Which is not to say that some of the recent high-profile scholarly publications on the risks of chronic opioid therapy make me very, very grumpy, at least how they are interpreted in the headlines and editorial page. I've really appreciated Stewart Leavitt's ongoing, critical discussion of these publications (and the larger editorial/media conversation) at his Pain Treatment Topics blog, and I couldn't presume to do a better job analyzing the studies than Stew. See, for instance, this analysis of two recent high-profile publications purportedly about the dangers of opioid therapy. I read both the studies he mentions, as well, and thought to myself: Gee, these studies seem to highlight how safe chronic opioid therapy is. Read his analysis and the articles and decide for yourself, but I concluded the same thing he did: while the risk of fatal overdose increases with increasing prescribed dose, the absolute risk of fatal overdose (in these studied populations) was exceedingly low.
**Yes, I actually wrote those words last night. Subsequently my inbox gets flooded with notifications that the FDA has announced its long-awaited REMS program for long-acting opioids...kind of. Press-release here, which discusses, in broad-strokes, a multi-agency strategy (beyond REMS) to help stem the epidemic. We are told the key elements of the strategy will be:
- expansion of state-based prescription drug monitoring programs
- recommending convenient and environmentally responsible ways to remove unused medications from homes
- supporting education for patients and health care providers
- reducing the number of “pill mills” and doctor-shopping through law enforcement
I'd recommend reading Stew Leavitt's analysis for a more knowledgeable discussion of the announcement.
Photo from the FDA's press-release.