Dataset Information

Rational Urine Drug Monitoring in Patients Receiving Opioids for Chronic Pain: Consensus Recommendations.

ABSTRACT: Objective:To develop consensus recommendations on urine drug monitoring (UDM) in patients with chronic pain who are prescribed opioids. Methods:An interdisciplinary group of clinicians with expertise in pain, substance use disorders, and primary care conducted virtual meetings to review relevant literature and existing guidelines and share their clinical experience in UDM before reaching consensus recommendations. Results:Definitive (e.g., chromatography-based) testing is recommended as most clinically appropriate for UDM because of its accuracy; however, institutional or payer policies may require initial use of presumptive testing (i.e., immunoassay). The rational choice of substances to analyze for UDM involves considerations that are specific to each patient and related to illicit drug availability. Appropriate opioid risk stratification is based on patient history (especially psychiatric conditions or history of opioid or substance use disorder), prescription drug monitoring program data, results from validated risk assessment tools, and previous UDM. Urine drug monitoring is suggested to be performed at baseline for most patients prescribed opioids for chronic pain and at least annually for those at low risk, two or more times per year for those at moderate risk, and three or more times per year for those at high risk. Additional UDM should be performed as needed on the basis of clinical judgment. Conclusions:Although evidence on the efficacy of UDM in preventing opioid use disorder, overdose, and diversion is limited, UDM is recommended by the panel as part of ongoing comprehensive risk monitoring in patients prescribed opioids for chronic pain.

SUBMITTER: Argoff CE

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6516588 | biostudies-literature | 2018 Jan

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Rational Urine Drug Monitoring in Patients Receiving Opioids for Chronic Pain: Consensus Recommendations.

Argoff Charles E CE Alford Daniel P DP Fudin Jeffrey J Adler Jeremy A JA Bair Matthew J MJ Dart Richard C RC Gandolfi Roy R McCarberg Bill H BH Stanos Steven P SP Gudin Jeffrey A JA Polomano Rosemary C RC Webster Lynn R LR

Pain medicine (Malden, Mass.) 20180101 1

<h4>Objective</h4>To develop consensus recommendations on urine drug monitoring (UDM) in patients with chronic pain who are prescribed opioids.<h4>Methods</h4>An interdisciplinary group of clinicians with expertise in pain, substance use disorders, and primary care conducted virtual meetings to review relevant literature and existing guidelines and share their clinical experience in UDM before reaching consensus recommendations.<h4>Results</h4>Definitive (e.g., chromatography-based) testing is r ...[more]

PMID: 29206984

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundOpioid use for chronic non-cancer pain (CNCP) is complex. In the absence of pan-European guidance on this issue, a position paper was commissioned by the European Pain Federation (EFIC).MethodsThe clinical practice recommendations were developed by eight scientific societies and one patient self-help organization under the coordination of EFIC. A systematic literature search in MEDLINE (up until January 2020) was performed. Two categories of guidance are given: Evidence-based recommendations (supported by evidence from systematic reviews of randomized controlled trials or of observational studies) and Good Clinical Practice (GCP) statements (supported either by indirect evidence or by case-series, case-control studies and clinical experience). The GRADE system was applied to move from evidence to recommendations. The recommendations and GCP statements were developed by a multiprofessional task force (including nursing, service users, physicians, physiotherapy and psychology) and formal multistep procedures to reach a set of consensus recommendations. The clinical practice recommendations were reviewed by five external reviewers from North America and Europe and were also posted for public comment.ResultsThe key clinical practice recommendations suggest: (a) first optimizing established non-pharmacological treatments and non-opioid analgesics and (b) considering opioid treatment if established non-pharmacological treatments or non-opioid analgesics are not effective and/or not tolerated and/or contraindicated. Evidence- and clinical consensus-based potential indications and contraindications for opioid treatment are presented. Eighteen GCP recommendations give guidance regarding clinical evaluation, as well as opioid treatment assessment, monitoring, continuation and discontinuation.ConclusionsOpioids remain a treatment option for some selected patients with CNCP under careful surveillance.SignificanceIn chronic pain, opioids are neither a universal cure nor a universally dangerous weapon. They should only be used for some selected chronic noncancer pain syndromes if established non-pharmacological and pharmacological treatment options have failed in supervised pain patients as part of a comprehensive, multi-modal, multi-disciplinary approach to treatment. In this context alone, opioid therapy can be a useful tool in achieving and maintaining an optimal level of pain control in some patients.

Project description:ImportanceOpioid-prescribing policies and guidelines aimed at reducing inappropriate opioid prescribing may lead physicians to stop prescribing opioids. Patients may thus encounter difficulties finding primary care practitioners willing to care for them if they take opioids.ObjectivesTo assess practitioner willingness to accept and continue prescribing opioids to new patients with pain and whether this willingness differs across payer types.Design, setting, and participantsThis survey study used a simulated patient call audit method. A brief telephone survey was administered to all clinics followed by a call using a patient script simulating an adult patient with chronic pain who was taking long-term opioids. The patient had Medicaid or private insurance. Calls were made between June 22 and October 30, 2018, to 667 primary care clinics that served a general adult population in Michigan. Clinics that accepted both Medicaid and private insurance, took new patient appointments, and were successfully recontacted for the simulated call were eligible for the study.Main outcomes and measuresPrevalence of clinics' acceptance of new patients receiving prescription opioids overall and by clinic characteristics and insurance type.ResultsOf the 194 eligible clinics, 94 (48.4%) were randomized according to insurance type to receive calls from research assistants posing as children of patients with Medicaid and 100 (51.5%) to receive calls from those with private insurance. Overall, 79 (40.7%) stated that their practitioners would not prescribe opioids to the simulated patient. Thirty-three clinics (17.0%) requested more information before making a decision. Compared with single-practitioner clinics, clinics with more than 3 practitioners were more likely (odds ratio [OR], 2.99; 95% CI, 1.48-6.04) to accept new patients currently taking opioids. No difference was found in access based on insurance status (OR, 0.92; 95% CI, 0.52-1.64) or whether the clinic offered medications for opioid use disorders (OR, 1.10; 95% CI, 0.45-2.69).Conclusions and relevanceThe findings suggest that access to primary care may be reduced for patients taking prescription opioids, which could lead to unintended consequences, such as conversion to illicit substances or reduced management of other medical comorbidities.

Project description:ImportanceIndividuals with chronic pain who use long-term opioid therapy (LTOT) are at risk of opioid use disorder and other harmful outcomes. Rotation to buprenorphine may be considered, but the outcomes of such rotation in this population have not been systematically reviewed.ObjectiveTo synthesize the evidence on rotation to buprenorphine from full μ-opioid receptor agonists among individuals with chronic pain who were receiving LTOT, including the outcomes of precipitated opioid withdrawal, pain intensity, pain interference, treatment success, adverse events or adverse effects, mental health condition, and health care use.Evidence reviewPubMed, CINAHL, Embase, and PsycInfo were searched from inception through November 3, 2020, for peer-reviewed original English-language research that reported the prespecified outcomes of rotation from prescribed long-term opioids to buprenorphine among individuals with chronic pain. Two independent reviewers extracted data as well as assessed risk of bias and study quality according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) reporting guidelines. Quality of evidence was assessed with the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) system.FindingsA total of 22 studies were analyzed, of which 5 (22.7%) were randomized clinical trials, 7 (31.8%) were case-control or cohort studies, and 10 (45.5%) were uncontrolled pre-post studies, which involved 1616 unique participants (675 female [41.8%] and 941 male [58.2%] individuals). Six of the 22 studies (27.3%) were primary or secondary analyses of a large randomized clinical trial. Participants had diverse pain and opioid use histories. Rationale for buprenorphine rotation included inadequate analgesia, intolerable adverse effects, risky opioid regimens (eg, high dose and/or sedative coprescriptions), and aberrant opioid use. Most protocols were adapted from protocols for initiating treatment in patients with opioid use disorder and used buccal or sublingual buprenorphine. Very low-quality evidence suggested that buprenorphine rotation was associated with maintained or improved analgesia, with a low risk of precipitating opioid withdrawal. Steady-dose buprenorphine was better tolerated than tapered-dose buprenorphine. Adverse effects were manageable, and severe adverse events were rare. Only 2 studies evaluated mental health outcomes, but none evaluated health care use. Limitations included a high risk of bias in most studies.Conclusions and relevanceIn this systematic review, buprenorphine was associated with reduced chronic pain intensity without precipitating opioid withdrawal in individuals with chronic pain who were receiving LTOT. Future studies are necessary to ascertain the ideal starting dose, formulation, and administration frequency of buprenorphine as well as the best approach to buprenorphine rotation.

Project description:Bispecific antibodies (BsAbs) are emerging as an important novel class of immunotherapeutic agents for the treatment of multiple myeloma (MM), and are set to be more widely used in clinical practice. However, this new class of therapies is associated with a distinct adverse event (AE) profile that includes cytokine release syndrome and immune effector cell-associated neurotoxicity syndrome, as well as AEs leading to increased infection risk such as cytopenias and hypogammaglobulinemia, and infections themselves. As preliminary data with this class of agents shows an increased risk of infections as compared with conventional MM treatment regimens, such as immunomodulatory drugs, proteasome inhibitors, and anti-CD38 monoclonal antibodies (mAbs), guidance on infection monitoring, prophylaxis and treatment is required. This review provides consensus recommendations from a panel of 13 global experts, following a meeting in August 2022. The meeting objective was to review existing literature and identify relevant information on infections with all BsAbs in patients with MM, as well as to discuss clinical experience of experts in managing these infections. The recommendations outlined here can be used to guide management of infection risk factors, such as hypogammaglobulinemia and neutropenia. In addition, they can be used to guide the monitoring, prophylaxis, and treatment of bacterial, viral and fungal infections, including emerging infections of interest, such as coronavirus 2019 (COVID-19), and the use of vaccinations prior to and during BsAb treatment. The recommendations have been graded by the panel based on level of data available. Key recommendations include universal herpes simplex and varicella zoster virus prophylaxis, screening for hepatitis B virus reactivation risk in all patients, monthly intravenous immunoglobulin treatment for immunoparesis and in the absence of life-threatening infectious manifestations, use of colony-stimulating factors in patients with Grade 3 neutropenia, universal pneumocystis jirovecii pneumonia prophylaxis and no routine anti-fungal prophylaxis.

Project description:BackgroundGlobally, medical cannabis legalization has increased in recent years and medical cannabis is commonly used to treat chronic pain. However, there are few randomized control trials studying medical cannabis indicating expert guidance on how to dose and administer medical cannabis safely and effectively is needed.MethodsUsing a multistage modified Delphi process, twenty global experts across nine countries developed consensus-based recommendations on how to dose and administer medical cannabis in patients with chronic pain.ResultsThere was consensus that medical cannabis may be considered for patients experiencing neuropathic, inflammatory, nociplastic, and mixed pain. Three treatment protocols were developed. A routine protocol where the clinician initiates the patient on a CBD-predominant variety at a dose of 5 mg CBD twice daily and titrates the CBD-predominant dose by 10 mg every 2 to 3 days until the patient reaches their goals, or up to 40 mg/day. At a CBD-predominant dose of 40 mg/day, clinicians may consider adding THC at 2.5 mg and titrate by 2.5 mg every 2 to 7 days until a maximum daily dose of 40 mg/day of THC. A conservative protocol where the clinician initiates the patient on a CBD-predominant variety at a dose of 5 mg once daily and titrates the CBD-predominant dose by 10 mg every 2 to 3 days until the patient reaches their goals, or up to 40 mg/day. At a CBD-predominant dose of 40 mg/day, clinicians may consider adding THC at 1 mg/day and titrate by 1 mg every 7 days until a maximum daily dose of 40 mg/day of THC. A rapid protocol where the clinician initiates the patient on a balanced THC:CBD variety at 2.5-5 mg of each cannabinoid once or twice daily and titrates by 2.5-5 mg of each cannabinoid every 2 to 3 days until the patient reaches his/her goals or to a maximum THC dose of 40 mg/day.ConclusionsIn summary, using a modified Delphi process, expert consensus-based recommendations were developed on how to dose and administer medical cannabis for the treatment of patients with chronic pain.

Dataset Information

Rational Urine Drug Monitoring in Patients Receiving Opioids for Chronic Pain: Consensus Recommendations.

Publications

Rational Urine Drug Monitoring in Patients Receiving Opioids for Chronic Pain: Consensus Recommendations.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets