Skip to content
  • About
  • Contact
  • Contribute
  • Book
  • Careers
  • Podcast
  • Recommended
  • Speaking
  • All
  • Physician
  • Practice
  • Policy
  • Finance
  • Conditions
  • .edu
  • Patient
  • Meds
  • Tech
  • Social
  • Video
    • All
    • Physician
    • Practice
    • Policy
    • Finance
    • Conditions
    • .edu
    • Patient
    • Meds
    • Tech
    • Social
    • Video
    • About
    • Contact
    • Contribute
    • Book
    • Careers
    • Podcast
    • Recommended
    • Speaking

How misused terminology and biased studies may be misguiding our understanding of opioid addiction and mortality

Richard A. Lawhern, PhD
Conditions
May 23, 2023
Share
Tweet
Share

As a health care writer and policy analyst, I frequently encounter the term “risk” in discussions of medical issues. I also frequently see the term grossly misused in both the popular press and medical literature. Nowhere is this more evident than in the 2016 and 2022 CDC Guidelines for the prescription of opioids in the treatment of pain.

In science, the term “incidence” is a measure of the likelihood that a defined outcome will occur. It answers the question, “How often does “A” happen?” Sometimes incidence is also applied to the co-occurrence of two different events.

“Risk” is a very different beast. We say that if “A” happens, then “B” will follow or co-occur with some knowable likelihood. We assume — but very often do not actually demonstrate – that there is a relationship between A and B.

Analysts very often forget the most basic principle of statistics and probability: Correlation is not cause

Simply because two events may occur together or in sequence doesn’t mean that one caused the other. The events might have no relationship at all, or they might be related to a third and unexamined cause. To assess cause and effect, we must first validate plausible mechanisms of action. Much of the medical literature fails to address this process.

“Risk” is applied primarily to outcomes that are considered to be “Bad Things.” Clinicians would never write about the “risk” of live births among a population of healthy women. However,” risk” appears often when discussing stillbirths. Clinicians assume stillbirths are a knowable “Bad Thing” with knowable causes. Having characterized such causes, doctors may then profile their patients to recognize people with additional oversight or support needed to avoid Bad Things.

It is remarkable that the term “risk” appears hundreds of times, and “incidence” hardly at all in the 2022 revised CDC opioid guidelines. This is particularly true for the “risk” of addiction or overdose in patients prescribed opioid pain relievers. I propose that this orientation comprises an unrecognized “expectation bias.” When reviewing the medical literature, the CDC guideline writers saw what they expected to see — and excluded what they did not expect. This might also be called “cherry picking.”

In both medical and popular literature, it is frequently asserted that the U.S. crisis in opioid addiction and death was “caused” by clinicians over-prescribing opioids to their patients. However, we now know that this assertion is untrue – despite ongoing CDC claims of a cause-and-effect relationship.    We also know that opioid addiction in medical patients is both rare and unpredictable.

Although prescribing rates and opioid mortality rose steadily from 1990 to 2010, these trends suddenly separated in 2010. Prescribing dropped by 55 percent, even as deaths involving opioids tripled. It is clear that opioid-related mortality, at least as far back as 2012, has been driven mostly by illegal street drugs, not legitimate prescribing. U.S. CDC should have known this reality even in 2016.

We should at least suspect a similar lack of cause and effect before 2010. Even when abused by “recreational” users or persons with addiction, opioids dispensed by a pharmacy are significantly safer than street drugs contaminated with illegal fentanyl. The easy availability of prescriptions diverted to street resellers by pill mills may have contributed to addiction. But addicts are now dying from heroin, methamphetamines, and imported fentanyl. Some published studies contradicting this reality have suffered from discrepancies in study collection methods. Even well-constructed studies may fail to document wide variations in patient opioid metabolism or adverse outcomes attributable to under-treated pain.

Another problem in statistics:  Misuse of “odds ratios” 

Some writers say, “Event A is 15 times more likely in people who do thus-and-so than in people who do not.” Much goes unvoiced in such phrasing. Event A might occur less than 0.1 percent of the time — even among people who do thus-and-so, and much less often in people who DON’T do thus-and-so. Odds ratios are useless unless one also knows the underlying incidence;   they may even be deliberately misleading.

How do analysts or doctors recognize outcomes that occur less than 1 percent of the time? More fundamentally, how do they recognize “confounding” factors influencing outcomes but missing from patient medical records?

ADVERTISEMENT

Retrospective studies of medical records may suffer from significant “confounding factors.” This is particularly important when dealing with small cohorts in a large population. Medical records analyzed at a distance from the clinical encounter are only as accurate as busy clinicians, and knowledgeable (or honest) patients can make them.

When data analysts seek to “isolate for” some factors to the exclusion of others, how do they address the natural variability among practitioners themselves? How do they isolate for expectation bias or the Hawthorn effect (following from positive face-to-face relationships between patient and clinician)?

Robert S. Mendelson, the author of Confessions of a Medical Heretic, suggested over 40 years ago that perhaps half of everything a clinician learns in medical school is obsolete within five years after graduation. That ratio seems unlikely to have changed in an era of rapid technology change.   Thus, we now need to ask:

“How do we isolate for variations in clinician experience and knowledge? When is this variation important in retrospective studies?”

“When are individual patients comparable, and when are they not? How do we address variations in the severity or progression of underlying medical disorders?”

“How do we recognize clinicians who protect themselves from license sanctions in a hostile regulatory environment by misdiagnosing patients with “opioid use disorder” and unilaterally tapering or discharging them?”

Clinicians and policy makers need to cultivate an attitude of polite skepticism concerning the conclusions of any “study” where reported outcomes affect fewer than 5 percent of the relevant patient population. Multiple unrecognized confounds may overshadow any generalizations that we attempt.

Small cohort studies may now comprise almost the entirety of the medical literature on addiction, drug-related mortality, and adverse outcomes of opioid therapy. Failure to recognize this reality is a major and possibly fatal source of bias in the U.S. CDC opioid guidelines.

We must do better.

Richard A. Lawhern is a patient advocate.

Prev

Reflections on 500 patients, unique cases, and making a difference in health care

May 23, 2023 Kevin 0
…
Next

Emulating Michael Jordan's winning mindset: a path to success for health care professionals and entrepreneurs

May 23, 2023 Kevin 1
…

Tagged as: Medications

Post navigation

< Previous Post
Reflections on 500 patients, unique cases, and making a difference in health care
Next Post >
Emulating Michael Jordan's winning mindset: a path to success for health care professionals and entrepreneurs

ADVERTISEMENT

More by Richard A. Lawhern, PhD

  • From Civil War tales to iPhones: a family history in contrast

    Richard A. Lawhern, PhD
  • Why chronic pain patients and doctors are both under attack

    Richard A. Lawhern, PhD
  • The hidden battle of weight loss: Why dieting alone isn’t enough

    Richard A. Lawhern, PhD

Related Posts

  • A physician’s addiction to social media

    Amanda Xi, MD
  • Why aren’t you treating opioid addiction?

    Kathleen A. Hallinan, MD
  • The dangers of opioid addiction in the medical industry

    Anonymous
  • Marijuana will not fix the opioid epidemic

    Kenneth Finn, MD
  • Settlements in the opioid cases need these non-negotiable conditions

    Rosanne Aulino, RN
  • How hospitals can help with the opioid epidemic

    Richard Bottner, PA-C and Christopher Moriates, MD

More in Conditions

  • Universities must tap endowments to sustain biomedical research

    Adeel Khan, MD
  • Apprenticeship reshapes medical training for confident clinicians

    Claude E. Lett III, PA-C
  • Why palliative care is more than just end-of-life support

    Dr. Vishal Parackal
  • My improbable survival of stage 4 cancer

    Kelly Curtin-Hallinan, DO
  • The truth about sun exposure: What dermatologists want you to know

    Shafat Hassan, MD, PhD, MPH
  • How a South Asian nurse challenged stereotypes in health care

    Viksit Bali, RN
  • Most Popular

  • Past Week

    • How hospitals can prepare for CMS’s new patient safety rule

      Kim Adelman, PhD | Conditions
    • Why palliative care is more than just end-of-life support

      Dr. Vishal Parackal | Conditions
    • When life makes you depend on Depends

      Francisco M. Torres, MD | Physician
    • Guilty until proven innocent? My experience with a state medical board.

      Jeffrey Hatef, Jr., MD | Physician
    • Why medical notes have become billing scripts instead of patient stories

      Sriman Swarup, MD, MBA | Tech
    • The dying man who gave me flowers changed how I see care

      Augusta Uwah, MD | Physician
  • Past 6 Months

    • Why transgender health care needs urgent reform and inclusive practices

      Angela Rodriguez, MD | Conditions
    • COVID-19 was real: a doctor’s frontline account

      Randall S. Fong, MD | Conditions
    • Why primary care doctors are drowning in debt despite saving lives

      John Wei, MD | Physician
    • New student loan caps could shut low-income students out of medicine

      Tom Phan, MD | Physician
    • Confessions of a lipidologist in recovery: the infection we’ve ignored for 40 years

      Larry Kaskel, MD | Conditions
    • mRNA post vaccination syndrome: Is it real?

      Harry Oken, MD | Conditions
  • Recent Posts

    • The dying man who gave me flowers changed how I see care

      Augusta Uwah, MD | Physician
    • Universities must tap endowments to sustain biomedical research

      Adeel Khan, MD | Conditions
    • Exploring the science behind burnout [PODCAST]

      The Podcast by KevinMD | Podcast
    • Apprenticeship reshapes medical training for confident clinicians

      Claude E. Lett III, PA-C | Conditions
    • How American medicine profits from despair

      Jenny Shields, PhD | Policy
    • How market forces fracture millennial physicians’ careers

      Shannon Meron, MD | Physician

Subscribe to KevinMD and never miss a story!

Get free updates delivered free to your inbox.


Find jobs at
Careers by KevinMD.com

Search thousands of physician, PA, NP, and CRNA jobs now.

Learn more

Leave a Comment

Founded in 2004 by Kevin Pho, MD, KevinMD.com is the web’s leading platform where physicians, advanced practitioners, nurses, medical students, and patients share their insight and tell their stories.

Social

  • Like on Facebook
  • Follow on Twitter
  • Connect on Linkedin
  • Subscribe on Youtube
  • Instagram

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

  • Most Popular

  • Past Week

    • How hospitals can prepare for CMS’s new patient safety rule

      Kim Adelman, PhD | Conditions
    • Why palliative care is more than just end-of-life support

      Dr. Vishal Parackal | Conditions
    • When life makes you depend on Depends

      Francisco M. Torres, MD | Physician
    • Guilty until proven innocent? My experience with a state medical board.

      Jeffrey Hatef, Jr., MD | Physician
    • Why medical notes have become billing scripts instead of patient stories

      Sriman Swarup, MD, MBA | Tech
    • The dying man who gave me flowers changed how I see care

      Augusta Uwah, MD | Physician
  • Past 6 Months

    • Why transgender health care needs urgent reform and inclusive practices

      Angela Rodriguez, MD | Conditions
    • COVID-19 was real: a doctor’s frontline account

      Randall S. Fong, MD | Conditions
    • Why primary care doctors are drowning in debt despite saving lives

      John Wei, MD | Physician
    • New student loan caps could shut low-income students out of medicine

      Tom Phan, MD | Physician
    • Confessions of a lipidologist in recovery: the infection we’ve ignored for 40 years

      Larry Kaskel, MD | Conditions
    • mRNA post vaccination syndrome: Is it real?

      Harry Oken, MD | Conditions
  • Recent Posts

    • The dying man who gave me flowers changed how I see care

      Augusta Uwah, MD | Physician
    • Universities must tap endowments to sustain biomedical research

      Adeel Khan, MD | Conditions
    • Exploring the science behind burnout [PODCAST]

      The Podcast by KevinMD | Podcast
    • Apprenticeship reshapes medical training for confident clinicians

      Claude E. Lett III, PA-C | Conditions
    • How American medicine profits from despair

      Jenny Shields, PhD | Policy
    • How market forces fracture millennial physicians’ careers

      Shannon Meron, MD | Physician

MedPage Today Professional

An Everyday Health Property Medpage Today
  • Terms of Use | Disclaimer
  • Privacy Policy
  • DMCA Policy
All Content © KevinMD, LLC
Site by Outthink Group

Leave a Comment

Comments are moderated before they are published. Please read the comment policy.

Loading Comments...