Acceptability of a proposed practice pharmacist-led review for opioid-treated patients with persistent pain: A qualitative study to inform intervention development.

Introduction: Regular review of patients prescribed opioids for persistent non-cancer pain (PCNP) is recommended but not routinely undertaken. The PROMPPT (Proactive clinical Review of patients taking Opioid Medicines long-term for persistent Pain led by clinical Pharmacists in primary care Teams) research programme aims to develop and test a pharmacist-led pain review (PROMPPT) to reduce inappropriate opioid use for persistent pain in primary care. This study explored the acceptability of the proposed PROMPPT review to inform early intervention development. Methods: Interviews (n = 15) and an online discussion forum (n = 31) with patients prescribed opioids for PCNP and interviews with pharmacists (n = 13), explored acceptability of a proposed PROMPPT review. A prototype PROMPPT review was then tested and refined through 3 iterative cycles of in-practice testing (IPT) (n = 3 practices, n = 3 practice pharmacists, n = 13 patients). Drawing on the Theoretical Framework of Acceptability (TFA), a framework was generated (including a priori TFA constructs) allowing for deductive and inductive thematic analysis to identify aspects of prospective and experienced acceptability. Results: Patients felt uncertain about practice pharmacists delivering the proposed PROMPPT review leading to development of content for the invitation letter for IPT (introducing the pharmacist and outlining the aim of the review). After IPT, patients felt that pharmacists were suited to the role as they were knowledgeable and qualified. Pharmacists felt that the proposed reviews would be challenging. Although challenges were experienced during delivery of PROMPPT reviews, pharmacists found that they became easier to deliver with time, practise and experience. Recommendations for optimisations after IPT included development of the training to include examples of challenging consultations. Conclusions: Uptake of new healthcare interventions is influenced by perceptions of acceptability. Exploring prospective and experienced acceptability at multiple time points during early intervention development, led to mini-optimisations of the prototype PROMPPT review ahead of a non-randomised feasibility study.

Designing a primary care pharmacist-led review for people treated with opioids for persistent pain: a multi-method qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: Opioids are frequently prescribed for persistent non-cancer pain despite limited evidence of long-term effectiveness and risk of harm. Evidence-based interventions to address inappropriate opioid prescribing are lacking. AIM: To explore perspectives of people living with persistent pain to understand barriers and facilitators in reducing opioids in the context of a pharmacist-led primary care review, and identify review components and features for optimal delivery. DESIGN & SETTING: A multi-method qualitative study undertaken in the primary care setting in the UK. METHOD: Adults with experience of persistent pain and taking opioids participated in semi-structured interviews (n = 15, 73% female) and an online discussion forum (n = 31). The Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF) provided a framework for data collection and thematic analysis, involving deductive analysis to TDF domains, inductive analysis within domains to generate sub-themes, and sub-theme comparison to form across-domain overarching themes. The behaviour change technique taxonomy (v1) and motivational behaviour change technique classification system were used to systematically map themes to behaviour change techniques to identify potential review components and delivery features. RESULTS: Thirty-two facilitator and barrier sub-themes for patients reducing opioids were identified across 13 TDF domains. These combined into the following six overarching themes: learning to live with pain; opioid reduction expectations; assuming a medical model; pharmacist-delivered reviews; pharmacist-patient relationship; and patient engagement. Sub-themes mapped to 21 unique behaviour change techniques, yielding 17 components and five delivery features for the proposed PROMPPT review. CONCLUSION: This study generated theoretically informed evidence for design of a practice pharmacist-led PROMPPT review. Future research will test the feasibility and acceptability of the PROMPPT review and pharmacist training.

Risk of adverse outcomes during gabapentinoid therapy and factors associated with increased risk in UK primary care using the clinical practice research datalink: a cohort study.

ABSTRACT: Growing evidence from pharmacovigilance data and postmortem toxicology reports highlights the misuse potential of gabapentinoids. This study aimed to investigate the risk of serious adverse outcomes (drug misuse, overdose, major trauma), and their risk factors, in primary care patients who are prescribed gabapentinoids. Using the UK Clinical Practice Research Datalink, a matched cohort study calculated adverse event rates separately for gabapentinoid-exposed and unexposed cohorts. In the exposed cohort, event rates for exposure to a range of potential risk factors were calculated. Event rates were compared using Cox proportional hazards models, adjusted for age, sex, deprivation, previous mental health diagnosis, and coprescribing with potentially interacting medicines. Substance misuse (gabapentin adjusted hazard ratio [95% CI]: 2.40 [2.25-2.55]), overdose (2.99 [2.56-3.49]), and major trauma (0-2.5 years: 1.35 [1.28-1.42]; 2.5 to 10 years: 1.73 [1.56-1.95]) were more common among patients prescribed gabapentinoids than matched individuals who were not. The association with overdose was stronger for pregabalin than gabapentin. All adverse outcomes were significantly associated with smoking, history of substance misuse, overdose, or a mental health condition and prescription of opioids, benzodiazepines, antidepressants, and Z-drug hypnotics (eg, gabapentin hazard ratios for association of concurrent opioid use: misuse 1.49 [1.47-1.51]; overdose 1.87 [1.78-1.96]; major trauma 1.28 [1.26-1.30]). Our findings highlight the importance of careful patient selection when prescribing gabapentinoids and the need to educate prescribers about the risks of these drugs, particularly in combination with other central nervous system depressants.

Prognostic factors in non-surgically treated sciatica: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: When present sciatica is considered an obstacle to recovery in low back pain patients, yet evidence is limited regarding prognostic factors for persistent disability in this patient group. The aim of this study is to describe and summarise the evidence regarding prognostic factors for sciatica in non-surgically treated cohorts. Understanding the prognostic factors in sciatica and their relative importance may allow the identification of patients with particular risk factors who might benefit from early or specific types of treatment in order to optimise outcome. METHODS: A systematic literature search was conducted using Medline, EMBASE and CINAHL electronic databases. Prospective cohort studies describing subjects with sciatica and measuring pain, disability or recovery outcomes were included. Studies of cohorts comprised entirely of surgically treated patients were excluded and mixed surgically and conservatively treated cohorts were included only if the results were analysed separately by treatment group or if the analysis was adjusted for treatment. RESULTS: Seven adequate or high quality eligible studies were identified. There were conflicting but mainly negative results regarding the influence of baseline pain severity, neurological deficit, nerve root tension signs, duration of symptoms and radiological findings on outcome. A number of factors including age, gender, smoking, previous history of sciatica and heaviness of work do not appear to influence outcome. In contrast to studies of low back pain and purely surgically treated sciatica cohorts, psychological factors were rarely investigated. CONCLUSIONS: At present, the heterogeneity of the available studies makes it difficult to draw firm conclusions about sciatica prognosis, and highlights the need for further research for this group of patients. Large scale prospective studies of high methodological quality, using a well-defined, consistent definition of sciatica and investigating psychosocial factors alongside clinical and radiological findings are recommended to identify prognostic factors in this population.