Treated versus self-reported prevalence of chronic pain and costs of patients' health services utilization: a population-based study of health administrative databases.

Objectives: To compare treated to self-reported prevalence of chronic pain (CP) and to estimate health services utilization (HSU) costs of patients treated for CP in Alberta, Canada. Methods: Patients treated for CP were identified by the physician billing codes of health services for CP from the practitioner claims database in fiscal year 2021/22. The treated prevalence of CP (number of these patients divided by the population) was compared to the self-reported prevalence of CP previously estimated (doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0272638). Costs of patients' HSU included costs for general practitioner (GP), specialist, inpatient, emergency department, outpatient clinic services, and prescription drugs. Results: The treated prevalence of CP was 6.0% (4.4% among males and 7.8% among females) which was 30% to 41% of the self-reported prevalence. The highest treated prevalence (7.2%) was found in the age group of 18-64 years, followed by age groups of >64 years (7.0%) and <18 years (2.1%). The average cost per patient per year was $5096 ($5878 for males and $4652 for females), of which hospitalizations accounted for 65.0%, outpatient clinic visits 16.4%, ED visits 9.5%, prescription drugs 4.7%, GP visits 3.9%, and specialist visits 0.4%. The total cost of patients with CP for the health system was $1.37 billion (∼7% of total health expenditure), of which males accounted for 41.7% and females for 58.3%. Discussion: Our findings suggest that the economic burden of CP is considerable and that many people with self-reported CP do not use the public healthcare services. This can be multifactorial, including lack of availability and accessibility of publicly funded services, people's lack of awareness of available services, lower utilization due to COVID-19 pandemic, and reliance on self-management, private services, and alternative treatments. Further studies are warranted to inform future policies and health system initiatives aiming to reduce the burden of CP and improve lives of people living with it.

Documenting cannabis use in primary care: a descriptive cross-sectional study using electronic medical record data in Alberta, Canada.

OBJECTIVE: Documenting cannabis use is important for patient care, but no formal requirements for consistent reporting exist in primary care. The objective of this study was to understand how cannabis use is documented in primary care electronic medical record (EMR) data. RESULTS: This was a cross-sectional study using de-identified EMR data from over 398,000 patients and 333 primary care providers in Alberta, Canada. An automated pattern-matching algorithm was developed to identify text and ICD-9 diagnostic codes indicating cannabis use in the EMR. There was a total of 11,724 records indicating cannabis use from 4652 patients, representing approximately 1.2% of the patient sample. Commonly used terms and ICD-9 codes included cannabis, marijuana/marihuana, THC, 304.3 and 305.2. Nabilone was the most frequently prescribed cannabinoid medication. Slightly more males and those with a chronic condition had cannabis use recorded more often. Overall, very few patients have cannabis use recorded in primary care EMR data and this is not captured in a systematic way. We propose several strategies to improve the documentation of cannabis use to facilitate more effective clinical care, research, and surveillance.

PEER simplified chronic pain guideline: Management of chronic low back, osteoarthritic, and neuropathic pain in primary care.

OBJECTIVE: To develop a clinical practice guideline to support the management of chronic pain, including low back, osteoarthritic, and neuropathic pain in primary care. METHODS: The guideline was developed with an emphasis on best available evidence and shared decision-making principles. Ten health professionals (4 generalist family physicians, 1 pain management-focused family physician, 1 anesthesiologist, 1 physical therapist, 1 pharmacist, 1 nurse practitioner, and 1 psychologist), a patient representative, and a nonvoting pharmacist and guideline methodologist comprised the Guideline Committee. Member selection was based on profession, practice setting, and lack of financial conflicts of interest. The guideline process was iterative in identification of key questions, evidence review, and development of guideline recommendations. Three systematic reviews, including a total of 285 randomized controlled trials, were completed. Randomized controlled trials were included only if they reported a responder analysis (eg, how many patients achieved a 30% or greater reduction in pain). The committee directed an Evidence Team (composed of evidence experts) to address an additional 11 complementary questions. Key recommendations were derived through committee consensus. The guideline and shared decision-making tools underwent extensive review by clinicians and patients before publication. RECOMMENDATIONS: Physical activity is recommended as the foundation for managing osteoarthritis and chronic low back pain; evidence of benefit is unclear for neuropathic pain. Cognitive-behavioural therapy or mindfulness-based stress reduction are also suggested as options for managing chronic pain. Treatments for which there is clear, unclear, or no benefit are outlined for each condition. Treatments for which harms likely outweigh benefits for all or most conditions studied include opioids and cannabinoids. CONCLUSION: This guideline for the management of chronic pain, including osteoarthritis, low back pain, and neuropathic pain, highlights best available evidence including both benefits and harms for a number of treatment interventions. A strong recommendation for exercise as the primary treatment for chronic osteoarthritic and low back pain is made based on demonstrated long-term evidence of benefit. This information is intended to assist with, not dictate, shared decision making with patients.

Lignes directrices simplifiées de PEER sur la douleur chronique: Gestion de la douleur chronique lombaire, arthrosique et neuropathique en première ligne.

OBJECTIF: Formuler des lignes directrices de pratique clinique pour soutenir la prise en charge de la douleur chronique, y compris la douleur lombaire, arthrosique et neuropathique, dans les soins primaires. MÉTHODES: Ces lignes directrices ont été élaborées en mettant l'accent sur les meilleures données probantes disponibles et sur les principes de décision partagée. Dix professionnels de la santé (4 omnipraticiens, 1 médecin de famille spécialisée en gestion de la douleur, 1 anesthésiste, 1 physiothérapeute, 1 pharmacienne, 1 infirmière praticienne et 1 psychologue), 1 représentant des patients, et 1 pharmacienne et spécialiste de la méthodologie des lignes directrices sans droit de vote composaient le comité des lignes directrices. Les membres ont été sélectionnés en fonction de leur profession, de leur milieu de pratique, et de l'absence d'un conflit d'intérêts de nature financière. Les lignes directrices sont le fruit d'un processus itératif incluant la détermination des questions clés, l'examen des données probantes et la formulation des recommandations des lignes directrices. Trois revues systématiques, totalisant 285 études avec répartition aléatoire et contrôlées ont été réalisées. Ces études n'étaient incluses que si elles avaient rapporté une analyse des répondants (p. ex. combien de patients ont obtenu un soulagement d'au moins 30% de la douleur). Le comité a confié à une équipe d'examen des données (composée de spécialistes des données probantes) la tâche de répondre à 11 autres questions complémentaires. Les principales recommandations découlent d'un consensus au sein du comité. Des cliniciens et des patients ont minutieusement examiné les lignes directrices et les outils de décision partagée avant leur publication. RECOMMANDATIONS: L'activité physique est recommandée comme fondement de la gestion de la douleur arthrosique et lombaire chronique; les données probantes étayant un bienfait ne sont pas concluantes dans le cas de la douleur neuropathique. La thérapie cognitivo-comportementale ou la réduction du stress basée sur la pleine conscience sont également suggérées comme des options pour gérer la douleur chronique. Les traitements pour lesquels le bienfait est clair, non concluant ou absent sont décrits sous chaque affection. Les traitements dont les préjudices surpassent probablement les bienfaits pour toutes les affections étudiées, ou la plupart d'entre elles, sont les opioïdes et les cannabinoïdes. CONCLUSION: Ces lignes directrices sur la gestion de la douleur chronique, y compris la douleur arthrosique, lombaire et neuropathique, met en lumière les meilleures données probantes disponibles, y compris les bienfaits et préjudices pour un certain nombre d'interventions thérapeutiques. Une forte recommandation en faveur de l'exercice comme principal traitement de la douleur arthrosique et lombaire chronique repose sur des données probantes ayant démontré un bienfait depuis longtemps. Cette information vise à contribuer au processus de décision partagée avec le patient et non à le dicter.

Operative Time Is Independently Associated With Morbidity in Pediatric Complicated Appendicitis.

INTRODUCTION: Complicated appendicitis is a common cause of morbidity in children. Studies have analyzed the risk factors in the surgical treatment of this pathology, including obesity and disease severity, but not operative time (OT). We hypothesize that OT is independently associated with increased morbidity for children with complicated appendicitis. METHODS: Data were extracted from the 2018 and 2019 National Surgical Quality Improvement Program-Pediatrics data sets. Patients aged 2-18 y who underwent laparoscopic appendectomy for complicated appendicitis were identified. Patient demographics, disease severity, and operative details were evaluated. Surgical site infections (SSIs), hospital length of stay (LOS), ≤30-d readmissions and reoperations, interventional radiologic drain (IR-drain) placement, pneumonia, and death were analyzed. Logistic and linear regression analyses were performed. RESULTS: A total of 8168 patients were analyzed, with a mean age of 9.96 ± 3.9 y and a mean weight of 41.2 ± 21.2 kg. The mean OT was 55.8 ± 24.9 min, with a mean LOS of 5.15 ± 3.37 d. For every 1-min increase in OT, there was an independently associated increase in the likelihood of any SSI (odds ratio [OR] = 1.01; 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.008-1.013), superficial SSI (OR = 1.01; 95% CI 1.004-1.020), organ-space SSI (OR = 1.01; 95% CI 1.008-1.013), IR-drain placement (OR = 1.01; 95% CI 1.008-1.013), and readmission (OR = 1.004; 95% CI 1.000-1.007). CONCLUSIONS: Prolonged OT is independently associated with greater likelihood of any SSI, superficial SSI, organ-space SSI, IR-drain placement, readmission and reoperation within 30 d, and longer hospital LOS. There is a need to determine modifiable factors that prolong OT to aid in the optimization of routine operations to reduce patient morbidity.

Pain management with opioids in adults.

Given the ubiquitous nature of opioids in the treatment of pain, it is an interesting paradox that this class of medications also represents one of the least understood components of clinical pain medicine. For many years, there has been intense interest in the mechanisms of opioid activity, but this has not resulted in a corresponding increase in convincing clinical data. This review focuses primarily on the evidence surrounding the long-term use of opioids in chronic pain, but discussions of this research are often conflated with the very different data governing acute and cancer-related pain, where evidence of efficacy is clearer. It is therefore important to clarify the evidence-based indications for opioid therapy. There remains very little evidence that opioids improve function or quality of life beyond 3 months in people with chronic pain conditions. In all three patient populations, the development of tolerance, dependence, hyperalgesia and withdrawal are key phenomena that affect the patient experience, and in particular the decision to remain on opioids in the long term. This is a common thread that connects the opioid literature in all of these spheres, and justifies the burgeoning interest in these phenomena in the basic science literature. There is an urgent need to address these negative consequences of opioid use, in order to maximize the therapeutic benefit that opioids can offer.

Association between supportive interventions and healthcare utilization and outcomes in patients on long-term prescribed opioid therapy presenting to acute healthcare settings: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Long-term prescription of opioids by healthcare professionals has been linked to poor individual patient outcomes and high resource utilization. Supportive strategies in this population regarding acute healthcare settings may have substantial impact. METHODS: We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of primary studies. The studies were included according to the following criteria: 1) age 18 and older; 2) long-term prescribed opioid therapy; 3) acute healthcare setting presentation from a complication of opioid therapy; 4) evaluating a supportive strategy; 5) comparing the effectiveness of different interventions; 6) addressing patient or healthcare related outcomes. We performed a qualitative analysis of supportive strategies identified. We pooled patient and system related outcome data for each supportive strategy. RESULTS: A total of 5664 studies were screened and 19 studies were included. A total of 9 broad categories of supportive strategies were identified. Meta-analysis was performed for the "supports for patients in pain" supportive strategy on two system-related outcomes using a ratio of means. The number of emergency department (ED) visits were significantly reduced for cohort studies (n = 6, 0.36, 95% CI [0.20-0.62], I2 = 87%) and randomized controlled trials (RCTs) (n = 3, 0.71, 95% CI [0.61-0.82], I2 = 0%). The number of opioid prescriptions at ED discharge was significantly reduced for RCTs (n = 3, 0.34, 95% CI [0.14-0.82], I2 = 78%). CONCLUSION: For patients presenting to acute healthcare settings with complications related to long-term opioid therapy, the intervention with the most robust data is "supports for patients in pain".

Association between harm reduction strategies and healthcare utilization in patients on long-term prescribed opioid therapy presenting to acute healthcare settings: a protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis.

INTRODUCTION: Opioids are routinely used to treat a variety of chronic conditions associated with pain. However, they are a class of medications with a significant potential for adverse health effects, with and without misuse. Opioid misuse, as defined as inappropriate use of appropriately prescribed opioids, is becoming more well-recognized publicly but does not have clear treatment options. Opioid misuse has been linked to variety of poor outcomes and its consequences have a significant impact on healthcare resource utilization. The evidence on harm reduction strategies to mitigate adverse events prompting presentation to acute care settings for patients presenting with long-term opioid use is sparse. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: We will perform a systematic review and meta-analysis to catalog effective harm reduction strategies and identify the most effective ones to reduce avoidable healthcare utilization in patients on long-term opioid therapy who present to acute health care settings with complications attributed to opioid misuse. A search strategy will be developed and executed by an information specialist; electronic databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, Cochrane Library) and additional sources will be searched. Search themes will include opioids, chronic drug use, and acute healthcare settings. Citation screening, selection, quality assessment, and data abstraction will be performed in duplicate. A comprehensive inventory of harm reduction strategies will be developed. Data will be collected on patient-related outcomes associated with each identified harm reduction strategy. When sufficiently homogeneous data on interventions, population, and outcomes is available, it will be pooled for aggregate analysis. Evaluation of the methodological quality of individual studies and of the quality of the body of evidence will be performed. Our primary objective will be to identify harm reduction strategies that have been shown to result in clinically relevant and statistically significant improvements in patient outcomes and/or decreased healthcare utilization. DISCUSSION: This study will better characterize harm reduction strategies for patients on long-term prescribed opioids presenting to acute healthcare settings. It will also add new knowledge and generate greater understanding of key knowledge gaps of the long-term prescribed opioid use and its impact on healthcare utilization. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: CRD42018088962 .

Physician-to-physician telephone consultations for chronic pain patients: A pragmatic randomized trial.

BACKGROUND: The impact of telephone consultations between pain specialists and primary care physicians regarding the care of patients with chronic pain is unknown. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the impact of telephone consultations between pain specialists and primary care physicians regarding the care of patients with chronic pain. METHODS: Patients referred to an interdisciplinary chronic pain service were randomly assigned to either receive usual care by the primary care physician, or to have their case discussed in a telephone consultation between a pain specialist and the referring primary care physician. Patients completed a numerical rating scale for pain, the Pain Disability Index and the Short Form-36 on referral, as well as three and six months later. Primary care physicians completed a brief survey to assess their impressions of the telephone consultation. RESULTS: Eighty patients were randomly assigned to either the usual care group or the standard telephone consultation group, and 67 completed the study protocol. Patients were comparable on baseline pain and demographic characteristics. No differences were found between the groups at six months after referral in regard to pain, disability or quality of life measures. Eighty percent of primary care physicians indicated that they learned new patient care strategies from the telephone consultation, and 97% reported that the consultation answered their questions and helped in the care of their patient. DISCUSSION: Most primary care physicians reported that a telephone consultation with a pain specialist answered their questions, improved their patients' care and resulted in new learning. Differences in patient status compared with a usual care control group were not detectable at six-month follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: While telephone consultations are clearly an acceptable strategy for knowledge translation, additional strategies may be required to actually impact patient outcomes.

Sublingual buprenorphine as an analgesic in chronic pain: a systematic review.

OBJECTIVE: There is growing interest in the use of sublingual buprenorphine for the treatment of chronic pain due to the unique pharmacology of buprenorphine, widespread use of the transdermal buprenorphine patch for chronic pain, and recent availability of sublingual buprenorphine tablets for the treatment of opioid dependence. The aim of this systematic review was to evaluate the evidence from clinical trials that have assessed the effectiveness of sublingual buprenorphine for chronic pain analgesia. METHODS: Electronic searches of MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews were used to identify clinical trials of sublingual buprenorphine for the treatment of chronic pain. RESULTS: Ten trials involving 1,190 patients were included in the review. Due to heterogeneity of studies, pooling of the results and meta-analysis were not possible. All studies reported that sublingual buprenorphine demonstrated some effectiveness as a chronic pain analgesic. The majority of studies were observational and of low quality. CONCLUSIONS: Preliminary trials suggest a plausible role; however, due to a paucity of high-quality trials, the current evidence is insufficient to determine the effectiveness of sublingual buprenorphine for the treatment of chronic pain. Rigorous further trials are warranted.