Are U.S. Overdose Deaths Really Declining?

By Pat Anson

Preliminary data from the CDC suggest that U.S. overdose deaths have declined significantly, falling by 10% in the last year alone. If confirmed, the double-digit drop would mean there were 11,247 fewer drug deaths in the 12-month period ending in April 2024.

The decline, first reported by NPR, was hailed by addiction and public health experts as a hopeful sign that progress is finally being made in reducing the number of drug deaths, which have doubled in the past decade to over 100,000 a year.

“This is exciting," said Dr. Nora Volkow, director of the National Institute on Drug Abuse. "This looks real. This looks very, very real."

Good news, if it’s true. But caution is warranted about how “real” the decline is, because preliminary death data often changes as more information comes in.

Overdose data is fragmented in both quality and quantity, as it comes from 50 different sources. The data is collected by each state and then submitted to the CDC to decipher for its monthly Provisional Drug Overdose Death Count.

Some states still do not use toxicology tests to confirm whether a death is drug-related – leaving it up to medical examiners and coroners to decide which drugs, if any, may have played a role in someone dying. Some elected coroners, particularly in rural counties, have no medical training or expertise in drug death investigations. And in many cases, autopsies are not performed.

In addition to the wide variability in expertise and data collection, overdoses are typically not reported to the CDC until four months after the date of the death, sometimes longer. In its most recent provisional count, the CDC acknowledged that its overdose data may underestimate the actual number of deaths.

“Some states may have longer than usual delays in submitting drug overdose deaths. In particular, North Carolina is experiencing substantial delays in the resolution of pending records by the medical examiner’s office. Recent trends may underestimate the death count in affected states and this potential impact should be considered when comparing results for states to previous months,” the CDC said.

Percent Change in Drug Overdose Deaths (April 2023 to April 2024)

SOURCE: CDC

Reported vs Predicted

Because the provisional counts are often incomplete and the causes of many deaths are “pending investigation,” the CDC maintains two different data sets. One is the number of “reported” cases, and the other is the “predicted” number of deaths. The latter is where the 10% decline comes from.

The number of reported drug deaths is even lower than the predicted ones, suggesting there has been a 12.2% decline in overdoses nationwide. But that number is also misleading because it is based on incomplete data.

Take North Carolina, for example. For the most recent 12-month period ending in April, North Carolina reported 2,512 drug deaths, compared to 4,317 overdoses from the year before. That’s a whopping decrease of nearly 42 percent!

No one believes that number is real and will hold up over time. Not even Nora Volkow.

North Carolina is not an outlier. Reported drug deaths in Nebraska are down nearly 30 percent, but the data from there is considered “underreported due to incomplete data.” The same is true for Ohio, Pennsylvania and Michigan, where reported drug deaths are down about 20 percent. Big states like that can sway nationwide estimates.

Meanwhile, reported drug deaths are up in several western states: +42% in Alaska, +15% in Oregon, +13% in Nevada, +10% in Washington and +7% in Utah. It’s hard to square those numbers with any national trend.

“Utah’s trends haven’t aligned with national trends for some time. We plateaued while overdoses increased significantly at the national level, especially during the pandemic,” Megan Broekemeier, an overdose research coordinator for the Utah Department of Health and Human Services, told the Deseret News. “We haven’t seen statistically significant changes in the rate yet.”

‘The Dip in Overdoses Is Real’

To be fair, some of the overdose-related data is encouraging and suggest that drug deaths are in fact declining.

In a blog that tracks health data trends, Nabarun Dasgupta, PhD, a drug researcher and scientist at the University of North Carolina, reported a nationwide drop in ER visits and EMS calls (ambulance runs) involving overdoses. He estimates that non-fatal overdoses have fallen -15% to -20% nationwide

“A 15-20% decrease in non-fatal overdose and a 10% decrease in fatal overdose is a major impact. There is barely any public health intervention that has credibly achieved this magnitude of decrease,” wrote Dasgupta. “Our conclusion is that the dip in overdoses is real, and not a data artifact. It remains to be seen how long it will be sustained.”

Dasgupta attributes the decline to several possible factors, such as wider access to the overdose recovery drug naloxone and increased law enforcement seizures of illicit fentanyl.

He does not think the decline in opioid prescribing has anything to do with the drop in overdoses. Deaths linked to opioid pain medication have remained flat for nearly a decade, even as prescribing levels fell to 20-year lows.

“Let's put one hypothesis to rest: Reductions in opioid analgesic prescribing is not driving the changes in overdose rates. We've studied it, and that's not what is driving current fentanyl overdoses,” says Dasgupta.    

The CDC has a checkered history when it comes to tracking overdose deaths. When the agency released its controversial 2016 opioid guideline, it laid the blame for rising overdose deaths squarely on opioid analgesics.

“Overprescribing opioids – largely for chronic pain – is a key driver of America’s drug overdose epidemic,” said then-CDC director Dr. Thomas Frieden, a claim based on weak evidence and false assumptions.

Two years later, after millions of pain patients had their opioid doses reduced or cutoff, the CDC admitted that illicit fentanyl was driving the overdose crisis and that it mistakenly classified many fentanyl deaths as overdoses caused by prescription opioids.The death toll from prescription opioids in 2016 was nearly cut in half — from 32,445 down to 17,087 — when the deaths were reclassified as fentanyl-related.

The CDC says its data collection and analysis have improved in recent years, but they still come with a disclaimer that the monthly provisional counts “may not include all deaths that occurred” and are “subject to change.”

"I think we have to be careful when we get optimistic and see a slight drop in overdose deaths," said Dan Salter, Director of the North Carolina Office of National Drug Control Policy, told NPR. "The last thing we want to do is spike the ball."

Weak Evidence Antidepressants Treat Pain in Older Adults

By Crystal Lindell

New research shows that there’s not much evidence that antidepressants actually work at treating pain in people over 65 years old. 

The study, which comes out of the University of Sydney in Australia, is concerning because older adults with chronic pain are often prescribed antidepressants instead of pain medication. 

However, in a frustrating conclusion, the authors still do not recommend the one medication that is proven to treat pain in older adults: Opioids. 

Instead, they suggest that doctors use a “multidimensional approach using non-pharmacological strategies, such as physical exercise and cognitive behavior therapy.” 

In other words, they essentially conclude that pain patients should get no medication.

However, I am glad that more research is coming out to expose how ineffective antidepressants usually are at treating pain. That class of medication has long been held up as an opioid alternative, despite the fact that many patients don’t get much relief from them. 

The researchers found that international guidelines that recommend antidepressants for chronic pain are heavily based on studies that either exclude older adults or include only a small number of them.  

The researchers found that in the last 40 years there have been just 15 clinical trials globally that focused on the use of antidepressants for pain in older people. And many of them were industry-funded trials with fewer than 100 participants.

The authors say their research fills a much-needed information gap, by bringing together the data from these trials to look at the efficacy and adverse effects of antidepressants for acute and chronic pain in older adults..

They found a lack of evidence to support the use of antidepressants for most pain conditions – despite the fact that they are often recommended in clinical guidelines. And none of the research they analyzed looked at the effectiveness of antidepressants for acute pain, such as shingles or muscular pain.

“These medicines are being prescribed to remedy patients' pain, despite the lack of evidence to adequately inform their use,” said co-author Dr. Christina Abdel Shaheed, an Associate Professor at the University of Sydney’s Institute for Musculoskeletal Health.

The findings mirror those of a recent study in the United Kingdom, which found that there is “no reliable evidence for the long‐term efficacy of any antidepressant, and no reliable evidence for the safety of antidepressants for chronic pain at any time point." 

Withdrawal and Other Side Effects

Shaheed says the potential harms of antidepressants in older people are well documented, and should be factored into any decisions about prescribing the medications. The study found that people taking antidepressants experienced more side effects effects, such as falling, dizziness, and a higher risk of being injured. The potential withdrawal if patients abruptly stop taking antidepressants can also be severe.

The study found that duloxetine, which is sold under that brand names Cymbalta and Yentreve, was able to relieve osteoarthritis knee pain in older adults during the intermediate term, but not short-term or long-term.

As a patient who often shares my health issues publicly, I often get messages and questions from readers who are also dealing with chronic pain. Anytime they mention Cymbalta, I pause. 

I had a horrible experience trying to come off Cymbalta, and I don’t think it even helped much with my pain when I was on it. Plus, my columns about the withdrawal experience apparently resonated, because they are among the most-read, liked and commented on articles I’ve ever written. In other words, it’s not just me. 

If Cymbalta or another antidepressant does help someone, I think they should take it. But I don’t think doctors are fully transparent about how bad the withdrawal can be or how little evidence there is that they even help with pain in the first place. 

“For clinicians and patients who might be using or considering duloxetine for knee osteoarthritis, the message is clear: benefits may be seen with a little persistence, but the effects may be small and need to be weighed up against the risk,” said lead author Dr. Sujita Narayan, an Academic Fellow at the Institute for Musculoskeletal Health.

Again, I’m glad the authors are drawing attention to the problems with prescribing antidepressants for pain management. I just find it alarming that they don’t even bother to mention any alternative medications, and instead suggest non-pharmacological treatments. 

Looking back, I guess I took for granted in the early days of opioid-phobia that most people in the medical field at least recognized that giving zero medication for pain was inhumane. That often meant doctors went from prescribing opioids to prescribing antidepressants. It came with a lot of downsides for patients, but at least it was something. 

If the next stage of opioid-phobia really is just “all medications are bad at treating pain,” then things are worse than I thought. And a lot of people are going to be suffering unnecessarily. 

We already have effective treatments, we just need to use them.

FDA Shutting Down Fentanyl Access Program for Cancer Patients

By Pat Anson

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration is shutting down a pain management program that helped supply fentanyl medication to patients suffering from severe cancer pain.

In a notice published on the FDA’s website for its Transmucosal Immediate-Release Fentanyl Medicines (TIRF) program, the agency said that all TIRF medications “will be discontinued” on September 30.

The program was created due to the risks associated with fentanyl, a synthetic opioid 100 times more potent than morphine. The FDA has required a Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy (REMS) for TIRF medications since 2011.

“Patients currently enrolled in the TIRF REMS may continue their TIRF therapy while supplies remain,” the FDA notice states. “Prescribers currently certified in the TIRF REMS may continue to prescribe TIRF therapy for their currently enrolled patients while supplies remain but must begin working with their patients to transition to other non-TIRF treatments.”

TIRF-REMS has also stopped accepting new applications from patients, prescribers, pharmacies and wholesale drug distributors. According to the FDA, 4,722 patients received a TIRF medication in 2017, but there are currently fewer than 150 patients getting them.

Illicit fentanyl is a notorious street drug that is involved in about 70% of fatal U.S. overdoses. But prescribed fentanyl has long been an essential medicine for patients suffering from surgical pain, breakthrough pain and cancer-related pain. It is also prescribed “off-label” for other types of severe pain.

FDA TIRF-REMS UPDATE

The FDA’s decision to end TIRF-REMS came after Cephalon, which is owned by Teva Pharmaceuticals, notified the agency in August that it was discontinuing production of Actiq, a fentanyl lozenge, and Fentora, a fentanyl buccal tablet. Both medications are absorbed into the bloodstream quickly through the mouth to provide immediate pain relief.  

(Update: On September 16, FDA published a brief statement confirming that TIRF medications are being discontinued, but said the TIRF-REMS program would continue operating while supplies last.

“The TIRF REMS will remain in place as long as the manufacturers’ new drug applications or abbreviated new drug applications are approved, regardless of the marketing status of the products,” the agency said. “FDA did not request this discontinuation. It is important to note that FDA does not manufacture medicine and cannot require a pharmaceutical company to make a medicine, make more of a medicine, or change the distribution of a medicine.”

Teva did not respond to requests for comment about the discontinuations. Actiq and Fentora are expensive medications. A supply of 30 Actiq 400 mcg lozenges costs about $3,500, while 28 tablets of Fentora 100 mcg will cost about $2,300.

“I had very few patients on these medications in the past, since no health insurers would actually pay for them,” said Chad Kollas, MD, a palliative care physician and pain policy expert. “I think it’s problematic that the TIRF-REMS website isn’t offering recommendations for an effective alternative approach for the patients currently using TIRF products.”

Opioid litigation and the risk of further liability may have influenced Teva’s decision to discontinue TIRF medication. The company agreed to pay $4.24 billion to settle allegations that it illegally marketed opioids and failed to prevent their diversion.

Last year, Teva discontinued production of immediate release oxycodone as part of a strategic shift away from less profitable generic drugs.

Deception Was Used to Get Patients to Participate in Opioid Study

By Pat Anson

“We are lying to you to see if you are lying to us.”

That’s how patient advocate Andrea Anderson sums up the Orwellian methodology behind a recent study that explored whether pain patients are taking their opioid medication appropriately.

The study made use of high-tech pill bottles that record in real-time how often a bottle is opened and any changes to its weight. The goal is to see if patients adhered to their opioid regimen or were taking too many pills at once – a possible sign of abuse or diversion.

Researchers at the University of Texas Medical Branch (UTMB) enrolled 28 chronic pain patients in the study, giving participants a 90-day supply of opioids in three 30-dose pill bottles. Eighteen patients were given pills in the high-tech bottles --- known as the medication event monitoring system (MEMS) --- while the other 10 were given standard pill bottles. Patients in both groups were asked to keep a daily diary of their medication use

Here’s where the lying comes in. Instead of telling participants that the MEMS bottles would keep track of pills being removed, patients were told that the temperature and humidity inside the bottles were being monitored.

“The study involved incomplete disclosure and deception, as participants were informed that the purpose of the study was to test a new prescription bottle that will monitor the physical environment inside the bottle…. Participants were not informed that the bottles would record the number and timing of pills dispensed,” wrote lead author David Houghton, PhD, an Assistant Professor of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences at the Center for Addiction Research at UTMB.

You might think that lying and deception would be prohibited in clinical trials, but the design of this study was approved by an ethics review panel at UTMB. Researchers say they also complied with international research guidelines that allow deception to be used in psychology studies “when there is no alternative method that will produce reliable and valid results.”

At first glance, the study findings suggest that many patients were less than honest about their opioid use.

“Participants who received MEMS demonstrated highly heterogenous dosing patterns, with a substantial number of patients rapidly removing excessive amounts of medication and/or ‘stockpiling’ medication,” researchers reported in the Journal of Pain Research.

“Several sharp decreases in medication supply over short time periods were observed, and a substantial portion of participants ran out of medication before 30 days had elapsed. These data could reflect over-consumption or diversion of medication.”

In addition, 25% of participants in the MEMS group tested negative for opioid metabolites in their urine drug tests, which suggests they may have been hoarding or selling their opioids, and not taking them.

‘Hypothetically Significant’

But the small size of the study – just 18 patients in the MEMS group – raises questions about the reliability of the findings.

Diversion of opioid medication is actually quite rare – about three-tenths of one percent of prescribed pills, according to the DEA.

It’s also not uncommon for patients to stockpile opioid medication. In a recent PNN survey of nearly 3,000 pain patients, 32% told us that they hoarded opioids, in many cases because they are worried about shortages or losing access to opioids in the future.

Although participants in the UTMB study were told to remove pills from their bottles just before taking them, it’s possible that they took out an extra amount simply to fill their weekly pill boxes.

Researchers were also surprised to find that some participants appeared to put pills back into the bottles, another sign that those “highly heterogenous dosing patterns” tell us little, if anything, about opioid use.

In other words, the study may be nothing more than a case of “garbage in, garbage out,” with any number of reasonable explanations for patient behavior.

“It is impossible to conclusively determine that aberrant behavior, as recorded by the MEMS system, reflects misuse or diversion,” researchers admitted.

“It’s a terrible study in every way, and should never have happened,” says Andrea Anderson, who sees obvious flaws in MEMS that make its data unreliable. 

“If you wanted to divert your tablets, you could just take out the proper amount every time the stupid bottlecap lets you. Once you collected 20 tablets, you could go sell them if you wanted or take however many you liked. It certainly won’t prevent any type of diversion or misuse.”

Nevertheless, as is often the case in opioid research, sweeping conclusions were drawn from skimpy evidence. The UTMB researchers found enough “hypothetically significant clinical implications” to call for full-time monitoring of patients and their opioid use.

“These results highlight the limits in our understanding of naturalistic patterns of daily opioid use in chronic pain patients as well as support the use of MEMS for detecting potential misuse as compared to routine adherence monitoring methods. Future research directions include the need to determine how MEMS could be used to improve patient outcomes, minimize harm, and aid in clinical decision-making,” they concluded.

There is a company working on just that. Kansas-based SMRxT supplied UTMB researchers with the MEMS bottles and data used in the study. The company says its MEMS technology could be used to assign risk scores to patients – what it calls an “Absolute Adherence Score” – similar to the controversial Narxcare scores that assess a patient’s risk of opioid misuse and addiction based on their prescription drug history.   

“The SMRxT medication adherence system accurately captures data to reveal how patients take their medication. The system empowers and improves patient behavior,” the company claims in promotional material. “Once the prescription is filled, the device is ready to use. The system then translates data into actionable information for patient interventions and engagement.”

“We enjoyed working with the team at UTMB,” a spokesperson for SMRxT told PNN. “Our device is not in the development stage, and has been used by patients all over the country and many other academic research institutions.”

Louisiana’s New Law Shows How Opioid Phobia Ushered in Abortion Restrictions

By Crystal Lindell

I’ve long said that pain medication is a “my body, my choice” issue – and a new Louisiana law really drives home the connection between opioids and abortion regulations. 

The state passed a law back in May that re-classifies mifepristone and misoprostol – two medications taken in tandem to induce abortion – as Schedule IV controlled substances, the same category as Xanax and Valium. 

Misoprostol is prescribed for a variety of situations, including reproductive health emergencies, as well as miscarriage treatment, labor induction, or intrauterine device (IUD) insertion. Because it is also used for chemically-induced abortions, the drug has long been a target of pro-life advocates in Louisiana, where abortion was criminalized in 2022.  

Under the new law, possession of either mifepristone or misoprostol without a prescription from a specially licensed doctor is a felony punishable by up to 5 years in prison.

It’s the biggest sign yet that the War on Drugs has officially collided with abortion rights in our post-Roe V. Wade world. Indeed, as states continue to restrict access to opioids and other medications, it becomes more and more obvious that pain patients and abortion rights advocates share a common fight. 

The state law goes into effect Oct. 1, but a report in the Louisiana Illuminator highlights how it’s already causing "confusion and angst" amongst healthcare professionals. 

In anticipation of the new law, some Louisiana hospitals are already removing mifepristone from their obstetric emergency care carts, where it would be used in the case of hemorrhage after delivery to stop bleeding and save a mother’s life. Removing it from the cart and locking it up is a standard practice at hospitals for controlled substances, but it means that mifepristone can’t be accessed immediately during emergencies. 

“Doctors and pharmacists are scrambling to come up with postpartum hemorrhage policies that will comply with the law while still providing proper medical care for women,” the Illuminator reports. 

Note how the idea of not complying with the law – which many doctors have personally disagreed with – doesn’t even seem to enter the realm of possibility. It’s the full manifestation of “just following orders” justification. 

One doctor theorized that the pending law also likely explains why pharmacists had been “pushing back” when she prescribed misoprostol for outpatient miscarriage management.

“They’ve been calling her to request clarification on why she prescribed the medication, and one pharmacy refused to fill the prescription,”  the Illuminator reported. “She had to send that patient to a different pharmacy. Her patients often travel hours to see her, and she regularly has to call in misoprostol to help them manage care at home.”

Pharmacies pushing back on doctor's prescriptions? That sounds familiar. In fact, many patients who take necessary medications like hydrocodone for pain or Adderall for ADHD have numerous stories to share about pharmacists trying to block their prescription from being filled.

And while it may not seem like it at first, all those points of friction in the process do lead to doctors refusing to prescribe controlled medications because they don’t want to deal with the hassle and risk of going to prison. It’s an outcome that I’m sure the Louisiana lawmakers who pushed the legislation through are hoping for with abortion-related medications. 

Making a Choice

It’s a grave mistake to think we can isolate things like pain medication restrictions from the rest of healthcare. Every new restriction that takes options away from doctors and patients paves the way for the next one that comes down the pike. 

Pro-choice advocates sometimes try to claim abortion medications shouldn’t be restricted because they are “life-saving.” However, many other controlled substances are also life-saving and we don’t see the pro-choice movement standing up for patients who need them. Those patients are also making a “choice” about their own bodies.

Untreated ADHD is proven to lower your life expectancy. Untreated and under-treated pain can cause a number of complications, from needless suffering and withdrawal to longer recovery times and even death when patients are forced to find pain relief on the unsafe black market.

Controlled substance laws make it much more difficult for patients who need medications labeled with that classification to get them – and people do die as a result. Just as people will likely die as a result of the new law in Louisiana. 

My concern is that the general public has been too quick to accept medication restrictions as necessary when they are promoted as solutions to things like the “opioid crisis.” I fear that people will start to believe that mifepristone and misoprostol are actually worthy of the classification of “dangerous controlled substance,” just as they believe medications like hydrocodone and Adderall are.

Unfortunately, if pain treatment is any indication, I don’t expect many doctors or hospital administrators to be willing to risk personal punishment for the health of their patients. I have personally seen doctors refuse opioids to dying patients because they “might get in trouble.”

I expect most medical professionals and hospitals will comply with the new Louisiana regulations without much tangible push back.

On the other hand, maybe there is a small place for hope here. Imagine a world where classifying more drugs as controlled substances helps medical professionals and the public understand why these classifications are problematic – legal frameworks that lack sound medical reasoning. Unfortunately, I don’t see that happening any time soon. 

In the meantime, pro-choice advocates could learn a lot from those of us who have been on the front lines of the drug war for decades. If we want to have any hope of victory, we all need to join together to fight all restrictions on bodily autonomy – whether it’s related to reproductive health, pain management, or any other health condition. 

We must join forces now. The longer we wait, the more emboldened governments will become in making choices for us.

A Company Will Help You Find a Pharmacy That Has Your Meds

By Pat Anson

If you have a prescription for oxycodone, Adderall, Wegovy or Ozempic, there’s a good chance you’ve had trouble getting it filled. That’s because many pharmacies are experiencing shortages of opioids, stimulants for ADHD, and diabetes drugs that have become popular weight-loss medications.  

The shortages are so acute that a recent PNN survey found that 90% of patients with an opioid prescription experienced delays or problems getting it filled. Many had to visit 3 or more pharmacies to find one that had their medication in stock.

“My pharmacy has been unable to order or get my medication for me for over 6 months now and they are unsure when they'll be able to order or get it for me again,” one patient told us.

“Having to call pharmacies is ridiculous,” said another. “You sit on the phone for 20 minutes just to find out they don’t have your medication.”

Peter Daggett knows all about the stress and anxiety that come with not being able to get a prescription filled. He and his friend, Parth Shah, have firsthand experience with the “pharmacy crawl.”

“We were both diagnosed with ADHD at a younger age, and as many people like us taking stimulant medication, we struggled to find pharmacies that had our medications in stock,” said Daggett. “I was banging my head against the wall. I couldn’t get my medications. I didn't have time to call pharmacies for three hours. I didn't have time to call 100 pharmacies to find one that has my medication.

“And I said to Parth, ‘I’d probably pay somebody 50 bucks if they go find this medication for me.’ And he said, ‘Maybe some other people would, too.’ So we decided to test this out and see if it was something that people wanted. And there were tons and tons of people right out of the gate that really wanted a service like this to exist.”

That’s when Dagget and Shah launched Medfinder, an online company that helps patients find local pharmacies that have their medications in stock. So far this year, they’ve helped over 6,000 patients get their prescriptions filled.  

Medfinder recently started advertising on Facebook and through Google’s advertising platform. Its pharmacy-finding service is available in all 50 states and is growing quickly.

“Our team will go and contact as many pharmacies as it takes to find a pharmacy that has the patient's medications in stock and is willing to dispense it. That will cover any geographic range that the patient wants,” Daggett explained.

“Generally, what we'll do is patients will come in, they'll put their zip code in, and then we'll start searching in the nearby radius. Once we find the pharmacy that has the patient's medication in stock, we'll text that patient (the name and location of) the pharmacy. Then we wait to hear back from the patient.”

MEDFINDER AD

A search for one medication costs $50, but Medfinder has sliding rate plans that can reduce the cost of each search to $30. Fees will be refunded if no pharmacy is found within five business days, but that doesn’t happen often. Daggett says the company has a 99% success rate and is usually able to find a pharmacy within 90 minutes.  

In addition to patients, Medfinder also wants to form partnerships with prescribers. That can save doctors the time and hassle of writing another prescription for the same drug when a patient’s initial search for a pharmacy doesn’t pan out. Once a pharmacy is found through Medfinder, the prescriber is prompted to send the prescription directly to them electronically.

Ozempic, Wegovy and other diabetes/weight loss drugs are Medfinder’s most widely requested medications, followed by ADHD stimulants. Opioids don’t currently make up a big part of the company’s business, but Daggett says they’ve had success finding pharmacies with opioids in stock, despite chronic nationwide shortages of oxycodone and hydrocodone.

“It's extremely rare that we're not able to find a medication for a patient,” he told PNN.       

Election 2024: How Democrats and Republicans Are Failing Pain Patients

By Crystal Lindell

Now that both of the major U.S. political parties have held their national conventions, each has also released their 2024 party platforms outlining where they stand on specific issues. 

The platforms aren’t binding, but they do offer some insight into how the parties, and thus their respective presidential nominees, view different concerns facing the country. 

As a pain patient, I’m especially interested in how the two major parties are handling the topic of opioid medication. And I have to say that neither one seems great on the issue or even aware how millions of pain patients are suffering. 

The Democrats – with Vice President Kamala Harris as their nominee – are still focusing on opioid-phobia, while continuing to ignore the problems many pain patients face. 

The Republicans – with former President Donald Trump as their nominee  – don’t bother even mentioning the word “opioid” in their platform at all. 

Both parties do also have sections about illicit fentanyl coming over the southern border. 

The Democratic platform addresses fentanyl in a section titled “Beating the Opioid Epidemic.” I’m not a fan of how they framed the issue.  

“For too long, the scourge of opioids has torn through our communities, ripping apart families and shattering lives,” the Democratic platform states. “Our nation’s opioid epidemic impacts Americans in every corner of the country, from small towns to large cities to Tribal lands. Far too many Americans have lost loved ones to addiction and overdose. The Biden-Harris Administration is strengthening prevention, investing in treatment, and expanding recovery support services.”

The Democrats then go on to list what they see as their opioid-related achievements. For example, they say the Biden-Harris administration has increased the number of licensed providers who can offer medication-based addiction treatment from 129,000 to 2 million.

They also point out that they have made naloxone, an overdose-prevention drug, available over-the-counter at grocery stores and pharmacies. While I am glad to see expanded access to any medication, I just wish they hadn’t stopped at naloxone. 

The Democrats also brag about how they are “seizing record amounts of fentanyl and securing our border.” They also claim the administration has arrested more people for fentanyl-related crimes in the last two years than in the previous five years combined, while funding “more cutting-edge inspection machines to help detect fentanyl.”

Overall, the language is pretty stigmatizing and doesn’t mention the biggest opioid-related issue that’s actually impacting many people that I know: the fact that patients cannot get pain treatment when they need it. 

Death Penalty for Drug Dealers

Meanwhile, if you search for the word “opioid” in the Republican platform, you get zero results. However, under a section titled "Secure the Border," they say they’ll use the U.S. military to stop fentanyl smugglers.

"We will deploy the U.S. Navy to impose a full Fentanyl Blockade on the waters of our Region – boarding and inspecting ships to look for fentanyl and fentanyl precursors," the GOP platform states.

That framing tracks with how Trump has been addressing the issue. Last month, Trump drastically inflated fentanyl death numbers by claiming that we were “losing 300,000 people a year to fentanyl.” In fact, the number of opioid-related deaths is about 81,000 annually, most of them involving fentanyl. 

In previous statements, Trump said he would impose the death penalty as punishment for “everyone who sells drugs, gets caught selling drugs.”

Those types of lies and exaggeration only serve to further opioid-phobia, making doctors scared to prescribe any opioid-based pain medication for any reason. 

Overall, neither party seems to have pain patient access to opioid medication on their radar at all. While they ignore the issue, patients across the country suffer needlessly from the moral and legal panic about opioids. 

In an ideal world, the political parties would be promising to expand access to pain medications like hydrocodone, which has been greatly restricted over the last decade, despite being relatively safe and effective at treating pain. Instead they are offer a plan to re-educate medical professionals about addiction treatment, while ignoring the very real dangers of not treating pain. 

We seem to be stuck with two parties who refuse to even acknowledge the problems pain patients face, much less address them. 

Patients and Providers Say Cannabis Helps Reduce Opioid Use

By Crystal Lindell

More than half the pain patients certified in New York state’s medical cannabis program say they’re using cannabis as an alternative to opioid medication. 

That’s great news for patients who see real benefits from cannabis, but we have to be careful to avoid further demonizing opioids when data like this is released. Using something as an alternative doesn’t show that it’s necessarily more effective or more helpful. Often, it just means that something is more accessible. 

The data comes from the New York State Office of Cannabis Management’s 2023 Patient and Provider Survey Report, which was recently released. This was a large survey that collected responses from 10,781 patients and 265 providers enrolled in the state’s medical cannabis program. 

“Findings from both the patient and provider surveys demonstrate that medical cannabis is effective for pain management and has the potential to reduce the use of opioids,” the report found.

About 57% of the patients were pain sufferers, making pain the top condition for using cannabis, followed by post-traumatic stress disorder (24%), neuropathy (19%), spasticity (11%), rheumatoid arthritis (11%), inflammatory bowel disease (10%) and cancer (8%).

The survey found that 66% of patients think medical cannabis helped reduce their use of opioids for pain management.

The providers were largely in agreement, with 83% saying “medical cannabis should be used to reduce the use of opioids for pain management” and 75% saying cannabis poses less risk than opioids. 

However, this is where I start to raise my eyebrow a bit. 

It makes me nervous that so many providers see cannabis as being safer than opioids. The fact that 25% of them don’t is also a telling statistic. It means the data on this is unclear.

All substances have side effects. Both patients and providers understand this. In a just world, patients should be able to make the choice about which substances or medications they use, after factoring in their own preferences for what side effects are acceptable as a tradeoff for pain relief. 

Even if it was proven that cannabis is significantly safer than opioids for managing pain, that doesn’t mean it’s just as effective as opioids. Personally, I don’t find cannabis to be very effective at all for treating my pain. I also really dislike how sleepy it makes me. For my life and my needs, opioids remain a much better option. 

I’m lucky enough to have a recurring prescription for opioid medication. But for patients who can’t get an opioid prescription, they don’t truly get a choice or “alternative.” Cannabis may be their only legal option. 

The New York State report also shows me that it’s long past time to make cannabis legal at the federal level. It’s clear now that classifying cannabis as an illegal controlled substance never had any foundation in health concerns. Clearly, cannabis can help treat a large number of medical conditions. And many people get health benefits from using it. 

A lot of drugs that are classified as harmful controlled substances can still be obtained by prescription. And some that are not “controlled” are potentially more dangerous than cannabis. That doesn’t make any sense, but that’s how the system is set up under the Controlled Substance Act. 

The way that cannabis has been slowly legalized across the country should make us take a long look at all of our drug laws. There are many illegal substances, such as psychedelics, that could potentially help people manage health conditions – but only if they had access to them in the same way most Americans can now access medical or recreational cannabis. 

If nothing else though, cannabis’ slow legalization has given me some hope. I can remember even 25 years ago, being in college, listening to guys in dorm rooms ramble on about how cannabis would be legalized someday. I confess I didn’t believe them. At the time, it felt impossible. 

Turns out, I was wrong. Now I just hope we don’t stop at cannabis. 

A New Study of Opioid Addiction Only Muddies the Water Further

By Pat Anson

Over the years, hundreds of studies have been conducted to determine how common it is for a pain patient on long-term opioid therapy to become addicted. Estimates range from less than 1% to more than 80% of patients developing opioid use disorder (OUD), also known as problematic pharmaceutical opioid use (POU).

The wide variation in estimates is largely due to conflicting definitions, terminology, study design and biases. Is a patient misusing or abusing prescription opioids? Do they show signs of dependence or withdrawal? It literally depends which study you read.

New research that tries to settle the matter may have only muddied the water further.

A team of researchers at the University of Bristol conducted a meta-analysis of 148 clinical studies involving over 4.3 million patients in North America and the UK who were treated with opioids for chronic non-cancer pain. The 148 studies were all that was left from nearly 5,300 that were initially screened and rejected for various reasons — which should tell you a lot about the quality of studies that are out there.

“Clinicians and policy makers need a more accurate estimate of the prevalence of problematic opioid use in pain patients so that they can gauge the true extent of the problem, change prescribing guidance if necessary, and develop and implement effective interventions to manage the problem.  Knowing the size of the problem is a necessary step to managing it,” said lead author Kyla Thomas, PhD, Professor of Public Health Medicine at the University of Bristol.

Thomas and her colleagues included studies in their review that reported any sign of POU, such as abuse, tolerance, addiction, dependence, misuse, substance use disorder or “aberrant behavior.” The latter includes seemingly benign behavior like a patient being poorly dressed or unkempt in appearance, canceling or missing an appointment, asking for a specific drug, or even just complaining about their pain.

In some studies, “misuse” was defined so broadly that it included patients who stopped using opioids because their pain went away or they took a pill less often than recommended. A patient like that might be suspected of hoarding or even selling their unused medication.     

In other words, the researchers cast a pretty wide net on what constitutes OUD. And they hauled in a lot of fish.

Their findings, recently published in the journal Addiction, estimate that nearly one in ten pain patients (9.3%) are dependent on opioids and have OUD.

Nearly a third (29.6%) have “signs and symptoms” of dependence and OUD, and over one in five (22%) displayed aberrant behavior.

“Prescription painkiller misuse and addiction are widespread in chronic pain patients” is how the University of Bristol trumpeted the results in a press release, with the lone caveat that “these findings should be interpreted with caution.”

‘OUD Is Everywhere’

Critics of the study were quick to point out that equating dependence with opioid use disorder is misleading at best – the equivalent of a diabetic dependent on insulin being labeled with “insulin use disorder.”

“This is just one more paper, one of zillions, that seizes upon some outcome measures that have poor or no basis in science and that are not in any way indicative of addiction,” says Stephen Nadeau, MD, Professor of Neurology at the University of Florida College of Medicine. “As is so common, it favors the ridiculous notion that OUD is everywhere.”

Nadeau says any patient on daily opioids will experience symptoms of dependence or withdrawal if their medication is suddenly stopped. Neither is a clear sign of addiction or substance use problem, just as a patient asking for a higher dose is not necessarily a symptom of OUD.

“There is never any recognition of the ubiquitous phenomenon of pseudo-addiction: a patient in desperate pain asks for an increase in dosage. Instead of the request being interpreted at face value, the patient is branded with the diagnosis of OUD and booted from the clinic,” Nadeau told PNN.

Being “branded” or stigmatized is something that chronic pain patients like Brett Bradford are all too familiar with. He thinks the new addiction study will only result in more patients being taken off opioids.

“All physicians coming out of med school are being taught these hyper anti-opioid policies. This is only going to fuel things to get worse,” said Bradford. “This madness will not stop until opiates are totally off the market and nobody will be able to get any pain meds for any reason, short of being on their death bed. Maybe. If they are lucky.”

An Insider’s Perspective on CDC’s ‘Disastrous War on Opioids’

By Pat Anson

Dr. Charles LeBaron is a medical epidemiologist who worked for 28 years at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. LeBaron was not directly involved in developing the CDC’s 2016 opioid guideline, but knew colleagues who did and largely supported their efforts to rein in opioid prescribing.

Then LeBaron developed crippling pain from a meningitis infection and learned firsthand how the CDC guideline was harming patients. While hospitalized, he screamed into his pillow at night because a nurse -- following the CDC’s recommendations -- gave him inadequate doses of oxycodone. The pain relief only lasted a couple of hours, and then he had to wait in misery for the next dose.

“I hadn't experienced the pain that so many patients feel, so I hadn't had the level of sensitivity to the issue that would have benefited me. It took full personal experience to straighten me out,” said LeBaron. “You'd rather be dead than in pain. In that bubble of pain, it really is life changing.

“Once you experience that, you tend to view things very differently through a very different lens. At least that was my experience. There was nothing like being in acute pain.”

LeBaron eventually recovered from the infection and no longer needed oxycodone. He also didn’t become addicted. That lived experience made him wonder if the CDC -- his longtime employer – made mistakes in developing the guideline. He came to recognize that the CDC’s push to limit opioid doses was based on weak evidence and the false presumption that many patients quickly become addicted.

Most of all, he was shocked at how quickly the CDC guideline was adopted throughout the healthcare system. He’d never seen anything like it, in all his years at the agency.

“Most of the recommendations we come out with, that people should eat right, exercise or whatever, no one ever bothers doing. We have a tough time getting people to do things. This recommendation? They just had remarkably fast implementation,” LeBaron told PNN.

“I've never seen a recommendation that got implemented that fast and that hard by so many actors. Normally, it’s like herding cats in public health, trying to get everybody involved. And for prescription medications, there are a million cats. There are pharmacies, benefit managers, physicians, insurance and so forth. This thing just took off.”

Now retired, LeBaron decided to write a book about his personal experience with pain, along with a critique of the CDC guideline. “Greed to Do Good: The Untold Story of CDC’s Disastrous War on Opioids” gives a rare insider’s look into how the agency works and thinks.

The word “greed” may suggest there were financial motives behind the CDC guideline, but LeBaron says it’s more a matter of pride and hubris that borders on institutionalized arrogance.

The agency was so caught up in its reputation as the “world’s premier public health agency” -- one that defeated polio, smallpox, HIV and other infectious disease outbreaks -- that it developed an outsized belief that it could do no wrong.

According to LeBaron, that was the mindset that Dr. Tom Frieden had when he was named CDC Director during the Obama administration. While serving as New York City’s health commissioner, Frieden led ambitious campaigns to stamp out tuberculosis, ban smoking in public places, and limit unhealthy trans fats served in the city’s restaurants.  

At CDC, LeBaron says Frieden became “the driving force” behind a campaign to limit opioid prescriptions as a way to reduce rising rates of opioid overdoses.

“I would not attribute vicious and evil impulses to the people who were involved,” says LeBaron. “I think they were gravely mistaken, but not driven by the desire to harm. They conceived of themselves as wanting to do good in a very emphatic fashion.

“The problem here was not the motivation, the notion that if you can kind of reduce prescription opioids, maybe you'll reduce subsequent addiction. The problem was not looking at the thing sufficiently quantitatively and then not checking the consequences, or at least responding to the consequences when they're brought to your attention.”

People working in public health are normally careful about tracking the outcomes of their policies. But before and after the CDC guideline, the agency turned a deaf ear to a chorus of complaints that it was forcing millions of patients on long-term opioids into rapid tapers that resulted in uncontrolled pain, withdrawal and even suicide.    

Worst of all, the number of fatal opioid overdoses doubled to over 80,000 annually after the guideline’s release, an outcome that demonstrated CDC had gone after the wrong target at the wrong time and with the wrong solution.

“The typical person who's having an overdose is a 30-year-old male taking illicit medication. The most typical person who's getting chronic opioids for pain would be a 60-year-old woman with a variety of rheumatological conditions. So you're aiming at a completely off-center target,” LeBaron explained.

“Then subsequently the data started coming in that, in effect, you are worsening the situation. If you take people who really need pain control off their meds, in a sense, it normalizes illegal acquisition.

“If somebody is really in terrible pain, needs opioid medication and can't get it through the legal system, pain is a remarkable motivator. Very few motivators are as strong as pain. And ultimately, somebody will come up to you and say, ‘I know a guy.’ And sure enough, then you end up with completely uncontrolled, unregulated stuff.”

Not until 2022 did the CDC revise its original guideline and give doctors more flexibility in prescribing opioids. By then, its 2016 recommendations were so ingrained in the U.S. healthcare system that the revisions had little, if any, impact.

Frieden left the CDC in 2017. LeBaron says Frieden’s two immediate successors did little to address the overdose crisis and the harms created by the guideline. But he does have hope for the agency’s current director, Dr. Mandy Cohen, because she has experience in public health and a better understanding of the primary role played by illicit fentanyl and other street drugs in the overdose crisis.

Asked if the CDC guideline should be scrapped or withdrawn completely, LeBaron is circumspect. He thinks a review of the guideline is in order, as well as a return to public health policies that are checked and double-checked to make sure they have outcomes that actually work.

“The difficulty here, in my opinion, is many of the same problems continue to exist, even though the personalities are completely different, and there are still significant restrictions on people in chronic pain for no apparent benefit. There continues to be very high rate of overdoses,” LeBaron said.

“I'm kind of a diehard public health guy. I want to see whether anything good happens. Nothing good happened. Time to reconsider.”

AI in Healthcare: Designed for Progress or Profit?

By Crystal Lindell

As a pain patient, I take a controlled substance medication, which means every single time I need a refill I have to contact my doctor. 

It doesn’t matter that this refill comes every 28 days and that I have been getting it refilled every 28 days for years. It doesn’t matter that my condition has no cure, and that I will most likely need this medication refilled every 28 days for the foreseeable future.

No. I have to make sure to contact my doctor and specifically ask for it, every single time.  

There are ways to automate this process. They could give me a set number of automatic refills and have them sent to the pharmacy every 28 days. If we were even more practical, they could just give me 60 to 90 days worth of pills at a time, and save me from multiple trips to the pharmacy. 

But because of insurance rules, hospital policies and opioid-phobia legislation, all of those options are impossible. In fact, they actively work to make a process that could be automated into something that has to be done manually. 

Which is why I’m so skeptical of Artificial Intelligence (AI) in healthcare. 

The promise of AI is that it can automate away the mundane tasks so many of us hate doing. Many health related tasks could easily be automated. They just purposefully are not. 

The hospital I go to for my medical care, University of Wisconsin-Madison, recently released a report filled with recommendations for how AI should be integrated into healthcare. It was based on a recent roundtable discussion that included healthcare professionals from across the country. 

But while the participant list included doctors, IT staff, policy experts, and academics, there was one very glaring absence – the list of participants included exactly zero patients. 

UW Health was one of the organizers for the panel, along with Epic, a healthcare software developer. Their report includes some seemingly good recommendations. 

They ask that AI be used to supplement the work that doctors, nurses and other healthcare staff perform, as opposed to replacing the staff altogether. They say AI could be a great tool to help reduce staff burnout. 

They also recommend that the technology be set up in such a way that it also helps those living in rural areas, in addition to those in more metropolitan ones. The report also emphasizes that healthcare systems should prioritize “weaving the technology into existing systems rather than using it as a standalone tool.”

Additionally, the report stressed the need for federal regulations to “balance space for innovation with safeguarding patient data and ensuring robust cybersecurity measures.”

I don’t disagree with any of that. But it’s a little frustrating to see those recommendations, when some of those problems could already be solved if we wanted them to be. 

And while the panel’s report is new, UW Health’s use of AI is not. 

In April, UW Health announced that they were participating in a new partnership program with Microsoft and Epic to develop and integrate AI into healthcare. 

At the time they said the innovation would be focused on “delivering a comprehensive array of generative AI- powered solutions… to increase productivity, enhance patient care and improve financial integrity of health systems globally.”

That’s the real motivation to bring AI into healthcare: make more money by improving “financial integrity.” Something tells me that AI won’t be used to lower patient’s bills though. 

UW Health also recently shared that its nurses were using AI to generate responses to patients. Over 75 nurses were using generative AI, which assisted them in creating more than 3,000 messages across more than 30 departments.

“This has been a fascinating process, and one I’ve been glad to be part of,” said Amanda Weber, registered nurse clinic supervisor, UW Health. “I have found having a draft to start from helpful, and I’m glad I could provide feedback on improvements and features to ensure this can be a good tool for nurses and have a positive impact on our patients.”

Before I even knew about this program, I had a feeling that AI was involved. 

Recently, when I messaged my doctor about my upcoming refill, I received an overly-formal, odd response that felt very much like generative AI writing to me. Which is fine. I honestly don’t mind if my doctor saves time by using AI to respond to patient emails. Heck, I myself have used AI to write first drafts of some emails. 

But my doctor and his staff wouldn’t even need to reply to my emails if he was allowed to set up automatic refills of my long-time medication instead. 

There are many ways to improve health care, and tools like generative AI are likely among them. But AI can’t solve problems that exist on purpose. 

Unless patients are at the forefront of the conversations about these tools, I fear they’ll only be used to solve the sole problem hospital administrators actually care about: how to make more money. 

What Doctors Really Mean When They Say It’s an ‘Easy Surgery’

By Crystal Lindell

Back in 2009, I had an “easy surgery” to get my gallbladder removed after multiple excruciating gallbladder attacks. Before the operation, my surgeon went on and on about how easy the surgery would be. He emphasized multiple times how simple it was.

I went into that operating room completely underestimating what I would experience when I came out of the anesthesia. 

I woke up from that surgery vomiting so much that the single hour I was scheduled to spend in post-op recovery turned into eight hours. And instead of the three days I was told that I’d need for recovery at home, I spent seven days in excruciating pain, unable to get off the couch without wanting to scream. 

That’s when I realized that a “simple” surgery just means simple for the doctor to perform. It’s also when I started to realize that this logic applies to all the ways doctors explain health issues. 

In fact, when doctors describe any health issues, they aren’t talking about the patient’s experience at all – they are talking about how they themselves experience it. They love to use terms like mild, simple, and easy. But patients should understand that they are not describing the patient experience when they say these things. 

Mild case of the flu? That just means they don’t have to see you in person to treat you. But it could still mean you’re unable to get out of bed for a month. 

Easy surgery? That means it’s easy for them to perform. It has no relation to how difficult recovery will be for you. 

Post-op discomfort? Yeah, it’s super uncomfortable for the doctor to have to see you in so much excruciating pain before they send you home in agony. 

This even applies to the ways doctors often describe medications. They’ll often say a prescription is “a very strong drug” – but only because it’s difficult for them to prescribe because of things like health insurance denials and DEA paperwork. Meanwhile, the side effects from what they call a “common” generic medication could ruin your body and your life. 

This is a lesson that patients often have to learn the hard way. I have. But now, as someone with a chronic illness, I understand. 

While I have only been hospitalized overnight one time since I first got really sick in 2013, doctors would tell you this means I have a “mild” case of intercostal neuralgia and that my Ehlers-Danlos Syndrome is “mild.”

Yet chronic pain and EDS have impacted every single aspect of my life. From my career, to my love life, to how often I’m able to shower. It’s impacted what clothes I can wear because tight shirts are so painful that I can’t leave the house if I try to wear them. I’ve had to quit jobs because I couldn’t work through the pain. And the guy I was dating when I first got sick eventually broke up with me because my health issues were too much for him to handle.

Hearing doctors describe my health issues as “mild” feels both insulting and disorientating. But worse than that, it can also impact how willing doctors are to investigate and treat my health problems. It’s likely why, despite how urgent chronic pain has been for me from the start, it still took doctors five full years to even diagnose me with Ehlers-Danlos Syndrome. As long as I didn’t need emergency medical care, there was no rush on their end. 

I’m not sure it’s worth it for patients to push back on these types of health descriptors. In my experience, it doesn’t usually change how doctors are responding to you. But understanding it yourself – knowing that how a doctor describes your health problem isn’t necessarily indicative of how severe it is to experience it as the patient – can itself be freeing. 

And sometimes, you may even run into a good doctor, who makes this type of thing clear to you as a patient. They are rare, but they do exist. 

You can also take comfort in the fact that if the doctors who don’t make it clear to the patient ever have to endure what you’ve been through, they will come to understand how inaccurate and insulting their descriptors were. Afterall, nothing about something like surgery is ever easy for the patient.

New Non-Opioid Analgesic Gets Priority Review from FDA

By Pat Anson

The Food and Drug Administration could approve an experimental non-opioid analgesic early next year, potentially making it the first new medication for acute pain in over two decades.

Vertex Pharmaceuticals says the FDA has accepted its New Drug Application for suzetrigine, giving the drug a priority review with a target action date of January 30, 2025. Suzetrigine has previously been granted FDA Fast Track and Breakthrough Therapy designations for the treatment of moderate-to-severe acute pain.

“Today’s FDA filing acceptance for suzetrigine marks a critical milestone toward bringing this new, transformative non-opioid analgesic to the millions of patients,” Nia Tatsis, PhD, an Executive Vice President and Chief Regulatory and Quality Officer for Vertex, said in a statement.

“The FDA’s granting of a priority review further reinforces the high unmet need in treating acute pain, and the filing brings us one step closer to our objective of filling the gap between medicines with good tolerability but limited efficacy and opioid medicines with therapeutic efficacy but known risks, including addictive potential.”

Suzetrigine is designed to block pain in the peripheral nervous system, rather than the brain. That means it won’t have the “liking” effects of opioids or be as addictive.  

In Phase 3 clinical studies, suzetrigine was more effective in reducing post-operative pain than a placebo after minimally invasive surgeries.  Over 80% of patients rated suzetrigine as good or excellent in treating acute pain, but it was not more effective than a combination of the opioid hydrocodone and acetaminophen, more commonly known as Vicodin.

Vertex hopes suzetrigine will eventually be approved for a variety of pain conditions, not just post-operative pain.  The company has been studying the drug as a treatment for pain caused by diabetic peripheral neuropathy.

“In my 24 years practicing medicine, I have seen firsthand the desperate need for new non-opioid therapies for treating pain. Too many people today are either undertreated, dealing with negative side effects of currently available therapies or foregoing pain medications altogether for fear of becoming dependent on opioids,” said Scott Weiner, MD, a Vertex consultant and Associate Professor of Emergency Medicine at Harvard Medical School.

The Biden Administration has been under pressure from lobbyists, politicians and anti-opioid activists to have the FDA approve more non-opioid medications like suzetrigine. The new analgesics are expected to be far more expensive than opioids and other older pain relievers.

If the FDA approves suzetrigine in January, it will coincide with implementation of the NOPAIN Act, which will expand access to non-opioid analgesics in outpatient surgical settings by making them eligible for higher Medicare reimbursement rates.

AARP Should Stop Blaming Pain Patients for the Opioid Crisis

By Carol Levy

Toast and jam. Cake and coffee. Peanut butter and jelly. Pain patients and the opioid crisis.

One of these things is not like the others. But to most people, they all go together. Even when research shows little correlation between opioid prescriptions and overdose deaths.

We’ve been hearing that same old tired narrative for years, often from “experts” who speak with absolute certainty.

“Two major facts can no longer be questioned. First, opioid analgesics are widely diverted and improperly used, and the widespread use of the drugs has resulted in a national epidemic of opioid overdose deaths and addictions,” Nora Volkow, MD, Director of the National Institute on Drug Abuse, and Thomas McLellan, PhD, founder of the Treatment Research Institute and a scientific advisor to Shatterproof, wrote in a joint op/ed in The New England Journal of Medicine in 2016.

“Second, the major source of diverted opioids is physician prescriptions. For these reasons, physicians and medical associations have begun questioning prescribing practices for opioids, particularly as they relate to the management of chronic pain.”

We now know that prescription opioids play a minor role in the overdose crisis and that only about three-tenths of 1% are actually diverted. Illicit fentanyl and other street drugs are responsible for the vast majority of overdose deaths, not pain medication.

But the same tired and misinformed narrative continues, with patients who need opioids paying the price when their doses are reduced or taken away.

Recently, the American Association of Retired Persons released an AARP bulletin, with the main headline being “The War on Chronic Pain.” Wow!  I was excited. Maybe some new information that I can use?

My heart sank as I read the article and quickly came upon these words: “Our attempts to treat chronic pain with medication have led to an opioid abuse epidemic so severe that overdoses are now among the leading causes of death for adults ages 50 to 70. “

The stereotype wins again. Prescription opioids caused the crisis.

I was curious to see what else AARP had to say about pain management and found several articles over the years with a glaringly obvious bias against opioids.

“Americans over 50 are using narcotic pain pills in surprisingly high numbers, and many are becoming addicted,” a 2017 AARP article warned. “A well-meant treatment for knee surgery or chronic back troubles is often the path to a deadly outcome.”

The article went on to claim that older Americans had become “new opioid dealers” who fueled the opioid crisis by “selling their prescription painkillers to drug pushers.”

A 2019 AARP article took a more nuanced approach to pain, claiming that “science was homing in on better ways to treat it,” such as non-opioid drugs, exercise and cognitive therapy.

“If the opioid crisis has provided an excellent example of how not to treat chronic pain, advances in brain science are leading to a fuller understanding of how to more safely find solutions,” AARP said.

Five years later, science has brought us no real solutions. Opioids are still the most potent and reliable medications for pain. For patients in severe pain, they are often the only treatment that works.

The sad part is, if AARP had simply asked the American Medical Association, they would have found that prescription opioids are not the main cause of overdoses and deaths.

In 2021, the AMA reported that opioid prescriptions had fallen by over 44%, yet drug overdoses and deaths were still rising. “The nation’s drug overdose and death epidemic has never just been about prescription opioids,” said then-AMA President Gerald Harmon, MD.

In a 2023 report, the AMA warned again that “reductions in opioid prescribing have not led to reductions in drug-related mortality.”

Why is that not worth including in AARP’s latest sensational reporting on the opioid crisis?

I read this line the other day: “There is no word for infinite pain.” That rings very true for me, probably for many of us. Chronic pain often does not end. We may have a diagnosis, some condition or disorder that causes pain, but there is no good word for pain that is unending and unrelenting.

AARP’s continuing portrayal of many seniors as addicts or drug dealers pushing “narcotic pain pills” is not helpful. Repeatedly labeling us like that has had devastating consequences on pain patients around the country. 

Carol Jay Levy has lived with trigeminal neuralgia, a chronic facial pain disorder, for over 30 years. She is the author of “A Pained Life, A Chronic Pain Journey.”  Carol is the moderator of the Facebook support group “Women in Pain Awareness.” Her blog “The Pained Life” can be found here. 

Genes May Explain Why Gabapentin Works for Some Pain Patients

By Pat Anson

Over the years, gabapentin (Neurontin) has been prescribed for dozens of health conditions, from epilepsy and fibromyalgia to depression and post-operative pain. It’s even been used to treat bipolar disorder. Gabapentin has been marketed for so many different conditions – at times illegally -- that a pharmaceutical company executive infamously referred to the drug as “snake oil.”

Even though it’s been approved for medical use for over 30 years, the UK’s National Health Service admits it’s still “not clear exactly how gabapentin works.”

A new study may finally help explain why gabapentin is an effective pain medication for some patients and an addictive drug with unwelcome side effects for many others.

It could be all in the genes.

Researchers at the University of Edinburgh took another look at a previous study of women with chronic pelvic pain to see why gabapentin worked no better than a placebo for most, but was a moderately effective pain reliever for about 40% of them.

Researchers took saliva samples from 71 women who participated in the study -- 29 who responded to gabapentin and 42 who had no improvement -- and found that the responders were more likely to have a variation of the gene Neuregulin 3 (NRG3). The gene is primarily expressed in the brain, spinal cord and central nervous system, and helps regulate pain sensation and transmission.

The findings, recently published in the journal iScience, may explain why gabapentin works for some women with chronic pelvic pain.

"A genetic factor that can predict how well gabapentin will work in patients offers the prospect of tailored treatment, and provides invaluable insights into understanding chronic pain. We hope eventually to use this genetic marker to optimize personalized treatment decisions and minimize adverse effects for women with chronic pelvic pain," wrote lead author Scott Mackenzie, MD, from the University of Edinburgh's Centre for Reproductive Health.

The study also has implications for other chronic pain conditions. Further research is needed to confirm the findings, but researchers say a genetic test for NRG3 could help limit the use of gabapentin to people who actually benefit from the drug.

"Isolating this single genetic marker is an important discovery that could ultimately help refine treatments for millions of women worldwide who suffer from chronic pelvic pain, as well as increasing our understanding of its role in other pain conditions. We believe this is an exciting opportunity for collaboration with a commercial partner who can help translate the research into a clinical setting," said Susan Bodie, PhD, Head of Business Development for the College of Medicine and Veterinary Medicine at the University of Edinburgh.

Gabapentin and other nerve drugs like pregabalin (Lyrica) have come under increased scrutiny in the UK because they are increasingly involved in overdose deaths.  

A recent analysis of drug tests suggests that gabapentin is also being misused in the U.S. Gabapentin was found in in over 13% of urine samples that tested positive for fentanyl -- about twice the number of drug tests in which prescription opioids were found.

Despite the risks of side effects and addiction, gabapentin is increasingly prescribed “off-label” for conditions it is not approved to treat, such as dental pain. A 2019 study found little evidence that gabapentin and pregabalin should be used for pain and said their effectiveness was often exaggerated by prescribing guidelines.

The CDC’s revised opioid guideline says gabapentin and pregabalin can have “small to moderate improvements” on pain, but with a moderate risk of side effects.