Responsible Prescribing of Opioids for Chronic Non-Cancer Pain: A Scoping Review.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Black E
PROVIDER: S-EPMC7557364 | biostudies-literature | 2020 Aug
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
Responsible Prescribing of Opioids for Chronic Non-Cancer Pain: A Scoping Review.
Black Eleanor E Khor Kok Eng KE Demirkol Apo A
Pharmacy (Basel, Switzerland) 20200820 3
Chronic non-cancer pain is common and long-term opioid therapy is frequently used in its management. While opioids can be effective, they are also associated with significant harm and misuse, and clinicians must weigh any expected benefits with potential risks when making decisions around prescribing. This review aimed to summarise controlled trials and systematic reviews that evaluate patient-related, provider-related, and system-related factors supporting responsible opioid prescribing for chr ...[more]
Similar Datasets
Project description:IMPORTANCE:Primary care clinicians find managing chronic pain challenging. Evidence of long-term efficacy of opioids for chronic pain is limited. Opioid use is associated with serious risks, including opioid use disorder and overdose. OBJECTIVE:To provide recommendations about opioid prescribing for primary care clinicians treating adult patients with chronic pain outside of active cancer treatment, palliative care, and end-of-life care. PROCESS:The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) updated a 2014 systematic review on effectiveness and risks of opioids and conducted a supplemental review on benefits and harms, values and preferences, and costs. CDC used the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) framework to assess evidence type and determine the recommendation category. EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS:Evidence consisted of observational studies or randomized clinical trials with notable limitations, characterized as low quality using GRADE methodology. Meta-analysis was not attempted due to the limited number of studies, variability in study designs and clinical heterogeneity, and methodological shortcomings of studies. No study evaluated long-term (?1 year) benefit of opioids for chronic pain. Opioids were associated with increased risks, including opioid use disorder, overdose, and death, with dose-dependent effects. RECOMMENDATIONS:There are 12 recommendations. Of primary importance, nonopioid therapy is preferred for treatment of chronic pain. Opioids should be used only when benefits for pain and function are expected to outweigh risks. Before starting opioids, clinicians should establish treatment goals with patients and consider how opioids will be discontinued if benefits do not outweigh risks. When opioids are used, clinicians should prescribe the lowest effective dosage, carefully reassess benefits and risks when considering increasing dosage to 50 morphine milligram equivalents or more per day, and avoid concurrent opioids and benzodiazepines whenever possible. Clinicians should evaluate benefits and harms of continued opioid therapy with patients every 3 months or more frequently and review prescription drug monitoring program data, when available, for high-risk combinations or dosages. For patients with opioid use disorder, clinicians should offer or arrange evidence-based treatment, such as medication-assisted treatment with buprenorphine or methadone. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE:The guideline is intended to improve communication about benefits and risks of opioids for chronic pain, improve safety and effectiveness of pain treatment, and reduce risks associated with long-term opioid therapy.
| S-EPMC6390846 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundOver the last 2 decades, medical providers have increasingly prescribed pharmaceutical opioids for chronic non-cancer pain, while opioid overdose death rates have quadrupled. Naloxone, an opioid antagonist, can be prescribed to patients with chronic pain to reverse an opioid overdose, yet little is known about how patients perceive this emerging practice.ObjectiveThis study assessed the knowledge and attitudes toward naloxone prescribing among non-cancer patients prescribed opioids in primary care.DesignQualitative study design using semi-structured interviews.ParticipantsAdults (N = 24) prescribed high-dose (≥100 morphine mg equivalent daily dose) chronic opioid therapy in eight primary care internal medicine, family medicine and HIV practices in three large Colorado health systems.ApproachInductive and deductive methods were used to analyze interview transcripts.Key resultsThemes emerged related to knowledge of and benefits, barriers and facilitators to naloxone in primary care. Patients reported receiving limited education about opioid medication risks from providers and limited knowledge of naloxone. When provided with a description of naloxone, patients recognized its ability to reverse overdoses. In addition to pragmatic barriers, such as medication cost, barriers to naloxone acceptance included the perception that overdose risk stems from medication misuse and that providers might infer that they were misusing their opioid medication if they accepted a naloxone prescription, prompting an opioid taper. Facilitators to the acceptance of naloxone included medical providers' using empowering, non-judgmental communication practices, framing naloxone for use in "worst case scenarios" and providing education and training about opioids and naloxone.ConclusionsWhile patients recognized the utility of naloxone prescribing, we identified important barriers to patient acceptance of naloxone prescribing. To improve the naloxone prescribing acceptability in primary care practice, medical providers and health systems may need to enhance patient education, employ empowering, non-judgmental communication styles and adequately frame discussions about naloxone to address patients' fears.
| S-EPMC5331002 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ImportanceIn 2016, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) released the evidence-based Guideline for Prescribing Opioids for Chronic Pain. How the release of this guideline coincided with changes in nonopioid pain medication prescribing rates remains unknown.ObjectiveTo evaluate changes in nonopioid pain medication prescribing after the 2016 CDC guideline release and to assess the heterogeneity in these changes as a function of patient demographic and clinical characteristics.Design, setting, and participantsThis cohort study constructed 7 (4 preguideline and 3 postguideline) annual cohorts using claims data from the national Optum Clinformatics Data Mart Database for the period January 1, 2011, through December 31, 2018. The cohorts included adults with commercial insurance, no cancer or palliative care claims, and 2 years of continuous insurance enrollment. Individuals could qualify for inclusion in multiple cohorts. Each cohort covered a 2-year period, with year 1 as the baseline period used to calculate opioid exposure and other clinical characteristics and year 2 as the follow-up period used to calculate prescribing outcomes. Data were analyzed in March 2022.ExposuresThe CDC guideline, which was released in March 2016.Main outcomes and measuresThe primary outcome was receipt of any nonopioid pain medication prescriptions (analgesics or antipyretics, anticonvulsants, antidepressants, and nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs) during the follow-up period. This postguideline prescribing pattern was compared with estimates based on the preguideline prescribing pattern, and then the differences were stratified by patient clinical characteristics (chronic pain, recent opioid exposure, substance use disorder, anxiety disorder, and mood disorder).ResultsA total of 15 879 241 individuals (2015 mean [SD] age, 50.2 [18.6] years; 8 298 271 female patients [52.3%]) qualified for inclusion in 1 or more cohorts. Logistic regression models showed that nonopioid pain medication prescribing odds were higher by 3.0% (95% CI, 2.6%-3.3%) in postguideline year 1, by 8.7% (95% CI, 8.3%-9.2%) in postguideline year 2, and by 9.7% (95% CI, 9.2%-10.3%) in postguideline year 3 than the preguideline pattern-based estimates. The magnitude of the postguideline departures from the preguideline pattern varied by several clinical characteristics (chronic pain, recent opioid exposure, anxiety disorder, and mood disorder). The largest departure was found among those with chronic pain, with postguideline prescribing being higher than estimated in postguideline year 2 (13.6%; 95% CI, 12.7%-14.6%) and postguideline year 3 (14.9%; 95% CI, 13.8%-16.0%).Conclusions and relevanceResults of this study showed increases in nonopioid pain medication prescribing after the release of the 2016 CDC guideline, suggesting that the guideline may be associated with an increase in guideline-concordant care, but additional studies are needed to understand the role of other secular changes in the opioid policy landscape and other sources of nonopioid medication use.
| S-EPMC9187961 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BACKGROUND:After decades of increased opioid pain reliever prescribing, providers are rapidly reducing prescribing. We hypothesized that reduced access to prescribed opioid pain relievers among patients previously reliant upon opioid pain relievers would result in increased illicit opioid use. METHODS AND FINDINGS:We conducted a retrospective cohort study among 602 publicly insured primary care patients who had been prescribed opioids for chronic non-cancer pain for at least three consecutive months in San Francisco, recruited through convenience sampling. We conducted a historical reconstruction interview and medical chart abstraction focused on illicit substance use and opioid pain reliever prescriptions, respectively, from 2012 through the interview date in 2017-2018. We used a nested-cohort design, in which patients were classified, based on opioid pain reliever dose change, into a series of nested cohorts starting with each follow-up quarter. Using continuation-ratio models, we estimated associations between opioid prescription discontinuation or 30% increase or decrease in dose, relative to no change, and subsequent frequency of heroin and non-prescribed opioid pain reliever use, separately. Models controlled for demographics, clinical and behavioral characteristics, and past use of heroin or non-prescribed opioid pain relievers. A total of 56,372 and 56,484 participant-quarter observations were included from the 597 and 598 participants available for analyses of heroin and non-prescribed opioid pain reliever outcomes, respectively. Participants discontinued from prescribed opioids were more likely to use heroin (Adjusted Odds Ratio (AOR) = 1.57, 95% CI: 1.25-1.97) and non-prescribed opioid pain relievers (AOR = 1.75, 1.45-2.11) more frequently in subsequent quarters compared to participants with unchanged opioid prescriptions. Participants whose opioid pain reliever dose increased were more likely to use heroin more frequently (AOR = 1.67, 1.32-2.12). Results held throughout sensitivity analyses. The main limitations were the observational nature of results and limited generalizability beyond safety-net settings. CONCLUSIONS:Discontinuation of prescribed opioid pain relievers was associated with more frequent non-prescribed opioid pain reliever and heroin use; increased dose was also associated with more frequent heroin use. Clinicians should be aware of these risks in determining pain management approaches.
| S-EPMC7197848 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Cryoneurolysis involves percutaneous insertion of a cryoprobe induced to extremely cold temperatures to disrupt peripheral nerve conduction. The primary objective of this scoping review is to summarize and critically appraise the current evidence for the benefits and safety of cryoneurolysis for non-cancer knee pain. The secondary objective is to describe the variations in cryoneurolysis techniques used. MEDLINE, EMBASE, PubMed, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science were searched from their inception to February 2023 for any primary literature investigating the use of cryoneurolysis for non-cancer-related knee pain. Data was extracted for study characteristics, intervention characteristics, and clinical outcomes. Fourteen studies were identified, including three randomized controlled trials, four retrospective cohort studies, and seven case studies/series. Two studies included knee osteoarthritis patients, three studies included non-specific chronic knee pain patients; and nine studies included pre- or post-total knee arthroplasty patients. Ten studies targeted the infrapatellar branch of the saphenous nerve while the remaining four studies did not report the nerve targeted. Studies consistently demonstrated improvements in pain, function, quality of life, and opioid consumption. Most adverse events were mild and self-limiting. Considerable variations in technique parameters were observed. Cryoneurolysis is a promising intervention to improve outcomes in non-cancer knee pain populations, particularly in mild-to-moderate knee osteoarthritis and pre-total knee arthroplasty populations. However, cryoneurolysis for knee pain remains largely investigational as more high-quality randomized controlled trials are required to further elucidate efficacy as well as optimal nerve selection and technique.
| S-EPMC11372926 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ImportanceThe Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) released the "Guideline For Prescribing Opioids For Chronic Pain" (hereafter, CDC guideline) in 2016, but its association with prescribing practices for patients who are opioid naive is unknown.ObjectiveTo estimate changes in initial prescribing rates, duration, and dosage practices to patients who are opioid naive after the release of the CDC guideline.Design, setting, and participantsThis cohort study used 6 sequential cohorts to estimate preguideline trends in prescribing among patients who were opioid naive, project that trend forward, and compare it with postguideline prescribing practices. Participants included commercially insured adults without current cancer or hospice care diagnoses and with no past-year opioid claims in the US from 2011 to 2017. All adjusted models were controlled for patient demographics and state-fixed effects. Data were analyzed from January 2020 to May 2021.ExposuresThe release of the CDC guideline.Main outcomes and measuresIndicators of any opioid prescription fills during a 9-month period, the number of days' supply of the initial prescription, and the binary indicator of whether the initial prescription was for 50 or more morphine milligram equivalents (MMEs) per day.ResultsThere were 12 870 612 eligible unique patients across cohorts (mean [SD] age in 2016, 51.2 [18.7] years; 6 553 458 [50.9%] women); and the mean (SD) age of the cohorts increased annually, from 48.7 (17.9) years in the April 2011 to December 2012 cohort to 51.9 (19.2) years in the April 2016 to December 2017 cohort. The postguideline prescribing prevalence was 532 962 of 5 834 088 individuals (9.1%), which exceeded that projected from the preguideline trend, estimated at 9.0% (95% CI, 9.0%-9.1%). Among patients receiving prescriptions during follow-up, adjusted mean days' supply was 4.7% (95% CI, 4.3%-5.1%) lower in the first year after release of the guideline and 9.8% (95% CI, 9.3%-10.3%) lower in the second year after release, compared with the expected rate from the preguideline trend. The adjusted odds of receiving a high-dose (ie, ≥50 MME/d) initial prescription were lower in the first year (odds ratio, 0.97; 95% CI, 0.96-0.98) and in the second year (odds ratio, 0.94; 95% CI, 0.93-0.96) after the release of the CDC guideline compared with the odds expected from the preguideline trend.Conclusions and relevanceThis cohort study found that patients who were opioid naive continued to initiate opioid therapy after the release of opioid prescribing guidelines by the CDC, but trends in prescribing duration reversed and decreased, after increasing in each of 4 preguideline cohorts examined. High-dose prescribing rates were already decreasing, but those trends accelerated after the CDC guideline release. These results suggest that nonmandatory, evidence-based guidelines from trusted sources were associated with prescribing practices. Guideline-concordant care has potential to improve pain management and reduce opioid-related harms.
| S-EPMC8278262 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Objectives: To determine the prevalence and factors associated with the use of opioids among patients with chronic non-cancer pain (CNCP). Methods: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Comprehensive literature searches in Medline-PubMed, Embase and SCOPUS databases. Original studies published between 2009 and 2019 with a cross-sectional design were included. The quality of the studies was assessed with Critical Appraisal Checklist for Studies Reporting Prevalence Data from the Joanna Briggs Institute. Protocol registered in the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews with reference number: CRD42019137990. Results: Out of the 1,310 potential studies found, 25 studies fulfilled the inclusion criteria. Most of the studies were of high quality. High levels of heterogeneity were found in the studies included. In the general population, the prevalence of long-term opioid use was 2.3% (95% CI: 1.5-3.6%), the prevalence of short-term opioid use was 8.1% (95% CI: 5.6-11.6%), and among people with chronic low back pain it was 5.8% (95% CI: 0.5-45.5%). The prevalence of opioid use among patients from the health records or medical surveys was 41% (95% CI: 23.3-61.3%). Finally, in patients with musculoskeletal pain, the prevalence was 20.5% (95% CI: 12.9-30.9%) and in patients with fibromyalgia, 24.5% (95% CI: 22.9-26.2%). A higher prevalence of opioid use was observed among men, younger people, patients receiving prescriptions of different types of drugs, smokers and patients without insurance or with noncommercial insurance. In addition, non-white and Asian patients were less likely to receive opioids than non-Hispanic white patients. Conclusions: The prevalence of opioid use among patients with CNCP was higher in subjects with short or occasional use compared to those with long-term use. Men, younger people, more chronic pain conditions, and patients without insurance or with noncommercial insurance were most related to opioid use. However, non-white and Asian patients, and those treated by a physician trained in complementary medicine were less likely to use opioids.
| S-EPMC7750787 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ImportanceHarms and benefits of opioids for chronic noncancer pain remain unclear.ObjectiveTo systematically review randomized clinical trials (RCTs) of opioids for chronic noncancer pain.Data sources and study selectionThe databases of CENTRAL, CINAHL, EMBASE, MEDLINE, AMED, and PsycINFO were searched from inception to April 2018 for RCTs of opioids for chronic noncancer pain vs any nonopioid control.Data extraction and synthesisPaired reviewers independently extracted data. The analyses used random-effects models and the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation to rate the quality of the evidence.Main outcomes and measuresThe primary outcomes were pain intensity (score range, 0-10 cm on a visual analog scale for pain; lower is better and the minimally important difference [MID] is 1 cm), physical functioning (score range, 0-100 points on the 36-item Short Form physical component score [SF-36 PCS]; higher is better and the MID is 5 points), and incidence of vomiting.ResultsNinety-six RCTs including 26 169 participants (61% female; median age, 58 years [interquartile range, 51-61 years]) were included. Of the included studies, there were 25 trials of neuropathic pain, 32 trials of nociceptive pain, 33 trials of central sensitization (pain present in the absence of tissue damage), and 6 trials of mixed types of pain. Compared with placebo, opioid use was associated with reduced pain (weighted mean difference [WMD], -0.69 cm [95% CI, -0.82 to -0.56 cm] on a 10-cm visual analog scale for pain; modeled risk difference for achieving the MID, 11.9% [95% CI, 9.7% to 14.1%]), improved physical functioning (WMD, 2.04 points [95% CI, 1.41 to 2.68 points] on the 100-point SF-36 PCS; modeled risk difference for achieving the MID, 8.5% [95% CI, 5.9% to 11.2%]), and increased vomiting (5.9% with opioids vs 2.3% with placebo for trials that excluded patients with adverse events during a run-in period). Low- to moderate-quality evidence suggested similar associations of opioids with improvements in pain and physical functioning compared with nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (pain: WMD, -0.60 cm [95% CI, -1.54 to 0.34 cm]; physical functioning: WMD, -0.90 points [95% CI, -2.69 to 0.89 points]), tricyclic antidepressants (pain: WMD, -0.13 cm [95% CI, -0.99 to 0.74 cm]; physical functioning: WMD, -5.31 points [95% CI, -13.77 to 3.14 points]), and anticonvulsants (pain: WMD, -0.90 cm [95% CI, -1.65 to -0.14 cm]; physical functioning: WMD, 0.45 points [95% CI, -5.77 to 6.66 points]).Conclusions and relevanceIn this meta-analysis of RCTs of patients with chronic noncancer pain, evidence from high-quality studies showed that opioid use was associated with statistically significant but small improvements in pain and physical functioning, and increased risk of vomiting compared with placebo. Comparisons of opioids with nonopioid alternatives suggested that the benefit for pain and functioning may be similar, although the evidence was from studies of only low to moderate quality.
| S-EPMC6583638 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Adverse events of opioids may restrict their use in non-cancer pain. Analysis of the incidence of common adverse events in trials conducted in non-cancer pain has usually been limited to opioids used to treat severe pain according to the WHO three-step ladder. To examine the incidence of common adverse events of opioids in non-cancer pain, a systematic review and meta-analysis of information from randomised trials of all opioids in non-cancer pain was undertaken. Studies used were published randomised trials of oral opioid in non-cancer pain, with placebo or active comparator. Thirty-four trials with 5,546 patients were included with 4,212 patients contributing some information on opioid adverse events. Most opioids used (accounting for 90% of patients) were for treating moderate rather than severe pain. Including trials without a placebo increased the amount of information available by 1.4 times. Because of clinical heterogeneity in condition, opioid, opioid dose, duration, and use of titration, only broad results could be calculated. Use of any oral opioid produced higher rates of adverse events than did placebo. Dry mouth (affecting 25% of patients), nausea (21%), and constipation (15%) were the most common adverse events. A substantial proportion of patients on opioids (22%) withdrew because of adverse events. Because most trials were short, less than four weeks, and because few titrated the dose, these results have limited applicability to longer-term use of opioids in clinical practice. Suggestions for improved studies are made.
| S-EPMC1257433 | biostudies-literature
Project description:IntroductionInterventions targeting behaviours of physician prescribers of opioids for chronic non-cancer pain have been introduced to combat the opioid crisis. Systematic reviews have evaluated effects of specific interventions (eg, prescriber education, prescription drug monitoring programmes) on patient and population health outcomes and prescriber behaviour. Integration of findings across intervention types is needed to better understand the effects of prescriber-targeted interventions.Methods and analysisWe will conduct an overview of systematic reviews. Eligible systematic reviews will include primary studies that evaluated any intervention targeting the behaviours of physician prescribers of opioids for chronic non-cancer pain in an outpatient or mixed setting, compared with no intervention, usual practice or another active or control intervention. Eligible outcomes will pertain to the intervention effect on patient and population health or opioid prescribing behaviour. We will search MEDLINE, Embase and PsycInfo via Ovid; the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews and Epistemonikos from inception. We will also hand search reference lists for additional publications. Screening and data extraction will be conducted independently by two reviewers, with disagreements resolved by consensus or consultation with a third reviewer. The risk of bias of included systematic reviews will be assessed in duplicate by two reviewers using the Risk of Bias in Systematic Reviews tool. Results will be synthesised narratively by intervention type and grouped by outcome. To assist with result interpretation, outcomes will be labelled as intended or unintended according to intervention objectives, and as positive, negative, evidence of no effect or inconclusive evidence according to effect on the population (for patient and population health outcomes) or intervention objectives (for prescriber outcomes).Ethics and disseminationAs the proposed study will use published data, ethics approval is not required. Dissemination of results will be achieved through publication of a manuscript in a peer-reviewed journal and conference presentations.Prospero registration numberCRD42020156815.
| S-EPMC8971769 | biostudies-literature