Seeing Red: How Colors Affect Pain

By Dr. Lynn Webster, PNN Columnist

It is a myth that the matador’s red cape -- the muleta -- incites rage in the bull and causes him to charge. The truth is, all cattle are colorblind.  The bull does not charge because of the color, but because of the movements of the matador and his cape.

It is not a myth, however, that color can affect the moods of humans. Researchers have studied how colors affect psychological states, such as anxiety, in people.

We now know that color also affects how people perceive pain. In this month’s issue of Pain Medicine, authors Karolina Wiercioch-Kuzianik and Przemyslaw Babel present “Color Hurts: The Effect of Color on Pain Perception,” exploring how color can affect the perception of pain.

A 2007 study reported more intense pain when a painful stimulation was preceded by a red color than a blue one. The new study builds on that work through two experiments.

In the first, 30 volunteers were shown six colors, one at a time, followed by mild electric shocks to their forearms – seven shocks with each color.

The participants, who knew in advance what the research would involve, reported their pain on a scale of 0 to 10 following each stimulation.

A black image was the control to which all the colors were compared. Black was chosen as the control because it is regarded as the absence of color.

The investigators found that the color red produced the most intense pain, followed by green and blue. Other colors were associated with less pain.

The results are not necessarily intuitive. Red may bring people joy when it takes the form of blooming roses, succulent berries, or wonderful memories of Christmas. But in this study, red increased pain levels.

The second experiment was designed to assess whether colors would affect the expectation of pain and pain intensity. Participants viewed a color and then received a series of mild electric shocks. Again, pain intensity was rated higher with some colors, particularly with red, blue and green. The investigators did not observe that specific colors influenced the participants' expectation of pain intensity.

Much has been written about how and why colors can affect our cognition and behavior. Our reactions to colors seem to be a result of biology and cultural imprinting. Interestingly, many people are aware that individuals supposedly have a “personality color.” Human resource professionals have even used color personality tests to assess job applicants.

Our folklore and traditions bestow certain meanings to colors. Snow White represents purity and innocence, while Edgar Allen Poe used a black raven to symbolize death. The Great Gatsby and other stories use the color gold to suggest greed.

Colors affect us psychologically and physically. As the authors of the Pain Medicine study concluded, colors can also influence our perception of pain. Thus, it may be important for researchers and clinicians to recognize that a patient's reported pain could be affected by the colors of the exam room or even the ambiance of a clinic.

It may be time to for people in pain to consider how their choices of clothes, furnishings, and even paint and wallpaper may factor into their levels of comfort.

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

You can find Lynn on Twitter: @LynnRWebsterMD.

Opinions expressed here are those of the author alone and do not reflect the views or policy of PRA Health Sciences.

Sen. Wyden Wants to Censor Pain Experts’ Opinions

By Lynn Webster, MD, Guest Columnist

In 2016, the Comprehensive Addiction and Recovery Act (CARA) created an advisory panel called the Pain Management Best Practices Inter-Agency Task Force and charged it to “develop a set of best practices for chronic and acute pain management and prescribing pain medication.”

The task force has just released its first draft report that makes several recommendations. One is to update the scientific evidence on which the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s controversial 2016 Guideline for Prescribing Opioids for Chronic Pain was based. Another goal is to expand areas already included in the guideline.

On December 18, 2018, just before the report was published, Oregon Senator Ron Wyden (D) wrote a letter to Alex Azar, Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS). In it, he questioned the ability of several experts to serve impartially on the task force because of their alleged connections to the pharmaceutical industry. Specifically, Sen. Wyden worried that opioid manufacturers could exert “financial influence” on those task force members.

Wyden’s concerns about the HHS’s vetting practices would be understandable if the individuals who had been appointed to the advisory panel actually were receiving funds directly from industry. However, that is not the case.

Wyden’s letter specifically mentions Dr. Jianguo Cheng, president of the American Academy of Pain Medicine (AAPM), and Dr. Rollin Gallagher, editor-in-chief of the journal Pain Medicine.

In his letter, Wyden opposes Drs. Cheng and Gallagher’s participation primarily because of their association with AAPM, a professional medical organization that has registered concerns about the impact of the CDC’s opioid prescribing guideline on people in chronic pain.

Dr. Josh Bloom, the American Council on Science and Health’s Director of Chemical and Pharmaceutical Sciences, recently shared written communications from Drs. Cheng and Gallagher that make it difficult to see any logical reason to object to their participation on the panel.

SEN. RON WYDEN (D-OR)

Since he became president-elect of the AAPM at the end of 2016, Dr. Cheng has had no financial ties to the pharmaceutical industry. Similarly, to ensure Pain Medicine’s editorial independence, Dr. Gallagher voluntarily ended his relationships — consulting or advisory— with the industry when he became editor-in-chief more than 10 years ago.

Ironically, the AAPM has long advocated for alternatives to opioids and generally supported the CDC guideline. However, they did have concerns about lack of evidence for some of the CDC’s recommendations. Other organizations, including the American Medical Association (AMA), have also criticized components of the CDC guideline.

Wyden has previously lodged a similar complaint with the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, also challenging members selected for an FDA advisory panel because of a perceived conflict of interest. Following his complaint, Dr. Mary Lynn McPherson, professor at Maryland University School of Medicine, and Dr. Gregory Terman, who was the president of the American Pain Society, were removed from the panel. Here again, neither Dr. McPherson nor Dr. Terman personally received funds from Pharma. The University of Maryland and the American Pain Society, with which they were associated, did.

If Wyden’s reasoning were taken to its logical conclusion, no member of the AMA or any professional organization of pain experts critical of the CDC opioid guideline would be an acceptable member of the advisory panel. Also, most university faculty members would be disqualified because their universities accept funding, in one form or another, from industry.

Some people assume that any association with industry must create bias and cause conflicts of interest. Perhaps so, but that does not apply to the people Wyden is trying to silence. Further, membership in a professional association or serving as a faculty member of a university that receives industry support should not necessarily disqualify an individual to make an important contribution to committees. The goal should be to seek out the most qualified individuals.

There is danger associated with Wyden’s persistent efforts to purge advisory panels of members who have expressed views he doesn’t share. In essence, eliminating people with differing views from advisory panels stacks the deck. It creates a special-interest group that is empowered to influence policy without having to consider differing opinions. The irony is that this very attempt to limit bias creates bias.

Prohibiting experts with no direct connections to industries, like Drs. Cheng, Gallagher, McPherson and Teman, from participating on advisory panels seems to be a punitive gesture. Physicians and researchers, such as these four individuals, who actually care for patients are uniquely equipped to help advisory committees set best practices for pain management. And these panels cannot afford to lose the expertise that these individuals can provide.

If the vetting process includes removing all potential conflicts of interest, then it should also flag anyone who has ties to insurance, including Medicare. Clearly, insurance companies have a financial interest in which treatments are recommended.

Today, Wyden and others are calling to ban anyone with direct or indirect ties to Pharma from serving as a government adviser. Tomorrow, another industry could be targeted. For example, people who work in energy or university researchers who receive industry grants to study the weather might not be permitted to advise the government on climate change. This would likely mean the committees would be comprised of the least knowledgeable individuals.

Hopefully, the HHS and other governmental bodies will consider viewpoints from a broad swath of qualified experts and not just those whose perspectives they endorse. A functioning democracy must value and listen to all views.  

Lynn Webster, MD, is a senior editor at Pain Medicine. He is also a vice president of scientific affairs for PRA Health Sciences and consults with pharmaceutical companies. Webster is a former president of the American Academy of Pain Medicine and author of “The Painful Truth: What Chronic Pain Is Really Like and Why It Matters to Each of Us.”

You can find him on Twitter: @LynnRWebsterMD. 

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

Doctors Call for Urgent Review of Opioid Tapering Policy

By Pat Anson, PNN Editor

An open letter by healthcare professionals to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services is warning that forced opioid tapering has led to “an alarming increase in reports of patient suffering and suicides” and calls for an urgent review of tapering policies at every level of healthcare.

“This is a large-scale humanitarian issue,” the letter warns. “New and grave risks now exist because of forced opioid tapering.”

The joint letter, recently published online in the journal Pain Medicine, is signed by over a hundred physicians, academics and patient advocates – including some longtime critics of opioid prescribing.  

Among the signatories are Keith Humphreys, PhD, a Stanford University psychologist who has warned of a global opioid epidemic “driven by the overuse of legal painkillers,” David Juurlink, MD, a board member of Physicians for Responsible Opioid Prescribing (PROP) who has called the War on Pain “one of the most spectacular failures of modern medicine,” and Red Lawhern, PhD, a strident patient advocate who has blamed PROP’s founder for “the deaths of hundreds of chronic pain patients.”

One thing these strange bedfellows have in common is that they all agree forced tapering has gone too far and has become “a genuine threat to a large number of patients.”

“Countless ‘legacy patients’ with chronic pain who were progressively escalated to high opioid doses, often over many years, now face additional and very serious risks resulting from rapid tapering or related policies that mandate extreme dose reductions that are aggressive and unrealistic,” the letter states.

“Rapid forced tapering can destabilize these patients, precipitating severe opioid withdrawal accompanied by worsening pain and profound loss of function. To escape the resultant suffering, some patients may seek relief from illicit (and inherently more dangerous) sources of opioids, whereas others may become acutely suicidal.”

We’ve shared the stories of several of these patients, including Bryan Spece, a Montana man who killed himself in 2017 after his oxycodone dose was abruptly cut by as much as 70 percent.

To avoid severe withdrawal symptoms, the CDC recommends a "go slow" approach to tapering, starting with 10% per week; while the Department of Veterans Affairs recommends a taper of 5% to 20% every four weeks. These tapering guidelines are not being followed by many doctors, who often feel pressured by insurance companies, regulators and law enforcement to lower doses, regardless of the harm it might cause a patient.

“Currently, nonconsensual tapering policies are being enacted throughout the country without careful systems that attend to patient safety,” the Pain Medicine letter warns. “We therefore call for an urgent review of mandated opioid tapering policies for outpatients at every level of health care — including prescribing, pharmacy, and insurance policies—and across borders, to minimize the iatrogenic harm that ensues from aggressive opioid tapering policies and practices.”

The letter also calls for pain management specialists and patient advisory boards to be included in future decisions about prescription opioids. They have often been excluded by federal agencies and commissions in previous decisions.

The letter in Pain Medicine is the second joint letter recently signed by healthcare professionals calling for a significant change in the nation’s opioid policies. A letter signed in October called on the CDC to make a “bold clarification” of its 2016 opioid guideline and to evaluate the impact it is having on pain patients — something the agency has not done.