Obstetrical outcomes of women with new-onset isolated proteinuria diagnosed after 24 weeks' gestation.

PURPOSE: To assess a possible association between marked proteinuria and the risk of preeclampsia with severe features, as defined by the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. METHODS: This retrospective study included data recorded at a tertiary university-affiliated hospital between 2017 and 2022. Women at or beyond 24 weeks of gestation with proteinuria (protein levels > 300 mg in a 24 h urine collection) and normal blood pressure during the initial 48 h of admission were included. Obstetrical and neonatal outcomes were compared between women with mild proteinuria (300-1000 mg/24 h) and marked proteinuria (≥ 1000 mg/24 h). RESULTS: Among the women with marked proteinuria (n = 48) compared to those with mild proteinuria (n = 108), the incidences were higher of preeclampsia (50.0% vs. 22.2%, p = 0.001) and of preeclampsia with severe features (18.8% vs. 2.8%, p < 0.001). In multivariate analysis that adjusted for maternal age, primiparity, multiple pregnancy, uric acid level > 6 mg/dL and aspirin treatment, marked proteinuria was a risk factor for preeclampsia with severe features (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] = 10.2, confidence interval [CI] 95% 1.9-54.0, p = 0.007) and for small-for-gestational-age infants (aOR = 2.4, 95% CI 1.02-5.6, p = 0.001). Among women with marked compared to mild proteinuria, rates were also higher of labor induction (58.3% vs. 25.9%, p < 0.001), indicated preterm delivery (41.7% vs. 25.0%, p = 0.04) and admission to the neonatal intensive care unit (44.1% vs. 25.8%, p = 0.017). CONCLUSIONS: Women with marked compared to mild isolated proteinuria showed higher risk of developing preeclampsia with severe features and of delivering small-for-gestational-age neonates.

Clinical correlates and outcomes associated with pregabalin use among people prescribed opioids for chronic non-cancer pain: A five-year prospective cohort study.

AIMS: Pregabalin has become widely used as an alternative to opioids in treating certain types of chronic non-cancer pain, but few studies have examined its clinical efficacy outside trials. We address this gap by examining the utilization, correlates and clinical outcomes of pregabalin use among an Australian community-based cohort of people prescribed opioids for chronic non-cancer pain. METHODS: Through a five-year prospective cohort study (n = 1514) we examined associations between pregabalin use and pain severity and interference, mental health, opioid dose and past month use of ambulance and emergency department services. We used fixed-effects regression models to examine within-participant differences, and random-effects regression models to examine within- and between-participant differences in clinical outcomes. RESULTS: In an analysis of cases with complete data over five-years (n = 896), the prevalence of pregabalin use ranged from 16% at cohort entry to 29% at 36- and 48-months, and 46% reported pregabalin use at any time during the five years. Pregabalin use was associated with greater pain severity and interference and greater use of high-risk opioid doses (>90 oral morphine equivalents/day). Pregabalin use was not associated with changes in mental health symptoms, ambulance or emergency department attendance in the fixed or random effects models. CONCLUSIONS: Pregabalin use was common, but for most people use was not associated with clinically meaningful improvements in pain or functioning.

Antidepressant Use Among People Prescribed Opioids for Chronic Noncancer Pain.

OBJECTIVE: Although depression and chronic pain often coexist, few studies have examined antidepressant use among people with pain. This study examines the prevalence and characteristics associated with antidepressant use among people prescribed opioids for chronic noncancer pain (CNCP). DESIGN: Baseline data from a prospective cohort study. SETTING: Australian community. SUBJECTS: A total of 1166 people prescribed opioids for CNCP. METHODS: Baseline data collection consisted of a self-completed seven-day medication diary and telephone interview to collect information on sociodemographic characteristics and mental/physical health using validated questionnaires. Logistic regression was used to examine characteristics associated with antidepressant use, reporting adjusted odds ratios (AORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs). RESULTS: Of the 1166 participants, 668 (57.3%) were female, and the median (interquartile range) age was 59 (49-68) years. About half the cohort (N = 637, 54.6%) used antidepressants. Of these, 329 (51.7%) reported moderate to severe depression. Amitriptyline was the most commonly used antidepressant (17.3%). Factors independently associated with antidepressant use were being female (AOR = 1.47, 95% CI = 1.13-1.92), more years lived in pain (AOR = 1.01, 95% CI = 1.00-1.02), and use of nonopioid analgesics (AOR = 1.34, 95% CI = 1.01-1.78), benzodiazepines and related drugs (AOR = 1.84, 95% CI = 1.36-2.49), antiepileptics (AOR = 1.86, 95% CI = 1.38-2.51), and antipsychotics (AOR = 2.15, 95% CI = 1.22-3.77). CONCLUSIONS: Antidepressant use is common among people with CNCP prescribed opioids. Those using antidepressants were more likely to use other psychotropic medicines concurrently, highlighting that they are a high-risk population requiring comprehensive assessment to optimize outcomes and reduce potential harms from polypharmacy.

Concerns and Help-Seeking Among Patients Using Opioids for Management of Chronic Noncancer Pain.

BACKGROUND: The safety and efficacy of long-term opioid treatment for chronic noncancer pain (CNCP) remains controversial. This study examined whether patients who report problematic opioid use sought help and/or perceived barriers to help-seeking. METHODS: Data were collected from 1,086 people prescribed opioids for CNCP via a large prospective cohort called the Pain and Opioids IN Treatment (POINT) study. Patients' characteristics and help-seeking were examined according to scores on the Prescribed Opioids Difficulties Scale (PODS). RESULTS: Participants scoring "intermediate" (17%) or "high" (30%) on the PODS were younger and reported more complex pain presentations, higher opioid doses, poorer physical health, moderate to severe anxiety and depression, aberrant behavior, past month opioid use disorder and help-seeking (compared with the "low" PODS group, 53%). One-quarter (26%) had sought help, most commonly from a primary care physician, specialist pain clinic, family member/partner, counselor/psychologist, and the Internet. Participants in the "high" PODS group were more likely to have sought help from an alcohol or other drug service, addiction specialist, or drug information helpline. Common barriers to help-seeking were desire for self-management and concern that their opioid treatment may be discontinued. Although 35% met criteria for likely opioid use disorder, only 4.8% reported lifetime treatment with methadone or buprenorphine; participants' ratings indicated significant perceived stigma associated with these medications. CONCLUSIONS: The PODS is effective in identifying patients who are concerned about their opioid use. Strategies to address stigma related to drug treatment, including better integration of primary health, specialist pain, and addiction services, are important in reducing opioid-related harm.

Defined daily doses (DDD) do not accurately reflect opioid doses used in contemporary chronic pain treatment.

OBJECTIVE: To assess how well the defined daily dose (DDD) metric reflects opioid utilisation among chronic non-cancer pain patients. DESIGN: Descriptive, cross-sectional study, utilising a 7-day medication diary. SETTING: Community-based treatment settings, Australia. SUBJECTS: A sample of 1101 people prescribed opioids for chronic non-cancer pain. METHODS: Opioid dose data was collected via a self-completed 7-day medication diary capturing names, strengths and doses of each medication taken in the past week. Median daily dose was calculated for each opioid. Comparisons were made to the World Health Organization's (WHO) DDD metric. RESULTS: WHO DDDs ranged from 0.6 to 7.1 times the median opioid doses used by the sample. For transdermal fentanyl and oral hydromorphone, the median dose was comparable with the DDD. The DDD for methadone was 0.6 times lower than the median doses used by this sample of chronic pain patients. In contrast, the DDD for oxycodone and transdermal buprenorphine, the most commonly used strong opioids for chronic pain in Australia, was two to seven times higher than actual doses used. CONCLUSIONS: For many opioids, there are key differences between the actual doses used in clinical practice and the WHO's DDDs. The interpretation of opioid utilisation studies using population-level DDDs may be limited, and a recalibration of the DDD for many opioids or the reporting of opioid utilisation in oral morphine equivalent doses is recommended. Copyright © 2017 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Health service utilisation by people living with chronic non-cancer pain: findings from the Pain and Opioids IN Treatment (POINT) study.

Objective The aims of the present study were to describe the use, and barriers to the use, of non-medication pain therapies and to identify the demographic and clinical correlates of different non-opioid pain treatments. Methods The study was performed on a cohort (n=1514) of people prescribed pharmaceutical opioids for chronic non-cancer pain (CNCP). Participants reported lifetime and past month use of healthcare services, mental and physical health, pain characteristics, current oral morphine equivalent daily doses and financial and access barriers to healthcare services. Results Participants reported the use of non-opioid pain treatments, both before and after commencing opioid therapy. Services accessed most in the past month were complementary and alternative medicines (CAMs; 41%), physiotherapy (16%) and medical and/or pain specialists (15%). Higher opioid dose was associated with increased financial and access barriers to non-opioid treatment. Multivariate analyses indicated being younger, female and having private health insurance were the factors most commonly associated with accessing non-opioid treatments. Conclusions Patients on long-term opioid therapy report using multiple types of pain treatments. High rates of CAM use are concerning given limited evidence of efficacy for some therapies and the low-income status of most people with CNCP. Financial and insurance barriers highlight the importance of considering how different types of treatments are paid for and subsidised. What is known about the topic? Given concerns regarding long-term efficacy, adverse side-effects and risk of misuse and dependence, prescribing guidelines recommend caution in prescribing pharmaceutical opioids in cases of CNCP, typically advising a multidisciplinary approach to treatment. There is a range of evidence supporting different (non-drug) treatment approaches for CNCP to reduce pain severity and increase functioning. However, little is known about the non-opioid treatments used among those with CNCP and the demographic and clinical characteristics that may be associated with the use of different types of treatments. Understanding the use of non-drug therapy among people with CNCP is crucial given the potential to improve pain control for these patients. What does this paper add? The present study found that a wide range of non-opioid treatments was accessed by the study sample, both before and after commencing opioids, indicating that in this sample opioids were not the sole strategy used for pain management. The most common treatment (other than opioids) was CAM, reported by two-fifths of the sample. Having private health insurance was associated with increased use of non-opioid treatments for pain, highlighting the importance of considering how treatments are paid for and potential financial barriers to effective treatments. What are the implications for practitioners? Patients' beliefs and financial barriers may affect the uptake of different treatments. Many patients may be using complementary and alternative approaches with limited evidence to support their use, highlighting the need for clinicians to discuss with patients the range of prescribed and non-prescribed treatments they are accessing and to help them understand the benefits and risks of treatments that have not been tested sufficiently, or have inconsistent evidence, as to their efficacy in improving pain outcomes.

A critical evaluation of the trigger point phenomenon.

The theory of myofascial pain syndrome (MPS) caused by trigger points (TrPs) seeks to explain the phenomena of muscle pain and tenderness in the absence of evidence for local nociception. Although it lacks external validity, many practitioners have uncritically accepted the diagnosis of MPS and its system of treatment. Furthermore, rheumatologists have implicated TrPs in the pathogenesis of chronic widespread pain (FM syndrome). We have critically examined the evidence for the existence of myofascial TrPs as putative pathological entities and for the vicious cycles that are said to maintain them. We find that both are inventions that have no scientific basis, whether from experimental approaches that interrogate the suspect tissue or empirical approaches that assess the outcome of treatments predicated on presumed pathology. Therefore, the theory of MPS caused by TrPs has been refuted. This is not to deny the existence of the clinical phenomena themselves, for which scientifically sound and logically plausible explanations based on known neurophysiological phenomena can be advanced.

Benzodiazepine use among chronic pain patients prescribed opioids: associations with pain, physical and mental health, and health service utilization.

OBJECTIVE: Benzodiazepines (BZDs) are commonly used by chronic pain patients, despite limited evidence of any long-term benefits and concerns regarding adverse events and drug interactions, particularly in older patients. This article aims to: describe patterns of BZDs use; the demographic, physical, and mental health correlates of BZD use; and examine if negative health outcomes are associated with BZD use after controlling for confounders. SUBJECTS: A national sample of 1,220 chronic noncancer pain (CNCP) patients prescribed long-term opioids. METHODS: We report on baseline data from a prospective cohort study comparing four groups based on their current BZD use patterns. General demographics, pain, mental and physical comorbidity, and health service utilization were examined. RESULTS: One-third (N = 398, 33%) of participants reported BZD use in the past month, and 17% (N = 212) reported daily BZD use. BZD use was associated with: 1) greater pain severity, pain interference with life, and lower feelings of self-efficacy with respect to their pain; 2) being prescribed "higher-risk" (>200 mg oral morphine equivalent) doses of opioids; 3) using antidepressant and/or antipsychotic medications; 4) substance use (including more illicit and injection drug use, alcohol use disorder, and daily nicotine use); and 5) greater mental health comorbidity. After controlling for differences in demographic characteristics, physical and mental health, substance use, and opioid dose, BZD use was independently associated with greater past-month use of emergency health care such as ambulance or accident and emergency services. CONCLUSIONS: CNCP patients using BZDs daily represent a high-risk group with multiple comorbid mental health conditions and higher rates of emergency health care use. The high prevalence of BZD use is inconsistent with guidelines for the management of CNCP or chronic mental health conditions.

Pharmaceutical Opioid Use and Dependence among People Living with Chronic Pain: Associations Observed within the Pain and Opioids in Treatment (POINT) Cohort.

OBJECTIVE: There is increasing concern about the appropriateness of prescribing pharmaceutical opioids for chronic non-cancer pain (CNCP), given the risks of problematic use and dependence. This article examines pharmaceutical opioid dose and dependence and examines the correlates of each. DESIGN: Baseline data were obtained from a national sample of 1,424 people across Australia (median 58 years, 55% female and experiencing pain for a median of 10 years), who had been prescribed opioids for CNCP. Current opioid consumption was estimated in oral morphine equivalent (OME; mg per day), and ICD-10 pharmaceutical opioid dependence was assessed using the Composite International Diagnostic Interview. RESULTS: Current opioid consumption varied widely: 8.8% were taking <20 mg OME per day, 52.1% were taking 21-90 mg OME, 24.3% were taking 91-199 mg OME, and 14.8% were taking >= 200 mg OME. Greater daily OME consumption was associated with higher odds of multiple physical and mental health issues, aberrant opioid use, problems associated with opioid medication and opioid dependence. A significant minority, 8.5%, met criteria for lifetime ICD-10 pharmaceutical opioid dependence and 4.7% met criteria for past year ICD-10 pharmaceutical opioid dependence. Multivariate analysis found past-year dependence was independently associated with being younger, exhibiting more aberrant behaviors and having a history of benzodiazepine dependence. CONCLUSIONS: In this population of people taking opioids for CNCP, consumption of higher doses was associated with increased risk of problematic behaviors, and was more likely among people with a complex profile of physical and mental health problems.

Is chronic pain a disease?

OBJECTIVE: The discovery of neuroplastic phenomena such as central sensitization of nociception has challenged pain theory to evolve, to encompass unpredictable and unlikely chronic pain states, and to cope with the emerging complexity of the brain. Recently, the proposition that chronic pain is a disease in its own right has gained currency, based upon functional and structural changes in the brain constituting a distinctive pathology. Proponents have expanded the theory to identify "eudynia" ("good" pain) and "maldynia" ("bad" pain). METHODS: A critical examination of the proposition that chronic pain is a disease was conducted within the framework of evolution of pain medicine theory. RESULTS: Three dominant theories were identified: specificity theory (the "hard-wired" nervous system); neuroplasticity theory (the "soft-wired" nervous system); and pain-as-a-disease. The progression from specificity theory to neuroplasticity theory was based upon empirical evidence and conceptual clarity. The latter theory confronts the uncertainty and the unpredictability of pain, and offers explanations for conditions where ongoing noxious input is not discernible. However, not only does pain-as-a-disease elevate the neurophysiological mechanisms underlying the experience of chronic pain to the status of a disease, but also it conceives of pain as a "thing" that is itself capable of producing an effect. This reasoning is found to be faulty on two grounds: the confusion of pain as a symptom, a cause, and a pathology; and the fallacy that can arise when an interpretation is claimed to be a truth. CONCLUSIONS: The proposition that chronic pain is a disease cannot be supported on clinical and pathological grounds, as well as in terms of ways of knowing. The promulgation of "good" and "bad" pain has the potential to obstruct necessary dialogue for advancing the science and treatment of pain. We suggest a way forward to resolve this impasse.

"Nociplastic Pain": A Challenge to Nosology and to Nociception.

The construct of "nociplastic pain" has met with divergent receptions. On the one hand it has been enthusiastically embraced, to the extent of conflation with central sensitization of nociception and the International Classification of Diseases 11th Revision (ICD-11) entity of "primary" pain, and the promulgation of "nociplastic pain syndromes." On the other hand, it has been rejected by those whose skepticism derives from the absence, by definition, of underlying activation of nociceptors. This article seeks to dissect these divergent views and search for reconciliation between them. One line of argument is that "nociplastic" pain, "primary" pain, and "central sensitisation of nociception" reflect different domains of inquiry and should not be conflated. "Nociplastic" pain emerges as a hypothesis that confers clinical legitimacy and utility; while that hypothesis needs a minor but important modification and continues to require testing, discipline in its usage is necessary. The other line of argument discovers an unexpected impasse: the construct of "nociplastic pain" describes a phenomenon that accords with the International Association for the Study of Pain definition of pain but occurs in the absence of nociception-as-currently-defined, thus challenging the definitional link between pain and tissue damage. The article offers a resolution of this impasse by suggesting that nociception-as-currently-defined be replaced by the resurrected concept of a nociceptive apparatus, activation of which is necessary but not sufficient for the experience of pain. One consequence would be to allow the assertions underpinning "nociplastic" to be tested empirically; another would be to relate the phenomenon of pain to a more biologically plausible basis than "actual" or "resemblance to" tissue damage. PERSPECTIVE: This article explores the major challenges posed by "nociplastic pain" to nosology and to nociception. While discipline in the clinical use of the construct is required, it also emerges that the main issue is the International Association for the Study of Pain definition of nociception. A reconceptualization of nociception is proposed for logical, biological, and clinical coherence.

Clarifying "chronic primary musculoskeletal pain"? The waters remain murky.

Commentary on: Fitzcharles M-A, Cohen SP, Clauw DJ, Littlejohn G, Usui C, Häuser W. Chronic primary musculoskeletal pain: a new concept of non-structural regional pain. PAIN Reports 2022;7:e1024. See also: Treede R-D. Chronic musculoskeletal pain: traps and pitfalls in classification and management of a major global disease burden. PAIN Reports 2022;7:e1023.

Pain is Not a "thing": How That Error Affects Language and Logic in Pain Medicine.

Effectiveness in academic and clinical communication depends upon agreement on what words and concepts denote and on the consequent ability to argue logically and accurately. In the pain medicine literature there are many examples of imprecision and confusion in this respect, including misnomers and fallacies in reasoning. This article firstly critically examines some of these misnomers. Identified themes include pain being conceptualised as a "thing," conflation between nociception and pain, and confusion between stimulus and response and between the perspectives of the experiencer and the observer of "pain." Secondly, fallacies in reasoning are identified that contribute to imprecision and confusion. These include reification of pain, attributing to the brain functions that belong to whole organisms, and the illusory truth effect. Thirdly, these themes are identified also in constructs that are shown to be based more on speculation than on fact. Taken together, these observations reveal a need to review and, where necessary, modify terminology and concepts used in Pain Medicine. PERSPECTIVE: This article examines a number of words and constructs commonly found in the pain literature from the perspective of accuracy in terms of their consistency of usage, concordance with fact, degree of speculation and logical argument. A common major theme is the error of considering pain as a "thing" that has agentive properties. A need to clarify much of the language used in Pain Medicine is identified.

Use of pharmacological and nonpharmacological treatments for chronic noncancer pain among people using opioids: a longitudinal cohort study.

ABSTRACT: Although multimodal management of chronic noncancer pain (CNCP) is recommended, long-term treatment utilization patterns among people using opioids are not well known. The Pain and Opioids IN Treatment study recruited Australian adults receiving opioids for CNCP for more than 6 weeks from community pharmacies. Pharmacological (opioid and nonopioid analgesics and psychotropic medicines) and nonpharmacological (physical, mental health, and specialized) treatments used in the previous 12 months and 30 days were collected annually over 4 years (2015-2018). Associations were explored between 30-day treatment use and sociodemographic characteristics and pain measures. Overall, 1334 participants completed at least one annual follow-up. The median pain severity (5.0, interquartile range [IQR] 3.8 to 6.3) and pain interference scores (5.7, IQR 3.9-7.3) indicated moderate pain throughout the study period, despite most participants reporting the use of nonopioid pharmacological (12 month: 97.6% and 30 day: 96.8%) and nonpharmacological treatments (12 month: 91.8% and 30 day: 66.1%). Some treatment use was inconsistent with guidelines: ongoing nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs and sedative-hypnotic use were common, whereas fewer people engaged with pain management programs (12 month: 22.3%). Private health insurance was associated with using physical (adjusted odds ratio 1.61, 99.5% confidence intervals 1.15-2.24) and specialized nonpharmacological treatments (adjusted odds ratio 1.47, 99.5% confidence intervals 1.14-1.91). This study demonstrates that many Australians taking opioids long-term for CNCP also use nonopioid pharmacological and nonpharmacological treatments. The use of pharmacological treatments including nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, psychotropic medicines, and gabapentinoids, outside guidelines, warrants review. Furthermore, despite Australia's universal healthcare scheme subsidising some nonpharmacological treatments, overall use of these treatments was associated with having private health insurance, highlighting a need for more equitable service provision.

An evolutionary stress-response hypothesis for chronic widespread pain (fibromyalgia syndrome).

OBJECTIVE: The study aimed to seek a unifying biological basis for the phenomena encompassed in fibromyalgia syndrome (chronic widespread pain and associated morbidities). SETTING: While much progress has been made in the last decade in understanding chronic widespread pain, its pathogenesis remains stubbornly obscure and its treatment difficult. Two themes are gaining currency in the field: that chronic widespread pain is the result of central sensitization of nociception, and that chronic pain is somehow related to activation of a global stress response. DESIGN: In this article we merge these two ideas within the perspective of evolutionary biology to generate a hypothesis about the critical molecular pathway involved in chronic stress response activation, namely substance P and its preferred receptor, neurokinin-1 (NK-1R), which has many empirically testable implications. CONCLUSION: Drawing on diverse findings in neurobiology, immunology, physiology, and comparative biology, we suggest that the form of central sensitization that leads to the profound phenomenological features of chronic widespread pain is part of a whole-organism stress response, which is evolutionarily conserved, following a general pattern found in the simplest living systems.

Stigmatization of patients with chronic pain: the extinction of empathy.

OBJECTIVE: To address how health professionals may inadvertently contribute to the stigmatization of patients with chronic pain. SETTING: Formulation and implementation of the Australian National Pain Strategy. DESIGN: Review of current concepts of stereotyping and stigma, consideration of their relationship to empathy, and how they might impinge upon the clinical encounter. FINDINGS: The extinction of empathy, which we refer to as "negative empathy," can overwhelm health professionals, allowing the entry of negative community stereotypes of chronic pain sufferers and add to their stigmatization. Prevailing dualistic frames of reference encourage this process. CONCLUSION: Greater awareness by health professionals of their own potential, often inadvertent, contribution to the stigmatization of their patients with chronic pain may serve as a basis for an expanded model of clinical engagement.

Pharmaceutical Opioid Use Patterns and Indicators of Extramedical Use and Harm in Adults With Chronic Noncancer Pain, 2012-2018.

Importance: Despite concern about harms related to long-term prescribed opioid use among individuals with chronic noncancer pain (CNCP), no study has examined whether the same patients engage in a risky pattern of use consistently for the long term. Objective: To examine the prevalence, incidence, persistence, and cessation of a range of opioid behaviors, indicators of extramedical use, and harm among individuals who are prescribed opioids. Design, Setting, and Participants: This 5-year prospective cohort study in communities across Australia included 1514 adults who were prescribed opioids for CNCP. Data collection took place from August 2012 to December 2018, and data analysis took place from February to November 2020. Exposure: Prescription opioid use. Main Outcomes and Measures: High-dose opioid use (≥200 oral morphine equivalent [OME] mg/d); requesting an increase in opioid dose; requesting an early prescription renewal; tampering with opioid medication; diversion of medication to others; and International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems, Tenth Revision opioid dependence. Cessation of opioid use was also assessed. Results: Of the 1514 participants, 672 (44.39%) were men, the mean (SD) age was 58 (19) years, and 737 (48.68%) were unemployed. At each annual interview, approximately 1 in 8 people (10.98% [95% CI, 10.33%-11.63%] to 14.73% [95% CI, 13.98%-15.48%] at any given interview) were taking more than 200 OME mg/d; comparatively more had requested an increased dosage in the previous 3 months (8.46% [95% CI, 7.89%-9.03%] to 23.77% [95% CI, 22.82%-24.73%]); and fewer asked for an early prescription renewal (4.61% [95% CI, 4.19%-5.03%] to 13.97% [95% CI, 13.24%-14.70%]). In any given interview, between 3.06% (95% CI, 2.72%-3.40%) and 7.86% (95% CI, 7.31%-8.41%) of respondents reported tampering and between 0.47% (95% CI, 0.33%-0.60%) and 1.39% (95% CI, 1.16%-1.62%) reported diversion to others. Between 8.28% (95% CI, 7.71%-8.84%) and 13.06% (95% CI, 12.35%-13.77%) met criteria for opioid dependence at each interview. Opioid cessation increased across interviews, from year 1 (9.15% [95% CI, 8.55%-9.74%]) to year 5 (20.02% [19.14%-20.89%]). There was considerable incidence and cessation in all behaviors from 1 interview to the next: most who engaged in any of these behaviors only did so at only 1 interview. For pharmaceutical opioid dependence, between 55.26% (95% CI, 53.81%-56.71%) and 64.44% (95% CI, 62.87%-66.00%) of cases in 1 interview did not meet dependence criteria in the following interview. Conclusions and Relevance: These findings suggest considerable fluidity in opioid use, extramedical behaviors, and opioid dependence among people with CNCP. This reinforces the need for reassessment of the effectiveness and safety of prescription opioid use over time.

Classification algorithm for the International Classification of Diseases-11 chronic pain classification: development and results from a preliminary pilot evaluation.

ABSTRACT: The International Classification of Diseases-11 (ICD-11) chronic pain classification includes about 100 chronic pain diagnoses on different diagnostic levels. Each of these diagnoses requires specific operationalized diagnostic criteria to be present. The classification comprises more than 200 diagnostic criteria. The aim of the Classification Algorithm for Chronic Pain in ICD-11 (CAL-CP) is to facilitate the use of the classification by guiding users through these diagnostic criteria. The diagnostic criteria were ordered hierarchically and visualized in accordance with the standards defined by the Society for Medical Decision Making Committee on Standardization of Clinical Algorithms. The resulting linear decision tree underwent several rounds of iterative checks and feedback by its developers, as well as other pain experts. A preliminary pilot evaluation was conducted in the context of an ecological implementation field study of the classification itself. The resulting algorithm consists of a linear decision tree, an introduction form, and an appendix. The initial decision trunk can be used as a standalone algorithm in primary care. Each diagnostic criterion is represented in a decision box. The user needs to decide for each criterion whether it is present or not, and then follow the respective yes or no arrows to arrive at the corresponding ICD-11 diagnosis. The results of the pilot evaluation showed good clinical utility of the algorithm. The CAL-CP can contribute to reliable diagnoses by structuring a way through the classification and by increasing adherence to the criteria. Future studies need to evaluate its utility further and analyze its impact on the accuracy of the assigned diagnoses.