Lax FDA Oversight of Medical Devices Exposed in Lawsuits

By Fred Schulte and Holly K. Hacker, KFF Health News  

Living with diabetes, Carlton “PeeWee” Gautney Jr. relied on a digital device about the size of a deck of playing cards to pump insulin into his bloodstream.

The pump, manufactured by device maker Medtronic, connected plastic tubing to an insulin reservoir, which Gautney set to release doses of the vital hormone over the course of the day. Gautney, a motorcycle enthusiast, worked as a dispatcher with the police department in Opp, Alabama.

The 59-year-old died suddenly on May 17, 2020, because — his family believes — the pump malfunctioned and delivered a fatal overdose of insulin.

“There’s a big hole left where he was,” said Gautney’s daughter, Carla Wiggins, who is suing the manufacturer. “A big part of me is missing.”

The wrongful-death lawsuit alleges the pump was “defective and unreasonably dangerous.” Medtronic has denied the pump caused Gautney’s death and filed a court motion for summary judgment, which is pending.

The pump Gautney depended on was among more than 400,000 Medtronic devices recalled, starting in November 2019, after the company said in a recall notice that damage to a retainer ring on the pump could “lead to an over or under delivery of insulin,” which could “be life threatening or may result in death.”

CARLA WIGGINS AND CARLTON GAUTNEY

As the recall played out, federal regulators discovered that Medtronic had delayed acting — and warning patients of possible hazards with the pumps — despite amassing tens of thousands of complaints about the rings, government records show.

Over the past year, KFF Health News has investigated medical device malfunctions including:

• Artificial knees manufactured by a Gainesville, Florida, company that remained on the market for more than 15 years despite packaging issues that the company said could have caused more than 140,000 of the implants to wear out prematurely.

• Metal hip implants that snapped in two inside patients who said in lawsuits that they required urgent surgery.

• Last-resort heart pumps that FDA records state may have caused or contributed to thousands of patient deaths.

• And even a dental device, used on patients without FDA review, that lawsuits alleged has caused catastrophic harm to teeth and jawbones. CBS News co-reported and aired TV stories about the hip and dental devices.

The investigation has found that most medical devices, including many implants, are now cleared for sale by the FDA without tests for safety or effectiveness. Instead, manufacturers must simply show they have “substantial equivalence” to a product already in the marketplace — an approval process some experts view as vastly overused and fraught with risks.

“Patients believe they are getting an implant that’s been proven safe,” said Joshua Sharlin, a former FDA official who now is a consultant and expert witness in drug and medical device regulation. “No, it hasn’t,” Sharlin said.

And once those devices reach the marketplace, the FDA struggles to track malfunctions, including deaths and injuries — while injured patients face legal barriers trying to hold manufacturers accountable for product defects.

In a statement to KFF Health News, the FDA said it “has a scientifically rigorous process to evaluate the safety and effectiveness of medical devices.”

‘Too Little, Too Late’

The FDA approved the MiniMed 670G insulin pump on Sept. 28, 2016, after its most stringent safety review, a little-used process known as premarket approval.

In a news release that day, Jeffrey Shuren, who directs the FDA’s Center for Devices and Radiological Health, lauded the device as a “first-of-its-kind technology” that would give patients “greater freedom to live their lives” and to monitor and dispense insulin as needed. The pump was tested on 123 patients in a clinical trial over several months with “no serious adverse events,” the release said. Shuren declined to be interviewed for this article.

The FDA’s enthusiasm didn’t last. In November 2019, Medtronic, citing the ring problem, launched an “urgent medical device recall” of the pumps, which it expanded in late 2021.

During an inspection at Medtronic’s plant in Northridge, California, FDA officials learned the company had logged more than 74,000 ring complaints between 2016 and the November 2019 recall.

More than 800 complaints weren’t investigated at all, according to the FDA, which sharply criticized the company in a December 2021 warning letter.

MiniMed 670G insulin pump (MEDTRONIC IMAGE)

Medtronic is facing more than 60 lawsuits filed by injured patients and their families and the company believes it may be hit with claims for damages from thousands more patients, the company disclosed in an August Securities and Exchange Commission filing.

Medtronic pumps that allegedly dispensed too much, or too little, insulin have been blamed for contributing to at least a dozen patient deaths, according to lawsuits filed since 2019. Some cases have been settled under confidential terms, while others are pending or have been dismissed. Medtronic has denied any responsibility in response to the lawsuits.

In one pending case, a Las Vegas man using the pump allegedly fell into an “insulin-induced coma” that led to his death in 2020. In another 2020 case, a 67-year-old New Jersey resident collapsed at her home, dying later the same day at a local hospital.

The recall notice Medtronic sent to a 43-year-old Missouri man’s home arrived a few days after police found him dead on his bedroom floor, his family alleged in a lawsuit filed in August. “Simply too little, too late,” the suit reads. The case is pending, and Medtronic has yet to file an answer in court.

Medtronic declined to answer written questions from KFF Health News about the pumps and court cases. In an emailed statement, the company said it replaced pump rings with new ones “redesigned to reduce the risk of damage” and “fulfilled all pump replacement requests at no cost to customers.”

In April, Medtronic announced that the FDA had lifted the warning letter a few days after it approved a new version of the MiniMed pump system.

Shortcut to Market

The 1976 federal law that mandated safety testing for high-risk medical devices also created a far easier — and less costly — pathway to the marketplace. This process, known as a 510(k) clearance, requires manufacturers to show a new device they plan to sell has “substantial equivalence” to one already on the market, even if the prior product has been recalled.

Critics have worried for years that the 510(k)-approval scenario is too industry-friendly to protect patients from harm.

In July 2011, an Institute of Medicine report concluded that 510(k) was “not intended to evaluate the safety and effectiveness of medical devices” and said “a move away from the 510(k) clearance process should occur as soon as reasonably possible.”

More than a decade later, that hasn’t happened, even amid mounting controversy over the clearance of hundreds of devices that employ artificial intelligence.

The FDA now clears about 3,000 low- to moderate-risk devices every year through 510(k) review, which costs the device maker a standard FDA fee of about $22,000. That compares with about 30 approvals a year through the stricter premarketing requirements, which cost nearly $500,000 per device, according to FDA data.

Diana Zuckerman, president of the National Center for Health Research, said even many doctors don’t realize devices cleared for sale typically have not undergone clinical trials to establish their safety.

“Doctors are shocked to learn this,” she said. “Patients aren’t going to know it when their doctors don’t.”

In response to written questions from KFF Health News, the FDA said it “continues to believe in the merits of the 510(k) program and will continue to work to identify program improvements that strengthen the safety and effectiveness of 510(k) cleared devices.”

The FDA keeps a tight lid on data showing which devices manufacturers choose to demonstrate substantial equivalence — what the agency refers to as “predicate” devices.

“We can’t get detailed data,” said Sandra Rothenberg, a researcher at the Rochester Institute of Technology. “It’s very hard for researchers to determine the basis on which substantial equivalence is being made and to analyze if there are problems.”

Rothenberg cited the history of “metal-on-metal” artificial hip implants, which under 510(k) spawned many new brands — along with a disastrous toll of patient injuries. The implants could release metal particles that damaged bone and led to premature removal and replacement, a painful operation. Just four of these hip devices have been the target of more than 25,000 lawsuits seeking damages, court records show.

In early 2016, the FDA issued an order requiring safety testing before approving new metal-on-metal hip devices.

Alarm Bells

Two former Medtronic sales executives in California argue in a whistleblower lawsuit that the 510(k) process can be abused. According to the whistleblowers, the FDA approved the Puritan Bennett 980, or PB 980, ventilator in 2014 based on the assertion it was substantially equivalent to the PB 840, an earlier mechanical ventilator long viewed as the workhorse of the industry.

Medtronic’s subsidiary company Covidien made its claim even though the device has completely different “guts” and operates using software and other “substantially different” mechanisms, according to the whistleblowers’ suit. In response, Medtronic said it “believes the allegations are without merit and has moved to dismiss the case.” The case is pending.

The whistleblowers argue the PB 980 ventilator was plagued by dangerous malfunctions for years before its recall in late 2021. One ventilator billowed smoke in an intensive care unit while the whistleblowers were told by one hospital that “the wheels for the ventilator cart may actually fall off the ventilator during transport,” according to the suit.

Batteries could die without warning, kicking off a scramble to keep patients alive; monitor screens froze up repeatedly or otherwise went on the blink; and, in several cases, alarm bells warning of a patient emergency rang continuously and could be quieted only by unplugging the unit from the wall socket and pulling out its batteries, according to the suit.

The December 2021 recall of the PB 980 cited a “manufacturing assembly error” that the company said may cause the ventilator to become “inoperable.”

Medtronic said in an email that the ventilator “has helped thousands of patients around the world,” including playing a “critical role in the global response to the COVID-19 pandemic.”

Late Warnings

The FDA operates a massive database, called MAUDE, to alert regulators and the public to emerging device dangers. The FDA requires manufacturers to advise the agency when they learn their device may have caused or contributed to a death or serious injury, or malfunctioned in a way that might recur and cause harm. These reports must be submitted within 30 days unless a special exemption is granted.

But FDA officials acknowledge that many serious adverse events go unreported — just how many is anybody’s guess.

Since 2010, the FDA has cited companies more than 5,000 times for not handling, reviewing, or investigating complaints properly, or for not reporting adverse events on time. For instance, the FDA cited an Ohio company that made electric beds and other devices more than 15 times for failing to properly scrutinize complaints or report adverse events, including the death of a patient who allegedly became trapped between a bedrail and mattress, agency records show.

In about 10% of reports, more than a year or two elapsed from when a death or serious injury occurred and when the FDA received the reports, a KFF Health News analysis found. That works out to nearly 60,000 delayed reports a year.

Experts and lawmakers say the FDA needs to find a way to detect safety problems quicker.

Sens. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) and Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) have tried for years to persuade the agency to add unique device identifiers to Medicare payment claim forms to help track products that fail. In an email statement to KFF Health News, Grassley called that a “commonsense step we can take up front to mitigate risk, improve certainty and save money later.”

The FDA said it is working to “strike the right balance between assuring safety and fostering device innovation and patient access.” Yet it noted: “Additional resources are required to establish a fully functioning active surveillance system for medical devices.”

For now, injured patients suing device companies often cite the volume of adverse event reports to MAUDE, or FDA citations for failing to report them, to bolster claims that the company knew about product malfunctions but failed to correct them.

In one case, a New York man is suing manufacturer Boston Scientific, claiming injuries from a device called the AMS 800 that is used to treat stress urinary incontinence.

Though Boston Scientific says on its website that 200,000 men have been treated successfully, the lawsuit argues complaints piled up in MAUDE year after year and no action was taken — by the company or by regulators.

The number of complaints filed soared from six in 2016 to 2,753 in 2019, according to the suit. By far, the largest category involved incontinence, the condition the device was supposed to fix, according to the suit. Boston Scientific did not respond to a request for comment. The company has filed a motion to dismiss the case, which is pending.

By the FDA’s own count, more than 57,000 of some 74,000 complaints Medtronic received about the MiniMed insulin pump’s retainer rings were reported to the agency. The FDA said the complaints “were part of the information that led to the compliance actions.” The agency said it “approved design and manufacturing changes to the retainer ring to correct this issue” and “has reviewed information confirming the effectiveness of the modification.”

“What is the threshold for the FDA to step in and do something?” said Mara Schwartz, who is a nurse, diabetes educator, and pump user. “How many deaths or adverse events does there have to be?”

In 2020, she sued Medtronic, alleging she suffered seizures when the pump mistakenly delivered an overdose of insulin. Medtronic denied her claims, and the case has since been settled under confidential terms.

Private Eyes

Some countries don’t trust the device industry to play such a key role in oversight.

Australia and about a dozen other nations maintain registries that measure the performance of medical devices against competitors, with an eye toward not paying for care for a substandard device.

That’s not likely to happen in the United States, where no device or drug manufacturer must demonstrate its new product is better than what’s already for sale.

Product liability lawsuits in the U.S. often cite troubling findings from overseas. For instance, registries in Australia and other countries pinpointed durability problems with the Optetrak knee implants manufactured by Florida device company Exactech years before a major recall. Exactech has declined comment.

The Australian surveillance network also detected deficiencies with the Medtronic PB 980 ventilator, prompting the country’s health authority to suspend its use for six months until Medtronic completed training for health care workers and took other steps to improve it, court records show. Medtronic told KFF Health News that it had “worked closely” with the Australian group to resolve the problems. “We take patient safety very seriously and have processes to identify quality issues and determine appropriate actions,” Medtronic said.

Registries have gained some traction in America. But so far, they typically have been controlled, and sometimes funded, by industry and medical specialty groups that share their findings only with doctors.

One private registry managed by the Society of Thoracic Surgeons, called Intermacs, tracks death and injury rates at 180 hospitals in the United States certified to implant a mechanical heart pump known as an LVAD. Some patients might find that information helpful, but it’s not available to them.

‘New and Exciting Features’

While the FDA clears thousands of devices for use based on the “substantial equivalence” premise, manufacturers often tout “new and exciting features” in their advertising and other marketing, said Alexander Everhart, a researcher at the Washington University School of Medicine in St. Louis.

These marketing campaigns have long been controversial, especially when they rely partly on wining and dining surgeons and other medical professionals to gain new business, or when surgeons have financial ties to manufacturers whose products they use. Orthopedic device makers have funneled billions of dollars to surgeons, including fees for consulting, doing medical research, or royalties for their role in fine-tuning surgical tools and techniques, even promoting the products to their peers.

Marketing campaigns directed at prospective patients may receive little scrutiny. The FDA has “limited resources to actively monitor the volume of direct-to-consumer advertising,” according to a Government Accountability Office report issued in September. From 2018 to 2022, the FDA took 255 enforcement actions involving advertising claims made for devices, according to the GAO report.

While manufacturers can advertise devices directly to patients, courts may not hold them accountable for communicating possible risks to patients.

Consider the case of Richard Greisberg, a retired electronics business owner in New Jersey. He sued Boston Scientific in 2019, years after having a Greenfield vena cava filter implanted. The device is intended to prevent blood clots that develop in the lower body from traveling into the lungs, which can be deadly.

Greisberg argued that the device had migrated in his body, causing pain and other symptoms and damage that took years to identify. Representing himself in court, he tried to argue that nobody had told him that could happen and that if they had done so he wouldn’t have agreed to the procedure.

He lost when the judge cited a legal doctrine called “learned intermediary.” The doctrine, which is recognized in many states, holds that manufacturers must warn only physicians, who are presumed to have the knowledge to understand a medical device’s risks and relay them to patients.

The court ruled that a 27-page manual the manufacturer sent to the physician who implanted it, which included details about possible risks, was adequate and tossed the case.

Greisberg, 81, felt sucker-punched. “They never gave me any warning about what could happen down the road,” he said in an interview. “I never had a chance to have my day in court.”

The family of PeeWee Gautney also faces challenges pursuing the insulin pump lawsuit.

Gautney died in a motel room in Destin, Florida, a day after riding his Harley-Davidson to the Panhandle beach town on a weekend jaunt. The MiniMed pump was still strapped to his body, according to a police report.

Medtronic had sent Gautney a form letter in late March 2020, less than two months before he died, advising him to make sure the ring was locking in place correctly. A week later, he wrote back, telling the company: “It’s fine right now,” court records show.

Wiggins, 33, his daughter, who is also a neonatal respiratory therapist, said she believes a crack in the retainer ring caused it to release too much insulin, which her dad may not have recognized.

“It should never be put on the patient to determine if there is a problem,” Wiggins said.

Medtronic has denied the pump failed and caused Gautney’s death. The FDA approved the device knowing patients faced the risk of it administering wrong doses, but believed the benefits outweighed these risks, Medtronic argued in a motion for summary judgment in September. The motion is pending.

Medtronic also cited a legal doctrine holding that Congress granted the FDA sole oversight authority over devices receiving premarket approval, which preempts any product defect claims brought under state laws. Manufacturers have drawn on the preemption defense to sidestep liability for patient injuries, and often win dismissal, though federal courts are split in applying the doctrine.

Wiggins hopes to beat those odds, arguing that the December 2021 FDA warning letter reveals that Medtronic violated safety and manufacturing standards.

Her lawyer, Scott Murphy, said that insulin pumps are “really wonderful” devices for people with diabetes when they work right. He argues that the FDA records confirm that Medtronic significantly downplayed its pump’s hazards.

“The risks get minimized and the benefits exaggerated,” he said.

KFF Health News is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues.

Health Misinformation Rampant on Social Media

By Dr. Monica Wang, Boston University

The global anti-vaccine movement and vaccine hesitancy that accelerated during the COVID-19 pandemic show no signs of abating.

According to a survey of U.S. adults, Americans in October 2023 were less likely to view approved vaccines as safe than they were in April 2021. As vaccine confidence falls, health misinformation continues to spread like wildfire on social media and in real life.

I am a public health expert in health misinformation, science communication and health behavior change.

In my view, we cannot underestimate the dangers of health misinformation and the need to understand why it spreads and what we can do about it. Health misinformation is defined as any health-related claim that is false based on current scientific consensus.

False Claims About Vaccines

Vaccines are the No. 1 topic of misleading health claims. Some common myths about vaccines include:

• Their supposed link with human diagnoses of autism. Multiple studies have discredited this claim, and it has been firmly refuted by the World Health Organization, the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine, the American Academy of Pediatrics and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

• Concerns with the COVID-19 vaccine leading to infertility. This connection has been debunked through a systematic review and meta-analysis, one of the most robust forms of synthesizing scientific evidence.

• Safety concerns about vaccine ingredients, such as thimerosal, aluminum and formaldehyde. Extensive studies have shown these ingredients are safe when used in the minimal amounts contained in vaccines.

• Vaccines as medically unnecessary to protect from disease. The development and dissemination of vaccines for life-threatening diseases such as smallpox, polio, measles, mumps, rubella and the flu has saved millions of lives. It also played a critical role in historic increases in average life expectancy – from 47 years in 1900 in the U.S. to 76 years in 2023.

High Cost of Misinformation

Beliefs in such myths have come at the highest cost.

An estimated 319,000 COVID-19 deaths that occurred between January 2021 and April 2022 in the U.S. could have been prevented if those individuals had been vaccinated, according to a data dashboard from the Brown University School of Public Health. Misinformation and disinformation about COVID-19 vaccines alone have cost the U.S. economy an estimated US$50 million to $300 million per day in direct costs from hospitalizations, long-term illness, lives lost and economic losses from missed work.

Though vaccine myths and misunderstandings tend to dominate conversations about health, there is an abundance of misinformation on social media surrounding diets and eating disorders, smoking or substance use, chronic diseases and medical treatments.

My team’s research and that of others show that social media platforms have become go-to sources for health information, especially among adolescents and young adults. However, many people are not equipped to maneuver the maze of health misinformation.

For example, an analysis of Instagram and TikTok posts from 2022 to 2023 by The Washington Post and the nonprofit news site The Examination found that the food, beverage and dietary supplement industries paid dozens of registered dietitian influencers to post content promoting diet soda, sugar and supplements, reaching millions of viewers. The dietitians’ relationships with the food industry were not always made clear to viewers.

Studies show that health misinformation spread on social media results in fewer people getting vaccinated and can also increase the risk of other health dangers such as disordered eating and unsafe sex practices and sexually transmitted infections. Health misinformation has even bled over into animal health, with a 2023 study finding that 53% of dog owners surveyed in a nationally representative sample report being skeptical of pet vaccines.

Declining Trust

One major reason behind the spread of health misinformation is declining trust in science and government. Rising political polarization, coupled with historical medical mistrust among communities that have experienced and continue to experience unequal health care treatment, exacerbates preexisting divides.

The lack of trust is both fueled and reinforced by the way misinformation can spread today. Social media platforms allow people to form information silos with ease; you can curate your networks and your feed by unfollowing or muting contradictory views from your own and liking and sharing content that aligns with your existing beliefs and value systems.

By tailoring content based on past interactions, social media algorithms can unintentionally limit your exposure to diverse perspectives and generate a fragmented and incomplete understanding of information. Even more concerning, a study of misinformation spread on Twitter analyzing data from 2006 to 2017 found that falsehoods were 70% more likely to be shared than the truth and spread “further, faster, deeper and more broadly than the truth” across all categories of information.

The average kindergarten student sees about 70 media messages every day. By the time they’re in high school, teens spend more than a third of their day using media.

How to Identify Misinformation

The lack of robust and standardized regulation of misinformation content on social media places the difficult task of discerning what is true or false information on individual users. We scientists and research entities can also do better in communicating our science and rebuilding trust, as my colleague and I have previously written. I also provide peer-reviewed recommendations for the important roles that parents/caregivers, policymakers and social media companies can play.

Below are some steps that consumers can take to identify and prevent health misinformation spread:

• Check the source. Determine the credibility of the health information by checking if the source is a reputable organization or agency such as the World Health Organization, the National Institutes of Health or the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Other credible sources include an established medical or scientific institution or a peer-reviewed study in an academic journal. Be cautious of information that comes from unknown or biased sources.

• Examine author credentials. Look for qualifications, expertise and relevant professional affiliations for the author or authors presenting the information. Be wary if author information is missing or difficult to verify.

• Pay attention to the date. Scientific knowledge by design is meant to evolve as new evidence emerges. Outdated information may not be the most accurate. Look for recent data and updates that contextualize findings within the broader field.

• Cross-reference to determine scientific consensus. Cross-reference information across multiple reliable sources. Strong consensus across experts and multiple scientific studies supports the validity of health information. If a health claim on social media contradicts widely accepted scientific consensus and stems from unknown or unreputable sources, it is likely unreliable.

• Question sensational claims. Misleading health information often uses sensational language designed to provoke strong emotions to grab attention. Phrases like “miracle cure,” “secret remedy” or “guaranteed results” may signal exaggeration. Be alert for potential conflicts of interest and sponsored content.

• Weigh scientific evidence over individual anecdotes. Prioritize information grounded in scientific studies that have undergone rigorous research methods, such as randomized controlled trials, peer review and validation. When done well with representative samples, the scientific process provides a reliable foundation for health recommendations compared to individual anecdotes. Though personal stories can be compelling, they should not be the sole basis for health decisions.

• Talk with a health care professional. If health information is confusing or contradictory, seek guidance from trusted health care providers who can offer personalized advice based on their expertise and individual health needs.

• When in doubt, don’t share. Sharing health claims without validity or verification contributes to misinformation spread and preventable harm.

All of us can play a part in responsibly consuming and sharing information so that the spread of the truth outpaces the false.

Monica Wang, ScD, is an Associate Professor of Community Health Sciences at the Boston University School of Public Health and an Adjunct Associate Professor of Health Policy and Management at the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health. She receives funding from the National Institutes of Health.

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

New Blood Test Could Save Arthritis Patients Time, Money and Pain

By Arthur Allen, KFF Health News

Erinn Maury knew Remicade wasn’t the right drug for Patti Schulte, a rheumatoid arthritis patient the physician saw at her Millersville, Maryland, practice. Schulte’s swollen, painful joints hadn’t responded to Enbrel or Humira, two drugs in the same class.

But the insurer insisted, so Schulte went on Remicade. It didn’t work either.

What’s more, Schulte suffered a severe allergic reaction to the infusion therapy, requiring a heavy dose of prednisone, a steroid with grave side effects if used at high doses for too long.

After 18 months, her insurer finally approved Maury’s drug of choice, Orencia. By then, Schulte’s vertebrae, weakened by prednisone, had started cracking. She was only 60.

Schulte’s story of pain, drug-hopping, and insurance meddling is all too common among patients with rheumatoid arthritis, who often cycle agonizingly through half a dozen drugs in search of one that provides a measure of relief. It’s also a story of how doctors are steered by pharmacy benefit managers — the middlemen of the drug market — as well as by insurers.

Once people with inflammatory conditions such as rheumatoid arthritis reach a certain stage, the first prescription offered is typically Humira, the best-selling drug in history, and part of a class known as tumor necrosis factor inhibitors, or TNFis, which fail to significantly help about half of the patients who take it.

“We practice rheumatology without any help,” said Vibeke Strand, a rheumatologist and adjunct clinical professor at Stanford. She bemoaned the lack of tools available to choose the right drug while bristling at corporate intervention in the decision. “We are told by the insurer what to prescribe to the patient. After they fail methotrexate, it’s a TNF inhibitor, almost always Humira. And that’s not OK.”

If there’s a shred of hope in this story, it’s that a blood test, PrismRA, may herald an era of improved care for patients with rheumatoid arthritis and other autoimmune conditions. But first, it must be embraced by insurers.

PrismRA employs a predictive model that combines clinical factors, blood tests, and 19 gene patterns to identify the roughly 60% of patients who are very unlikely to respond to a TNFi drug.

Over the past 25 years, drug companies have introduced five new classes of autoimmune drugs. TNFis were the first to market, starting in the late 1990s.

Some 1.3 million Americans have rheumatoid arthritis, a disease in which a person’s immune system attacks their joints, causing crippling pain and, if improperly treated, disfigurement. The newer drugs, mostly so-called biologics, are also used by some of the 25 million or more Americans with other autoimmune diseases, such as lupus, Crohn’s disease, and psoriasis. Typically costing tens of thousands of dollars annually, the drugs are prescribed after a patient fails to respond to older, cheaper drugs like methotrexate.

Insurers Often Determine Treatment

Until recently, rheumatologists have had few ways to predict which of the new drugs would work best on which patients. Often, “it’s a coin flip whether I prescribe drug A or B,” said Jeffrey Curtis, a rheumatology professor at the University of Alabama-Birmingham.

Yet about 90% of the patients who are given one of these advanced drugs start on a TNFi, although there’s often no reason to think a TNFi will work better than another type.

Under these puzzling circumstances, it’s often the insurer rather than the doctor who chooses the patient’s drug. Insurers lean toward TNFis such as adalimumab, commonly sold as brand-name Humira, in part because they get large rebates from manufacturers for using them. Although the size of such payments is a trade secret, AbbVie is said to be offering rebates to insurers of up to 60% of Humira’s price. That has enabled it to control 98.5% of the U.S. adalimumab market, even though it has eight biosimilar competitors.

PrismRA’s developer, Scipher Medicine, has provided more than 26,000 test results, rarely covered by insurance. But on Oct. 15, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid began reimbursing for the test, and its use is expected to rise. At least two other companies are developing drug-matching tests for rheumatoid arthritis patients.

Although critics say PrismRA is not always useful, it is likely to be the first in a series of diagnostics anticipated over the next decade that could reduce the time that autoimmune disease patients suffer on the wrong drug.

Academics, small biotechs, and large pharmaceutical companies are investing in methods to distinguish the biological pathways involved in these diseases, and the best way to treat each one. This approach, called precision medicine, has existed for years in cancer medicine, in which it’s routine to test the genetics of patients’ tumors to determine the appropriate drug treatment.

“You wouldn’t give Herceptin to a breast cancer patient without knowing whether her tumor was HER2-positive,” said Costantino Pitzalis, a rheumatology professor at the William Harvey Research Institute in London. He was speaking before a well-attended session at an American College of Rheumatology conference in San Diego in November. “Why do we not use biopsies or seek molecular markers in rheumatoid arthritis?”

It’s not only patients and doctors who have a stake in which drugs work best for a given person.

When Remicade failed and Schulte waited for the insurer to approve Orencia, she insisted on keeping her job as an accountant. But as her prednisone-related spinal problems worsened, Schulte was forced to retire, go on Medicaid, and seek disability, something she had always sworn to avoid.

Now taxpayers, rather than the insurer, are covering Schulte’s medical bills, Maury noted.

Precision medicine hasn’t seemed like a priority for large makers of autoimmune drugs, which presumably have some knowledge of which patients are most likely to benefit from their drugs, since they have tested and sold millions of doses over the years. By offering rebate incentives to insurers, companies like AbbVie, which makes Humira, can guarantee theirs are the drugs of choice with insurers.

“If you were AbbVie,” Curtis said, “why would you ever want to publish data showing who’s not going to do well on your drug, if, in the absence of the test, everyone will start with your drug first?”

What Testing Could Do

Medicare and commercial insurers haven’t yet set a price for PrismRA, but it could save insurers thousands of dollars a year for each patient it helps, according to Krishna Patel, Scipher’s associate director of medical affairs.

“If the test cost $750, I still only need it once, and it costs less than a month of whatever drug is not going to work very well for you,” said Curtis, a co-author of some studies of the test. “The economics of a biomarker that’s anything but worthless is pretty favorable because our biologics and targeted drugs are so expensive.”

Patients are enthusiastic about the test because so many have had to take TNFis that didn’t work. Many insurers require patients to try a second TNFi, and sometimes a third.

Jen Weaver, a patient advocate and mother of three, got little benefit from hydroxychloroquine, sulfasalazine, methotrexate, and Orencia, a non-TNFi biologic therapy, before finding some relief in another, Actemra. But she was taken off that drug when her white blood cells plunged, and the next three drugs she tried — all TNFis — caused allergic reactions, culminating with an outbreak of pus-filled sores. Another drug, Otezla, eventually seemed to help heal the sores, and she’s been stable on it since in combination with methotrexate, Weaver said.

“What is needed is to substantially shorten this trial-and-error period for patients,” said Shilpa Venkatachalam, herself a patient and the director of research operations at the Global Healthy Living Foundation. “There’s a lot of anxiety and frustration, weeks in pain wondering whether a drug is going to work for you and what to do if it doesn’t.” A survey by her group found that 91% of patients worried their medications would stop working. And there is evidence that the longer it takes to resolve arthritis symptoms, the less chance they will ever stop.

How insurers will respond to the availability of tests isn’t clear, partly because the arrival of new biosimilar drugs — essentially generic versions — are making TNFis cheaper for insurance plans. While Humira still dominates, AbbVie has increased rebates to insurers, in effect lowering its cost. Lower prices make the PrismRA test less appealing to insurers, since widespread use of the test could cut TNFi prescriptions by up to a third.

However, rheumatologist John Boone in Louisville, Kentucky, found to his surprise that insurers mostly accepted alternative prescriptions for 41 patients whom the test showed unlikely to respond to TNFis as part of a clinical trial. Boone receives consulting fees from Scipher.

Although the test didn’t guarantee good outcomes, he said, the few patients given TNFis despite the test results almost all did poorly on that regimen.

Scientists from AbbVie, which makes several rheumatology drugs in addition to Humira, presented a study at the San Diego conference examining biomarkers that might show which patients would respond to Rinvoq, a new immune-suppressing drug in a class known as the JAK inhibitors. When asked about its use of precision medicine, AbbVie declined to comment.

Over two decades, Humira has been a blockbuster drug for AbbVie. The company sold more than $3.5 billion worth of Humira in the third quarter of 2023, 36% less than a year ago. Sales of Rinvoq, which AbbVie is marketing as a treatment for patients failed by Humira and its class, jumped 60% to $1.1 billion.

Shannan O’Hara-Levi, a 38-year-old in Monroe, New York, has been on scores of drugs and supplements since being diagnosed with juvenile arthritis at age 3. She’s been nauseated, fatigued, and short of breath and has suffered allergic reactions, but she says the worst part of it was finding a drug that worked and then losing access because of insurance. This happened shortly after she gave birth to a daughter in 2022, and then endured intense joint pain.

“If I could take a blood test that tells me not to waste months or years of my life — absolutely,” she said. “If I could have started my current drug last fall and saved many months of not being able to engage with my baby on the floor — absolutely.”

KFF Health News is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues.

Study Raises Questions About Use of Opioids by Cancer Patients

By Pat Anson, PNN Editor

A new study led by researchers in Australia is raising questions about the effectiveness of prescription opioids in treating cancer pain, saying the evidence from clinical trials is inconclusive or “largely lacking.”

Opioids are a common treatment for cancer pain and are often considered indispensable, particularly near the end of life or in palliative care when pain can be most severe. Virtually all medical guidelines – including the CDC’s – specifically exempt cancer patients from any recommended limits on opioids.

But the new study, published in A Cancer Journal for Clinicians, rejects that long-held medical practice, suggesting that opioids work no better than a placebo in relieving cancer pain and that non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) like aspirin may be just as good or better.

The study examined findings from over 150 clinical trials involving opioids and cancer, and found that most were not blinded or placebo-controlled. That’s a recurring issue in pain research due to the ethical issues involved in giving patients an ineffective or non-existent analgesic, particularly if they have a terminal illness. Although that shortcoming is widely understood and accepted – the authors of this new study view it as lack of evidence.

“Opioids are the most commonly used treatments for cancer pain management, and, although we might have assumed that there were placebo-controlled trials to support this widespread practice, our findings highlight that the evidence is largely lacking,” wrote lead author Christina Abdel Shaheed, PhD, Senior Academic Fellow at the University of Sydney School of Public Health, Faculty of Medicine and Health.

“There was an absence or paucity of placebo-controlled trials for some of the most commonly used opioid analgesics for cancer pain, including morphine, methadone, buprenorphine, fentanyl, hydromorphone, oxycodone, and tramadol.”

Ironically, Shaheed and her co-authors found that “weaker” opioids such as tapentadol and codeine may work better for cancer pain than the more potent opioids.

They also suggest that NSAIDs and antidepressants are more effective and have fewer side effects for someone with “background” cancer pain who is not nearing the end of life. In effect, they’re saying that opioids are only good if you’re dying.

“In practice, opioids are indispensable for intractable pain and distress at the end of life. What is worth highlighting is that non-opioids, particularly NSAIDs, are surprisingly effective for some cancer pain, and may avoid the problems of dependence and waning opioid analgesia over time,” said co-author Jane Ballantyne, MD, a retired anesthesiologist and professor at the University of Washington.

Ballantyne is Vice President of Clinical Affairs for Physicians for Responsible Opioid Prescribing (PROP), an anti-opioid activist group that advised the CDC during the drafting of its controversial 2016 opioid guideline. Like several other PROP members, Ballantyne has worked as a paid expert witness for law firms involved in opioid litigation.

This is not the first time Ballantyne has said that opioids should be used more cautiously when cancer patients are not terminally ill. In 2007, she wrote an op/ed saying that cancer treatment and survival rates had improved so much that opioids should no longer be viewed as the go-to treatment for cancer pain.  

“Cancer was once an explosive, typically terminal disease and became the prototype for end-of-life opioid pain treatment. However, cancer is no longer such an explosive disease, and many cancer sufferers can now expect to have a prolonged, even normal, lifespan. They may need pain treatment, but this treatment should not be modeled on palliative care paradigms,” Ballantyne wrote.

Many cancer patients are already struggling to get pain relief. A recent study found the number of cancer patients seeking treatment for pain in U.S. emergency departments has doubled in recent years. Nearly half of those ER visits were deemed preventable -- meaning they could have been avoided if the patient has received proper pain care earlier.

Other studies have documented how opioid prescriptions and doses have declined significantly for U.S. cancer patients. The Cancer Action Network warned there has been “a significant increase in cancer patients and survivors being unable to access their opioid prescriptions.” 

Are you a pain patient who has trouble getting your opioid prescriptions filled? There’s still time to take PNN’s survey on how opioid shortages are affecting patients at pharmacies. Click here to take the survey, which should only take a few minutes.

FDA Approves Genetic Test for Opioid Addiction Risk

By Pat Anson, PNN Editor

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has approved a controversial genetic test that uses a patient’s DNA to assess whether they are at risk of developing opioid use disorder (OUD).  

Although the test is only intended for patients with short-term acute pain who have not used opioids before, there is concern about the test’s accuracy and whether it will be used “off-label” to assess addiction risk in chronic pain patients – who could potentially lose access to opioids as a result.

In approving the AvertD test, the FDA stipulated that it only be available by prescription to patients who consent to its use and have no prior history of using an oral opioid for pain relief.

The test is administered by a provider swabbing the cheek of a patient to collect a DNA sample, which will then be tested in a laboratory to see if the patient has 15 genetic markers that puts them at elevated risk of OUD.

According to the FDA, the test will help patients “make better informed decisions” about opioids, such as a patient facing surgery who wants to know what analgesic to use for acute post-operative pain.

AUTOGENOMICS IMAGE

"AvertD may help patients who are concerned about being treated with an opioid for acute pain,” Jeff Shuren, MD, director of the FDA's Center for Devices and Radiological Health, said in a statement. “The test is not intended to be used in patients being treated for chronic pain.”

But given the history of opioid guidelines being mistakenly applied to all kinds of patients, regardless of their condition, some worry the test will be misused.

“I’m sure it would be used for anyone who may be considered for opioid therapy,” says Lynn Webster, MD, a pain management expert and Senior Fellow at the Center for U.S. Policy. “I am all for gathering more data to help clinicians make better decisions, but we must exercise caution with such tests. Otherwise, the test may be over-read or misinterpreted. Some patients may be deprived of access to an opioid if they test positive or there can be a false sense of harmlessness from opioids if the test is negative. 

“I am most concerned that providers will see the results as binary. Either a patient will or won’t develop OUD, depending on the result. That would be a big mistake. Any such device or test must be used along with other clinical and personal information to help mitigate harm from using, or being denied, opioids.”

80% Accuracy

As part of its approval order, the FDA is requiring AutoGenomics – the company that makes AvertD – to provide training to healthcare providers on the proper use of the test and to conduct a post-market study of its performance and accuracy.

In 2022, an FDA advisory committee voted 11-2 against recommending an earlier version of AvertD, primarily because of concerns about false-negative and false-positive results. An observational study found the test was about 80% accurate in detecting genes associated with OUD.

"I believe 100% of the risk associated with this test is with false positives and false negatives -- both people being untreated or poorly treated because somehow it came back as a positive result, or being given inappropriate treatment because it said negative," said Timothy Ness, MD, an anesthesiologist and Professor Emeritus at the University of Alabama at Birmingham, an advisory panel member who voted no.

After the advisory committee vote, the FDA worked with AutoGenomics to modify the test and improve its accuracy. The company then submitted a premarket approval application for the modified test, which the FDA granted without going back to the advisory committee for further review.

“The FDA recognizes that in premarket decision-making for devices, there generally exists some uncertainty around benefits and risks. Given the totality of available evidence and the urgent need for medical devices that can make a positive impact on the overdose crisis, and specifically devices that can help assess the risk of developing OUD, the FDA determined that there is a reasonable assurance of AvertD's safety and effectiveness,” said Dr. Shuren.

But no test is foolproof in either its accuracy or implementation, as Dr. Webster learned when he developed a questionnaire that assesses addiction risk by asking patients about their family history and other potential risk factors. Webster was disappointed to learn his questionnaire was “weaponized” by some providers to deny opioid therapy to patients, particularly women with a history being sexually abused.

Webster says the risk of OUD can’t be measured by a genetic test alone.

“We should not think it is a diagnostic tool or a crystal ball. Having an increased risk due to genetics does not mean that, if exposed to an opioid, an individual necessarily will develop an opioid addiction,” Webster told PNN. 

“We have known for a long time that about fifty percent of the risk of developing an opioid addiction is due to genetics. The other fifty percent is due to environmental factors and life’s experience. Furthermore, people can develop OUD without genetic risks. OUD risk is dynamic, meaning it changes over time with adverse events in life and often co-morbid conditions. For example, there was a surge in all forms of drug abuse, including OUD, during the pandemic because of isolation and loneliness. This is not detected by a genetic test.”

Although the risk of a surgery patient misusing opioids or becoming addicted is low – less than one percent -- the parent company of AutoGenomics has a more stark assessment, calling surgery “a gateway to addiction” that puts another 7 million Americans at risk every year.

Childhood Trauma Raises Risk of Chronic Pain in Adults by 45%

By Pat Anson, PNN Editor

People who experienced neglect or physical, sexual or emotional abuse as children are significantly more likely to have chronic pain as adults, according to a large new analysis. Individuals who had adverse childhood experiences (ACEs) were 45% more likely to report chronic pain in adulthood than those who did not have childhood trauma.

“These results are extremely concerning, particularly as over 1 billion children – half of the global child population – are exposed to ACEs each year, putting them at increased risk of chronic pain and disability later in life,” says lead author André Bussières, PhD, an Assistant Professor at the School of Physical & Occupational Therapy at McGill University. 
 
“There is an urgent need to develop targeted interventions and support systems to break the cycle of adversity and improve long-term health outcomes for those individuals who have been exposed to childhood trauma.”  

Bussières and his colleagues reviewed 75 years of research involving over 826,000 people. Their findings, published in the peer-reviewed journal European Journal of Psychotraumatology, adds to the growing body of evidence showing an association between ACEs and chronic pain.

ACEs may affect a child directly through physical, sexual or emotional abuse, or neglect – or indirectly through exposure to environmental factors like domestic violence, living with substance abuse, or parental loss.

Physical abuse during childhood had the strongest association with chronic pain and pain-related disability. The odds of having chronic pain were also higher if a person experienced multiple ACEs, either alone or combination with indirect ACEs. The research does not prove that ACEs cause chronic pain, only that there’s an association.

“Our findings suggest ACE exposure is associated with the most common and costly chronic pain conditions, including back and neck pain and other MSDs (musculoskeletal disorders), which account for the highest total health care spending compared to other health conditions,” researchers said.

“People with ACEs tend to have a higher chronic disease burden, barriers to treatment engagement, and greater health care utilization in adulthood. Adult patients exposed to ACEs may not be achieving optimal health outcomes due to the physiological and psychological effects of toxic stress. While the relative contributions of these mechanisms are not yet well understood, emerging evidence links ACEs to changes in genetic expressions that affect structural and functional changes in the brain and clinical phenomena in adulthood.”

Still unclear is the role that ACEs play in specific pain-related conditions. Previous studies have linked childhood trauma to an increased risk of headache disorders, fibromyalgia and lupus, as well as mood and sleep problems.

Companies See Cash Cow in $50 Billion From Opioid Settlements

By Aneri Pattani, KFF Health News

The marketing pitches are bold and arriving fast: Invest opioid settlement dollars in a lasso-like device to help police detain people without Tasers or pepper spray. Pour money into psychedelics, electrical stimulation devices, and other experimental treatments for addiction. Fund research into new, supposedly abuse-deterrent opioids and splurge on expensive, brand-name naloxone.

These pitches land daily in the inboxes of state and local officials in charge of distributing more than $50 billion from settlements in opioid lawsuits.

The money is coming from an array of companies that made, sold or distributed prescription painkillers, including Johnson & Johnson, AmerisourceBergen, and Walgreens. Thousands of state and local governments sued the companies for aggressively promoting and distributing opioid medications, fueling an epidemic that progressed to heroin and fentanyl and has killed more than half a million Americans. The settlement money, arriving over nearly two decades, is meant to remediate the effects of that corporate behavior.

But as the dollars land in government coffers — more than $4.3 billion as of early November — a swarm of private, public, nonprofit, and for-profit entities are eyeing the gold rush. Some people fear that corporations, in particular — with their flashy products, robust marketing budgets, and hunger for profits — will now gobble up the windfall meant to rectify it.

“They see a cash cow,” said JK Costello, director of behavioral health consulting for the Steadman Group, a firm that is being paid to help local governments administer the settlements in Colorado, Kansas, Oregon, and Virginia. “Everyone is interested.”

Costello receives multiple emails a week from businesses and nonprofits seeking guidance on how to apply for the funds. To keep up with the influx, he has developed a standard response: Thanks, but we can’t respond to individual requests, so here’s a link to your locality’s website, public meeting schedule, or application portal.

KFF Health News obtained email records in eight states that show health departments, sheriffs’ offices, and councils overseeing settlement funds are receiving a similar deluge of messages. In the emails, marketing specialists offer phone calls, informational presentations, and meetings with their companies.

Alabama Attorney General Steve Marshall recently sent a letter reminding local officials to vet organizations that reach out. “I am sure that many of you have already been approached by a variety of vendors seeking funding for opioid initiatives,” he wrote. “Please proceed with caution.”

Of course, not all marketing efforts should prompt concern. Emails and calls are one way people in power learn about innovative products and services. The country’s addiction crisis is too large for the public sector to tame alone, and many stakeholders agree that partnering with industry is crucial. After all, pharmaceutical companies manufacture medications to treat opioid addiction. Corporations run treatment facilities and telehealth services.

“It’s unrealistic and even harmful to say we don’t want any money going to any private companies,” said Kristen Pendergrass, vice president of state policy at Shatterproof, a national nonprofit focused on addiction.

The key, agree public health and policy experts, is to critically evaluate products or services to see if they are necessary, evidence-based, and sustainable — instead of flocking to companies with the best marketing.

Otherwise, “you end up with lots of shiny objects,” Costello said.

And, ultimately, failure to do due diligence could leave some jurisdictions holding an empty bag.

Take North Carolina. In 2022, state lawmakers allotted $1.85 million of settlement funds for a pilot project using the first FDA-approved app for opioid use disorder, developed by Pear Therapeutics. There were high hopes the app would help people stay in treatment longer.

But less than a year later, Pear Therapeutics filed for bankruptcy.

The state hadn’t paid the company yet, so the money isn’t lost, according to the North Carolina Department of Health and Human Services. But the department and lawmakers have not decided what to do with those dollars next.

Safe Storage and Disposal Products

Jason Sundby, CEO of Verde Environmental Technologies, said the Deterra pouches his company sells are a low-cost way to prevent expensive addictions.

Customers place their unused medications in a Deterra pouch and add water, deactivating the drugs before tossing them, ensuring they cannot be used even if fished out of the trash. A medium Deterra pouch costs $3.89 and holds 45 pills.

The goal is to “get these drugs out of people’s homes before they can be misused, diverted, and people start down the path of needing treatment or naloxone or emergency room visits,” Sundby said.

Sundby’s company ran an ad about spending settlement dollars on its product in a National Association of Counties newsletter and featured similar information online.

It may be paying off, as Deterra is set to receive $1 million in settlement funds from the health department in Delaware County, Pennsylvania, and $12,000 from the sheriff’s office in Henry County, Iowa. The company also has partnerships with St. Croix and Milwaukee counties in Wisconsin, and is working on a deal in Connecticut.

Several other companies with similar products have also used their product sites to urge jurisdictions to consider the settlements as a funding stream — and they’re seeing early success.

DisposeRx makes a drug deactivation product — its version costs about a dollar each — and received $144,000 in South Carolina for mailing 134,000 disposal packets to a program that educated high school football players, coaches, and parents about addiction.

“The plausible mechanism by which they would even be able to reduce overdose is a mystery because prescription medications are not driving overdose.”

— Tricia Christensen, Community Education Group

SafeRx makes $3 pill bottles with a locking code to store medications and was awarded $189,000 by South Carolina’s opioid settlement council to work with the Greenville County Sheriff’s Office and local prevention groups. It also won smaller awards from Weld and Custer counties in Colorado.

None of the companies said they are dependent on opioid settlements to sustain their business long-term. But the funds provide a temporary boost. In a 2022 presentation to prospective investors, SafeRx called the opioid settlements a “growth catalyst.”

Critics of such investments say the products are not worthwhile. Today’s crisis of fatal overdoses is largely driven by illicit fentanyl. Even if studies suggest the companies’ products make people more likely to safely store and dispose of medications, that’s unlikely to stem the record levels of deaths seen in recent years.

“The plausible mechanism by which they would even be able to reduce overdose is a mystery because prescription medications are not driving overdose,” said Tricia Christensen, policy director with the nonprofit Community Education Group, which is tracking settlement spending across Appalachia.

Safe storage and disposal can be accomplished with a locking cabinet and toilet, she said. The FDA lists opioids on its flush list for disposal and says there is no evidence that low levels of the medicines that end up in rivers harm human health.

But Milton Cohen, CEO of SafeRx’s parent company, Caring Closures International, said keeping prescription medicines secure addresses the root of the epidemic. Fentanyl kills, but often where people start, “where water is coming into the boat still, is the medicine cabinet,” he said. “We can bail all we want, but the right thing to do is to plug the hole first.”

Products to secure and dispose of drugs also provide an opportunity for education and destigmatization, said Melissa Lyon, director of the Delaware County Health Department in Pennsylvania. The county will be mailing Deterra pouches and postcards about preventing addiction to three-quarters of its residents.

“The Deterra pouch is to me a direct correlation” to the overprescribing that came from pharmaceutical companies’ aggressive marketing, she added. Since the settlement money is to compensate for that, “this is a good use of the funds.”

Tools for Law Enforcement

Other businesses making pitches for settlement funds have a less clear relationship to opioids.

Wrap Technologies creates tools for law enforcement to reduce lethal uses of force. Its chief product, the BolaWrap, shoots a 7½-foot Kevlar tether more than a dozen feet through the air until it wraps around a person’s limbs or torso — almost like Wonder Woman’s Lasso of Truth.

Terry Nichols, director of business development for the company, said the BolaWrap can be used as an alternative to Tasers or pepper spray when officers need to detain someone experiencing a mental health crisis or committing crimes related to their addiction, like burglary.

“If you want to be more humane in the way you treat people in substance use disorder and crisis, this is an option,” he said.

The company posts body camera footage of officers using BolaWrap on YouTube and says that out of 192 field reports of its use, about 75% of situations were resolved without additional use of force.

When officers de-escalate situations, people are less likely to end up in jail, Nichols said. And diverting people from the criminal justice system is among the suggested investments in opioid settlement agreements.

That argument convinced the city of Brownwood, Texas, where Nichols was police chief until 2019. It has spent about $15,000 of opioid settlement funds to buy nine BolaWrap devices.

“Our goal is to avoid using force when a citizen is in need,” said James Fuller, assistant police chief in Brownwood. “If we’re going to take someone to get help, the last thing we want to do is poke holes in them with a Taser.”

After Brownwood’s purchase, Wrap Technologies issued a press release in which CEO Kevin Mullins encouraged more law enforcement agencies to “take the opportunity afforded by the opioid settlement funds to empower their officers.” The company has also sent a two-page document to police departments explaining how settlement funds can be used to buy BolaWraps.

Language from that document appeared nearly word-for-word in a briefing sheet given to Brownwood City Council before the BolaWrap purchase. The council voted unanimously in favor.

But the process hasn’t been as smooth elsewhere. In Hawthorne, California, the police department planned to buy 80 BolaWrap devices using opioid settlement funds. It paid its first installment of about $25,000 in June. However, it was later informed by the state Department of Health Care Services that the BolaWrap is not an allowable use of these dollars.

“Bola Wraps will not be purchased with the Settlement Funds in the future,” Hawthorne City Clerk Dayna Williams-Hunter wrote in an email.

Carolyn Williams, a member of the advocacy group Vocal-TX, said she doesn’t see how the devices will address the overdose crisis in Texas or elsewhere.

Her son Haison Akiem Williams dealt with mental health and addiction issues for years. Without insurance, he couldn’t afford rehab. When he sought case management services, there was a three-month wait, she said. Police charged him with misdemeanors but never connected him to care, she said.

In February, he died of an overdose at age 47. His mother misses how he used to make her laugh by calling her “Ms. Carol.”

She wants settlement funds to support services she thinks could have kept him alive: mental health treatment, case management, and housing. BolaWrap doesn’t make that list.

“It’s heartbreaking to see what the government is doing with this money,” she said. “Putting it in places they really don’t need it.”

KFF Health News is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues.

My Story: Why Is Everyone So Quiet About Rx Opioid Shortages?

By Kimberly Smith

I am a chronic pain patient in Florida with multiple modalities of pain: chronic intractable pain, pain from a sports injury, and pain from an autoimmune disease. To further complicate my situation, I also have a list of allergies and genetic mutations that leave me unable to take aspirin, NSAIDs, gabapentin, codeine, and morphine for pain relief.  

I have a background in medicine, pain management and hospice, so I’ve always been mindful of the spectrum of things that can go awry with opioids. I keep myself on a stable dose with the goal of just “dialing down” the pain enough so that I can function, while not relieving it entirely.  

Fifteen years ago, when public attitudes started turning against opioids, I was switched to a fentanyl transdermal patch because it was “less likely to be abused.” I had hoped to avoid using fentanyl until my final days, knowing that once you’re on fentanyl for an extended period, it’s a nightmare if you have to switch to anything else and potentially deadly if you suddenly stop.  

Starting in September, I started having trouble getting fentanyl patches at the CVS pharmacy I’ve been using for 30 years. Instead of the Mylan fentanyl patch that I’ve been using for 15 years, CVS only had a fentanyl patch that used a completely different type of adhesive mixture -- one that I absorb inconsistently and too quickly.

I had two absolutely frightening episodes using that patch where I couldn’t catch my breath.  I don’t think anyone would blame me for never wanting to try that brand again (Alvogen).

Now I call random pharmacies each month, trying to find the Mylan patch. The supply itself is dwindling and here I am needing one of the only two fentanyl patches still on the market. It’s insane and I’m constantly stressed, anxious and overwhelmed.  

Today, I called the CVS pharmacy about my second opioid, oxycodone 30mg, and was told this is the latest opioid that is only coming in sporadically. I’ve been having to use the oxycodone as a replacement for the periods when the pharmacies couldn’t source the fentanyl patch, so I no longer have any type of emergency supply (nor do I have the opportunity to build one up).

For me, this is the absolute end of the road for opioids. I lack the CYP enzyme to metabolize morphine and I have an additional mutation that affects the efficacy of the metabolic processes, so I require higher doses than “normal.”  

I’m in a terrible, terrible situation and I’m by no means alone.  I’m starting to dream about it every night.  My doctors and the pharmacy team who have been caring for me for decades are stressed and concerned, and all have made tremendous efforts to help. But without access to the two medications I need, their hands are tied.

One of my pharmacists searched the entire state for my meds for 9 weeks and couldn’t find any. I still have many friends who are pharmacists, pharmacy techs, doctors, nurse practitioners and physician assistants, and they’ve been telling me awful stories about how much time they spend trying to resolve the opioid shortages -- not to mention the emotional toll caused by listening to patients cry and panic about being left to endure horrible pain and withdrawal.  

I don’t understand why everyone is staying quiet about this problem, especially when the shortages affect the entire hospice system, oncology patients at cancer centers, anesthesia and twilight sleep procedures, emergency medicine, trauma medicine, surgical procedures, acute pain and, of course, chronic pain.  

Doctors and pharmacists have been responding to the shortage by moving their patients to other meds, which is exactly the harm that I suffered when I was taken off the Mylan patch. This further squeezes the availability of the meds that are available and pushes those patients out to make room for the patients who were on something else.  Even gabapentin is unavailable at many pharmacies.  This situation is dire and getting worse.

If politicians were smart, they would support legitimate patients and the relief of chronic pain by making immediate changes to provide opioids to those who need them. All of the patients who are suffering would absolutely cast their votes for anyone who relieved their misery and gave them their lives back.

Instead, the politicians just assume that pain patients don’t vote and write us off. This is incredibly shortsighted. We do vote - when we aren’t struggling with pain and forced withdrawal.

I’ve reached the point where I am legitimately scared about my future. The shortages will just grow worse and worse, unless and until sweeping, radical changes are made.  Most of us wouldn’t last two to three months without opioid medication, and some wouldn’t be able to endure just one.  

While I see endless reports about Biden and Trump in the mainstream media, there’s not a word about the opioid shortage crisis and the direct harm being visited upon legitimate patients. Diversion rates are low, overdoses are primarily caused by illicit fentanyl (a completely different substance than Rx fentanyl) and desperate patients feel forced to turn to the streets.

Isn’t this a violation of the spirit of our Constitution?  It is certainly cruel and unusual punishment. We who follow the law and contribute to society are being cruelly punished for the bad behavior of others -- behavior which is basically a lapse of morals and mental health issues, which cannot be legislated away. We need to change the media narrative and shame the politicians and policy makers who created this mess.  

Do you have a “My Story” to share?

Pain News Network invites other readers to share their experiences about living with pain and treating it.

Send your stories to editor@painnewsnetwork.org.

Can Herbal Supplements Effectively Relieve Pain?

Drs. Nial Wheate and Joanna Harnett, University of Sydney

In an era where chronic pain affects millions worldwide, the search for effective and safe pain relief has never been greater.

PanaNatra is a line of herbal products from Haleon, the makers of Panadol. Haleon claims the three PanaNatra’s products, made from plant extracts, help manage and provide relief from mild joint aches, mild muscle pain, and mild pain affecting sleep.

They contain different combinations of four plants:

• Boswellia serrata (contained in the joint and muscle products)

• Curcuma longa (in the joint and muscle products)

• Piper nigrum (just in the joint product)

• Withania somnifera (just in the sleep product).

These products are “listed medicines” in Australia. This means the ingredients are considered broadly low risk, have been used in traditional medicine, and are manufactured to a high standard. But the manufacturer has not provided evidence to the government regulator that they work.

So can herbal ingredients effectively and safely relieve different types of pain? Let’s consider the evidence for the four main ingredients.

Boswellia serrata

Indian Frankincense (Boswellia serrata) has been described in traditional Indian Ayurveda texts since the 1st century AD. Key active compounds derived from the gum resin of the tree called boswellic acids are thought to have anti-inflammatory effects.

The Boswellia serrata dry concentrate extract (Rhuleave K) used in the Muscle Pain product contains 50 mg of the herb per tablet, whereas the Joint Pain product includes 33.3 mg as a different formulation (Apresflex).

Boswellia serrata

A review of various human clinical trials using a range of formulations of this herb supports its ability to reduce some types of pain and improve function in osteoarthritis. But a key finding of the study was that improvement only begins when Boswellia serrata is used continuously for four weeks and at a dose of at least 100–250 mg per day.

In a clinical trial, 100 mg daily of a Boswellia serrata gum-based product was found to reduce pain and improve physical functions for people with osteoarthritis.

Curcuma longa

Turmeric (Curcuma longa) has been used in Chinese and Indian medicine for at least 2,000 years. It contains a well-known chemical called curcumin, a natural compound used for its anti-inflammatory properties, especially for osteoarthritis.

Turmeric compounds such as curcumin are often combined with Boswellia serrata compounds to improve their anti-inflammatory effects to reduce pain.

Curcuma longa

A review of 16 different clinical trials found turmeric extracts were effective for knee osteoarthritis.

A similar conclusion was drawn from a review of 11 clinical trials which examined the use of curcuminoids (of which curcumin is one) for one to four months. It found curcuminoids had similar pain-relieving qualities as non-steroidal anti-inflammatory based drugs.

Piper nigrum

Black pepper (Piper nigrum) contains the chemical piperine, which has anti-inflammatory properties.

Piper nigrum is often added to curcumin products to improve the absorption of curcumin, as is the case with the PanaNatra Joint Pain product.

Piper nigrum

For musculoskeletal pain, a preliminary human trial that examined the effects of a 1,000 mg daily dose of Rhuleave K (the extract used in PanaNatra) found it was as effective as paracetamol.

But the study was not placebo-controlled and the dose of paracetamol given (1,000 mg per day) was below the recommended daily intake for pain relief. 

Withania somnifera

Withania somnifera (also called Ashwagandha) has been used in traditional Indian Ayurvedic medicine for thousands of years to reduce stress and ease inflammation.

One of the key chemicals appears to be withaferin A, which interferes with the inflammatory signalling pathway.

Withania somnifera

PanaNatra’s Pain and Sleep product contains 300 mg per tablet of a Withania somnifera extract called KSM66.

A human trial found a daily 600 mg dose of Withania somnifera extract improved sleep quality and helped in managing insomnia.

In a separate trial, Withania somnifera was found to improve sleep quality, again when administered at a dose of 600 mg per day.

Does Herbal Medicine Work?

Whether, and how well, a herbal medicine works is largely dependent on the formulation (how it’s made and the extract used) and the dose provided. The same herb used in one formulation may result in a different outcome than a different formulation containing the same herb.

It’s also important to note that effectiveness for one type of pain does not mean a product will work for other types of pain.

Overall, similar herb extracts to those that have been included in the PanaNatra products do have some evidence that they work for pain and sleep. Whether they work for you will depend on a number of factors including the effectiveness of the PanaNatra formulation, how much you take, and the extent of your pain.

Is It Safe?

PanaNatra needs to be used carefully by some patients.

Overall, there is insufficient human data to recommend any of these herbal ingredients in pregnancy or lactation. In fact there is some evidence that Withania somnifera may be unsafe to use in pregnancy, and other than the amounts commonly found in food, turmeric and its compounds are not considered safe to use in pregnancy either.

The herbs may also impact the effectiveness and safety of other medicines. For example, the blood levels of the cancer drug tamoxifen may be reduced when taken concurrently with turmeric supplements.

Withania somnifera has been associated with drowsiness and cases of liver toxicity.

Curcuma longa products, including formulations containing curcumin and piperine, have also been associated with liver toxicity. As such, Australia’s Therapeutic Goods Administration has proposed adding warning labels to any products that contain those ingredients. But this discussion is ongoing and a decision won’t be made until next year.

While there is a long history of traditional use of the herbs in the PanaNatra products, there is limited high-quality scientific evidence for the effectiveness and safety for these specific products.

Pregnant and breastfeeding women should not take these products, and you should not exceed the daily dose recommended by the manufacturer.

If you have an underlying health condition, or are taking other medication, before you try them, consult your doctor or pharmacist to check if these products are suitable for you.

Nial Wheate, PhD, is an Associate Professor at the University of Sydney’s School of Pharmacy. He is a Fellow of the Royal Australian Chemical Institute and a member of the Australasian Pharmaceutical Science Association.

Joanna Harnett, PhD, is a Senior Lecturer at University of Sydney’s Faculty of Medicine and Health Pharmacy School, where she teaches and conducts research in the field of traditional, complementary, and integrative medicine.

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

Herbal Pain Relief Tea Recalled for Having Undeclared Drugs

By Pat Anson, PNN Editor

“Alleviates Pain & Inflammation Within 10 Minutes”

“Drug-Free All Natural Herbal Pain Relief”

As the saying goes, if the ads sound too good to be true, they probably are. Especially the part about being “drug-free.”

An herbal tea being marketed as a pain reliever for arthritis, gout, fibromyalgia and migraine is being voluntarily recalled after the Food and Drug Administration found that it contained “undeclared drugs.”

WS Global, a New York-based distribution company, is recalling all packages of Himalayan Pain Relief Tea after being informed by the FDA that the tea contains diclofenac, a non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID) and dexamethasone, a corticosteroid.

The company said it had not received any reports of adverse events involving the tea, but urged consumers to “immediately consult their health care professional” if they consumed it.

In a news release, the FDA said diclofenac may raise the risk of cardiovascular events, such as a heart attack or stroke, and could interact with other medications.

Dexamethasone can suppress the adrenal gland, impair a person’s ability to fight infections, and cause high blood sugar, muscle injuries and psychiatric problems. It may also have serious side effects when combined with other medications.

Neither diclofenac or dexamethasone are mentioned on the tea’s product label or advertising. The company claims the tea was “formulated by a traditional comprehensive recipe from the Himalayan monks.”

Himalayan Pain Relief Tea was being sold online, primarily through Amazon.

This is not the first time that an herbal or dietary supplement sold by Amazon was recalled due to undeclared drugs, contamination or other health concerns. In recent months, recalls were also ordered for a male sexual enhancement product, a glucose supplement, apple sauce, and an anti-cavity mouthwash for kids. All were being sold on Amazon.  

In a recent warning letter to Amazon’s CEO about selling several brands of unapproved eye drops, the FDA said the company should take more responsibility for the products it sells.

“The violations cited in this letter are not intended to be an all-inclusive statement of past or present violations that may exist in connection with the products you distribute. You are responsible for investigating and determining the causes of any violations and for preventing their recurrence or the occurrence of other violations. It is your responsibility to ensure that your firm complies with all requirements of federal law, including FDA regulations,” said Jill Furman, Director of the FDA Office of Compliance, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research.

Amazon complied with that request by removing the eye drops from its online marketplace.

“Safety is a top priority at Amazon. We require all products offered in our store to comply with applicable laws and regulations,” the company said in a statement.

Amazon received a similar warning letter in 2022, for selling a “misbranded” dietary supplement for arthritis that was linked to liver toxicity and at least one death. That product also contained diclofenac and dexamethasone.

You can still find Himalayan Pain Relief Tea on Amazon, with a notation that it is “currently unavailable.”

“We don't know when or if this item will be back in stock,” Amazon cautions potential buyers.

Most Americans and Canadians Use OTC Drugs and Self-Care for Pain Relief

By Pat Anson, PNN Editor

Most Americans and Canadians who experience pain prefer over-the-counter drugs, exercise and bed rest over prescription pain medication, according to a large new survey. A surprising number of respondents said they do nothing or simply accept their pain.  

The online survey, led by a research team at Ontario’s Western University, asked over 4,100 adults in 2020 what types of treatment, medication or self-care methods they use to deal with or prevent pain. Respondents were given ten different pain management techniques to choose from.

The survey findings, published in the journal Innovation in Aging, show that most people use a combination of methods for pain relief, along with a healthy dose of stoicism. Over half said they use OTC pain relievers, often in combination with self-care techniques such as exercise, bed rest or physical therapy.

Over 41% selected “just live with pain” and 10% chose “do nothing” – which essentially amounts to pain acceptance.

Only one in four (24%) said they use prescription pain medication. Not surprisingly, respondents who said they had high pain levels were over four times as likely to use a prescription drug  

SOURCE: INNOVATION IN AGING

The responses from Americans and Canadians were similar, with one notable exception. Americans were twice as likely than Canadians to turn to alcohol to dull their pain, with just under 4% of Canadians using alcohol as a pain management strategy, compared to almost 8% in the U.S. Alcohol use jumped to 21% for those with the highest levels of pain in both countries.

"Our research shows that using alcohol to treat pain is somewhat common, unfortunately. Previous research has shown that is not only ineffective at treating pain, but it can actually be counterproductive," said lead author Anna Zajacova, PhD, a demographer and sociology professor at Western University. "Our study also indicates that there is likely a lot of unmet need for better treatment options for people to manage their pain."

Zajacova and her colleagues noted that high alcohol use in the U.S. may be a reflection of more limited access to healthcare than in Canada, which has a national health system.

"What we learned from this survey is that people aren't necessarily just visiting their doctor to manage their pain, and it's important to understand the non-medical and non-pharmacological strategies that people are using, for better or for worse," said Zajacova.

A major weakness of the study, which the authors acknowledge, is that they did not differentiate between acute, short-term pain and chronic pain. They also didn’t ask if the prescription pain medication used was an opioid or non-opioid.

Pharmacies Under ‘Extreme Pressure’ to Give Patient Records to Law Enforcement

By Pat Anson, PNN Editor

Three of the nation’s largest pharmacy chains -- CVS, Kroger and Rite Aid – allow staff in their pharmacy stores to routinely hand over prescription records to law enforcement without a warrant, according to congressional investigators. In most cases, pharmacy customers are never informed that their medical records have been provided to law enforcement or why they were being sought.   

The policies were revealed in a joint letter sent to Health and Human Services Secretary Xavier Becerra by Sen. Ron Wyden (D-OR) and Reps. Pramila Jayapal (D-WA) and Sara Jacobs (D-CA), who have been looking into the privacy practices of major pharmacy chains.

“Americans' prescription records are among the most private information the government can obtain about a person. They can reveal extremely personal and sensitive details about a person’s life, including prescriptions for birth control, depression or anxiety medications, or other private medical conditions,” Wyden, Jayapal and Jacobs wrote in their letter, which was first reported on by The Washington Post.

Congressional investigators asked eight major pharmacy chains about their policies for dealing with law enforcement requests for prescription records. Five of them — Amazon Pharmacy, Cigna, Optum Rx, Walmart and Walgreens —- said the requests are automatically reviewed by legal professionals before responding.

“The three remaining pharmacy chains — CVS Health, The Kroger Company, and Rite Aid Corporation — indicated that their pharmacy staff face extreme pressure to immediately respond to law enforcement demands and, as such, the companies instruct their staff to process those requests in the store,” the letter said.

“CVS Health and the Kroger Company both defended this practice, arguing that their pharmacy staff — who are not lawyers or paralegals — are trained to respond to such requests and can contact the legal department if they have questions.”

All eight pharmacy chains said they do not require a warrant to share pharmacy records, unless there is a state law that dictates otherwise. Only three states – Louisiana, Montana and Pennsylvania – have laws that require a warrant signed or reviewed by a judge before medical data is disclosed.

HIPAA Privacy Issues

Law enforcement agencies are not covered by the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA), which protects patient privacy. The pharmacy chains are covered by HIPAA, but say they are exempt under HHS regulations that allow healthcare providers to disclose patient records to law enforcement if it is obtained through a subpoena or a simple administrative request. Unlike warrants, subpoenas generally do not require a judge’s approval.

Congress began looking into the HIPAA policies of pharmacies after the U.S. Supreme Court overturned Roe v Wade, leaving it up to individual states to make their own laws about abortion. Some medications that induce abortions are now banned in certain states.

But the Drug Enforcement Administration and other law enforcement agencies were showing a keen interest in obtaining prescription records long before Roe v Wade was overturned. In 2020, the DEA solicited bids from contractors for a prescription drug surveillance program that would identify virtually every patient, prescriber and pharmacy that may be diverting or abusing opioids and other controlled substances.

Under the proposed surveillance program, DEA investigators would have “unlimited access” to prescription data, including the names of prescribers and pharmacists, types of medication, quantity, dose, refills and forms of payment. The names of patients would be encrypted, but if investigators suspect a medication was being abused or diverted, they could get a subpoena to identify them.

No contract was awarded by DEA and it’s unclear if the surveillance program was ever initiated. State-run prescription drug monitoring programs (PDMPs) already track much of the information DEA was seeking, but law enforcement access to the data usually requires an active investigation or warrant.

Regardless of the method used, some pain patients with a history of needing high-dose opioid prescriptions have suspected they are being tracked by the DEA as a way to gather evidence on their doctors.

“I have talked to many patients who described things that made them believe this was occurring,” says Anne Fuqua, a disabled nurse in Alabama who needs high-dose opioids for intractable pain. At least two of Fuqua’s out-of-state physicians have been raided by the DEA and driven from medical practice without criminal charges ever being filed against them.

She’s pleased that Congress is looking into HIPAA issues at the pharmacy level, but feels that law enforcement already has easy access to patient information.  

“I'm glad that the huge potential for intrusion into a person's medical care is finally attracting attention,” Fuqua told PNN. “There are many states like Alabama where state and local law enforcement can access PDMP by simply affirming there is an active investigation in process. As long as some states permit unfettered access to the PDMP by law enforcement, the police and DEA don't really even need to contact the actual pharmacy for records related to controlled substances.”

Of the eight pharmacy chains contacted by congressional investigators, only Amazon said it automatically notifies customers if a law enforcement agency asked for their medical records, unless there is a legal reason not to do so.

Under the HIPAA Act, every American has the right to ask a healthcare provider if their medical information has been disclosed. Few people do, however. CVS said it received only a “single-digit number” of consumer requests last year.  A CVS spokesman told The Washington Post that most law enforcement requests come with a directive that they be kept confidential.

Pharmacies already face enormous scrutiny over their dispensing of opioid pain medication. Under the national opioid settlement, drug wholesalers have to limit the amount of opioids supplied to each pharmacy and are required to collect from pharmacies a list of suspicious orders and red flags that may indicate drugs are being abused or diverted. Pharmacies that don’t comply risk being “terminated” by their suppliers.

Wyden, Jayapal and Jacobs say more privacy protections are needed for pharmacy customers.

“We urge HHS to consider further strengthening its HIPAA regulations to more closely align them with Americans’ reasonable expectations of privacy and Constitutional principles. Pharmacies can and should insist on a warrant, and invite law enforcement agencies that insist on demanding patient medical records with solely a subpoena to go to court to enforce that demand,” they wrote.

Can Antivirals Prevent Long Covid?

By The Conversation

Evidence is continuing to accumulate on the burden and frequency of chronic effects after a COVID infection, which fall under the umbrella term “long COVID”.

At least 5%–10% of people who contract COVID experience long COVID. This can include symptoms (for example, fatigue, brain fog and breathlessness) or conditions (for example, heart conditions, neurological conditions and diabetes) after the initial infection that may be persisting, new or relapsing.

Studies show the symptoms and increased risk of chronic conditions can persist for up to two years after infection. The individual impact of long COVID can range from temporary to severely disabling, and the societal cost – for example due to reduced workforce and increased health-care costs – is enormous

The lower risk of developing long COVID with up-to-date COVID vaccinations is substantially offset by the high levels of infections and re-infections globally. As a result, the cumulative burden of long COVID has increased, including in lower and middle income countries. A conservative estimate suggests 65 million people may be currently affected globally.

So where are we at with reducing the risk of, and treating, long COVID?

Reduced Risk of Severe Disease

COVID antiviral drugs, taken orally, continue to play an important role in reducing acute severe disease after infection. In Australia and the US, they’re available to those at highest risk from COVID.

Observational research has suggested taking antivirals during a COVID infection can reduce the risk of long COVID in people with at least one risk factor for acute severe COVID.

In one study, nirmatrelvir and ritonavir, known as Paxlovid, was associated with a 26% reduced risk of developing long COVID. It was also linked to a 47% reduced risk of death and a 24% reduced risk of hospitalisation after the acute infection phase.

A similar 14% reduction in long COVID risk has been reported for molnupiravir (Lagevrio).

Ensitrelvir – a COVID antiviral available in Japan – could also reduce the risk of long COVID, preliminary analyses suggest.

More research is needed, but this data indicates antiviral medications may be a key approach to lessening the risk of long COVID.

The population most at risk of long COVID (often working-age adults) differs from those most at risk of severe disease from a COVID infection (older adults or those with chronic medical conditions). Eligibility criteria to access antivirals do not currently include consideration of long COVID.

Meanwhile, one randomised trial found metformin, a commonly prescribed diabetes medication, could also reduce long COVID risk. The study offered people with symptomatic COVID who were overweight or obese metformin for two weeks (beginning within a week of symptoms starting). This group was 41% less likely to develop long COVID compared with a placebo group that didn’t take metformin.

The way this works might involve an effect on the powerhouses of our cells, mitochondria, or directly on the virus. Whatever the precise mechanism, further research should be priortised to fast-track this potential.

Still No Treatments for Long Covid

There are no effective or approved treatments for long COVID at present. Currently about 12 clinical trials are testing potential drugs. A number of candidate treatments exist for certain components of long COVID that may be useful in subgroups of patients.

However, recently we’ve seen major advances in understanding what’s actually driving long COVID in the body. This knowledge opens up approaches for both diagnosis and treatments or interventions.

An Australian parliamentary inquiry into long COVID stressed the best way to avoid the condition is to lower the risk of getting infected with COVID in the first place (through protective behaviours such as vaccination, mask wearing and cleaner indoor air).

While these are all important measures, we would benefit from having more tools at our disposal to prevent and treat long COVID. After all, COVID is still evolving rapidly and vast numbers of people are likely to be reinfected in the months and years ahead.

Overall, the quantity and speed of clinical trials into long COVID treatments has been insufficient. And most public health policy approaches are focused on preventing severe disease from a COVID infection, rather than the long-term effects.

That said, Australia recently announced an initial A$22 million of funding and a plan for research into long COVID through the Medical Research Future Fund.

In July 2023, the White House established the Office of Long COVID Research and Practice which will coordinate the US government’s response to long COVID, as well as two randomised trials of Paxlovid.

Given what we now know about long COVID, and the additional concern of what we don’t know (for example, could organ damage reveal itself many years down the track?), we desperately need diagnostic tools, clinical care pathways coupled with health worker training, and treatments to prevent and cure long COVID.

Unaddressed, long COVID may well lead to a new and substantial health and societal burden for many years to come. The response must involve prioritisation of research, such as that which led to the fast development of COVID vaccines and antivirals.

While there are some positive signs in the policy and research space, we need to see stronger recognition of long COVID and a greater sense of urgency around finding solutions.

Authors:

Suman Majumdar, Associate Professor and Chief Health Officer - COVID and Health Emergencies, Burnet Institute

Brendan Crabb, Director and CEO, Burnet Institute

Emma Pakula, Senior Research and Policy Officer, Burnet Institute

Michelle Scoullar, Senior Research Fellow, Burnet Institute

Ziyad Al-Aly, Director Clinical Epidemiology Center, VA St. Louis Health Care System, Washington University in St Louis

The Burnet Institute is a not-for-profit independent, unaligned organisation that combines medical research in the laboratory and the field with public health action to address major health issues affecting disadvantaged communities in Australia and internationally.

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

Why We Need to Study Suicides After Opioid Tapering

By Stefan G. Kertesz, MD

How can we understand and prevent the suicides of patients in the wake of nationwide reductions in opioid prescribing?

Answering that question is the passion and commitment of our research team at the University of Alabama at Birmingham School of Medicine. Our study’s name, “CSI: OPIOIDs,” stands for “Clinical Context of Suicide Following Opioid Transitions.” Let me tell you why we are doing this work, what we do, and how you can help.

Opioid prescribing in the US started falling in 2012, after a decade of steady increases. The original run-up in prescribing was far from careful and a judicious correction was needed. A judicious correction, however, is not what happened. Instead, opioid prescriptions fell, rapidly, to levels lower than those seen in 2000. It may require a book to understand how prescribers swung so easily from one extreme to another.

For the 5 to 9 million patients who were taking prescription opioids long-term, reductions and stoppages were often rapid, according studies in the US and Canada. In one Medicare study, 81% of long-term opioid discontinuations were abrupt, often leaving patients in withdrawal and uncontrolled pain.

Prescription opioid reductions are not always good, and not always bad. For some patients, modest reductions are achievable without evident harm, especially if a reduction is what the patient wants to achieve. For others, the outcomes appear to be harmful. Several who serve on our research team have witnessed friends, family, or patients deteriorate physically or emotionally following a reduction. Some attempted suicide and, tragically, others died by suicide.

Large database analyses tell a similar (and nuanced) story. In research derived from Kaiser Permanente, Veterans Health Administration, Oregon’s Medicaid program, and Canadian databases, patient outcomes were diverse. Some researchers found no safety problems after opioid reductions, but others describe suicides, mental health crises, medical deteriorations, and overdoses at frequencies that are too common to ignore. These are not acceptable outcomes. 

The shocking nature of patient suicides led some experts to jump to conclusions, arguing that acute withdrawal from opioids explains all the bad outcomes, and that slow reductions or tapers prevent harm. But that’s not true. In two studies, mental health crises or overdoses occurred at elevated rates a full year after modest dose reductions, such as a 39% reduction in one national study.

Jumping to conclusions about why something bad happens is another way of saying, “We don’t want to investigate.”

After a suicide, we think the right step – the respectful step – is to ask questions: What happened here? Why did it happen? What were all the factors in a person’s life that might have played a role in their death? And where does an opioid reduction fit, or not fit, into explaining what happened?

Asking those questions is crucial. The decision to end one’s life through suicide is rarely simple, but understanding the person’s history and reasoning will spur better approaches to care. Approaching these questions through in-depth rigorous research, rather than pretending we already know why suicides happen, could also induce leaders to take them more seriously than they have to date.

Just like investigators examining a plane crash, we intend to collect the full story of what happened, carrying out detailed interviews and, where possible, reviewing medical records. Studying just one case can tell us a great deal. But our goal is to study over 100 patient suicides.

This approach is called a “psychological autopsy interview.” That phrase can sound a bit daunting. In reality, it’s an interview where we ask about the person’s life, their health, their care, and what happened before they died.

How You Can Help

We seek people who have lost somebody, such as a close family member or good friend, to suicide after a prescription opioid reduction. We are studying deaths in the US among veterans and civilians, and hope to interview more than one person for each suicide.  

Interview topics range from health and social functioning, to care changes prior to death, to whether the person who died felt a sense of connection to others or perceived themselves to be a burden. To our knowledge, no other team is attempting to do this work.  

We face a singular challenge: recruitment. That’s why we need your help. For the last 60 years, studies of suicides involved collaboration with medical examiners in a state or county. That option is not available to us, because medical examiners usually don’t know about health care changes that took place prior to a person’s death.  

There is no master list of suicides that occurred following a reduction or stoppage in opioids. Yet those deaths are precisely the ones we need to learn about. The only way we can document those cases is to reach out to the public and ask if survivors are willing to come to us, either online or by phone (1-866-283-7223, select option #1). 

If enough survivors are willing to participate in this initiative, then we can begin to describe, understand, and prevent future devastating tragedies.  

For the people who are considering participation in the study and wondering what risks are involved, let me offer some reassurance. First, there is an online questionnaire housed on a very secure server. A person can start it and stop at any point if they choose, no questions asked.  

Also, this study is protected by two federal “Certificates of Confidentiality.” These federal orders prohibit release of identifiable data under any circumstances, even a court order.  We are aware that some families are pursuing legal action, and this was a major factor in our decision to take this extra step to protect participants. 

When a person completes the survey, we will evaluate their answers to see how confident they were that the death was likely a suicide, and whether the death occurred after a prescription opioid dose reduction. If they meet these criteria, then we will reach out to discuss further participation in the research study.  

What follows is a more detailed informed consent process. There is a modest incentive ($100) for being interviewed, and a smaller one if the person can work with our medical record team. It is not necessary for a survivor to have access to a loved one’s medical records.  

So far, the interviews we’ve conducted have been serious, warm and thought-provoking. At the outset, we were concerned that these interviews could be upsetting. We learned from reading the literature on this type of interview, that the individuals who agree to participate usually have a desire to share their feelings about their loved one’s death and tend to perceive the interview as a positive experience.  

In the long-run, we hope that after looking at 110 suicides, we can formulate recommendations and programs for care, without leaping to any conclusions. We want to help save lives.  

A study like this is clearly not the only answer to an ongoing tragedy. Research is almost never a “quick answer” to anything. That’s why many members of our team have already engaged in direct advocacy with federal agencies. It was 4 years ago that several of us urged the CDC to issue a clarification regarding its 2016 Guideline on Prescribing Opioids for Pain. A revised CDC guideline was released last year, but we’ve noticed that the health care situation faced by countless patients with pain remains traumatic and unsettled.

These events are hidden and need exploration. We need to take this next step and learn more to prevent further tragedies and lost lives.

If you would like to enter the screening survey for this research, please click here.

If you would like to learn more general information about our study, click here.

If you know a group of patients or clinicians who would like a flyer, presentation, or a link to our study, please let us know by email at csiopioids@uabmc.edu or stefan.kertesz@va.gov

Stefan G. Kertesz, MD, a Professor of Medicine and Public Health at the University of Alabama at Birmingham School of Medicine, and a physician-investigator at the Birmingham Alabama Veterans Healthcare System.  Stefan is Principal Investigator for the CSI: OPIOIDs study.

Views expressed in this column are those of Dr. Kertesz and do not represent official views of the United States Department of Veterans Affairs or any state agency.

For anyone thinking about suicide, please contact the 988 Suicide & Crisis Lifeline, available online, via chat, or by dialing “988.”  A comprehensive set of resources can also be found at this link.

WHO Releases First Guideline for Chronic Low Back Pain

By Pat Anson, PNN Editor

The World Health Organization (WHO) has released its first-ever guideline for managing chronic low back pain, recommending treatments such as exercise, physical therapy, chiropractic care and non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs).

Chronic low back pain — also known as “non-specific low back pain” — is defined as pain that persists longer than three months, with symptoms that cannot be accounted for by a structural spinal problem or disease process such as arthritis.

Although lower back pain (LBP) is the leading cause of disability worldwide – affecting about 619 million people – there has been little certainty about how to treat it. Almost all of the clinical trial evidence reviewed by WHO’s guideline development group was considered low or very low quality, a persistent problem.in many medical guidelines dealing with pain.

The lengthy 274-page guideline takes a dim view of some commonly used therapies for LBP, such as muscle relaxants, anticonvulsants, steroids, opioids, transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS), and injectable anesthetics – treatments that are primarily used in high-income countries. WHO recommends a more holistic approach to LBP, using therapies that are affordable and accessible to more people.

"Addressing chronic low back pain requires an integrated, person-centred approach. This means considering each person's unique situation and the factors that might influence their pain experience," Dr. Anshu Banerjee, WHO Director for Maternal, Newborn, Child, Adolescent Health and Ageing, said in a press release. "We are using this guideline as a tool to support a holistic approach to chronic low back pain care and to improve the quality, safety and availability of care."

WHO recommends that adults with chronic LBP start with treatments that are the least invasive and least potentially harmful. The values and preferences of patients should also be considered, as they are more likely to adhere to therapies they consider helpful.  

Recommended Treatments for Chronic LBP

• Patient education and counseling

• Exercise or physical therapy

• Acupuncture or dry needling

• Spinal manipulation (chiropractic care)

• Massage

• Cognitive behavioral therapy or mindfulness

• NSAIDs

• Topical cayenne pepper

The guideline states that opioid analgesics “should never be used as a stand-alone treatment” for chronic LBP. When opioids are used alongside other therapies, the lowest dose should be prescribed and only for a short duration, according to WHO.

Recommendations against routine use are also made about many other pharmaceuticals, including antidepressants, anticonvulsants, muscle relaxers, glucocorticoids (steroids), weight loss drugs, and injectable anesthetics such as lidocaine or bupivacaine.  

No recommendations are made about benzodiazepines, cannabis or acetaminophen (paracetamol), primarily due to lack of evidence, but also because of potentially harmful side effects. Cayenne pepper is the only herbal remedy recommended by WHO.

The guideline does not address surgical procedures such as spinal fusions and spinal cord stimulators, or invasive procedures such as epidural injections.

WHO’s 25-member guideline development group included a broad range of clinical experts from around the world. Among them is Roger Chou, MD, a researcher and longtime critic of opioid prescribing who heads the Pacific Northwest Evidence-based Practice Center. Chou is a co-author of the 2016 and 2022 CDC opioid guidelines, and has collaborated on several occasions with members of Physicians for Responsible Opioid Prescribing (PROP), an anti-opioid advocacy group. Chou let his Oregon medical license lapse in 2022.

One of the clinical trials reviewed by WHO’s guideline group is a controversial Australian study – known as the OPAL study -- that found low dose opioids gave little relief to patients with short-term back and neck pain. The OPAL study has been panned by critics because the treatment period only lasted six weeks and used a formulation of oxycodone that would not normally be used in clinical practice. Nevertheless, it’s been cited as evidence that “prolonged opioid use” is ineffective.

In 2021, WHO updated its guideline on the treatment of chronic pain in children, recommending that prescription opioids only be used for children who are dying or seriously ill. An earlier WHO guideline that recommended more pediatric use of opioids was withdrawn in 2019, after two U.S. congressmen accused the United Nation’s health agency of being “corruptly influenced” by opioid manufactures.