CBD Ineffective for Osteoarthritis Knee Pain

By Pat Anson, PNN Editor

Cannabidiol (CBD) is often touted as an effective pain reliever for arthritis. Studies on animals and anecdotal reports from humans suggest that CBD – the non-psychoactive compound in cannabis -- has anti-inflammatory and pain-relieving effects on joint pain.

But in one of the first randomized, placebo-controlled clinical trials of CBD, researchers at Medical University of Vienna found that CBD is not an effective pain medication for knee osteoarthritis, even at high doses.

The study included 86 men and women who suffered from severe pain due to knee osteoarthritis,  a progressive condition caused by the breakdown of joint cartilage.in the knee. About 10 percent of people over age 60 have knee osteoarthritis (OA).

Half the participants received daily doses of CBD in capsules for eight weeks, titrating up to 600mg per day, which is considered a high dose. The other participants were given placebo capsules with no active ingredient. Neither group knew what they were taking.

The study findings, published in The Lancet Regional Health -- Europe, show that CBD did not have a stronger analgesic effect than the placebo. Adverse events were more common in the CBD group, with over half the participants (56%) reporting diarrhea, abdominal pain, fatigue and other mild side effects.

“Our results do not support the yet clinically unproven hopes for CBD as potential supplement or even replacement of potent analgesics, including opioids,” wrote lead author Sibylle Pramhas, MD, Department of Special Anesthesia and Pain Medicine at MedUni Vienna.

"Our study is the first to provide solid information on the lack of analgesic potential of CBD in a common chronic pain condition, due to the comparatively high oral dosage and the long observation period.”

This isn’t the first time CBD came up short in a clinical study. In 2017, Zynebra Pharmaceuticals tested a CBD gel for knee OA with mixed results. The Phase 2 study did not meet its primary goal of reducing the average pain score, although there were some indications the gel improved function and reduced pain severity. The company has since abandoned plans to use the gel for arthritis pain.

A more recent study of a CBD patch for knee osteoarthritis was withdrawn due to “inadequate funding.” Several other clinical studies of CBD for OA pain are underway or recruiting participants, but no results have been posted.

Currently, osteoarthritis knee pain is treated with analgesics such as acetaminophen (paracetamol), diclofenac, ibuprofen or tramadol. For the time being, they may be the best alternatives for pain relief.   

"CBD is not an alternative for pain therapy for osteoarthritis of the knee, so the search for more effective options must continue," says Pramhas.

The Surprising Connection Between Pain and Politics

By Pat Anson, PNN Editor

“I feel your pain. I feel your pain.”

Bill Clinton was mocked by political pundits for saying that to an AIDS activist while running for president in 1992. Whether he was sincere or not, it was a public display of empathy that helped get Clinton elected.

Clinton may have been prescient about a connection between pain and politics. A large new study suggests that pain could have played a surprising role in the 2020 presidential election. Researchers found that liberals with high levels of pain sensitivity were more likely to vote for Donald Trump, while conservatives who were highly sensitive to pain were more likely to vote for Joe Biden.

Huh? I was skeptical. Initially, so was lead researcher Spike W.S. Lee, an associate professor of marketing at the University of Toronto’s Rotman School of Management.     

“We were honestly not expecting to see this kind of cross-aisle effects of pain sensitivity,” Lee said in a news release. “When we first found it, we thought it might be a fluke. That’s why we ran a replication study. We found it again. We ran extended replications and follow-up studies. We kept finding it.”

Lee and his colleagues ran seven different studies involving over 7,000 U.S. participants to see how pain sensitivity affects our moral and political views. Does it heighten them and make us hold more tightly to them? Or does the pain experience make us more sensitive and accepting of what other people believe?

Lee started thinking about that as a research topic during a dental appointment. He is very sensitive to pain, and asked that a freezing procedure be used to numb his mouth before his teeth were cleaned. Lee found himself enjoying the experience so much that he wondered what having no sensitivity to pain would do to someone’s moral compass.

His research found that liberals with higher pain sensitivity were more likely to endorse traditional conservative values such as loyalty and authority; while pain sensitive conservatives showed more support for traditional liberal values such as caring and fairness.   

The pattern continued when participants were asked about their 2020 voting intentions. As the graphic shows below, liberals (blue line) said they were more likely to vote for Trump if they had more pain sensitivity. Similarly, conservatives (red line) were less likely to vote for Trump over Biden if they were more sensitive to pain.

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology

The pattern not only held up for how participants actually voted in the presidential election, it influenced their support for a diverse group of liberal and conservative politicians, such as Kamala Harris, Mike Pence, Mitch McConnell and Bernie Sanders.

Pain sensitivity also significantly changed the way liberals and conservatives thought about hot button issues such as immigration, global warming, unions, the free-market system and Obamacare.

Does that mean pain sensitivity makes people confused about their political views? Not necessarily. Lee says the more likely explanation is that the pain experience gives people more empathy for others and a greater willingness to look at issues from both sides.

In an age of polarized and often heated politics, that’s not a bad thing. Maybe Bill Clinton was on to something.

The study appears in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology: Attitudes and Social Cognition.

My Pain Marriage

By Mara Baer

Two years ago this month, I had major surgery to try to address the daily chronic pain that had been with me for seven years. Leading up to that surgery, I was bounced around from specialist to specialist, experiencing many failed attempts to treat my Thoracic Outlet Syndrome, a rare nerve entrapment condition that causes overwhelming nerve pain.

Because the surgery was unsuccessful, the looming anniversary date -- November 30th -- carries a lot of weight as I approach year 10 of my chronic pain journey.

Anniversaries are times of reflection, when we think about where we’ve been and where we are going, celebrate milestones, and commemorate paths taken. We acknowledge wedding anniversaries, work anniversaries, birthdays, deaths, and other important junctures in life.

There are also health recovery anniversaries celebrated by cancer survivors to honor their remissions and recovering addicts who mark their hard-earned sobriety. The anniversary of my surgery brings the same type of evaluation and introspection.

My husband Art and I commonly celebrate our wedding anniversary in a simple way with a nice dinner and a toast.

We just hit 17 years together and noted how much we’ve accomplished; bringing two beautiful kids into the world, making a big move from DC to Denver, and building our own little, special world.

We also reflected on the impact my chronic pain has had on our lives. I shared with him how I feel that I am in a relationship with my pain that is akin to a marriage -- often complex, at times emotional, and deeply reliant on compromise and understanding.

This relationship can feel like a third wheel in our marriage some days, taking over and getting in the way. This is something we both are working to address.    

Mara Baer and Art Maples

And, like a toxic relationship, the “pain marriage” can be all consuming. Chronic pain sufferers commonly report feeling a lack of control and that pain dominates daily life. I’m sure many readers can recall a personal relationship that felt this way.  Just remember that one bad relationship and how it made you feel when tensions were high. Angry. Frustrated. Sad. Helpless. Fearful. Depleted. This is how the pain relationship can feel for most chronic pain sufferers.

Most people in a challenging relationship will say that toxicity feeds greater toxicity, creating a vicious cycle. The pain marriage is no different. When I have been at my lowest due to pain, I found it impossible to have a positive outlook. I tried every ineffective playbook strategy, including disengaging or ignoring it (“pain, you are not there, you just aren’t there”); placating it (not moving, lying in bed, other unhealthy habits); and bargaining (“pain, I’ll do all the right things so you will just leave me”).

I am sure there are others. These strategies never seemed to work. Why? Because like in any relationship, masking or hiding from the raw truth will not be successful.  

All couples argue, and Art and I have had our share. I’ve learned that our greatest challenges come when we are not listening to each other. The words come out, but perhaps my interpretation of his words or his of mine are not the same as what we intended.

When we don’t hear each other, arguments can escalate quickly. It’s the same with pain. When I sense my pain and try to ignore it, I may not be really hearing what my body is telling me.

But when I acknowledge pain’s role in my life and how I feel about it, I can start to gain equal footing or control. Then it’s not about “winning” (like winning an argument), but about managing the dynamics between us.

It might sound odd that I’m referring to my pain in this way. But only when I started to accept pain’s presence could I start to change the nature of the relationship. This is why acknowledging that I am in a relationship with my pain is one of my chronic pain truths.

So as my surgery anniversary nears, I may not be toasting the journey, but I will be reflecting on the ups and downs of my pain struggle, and also celebrating my new outlook and path. I know I’ve got more work to do, and I’ll admit that I am still learning. But when it comes to my pain relationship and my marriage to my spouse, both are worth the effort.

Mara Baer is a writer and health policy consultant offering services through her women-owned small business, AgoHealth. Mara is a member of the Science and Policy Advisory Council for the National Pain Advocacy Center and recently launched a chronic pain newsletter called Chronic Pain Chats.

Why the Ruan Case Won’t Protect Doctors From Prosecution

By Dr. Joseph Parker

Doctors trying to save lives and help pain patients are regularly being sent to prison for prescribing opioids. And despite last year’s Supreme Court ruling in the Ruan case, that’s not changing.  Here’s why. 

First, it’s important to know what you are up against.  When the US federal government goes after a doctor or anyone else, they face a streamlined conviction machine.  Since the time of Ronald Reagan (who I voted for), the rights of an American citizen to challenge the charges against them or try to overturn an unjust conviction have been eroded. 

Then came President Bill Clinton (I voted for him too), who signed into law the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act, doing more to ensure that the government can imprison the innocent than any other president since the Civil War.

At the founding of this nation, it was recognized that governments are prone to lock up people they don’t like, finding some legal pretext to justify their actions.  To guard against this, the Constitution and Bill of Rights were adopted to limit the powers of the federal government. 

Originally, there was only one federal crime: an act of treason. This crime was much more limited than the British version had been, when wandering over onto the King’s hunting grounds was considered treason. In the American version, you had to wage war against the United States or give aid and comfort to its enemies during a time of war. 

Then John Adams, the second president of the United States, made sedition a federal crime. Since then, so many federal laws have been added that government itself cannot tell you exactly how many or what they are.

That’s not counting all of the rules and regulations enforced by federal law enforcement, as if they were the law.  Locked up is locked up, after all.  Today the land of the free incarcerates more of its citizens than any other nation.  Not only that, but the sentences have become draconian. 

There is no nation on earth today where the liberty of a citizen has less value than in America.  The US incarcerates an average of 629 people for every 100,000 citizens. The next closest nations are Rwanda, Turkmenistan, El Salvador and Cuba. China and Russia don’t even make the Top 10.

Believe it or not, there are 37 states in the US that beat Cuba’s incarceration rate of 510 prisoners, with Louisiana coming in at a mind numbing 1,341. 

All of those inmates did not end up in prison by accident.  Looking at 2020 numbers, there were about 1,879 criminal cases heard in federal court.  Of those, about 90% of the accused plead guilty without even going to trial. Is that because the US government is absolutely right 90% of the time?  I am cautiously skeptical. Only 0.04% of cases -- 4 out of 1,000 – resulted in acquittal.  Those are not good odds. 

In Ruan v. United States, Dr. Xiulu Ruan appealed his conviction for prescribing opioids in an “unauthorized manner.” In a stunning unanimous verdict, the Supreme Court justices repeated what they said in 1925 in Linder v. United States, and then again in 2006 in Gonzales v. Oregon:  the federal government cannot dictate the practice of medicine and a doctor can only be prosecuted if they knew what they were doing was wrong.

As has happened in the past, US law enforcement doesn’t let something like a Supreme Court ruling slow them down.  They are completely ignoring the Ruan ruling by arguing something called “willful blindness.” What was the doctor willfully blind to?  To whatever opinion the government’s expert witness feels like arguing is the “usual practice of medicine” and “a legitimate medical purpose.”

Even though the Supreme Court made clear that only individual states can regulate the practice of medicine, the government’s hired expert does not have to come from your state or even be familiar with your state’s laws regarding the practice of medicine.

In effect, the DEA argues that there is a national practice of medicine that must be followed.  Where do they draw these medical practice standards when there is no such thing as a federal medical license?  From medical textbooks like the "Principles and Practices of Pain Medicine"?  No.  From the teachings of national medical organizations like the American Academy of Pain Medicine or the American Society of Addiction Medicine?  No again. 

The teachings from those sources are not allowed in court, unless you can get one of the original authors to come testify for you.  And sometimes, not even then.  The chapter on avoiding addiction in pain management from the above textbook was written by Dr. Alan Wartenberg.  Despite his advanced years, Dr. Wartenberg came to my trial to testify for me.  But he was not allowed to be considered as an expert in pain medicine, because he was “only” an addiction specialist. 

This is nothing compared to what happened to Dr. William Bauer of Ohio.  A dozen pharmacists, doctors, and scientists were willing to testify on his behalf, and all of them were disqualified by the court.  But the government’s “experts” in pain medicine can testify about almost anything, including addiction and even chronic cough.

The government does not convict you by proving you are guilty, they convict you by smearing you publicly long before you get to trial, and then making sure that the jury does not have access to the truth, by disqualifying experts, withholding favorable evidence, allowing false testimony, and making false statements to the jury. 

And remember, Dr. Ruan “won” at the Supreme Court. But he’s still in prison. 

Good luck and be prepared.  Ruan will not save you.

Joseph Parker, MD, is Chief Science Officer and Operations Officer at Advanced Research Concepts, a company developing solutions to the challenges of space travel and space-related medical issues.  In clinical practice, Dr. Parker specialized in emergency medicine and served as Director of Emergency Medicine at two hospitals. Prior to that, he had a distinguished career in the U.S. Marines and Air Force. 

In 2022, a federal jury convicted Dr. Parker on two counts of unlawful opioid prescribing. He has filed an appeal as he awaits sentencing.

A Pain Patient's Perspective on Opioid Prescribing

By Barby Ingle, PNN Columnist

It is essential to prescribe pain treatments that are appropriate and effective for each patient. I say that based on my own experiences as a patient, as well as thousands of others I have spoken with over the years as a friend and advocate.

Patients who need opioids, benzodiazepines, antidepressants and other medications should have access to them -- just as a heart patient has access to medication that keeps their heart functioning or a diabetic needs access to insulin.

People living with pain should also be offered individualized treatment. That could be anything from physical therapy and analgesics to surgical procedures and alternative therapies like acupuncture. I have tried over 100 different types of pain treatment; some have worked and others have not. It often made me feel like a guinea pig. Unnecessary surgery hurt me most in the end.

There are many public education campaigns underway to prevent addiction and overdoses by reducing the use of prescription opioids. These campaigns are repeated in the media, but the information does not always include facts or is presented in a misleading way.

For example, there is the DEA’s “One Pill Can Kill” campaign, which is aimed at raising awareness about a surge in counterfeit pills made with illicit fentanyl and other street drugs. Another is the CDC’s “Rx Awareness” campaign, which shares the stories of people whose lives were impacted by prescription opioids. The overall theme is that opioids are “addictive and dangerous.”  

Although well-intentioned, these campaigns have a tendency to demonize FDA-approved medications that have a lot of science and research behind them. Most people are unaware that fentanyl has been used safely and effectively for decades to treat severe pain and as an analgesic in millions of surgeries. Saying “one pill can kill” to a pain patient who has improved their life with a legally prescribed medication is disheartening.

I have seen this misinformation firsthand over the years and how it has put a damper on opioid prescribing. Physicians should prescribe opioids for pain when appropriate, but many are afraid to do so because of potential sanctions and legal threats. As a result, many providers won’t prescribe opioids or will only do so minimally and as a last resort.

Individualized Treatment

I believe each patient is different and should be treated as such. We need providers to operate on the assumption that each individual is unique and requires something different, even when they have the same disease or injury as someone else.

Physicians today can use pharmacogenomics to see if a patient’s DNA can affect how they respond to a treatment or what is chemically right for them. The dosage, brand, procedure and frequency will vary depending on each patient. I often bring my pharmacogenomics information to communicate more effectively with my providers, which benefits us both.

I also know that doing what is least invasive first and then progressing to other options is essential. Sometimes, surgery is the best option. Sometimes, opioids or other pain medications should be used first. Every medical provider should work at finding the treatment that most effectively suits the patient.

It is a considered best practice to prescribe opioids to someone in severe pain from sickle cell disease. Yet, when many sickle cell patients go to the ER or are admitted to a hospital, they are denied opioids because of hospital policy. What is the point of having a trained medical providers on staff if you won’t let them treat a patient the way they should be?

Denying pain relief is not only cruel, it can be the worst practice for everyone involved. For example, a man in severe chronic pain committed suicide after a doctor at a Kentucky pain clinic cut his opioid dose in half. The man’s family filed a lawsuit and won a $7 million judgement against the doctor and clinic.  

Ultimately, it should be the patient's responsibility to weigh the risks and benefits of any treatment, after getting input from their provider and conducting due diligence. Unfortunately, there are many obstacles standing in the way of that. One of the biggest is finding a doctor willing to prescribe pain medication. In addition, there are insurance restrictions, the cost of medication, and other logistical issues such as transportation to appointments.

Here in Arizona, patients must see their provider every month to renew a prescription for a controlled substance. Policies like that were put in place to “protect” pain patients, but only added extra costs, burdens and stigmas to them.

Patient-Physician Communication

How can we change the narrative about opioid prescribing? We can start by emphasizing the importance of effective communication between physicians and patients, even those as young as elementary school. Early education on how to talk to medical professionals and advocate for yourself is vital. I see this as one of the most critical things for patients to do.

Communication and trust are essential. Patients need to know when to take medication, how much to take, and what the potential side effects are. They also need to be able to express how the medication is working and what their symptoms are. Patients should feel comfortable asking questions and discussing their pain management plan. Physicians need to listen, provide feedback and give advice when needed.

Individualized treatment plans should be tailored to the patient’s age, gender, medical history, lifestyle and other factors.  That will help ensure that the treatment is effective and also reduce the risk of adverse reactions and potential complications. Collaborative decision-making makes patients feel more comfortable, confident in their treatment plan, and more likely to follow it.

Barby Ingle is a reality TV personality living with multiple rare and chronic diseases. She is a chronic pain educator, patient advocate, motivational speaker, and the founder and former President of the International Pain Foundation. You can follow Barby at www.barbyingle.com. 

Study Finds Why Some Patients Do Poorly with Spinal Cord Stimulators

By Pat Anson, PNN Editor

Spinal cord stimulators (SCSs) are often considered the treatment of last resort for people with severe back or leg pain, who don’t respond well to more conventional ways of treating pain.

The neuromodulation devices are surgically placed near the spine and send out mild electrical impulses to mask pain signals. Because stimulators are invasive and have poor success rates, it’s customary for patients to go through a short trial period before having the devices surgically implanted.

A new study has documented why some patients do well with stimulators and others don’t.

In a retrospective analysis, researchers at the University of Kansas Medical Center looked at 237 patients who received SCSs, about a third of them considered “nonresponders.” They found that people with severe pain and disability who fear physical activity because of the pain it might cause – a condition known as kinesiophobia – are significantly less likely to respond to the devices.

The study is being presented this month at the annual meeting of the American Society of Regional Anesthesia and Pain Medicine (ASRA).

Researchers analyzed several patient characteristics, such as their age, gender, body mass index, history of spinal surgery, diabetes, alcohol and tobacco use, psychiatric illness, and use of opioids. None appeared to have an association with how a patient responds to SCS.

But researchers found that three out of four (76%) nonresponders had clinically high levels of kinesiophobia, compared to about half (56%) of those who did respond to SCS treatment. Nonresponders were also more likely to have severe pain, disability, and to complain or worry about their pain – a condition known as “catastrophizing.”

“Collectively, our findings indicate a clinically relevant association of high levels of kinesiophobia, greater disability, severe pain intensity and pain catastrophizing, as subtle indicators, and possible predictive factors to nonresponders,” researchers said.

“As such, it may be appropriate to utilize preoperative screening tools for these factors to help optimize patient selection and predict a patient’s response to neuromodulation. Furthermore, if risk factors are present, it might be prudent to consider a pre-rehabilitation program with pain neuroscience patient education prior to SCS therapy to address these modifiable risk factors and potentially enhance outcomes in neuromodulation.”

About 50,000 spinal cord stimulators are implanted annually in the U.S. The devices are often touted as a safer alternative to opioid pain medication, although a growing number of studies have questioned their safety and efficacy.

A recent Cochrane review of SCSs concluded the devices work no better than a placebo for treating chronic low back pain, and provide little to no benefit in improving quality of life. That negative review led some doctors who perform the surgeries to demand a retraction from Cochrane because of “striking errors in the methodology, execution and conclusions” of the study.

Meanwhile, a 2018 investigation found that SCSs have some of the worst safety records of medical devices and called for better FDA oversight of their growing use in pain management. A subsequent FDA review of complaints involving stimulators found that nearly a third were reports of unsatisfactory pain relief.

Yet another recent study found that many patients given stimulators did not reduce their use of opioids, and continued getting procedures such as epidurals, corticosteroid injections and radiofrequency ablation to relieve their pain.

White Patients More Likely Than Blacks to Get Opioids at ER

By Drs. Trevor Thompson and Sofia Stathi, University of Greenwich

White people who visit hospital emergency departments with pain are 26% more likely than Black people to be given opioid pain medications such as morphine. This was a key finding from our recent study, published in the Journal of General Internal Medicine.

We also found that Black patients were 25% more likely than white patients to be given only non-opioid painkillers such as ibuprofen, which are typically available over the counter.

We examined more than 200,000 visit records of patients treated for pain, taken from a representative sample of U.S. emergency departments from 1999 to 2020. Although white patients were far more likely to be prescribed opioid medication for their pain, we found no significant differences across race in either the type or severity of patients’ pain.

Furthermore, racial disparities in pain medication remained even after we adjusted for any differences in insurance status, patient age, census region or other potentially important factors.

Our analysis of prescribing trends spanning over two decades’ worth of records found that opioid prescribing rates rose and fell, reflecting changing attitudes in clinical practice toward the use of opioid drugs. Notably, however, there appeared to be little change over time in the prescribing disparity across race.

These findings are important because they suggest that efforts to promote equitable health care in the U.S. over the past two decades, such as the Affordable Care Act, or “Obamacare,” do not appear to have translated to clinical practice – at least with regards to pain management in hospital emergency departments.

There’s no question that as the ongoing opioid crisis continues to escalate, a careful balance must be struck between the risks and benefits of prescribing opioids. But their appropriate use is an essential component of pain control in the emergency department, and they typically provide superior relief to non-opioids for short-term moderate to severe pain.

Undertreated pain produces unnecessary suffering and can result in a range of negative outcomes, even including a greater likelihood of developing long-term pain. There are over 40 million pain-related emergency department visits annually, so it is clear that equitable pain treatment is a fundamental component of a fair health care system.

We do not know why such marked racial disparities exist. Some researchers have argued that prescribing fewer opioids may be beneficial for Black patients as it reduces the risk of addiction. But this argument doesn’t square with the data, which show that overdose rates have traditionally been lower in Black populations compared with white people. However, this trend has started to change in recent years.

In addition, some evidence suggests that clinicians may hold unconscious biases, incorrectly believing Black patients to be less sensitive to pain or that certain racial groups are less willing to accept pain medication.

While there is preliminary evidence that these factors may be important, there is not enough research that examines the degree to which they influence clinical practice. Researchers like us also know very little about whether promising remedial strategies based on these factors – such as educational training during medical school that challenges stereotypical beliefs – are effective, or indeed even implemented, in the real world.

The need for tackling racial disparities in health was brought into focus once more in February 2023, when the Biden-Harris administration signed an executive order on further advancing racial equity. Given the long history of these issues, it is clear that more research is needed to help develop better strategies for tackling health inequalities.

The most effective strategies for addressing racial disparities in pain treatment are likely to be those that target the underlying causes. We are currently undertaking research to try to better understand these causes, how they contribute to disparities in real-world clinical practice and whether strategies designed to address them are actually effective.

Trevor Thompson, PhD, is an Associate Professor of Clinical Research and works in the Centre for Chronic Illness and Ageing at the University of Greenwich.  

Sofia Stathi, PhD, is a Professor of Social Psychology in the School of Human Sciences at the University of Greenwich, where she leads the Centre for Inequalities.

This article originally appeared in The Conversation and is republished with permission.

DEA Plans Further Cuts in Rx Opioid Supply in 2024

By Pat Anson, PNN Editor

Despite chronic shortages of opioid pain medication around the country, the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration is planning to further reduce the supply of oxycodone, hydrocodone, morphine and other opioids in 2024.

The DEA sets annual production quotas for opioids and other controlled substances after consulting with the Food and Drug Administration, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and individual states about their projected medical and research needs. If the proposed cuts are finalized next month, 2024 will be the 8th consecutive year that DEA reduced production quotas for opioid manufacturers.

“FDA predicts that levels of medical need for schedule II opioids in the United States in calendar year 2024 will decline on average 7.9 percent from calendar year 2023 levels. These declines are expected to occur across a variety of schedule II opioids including fentanyl, hydrocodone, hydromorphone, oxycodone, and oxymorphone,” DEA said in a public notice published in the Federal Register.

There will not be 7.9% cuts across the board for every opioid. The steepest cuts will be in the supply of codeine and prescription fentanyl, while production quotas for oxycodone and hydrocodone will be reduced only marginally.  

Proposed Cuts in 2024 Opioid Supply

- 8.3% Codeine  

- 7.6% Rx Fentanyl  

- 4.3% Morphine

- 2.1% Hydromorphone 

- 0.3% Oxycodone   

- 0.3% Hydrocodone

Since reaching their peak in 2015, DEA production quotas have been reduced by over 68% for oxycodone and nearly 73% for hydrocodone, the two most widely prescribed Schedule II opioids.

The primary goal of the DEA in cutting the supply is to reduce the risk of diversion, abuse and overdose, but there is little evidence the policy is working or even needed. Prescription opioid use has been cut in half in recent years, but overdose deaths have grown to record levels, fueled primarily by illicit fentanyl and other street drugs.

Fears about patients selling or diverting their opioid medication also appear overblown, as the DEA estimates the diversion risk for hydrocodone at only 0.31% and 0.28% for oxycodone. That means for every pill that’s sold or stolen, about 300 pills are used by the patient they were intended for.

Federal health agencies appear to have turned a blind eye to opioid shortages. For several months, the American Society of Health-System Pharmacists (ASHP) has warned of shortages of immediate release oxycodone, oxycodone/acetaminophen tablets, and hydrocodone/acetaminophen tablets. But those shortages have not been publicly acknowledged by the DEA or FDA, and have not been added to the FDA’s drug shortage list.

More ADHD Meds, Cannabis and Psychedelics

The DEA and FDA have been more responsive to complaints of shortages of Adderall and other stimulants used to treat attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). The DEA is modestly raising its production quotas for stimulants after the FDA predicted a 3.1% increase in their medical use in 2024.

“DEA is committed to ensuring that patients who need stimulant medications have access to them and to ensuring that these drugs are being prescribed thoughtfully and responsibly, and we will continue working with our partners inside and outside of government to do so,” DEA Administrator Ann Milgram wrote in a letter released this week. She said 17 out of 18 drug makers had agreed to increase their production of stimulants under existing 2023 quotas.

In addition to stimulants, the DEA is also raising 2024 production quotas for cannabis, psychedelics and hallucinogens in response to an “increased level of research and clinical trials” involving the Schedule I substances.

The DEA’s quota process may undergo significant changes in the years ahead. The agency wants to be “more nimble” in responding to shortages and increases in demand. To do that, it is seeking access to sales and inventory reports from drug makers to better assess the supply that is available.

“DEA believes that changes to reporting requirements are necessary to improve both the type of data collected and the timeliness of that data, allowing DEA to be more nimble in its administration of the quota program. Future regulatory changes may seek to address the lack of real-time inventory and sales data accessible to DEA, the lack of information on production lead times, and issues of timeliness,” the agency said.

“DEA also is considering methods by which it might increase transparency in its quota setting process. Future regulatory proposals may define additional steps, including such concepts as public notification and an opportunity for public input when prescribing rates for controlled substances deviate substantially from FDA's estimate of future use. Furthermore, DEA is considering regulatory changes which will authorize it to reduce a manufacturer's individual manufacturing or procurement quota in order to apportion it to another manufacturer.”

To leave a comment on the DEA’s 2024 production quotas, click here. Public comments must be submitted online or in writing on or before December 4, 2023.

Let’s End the Silence About Endometriosis

By Dr. Kristina Brown, Adler University

Endometriosis causes physical, sexual and emotional pain. About 190 million people around the globe have endometriosis, including one in 10 American women, but there has historically been a deafening silence about the disease and the pervasive impact it can have on a person’s life.

While endometriosis is a chronic gynecological illness that can affect anyone with a uterus – women, transgender men and nonbinary individuals – it often goes undiagnosed because its symptoms can be attributed to other physical or psychological concerns. Patients presenting with this pain are often told it is “all in your head.”

However, endometriosis is becoming a more visible illness, thanks in part to celebrities such as Lena Dunham, Chrissy Teigen, Amy Schumer, Whoopi Goldberg and others who have begun sharing their stories publicly.

After going undiagnosed for 23 years, Padma Lakshmi, a popular cookbook author, actress and host of the TV show “Top Chef,” founded EndoFund, previously Endometriosis Foundation of America, in 2009 so that others do not have to go through what she did.

I am a couple and family therapy professor, clinician and researcher. My own endometriosis diagnosis at the age of 19 has inspired my work exploring how this illness affects others beyond the physical symptoms.

To better understand the impact of endometriosis on relationships, I interviewed 10 couples about their experiences of diagnosis, treatment and living with this disease. Through their stories of how endometriosis-related pain can affect every aspect of daily life, including their intimate relationships, I provide some specific recommendations. The quotes I have included in this article are from my doctoral dissertation research.

Basics of Endometriosis

When a person has endometriosis, the endometrial cells that line their uterus “implant” in places outside the uterus, such as the ovaries, fallopian tubes and the lining of the abdomen — called the peritoneum. At the end of each menstrual cycle, the uterus sheds its lining, which exits the body via the cervix and vagina. The “misplanted” endometrial cells also shed, but they have no place to go – resulting in internal bleeding, inflammation and pain.

An endometriosis diagnosis is described in stages related to the visual presence of the disease, from minimal, or Stage 1, to severe, or Stage 4. However, there is no connection between the stage and the experience of pain.

One symptom of endometriosis is intense pain during the menstrual cycle. Another is pain with sex. Because pain with menses or sex can be attributed to “normal” pain, a history of sexual abuse or psychiatric reasons such as a dislike of sex, some people with endometriosis wait an average of seven years for diagnosis, which can be visually confirmed only through a procedure called laparoscopy.

In addition to these and other types of severe pain, endometriosis can also cause infertility, and patients who want to have children must often undergo medical or surgical interventions to conceive.

Impact on School, Work and Sex

Physical pain from endometriosis can be debilitating. Adolescents with endometriosis may struggle to keep up with their classes, friends, homework or extracurricular activities when the pain becomes too severe. They may shift to home-schooling or virtual learning to complete their studies.

The pain can also deeply affect a career trajectory. “I almost lost my job because of time off,” one interviewee told me. “In fact, when I had to get my hysterectomy, I walked in to tell my manager and he goes, ‘Well, I hope you’re not going to tell me that you have to have a hysterectomy and have to be out for six weeks!’ And I just broke down in tears.”

All of my participants shared experiences where doctors dismissed complaints of sexual pain – called dyspareunia – from endometriosis. This can delay diagnosis and treatment.

Sex and intimacy often become nonexistent, while some couples shared that they have come to accept that pain is part of sex. One woman shared with me: “I don’t want to be touched or have my naked body seen because I feel bloated and ugly and I’m in horrible pain!”

Partners can also be affected emotionally. “I just feel horrible,” one told me. “There are times when we are having sex that I actually feel guilty that I know that I am hurting her and I know she is going to be in pain and it makes me unhappy.”

These experiences of pain, of not being believed by doctors and professionals, of negative effects on education and career and of intimacy destroyed create a heavy emotional burden on individuals and relationships.

Breaking the Silence

When I was diagnosed with endometriosis, it changed the course of my life. My partner and I learned to expand our definition of intimacy and to redistribute household responsibilities when I was incapacitated. As the risk of infertility only increases without intervention, we started conversations about having children earlier than anticipated. My diagnosis also led me to focus my professional identity as a medical family therapist to help others deal with endometriosis and chronic illnesses.

Based on this experience, here are some ways to break this silence:

• Learn about endometriosis. It directly helps when one’s support systems are educated.

• Separate the person from the disease. When the pain you are experiencing from endometriosis is debilitating, help those around you who are also affected to understand that it is because of your endometriosis and it is not personal.

• Speak from your own experience, saying, “I …” rather than “You …” When we do this, it decreases the other person’s defenses and opens up the communication, making space for connection.

My research participants shared their own recommendations with me, especially the importance of believing that their pain is real; accept that what they are sharing is their very real experience, and let them know that they are believed.

Bestselling author and social work researcher Brené Brown has said, “Empathy fuels connection, sympathy drives disconnection.” Approaching someone with endometriosis from a position of empathy sends a message that you want to work with them collaboratively.

By practicing these important relationship skills, we can break the silence around endometriosis.

Kristina S. Brown, PhD, is a Marriage and Family Therapist, and Professor and Chair of Couple and Family Therapy at Adler University in Chicago. Dr. Brown is the Editor-in-Chief of the Journal of Feminist Family Therapy and also serves as the Director of Mental Health for Floating Doctors.

This article originally appeared in The Conversation and is republished with permission.

Is Your Doctor a Good Listener?

By Carol Levy, PNN Columnist

Many of us have had doctors that we loved. They not only listened, but actually heard us. They gave us their time, attention, and cared -- not only about us, but doing the best they could for us.

They truly follow the intent of the Hippocratic Oath: primum non nocere, or “first, do no harm.”

Then there are the doctors who don't care, and don't even seem to care that we know they don't care. They are quick with us. They don't listen or hear. They have their theories. The facts that we give them about how the pain feels, where it is, etc. make no difference.

I went to a new neurologist. She was very nice, but ignored my pain from trigeminal neuralgia and my long history of surgeries and medications. She decided my issue was “anxiety,” which I never said I had.

She repeatedly asked, “Is your problem anxiety?” I shook my head “no” to answer the question and to show my frustration with her for asking it.

Nevertheless, at the end of the appointment, she asked, “Do you want me to prescribe something for your anxiety?”

Primum non nocere? No. She didn't do harm, but she sure as heck didn't help.

Dr. Norton, my neuro-ophthalmologist, didn't seem to care either, at first. He gave me short shrift by rudely saying, “Stop being so schizophrenic in how you're telling me about your pain.”

Because I was so afraid and worried, I gave him the details in scattershot form, instead of chronological and neatly. After two appointments, he finally understood my pain was real. Suddenly, he cared! The change in him was almost palpable. His words were supportive. He worked to give me hope.

When I first went to the hospital for a pain flare, I was overwhelmed by it. It was spontaneous and constant.  My only hope was that Dr. Norton could stop it.

“Is this ever going to go away?” I asked, my voice tremulous with pain and worry.

“Let me worry about that,” he said. “That's my job.”

His words were a verbal hug. Primum non nocere. He cared about me and would make sure I suffered no further harm. I felt like I was being helped.

Dr. Norton was the face of the caring doctor, the one who follows the oath, who puts his patient first. And that makes all the difference.

As for the doctor who wanted me to say I had anxiety, I canceled my next appointment with her. She was the second neurologist I had seen.  The first was also entrenched in his theories and didn't care about me or the facts.

I was concerned about consulting with a third doctor, fearful I would be accused of "doctor shopping.” I asked my nurse practitioner, “Do you think seeing another neurologist will be an issue?" She shook her head no.

"You have valid reasons for not wanting to stay with them. You need to find someone who will listen to you and deal with the pain," she told me.

And she was right.  I needed another doctor, a doctor like Dr. Norton, (who moved out of state). I need a doctor who works with me, not against me.  Who truly practices primum non nocere.

And that should be the goal for all of us.

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. 

‘Make Peace with Pain’: How Chronic Pain Patients Can Reduce Suicidal Thoughts

By Pat Anson, PNN Editor

Suicide is an important but difficult subject in the pain community, as many people with poorly controlled pain contemplate ways to end it. In a PNN survey of nearly 6,000 pain patients, nearly half said they considered suicide because their pain was poorly treated.

“Without my opioid medicines I will be completely bedridden in never ending agony,” one patient said. “I fear I will be forced into suicide like so many before me because living in never ending unrelieved pain is not a life worth living.”

“I have been severely tapered to a very inadequate level of pain medication and am in so much pain that I am essentially in bed 24/7. I no longer have a life. It is merely an existence and I completely understand why chronic pain patients commit suicide,” said another.

“I was raised to believe suicide was a sin, but I can't say for sure how I'll feel about suicide in a few years if this pain I'm in continues to worsen,” another patient wrote.

Fortunately, most pain sufferers don’t act on those suicidal thoughts, but some lose hope and sink into despair. According to a 2018 estimate, about a quarter of all opioid overdoses are suicides or suicide attempts.

How can pain sufferers avoid suicide ideation? A recent study published in Pain Medicine suggests that pain acceptance – “making peace with pain” – can help reduce suicide risk.

“We know for a fact that when people are in pain — and a lot of pain in particular — it makes them think about killing themselves because they don’t want to be in pain forever,” says lead author Willie Hale, PhD, Assistant Professor of Psychology at University of Texas at San Antonio. “We know there’s a direct relationship here between these two things: The more pain you have, the more you’re going to have in terms of suicidal cognitions.”

Hale and his colleagues surveyed 207 patients with chronic pain, mostly active-duty military, veterans or family members. Respondents were asked about their pain severity, attitudes about suicide, and whether they thought they were a burden to others.

The study is based on the Interpersonal Theory of Suicide, which holds that suicidal thoughts or ideation often begin when individuals feel rejected by others and believe they are a burden. When combined with a reduced fear of death and a suicide “capability,” those thoughts can turn into suicidal behavior.

Hale says when people learn to accept their pain and make peace with it, feelings of burdensomeness and thoughts of suicide diminish. The pain won’t go away, but acceptance will help people push through the pain and participate in activities that make life enjoyable again. More meaningful activity results in more social connectivity -- helping to reduce feelings of rejection and burdensomeness.

“If you can move people from making no peace with their pain to just being a little bit okay with it, that cuts their suicide risk in half, and if you can get them to a high level of pain acceptance, it gets rid of it altogether,” said Hale. “Even if you can’t actually, functionally do anything to make their pain better, if you can just get them to make peace with it, they’re going to be less likely to kill themselves.”

Of course, pain acceptance will not improve access to opioid medication or prevent someone from being tapered to an ineffective dose. The best way to prevent suicide – not examined in this study – is to give patients appropriate pain relief.

“I attempted suicide as the only means of pain relief left available to me,” a person in pain told us. “Not because I was sad or depressed, but because I simply could not live another 10 minutes with no relief in sight.”

How Do You Treat Long Covid? Patients Surveyed for Answers

By Esther Landhuis, Undark Magazine

In January 2020, Martha Eckey was working at a retail pharmacy in Champaign, Illinois, when she developed a sore throat, hacking cough, and stiff neck. A second bout of illness struck about a month later, leaving the pharmacist with a persistent fever and shortness of breath. Covid tests were unavailable at the time, but she tested positive for influenza.

The biggest challenge was “crushing, debilitating fatigue,” she told Undark. “No amount of sleep left me feeling even remotely refreshed,” she added by email. Three-and-a-half years later, Eckey has still not recovered.

Shortly after her initial illness, Eckey started reading about people with lingering post-Covid symptoms, and although she never knew for certain which virus caused her initial illness, those symptoms seemed strikingly similar to hers.

After connecting with patients navigating these conditions, Eckey wondered if she had developed myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome, or ME/CFS, a long-lasting illness that can crop up after a viral infection.

She went to see several physicians, but they “told me they were not taught about post-viral illnesses,” she recalled. “It literally wasn’t in their curriculum.” Eckey had not learned about post-viral syndromes in her four-year doctor of pharmacy training, either.

MARTHA ECKEY

Long Covid and ME/CFS are complex illnesses. Up to 2.5 million Americans live with ME/CFS, and more than 65 million people worldwide may have long Covid — though estimates vary and the dozens of symptoms across multiple body systems can make these conditions hard to define and diagnose. In some people, symptoms linger or intensify with time, but in others they occur weeks or months after recovery from the initial infection, which could be mild or undiagnosed.

In a recent analysis of 9,764 adults enrolled in the federally funded initiative RECOVER, long Covid patients fell into four subgroups based on symptoms, many overlapping with ME/CFS and other conditions. By studying biological samples from these participants, researchers hope to identify markers that can inform future trials of potential therapeutics.

Yet for now, despite an influx of research funding, there are no widely accepted treatments approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration to ease sufferers’ symptoms. In that void, desperate patients have turned to a range of proposed solutions — from microbiome treatments to vitamin supplements to experimental techniques like “blood washing” — to find relief. In this vast array of possible therapies, some are exorbitant and most are unproven.

Eckey quit her pharmacy job in August 2020 to search for useful patterns amid that chaos. Unlike most national initiatives and large academic research programs, Eckey is employing a bottom-up approach: She polls patients on which interventions they’ve tried and how they fared, in the hope that this crowdsourced knowledge might contain valuable insights for improving long Covid care.

While surveys like Eckey’s come with inherent limitations, some researchers think such grassroots efforts can help inform more rigorous studies.

“Large clinical trials cost millions of dollars, and it’s impossible to test hundreds of different things at once,” said Akiko Iwasaki, whose lab at the Yale School of Medicine studies the immunology of long Covid. “Knowing what has benefited the patients already provides us with insights that can be tested in future trials.”

Medications and Supplements

Late in the summer of 2022, Eckey, known to social media followers and Substack subscribers as LongCovidPharmD, created several surveys using Google Forms and shared them on Twitter (more recently rebranded as X).

One of the surveys listed about two dozen medications — including Paxlovid, statins, and beta blockers— and had respondents tick boxes for the ones they had tried. It asked them to indicate if taking the drug seemed to “moderately improve,” “vastly improve,” worsen, or have little to no effect on long Covid symptoms or quality of life. Other sections asked if they had conditions that commonly occur alongside ME/CFS or long Covid, such as dysautonomia, mast cell activation syndrome, or a history of blood clots.

Eckey also grew curious about supplements — a category that includes probiotics or enzymes, herbs, minerals, vitamins, and other over-the-counter products with suggested uses that are not regulated by the FDA. In social media posts, she noticed that people commenting on supplements would say, “‘Oh, that didn’t work at all for me,’ and then other people say, ‘oh, that cured me,’” she said.

So she created another survey, listing eight types of supplements and asking to what extent they seemed to help with fatigue, cognitive function, and other symptoms. Motivation for that survey also came from Eckey’s own frustration with being unable to get any prescribed treatments, she said: “I thought, ‘Well, I think I just have to figure out how to treat myself.’”

With more than 200 respondents, the surveys gave a sense for which types of supplements seemed most helpful. Additional surveys focused on the most promising supplements — which doses were used and for what frequency and duration, whether patients improved or felt worse, and which symptoms patients noticed seemed to be affected.

Eckey analyzed the results and started posting detailed summaries on X. Then, in late 2022, her work caught the attention of the Open Medicine Foundation, a California-based nonprofit that has raised $40 million to diagnose and treat complex, multi-system diseases including ME/CFS, long Covid, and others that have eluded doctors.

No Approved Treatments

ME/CFS and long Covid have no FDA-approved treatments, and neither has a definitive diagnostic. The situation echoes that of early days of AIDS, which, decades ago, was defined by symptoms rather than measurable changes inside the body, said Wenzhong Xiao, a computational biologist at Harvard Medical School who directs the foundation’s efforts on ME/CFS treatments.

Regulators typically validate medical treatments through a formal application that specifies the substance’s composition and how it’s made. The application also proposes further study in clinical trials, which generally won’t launch without supportive data from smaller pilot studies. When the Open Medicine Foundation came across Eckey’s work, the organization was already trying to decide which potential treatments to test in pilot studies for long Covid, and was making a registry from which to recruit patients. 

Building on her initial surveys with information gleaned from published trials, case studies, patient feedback, and her “own pharmacist intuition,” Eckey created a more comprehensive version, called “TREAT ME,” and tweeted it on Feb. 5, 2023. 

The survey — which, by Eckey’s account, took about 1,000 hours to produce — covered more than 150 medications and supplements. After collecting details about a person’s symptoms, lab tests, and medical history, the survey asked about treatments: whether they appeared to help, which symptoms improved, how long it took to see benefits, how long the benefits lasted, and whether they were outweighed by side effects. If a medication did not seem to help, the survey asked how long it was tried and at which doses.

“No one has done that deep a dive,” said Linda Tannenbaum, the CEO of the Open Medicine Foundation.

By the time the survey closed for analysis in late March, the responses had climbed to nearly 4,000.

Survey Bias

Despite the potential, surveys have unavoidable, inherent biases that can influence how data is collected and results are interpreted, said internist Lucinda Bateman, founder of the nonprofit Bateman Horne Center — a clinical care, research, and educational organization in Salt Lake City, Utah, that focuses on chronic, complex disorders including long Covid. First, there’s selection bias: Who decides to participate and why? There’s sampling bias: Who never hears about it? There’s also non-response bias: People for whom a treatment has little to no obvious effect may be less likely to participate. 

Surveys also hinge on participants’ own accounts, which aren’t typically confirmed with other sourcing. Eckey’s survey, for instance, relied on respondents to indicate whether they had an official or presumed diagnosis of long Covid or ME/CFS.

The approach also can’t typically account for the placebo effects that result from other factors besides a specific treatment or from other ongoing illnesses or treatments, which may skew the results. And beyond the difficulties with diagnosing long Covid, people may “think they got sick during the pandemic, and it’s entirely something else,” said Bateman. The uncertainty in the data is “just what happens when you do surveys,” she added.

Eckey agreed with these caveats, noting that she tried “to limit bias to the extent that I could.” For instance, to ease non-response bias, the survey instructions encouraged participants to rate treatments “even if they had no effect,” she said.

She also prompted participants to specify underlying conditions and treatments, and responses could be filtered accordingly. And Eckey included one supplement that she believed would have little to no impact on symptoms, figuring questions about it “could act as a sort of ‘placebo’ against which other treatments could be compared.” On a similar vein, she asked about several treatments that were hyped at various times and found their reported benefits to be “underwhelming” or not statistically different from related drugs.

The supplement industry is vast and largely unregulated, with many products lacking solid evidence for health benefits. Research to produce that evidence is a complex, costly process that requires FDA input, often participation from the company that produces the supplement, and approval by an independent ethics committee. What’s more, such trials must follow a company’s best guess on the right doses, optimizing the supplement’s benefit while minimizing side effects.

This approach comes with substantial risks for illnesses like long Covid, which cause a range of symptoms that differ from one person to the next, said David Putrino, director of rehabilitation innovation for the Mount Sinai Health System in New York. A single treatment won’t necessary work for all of them, Putrino, who studies and treats long Covid patients, added in an email, and “you feel like you only have ‘one shot.’”

Eckey’s survey, he said in a phone interview, “allows me to actually make data-driven decisions on what seems to be working.”

The approach is already prompting new studies. Some researchers think that certain long Covid symptoms stem from tiny blood clots; more than 60 percent of Eckey’s survey respondents said they felt better after taking supplements containing enzymes that break down fibrin, the main protein that forms the clots.

These results helped Putrino and colleagues choose one of the enzymes, called lumbrokinase, for a long Covid trial planned for early 2024.

“My desire to get better and help others in similar situations is what keeps me going.”

— Martha Eckey

The Open Medicine Foundation team is also using the survey results to inform drug trials. In a more typical trial, the group mines published scientific literature and uses machine learning to predict which medications might help. These analyses would have likely missed lumbrokinase, since it appears in relatively few academic research papers, Xiao said. Based on Eckey’s survey findings, he said, his team is “definitely thinking about doing follow-up studies.”

Beyond her dataset, Xiao added, Eckey is herself is an inspiration: “I can imagine how much effort she put, despite her own symptoms, to make this happen.”

Eckey’s lingering fatigue still keeps her mostly housebound — and, on some days, stuck in bed — but she told Undark via email that her cardiovascular symptoms have improved. On her better days, she said, she plans to volunteer at a free ME/CFS clinic that treats post-Covid patients: “My desire to get better and help others in similar situations is what keeps me going.”

Esther Landhuis (@elandhuis) is a California-based science journalist and a senior contributor to Undark. She covers biomedicine at all stages — lab discoveries, clinical trials, biotech, healthcare and its intersections with law and business. Her stories have also appeared in Scientific American, Nature, Medscape, JAMA, Science News, Quanta and other outlets.

This article was originally published by Undark, a non-profit, editorially independent online magazine covering the complicated and often fractious intersection of science and society. You can read the original article here.

Is It Safe for Doctors to Recommend Medical Cannabis?

By Dr. Joseph Parker

Nearly two-thirds of oncologists and pain management specialists say they are worried about the legal repercussions of recommending medical cannabis to their patients. This is not an unreasonable fear.

According to one survey, 60% of doctors fear professional stigma, and for good reason. I have seen colleagues call the DEA to report that a physician who certified patients for cannabis was selling marijuana from their office.  As absurd as this might seem, once the DEA gets rolling, they can always find an excuse to prosecute a physician treating pain or addiction. 

Cannabis may soon be moved from a Schedule I controlled substance, with no approved medical use, to a less restrictive Schedule III, where it would be regulated like codeine. This might relax some of those physicians, but I’m not sure it will.

There are many politicians and law enforcement officers who simply believe that marijuana is evil. The extreme was former Attorney General Jeff Sessions, who said at one time that marijuana was “only slightly less awful” than heroin. 

Sessions may truly believe this, but the comparison has no basis.  Heroin can cause respiratory depression and death.  Cannabis cannot.  Heroin works on the endorphin receptors in the brain to trigger a dopamine-mediated reward response, which can lead to what I call “true” addiction. 

Cannabis works predominately through the endocannabinoid system, though it can indirectly influence the release of dopamine and other brain areas associated with the reward system. That’s because the endocannabinoid system and CB1 receptors play a regulatory role in the release of various neurotransmitters, including dopamine.

When tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) binds to CB1 receptors, it can affect the release of dopamine and other neurotransmitters, which contributes to the pleasurable and rewarding effects associated with cannabis use.

I am not saying that someone cannot develop a cannabis substance use disorder or dependence. They certainly can, just like you can with caffeine, sugar or gambling, for that matter.  What I’m saying is that cannabis can make people feel good and want more, but it is nowhere near as dangerous as heroin.  It is also not neurotoxic, like methamphetamine, which can cause the death of brain cells with a single use. 

Some studies actually show a neuroprotective effect from cannabis. And, when taken by itself, cannabis cannot cause an overdose death. This is important. 

Every time the U.S. government targets something, they pay an army of statisticians to generate scary-sounding numbers. For example, you will hear claims that a rise in fatal car accidents was “associated” with cannabis. What exactly does that mean?  It means that a large percentage of accidents involve people who use cannabis, which is unsurprising since about 40% of the adult U.S. population has or is using cannabis.

Those same accidents show a much higher correlation with caffeine.  Caffeine use could be “associated” with probably 90% of all car accidents.  But correlation, of course, does not prove causation. 

These arguments present no evidence that cannabis caused the accidents.  However, the news media can get sloppy about scientific accuracy.  A study will say that a certain number of accidents “involved” cannabis, and the media will report that the cannabis “caused” the accident.

CBD vs. THC

For some reason, Sessions was also obsessed with CBD (cannabidiol). CBD is not THC, which is psychoactive and has a significant effect on a user’s mental processes.  CBD is considered non-psychoactive by a majority of experts, including the World Health Organization.

THC has a higher affinity for CB1 receptors, which are primarily found in the brain and central nervous system, and is a partial agonist for both CB1 and CB2 receptors. Activation of CB1 can cause euphoria and relaxation. It also alters sensory perception, impairs short-term memory, induces anxiety and paranoia, and impairs motor coordination.

CBD does not directly activate those receptors or have those effects. It is instead considered a negative allosteric modulator of CB1 receptors. CBD modifies the CB1 receptor response to THC and actually moderates some of the psychoactive effects of THC.  

There is also evidence that CBD can be anxiolytic and antipsychotic, while THC has been linked (not proven) to be associated with schizophrenia and psychosis.  THC can lead to the release of dopamine, which accounts for the euphoria, but at too low a level to be compared with more addictive substances.

CBD has been found in at least one study to be effective in the treatment of heroin addiction, and in another study to increased motivation, possibly giving us something to treat symptoms of schizophrenia.

Does this all mean it is safe to recommend cannabis to your patients?  Not really. While cannabis has been shown in several replicated studies to be helpful in the treatment of chronic pain, right now it is not safe for doctors to prescribe or recommend. 

Even in states where cannabis is legal for medical use and federal courts have upheld the right of physicians to recommend it, I would argue that the DEA takes a different view.

In the recent prosecution of a physician for “overprescribing” opiates, prosecutors claimed at a press conference that they started investigating the doctor after a call from local police regarding an overdose death.  Evidence later showed this was not the case.  The doctor was actually first targeted for agreeing to certify patients for their state’s medical cannabis program. 

You can help educate your patients about cannabis, but send them on to someone who does not prescribe controlled substances. Until physician rights are restored and protected in this country, it’s just not safe to recommend cannabis.

Joseph Parker, MD, is Chief Science Officer and Operations Officer at Advanced Research Concepts, a company developing solutions to the challenges of space travel and space-related medical issues.  In clinical practice, Dr. Parker specialized in emergency medicine and served as Director of Emergency Medicine at two hospitals. Prior to that, he had a distinguished career in the U.S. Marines and Air Force. 

In 2022, a federal jury convicted Dr. Parker on two counts of unlawful opioid prescribing. He has filed an appeal as he awaits sentencing.

Most Employees Want Insurers to Cover Medical Cannabis

By Pat Anson, PNN Editor

A new survey highlights the divide that often exists between patients, doctors and employers when it comes to using medical cannabis.

EO Care Inc. surveyed 1,027 Americans on their views and use of cannabis. All respondents were employed, either full or part-time, and lived in states where cannabis is legal for medical and/or recreational use.

Nearly one in five (18%) said they had used cannabis for health reasons in the past year, primarily for pain, anxiety, and to help them sleep. A large majority --- 88% --- said it helped them reduce their use of prescription drugs, alcohol or both.

Medical cannabis is so popular that 56% of workers said they would be more likely to take a job at a company that has a health plan that covers cannabis. And nearly half (44%) said they would reconsider applying for a job at a company that tested employees for cannabis or prohibited its use outside the workplace.

Nearly two thirds (65%) said they would feel more comfortable using medical cannabis if they were screened and dosed by a physician. And over half (51%) said they would be likely or very likely to use cannabis if it was covered by their insurer.

Previous surveys have found that doctors and patients are often reluctant to discuss cannabis. Many patients fear they’ll be labeled as drug abusers and lose their jobs if they admit using cannabis; while many doctors don’t consider themselves educated enough to recommend cannabis or have doubts about its safety and effectiveness.

“Finding clinical guidance for medicinal cannabis is difficult because most doctors lack the knowledge and retail dispensaries are not equipped to provide medical advice,” Sean Collins, co-founder and CEO of EO Care, said in a news release. “As a result we have tens of millions of Americans using cannabis for health reasons without guidance on specific product recommendations, dosage amounts, possible drug interactions, or consideration of their health history and other potential health risks.”

EO Care provides its members with access to clinicians who, based on a patient’s needs and medical history, develops a personal cannabis plan for them that includes recommendations for specific CBD and THC products and dosages. Members gain access to EO Care through employers who offer the program as a health benefit.

The company is trying to convince employers that offering cannabis care will help attract and retain good workers. Unguided cannabis use can lead to health issues, bad reactions or even abuse, leading to more sick days and loss of productivity.

“We know a large percentage of Americans have used cannabis in the past year, so this is definitely impacting employees and health outcomes,” said Collins. “With the right medicinal cannabis guidance, employers have an opportunity to help their employees, improve health outcomes and be progressive leaders in offering this important benefit that employees will come to expect.”

Currently, most employers and insurers don’t offer cannabis care, but attitudes are changing. A state court in Pennsylvania recently ruled that workers’ compensation plans must cover medical cannabis when an employee uses it to recover from a workplace-related injury. The court ruled that employees in Pennsylvania had “a statutory right” under state law to be reimbursed for medical cannabis.

Childhood Trauma and Neglect Increase Risk of Headache Disorders

By Pat Anson, PNN Editor

People who experience traumatic events during childhood, such as physical abuse, sexual abuse or neglect, are more likely to have headache disorders as adults, according to a large new study. The research adds to a growing body of evidence linking adverse childhood experiences (ACEs) to headaches and migraines in adults.

“Traumatic events in childhood can have serious health implications later in life,” says lead author Catherine Kreatsoulas, PhD, of Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health. “Our meta-analysis confirms that childhood traumatic events are important risk factors for headache disorders in adulthood, including migraine, tension headaches, cluster headaches, and chronic or severe headaches. This is a risk factor that we cannot ignore.”

Kreatsoulas and her colleagues reviewed 28 studies that examined the childhood histories of nearly 155,000 people in 19 countries. Their findings are published Neurology, the medical journal of the American Academy of Neurology.

About a third of the participants (31%) reported at least one traumatic childhood event. Of those, 26% were diagnosed with a primary headache disorder, compared to 12% of participants who said they experienced no childhood trauma. People who had four or more traumatic events during childhood were more than twice as likely to have a headache disorder than those who had one ACE.

Researchers also examined different types of childhood trauma. Events categorized as “threat” traumas included physical abuse, sexual abuse, emotional abuse, witnessing or being threatened with violence, and serious family conflicts.

Events categorized as “deprivation” traumas included childhood neglect, economic adversity, divorce or separation, parental death, alcohol or substance abuse, and living in a household where someone has a mental illness, chronic illness, disability or is incarcerated.

Threat traumas were linked to a 46% increase in headache disorders, while deprivation traumas were linked to a 35% increase in headaches. Among threat traumas, physical and sexual abuse were associated with a 60% increased risk for headaches. Among deprivation traumas, neglect was linked to a nearly three-fold increased risk for headache disorders.

“Threat or deprivation traumas are important and independent risk factors for headache disorders in adulthood,” said Kreatsoulas. “Identifying the specific types of childhood experiences may help guide prevention and treatment strategies for one of the leading disabling disorders worldwide. A comprehensive public health plan and clinical intervention strategies are needed to address these underlying traumatic childhood events.”

Due to the stigma and sensitive nature of childhood trauma, researchers say it’s likely the number of ACE cases is under-reported by adults.

 “Despite this, the robustness of these findings cannot be underappreciated as the studies composing this meta-analysis represent diverse global regions and the findings supersede cultural contexts,” they said.

The research does not prove that ACEs cause headaches -- it only shows an association.

Previous studies have also linked childhood trauma to an increased risk of chronic pain conditions such as fibromyalgia and lupus, as well as mood and sleep problems.