1/It is helpful to see a review of the concerns raised by professionals & patients prior to the publication of the 2016 CDC Opioid Prescribing Guideline - take a look. I will add highlights from my 2016 docket submission. Nearly all issues re-emerged in published research
2/ CDC’s Dose-related recommendations prioritized *relative* risk over *absolute* risk, and minimized consideration of interaction of risk and protective factors -
This is different from approaches applied to nearly all other risk evaluations in medicine (eg NSTEMI, A-fib)
3/The top-line recommendations lacked sufficient & explicit top-line recognition of the need to decide on care based on knowledge of overall patient life and functioning.
Note: DEA is investigating & prosecuting from the same narrow viewpoint
4/Urine drug testing and 3-day limits created brightline regulatory and legal targets (as indeed happened), but were tethered to modest data (the initial Rx duration actually IS associated with continued receipt, if one recognizes the limitations of that data)
5/The reason for concern at the time was the expectation, denied by the text of the Guideline itself, that the numeric thresholds would be given “regulatory force”.
Today, payers, Medicare, OIG and DEA agents use the Guideline that way. Reasons for hope ?
6/First the Guideline is being rewritten and the experts advising the CDC include members of the affected communities like @speakingabtpain , experts who have stuck their neck out for patients like @BethDarnall and others I deeply respect. They are clear cdc.gov/injury/pdfs/bs…
7/it is now accepted: with opioid Rx/capita at the level of 1992..
what sustains our crisis is *not what started it*
I wrote that line in late 2016 for “Turning the Tide or Riptide” - which became the most downloaded in the history of @SubstanceAbuseJ
2/Our team at @UABNews has been running a preliminary version of a larger planned study, a survey to reach family survivors to learn about these tragedies one by one, like safety investigators would an airplane crash. We think that is the place to start. It is called CSI:OPIOIDs
3/As a clinician, I have been advocating to address these losses since 2016.
In 2018, I began urging federal study of the individual suicides, because large database statistics, concerning as they are, don’t reveal the circumstances around losses. We have to look closely.
@Jinxthejjinx@ChadDKollas@OregonAdvocate@PainMedJournal@LabGirl_Chloe@supportprop 1/I see this paper as direct, and not one that is terribly supportive of tapering policies (and it's good to report this): it's clear from this report that taper often fails, and that switch to buprenorphine helps some, and at least as often fails with others.
@Jinxthejjinx@ChadDKollas@OregonAdvocate@PainMedJournal@LabGirl_Chloe@supportprop 3/Here it says that among the subset of 89 who got all the way below 90 MME, the majority (52%) had ⬆️ of pain, but 24% had no change and 24% had ⬇️ of pain. This means that taper may help some pain, but more often it does the opposite. That's the data.
1/This is a sobering, important article, with devastating observations from a formerly homeless Veteran. Mailing medication to someone who is homeless? Yikes.
2/Our research finds that persons who are homeless, Veteran or not, are often subject to misunderstanding or stigma, and that aspirations for what makes care good are not interchangeable with mainstream concepts - @AllysonVarleyjournals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.117…
3/In large VA-funded research studies. we find that intentional efforts to tailor the design & delivery of primary care for persons experiencing homelessness, prevents unfavorable experiences in care! journals.lww.com/lww-medicalcar…
1/Listening to @1a "Against the Pain" - @1a is to be commented for covering this issue Hats off.
I wish to share a thought on a form of bias built into NARXCare as it is obvious, correctable, and harms patients. wamu.org/story/21/11/11…
2/Dr. Nishi Rawat of Bamboo Health (provider of the NARXCare algorithm to assess overdose risk) describes the NARXCare product they put onto the screens of doctors (via Prescription Drug Monitoring Programs) as an "objective summary". About that...
3/Dr. Rawat's definition of NARXCare covers 2 distinct function. One is a graphic summary of the Rx's received by a patient (if the data are accurate, this is helpful).
But the concerning one is an "Overdose Risk Score"
1/It is bad that clinician performance on matters related to the opioid crisis is *still* being measured in terms of # of opioid prescriptions.
These metrics, which ape prior metrics that drove the original⬆️ reject the approach we normally require for measuring quality of care
2. To be clear. Optimal health care metrics require
a) clear denominator of eligible patients with the condition
b) clear evidence that the treatment's provision is wholly good or its nonprovision wholly bad
c)evidence that imposing the metric leads to improvements in health
3. For example, a metric such as "provision of cervical cancer screening" would be BAD if it includes persons with no cervix either because of hysterectomy, or because they are cis-male.