New Issue: Orbital Catastrophe Ahead? Read Now

Opioids Still Needed by Some Pain Patients

The "other victims" of the opioid epidemic are pain patients who need the drugs but cannot now get them because of fears related to their use

 

Getty Images/iStockphoto/Thinkstock Images

Illustration of a Bohr atom model spinning around the words Science Quickly with various science and medicine related icons around the text

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!

“The opioid epidemic is a national crisis that should not be underestimated.” That’s a quote from a June 1st New England Journal of Medicine perspective piece by Susan Glod. She’s a physician involved with hospice and palliative care and pain management. But the title of the piece reveals another issue related to the current situation. That title is The Other Victims of the Opioid Epidemic. Those other victims being people in desperate need of pain treatment who cannot now get it because of fears related to the prescribing and use of opioids.

To try to help to avoid abuse, new forms of opioids have been created, called abuse-deterrent opioid medications. These can’t be crushed or dissolved, thus making them difficult to snort or inject. But “these formulations would have no impact on other opioid-related deaths such as unintentional overdose.”

Glod in an audio interview related to her New England Journal piece.


On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.


“I think that the downside to all of these formulations is that they have the potential to make needed medication more expensive and less accessible to patients who are having opioid responsive pain and who really do require these medications. What really worries me the most about all of this is that if the medical community, the public and policy makers get too distracted by the promise of a solution to the opioid epidemic in the guise of a reformulation of known opioids, I’m worried that we’re going to lose focus on addressing all of the underlying systemic issues that have really led to the epidemic in the first place—such as lack of access to alternative evidence-based means of controlling pain, the lack of mental health and social services to address other components of suffering besides physical pain, and the lack of providers who are trained in managing drug addiction and dependence.”

Glod’s full article and audio interview are available at the website of the New England Journal of Medicine.

—Steve Mirsky

[The above text is a transcript of this podcast.]

Subscribe to Support Independent Journalism

Great science journalism requires human expertise, time, effort and creativity. And it costs money. That’s why I and the journalists here at Scientific American hope you’ll join our community.

When you subscribe, you are supporting staff and freelance journalists who are passionate about telling science stories that are true, important and compelling. Our editors and reporters are often experts in their fields, which means they understand the nuances of big discoveries and can untangle the breakthroughs from the hype. With a subscription, you are also supporting rigorous fact-checking to ensure the words we publish are precise and accurate. And you’re supporting original illustrations, graphics and photos that bring you closer to an advanced laboratory, an ice sheet in Antarctica or a space mission in orbit. You’re helping us craft other types of high-quality journalism as well: Our newsletters are carefully written, edited and curated by staffers you have or will come to know and love. Our Science Quickly podcast is based on original reporting, collaboration with editors and scientists and exacting production.

Subscriptions keep this engine running so we can continue to deliver thoughtful, rigorous and independent science journalism to you. In an era of viral misinformation, this work is crucial. If you value what we do, I hope you’ll consider joining us as a subscriber

Thank you,

Jeanna Bryner, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe