Opioid tapering and mental health crisis in older adults.

BACKGROUND: Opioid tapering and discontinuation have increased in recent years with the implementation of national prescribing guidelines. This study aimed to examine the relationship between opioid tapering velocity and mental health crisis events in older Medicare beneficiaries. METHODS: A nested case-control study was conducted using the 2012-2018, 5% national Medicare claims data. Older adults with chronic non-cancer pain (CNCP) who were receiving long-term opioid therapy (LTOT) were included in the study. Cases were defined as individuals experiencing mental health crisis events; controls were identified using incidence density sampling. The opioid tapering velocity was measured in the 120-day hazard period that yielded a monthly percentage of dose change. Conditional logistic regression was used to assess the relationship of interest. RESULTS: A total of 42 091 older adults with CNCP were eligible for the study. Cases (n = 952) were matched with controls in a 1:2 ratio based on age (±1 year) and time of cohort entry (±30 days). A higher percentage of controls (67.65%) were on steady dose compared with cases (59.03%). In the adjusted model, tapering (aOR = 1.36; 95% CI: 1.02-1.83), rapid tapering (aOR = 1.45; 95% CI: 1.11-1.91), and dose escalation (aOR = 1.78; 95% CI: 1.32-2.39) were significantly associated with the mental health crisis, compared with steady dose. CONCLUSION: Both opioid tapering and dose escalation are associated with mental health crisis events. Patient-driven and gradual dose tapering, as recommended by prescribing guidelines, should be promoted to prevent mental health crisis events among older adults on LTOT.

Trajectories of prescription opioid tapering in patients with chronic non-cancer pain: a retrospective cohort study, 2015-2020.

OBJECTIVE: To identify common opioid tapering trajectories among patients commencing opioid taper from long-term opioid therapy for chronic non-cancer pain and to examine patient-level characteristics associated with these different trajectories. DESIGN: A retrospective cohort study. SETTING: Australian primary care. SUBJECTS: Patients prescribed opioid analgesics between 2015 and 2020. METHODS: Group-based trajectory modeling and multinomial logistic regression analysis were conducted to determine tapering trajectories and to examine demographic and clinical factors associated with the different trajectories. RESULTS: A total of 3369 patients commenced a taper from long-term opioid therapy. Six distinct opioid tapering trajectories were identified: low dose / completed taper (12.9%), medium dose / faster taper (12.2%), medium dose / gradual taper (6.5%), low dose / noncompleted taper (21.3%), medium dose / noncompleted taper (30.4%), and high dose / noncompleted taper (16.7%). A completed tapering trajectory from a high opioid dose was not identified. Among patients prescribed medium opioid doses, those who completed their taper were more likely to have higher geographically derived socioeconomic status (relative risk ratio [RRR], 1.067; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.001-1.137) and less likely to have sleep disorders (RRR, 0.661; 95% CI, 0.463-0.945) than were those who didn't complete their taper. Patients who didn't complete their taper were more likely to be prescribed strong opioids (eg, morphine, oxycodone), regardless of whether they were tapered from low (RRR, 1.444; 95% CI, 1.138-1.831) or high (RRR, 1.344; 95% CI, 1.027-1.760) doses. CONCLUSIONS: Those prescribed strong opioids and high doses appear to be less likely to complete tapering. Further studies are needed to evaluate the clinical outcomes associated with the identified trajectories.

A Conceptual Analysis of Opioid Use Disorder in Chronic Noncancer Pain Using Rodger's Evolutionary Approach.

OBJECTIVE: This study aims to examine the complex nature of opioid use disorder (OUD) in chronic noncancer pain (CNCP) by exploring its antecedents, attributes, consequences, and interrelated concepts. DESIGN: A systematic literature review was conducted to gather relevant studies published between 2015 and 2022, utilizing the CINAHL, MEDLINE, PsycINFO, and PubMed databases. DATA SOURCES: The selected databases provided a comprehensive range of articles related to OUD in CNCP, ensuring a comprehensive topic analysis. METHODS: Twenty-two articles meeting the inclusion criteria were included in the analysis. These articles were critically reviewed and analyzed to identify key themes and concepts related to OUD in CNCP. RESULTS: The findings of this study shed light on the multifaceted aspects of OUD in CNCP, including its antecedents, such as goals of physical function improvement, prescription of opioids for CNCP, social influences, and mental health dynamics. The attributes of OUD in CNCP were identified as chronic pain, noncancer pain, opioid use, misuse, and abuse. OUD's consequences in CNCP include impaired functioning, increased health risks, psychological distress, social challenges, and economic burden. CONCLUSION: Understanding the complexity of OUD in CNCP is crucial for improving patient outcomes. Collaborative efforts among healthcare systems, regulatory bodies, and professional organizations are needed to develop policies promoting safe and effective pain management while mitigating risks associated with opioid use in CNCP. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: Implementing policy recommendations derived from this study enhances care and outcomes for individuals with CNCP. By addressing complex issues of OUD in CNCP and adopting evidence-based practices, healthcare providers can optimize pain management and promote well-being in CNCP patients.

Public Perceptions of Opioid Use for Chronic Non-Cancer Pain.

Background: Chronic non-cancer pain affects 20% of Americans. This is significantly impacted by the ongoing opioid crisis and reduced opioid dispensing. Public perceptions additionally shape pain management strategies. Purpose: This study explores public attitudes toward prescription opioids for chronic non-cancer pain. We aim to understand how public attitudes are influenced by the evolving opioid crisis and shifting opioid use patterns. Methods: In Michigan, 823 adults participated in a Qualtrics survey on attitudes toward nonmedical and medical prescription opioid use. Multivariable logistic regression was performed to identify factors associated with beliefs that doctors prescribe opioids for too long (Model 1) and chronic pain patients should transition to alternative treatments (Model 2). Results: About half (49.4%) of respondents believed doctors keep patients on prescription opioids for too long, while two-thirds (65.7%) agreed chronic pain patients should be tapered off medications. Knowing someone who misused opioids and perceptions of substance use (e.g. perceived risk of prescription opioid misuse, stigma toward chronic pain patients, perceived prevalence of prescription opioid misuse, and awareness of fentanyl) were associated with greater odds of believing doctors keep patients on opioids too long. Demographics (age and education), substance use histories and perceptions (e.g. perceived risk and stigma) were associated with greater odds of believing patients should be tapered off their medication. Conclusions: These findings inform strategies to correct public misperceptions, emphasizing the importance of personal experience, perceived risks, and stigmatization of chronic pain patients. This insight can guide effective pain management for those with chronic non-cancer pain.

Effects of state opioid prescribing cap laws on providers' opioid prescribing patterns among patients with chronic non-cancer pain.

Prior work suggests opioid prescribing cap laws are not associated with changes in opioid prescribing among patients with chronic pain. It is unknown how these effects differ by provider specialty, provider opioid prescribing volume, or patient insurer. This study assessed effects of state opioid prescribing cap laws on opioid prescribing among providers of patients with chronic non-cancer pain, by high volume prescribing, provider specialty, and patient insurer. We identified 224,290 providers of patients with low back pain, fibromyalgia, or headache from the IQVIA administrative database. Using a difference-in-differences approach, we examined impacts of opioid prescribing cap laws implemented between 2016 and 2018 on the annual proportion of a provider's patient panel who received any opioid prescription, as well as on dose and duration of opioid prescriptions. For providers overall, high volume prescribers, all specialties, and patient insurance categories, prescribing cap laws were associated with non-significant changes of <1.0, 1.5, and 3.5 percentage points in the proportion of chronic non-cancer patients receiving any opioid prescription, a prescription with 7 days' supply, or with >50 morphine milligram equivalents (MME)/day, per year, respectively. There were two exceptions with high dose prescribing: prescribing cap laws were associated with a 1.5 percentage point increase in the proportion of high-volume prescribers' patient panel receiving an opioid prescription with ≥50 MME/day, and a 3.0 percentage point decrease in the same measure among surgeons. Among nearly all measured subgroups of providers and patient insurers, opioid prescribing cap laws were not associated with changes in opioid prescribing.

Self-Management Programs for Chronic Non-Cancer Pain: A Rapid Review of Randomized Trials.

BACKGROUND: The body of evidence regarding self-management programs (SMPs) for adult chronic non-cancer pain (CNCP) is steadily growing, and regular updates are needed for effective decision-making. OBJECTIVES: To systematically identify, critically appraise, and summarize the findings from randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of SMPs for CNCP. METHODS: We searched relevant databases from 2009 to August 2021 and included English-language RCT publications of SMPs compared with usual care for CNCP among adults (18+ years old). The primary outcome was health-related quality of life (HR-QoL). We conducted meta-analysis using an inverse variance, random-effects model and calculated the standardized mean difference (SMD) and associated 95% confidence interval (CI) and statistical heterogeneity using the I2 statistic. RESULTS: From 8538 citations, we included 28 RCTs with varying patient populations, standards for SMPs, and usual care. No RCTs were classified as having a low risk of bias. There was no evidence of a significant improvement in overall HR-QoL, irrespective of pain type, immediately post-intervention (SMD 0.01, 95%CI -0.21 to 0.24; I2 57%; 11 RCTs; 979 participants), 1-4 months post-intervention (SMD 0.02, 95%CI -0.16 to 0.20; I2 48.7%; 12 RCTs; 1160 participants), and 6-12 months post-intervention (SMD 0.07, 95%CI -0.06 to 0.21; I2 26.1%; 9 RCTs; 1404 participants). Similar findings were made for physical and mental HR-QoL, and for specific QoL assessment scales (e.g., SF-36). CONCLUSIONS: There is a lack of evidence that SMPs are efficacious for CNCP compared with usual care. Standardization of SMPs for CNCP and better planned/conducted RCTs are needed to confirm these conclusions.

Telehealth for management of chronic non-cancer pain and opioid use disorder in safety net primary care.

BACKGROUND: The SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19) pandemic increased use of telehealth for the management of opioid use disorder and chronic non-cancer pain in primary care safety net clinical systems. Significant barriers to telehealth exist, little is known about how these barriers impact urban safety net, primary care providers and their patients. The objective of this study was to qualitatively assess the benefits and challenges of telehealth for management of chronic non-cancer pain, opioid use disorder, and multi-morbidity in primary care, safety net clinical systems. METHODS: We interviewed patients with chronic non-cancer pain and history of substance use (n = 22) and their primary care clinicians (n = 7) in the San Francisco Bay Area, March-July 2020. We recorded, transcribed, coded, and content analyzed interviews. RESULTS: COVID-19 shelter-in-place orders contributed to increases in substance use and uncontrolled pain, and posed challenges for monitoring opioid safety and misuse through telehealth. None of the clinics used video visits due to low digital literacy/access. Benefits of telehealth included decreased patient burden and missed appointments and increased convenience and control of some chronic conditions (e.g., diabetes, hypertension). Telehealth challenges included loss of contact, greater miscommunication, and less comprehensive care interactions. CONCLUSIONS: This study is one of the first to examine telehealth use in urban safety net primary care patients with co-occurring chronic non-cancer pain and substance use. Decisions to continue or expand telehealth should consider patient burden, communication and technology challenges, pain control, opioid misuse, and medical complexity.

Opioid misuse in community pharmacy patients with chronic non-cancer pain.

AIMS: Community pharmacists could contribute to identify people misusing prescription opioids, which may be associated with hospitalizations, substance use disorders and death. This study investigated prescription opioid misuse in community pharmacy patients and the factors potentially associated with high Prescription Opioid Misuse Index (POMI) scores. METHODS: In this cross-sectional study, pharmacy students asked patients with opioid prescriptions to fill in a questionnaire (including the POMI) in community pharmacies in a French region, in April 2019. Eligible patients were adults with chronic non-cancer pain who consented to participate. RESULTS: In total, 414 patients (62.4% women; mean age: 58.00 years ± 16.00) were included. The prescribed opioids were mainly weak opioids (73.2%; paracetamol/tramadol: 35%). Strong opioids (32.6%) included oxycodone (11.95%), fentanyl (9%) and morphine (9%). The median morphine milligram equivalent (MME) was 40 mg/day (IQR25-75 : 20-80). The POMI score (0 to 6) was ≥4 in 16% of patients who were younger (P < .01), more urban (P = .03), with higher pain visual analogue scale (VAS) score (P < .01) and MME (P < .01), and treated more frequently with strong opioids (P = .04). In multivariate analysis, age (ORfor 10y : 0.68 (95% CI: 0.56-0.82, P < .0001)), VAS (OR2units : 1.78 (95% CI: 1.26-2.40, P = .0008)), and MME (>100 mg, OR: 2.65 (95% CI: 1.14-4.41, P = .0194)) were significantly associated with POMI scores ≥4. CONCLUSIONS: The high proportion of patients with high POMI scores underlines the interest of prescription opioid misuse screening in community pharmacies, in order to help these patients and refer them to pain specialists, if needed.

Comparative benefits and harms of individual opioids for chronic non-cancer pain: a systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomised trials.

BACKGROUND: Most systematic reviews of opioids for chronic pain have pooled treatment effects across individual opioids under the assumption they provide similar benefits and harms. We examined the comparative effects of individual opioids for chronic non-cancer pain through a network meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials. METHODS: We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials to March 2021 for studies that enrolled patients with chronic non-cancer pain, randomised them to receive different opioids, or opioids vs placebo, and followed them for at least 4 weeks. Certainty of evidence was evaluated using the GRADE approach. RESULTS: We identified 82 eligible trials (22 619 participants) that evaluated 14 opioids. Compared with placebo, several opioids showed superiority to others for analgesia and improvement in physical function; however, when restricted to pooled-effect estimates supported by moderate certainty evidence, no differences between opioids were evident. Among opioids with moderate certainty evidence, all increased the risk of gastrointestinal adverse events compared with placebo, although no opioids were more harmful than others. Low to very low certainty evidence suggests that extended-release vs immediate-release opioids may provide similar benefits for pain relief and physical functioning, and gastrointestinal harms. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings support the pooling of effect estimates across different types and formulations of opioids to inform effectiveness for chronic non-cancer pain.

"Frustrated with the whole system": a qualitative framework analysis of the issues faced by people accessing health services for chronic pain.

BACKGROUND: Chronic non-cancer pain (CNCP) is complex and often requires multimodal management comprising of both pharmacological and non-pharmacological treatments. To inform delivery of CNCP management, it is important to understand how current health services providing non-pharmacological treatments are accessed by exploring the experiences of people attempting to access services. In doing so, this study sought to explore the underlying drivers of service access barriers. METHODS: This study explored the experiences of Australians accessing services for CNCP using semi-structured telephone interviews undertaken between 01 October 2020 and 31 March 2021. Thematic analysis was guided by Levesque et al.'s 2013 conceptual framework of access to health care, with emerging themes mapped to five dimensions of accessibility and corresponding abilities of consumers: Approachability/Ability to perceive; Acceptability/Ability to seek; Availability and Accommodation/Ability to reach; Affordability/Ability to pay; and Appropriateness/Ability to engage. RESULTS: The 26 participants (aged 24-78 years, 22 female) reported accessing a range of services including general practitioners (GP), allied health services, and specialised pain clinics, for a variety of conditions. Three themes were mapped to accessibility dimensions (in brackets): 'GP as guide or gatekeeper' (Approachability); 'Outside of my control' (Availability and Accommodation; Affordability); and 'Services aren't always good enough' (Appropriateness). A fourth identified theme illustrated how participants responded to encountering these barriers: 'Leading my own pain management'. Participant experiences suggest problems with the translation of contemporary pain management principles into practice, including continued application of biomedical health models as opposed to the biopsychosocial model, and demonstrate systemic issues with service delivery, including a lack of benchmarking of specialised services. CONCLUSIONS: The identified themes highlight several evidence-to-practice gaps in the delivery of health services for people with CNCP in Australia. To address these gaps, there is a need for improved clinician training, increased investment in specialised pain services, and development of clear primary care pathways for CNCP management for evidence-based multimodal pain management to be accessible and equitable.

A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Cognitive Performance among People with Chronic Use of Opioids for Chronic Non-Cancer Pain.

OBJECTIVE: Opioids, often prescribed for chronic non-cancer pain, may adversely affect cognition. Research has not been synthesized in recent years, during which time academic interest has increased. This study presents meta-analyses on cognitive performance in people taking opioids for chronic non-cancer pain (CNCP). METHODS: We ran systematic literature searches in EMBASE, Medline, and PsycINFO. Eligible studies included people taking opioids for CNCP, an opioid-free group (i.e., case-control) or session (e.g., pre-post), and objective cognitive assessments. Using random-effects meta-analyses, we computed pooled effect sizes for differential task performance for each study design across five domains (motor performance, attention, working memory, executive functions, memory). RESULTS: Seventeen studies were included. Case-control studies covered three control types (healthy, CNCP, taper-off). Pre-post studies were grouped into five follow-ups (four to six and six to nine weeks; three, six, and 12 months). Effect sizes ranged from 0.02-0.62. Cases showed small magnitude impairments in attention and memory compared with healthy controls. Although limited by small sample sizes, there was no clear evidence of impairment in cases compared with opioid-free controls with CNCP. Cases showed some cognitive improvements from opioid-free baseline to follow-up. Effects were strongest for attention and working memory and were apparent from four weeks to six months follow-up. Other effects were small and nonsignificant. CONCLUSIONS: Opioid therapy for CNCP did not worsen cognitive performance and improved it for some domains. People who take opioids for CNCP may evidence deficits in attention and memory, but this is unlikely to translate to global impairment and likely relates to pain more so than opioids.

Nabiximols in Chronic Neuropathic Pain: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Placebo-Controlled Trials.

OBJECTIVE: Pooled analysis of nabiximols and placebo in randomized controlled studies (RCTs) of chronic neuropathic pain. DESIGN: Systematic review and meta-analysis. METHODS: A systematic literature search was conducted to identify double-blind placebo-controlled RCTs of nabiximols for chronic neuropathic pain. The clinical endpoint of interest was change from baseline in mean pain score on 11-point numerical rating scales. Mean difference (MD) and standardized mean difference (SMD, Hedges' g) were calculated using fixed effect (FE) and random effects (RE) models. Strength of evidence was assessed using the Cochrane Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) tool. Risk of bias was assessed using the revised Cochrane risk-of-bias tool (RoB 2). RESULTS: Nine RCTs with 1289 participants were included. Quality of evidence (GRADE) was moderate. One study had a high risk of bias (RoB 2) and five had some concerns. For the pooled endpoint of change from baseline in mean pain score, nabiximols was superior to placebo, with a MD of -0.40 (95% confidence interval [CI]: -.59 to -.21; FE, P < .0001) or -0.44 (95% CI: -.70 to -.19; RE, P = .0006). A SMD of -0.21 (95% CI: -.32 to -.10; FE) or -0.26 (95% CI: -.42 to -.10; RE) indicated an incremental benefit over background analgesia. Results in favor of nabiximols were maintained in sensitivity analyses. CONCLUSIONS: Nabiximols was superior to placebo for reduction of chronic neuropathic pain, with a small effect size. Larger RCTs designed to assess the effect of nabiximols in neuropathic pain are required to reach more definitive conclusions.

Perspectives of pain specialists, patients, and family members on long-term opioid use for chronic non-cancer pain: a qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: Opioids are currently prescribed for chronic non-cancer pain (CNCP), and some patients use opioids continuously for long-term treatment. Stakeholders' awareness about long-term opioid therapy is essential for improving the safety and effectiveness of pain treatment. The purpose of this study is to explore the perspectives of pain specialists, patients, and family caregivers about long-term opioid use in CNCP management. METHODS: This study was a qualitative study and adhered to the COREQ guidelines. Pain specialists (n = 12), patients (n = 14), and family members (n = 9) were recruited to the study by purposive sampling at the Pain Clinic of Ramathibodi Hospital. Semi-structured interviews were recorded, verbatim transcribed, conceptually coded, and analyzed using Atlas.ti 8.0. RESULTS: All groups of participants described opioids as non-first-line drugs for pain management. Opioids should be prescribed only for severe pain, when non-opioid pharmacotherapy and non-pharmacological therapies are not effective. Patients reported that the benefits of opioids were for pain relief, while physicians and most family members highlighted that opioid use should improve functional outcomes. Physicians and family members expressed concerns about opioid-related side effects, harm, and adverse events, while patients did not. Patients confirmed that they would continue using opioids for pain management under supervision. However, physicians stated that they would taper off or discontinue opioid therapy if patients' pain relief or functional improvement was not achieved. Both patients and family members were willing to consider non-pharmacological therapies if potential benefits existed. Patient education, doctor-patient/family relationships, and opioid prescription policies were proposed to enhance CNCP management. CONCLUSION: Long-term opioid therapy for CNCP may be beneficial in patients who have established realistic treatment goals (for both pain relief and functional improvement) with their physicians. Regular monitoring and evaluation of the risks and benefits, adverse events, and drug-related aberrant behaviors are necessary. Integrated multimodal multidisciplinary therapies and family member collaborations are also important for improving CNCP management.

Efficacy of a combination of hypnosis and transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation for chronic non-cancer pain: A randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Chronic non-cancer pain, which persists for at least three months, seriously affects quality of life. Chronic non-cancer pain patients are usually managed by a multidisciplinary team using pharmacological and non-pharmacological strategies. Nurses perform transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS) and hypnosis, which are widely used in France for the treatment of chronic pain in pain departments. OBJECTIVE: To assess pain relief at three months, comparing a simultaneous combination of hypnosis and TENS (intervention) with TENS alone (control). DESIGN: Randomized controlled trial. METHODS: Patients aged 18-80 years, suffering from chronic peripheral neuropathic and/or nociceptive non-cancer pain were included (September 2013 to May 2017) and followed for six months. The primary outcome was the pain intensity difference (by visual analog scale score) between month 3 and baseline. The secondary outcomes, assessed at months 3 and 6, were SF36 score, analgesics consumption and number of TENS sessions performed at home (last seven days). RESULTS: Seventy-two patients were included, suffering from a combination of chronic non-cancer nociceptive and neuropathic pain, with a mean pain intensity of about sixty out of a hundred. The results show an important pain reduction (forty percent) in both groups at 3 months. No significant difference was observed between the control and intervention groups. Similarly, SF36 score, change in analgesic intake and patient compliance did not differ significantly between groups. CONCLUSIONS: This is the first randomized controlled study showing a decrease of pain intensity and a high level of compliance with transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation alone or associated to hypnosis. The combination does not seem to be more efficient than transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation alone. Chronic non-cancer pain remains a major issue and a substantial proportion of patients do not appear to benefit from interventions. IMPACT: This study increases our understanding of the combination of two non-pharmacological methods in chronic non-cancer pain patients. The combination of the two non-pharmacological strategies did not appear to be more efficient than one alone. Further research on non-pharmacological treatments targeting to patient's characteristics are needed to find appropriate strategies in patients with complex multidimensional pain conditions. Clinical Trial Number: NCT01944150 (Sept. 17, 2013).

Addition of corticosteroids to local anaesthetics for chronic non-cancer pain injections: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials.

BACKGROUND: Despite common use, the benefit of adding steroids to local anaesthetics (SLA) for chronic non-cancer pain (CNCP) injections is uncertain. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of English-language RCTs to assess the benefit and safety of adding steroids to local anaesthetics (LA) for CNCP. METHODS: We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, and CENTRAL databases from inception to May 2019. Trial selection and data extraction were performed in duplicate. Outcomes were guided by the Initiative in Methods, Measurements, and Pain Assessment in Clinical Trials (IMMPACT) statement with pain improvement as the primary outcome and pooled using random effects model and reported as relative risks (RR) or mean differences (MD) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). RESULTS: Among 5097 abstracts, 73 trials were eligible. Although SLA increased the rate of success (42 trials, 3592 patients; RR=1.14; 95% CI, 1.03-1.25; number needed to treat [NNT], 13), the effect size decreased by nearly 50% (NNT, 22) with the removal of two intrathecal injection studies. The differences in pain scores with SLA were not clinically meaningful (54 trials, 4416 patients, MD=0.44 units; 95% CI, 0.24-0.65). No differences were observed in other outcomes or adverse events. No subgroup effects were detected based on clinical categories. Meta-regression showed no significant association with steroid dose or length of follow-up and pain relief. CONCLUSIONS: Addition of cortico steroids to local anaesthetic has only small benefits and a potential for harm. Injection of local anaesthetic alone could be therapeutic, beyond being diagnostic. A shared decision based on patient preferences should be considered. If used, one must avoid high doses and series of steroid injections. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: PROSPERO #: CRD42015020614.

All-Cause and Overdose Mortality Risk Among People Prescribed Opioids: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVE: To estimate all-cause and overdose crude mortality rates and standardized mortality ratios among people prescribed opioids for chronic noncancer pain and risk of overdose death in this population relative to people with similar clinical profiles but not prescribed opioids. DESIGN: Systematic review and meta-analysis. METHODS: Medline, Embase, and PsycINFO were searched in February 2018 and October 2019 for articles published beginning 2009. Due to limitations in published studies, we revised our inclusion criteria to include cohort studies of people prescribed opioids, excluding those studies where people were explicitly prescribed opioids for the treatment of opioid use disorder or acute cancer or palliative pain. We estimated pooled all-cause and overdose crude mortality rates using random effects meta-analysis models. No studies reported standardized mortality ratios or relative risks. RESULTS: We included 13 cohorts with 6,029,810 participants. The pooled all-cause crude mortality rate, based on 10 cohorts, was 28.8 per 1000 person-years (95% CI = 17.9-46.4), with substantial heterogeneity (I2 = 99.9%). The pooled overdose crude mortality rate, based on six cohorts, was 1.1 per 1000 person-years (95% CI = 0.4-3.4), with substantial heterogeneity (I2 = 99.5%), but indications for opioid prescribing and opioid exposure were poorly ascertained. We were unable to estimate mortality in this population relative to clinically similar populations not prescribed opioids. CONCLUSIONS: Methodological limitations in the identified literature complicate efforts to determine the overdose mortality risk of people prescribed opioids. There is a need for large-scale clinical trials to assess adverse outcomes in opioid prescribing, especially for chronic noncancer pain.

Chronic pain diagnoses and opioid dispensings among insured individuals with serious mental illness.

BACKGROUND: Individuals with major depressive disorder (MDD) and bipolar disorder (BD) have particularly high rates of chronic non-cancer pain (CNCP) and are also more likely to receive prescription opioids for their pain. However, there have been no known studies published to date that have examined opioid treatment patterns among individuals with schizophrenia. METHODS: Using electronic medical record data across 13 Mental Health Research Network sites, individuals with diagnoses of MDD (N = 65,750), BD (N = 38,117) or schizophrenia or schizoaffective disorder (N = 12,916) were identified and matched on age, sex and Medicare status to controls with no documented mental illness. CNCP diagnoses and prescription opioid medication dispensings were extracted for the matched samples. Multivariate analyses were conducted to evaluate (1) the odds of receiving a pain-related diagnosis and (2) the odds of receiving opioids, by separate mental illness diagnosis category compared with matched controls, controlling for age, sex, Medicare status, race/ethnicity, income, medical comorbidities, healthcare utilization and chronic pain diagnoses. RESULTS: Multivariable models indicated that having a MDD (OR = 1.90; 95% CI = 1.85-1.95) or BD (OR = 1.71; 95% CI = 1.66-1.77) diagnosis was associated with increased odds of a CNCP diagnosis after controlling for age, sex, race, income, medical comorbidities and healthcare utilization. By contrast, having a schizophrenia diagnosis was associated with decreased odds of receiving a chronic pain diagnosis (OR = 0.86; 95% CI = 0.82-0.90). Having a MDD (OR = 2.59; 95% CI = 2.44-2.75) or BD (OR = 2.12; 95% CI = 1.97-2.28) diagnosis was associated with increased odds of receiving chronic opioid medications, even after controlling for age, sex, race, income, medical comorbidities, healthcare utilization and chronic pain diagnosis; having a schizophrenia diagnosis was not associated with receiving chronic opioid medications. CONCLUSIONS: Individuals with serious mental illness, who are most at risk for developing opioid-related problems, continue to be prescribed opioids more often than their peers without mental illness. Mental health clinicians may be particularly well-suited to lead pain assessment and management efforts for these patients. Future research is needed to evaluate the effectiveness of involving mental health clinicians in these efforts.

Identifying appropriate outcomes to help evaluate the impact of the Canadian Guideline for Safe and Effective Use of Opioids for Non-Cancer Pain.

BACKGROUND: The Canadian Guideline for Safe and Effective Use of Opioids for Chronic Non-Cancer Pain (COG) was developed in response to increasing rates of opioid-related hospital visits and deaths in Canada, and uncertain benefits of opioids for chronic non-cancer pain (CNCP). Following publication, we developed a list of evaluable outcomes to assess the impact of this guideline on practice and patient outcomes. METHODS: A working group at the National Pain Centre at McMaster University used a modified Delphi process to construct a list of clinical and patient outcomes important in assessing the uptake and application of the COG. An advisory group then reviewed this list to determine the relevance and feasibility of each outcome, and identified potential data sources. This feedback was reviewed by the National Faculty for the Guideline, and a National Advisory Group that included the creators of the COG, resulting in the final list of 5 priority outcomes. RESULTS: Five outcomes were judged clinically important and feasible to measure: 1) Effects of opioids for CNCP on quality of life, 2) Assessment of patient's risk of addiction before starting opioid therapy, 3) Monitoring patients on opioid therapy for aberrant drug-related behaviour, 4) Mortality rates associated with prescription opioid overdose and 5) Use of treatment agreements with patients before initiating opioid therapy for CNCP. Data sources for these outcomes included patient's medical charts, e-Opioid Manager, prescription monitoring programs and administrative databases. CONCLUSION: Measuring the impact of best practice guidelines is infrequently done. Future research should consider capturing the five outcomes identified in this study to evaluate the impact of the COG in promoting evidence-based use of opioids for CNCP.

An evaluation of opioid use during acute hospital admissions.

Long-term opioid use can begin with the treatment of acute pain. However, there is little evidence concerning the impact that better opioid awareness in the acute phase may have on reducing the use of opioids in the long term. This project explored which opioids are routinely prescribed within an acute hospital setting and how these opioids were used over the course of the hospital stay. Codeine and morphine remain the most commonly prescribed opioids. Opioids were prescribed and given to people across the age range, from 16 to 98 years. The project found that 19% of patients were admitted with a pre-existing opioid. Up to 66% of patients were discharged with opioid medication, with almost 20% leaving with more than one opioid. Regular opioid use routinely exposes patients to long-term opioid use and those patients initiated onto opioid medication during admission should have the benefit of planned de-escalation before discharge.

Patient and provider differences in the treatment of opioid-induced constipation: a qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: Patients using opioids to treat chronic non-cancer pain often experience side effects that may affect health-related quality of life (HRQOL). These side effects include opioid-induced constipation (OIC), sedation, dizziness, and nausea. OIC can significantly affect HRQOL for patients on a daily basis. However, it is not well understood whether patients and clinicians view OIC management similarly. AIMS: In this study, we sought to elucidate the decision-making process around managing OIC by assessing patient and provider treatment preferences, experiences, and communication regarding this condition. METHODS: We conducted semi-structured interviews with 33 clinicians, and held three focus groups with patients who were currently using or had used opioids for chronic non-cancer pain. We then analyzed transcribed interviews using descriptive qualitative methods based on grounded theory methodology. RESULTS: Clinicians recognized OIC as a concern but prioritized pain management over constipation. They focused on medication-based treatments for OIC, but also recommended lifestyle changes (e.g., diet) and reducing opioids to relieve symptoms. Patients reported using over-the-counter treatments, but the majority focused on diet-related constipation management. Patients reported not receiving adequate information from clinicians about OIC and relevant treatments. Cost of treatment was a major concern for both patients and clinicians. CONCLUSIONS: Assessing experiences with and preferences for OIC treatment, including cost, ease of access, and side effects, could improve patient-provider communication and HRQOL. Quality improvement efforts can target uncovered misalignments between patients and clinicians to improve communication about opioid medication adverse effects and relevant treatment options, which may help improve quality of life for patients with chronic pain.