Dataset Information

Consensus-based recommendations for titrating cannabinoids and tapering opioids for chronic pain control.

ABSTRACT:

Aims

Opioid misuse and overuse have contributed to a widespread overdose crisis and many patients and physicians are considering medical cannabis to support opioid tapering and chronic pain control. Using a five-step modified Delphi process, we aimed to develop consensus-based recommendations on: 1) when and how to safely initiate and titrate cannabinoids in the presence of opioids, 2) when and how to safely taper opioids in the presence of cannabinoids and 3) how to monitor patients and evaluate outcomes when treating with opioids and cannabinoids.

Results

In patients with chronic pain taking opioids not reaching treatment goals, there was consensus that cannabinoids may be considered for patients experiencing or displaying opioid-related complications, despite psychological or physical interventions. There was consensus observed to initiate with a cannabidiol (CBD)-predominant oral extract in the daytime and consider adding tetrahydrocannabinol (THC). When adding THC, start with 0.5-3 mg, and increase by 1-2 mg once or twice weekly up to 30-40 mg/day. Initiate opioid tapering when the patient reports a minor/major improvement in function, seeks less as-needed medication to control pain and/or the cannabis dose has been optimised. The opioid tapering schedule may be 5%-10% of the morphine equivalent dose (MED) every 1 to 4 weeks. Clinical success could be defined by an improvement in function/quality of life, a ≥30% reduction in pain intensity, a ≥25% reduction in opioid dose, a reduction in opioid dose to <90 mg MED and/or reduction in opioid-related adverse events.

Conclusions

This five-stage modified Delphi process led to the development of consensus-based recommendations surrounding the safe introduction and titration of cannabinoids in concert with tapering opioids.

SUBMITTER: Sihota A

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8365704 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

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: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.

Project description:UnlabelledOpioids are regularly administered in acute and cancer pain. In chronic non-cancer pain (CNCP), however, their use is controversial. Previous meta-analyses and randomized controlled trials (RCTs) lack methodological homogeneity and comparable data. Here we analysed the maximum analgesic efficacies of opioids and non-opioids compared with placebo, and of physiotherapy and psychotherapy compared with active or waiting-list controls. We screened 3647 citations and included RCTs if treatment duration was at least 3 weeks, data were sufficient for meta-analysis, and criteria for high quality were met. Only 46 studies (10 742 patients) met the criteria. Weighted and standardized mean differences (WMD, SMD) between pain intensities were pooled to conduct separate meta-analyses for each treatment category. At the end of treatment the WMD for pain reduction (100-point scale) was 12.0 for 'strong' opioids, 10.6 for 'weak' opioids, 8.4 for non-opioids (each vs. placebo), 5.5 for psychotherapy and 4.5 for physiotherapy (each vs. active controls). Dropout rates were high in pharmacological studies. The 95% confidence intervals using the outcomes of control groups did not indicate statistical differences between efficacies of the five interventions. Because not enough eligible head-to-head trials were available, our analysis is limited to adjusted indirect comparisons. The heterogeneity of pre-post pain differences in control groups did not allow the definition of a common comparator. In conclusion, although there were statistically significant differences between maximum treatment efficacies, no intervention per se produced clinically important improvements in average pain intensity. Thus, opioids alone are inappropriate and multimodal treatment programmes may be required for CNCP.Linked articlesThis article is part of a themed section on Opioids: New Pathways to Functional Selectivity. To view the other articles in this section visit http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/bph.2015.172.issue-2.

Project description:Despite the various different candidate genetic polymorphisms of potential clinical relevance, there is not enough understanding of the inter?individual variability in analgesic administration. The cytochrome P450 2D6 (CYP2D6) genotype is thought to be one of the most studied. The aim of the present evidence?based review was to determine if there is now sufficient evidence to make clinical recommendations based on a specific genomic profile. The data sources utilized were as follows: PubMed (NLM) database, Evidence Based Medicine Guidelines and Google. Research on clinical guidance standards, systematic reviews, meta?analyses and clinical trials, published prior to January 2018, were evaluated in English, using the MeSH terms 'cancer pain', 'polymorphism', 'genetic' and 'gene polymorphism'. To assess the level of evidence, the Strength of Recommendation Taxonomy of the American Family Physician was applied. From the initial search, 12 systematic reviews and/or meta?analyses, 5 clinical trials and 10 guidelines were selected. The results indicated that genetic variation of µ?opioid receptor 1 (OPRM1) may contribute to inter?individual differences in morphine consumption with recommendation grade A for OPRM A118G single nucleotide polymorphism (rs1799971). Polymorphisms associated with the metabolization process of morphine and other opioid drugs are very relevant in opioid titration and ethnic subgroup differences which have to be taken into account (particularly, for the recommendation grade A for the CYP2D6 polymorphism). In human studies, the catechol?O?methyl transferase (COMT) genotype affects the efficacy of opioids in acute and chronic pain under different settings, with recommendation grade B to the COMT single nucleotide polymorphism rs4680 (Val/Met). Finally, polymorphisms of the ATP?binding cassette family of efflux transporters were highlighted. Consistent data on pain polymorphisms is now widely available; however, these results have had very little impact on clinical guidelines and daily oncologist practice. Persisting pain, side effects of grade 3 (NCI?CTCAE v4.0) and breakthrough pain with more than 4 episodes/day should be considered the criteria for pain multidisciplinary team discussions and for polymorphism screening.

Project description:BackgroundSpinal cord stimulation (SCS) is an established treatment for chronic neuropathic, neuropathic-like and ischaemic pain. However, the heterogeneity of patients in daily clinical practice makes it often challenging to determine which patients are eligible for this treatment, resulting in undesirable practice variations. This study aimed to establish patient-specific recommendations for referral and selection of SCS in chronic pain.MethodsA multidisciplinary European panel used the RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method (RUAM) to assess the appropriateness of (referral for) SCS for 386 clinical scenarios in four pain areas: chronic low back pain and/or leg pain, complex regional pain syndrome, neuropathic pain syndromes and ischaemic pain syndromes. In addition, the panel identified a set of psychosocial factors that are relevant to the decision for SCS treatment.ResultsAppropriateness of SCS was strongly determined by the neuropathic or neuropathic-like pain component, location and spread of pain, anatomic abnormalities and previous response to therapies targeting pain processing (e.g. nerve block). Psychosocial factors considered relevant for SCS selection were as follows: lack of engagement, dysfunctional coping, unrealistic expectations, inadequate daily activity level, problematic social support, secondary gain, psychological distress and unwillingness to reduce high-dose opioids. An educational e-health tool was developed that combines clinical and psychosocial factors into an advice on referral/selection for SCS.ConclusionsThe RUAM was useful to establish a consensus on patient-specific criteria for referral/selection for SCS in chronic pain. The e-health tool may help physicians learn to apply an integrated approach of clinical and psychosocial factors.SignificanceDetermining the eligibility of SCS in patients with chronic pain requires careful consideration of a variety of clinical and psychosocial factors. Using a systematic approach to combine evidence from clinical studies and expert opinion, a multidisciplinary European expert panel developed detailed recommendations to support appropriate referral and selection for SCS in chronic pain. These recommendations are available as an educational e-health tool (https://www.scstool.org/).