Peer Reviewers of Medical Studies Have Conflicts of Interest

By Crystal Lindell

How much are medical studies impacted by financial conflicts of interest? New research shows the problem may run deeper than most people realize. 

The authors of peer-reviewed studies in medical journals usually have to disclose whether or not they received money from pharmaceutical companies or medical device manufacturers. But new research published in JAMA looks at the next layer: the peer reviewers themselves.

Due to the “traditionally opaque nature of peer review,” it’s difficult to investigate the issue, but an international team of researchers studied peer reviewers at high-impact medical journals like The BMJ, JAMA, The Lancet, and The New England Journal of Medicine.

They looked specifically at nearly 2,000 U.S-based physicians who served as peer reviewers. 

What they found is both unsurprising and alarming. Between 2020 and 2022, more than half (58.9%) of the peer reviewers analyzed had received at least one industry payment. In total, the peer reviewers received a staggering $1.06 billion in industry payments. 

It should be noted that companies don’t spend that kind of money out of some noble love of medicine. No, they are doing it because it helps increase their profits or advances their interests. 

Most of that money – $1 billion or 94 percent – was paid directly to individuals or to their institutions to help fund research programs. That’s why academics who churn out studies are highly prized at universities and research institutes.

The rest of the money – $64.18 million – was in the form of general payments, which includes everything from speaker fees and “honoraria” to food, drink, lodging and travel expenses. 

The median general payment to a peer reviewer was $7,614, while the median research payment was $153,173. 

Interestingly, the average male reviewer had a significantly higher total payment ($38,959) than the average female reviewer ($19,586). 

The authors also broke down differences between medical specialties. Doctors who specialize in cardiology, rheumatology, oncology, immunology or addiction treatment were the most likely to get payments (73.5%), followed by surgeons (72%), psychiatrists (65%), hospital-based specialists (47%) and primary care physicians (38%).

Those results shed light on which fields of medicine may be more susceptible to conflicts of interests.

The study’s authors came to the only conclusion that makes sense given all this data: "Additional research and transparency regarding industry payments in the peer review process are needed."

I agree that this is clearly an issue that needs to be addressed. But we shouldn’t have to wait for more research to start taking action. We need stronger policies at medical journals to help contain the potential harm it’s causing. 

At the very least, peer reviewers should have to disclose conflicts of interest. While that may conflict with the policy of some journals to keep peer reviewers anonymous, given the potential for bias and other negative consequences, it seems the financial disclosures should take precedence. 

Since peer reviewers also have the ability to reject research before it’s even published, they should have their names and potential conflicts listed in the publications. 

Beyond that, medical journals need to start having difficult conversations about whether peer reviewers should even be allowed to review studies that involve companies or industries that pay them. 

While it may not be entirely possible in our for-profit healthcare system, that doesn’t mean it shouldn’t be explored. After all, the study did not find that 100% of peer reviewers accepted payments. So clearly some peer reviewers found a way to do the work without an obvious conflict of interest.

It isn’t just medical journals that do a poor job flagging the conflicts of peer reviewers. When PNN made a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request to the CDC seeking more information about the “Core Expert Group” involved in the agency’s 2016 opioid guideline, most of the documents we received back were heavily edited or redacted.

The CDC’s FOIA office said the group was exempt from our request because of “deliberative process privilege” and that disclosing their conflicts would have been “a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.”  

Why Conflicts Matter

Why do conflicts of interest matter? The easiest way to understand it is that whenever money is involved, it can potentially lead to what is essentially a boss-employee power dynamic. And typically, people don’t like to upset their bosses. 

Intuitively, most people also understand that if a medical device company funds medical device research, the researchers are incentivized to manipulate both the research methods and results in hopes of providing the funder the results they seek. 

Sometimes it’s deliberate, but sometimes it just happens on a subconscious level. People naturally favor people who give them money. However, in this case, the result of that favoritism could harm the health of millions of patients. 

In one high-profile example from 2018, a top cancer researcher failed to disclose the millions of dollars in payments he received from drug and healthcare companies.

As ProPublica and The New York Times reported, Dr. José Baselga, then-chief medical officer at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York, had a number of undisclosed conflicts of interests. 

One such conflict may have led Baselga to put a positive spin on the results of two Roche-sponsored clinical trials — trials that many others had considered disappointments. He did this without disclosing the more than $3 million in consulting fees he’d received from Roche. He also left out that he had a stake in a company Roche had acquired. 

Baselga resigned just days after the news investigation came out, but journalists just don’t have the resources to constantly investigate every single researcher for conflicts of interest. That’s why medical journals must regulate the issue themselves. 

Yes, most medical journals already have policies requiring study authors to disclose conflicts of interest, but as this new research makes clear, that’s not enough. It’s past time for peer reviewers to be required to do the same. 

After all, it’s not just because the public deserves to know. Our lives could depend on it. 

JAMA: Patients on Long-Term Opioids Often ‘Irrational’

By Pat Anson, PNN Editor

Do pain patients on long-term opioid therapy make irrational decisions? Is their mental capacity so diminished by opioids that they shouldn’t be involved in treatment decisions with their doctors?

The answer to both questions is often yes, according to a controversial new op/ed published in JAMA Internal Medicine. At issue is a recent update to the CDC’s opioid prescribing guideline, which calls for shared decision-making (SDM) when a prescriber considers tapering a patient or abruptly discontinuing their opioid treatment. The guideline was revised last year after reports of “serious harm” to patients caused by forced tapering.

“In situations where benefits and risks of continuing opioids are considered to be close, shared decision-making with patients is particularly important,” the 2022 guideline states.

But that advice about consulting with patients goes too far, according to the lead author of the JAMA op/ed, Mark Sullivan, MD, a professor of psychiatry at the University of Washington and a longtime board member of Physicians for Responsible Opioid Prescribing (PROP), an anti-opioid activist group.

“The value of SDM has been recognized for many years but also has its limitations, including where patients make irrational or short-sighted decisions,” Sullivan wrote. “Long-term opioid therapy induces a state of opioid dependence that compromises patients’ decisional capacity, specifically altering their perception of the value and necessity of the therapy; and although patients with chronic pain are not usually at imminent risk of death, they often can see no possibility of a satisfying life without a significant and immediate reduction in their pain.”

Sullivan and his two co-authors, Jeffrey Linder, MD, and Jason Doctor, PhD, have long been critical of opioid prescribing practices in the U.S. In their conflict of interest statements, Sullivan and Doctor disclose that they have worked for law firms involved in opioid litigation, a lucrative sideline for several PROP members.

Sullivan, Linder and Doctor call for more “structured” decision-making that includes the patient’s family and friends, “motivational interviewing” of patients about opioid risks and treatment goals, and education about non-drug alternatives such as yoga and meditation.

“We believe that a fully individualized, unstructured decision-making process will not be adequate to protect patients receiving long-term opioid therapy,” they wrote.

“In the case of opioid prescribing, and especially opioid tapering, working to persuade the patient is almost always the best clinical strategy. But there are circumstances where tapering should occur even if the patient objects.”

— Dr. Mark Sullivan

And what happens if a patient refuses to have their dose reduced? The op/ed doesn’t explicitly state it, but in an email to PNN, Sullivan said forced tapering would be acceptable in some situations.

“In the case of opioid prescribing, and especially opioid tapering, working to persuade the patient is almost always the best clinical strategy. But there are circumstances (opioid use disorder, diversion, serious medical risks) where tapering should occur even if the patient objects,” Sullivan wrote.

Opioid diversion by patients is actually rare. The DEA estimates that less than one percent of oxycodone (0.3%) and hydrocodone (0.42%) will be used by someone they were not intended for.

As for patients on opioids behaving “irrational,” Sullivan and his co-authors cite an op/ed published 33 years ago in The New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM). But that article doesn’t even discuss opioids or tapering, it’s about whether patients and doctors should collaborate in making decisions about end-of-life medical care.  It also makes an important disclaimer that “even the irrational choices of a competent patient must be respected if the patient cannot be persuaded to change them."

Sullivan rejects that approach to opioid treatment.

“We cite (the NEJM article) to demonstrate that SDM does not exclude or prevent irrational decisions,” he wrote in his email.  “You are right that we do not endorse the conclusion you cite, that patient’s irrational decisions must be respected.”

In a rebuttal to Sullivan’s op/ed also published in JAMA Internal Medicine, Mitchell Katz, MD, and Deborah Grady, MD, dispute the notion that a patient’s choices shouldn’t be respected.

“Primary care professionals generally highly value the inclusion of the patient’s perspective in decision-making, consistent with the principles of patient autonomy and self-determination, and are loathe to go against a patient’s wishes,” they wrote.

“As primary care professionals, we have found it helpful to tell patients that it is not recommended to take more than a specific threshold of opioids and that we do not want to prescribe something that is not recommended. However, that does not mean sticking to rigid cut points for dose and duration of opioid use, abandoning patients, or having them undergo too rapid a taper.”

Others questioned JAMA’s decision to publish Sullivan’s op/ed.

“While I recognize the editors’ legitimate intellectual interest in providing a forum for open discussion on the opioid policy space, I question their decision to publish an editorial that represents an ongoing call for broad, ill-defined reductions in opioid prescribing,” said Chad Kollas, MD, a palliative care specialist who rejects the idea that patients shouldn’t be involved in their healthcare choices.

“Errantly embracing a lower evidentiary standard for medical decision-making capacity creates an unacceptable risk for harm to patients with pain by violating their rights of medical autonomy and self-determination.”

Opioids were once commonly prescribed in the U.S. for both acute and chronic pain, but those days are long over. Opioid prescribing has been cut in half, to levels not seen since the 1990’s. And many patients today have trouble just getting their prescriptions filled at pharmacies due to opioid shortages.

Despite that, fatal overdoses have climbed to record levels, with illicit fentanyl and other street drugs involved in the vast majority of drug deaths, not prescription opioids.

Study Finds ‘Evidence Lacking’ for Most Fibromyalgia Treatments

By Pat Anson, PNN Editor

A new analysis has found little evidence to support the long-term use of any medication or therapy to treat fibromyalgia, a poorly understood disorder characterized by widespread body pain, fatigue, poor sleep and depression.

An international team of researchers from Brazil and Australia reviewed 224 clinical trials of fibromyalgia treatments and found many of them small and of poor quality. High quality evidence was found for cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT), anti-depressants, and central nervous system (CNS) depressants as short and medium-term treatments for fibromyalgia. No treatment was found to be effective long term.

“In this systematic review, the effectiveness of most therapies for fibromyalgia was not supported. Strong evidence supported only cognitive behavioral therapy for pain, as well as antidepressants and central nervous system depressants for pain and quality of life, but these associations were small,” wrote lead author Vinícius Cunha Oliveira, PhD, an adjunct professor at Federal University of the Valleys of Jequitinhonha and Mucuri in Brazil.

“Some therapies may be associated with small reductions in pain and improvements in quality of life in people with fibromyalgia; however, current evidence is lacking for most therapies.”

The study findings, published in JAMA Internal Medicine, reflect what many fibromyalgia sufferers already know; many treatments are ineffective in improving their symptoms.

The Food and Drug Administration has approved only three drugs for fibromyalgia; the antidepressants duloxetine (Cymbalta) and milnacipran (Savella), and the anti-seizure medication pregabalin (Lyrica). All three drugs were originally developed for other medical conditions and are being repurposed as treatments for fibromyalgia.

A large 2014 survey of fibromyalgia patients by the National Pain Foundation found that most people who tried the three FDA-approved drugs did not feel they were effective.

Exercise, acupuncture, massage, electrotherapy, myofascial release, and several other non-pharmaceutical treatments are also commonly recommended for fibromyalgia pain. Researchers found only “moderate” evidence to support their short-term use. High quality evidence was only found for CBT, a form of meditation in which a therapist works with a patient to reduce unhelpful thinking and behavior.

“Clinicians should be aware that current evidence for most of the available therapies for the management of fibromyalgia is limited to small trials of low methodological quality,” researchers concluded. “Clinicians and patients should choose therapies by considering other important outcomes in addition to those presented in this review, such as adverse effects, out-of-pocket costs, and patient preferences.”

The National Institutes of Health estimates about 5 million Americans have fibromyalgia. Most people diagnosed with fibromyalgia are women, although men and children also can be affected.

Kolodny Clarifies His Conflicts of Interest

By Pat Anson, PNN Editor

Dr. Andrew Kolodny has revised his conflict of interest statements for two articles he co-authored in the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) to include his work in malpractice lawsuits involving opioid medication.

Kolodny, the founder and Executive Director of Physicians for Responsible Opioid Prescribing (PROP), is a longtime critic of opioid prescribing. He recently testified as the “star witness” for Oklahoma in its opioid negligence lawsuit against Johnson & Johnson, a case the state won with a $572 million judgement against J&J.

“I am writing to provide additional information to clarify conflict of interest disclosures in 2 articles I published in JAMA in 2017 and 2018.  During this time, I received compensation for work as an expert in malpractice litigation involving opioid prescribing,” Kolodny wrote in a Sept. 4 letter to JAMA’s editors.

“When the articles were first published, I did not believe this work could be perceived as a potential conflict of interest. My view has since changed. In the spirit of full transparency, I am requesting a correction to my disclosure statements.”

The two JAMA articles in question, which were co-authored by former CDC director Thomas Frieden, MD, both dealt with the opioid crisis and the federal policy response to it.

JAMA disclosure policy is very clear and requires authors to list “all relevant financial interests, activities, relationships and affiliations,” including payments for employment, consultancies and expert testimony.

During the Oklahoma trial, Kolodny admitted under questioning by J&J lawyers that he was being paid $725 an hour by Nix Patterson & Roach, one of three law firms hired by Oklahoma to handle the case against J&J. Kolodny anticipated being paid up to $500,000 by the end the Oklahoma trial.

“I don’t think it should be a secret that I’m being compensated,” he said.  

Kolodny also acknowledged working for the law firm of Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll in a similar capacity, also for $725 an hour. Cohen Milstein is heavily involved in opioid litigation in New Jersey, Indiana, Vermont, California and Illinois. 

Kolodny’s work in opioid litigation was disclosed in the April 2018 JAMA article.

DR. ANDREW KOLODNY

His revised disclosure statement for that article is vague, stating that he worked as “a medical expert for states and counties that have filed suits against opioid manufacturers and as an expert witness in malpractice cases involving opioid prescribing.” It does not identify which states, counties and law firms he worked for or what companies were being sued. 

JAMA policy calls for “complete disclosure of all potential conflicts of interest” covering a three-year period prior to an article being submitted. If an author received funding from the pharmaceutical industry, for example, he or she would be expected to identify the company involved.   

“It is encouraging that Dr. Kolodny has recognized that his very profitable work supporting plaintiffs in opioid lawsuits might constitute a conflict of interest when he writes about opioid policy and clinical practice,” said Bob Twillman, PhD, a healthcare policy consultant and former Executive Director of the Academy of Pain Management. “Of course, these aren't the only two articles Dr. Kolodny has co-authored, and he has done numerous presentations at professional meetings as well, so I wonder if he will seek to correct all the rest of those relevant disclosure statements.

“I think it's also interesting that, when I disclose my conflict, I am always required to specifically name the entity involved, yet Dr. Kolodny names neither the jurisdictions nor the law firms for which he was working. It seems a little like a double standard to me, and I wonder how the editorial boards of the relevant journals feel about that.”

In March 2017, Kolodny co-authored a research letter in JAMA Internal Medicine on a study he designed that looked into funding that patient advocacy groups and professional organizations received from opioid manufacturers. Many of those organizations publicly opposed the CDC’s controversial opioid prescribing guideline, which Kolodny and other PROP members helped draft.

“The CDC did not prompt or require organizations to disclose their financial associations as part of their comments. Disclosure, however, is one means of managing conflicts of interest,” Kolodny and his co-authors wrote. “Our findings demonstrate that greater transparency is required about the financial relationships between opioid manufacturers and patient and professional groups.”

Kolodny’s disclosure statement for the 2017 article states that he was a member of PROP and Chief Medical Officer for the addiction treatment chain Phoenix House (which he has since left). It makes no mention of his work in opioid litigation or malpractice lawsuits, which may have begun at a later date.

Lucrative Sideline

Kolodny is not the only critic of opioid prescribing to develop a lucrative sideline as a medical expert or paid witness. Dr. Adriane Fugh-Berman, Director of PharmedOUT, a program at Georgetown University that seeks to expose deceptive healthcare marketing practices, has also been paid handsomely for her testimony.

In August, Fugh-Berman testified in California that she was paid $500 an hour for her work in a pelvic mesh liability trial of Johnson & Johnson. She received about $120,000 for her work on the case, according to Northern California Record.

Fugh-Berman has written several op/eds claiming that “industry-funded attacks” on the CDC guideline by physician and patient advocacy groups were part of a “coordinated attempt by opioid manufacturers to use third parties to undermine, discredit, and smear the guideline.”

Fugh-Berman discloses on PharmedOUT’s website that she is a paid expert witness, but she won’t say who funds her organization.

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

Dr. Timothy Munzing, a Kaiser Permanente family practice physician in California, has also stoutly defended the CDC guideline and warned against excessive opioid prescribing.

“Most prescribing physicians feeding the opioid epidemic are well meaning, naïve, or just too busy to recognize the dangers,” he wrote in a physician guide for opioid prescribing published by Kaiser Permanente.

Over the past decade, Munzing has established a profitable career as an expert witness for the Medical Board of California, DEA, FBI and DOJ, working mostly on cases that involve doctors flagged for overprescribing opioids.

According to GovTribe.com, which tracks payments to federal contractors, Munzing has been awarded nearly $1.3 million in DOJ contracts since 2017 and is currently working on over two dozen DEA investigations.

After he left Phoenix House, Kolodny became the co-director of an opioid research program at Brandeis University that is funded with over $8.5 million federal grants, according to GovTribe.com.

Do Rx Opioids Really Increase Risk of Fatal Accidents?

By Pat Anson, PNN Editor

A recent study published in JAMA Network Open made headlines when it claimed that use of prescription opioids more than doubled the risk of causing a fatal car accident.  

Researchers at Columbia University Mailman School of Public Health looked at death certificates and toxicology tests on drivers involved in over 18,000 fatal two-vehicle accidents from 1993 to 2016. They found that 1,467 of the “crash initiators” tested positive for hydrocodone, morphine, oxycodone or other prescription opioids.    

The researchers reported their findings as “compelling evidence that use of prescription opioids by drivers is a significant contributing factor” in fatal crashes, which was a dog whistle for media outlets like CNN to warn, “Opioid epidemic spilling over onto roads.”

It turns out the evidence was not so compelling after all.

Like many states, Maryland faces growing rates of opioid abuse and addiction. But when researchers looked at opioid-related crashes in Maryland from 2006 to 2017, they found no significant increase in fatal accidents.

“The fact that opioid crashes in Maryland over the last 10 years have been more or less steady was a surprise,” Johnathon Ehsani, PhD, a professor at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health told The Washington Post.

“That is striking, because Maryland is one of those states that has been quite severely affected by the overall opioid epidemic.”

Ehsani and his colleagues took another look at the toxicology data and realized it was misleading. The reason was simple: Because hospitals and first responders often give opioid medication to patients injured in accidents, autopsies will detect those opioids in patients who later die from their injuries. In other words, the drivers may not have been under the influence of opioids before the crash.

When researchers only looked at a sub-sample of drivers who died at the scene, they found that the use of prescription opioids was “considerably lower than those who died hours or days following the crash.”

“We applied a stricter definition than our other colleagues did,” said Ehsani, who published his findings in the less prominent journal Accident Analysis & Prevention. “We were more conservative in our case definition.”

The JAMA study apparently over-counted the number of opioid-related crashes by not differentiating between drivers who died at the scene and those who died after getting medical treatment with opioids.

"When determining the prevalence of opioid use in a population, it can be tricky to untangle the two circumstances," says Ehsani. "Thinking differently about the way in which researchers count cases has implications that can offer policymakers and public health professionals more meaningful results."

No one is suggesting that it’s okay to drive a vehicle while impaired by opioids. But it’s also not okay for researchers and prominent medical journals to use flawed data to suggest that patients using prescription opioids are more likely to cause fatal accidents.

In Maryland, they found just the opposite may be true.

“It could be that a number of people who are impaired by opioids choose not to drive,” Ehsani said. “It could be that there is some self-selection going on in that population or it could be that some of those who are most seriously impaired are unable to or don’t have access to a vehicle to drive.”

Study Finds Rx Opioids Provide Limited Pain Relief

By Pat Anson, PNN Editor

Prescription opioids relieve pain, improve physical functioning and help people with chronic pain sleep. But the improvements are small and come with side effects such as vomiting.

Those are the findings from a new meta-analysis (a study of studies) published in the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA). Researchers at McMaster University in Canada reviewed 96 clinical trials involving over 26,000 participants who received either prescription opioids or a placebo.

The findings do little to resolve the debate over the safety and effectiveness of opioids.

"Despite widespread use, there is not enough known about the benefits and harms of opioids for chronic non-cancer pain," said lead author Jason Busse, DC, a researcher with the DeGroote Institute for Pain Research and Care at McMaster University.

"We found that, compared to a placebo, 12 per cent more patients treated with opioids will experience pain relief, 8 per cent more will notice an improvement in their physical functioning, and about 6 per cent more will find improvement in their sleep quality.”

One expert questioned the designs of the studies used in Busse’s analysis. Because most participants received a relatively low dose of opioids, it’s not surprising such a small number experienced pain relief, according to Stephen Nadeau, MD, a research advisor for the Alliance for the Treatment of Intractable Pain (ATIP).      

“With few exceptions, doses of opioids achieved were low (median dose 45 MME), trials were short, and opioids were rapidly titrated,” said Nadeau, a neurologist at the VA Medical Center in Gainesville, Florida.

“Because the study designs in all but a handful of studies did not remotely emulate clinical practice, it cannot be inferred that the results of this analysis are applicable to management of the general population of patients requiring opioid management of moderate to severe chronic nonmalignant pain.”

None of the opioid studies reviewed by Busse and his colleagues lasted longer than six months and many were considered low-to-moderate quality evidence. But the same thing could be said about virtually every pain reliever on the market. There is no good quality evidence proving that acetaminophen, pregabalin, ibuprofen, gabapentin or any other non-opioid pain medication is safe or effective long-term.

But opioid critics were quick to focus on the Busse study as proof that opioids should rarely be prescribed for pain.

“The findings reported by Busse et al illustrate that most patients who are prescribed opioids for the treatment of chronic noncancer pain will not benefit from those drugs,” wrote Michael Ashburn, MD, and Lee Fleisher, MD, in a JAMA editorial. “Given the clear risk of serious harm, opioids should not be continued without clear evidence of a clinically important benefit.”

But the only significant side effect the Busse study found was a 6% risk of vomiting. The study drew no conclusions about opioids increasing the risk of addiction, overdose and death – although Busse says those risks should not be overlooked.

“Given their risks, modest benefits, and the comparable effectiveness of alternatives, our results support that opioids should not be first line therapy for chronic non-cancer pain," said Busse, a chiropractor who was the lead author of Canada’s opioid prescribing guideline.

The study was funded by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research and Health Canada.

Is JAMA Opioid Study Based on Junk Science?

By Pat Anson, Editor

You may have read about a research study published this week in the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA), which compared the effectiveness of opioid and non-opioid medications in treating chronic pain. 

The yearlong study of 240 patients found that opioids were not superior to pain relievers like acetaminophen and ibuprofen in treating chronic back pain or hip and knee pain caused by osteoarthritis.  Pain improved for 41% of the patients who took opioids, compared to 54% in the non-opioid group.  

It’s an interesting study – one of the few to look at the effectiveness of any pain relievers long term – but some critics are questioning the study’s methodology and the alleged anti-opioid bias of its lead author, Erin Krebs, MD, a researcher for the Department of Veterans Affairs.

First let’s look at some of the news coverage the study is getting.

“Opioids Don’t Treat Chronic Pain Any Better Than Ibuprofen” reads the headline in Newsweek, an article that never mentions the JAMA study was limited to patients with back pain or osteoarthritis.

“Opioids Don’t Beat Other Medications for Chronic Pain” was the headline in NPR.com, while the Chicago Tribune went with “Opioids no better than common painkillers for treating chronic pain.”

The Tribune article included a quote from one of the co-authors of the CDC opioid guidelines. "The fact that opioids did worse is really pretty astounding," said Roger Chou, MD. "It calls into question our beliefs about the benefits of opioids."

Notice the news coverage strongly suggests that opioids are ineffective for all types of chronic pain – not just back pain and osteoarthritis.  Patients living with chronic pain from arachnoiditis, trigeminal neuralgia or some other intractable pain condition would probably disagree about that. And they'd find the idea of taking ibuprofen laughable, if not infuriating. But no one asked for their opinion.

Also unmentioned is that opioids are usually not prescribed for osteoarthritis or simple back pain, which are often treated with NSAIDs and over-the-counter pain relievers.

So, what JAMA has published is a government funded study designed to look at a treatment (opioids) that most people with back pain and arthritis never actually get.

“You've been had by anti-opioid advocates disguising their advocacy as science.  Krebs is well known in professional circles for this kind of distorted advocacy junk science,” wrote patient advocate Red Lawhern, PhD, in a comment submitted to the Philadelphia Inquirer after it published a misleading headline of its own, “Prescription opioids fail rigorous new test for chronic pain.”

“I suggest that you retract your article.  In its present form, it is propaganda not fact,” said Lawhern, a co-founder of the Alliance for the Treatment of Intractable Pain (ATIP). “Opioids have never been the first-line medical treatment of choice in lower back pain or arthritis. That role is served by anti-inflammatory meds, some of them in the prescription cortico-steroid family.  NSAIDs have a role to play, recognizing that they are actively dangerous in many patients if taken at high doses for long periods.  Hundreds of people die every year of cardiac arrest or liver toxicity due to high-dose acetaminophen or ibuprofen.” 

Who is Erin Krebs?  

Dr. Krebs is an associate professor at the University of Minnesota Medical School and a prolific researcher at the VA Medical Center in Minneapolis.

She was also an original member of the “Core Expert Group” – an advisory panel that secretly drafted the CDC’s controversial opioid guidelines while getting a good deal of input from the anti-opioid activist group Physicians for Responsible Opioid Prescribing (PROP). The guidelines recommend that opioids not be prescribed for chronic pain.

Krebs also appeared in a lecture series on opioid prescribing that was funded by the Steve Rummler Hope Foundation, which coincidentally is the fiscal sponsor of PROP. 

Some of her previous opioid research has been controversial. In a study published last year in the Annals of Internal Medicine, Krebs reviewed 67 studies on the safety and effectiveness of opioid tapering. Most of the studies were of poor quality, but nevertheless Krebs came to the conclusion that pain levels and the quality of life of patients “may improve during and after opioid dose reduction.”

ERIN KREBS, MD

“This review found insufficient evidence on adverse events related to opioid tapering, such as accidental overdose if patients resume use of high-dose opioids or switch to illicit opioid sources or onset of suicidality or other mental health symptoms,” wrote Krebs.

PROP founder Andrew Kolodny, MD, read the review and liked it, tweeting that “dangerously high doses should be reduced even if patient refuses.”

But forced opioid tapering is never a good idea, according to a top CDC official.

“Neither (Kreb’s) review nor CDC's guideline provides support for involuntary or precipitous tapering. Such practice could be associated with withdrawal symptoms, damage to the clinician–patient relationship, and patients obtaining opioids from other sources,” wrote Deborah Dowell, MD, a CDC Senior Medical Advisor, in an editorial also published in the Annals of Internal Medicine. 

As for Krebs’ contention that there is “insufficient evidence” of adverse events associated with opioid tapering, that notion may be put to rest next month when the VA releases a new study showing that tapering has led to a growing number of suicides by veterans.

In a summary of the findings, which will be presented at the Rx Drug Abuse & Heroin Summit, VA researchers report that “opioid discontinuation was not associated with overdose mortality, but was associated with increased suicide mortality.”  

Who and what should we believe in the neverending debate about opioids? PNN columnist Roger Chriss wrote about Krebs’ opioids vs. non-opioids study last year, when the initial reports of its findings came out. Roger said prescribing decisions are best left to physicians who know their patients’ medical conditions – not researchers, regulators or the news media.

“In reality, there is no ‘versus’ here. Opioids and NSAIDs are both valuable tools for chronic pain management. To pretend that one is inherently better than the other is to miss the essential point: Both work and should be available for use as medically appropriate,” Roger wrote. 

CDC Releases More Faulty Research About Opioids

By Pat Anson, Editor

A new study by researchers at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention estimates that opioid overdoses have shaved two and a half months off the average life span of Americans – a somewhat misleading claim because the study does not distinguish between legally obtained prescription opioids and illegal opioids like heroin and illicit fentanyl.

The research letter, published in the medical journal JAMA, looked at the leading causes of death in the U.S. from 2000 to 2015. Overall life expectancy rose during that period, from 76.8 years in 2000 to 78.8 years in 2015, largely due a decline in deaths from heart disease, cancer, stroke, diabetes and other chronic health conditions.

But deaths due to Alzheimer’s disease, suicide, liver disease, drug poisoning and opioid overdoses rose, collectively causing a loss of 0.33 years in life expectancy – most of it due to opioids.

“This loss, mostly related to opioids, was similar in magnitude to losses from all the leading causes of death with increasing death rates,” wrote lead author Deborah Dowell, MD, of the CDC’s National Center for Injury Prevention and Control.

“U.S. life expectancy decreased from 2014 to 2015 and is now lower than in most high-income countries, with this gap projected to increase. These findings suggest that preventing opioid related poisoning deaths will be important to achieving more robust increases in life expectancy once again.”

Dowell was also one of the lead authors of the CDC’s 2016 opioid prescribing guidelines, which discourage physicians from prescribing opioids for chronic pain. She and her two co-authors in the JAMA study --  both of them CDC statisticians -- do not explain why they failed to distinguish between black market opioids and legal prescription opioids, a dubious use of statistics akin to lumping arsonists in the same category as smokers or Boy Scouts learning to build campfires.  

They also fail to even mention the scourge of heroin and illicit fentanyl sweeping the country, which now accounts for the majority of opioid overdoses in several states.  

But Dowell and her co-authors don't stop there. The say the actual number of deaths caused by opioids is “likely an underestimate” because information on death certificates is often incomplete and fails to note the specific drug involved in as many as 25% of overdose deaths. This is another disingenuous claim, because it fails to explain why the data on the other 75% of overdoses is faulty too. 

Epidemic of Despair

Other researchers have also tried to explain the disturbing decline in American life expectancy – which began over adecade ago for middle-aged white Americans. Princeton researchers Anne Case and Angus Deaton were the first to document that trend,  when they estimated that nearly half a million white Americans may have died early because of depression, chronic pain, suicide, alcohol and drug abuse, and other health problems – an epidemic of despair linked to unemployment, poor finances, lack of education, divorce and loss of social connections.

The evidence was right there for Deborah Dowell and her co-authors had they looked for it. The JAMA study found that over 44,000 Americans committed suicide in 2015, a 66% increase from 2000, and over 40,000 died from chronic liver disease or cirrhosis, another 66% increase. Opioid overdoses during that same period rose to 33,000 deaths. 

Which is the bigger epidemic?

As PNN has reported, the CDC ignored early warnings from its own consultant that the agency’s opioid guidelines were being viewed as “strict law rather than a recommendation,” causing many doctors to stop prescribing opioid pain medication. Chronic pain patients also feel “slighted and shamed” by the guidelines, and are increasingly suicidal or turning to street drugs. We’ve also reported that the CDC has apparently done nothing to study the harms or even the possible benefits the guidelines have caused since they were released 18 months ago.

Instead of going back in time and selectively mining databases to fit preconceived notions about opioids, perhaps it is time for the CDC to take a giant step forward and see what its opioid guidelines have actually done.

Researchers Warn Against Opioid Backlash

By Pat Anson, Editor

The backlash against opioid medication has gone too far and is depriving chronic pain patients of a treatment many have used successfully for years, according to a commentary published in a prominent medical journal. The article also questions the use of the term “opioid epidemic” in describing the nation’s festering drug problem.

“The movement to virtually eliminate opioids as an option for chronic pain refractory to other treatments is an overreaction,” wrote Kurt Kroenke, MD, and co-author Andrea Cheville, MD, in JAMA. “Many patients currently receiving long-term opioids were started when opioids were still considered a viable treatment option and if satisfied with their pain control and using their medications appropriately should not be unilaterally compelled to wean off opioids.”

Kroenke is a research scientist at the Regenstrief Institute and a professor at the Indiana University School of Medicine. Cheville is a professor and chair of research in the Department of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation at the Mayo Clinic. She was recently elected to the National Academy of Medicine.

Kroenke and Cheville say many of the medications recommended as safer alternatives to opioids, such as acetaminophen and NSAIDs, provide little pain relief and have risky side effects. Others, such as pregabalin, gabapentin and antidepressants, may work for some pain disorders but have little benefit for others.

“Many patients respond better to one analgesic than another, just as patients with other medical conditions have differential medication responses,” they wrote. “Given the small analgesic effect on average of most pain drugs, the few classes of analgesic options, and the frequent need for combination therapy, eliminating any class of analgesics from the current menu is undesirable.”

Kroenke and Cheville say only a small minority of pain patients who start using opioids go on to use them long-term, yet medical literature and the mass media are filled with references to the so-called “opioid epidemic.”

“Excessive use of phrases like opioid epidemic should be avoided. An epidemic generally suggests a disease that is widespread and usually highly contagious rather than limited to a minority of those exposed,” they said. “Most patients receiving an initial opioid prescription do not proceed to chronic use and among the subset that do use long-term opioids, the majority neither misuse nor experience an overdose.

“An unintended consequence of excessive concerns raised about opioids could be an increasing reluctance among clinicians to prescribe even small amounts of opioids for a limited time for acute pain, including for patients discharged from the emergency department, those who are recuperating from surgical procedures, or persons with severe dental pain.”

A bill recently introduced in Congress would strictly limit opioids to just 7 days for acute pain, a prescription that could not be renewed. Maine, New Jersey, Ohio and several other states are adopting similar measures to limit opioid prescribing.

Kroenke and Cheville say few long-term studies have been conducted on the safety and effectiveness of any pain medications, and more research is needed on alternative therapies like cognitive behavioral therapy and medical marijuana before opioids are abandoned as a treatment option.

“Clinicians must be careful of replacing the opioid epidemic with a marijuana epidemic,” they warned. “Imperfect treatments do not justify therapeutic nihilism. A broad menu of partially effective treatment options maximizes the chances of achieving at least partial amelioration of chronic pain.”

CDC Guidelines Study: The Devil Is in the Details

By Stephen Ziegler, PhD, Guest Columnist

JAMA Internal Medicine has published a research letter that purports to be an examination of the relationship between funding from opioid manufacturers and opposition to the prescribing guidelines issued by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) in March of 2016.

The authors examined the written comments made to the CDC during the open comment period, asserted that those who had received funding were more likely to oppose the CDC guidelines, and concluded that their “findings demonstrate that greater transparency is required about the financial relationship between opioid manufacturers and patient and professional groups.”

The following commentary, while critical of information contained in the article written by Caleb Alexander, Andrew Kolodny and others, nevertheless concludes with some positive suggestions for the future.

Illicit Opioids: The Harms Associated With Conflation of Data

The research letter, like many articles authored by those who are rightly concerned about addiction and overdose, begins by asserting that an association exists between increases in opioid prescribing and “large increases in addiction and overdose deaths in the United States.”

However, there are several problems with such a statement. First, association is not causation. For example, while a positive association exists between the size of a fire and the number of fire engines on the scene, fire engines for the most part do not cause fires -- they are only associated with it. Further, it is misleading and harmful to lump all opioids, prescription and illicit, together.

While conflating the two may help create better headlines and fuel the hysteria, such conflation is misleading because studies continue to indicate that two opioids, illicit fentanyl and heroin, are major drivers in the alarming increase in addiction and overdose, not prescription opioids.

Moreover, lumping all opioids together can be harmful because it ignores the size and complexity of the problems associated with the use and abuse of illicit and licit drugs. Because drug abuse remains a moving target, it is important to draw distinctions between a variety of factors and sources so that solutions can be tailored and refined. One size does not fit all.

Unclear Methodology Used to Classify Comments

Another problem with the JAMA article was the lack of measurement clarity regarding content analysis and how the authors categorized (coded) the comments that were submitted to the CDC during the open comment period.

According to the authors, the comments were classified as belonging in one of four mutually exclusive categories: “supportive, generally supportive with recommendations, generally not supported with recommendations, and not supportive.”

While it is unclear whether the coding occurred before or after the comments were reviewed, one section of the paper the authors pointed out that about 6% of the comments “were coded as supportive by 1 reviewer and not supportive by the other; a third reviewer adjudicated these cases.”

The first question that comes to mind is: who was the reviewer? Since it is likely that the authors were not randomly selected, it remains unclear what criteria was used to adjudicate disputes related to coding, especially when we know that two reviewers were at opposite ends of the spectrum and the coding scheme was central to the study.

Along these same lines, what constitutes opposition to the CDC guidelines? Was opposition binary (yes/no), was it mixed (and if so, where was the line), or did opposition exist along a range (strong or weak)?

When dealing with qualitative data (words as opposed to numbers), there are tendencies in terms of direction, but the devil is in the details. This is notable because there were likely many different reasons commentators and organizations were not supportive of the CDC prescribing guidelines, such as, but not limited to:

1. The secretive nature of the entire process
2. The short time frame the CDC allotted for public comments (initially less than 24 hours)
3. Allegations that the process violated the Federal Advisory Committee Act
4. Strong recommendations based on weak evidence
5. Committee membership that lacked balance and broad stakeholder involvement
6. An anti-prescription opioid agenda or bias by some committee members
7. The fixation on dosing limits ignored the problems associated with converting dosage from one opioid to another, the differences in patients, and the potential for unintentional overdose at any dosage level
8. The lack of balance and selective nature of the literature cited in the guidelines
9. The failure to recognize that non-pharmacologic therapy and alternatives to opioids may not be effective or covered by insurance
10. An ironic lack of transparency and full disclosure concerning potential conflicts of interest among those involved in the guidelines at various levels from start to finish

Conclusion

While the reduction of harms associated with the use of prescription drugs and illicit opioids such as heroin remains essential to improving the public health, it serves no laudable purpose to continually lump all opioids together.

Drug abuse is a highly complex bio-psycho-social phenomenon that requires recognition that not all people, nor problems, are the same. We must also not lose sight of the fact that millions of Americans are suffering from chronic pain, alternatives to opioids may not be as effective or covered by insurance, and the overwhelming majority who take prescription opioids use them responsibly.

In regards to the conflicts of interest issue, while the authors eventually admitted that the “CDC did not prompt or require organizations to disclose their financial associations as part of their comments,” I agree that disclosing real or potential conflicts of interest in the future is good for all involved. However, such disclosure should not be limited to just the pharmaceutical industry. It should also include government agencies and those in the substance abuse community.

I have and continue to provide consultation to government and the pharmaceutical industry about the need for balanced solutions that help ensure appropriate access, while at the same time prevent abuse. I care about the under-treatment of pain, as I am sure that those in the substance abuse community care about those suffering from addiction.

Consequently, what both the pain community and the substance abuse community need to focus on is finding common ground and forging balanced solutions, since finger pointing, bullying or taking a zero-sum game approach only impedes progress.

Stephen J. Ziegler, PhD, is a Professor Emeritus of Public Policy at Indiana University-Purdue University in Fort Wayne, Indiana.

Dr. Ziegler conducts research, provides continuing medical education, and consults on the topics of opioid risk management and the impact of drug regulation and enforcement on the treatment of pain. He has been published in several peer reviewed journals and serves as a reviewer for several journals such as the Journal of Opioid Management, Pain Medicine, Cancer, and the Journal of Medical Ethics. Prior to obtaining his law degree, Dr. Ziegler worked as a police detective and as a Task Force Officer for the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration.

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

Bias and Conflict of Interest in Opioid Guidelines Study

By Pat Anson, Editor

A new study published in JAMA Internal Medicine is claiming that some patient advocacy groups and medical organizations that opposed the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s opioid prescribing guidelines had a conflict of interest.

Ironically, the two main authors of the study appear to have a conflict of interest themselves, as well as a bias against opioid pain medication.

In their review of 158 organizations that made public comments on the CDC guidelines – which discourage doctors from prescribing opioids from chronic pain – researchers found that about one third (38%) of those that accepted funding from opioid manufacturers opposed the guidelines. This alleged conflict of interest should have been disclosed, they say.

“A major concern is that opposition to regulatory, payment, or clinical policies to reduce opioid use may originate from groups that stand to lose financially if sales of opioids decline,” wrote senior author G. Caleb Alexander, MD, an associate professor of epidemiology at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health.

“Our findings demonstrate that greater transparency is required about the financial relationships between opioid manufacturers and patient and professional groups.”

One of the co-authors who designed the study is Andrew Kolodny, MD, the founder and Executive Director of Physicians for Responsible Opioid Prescribing (PROP), an anti-opioid group that helped draft the CDC guidelines and was itself accused of numerous conflicts of interest. Kolodny is the former chief medical officer of Phoenix House, which runs a chain of addiction treatment centers and was PROP’s chief source of financial support until recently.

Alexander, who is a widely published researcher who has collaborated several times with Kolodny on other opioid-related studies, failed to disclose in the JAMA study that he has accepted funding from Otsuka Pharmaceuticals. The Japanese drug company makes Abilify, an anti-psychotic medication prescribed off-label to treat chronic pain. The amount paid to Alexander in 2015 was relatively small, a $668 fee for consulting, but according to the criteria used in his own study, it represents a conflict of interest.

Any amount of money accepted from an opioid manufacturer was considered a conflict of interest in Alexander and Kolodny’s study, whether it was a grant, gift, advertising or some other material support. No evidence was required to prove the money swayed an organization one way or another. In fact, nearly two-thirds (62%) of the organizations that accepted funding from opioid makers supported the CDC guidelines, disproving their own theory.   

“I’ll be the first to say that our method of assessing financial relationships is somewhat imprecise,” Alexander told Pain News Network. “This study was not designed for causal inference. This study doesn’t permit us to say what the effect of these funding relationships has been. But one has to wonder, when this amount of money is being spent, what the effects are.”

PROP and the “Opioid Lobby”

The claim that many medical organizations and patient advocacy groups have come under the influence of the “opioid lobby” has long been used by Kolodny.

“CDC’s plan was effectively blocked by intense pressure from the opioid lobby, which sees more cautious opioid use as a financial threat,” wrote Kolodny in a newsletter sent to PROP supporters in December 2015, after the CDC guidelines were temporarily delayed after a public outcry and threats of a lawsuit.

Kolodny’s smear campaign was widely covered uncritically by the news media, even though there was no evidence cited to support it.

“This is a big win for the opioid lobby,” Koldony told the Associated Press.

“The story here is how the opioid lobby is using the Cancer Action Network to discredit a public health effort to limit opioid prescribing,” Kolodny told The Hill.

“Here’s background on shady organization now attacking CDC’s draft opioid guideline,” Kolodny posted on Twitter.

Kolodny did not respond to a request for comment for this story.

Like his co-author, Alexander also is convinced there is a quid-pro quo between opioid manufacturers and groups that they fund.   

“The biggest myth out there is that there’s a conflict between reducing our dependence on opioids and improving care for patients in pain,” Alexander told the AP last year. “It’s an artificial conflict, but there are lots of vested interests behind it.”

Does the opioid lobby even exist? Are patient advocacy groups so easily swayed by their funding sources? Kolodny and Alexander’s study presented little evidence of either, yet they still managed to get it published in an influential journal published by the American Medical Association.

“No one in the pharmaceutical industry has ever asked me or anyone that is on our voting board to publicly state a specific stance on any issue regarding treatment options. Not one pharmaceutical representative has ever asked anyone from iPain to comment on the CDC guidelines,” said Barby Ingle, a PNN columnist who is President of the International Pain Foundation (iPain), a patient advocacy group.

Ingle, who did submit her own personal comments on the CDC guidelines, says it is very difficult to get funding from drug makers.

“We have gotten to the point of not even applying for funding unless we are contacted,” said Ingle. “Even when notified of funds available, iPain did not receive the funding requested and it turned out to be a waste of time on our part.”

What is a Conflict of Interest?

“These people perhaps don’t quite understand what is the definition of a conflict of interest,” said Richard Samp, chief counsel of the Washington Legal Foundation, which threatened to sue the CDC for violating federal law when it drafted the opioid guidelines.

“As I understand conflict of interest under federal law, that generally means that somebody has been appointed to serve in one position, but they have some other financial or ideological interest that conflicts with the interests that they’re supposed to have,” Samp told PNN.

“That was the focus of our criticism of the process that CDC went through in adopting its draft guidelines, which were written with the assistance of an advisory group that included people who had very severe conflicts of interest. For example, one particular member of the group, Jane Ballantyne, was a paid consultant for a plaintiffs’ law firm that had a vested interest in suing opioid manufacturers.”

Dr. Ballantyne is the President of PROP, the organization founded by Kolodny. At least four other board members of PROP, including Kolodny himself, served on various CDC panels that advised the agency during the drafting of the guidelines, a matter that the agency refused to disclose for several months.   

“What they are talking about (in the JAMA study) is not a conflict of interest. They’re just talking about the fact that some people who file comments with federal agencies have a particular point of view,” said Samp. “Every citizen regardless of his or her point of view and regardless of his or her background has a right to comment on what our government is doing.”

Another way to look at whether there is a conflict of interest is offered by Stephen Ziegler, PhD, in a commentary for Pain News Network (see "CDC Guidelines Study: The Devil Is in the Details").

“Association is not causation. For example, while a positive association exists between the size of a fire and the number of fire engines on the scene, fire engines for the most part do not cause fires -- they are only associated with it,” Ziegler wrote.

Ziegler says it’s time for the pain community and the addiction treatment community to end the finger pointing and bullying over opioids, and start finding common ground.

“It is misleading and harmful to lump all opioids, prescription and illicit, together. While conflating the two may help create better headlines and fuel the hysteria, such conflation is misleading because studies continue to indicate that two opioids, illicit fentanyl and heroin, are major drivers in the alarming increase in addiction and overdose, not prescription opioids,” Ziegler wrote.

The American Academy of Pain Medicine (AAPM), an association of pain management physicians, also released a statement about the JAMA study, saying it agreed that “disclosure is one means of managing conflicts of interest.” 

While the AAPM cautiously supported the CDC guidelines, it also warned that their widespread implementation could lead to problems.

“It is incumbent upon us all to monitor the deployment of the guideline to ensure that it does not inadvertently encourage under-treatment, marginalization, and stigmatization of the many patients with chronic pain that are using opioids appropriately,” the AAPM said.

Since the guidelines were released in March 2016, many pain patients have complained to PNN that their opioid doses have been reduced or eliminated, and that it’s become difficult to find a doctor willing to treat chronic pain. Others have said they are contemplating suicide because their pain is going untreated.

Major Decline in Hydrocodone Prescribing

By Pat Anson, Editor

Prescriptions for Vicodin and other hydrocodone products declined dramatically in the United States after the opioid pain medication was rescheduled by the Drug Enforcement Administration to make it harder to obtain. But there may have been unintended consequences for cancer patients, according to a new study published in JAMA Internal Medicine.

In October 2014 the DEA rescheduled hydrocodone from a Schedule III controlled substance to a more restrictive Schedule II medication because of its “high abuse potential.”

The rescheduling limits patients taking Vicodin, Lortab, Lorcet and other hydrocodone combination products to an initial 90-day supply and requires them to see a doctor for a new prescription each time they need a refill.

In the first year after rescheduling, the number of hydrocodone prescriptions in the U.S. plunged by 22 percent, from nearly 120 million to 93.5 million.

“Dispensed hydrocodone combination product prescriptions decreased substantially after rescheduling by the US Drug Enforcement Administration, with 26.3 million fewer hydrocodone combination product prescriptions and 1.1 billion fewer hydrocodone combination product tablets dispensed in the year after rescheduling,” wrote lead author Christopher Jones, PharmD, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. “Most of this decline was due to the elimination of hydrocodone combination product prescription refills, consistent with the prohibition on prescription refills for schedule II medications.”

The decline in prescribing was seen in almost all healthcare specialties, including primary care, surgery, dentistry, emergency medicine and oncology. Nearly 187,000 fewer prescriptions for hydrocodone were written for cancer patients in the first year after rescheduling, a decline of nearly 21 percent.

“It appears that up-scheduling of hydrocodone accomplished the goal of the DEA,” said Lynn Webster, MD, past president of the American Academy of Pain Medicine and author of The Painful Truth. “The more important question is what impact this has had on the rate of abuse and patient access to the medication. It may be too early to know whether rescheduling has affected the rate of people abusing opioids or if it just forced some abusers to seek alternatives like heroin.

“The JAMA report suggests that even cancer patients found it more difficult to obtain hydrocodone. That should be alarming to the medical community and illustrate to policy makers and law enforcement there are consequences to every action and in this case some people have been subjected to more cost, inconveniences and abandonment without any data to suggest an improvement in abuse or overdoses.”

Interestingly, the number of hydrocodone prescriptions written by pain management specialists after rescheduling increased by 7 percent. And there was a modest 4.9% increase in the number of prescriptions for opioids other than hydrocodone, as some patients apparently switched to opioids that were easier to obtain.

"The uptick from pain specialists most likely reflects a transfer of narcotic provision from non-specialists to specialists. That is, a decrease in prescribing from those who have less training in prescribing opioid pain relievers offset to some extent by an increase from those who have more such training," said Stuart Gitlow, MD, Executive Director of the Annenberg Physician Training Program in Addictive Disease and past president of the American Society of Addiction Medicine.

Gitlow believes the large overall decline in hydrocodone prescribing was a sign that many of the refills being ordered before rescheduling "were ultimately determined to be unnecessary."

"This was not meant to address the overall opioid prescribing problem, but was rather filling one hole in the dike," Gitlow wrote in an email to Pain News Network. "There remains much left to do, such as removal of the cap for treatment of opioid use disorders in office settings, and availability of tapering to avoid having patients move to heroin when their supply of prescription narcotics is suddenly cut off."

Hydrocodone was once the most widely prescribed medication in the United States, with over 137 million prescriptions annually. Prescribing of hydrocodone was already in decline before rescheduling, because of growing concern the drug was being abused and diverted.

Opioid Use Stabilized in U.S. Decade Ago

By Pat Anson, Editor

The use of prescription drugs has soared in the United States since the turn of the century, with nearly six out of ten adults taking a prescribed medication at least once in the last 30 days, according to a new survey.

But while the use of blood pressure medication, statins and anti-depressants rose sharply from 1999 to 2012 -- the use of opioid pain medication appears to have stabilized and gone into decline over a decade ago.

“Although increased use of narcotic analgesics may raise concern about their potential misuse or abuse, it should be noted that use stabilized after 2003-2004. This flattening trend may reflect increased awareness of prescription opioid drug misuse or abuse, although underreporting of these drugs may have increased with awareness regarding their potential for abuse,” wrote lead author Elizabeth Kantor, PhD, formerly of the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, who is now with the Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center.

The study findings are published in JAMA, the official journal of the American Medical Association.

The use of opioids rose from 3.8% of adults in 1999 to 5.7% in 2004, according to the study. Since then they have begun to decline slightly. The use of non-opioid pain relievers also appears to have leveled off. 

The data for the survey was compiled differently than most other studies of prescription drugs, which rely on pharmacy databases and insurance claims, not on actual use of the drugs.

The survey involved nearly 38,000 adults across the U.S. and was collected during household interviews.  Participants were asked if they had taken a prescription drug during the last 30 days. If they responded “yes” they were asked to name the medication or to show the drug’s container.

Although other studies have indicated that opioid prescribing is in decline, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) claims there is an “urgent need for improved prescribing practices.” It plans to issue new prescribing guidelines for primary care physicians in January that would limit the quantities and doses of opioids for both acute and chronic pain.  A complete list of the guidelines can be found here.

The opioid hydrocodone was once the most widely prescribed medication in the U.S. But hydrocodone does not appear in the list of top ten drugs used by participants in the survey, nor does any other opioid. The most commonly used prescribed medication in 2011-2012 was simvastatin, followed by lisinopril, levothyroxine, metoprolol, metformin, hydrochlorothiazide, omeprazole, amlodipine, atorvastatin, and albuterol.

“Eight of the 10 most commonly used drugs in 2011-2012 are used to treat components of the cardiometabolic syndrome, including hypertension, diabetes, and dyslipidemia. Another is a proton-pump inhibitor used for gastroesophageal reflux, a condition more prevalent among individuals who are overweight or obese. Thus, the increase in use of some agents may reflect the growing need for treatment of complications associated with the increase in overweight and obesity,” said Kantor.

The researchers found that prescription drug use increased from 51% of adults in 1999-2000 to 59% in 2011-2012. The prevalence of polypharmacy (use of five or more prescription drugs) nearly doubled, from 8% to 15% of those surveyed.

What’s Killing Middle-Aged White Americans?

By Pat Anson, Editor

A quiet epidemic of chronic pain, suicide, alcohol abuse and drug overdoses has killed a “lost generation” of nearly half a million middle aged white Americans in the last 15 years, according to a startling new study by Princeton University researchers.

Using data culled from a variety of sources and reports, researchers found a disturbing increase in the death rate for whites aged 45 to 54. Between 1999 and 2013, the mortality rate for middle aged whites rose by 2% annually, a reversal from previous decades when their death rate declined by an average of 1.8% a year.

The spike in mortality is estimated to have led to the early deaths of 488,500 white Americans, a figure comparable to the number of deaths caused by the AIDS epidemic.

 “This change reversed decades of progress in mortality and was unique to the United States; no other rich country saw a similar turnaround,” researchers Anne Case and Angus Deaton wrote in the study published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. “This increase for whites was largely accounted for by increasing death rates from drug and alcohol poisonings, suicide, and chronic liver diseases and cirrhosis.”

No other race or ethnic group saw such an increase in mortality. African-Americans, Hispanics and those aged 65 and older continued to see their mortality rates fall.

The rising death rate for middle-aged whites was accompanied by declines in physical health, mental health and employment, as well as increases in chronic joint pain, neck pain, sciatica and disability.

It also coincided with a sharp increase in the prescribing of opioid pain medication, and seems likely to fuel a chicken and egg debate over which came first.

“The epidemic of pain which the opioids were designed to treat is real enough, although the data here cannot establish whether the increase in opioid use or the increase in pain came first. Both increased rapidly after the mid-1990s. Pain prevalence might have been even higher without the drugs, although long-term opioid use may exacerbate pain for some, and consensus on the effectiveness and risks of long-term opioid use has been hampered by lack of research evidence,” wrote Case and Deaton.

“Pain is also a risk factor for suicide. Increased alcohol abuse and suicides are likely symptoms of the same underlying epidemic, and have increased alongside it, both temporally and spatially.”

“The findings are astonishing, and a testament to the enormous toll opioids are taking in the U.S.,” said David Juurlink, MD, who heads the Division of Clinical Pharmacology and Toxicology at the University of Toronto. “It is very difficult to argue against cause-and-effect here. In my view it is a damning indictment of the widespread use of opioids for chronic pain, and should cause prescribers and patients alike to reflect on the role of these drugs, which have essentially no evidence behind them.”

Juurlink, who is a board member of Physicians for Responsible Opioid Prescribing (PROP), is advising the Centers Disease for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) about its draft guidelines for the prescribing of opoids. He says it’s no coincidence that deaths in middle-aged whites rose just as opioid prescribing increased.

“It is an unarguable fact that opioids play a causal role in a good many of these deaths. People have drunk alcohol to excess for millenia, and have taken benzodiazepines needlessly for decades. And yet we see a striking surge in poisoning deaths coincident with surging opioid sales,” Juurlink wrote in an email to Pain News Network.

“As for suicide, you can put me on the record as speculating that opioids trigger suicide in some patients, and perhaps quite a high number. I raise this point because it's sometimes asserted that opioids can prevent suicide in patients with chronic pain. There is no evidence that this is true, but there are ample grounds to assert that they might in fact be a component cause.”

Another recent study published in JAMA found that drug overdose deaths associated with opioids nearly doubled in the last decade, rising from 4.5 deaths per 100,000 people in 2003 to 7.8 deaths per 100,000 in 2013.

But others says opioids are the not the cause of rising deaths, but more a symptom of a deeper problem.

“I can tell you absolutely that opioids do not lead this dysfunction.  Abuse, addiction, disability, and suicide are symptoms of a failing healthcare system,” says Terri Lewis, PhD, a rehabilitation specialist and patient advocate. “This population of white Americans has also been largely uninsured or underinsured.  They turn to self medication practices that involve alcohol because that is what is available.  Their acute care is often dependent on emergency room services where there is no continuity or recovery model in place.”

Deaths Hit Least Educated Hardest

The Princeton study found that death rates related to drugs, alcohol and suicides rose for middle-aged whites at all education levels, but the largest increases were seen among those with the least education. For those with a high school degree or less, deaths caused by drug and alcohol poisoning rose fourfold; suicides rose by 81 percent; and deaths caused by liver disease and cirrhosis rose by 50 percent.

“All cause” mortality rose by 22% for this least-educated group. Those with some college education saw little change in overall death rates, and those with a bachelor's degree or higher actually saw death rates decline.

The researchers speculated that financial stress may have played a role in the rising death rate. Median household incomes of whites began falling in the late 1990s, and wage stagnation hit especially hard those with a high school or less education.

“These were folks who were also disproportionately represented in the downturn of the economy and loss of jobs from rural communities,” says Lewis. “When the economy failed, their disability and reduced level of functioning did not allow them to migrate into other locations or jobs – their educational levels and physical limitations simply imposed too much of a barrier.  The loss of employment put many onto the disability roles.” 

The rise in mortality occurred in all regions of the U.S., although suicide rates were marginally higher in the South and West than in the Midwest and Northeast. In each region, death by way of accidental drug and alcohol poisoning rose at twice the rate of suicide.

In all age groups researchers said there were marked increases in deaths related to drug and alcohol poisoning, suicide and chronic liver disease and cirrhosis. The midlife group differed only in that the number of deaths was so large that it changed the direction of their overall mortality.

If that trend is not reversed, researchers warn, there will be an enormous cost to the healthcare system. 

“A serious concern is that those currently in midlife will age into Medicare in worse health than the currently elderly. This is not automatic; if the epidemic is brought under control, its survivors may have a healthy old age. However, addictions are hard to treat and pain is hard to control, so those currently in midlife may be a ‘lost generation’ whose future is less bright than those who preceded them,” they said.

Opioid Abuse Down; Deaths Up in U.S.

By Pat Anson, Editor

A new study has found conflicting trends in the abuse and misuse of opioid pain medication in the U.S.

From 2003 to 2013, the “nonmedical” use of prescription opioids decreased in American adults from 5.4 percent to 4.9 percent. At the same time, however, rates of opioid abuse and opioid related deaths increased.

Drug overdose deaths associated with prescription opioids rose sharply during those ten years, from 4.5 deaths per 100,000 people to 7.8 deaths per 100,000 in 2013.

The study, which was published in JAMA, the official journal of the American Medical Association, is certain to fuel further debate about opioid pain medication and whether further efforts are needed to limit its prescribing.

"We found a significant decrease in the percentage of nonmedical use of prescription opioids, as well as significant increases in the prevalence of prescription opioid use disorders, high-frequency use, and related mortality,” the study says.

“Furthermore, the increases identified in this study occurred in the context of increasing heroin use and heroin-related overdose deaths in the United States, supporting a need to address nonmedical use of prescription opioid and heroin abuse in a coordinated and comprehensive manner."

“The most disturbing statistic is the increase in mortality per 100,000,” said Lynn Webster, MD, past president of the American Academy of Pain Medicine. “Unfortunately the data doesn't help sort out if the deaths are occurring in patients or non-patients.  It is important to know because the required interventions will differ depending on the reasons for overdose within both groups.  

“For example the definition of ‘nonmedical use’ is defined as use without a prescription or with a prescription for how the opioid makes the individual ‘feel’.  Of course an opioid is supposed to make people feel better.  Is that nonmedical use or is it therapeutic use defined as nonmedical use?”

It didn’t take long for critics of opioid prescribing to weigh in. JAMA also published an editorial that immediately pointed a finger at patients, not addicts.

“Most opioids misused by patients originate from prescription medication. Most patients who overdose on prescription opioids are taking their medications differently than prescribed or are using opioids prescribed to someone else. These 2 main types of nonmedical opioid use represent a major cause of morbidity and mortality,” wrote Lewis Nelson, MD; David Juurlink, MD, and Jeanmarie Perrone, MD.

"The chronic, relapsing nature of opioid addiction means most patients are never 'cured,' and the best outcome is long-term recovery. The lifelong implications of this disease far outweigh the limited benefits of opioids in the treatment of chronic pain, and in many cases the risks inherent in the treatment of acute pain with opioids.”

“Oh my goodness, this is terrible,” said Janice Reynolds a chronic pain sufferer and patient activist. She said the editorial was full of “myths and “lies” that discount the use of opioids to relieve pain.

“There is, despite their claims, much research which supports its use,” Reynolds said in an email.

Coincidentally, all three authors of the editorial – Nelson, Juurlink and Perrone – are members of panels developing opioid prescribing guidelines for the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Currently those guidelines recommend “non-pharmacological therapy” and other types of pain relievers as preferred treatments for chronic non-cancer pain. Smaller doses and quantities of opioids are also recommended for acute or chronic pain.  A complete list of the guidelines can be found here.

Nelson is a member of the CDC's "Core Expert Group," a panel that advised the CDC on initial development of the opioid guidelines.

Juurlink, who is considered a “stakeholder” by the CDC, is a board member of Physicians for Responsible Opioid Prescribing (PROP), an advocacy group that seeks to reduce the overprescribing of opioids.

Perrone has an even more important role with the CDC, serving on a three member peer review panel that will help finalize the opioid guidelines. Another member of the peer review committee, David Tauben, MD, is also a PROP board member.

The CDC has informed Pain News Network that the peer reviewers were asked to disclose any conflicts of interest, including any financial, professional or other interest relevant to their work -- and nothing was found to warrant removal from the peer review panel.

"PROP (Physicians for Responsible Opioid Prescribing) is considered a professional membership organization and wasn’t considered a conflict of interest unless  there was a financial and promotional relationship identified," said Shelly Diaz, a CDC spokesperson.

"The Peer Reviewers  disclosed no financial interests or other  promotional relationships with the manufacturers of commercial products, suppliers of commercial services, or commercial supporters. When reviewers  reported interests related to intellectual property, other (travel, gifts), public statements and positions, or additional information provided, their statements were carefully reviewed by the CDC guideline development staff to determine if the interests would have an effect on the suggestions."