The CDC and PROP appear to have a close working relationship -- a link to PROP literature recommending “cautious, evidence-based opioid prescribing” can be found -- unedited -- on the CDC’s website.

“CDC’s review panel members and experts represent diverse perspectives on this topic and were selected to minimize conflict of interest among members, enhance objective assessment of the evidence, and reduce scientific bias,” the agency said in a statement to Pain News Network. “Representation from advocacy organizations (e.g. pain management societies, societies focused on responsible opioid prescribing) and professional organizations (e.g. specialties by which opioids are commonly prescribed) were selected to ensure that patients and providers impacted by these recommendations would have a voice in the development process.”

Activists in the pain community were alarmed to learn about PROP's role.

“There are too many powerful lobbyists and competing interests at the federal level,” said Terri Anderson, a chronic pain sufferer and patient advocate. “Organizations such as PROP, and many other professional medical societies, are exploiting the needs of both addicts and pain patients for their own financial gain.”

CDC's "Rapid Review" of Evidence

Secrecy continues to surround the prescribing guidelines, which are intended to help primary care providers that treat a majority of chronic pain patients. Even though the draft guidelines were released during last week’s webinar, only a summary of the guidelines is available on a CDC website and the agency is no longer accepting public comments on them.

There has also been little news coverage about the guidelines, in large part because the CDC never notified reporters or issued a news release about the webinar.

The CDC said it “streamlined” development of the guidelines so experts could conduct “rapid reviews” of clinical evidence to meet “an urgent public health need.” The agency plans to publish the final guidelines in January 2016 after they undergo peer review.

“Given uncertain benefits and substantial risks, experts agreed that opioids should not be considered first-line or routine therapy for chronic pain outside of end-of-life care,” the agency said in a review of evidence sent to stakeholders and peer reviewers.

“Non-pharmacologic therapy including exercise therapy and CBT (cognitive behavioral therapy) should be used to reduce pain and improve function in patients with chronic pain. If pharmacologic therapy is needed, non-pharmacologic therapy should be used in combination with non-opioid pharmacologic therapy to reduce pain and improve function.”

The pain organizations called that an “extreme” position in their letter to the CDC.

“It is CDC’s singular focus on prescription opioid diversion, abuse, addiction, and overdose over any improved understanding of chronic pain incidence, prevalence, trends, and optimal interventions that reveals within CDC an extreme imbalance in its own risk-benefit sensibilities when it comes to this class of medications,” the letter says. “FDA requires safety and efficacy trials that all approved opioid medications have met. Detailed prescribing instructions are developed based on proven studies. Yet the new guidelines ignore the FDA’s prescribing expertise, recommending different maximum daily doses that appear in no guidelines or package inserts.”

The FDA appears to have played little -- if any -- role in developing the guidelines with the CDC, even though both agencies are in the Department of Health and Human Services, under the leadership of Secretary Sylvia Burwell. An FDA spokesman would only say that the agency “did have an opportunity to comment on the current version” of the guidelines.

“I would ask you to consider what Secretary Burwell's role is in allowing such divisiveness between CDC and FDA. Shouldn't Burwell be trying to have the federal government have a united front on opioids?” asked David Becker, a social worker and patient advocate.

“It seems to me there is a lack of leadership from the Obama administration on opioids. In addition, they can’t seem to deal with the politics of pain care -- they are not bringing parties together to settle their differences. On the contrary they seem to encourage factionalism and convulsing society. Individuals in pain are merely pawns in the chess game of pain -- with little power and say over their care.”