Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

kristopher

(29,798 posts)
Thu Jun 1, 2017, 02:32 AM Jun 2017

A 1980 Letter on the Risk of Opioid Addiction N Engl J Med 2017

A 1980 Letter on the Risk of Opioid Addiction
N Engl J Med 2017; 376:2194-2195June 1, 2017DOI: 10.1056/NEJMc1700150

ArticleMetrics
To the Editor:

The prescribing of strong opioids such as oxycodone has increased dramatically in the United States and Canada over the past two decades.1 From 1999 through 2015, more than 183,000 deaths from prescription opioids were reported in the United States,2 and millions of Americans are now addicted to opioids. The crisis arose in part because physicians were told that the risk of addiction was low when opioids were prescribed for chronic pain. A one-paragraph letter that was published in the Journal in 19803 was widely invoked in support of this claim, even though no evidence was provided by the correspondents (see Section 1 in the Supplementary Appendix, available with the full text of this letter at NEJM.org).
We performed a bibliometric analysis of this correspondence from its publication until March 30, 2017. For each citation, two reviewers independently evaluated the portrayal of the article’s conclusions, using an adaptation of an established taxonomy of citation behavior4 along with other aspects of generalizability (Section 2 in the Supplementary Appendix). For context, we also ascertained the number of citations of other stand-alone letters that were published in nine contemporaneous issues of the Journal (in the index issue and in the four issues that preceded and followed it).
We identified 608 citations of the index publication and noted a sizable increase after the introduction of OxyContin (a long-acting formulation of oxycodone) in 1995 (Figure 1FIGURE 1
Number and Type of Citations of the 1980 Letter, According to Year.). Of the articles that included a reference to the 1980 letter, the authors of 439 (72.2%) cited it as evidence that addiction was rare in patients treated with opioids. Of the 608 articles, the authors of 491 articles (80.8%) did not note that the patients who were described in the letter were hospitalized at the time they received the prescription, whereas some authors grossly misrepresented the conclusions of the letter (Section 3 in the Supplementary Appendix). Of note, affirmational citations have become much less common in recent years. In contrast to the 1980 correspondence, 11 stand-alone letters that were published contemporaneously by the Journal were cited a median of 11 times.
In conclusion, we found that a five-sentence letter published in the Journal in 1980 was heavily and uncritically cited as evidence that addiction was rare with long-term opioid therapy. We believe that this citation pattern contributed to the North American opioid crisis by helping to shape a narrative that allayed prescribers’ concerns about the risk of addiction associated with long-term opioid therapy. In 2007, the manufacturer of OxyContin and three senior executives pleaded guilty to federal criminal charges that they misled regulators, doctors, and patients about the risk of addiction associated with the drug.5 Our findings highlight the potential consequences of inaccurate citation and underscore the need for diligence when citing previously published studies.

Pamela T.M. Leung, B.Sc. Pharm.
University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada
Erin M. Macdonald, M.Sc.
Matthew B. Stanbrook, M.D., Ph.D.
Institute for Clinical Evaluative Sciences, Toronto, ON, Canada
Irfan A. Dhalla, M.D.
Li Ka Shing Knowledge Institute, Toronto, ON, Canada
David N. Juurlink, M.D., Ph.D.
Sunnybrook Research Institute, Toronto, ON, Canada
david.juurlink@ices.on.ca

http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMc1700150

9 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies

progree

(11,463 posts)
1. Hmm, I heard Thom Hartmann saying that pain soaks up the opioids and cited his own
Thu Jun 1, 2017, 04:33 AM
Jun 2017

Last edited Thu Jun 1, 2017, 04:34 PM - Edit history (1)

back issues (2 surgeries IIRC) where he was given an opioid for 2 weeks and quit taking it when he no longer had pain. And had no feelings of withdrawal either. And that people who have addiction problems with it are those who continued taking it after the pain was gone.

I thought that it has long been debunked that pain is some kind of protection from opioid addiction, so I was shocked to hear Thom echoing the pain = no addiction problem meme. This was on his 4/30/17 show or thereabouts.

Myself, I think both are true for a lot of people. Some people have no problem with it, and some are hooked on day 1.

Nay

(12,051 posts)
3. Mr Nay and I have both had major surgeries in the last 5 years and that was
Thu Jun 1, 2017, 08:49 AM
Jun 2017

our experience. When the surgical pain eased off, we easily stopped the opioids and never looked back. I've always considered myself to be a non-addictive personality, so I wasn't surprised that I had no trouble. Mr Nay was so easily hooked on cigarettes that I wondered about whether he'd be able to stop the pain pills, but he had absolutely no problem either. Neither of us got "high" on the stuff and neither of us felt any withdrawal symptoms when we stopped them abruptly.

PoindexterOglethorpe

(26,230 posts)
2. Ummm, how is this a letter from 1980 when the first paragraph cites
Thu Jun 1, 2017, 05:42 AM
Jun 2017

statistics from 1999 through 2015? Is time travel involved?

kristopher

(29,798 posts)
4. Reading comprehension F
Thu Jun 1, 2017, 04:44 PM
Jun 2017

Don't know what to tell you other than suggest you take the time to actually read the 4 paragraphs.

PoindexterOglethorpe

(26,230 posts)
5. Perhaps the title of the OP is misleading.
Thu Jun 1, 2017, 04:58 PM
Jun 2017

As well as the first line, which says: A 1980 Letter on the Risk of Opioid Addiction .
Then there's a recent letter which cites the 1980 letter.
My reading comprehension is just fine.

Eugene

(62,582 posts)
6. The 1980 letter is the entire subject of the NEJM letter in the OP.
Thu Jun 1, 2017, 11:27 PM
Jun 2017

It goes on to say that highly-cited 1980 letter is not only wrong,
proven by history, but that it lacked supporting evidence at the time.

PoindexterOglethorpe

(26,230 posts)
7. Yes, I know, but the title and the first line of the OP
Thu Jun 1, 2017, 11:40 PM
Jun 2017

is "A 1980 Letter on the Risk of Opioid Addiction " which then goes straight into the text of the 2017 letter. It's not until after a very long first paragraph that the 1980 letter is referenced.

A better title might have been something more like "Debunking the 1980 Letter on the Risk of Opioid Addiction". That would have been a better description of what's in the OP. Especially as the actual 1980 letter is merely referenced, and not actually reproduced.

caraher

(6,301 posts)
8. You're not going to get a title with the word "debunking" into a scientific or medical journal
Sat Jun 3, 2017, 09:54 PM
Jun 2017

You might try "Regarding a 1980 Letter..." or "On a 1980 letter..."

But really, it's not that hard to follow as it is.

caraher

(6,301 posts)
9. Here's the actual 1980 letter
Sat Jun 3, 2017, 09:57 PM
Jun 2017
Addiction Rare in Patients Treated with Narcotics

N Engl J Med 1980; 302:123 January 10, 1980 DOI: 10.1056/NEJM198001103020221

To the Editor:

Recently, we examined our current files to determine the incidence of narcotic addiction in 39,946 hospitalized medical patients[1] who were monitored consecutively. Although there were 11,882 patients who received at least one narcotic preparation, there were only four cases of reasonably well documented addiction in patients who had no history of addiction. The addiction was considered major in only one instance. The drugs implicated were meperidine in two patients,[2] Percodan in one, and hydromorphone in one. We conclude that despite widespread use of narcotic drugs in hospitals, the development of addiction is rare in medical patients with no history of addiction.

Jane Porter
Hershel Jick, M.D.
Boston Collaborative Drug Surveillance Program Boston University Medical Center, Waltham, MA 02154
Latest Discussions»Culture Forums»Science»A 1980 Letter on the Risk...