. However, most such cases fall under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974. Because this federal law requires a losing insurer to pay the unpaid claims but does not provide for punitive or compensatory damages, critics argue it incentivizes the denial of coverage.

In the event of litigation, the court’s role is to assess the already existing evidentiary record. That means it is essential to present a robust case in the initial application or during the administrative appeal before any litigation begins, said Ayeni, the disability lawyer for Andersen and Lewis.

“It’s the only shot to build a record for the courts, to develop a full body of evidence,” she said.

However, a successful disability case ultimately depends on documenting inability to work, not on obtaining a specific diagnosis. To augment the medical evidence, Ayeni often sends clients for neuropsychological testing, investigations of lung function and other specialist assessments. She also gathers affidavits from family members, professional colleagues and friends to confirm patients’ accounts.

In Rickie Andersen’s case, the strategy worked. Recognizing how complicated the application process was likely to be, she sought legal help early on. The insurer contracted by her employer approved her for short-term benefits late last year and granted her application for long-term benefits in February.

“I knew all of it was completely exhausting, so it wasn’t something I thought I could do on my own,” Andersen said.

This story was produced by Kaiser Health News, which publishes California Healthline, an editorially independent service of the California Health Care Foundation.