Opioid Use Disorder: A Qualitative Exploratory Analysis of Potential Misunderstandings in Patients with Chronic Non-Cancer Pain.

Purpose: Substance use disorders (SUD) are a challenging comorbidity in patients with chronic non-cancer pain (CNCP) as they complicate diagnosis and therapy, especially when opioids are part of the therapeutic regimen. A definite diagnosis of opioid use disorder (OUD) in patients with CNCP on long-term opioid therapy (LTOT) is a prerequisite for effective and targeted therapy but may be complicated as some criteria of OUD might be attributed to the desire of the patient to relieve the pain. For instance, the desire to increase the dose can be based on both a SUD as well as inadequate pain therapy. Many scientific studies use standardized questions. Therefore, potential misunderstandings due to possible diagnostic overlaps often cannot be clarified. Methods: 14 qualitative guided interviews were conducted and analyzed (Kuckartz content analysis), with the intention to verify if patient's initial response to simple questions based on the wording of the DSM-5, as commonly used in research and practice, were consistent with the results of a more in-depth inquiry. Results: The results suggest that without in-depth investigation, there is a particular risk of false-positive assessment of the DSM-5 criteria for OUD when opioids are prescribed, especially when the questions are considered independently of chronic pain. The risk of a false-negative assessment has also been shown in isolated cases. Conclusion: Only after asking for and describing specific situations it was possible to determine whether the patient's positive or negative answers were based on a misunderstanding of the question. To avoid misdiagnosis, staff conducting DSM-5 interviews should be trained in pain-specific follow-up questions that may help to uncover diagnostic confounding.

Effectiveness of non-pharmacological interventions for fibromyalgia and quality of review methods: an overview of Cochrane Reviews.

BACKGROUND: Fibromyalgia syndrome (FMS) is defined as chronic widespread pain associated with sleep disorders, cognitive dysfunction, and somatic symptoms present for at least three months and cannot be better explained by another diagnosis. OBJECTIVES: To examine efficacy and safety of non-pharmacological interventions for FMS in adults reported in Cochrane Reviews, and reporting quality of reviews. METHODS: Systematic reviews of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of non-pharmacological interventions for FMS were identified from the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (CDSR 2022, Issue 3 and CDSR 2023 Issue 6). Methodological quality was assessed using the AMSTAR-2 tool and a set of methodological criteria critical for analgesic effects. The primary efficacy outcomes of interest were clinically relevant pain relief, improvement in health-related quality of life (HRQoL), acceptability, safety, and reduction of mobility difficulties as reported by study participants. No pooled analyses were planned. We assumed a clinically relevant improvement was a minimal clinically important difference (MCID) between interventions and controls of 15%, or a SMD of more than 0.2, or a MD of more than 0.5, on a 0 to 10 scale. RESULTS: Ten Cochrane reviews were eligible, reporting 181 randomized or quasi- randomized trials (11,917 participants, average trial size 66 participants). The reviews examined exercise training, acupuncture, transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation, and psychological therapies. One review was rated moderate according to AMSTAR 2, seven were rated low and two were rated critically low. All reviews met most of the additional methodological quality criteria. All reviews included studies with patient-reported outcomes for pain. We found low certainty evidence of clinically relevant positive effects of aerobic and mixed exercise training and for cognitive behavioural therapies (CBTs) at reducing mobility difficulties and for mixed exercise training and CBTs for improving HRQoL at the end of the intervention. Number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) values for a MCID of 15% ranged between 4 and 9. We found low certainty evidence that was clinically relevant for mixed exercise and CBTs for reducing mobility difficulties at an average follow up of 24 weeks. We found low certainty evidence of clinically relevant positive effects of mixed exercise on HRQoL at an average follow up of 24 weeks. NNTB values for a MCID of 15% ranged from 5 to 11. The certainty of evidence of the acceptability (measured by dropouts) of the different non-pharmacological interventions ranged from very low to moderate and the dropout rate for any reason did not differ across the interventions or the controls, except for biofeedback and movement therapies. All the systematic reviews stated that the reporting of adverse events was inconsistent in the studies analysed (very low certainty evidence). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is low certainty evidence of clinically relevant reduction of mobility difficulties and of improvement of HRQoL among individuals with FMS by aerobic and mixed exercise training and by CBTs at the end of the intervention. There is low certainty evidence that CBTs and mixed exercise training reduces mobility difficulties post-treatment and that mixed exercise training improves HRQoL at follow-up by clinically meaningful scores.

Cannabis-based medicines and medical cannabis for adults with cancer pain.

BACKGROUND: Pain is a common symptom in people with cancer; 30% to 50% of people with cancer will experience moderate-to-severe pain. This can have a major negative impact on their quality of life. Opioid (morphine-like) medications are commonly used to treat moderate or severe cancer pain, and are recommended for this purpose in the World Health Organization (WHO) pain treatment ladder. Pain is not sufficiently relieved by opioid medications in 10% to 15% of people with cancer. In people with insufficient relief of cancer pain, new analgesics are needed to effectively and safely supplement or replace opioids. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the benefits and harms of cannabis-based medicines, including medical cannabis, for treating pain and other symptoms in adults with cancer compared to placebo or any other established analgesic for cancer pain. SEARCH METHODS: We used standard, extensive Cochrane search methods. The latest search date was 26 January 2023. SELECTION CRITERIA: We selected double-blind randomised, controlled trials (RCT) of medical cannabis, plant-derived and synthetic cannabis-based medicines against placebo or any other active treatment for cancer pain in adults, with any treatment duration and at least 10 participants per treatment arm. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard Cochrane methods. The primary outcomes were 1. proportions of participants reporting no worse than mild pain; 2. Patient Global Impression of Change (PGIC) of much improved or very much improved and 3. withdrawals due to adverse events. Secondary outcomes were 4. number of participants who reported pain relief of 30% or greater and overall opioid use reduced or stable; 5. number of participants who reported pain relief of 30% or greater, or 50% or greater; 6. pain intensity; 7. sleep problems; 8. depression and anxiety; 9. daily maintenance and breakthrough opioid dosage; 10. dropouts due to lack of efficacy; 11. all central nervous system adverse events. We used GRADE to assess certainty of evidence for each outcome. MAIN RESULTS: We identified 14 studies involving 1823 participants. No study assessed the proportions of participants reporting no worse than mild pain on treatment by 14 days after start of treatment. We found five RCTs assessing oromucosal nabiximols (tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) and cannabidiol (CBD)) or THC alone involving 1539 participants with moderate or severe pain despite opioid therapy. The double-blind periods of the RCTs ranged between two and five weeks. Four studies with a parallel design and 1333 participants were available for meta-analysis. There was moderate-certainty evidence that there was no clinically relevant benefit for proportions of PGIC much or very much improved (risk difference (RD) 0.06, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.01 to 0.12; number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) 16, 95% CI 8 to 100). There was moderate-certainty evidence for no clinically relevant difference in the proportion of withdrawals due to adverse events (RD 0.04, 95% CI 0 to 0.08; number needed to treat for an additional harmful outcome (NNTH) 25, 95% CI 16 to endless). There was moderate-certainty evidence for no difference between nabiximols or THC and placebo in the frequency of serious adverse events (RD 0.02, 95% CI -0.03 to 0.07). There was moderate-certainty evidence that nabiximols and THC used as add-on treatment for opioid-refractory cancer pain did not differ from placebo in reducing mean pain intensity (standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.19, 95% CI -0.40 to 0.02). There was low-certainty evidence that a synthetic THC analogue (nabilone) delivered over eight weeks was not superior to placebo in reducing pain associated with chemotherapy or radiochemotherapy in people with head and neck cancer and non-small cell lung cancer (2 studies, 89 participants, qualitative analysis). Analyses of tolerability and safety were not possible for these studies. There was low-certainty evidence that synthetic THC analogues were superior to placebo (SMD -0.98, 95% CI -1.36 to -0.60), but not superior to low-dose codeine (SMD 0.03, 95% CI -0.25 to 0.32; 5 single-dose trials; 126 participants) in reducing moderate-to-severe cancer pain after cessation of previous analgesic treatment for three to four and a half hours (2 single-dose trials; 66 participants). Analyses of tolerability and safety were not possible for these studies. There was low-certainty evidence that CBD oil did not add value to specialist palliative care alone in the reduction of pain intensity in people with advanced cancer. There was no difference in the number of dropouts due to adverse events and serious adverse events (1 study, 144 participants, qualitative analysis). We found no studies using herbal cannabis. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is moderate-certainty evidence that oromucosal nabiximols and THC are ineffective in relieving moderate-to-severe opioid-refractory cancer pain. There is low-certainty evidence that nabilone is ineffective in reducing pain associated with (radio-) chemotherapy in people with head and neck cancer and non-small cell lung cancer. There is low-certainty evidence that a single dose of synthetic THC analogues is not superior to a single low-dose morphine equivalent in reducing moderate-to-severe cancer pain. There is low-certainty evidence that CBD does not add value to specialist palliative care alone in the reduction of pain in people with advanced cancer.

ANTECEDENTES: El dolor es un síntoma común en las personas con cáncer; entre el 30% y el 50% de las personas con cáncer experimentarán dolor de moderado a intenso. Esto puede tener un gran impacto negativo en su calidad de vida. Los fármacos opiáceos (similares a la morfina) se utilizan habitualmente para tratar el dolor por cáncer moderado o intenso, y se recomiendan para este propósito en la escala de tratamiento del dolor de la Organización Mundial de la Salud (OMS). El dolor no se alivia lo suficiente con los medicamentos opiáceos en el 10% al 15% de las personas con cáncer. En las personas con un alivio insuficiente del dolor por cáncer, se necesitan nuevos analgésicos que complementen o sustituyan de forma eficaz y segura a los opiáceos. OBJETIVOS: Evaluar los efectos beneficiosos y perjudiciales de los medicamentos con cannabis, incluido el cannabis medicinal, para tratar el dolor y otros síntomas en adultos con cáncer en comparación con placebo o cualquier otro analgésico establecido para el dolor por cáncer. MÉTODOS DE BÚSQUEDA: Se utilizaron los métodos exhaustivos estándar de búsqueda de Cochrane. La última fecha de búsqueda fue el 26 de enero de 2023. CRITERIOS DE SELECCIÓN: Se seleccionaron los ensayos controlados aleatorizados (ECA) doble ciego de cannabis medicinal, medicamentos derivados de plantas y sintéticos con cannabis versus placebo o cualquier otro tratamiento activo para el dolor por cáncer en adultos, con cualquier duración del tratamiento y al menos 10 participantes por grupo de tratamiento. OBTENCIÓN Y ANÁLISIS DE LOS DATOS: Se utilizaron los métodos estándar de Cochrane. Los desenlaces principales fueron los siguientes: 1. proporción de participantes que declararon dolor leve; 2. Patient Global Impression of Change (PGIC) de mucha o muchísima mejoría y 3. retiros debido a eventos adversos. Los desenlaces secundarios fueron 4. número de participantes que declararon un alivio del dolor del 30% o superior y un consumo general de opiáceos reducido o estable; 5. número de participantes que declararon un alivio del dolor del 30% o superior, o del 50% o superior; 6. intensidad del dolor; 7. problemas de sueño; 8. depresión y ansiedad; 9. dosis diaria de opiáceos de mantenimiento y de inicio; 10. abandonos por falta de eficacia; 11. todos los eventos adversos del sistema nervioso central. Se utilizó el método GRADE para evaluar la calidad de la evidencia de cada desenlace. RESULTADOS PRINCIPALES: Se identificaron 14 estudios con 1823 participantes. Ningún estudio evaluó las proporciones de participantes que declararon un dolor no peor que leve a los 14 días de inicio del tratamiento. Se encontraron cinco ECA que evaluaron nabiximoles oromucosos (tetrahidrocannabinol [THC] y cannabidiol [CBD]) o THC solo, con 1539 participantes con dolor moderado o intenso a pesar del tratamiento con opiáceos. Los periodos doble ciego de los ECA variaron entre dos y cinco semanas. Para el metanálisis se dispuso de cuatro estudios con un diseño paralelo y 1333 participantes. Hubo evidencia de certeza moderada de que no hubo efectos beneficiosos clínicamente relevantes en las proporciones de PGIC de mucha o muchísima mejoría (diferencia de riesgos [DR] 0,06; intervalo de confianza [IC] del 95%: 0,01 a 0,12; número necesario a tratar para lograr un resultado beneficioso adicional [NNTB] 16; IC del 95%: 8 a 100). Hubo evidencia de certeza moderada de que no hubo diferencias clínicamente relevantes en la proporción de retiros debido a eventos adversos (DR 0,04; IC del 95%: 0 a 0,08; número necesario a tratar para lograr un desenlace perjudicial adicional [NNTD] 25; IC del 95%: 16 a infinito). Hubo evidencia de certeza moderada de que no hubo diferencias entre nabiximols o THC y placebo en la frecuencia de eventos adversos graves (DR 0,02; IC del 95%: ­0,03 a 0,07). Hubo evidencia de certeza moderada de que los nabiximoles y el THC utilizados como tratamiento complementario para el dolor por cáncer refractario a los opiáceos no difirieron del placebo en cuanto a la reducción de la intensidad media del dolor (diferencia de medias estandarizada [DME] ­0,19; IC del 95%: ­0,40 a 0,02). Hubo evidencia de certeza baja de que un análogo sintético del THC (nabilona) administrado durante ocho semanas no fue superior a placebo para reducir el dolor asociado con la quimioterapia o la radioquimioterapia en personas con cáncer de cabeza y cuello y cáncer de pulmón de células no pequeñas (dos estudios, 89 participantes, análisis cualitativo). En estos estudios no fue posible realizar análisis de tolerabilidad y seguridad. Hubo evidencia de certeza baja de que los análogos sintéticos del THC fueron superiores a placebo (DME ­0,98; IC del 95%: ­1,36 a ­0,60), pero no superiores a la codeína en dosis bajas (DME 0,03; IC del 95%: ­0,25 a 0,32; cinco ensayos de dosis única; 126 participantes) en cuanto a la reducción del dolor moderado a intenso por cáncer después de la interrupción del tratamiento analgésico previo durante tres a cuatro horas y media (dos ensayos de dosis única; 66 participantes). En estos estudios no fue posible realizar análisis de tolerabilidad y seguridad. Hubo evidencia de certeza baja de que el aceite de CBD no agregó valor a los cuidados paliativos especializados solos en la reducción de la intensidad del dolor en personas con cáncer avanzado. No hubo diferencias en el número de abandonos debido a eventos adversos ni eventos adversos graves (un estudio, 144 participantes, análisis cualitativo). No se encontraron estudios que utilizaran la planta de cannabis. CONCLUSIONES DE LOS AUTORES: Existe evidencia de certeza moderada de que los nabiximoles y el THC por vía oromucosa no son efectivos para aliviar el dolor de moderado a intenso por cáncer refractario a los opiáceos. Hay evidencia de certeza baja de que la nabilona no es efectiva para reducir el dolor asociado con la radio­quimioterapia en personas con cáncer de cabeza y cuello y cáncer de pulmón de células no pequeñas. Hay evidencia de certeza baja de que una dosis única de análogos sintéticos del THC no es superior a una dosis única baja equivalente de morfina para reducir el dolor moderado a intenso por cáncer. Hay evidencia de certeza baja de que el CBD no aporta valor a los cuidados paliativos especializados solos en la reducción del dolor en personas con cáncer avanzado.

Neurophysiological and psychosocial mechanisms of fibromyalgia: A comprehensive review and call for an integrative model.

Research into the neurobiological and psychosocial mechanisms involved in fibromyalgia has progressed remarkably in recent years. Despite this, current accounts of fibromyalgia fail to capture the complex, dynamic, and mutual crosstalk between neurophysiological and psychosocial domains. We conducted a comprehensive review of the existing literature in order to: a) synthesize current knowledge on fibromyalgia; b) explore and highlight multi-level links and pathways between different systems; and c) build bridges connecting disparate perspectives. An extensive panel of international experts in neurophysiological and psychosocial aspects of fibromyalgia discussed the collected evidence and progressively refined and conceptualized its interpretation. This work constitutes an essential step towards the development of a model capable of integrating the main factors implicated in fibromyalgia into a single, unified construct which appears indispensable to foster the understanding, assessment, and intervention for fibromyalgia.

Mild Water-Filtered Infrared-A Whole-Body Hyperthermia Reduces Pain in Patients with Fibromyalgia Syndrome-A Randomized Sham-Controlled Trial.

The challenging treatment situation of patients with fibromyalgia syndrome (FMS) requires additional therapy options. The effects of water-filtered infrared-A whole-body hyperthermia (WBH) versus sham hyperthermia on pain intensity were investigated in an outpatient setting within a two-armed randomized sham-controlled trial. n = 41 participants aged between 18 and 70 years with a medically confirmed diagnosis of FMS were randomized to WBH (intervention; n = 21) or sham hyperthermia (control; n = 20). Six treatments with mild water-filtered infrared-A WBH over a period of three weeks with at least one day in between treatments were applied. On average, the maximum temperature was 38.7 °C for a duration of approximately 15 min. The control group received exactly the same treatment except that an insulating foil between the patient and the hyperthermia device blocked most of the radiation. Primary outcome was pain intensity measured by the Brief Pain Inventory at week 4. Secondary outcomes included blood cytokine levels and FMS-related core symptoms and quality of life. Pain intensity at week 4 was significantly different between the groups in favor of WBH (p = 0.015). A statistically significant pain reduction in favor of WBH was also found at week 30 (p = 0.002). Mild water-filtered infrared-A WBH effectively reduced pain intensity at the end of treatment and follow-up.

Emotion regulation and the salience network: a hypothetical integrative model of fibromyalgia.

Fibromyalgia is characterized by widespread pain, fatigue, sleep disturbances and other symptoms, and has a substantial socioeconomic impact. Current biomedical and psychosocial treatments are unsatisfactory for many patients, and treatment progress has been hindered by the lack of a clear understanding of the pathogenesis of fibromyalgia. We present here a model of fibromyalgia that integrates current psychosocial and neurophysiological observations. We propose that an imbalance in emotion regulation, reflected by an overactive 'threat' system and underactive 'soothing' system, might keep the 'salience network' (also known as the midcingulo-insular network) in continuous alert mode, and this hyperactivation, in conjunction with other mechanisms, contributes to fibromyalgia. This proposed integrative model, which we term the Fibromyalgia: Imbalance of Threat and Soothing Systems (FITSS) model, should be viewed as a working hypothesis with limited supporting evidence available. We hope, however, that this model will shed new light on existing psychosocial and biological observations, and inspire future research to address the many gaps in our knowledge about fibromyalgia, ultimately stimulating the development of novel therapeutic interventions.

Migraine in the context of chronic primary pain, chronic overlapping pain disorders, and functional somatic disorders: A narrative review.

OBJECTIVE: To contextualize migraine as the most common primary headache disorder in relation to other chronic primary pain and non-pain functional somatic and mental conditions. BACKGROUND: Migraine is increasingly understood as a sensory processing disorder within a broader spectrum of symptom disorders. This has implications for diagnosis and treatment. METHOD: Narrative review based on a search of the literature of the last 15 years on the overlap of migraine with other symptom disorders. RESULTS: Migraine as the prototypical primary headache disorder not only comprises many non-headache symptoms in itself, it also shows high comorbidity with other chronic pain and non-pain conditions (e.g., fibromyalgia syndrome, irritable bowel syndrome, functional non-epileptic seizures, depression, anxiety, and posttraumatic stress disorder). Such "symptom disorders" share several etiological factors (e.g., female preponderance, psychological vulnerability) and psychophysiological mechanisms (e.g., altered sensory processing, pain expectancy). These facts are acknowledged by several recent integrative conceptualizations such as chronic primary pain, chronic overlapping pain conditions, or functional somatic disorders. Accordingly, migraine management increasingly addresses the total symptom burden and individual contributors to symptom experience, and thus incorporates centrally acting pharmacological and non-pharmacological, that is, psychological and behavioral, treatment approaches. CONCLUSIONS: Migraine and also other primary headache disorders should be seen as particular phenotypes within a broader spectrum of symptom perception and processing disorders that require integrative diagnostics and treatment. A harmonization of classifications and better interdisciplinary collaboration are desirable.

Long-term observational studies with cannabis-based medicines for chronic non-cancer pain: A systematic review and meta-analysis of effectiveness and safety.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: This systematic review evaluated the effectiveness, tolerability and safety of cannabis-based medicines (CbMs) for chronic non-cancer pain (CNCP) in long-term observational studies. DATABASES AND DATA TREATMENT: CENTRAL, EMBASE and MEDLINE were searched until December 2021. We included prospective observational studies with a study duration ≥26 weeks. Pooled estimates of event rates of categorical data and standardized mean differences (SMD) of continuous variables were calculated using a random effects model. RESULTS: Six studies were included with 2686 participants, with study duration ranging between 26 and 52 weeks. Pain conditions included nociceptive, nociplastic, neuropathic and mixed pain mechanisms. The certainty of evidence for every outcome was very low. The weighted mean difference of mean pain reduction was 1.75 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.72 to 2.78) on a 0-10 scale. 20.8% (95% CI 10.2% to 34.0%) of patients reported pain relief of 50% or greater. The effect size for sleep problems was moderate and for depression and anxiety was low. Study completions was reported for 53.3% (95% CI 26.8% to 79.9%) of patients, with dropouts of 6.8% (95% CI 4.3% to 9.7%) due to adverse events. Serious adverse events occurred in 3.0% (95 CI 0.02% to 12.8%) and 0.3% (95% CI 0.1% to 0.6%) of patients died. CONCLUSIONS: Information included in observational studies should be regarded with caution. Within the context of observational studies. CbMs had positive effects on multiple symptoms for some CNCP patients and were generally well tolerated and safe. SIGNIFICANCE: There is very low quality evidence for the long-term effectiveness (pain, sleep, mood, health-related quality of life), tolerability and safety of medical cannabis for chronic non-cancer pain (CNCP) according to reports of prospective observational studies. Predefined criteria of a large magnitude of effect size in these types of studies were not met. Nevertheless, long-term medical cannabis therapy can be considered in some carefully selected and monitored patients with CNCP.

Cannabis-Based Medicines and Medical Cannabis in the Treatment of Nociplastic Pain.

Nociplastic pain is defined as pain due to sensitization of the nervous system, without a sufficient underlying anatomical abnormality to explain the severity of pain. Nociplastic pain may be manifest in various organ systems, is often perceived as being more widespread rather than localized and is commonly associated with central nervous system symptoms of fatigue, difficulties with cognition and sleep, and other somatic symptoms; all features that contribute to considerable suffering. Exemplified by fibromyalgia, nociplastic conditions also include chronic visceral pain, chronic headaches and facial pain, and chronic musculoskeletal pain. It has been theorized that dysfunction of the endocannabinoid system may contribute to persistent pain in these conditions. As traditional treatments for chronic pain in general and nociplastic pain in particular are imperfect, there is a need to identify other treatment options. Cannabis-based medicines and medical cannabis (MC) may hold promise and have been actively promoted by the media and advocacy. The medical community must be knowledgeable of the current evidence in this regard to be able to competently advise patients. This review will briefly explain the understanding of nociplastic pain, examine the evidence for the effect of cannabinoids in these conditions, and provide simplified guidance for healthcare providers who may consider prescribing cannabinoids for these conditions.

Nociplastic pain: towards an understanding of prevalent pain conditions.

Nociplastic pain is the semantic term suggested by the international community of pain researchers to describe a third category of pain that is mechanistically distinct from nociceptive pain, which is caused by ongoing inflammation and damage of tissues, and neuropathic pain, which is caused by nerve damage. The mechanisms that underlie this type of pain are not entirely understood, but it is thought that augmented CNS pain and sensory processing and altered pain modulation play prominent roles. The symptoms observed in nociplastic pain include multifocal pain that is more widespread or intense, or both, than would be expected given the amount of identifiable tissue or nerve damage, as well as other CNS-derived symptoms, such as fatigue, sleep, memory, and mood problems. This type of pain can occur in isolation, as often occurs in conditions such as fibromyalgia or tension-type headache, or as part of a mixed-pain state in combination with ongoing nociceptive or neuropathic pain, as might occur in chronic low back pain. It is important to recognise this type of pain, since it will respond to different therapies than nociceptive pain, with a decreased responsiveness to peripherally directed therapies such as anti-inflammatory drugs and opioids, surgery, or injections.

Is Europe also facing an opioid crisis?-A survey of European Pain Federation chapters.

BACKGROUND: There is considerable public interest in whether Europe is facing an opioid crisis comparable to the one in the United States and the contribution of opioid prescriptions for pain to a potential opioid crisis. METHODS: A task force of the European Pain Federation (EFIC) conducted a survey with its national chapter representatives on trends of opioid prescriptions and of drug-related emergency departments and substance use disorder treatment admissions and of deaths as proxies of opioid-related harms over the last 20 years. RESULTS: Data from 25 European countries were received. In most European countries opioid prescriptions increased from 2004 to 2016. The levels of opioid consumption and their increase differed between countries. Some Eastern European countries still have a low opioid consumption. Opioids are mainly prescribed for acute pain and chronic noncancer pain in some Western and Northern European countries. There was a parallel increase in opioid prescriptions and some proxies of opioid-related harms in France, Finland and the Netherlands, but not in Germany, Spain and Norway. In United Kingdom, opioid overdose deaths, but not opioid prescriptions increased between 2016 and 2018. There are no robust data available on whether prescribed opioids for pain patients contributed to opioid-related harms. CONCLUSIONS: There are marked differences between European countries in trends of opioid prescribing and of proxies for opioid-related harms. Europe as a whole is not facing an opioid crisis. Discussions on the potential harms of opioids should not obstruct their prescription for cancer pain and palliative care. SIGNIFICANCE: Europe as a whole is not facing an opioid crisis. Some Eastern European countries have limited access to opioid medicines. Discussions on the potential harms of opioid medicines for noncancer pain should not obstruct opioid therapy for cancer therapy and palliative care.

Fibromyalgia revisited: do latent class analyses of symptom profiles in the general population confirm 2016 fibromyalgia diagnostic criteria?

OBJECTIVES: The definition of the 2016 diagnostic criteria of fibromyalgia (FM) syndrome and of FM severities was based on studies with clinical samples. We tested if somatic symptom profiles consistent with the symptom pattern of the FM 2016 diagnostic criteria and of severities of FM can be found in the general population. METHODS: Somatic symptom burden was measured by the Somatic Symptom Scale - 8 in 2,531 persons aged ≥14 years representative for the general German population. We used latent class analysis of SSS-8 items to identify somatic symptom profiles. The profiles were described by their association with age, gender, self-reported disabling somatic disease, psychological symptom burden, illness worries and self-perceived health. RESULTS: We identified five somatic symptom profiles. The majority of the population (40.9%) had a profile characterised by the absence of bothering symptoms. 5.9% had a profile defined by "considerable bothering" back and extremities pains, fatigue and sleep problems. This symptom profile was associated with older age, self-reported somatic diseases, psychological symptom burden and fair to poor general health. 63.2% of persons meeting FM 2016 criteria belonged to this profile. 17.8% of the sample were characterized by little perturbation by multiple somatic symptoms and good to fair general health. 36.8% of persons meeting FM 2016 criteria belonged to this profile. CONCLUSIONS: Two somatic symptom profiles consistent with the 2016 FM diagnostic criteria were identified in the general German population. These symptom profiles differed in somatic and psychological symptom burden and general health supporting the distinction of FM severities.

Use of medical cannabis by patients with fibromyalgia in Canada after cannabis legalisation: a cross-sectional study.

OBJECTIVES: Medications have only small to moderate effects on symptoms in fibromyalgia (FM). Cannabinoids, including medical cannabis (MC) may have potential to fill this gap. Since recreational legalisation of cannabis in Canada, patients have easier access and may be self-medicating with cannabis. We have examined the prevalence and characteristics of MC use in FM patients. METHODS: During a two-month period (June-August 2019), consecutive attending rheumatology patients participated in an onsite survey comprising 2 questionnaires: 1) demographic and disease information completed by the rheumatologist, 2) patient anonymous questionnaire of health status, cannabis use (recreational and/or medicinal) and characteristics of use. RESULTS: In a cohort of 1000 rheumatology attendees, 117 (11.7%) were diagnosed with FM. Ever use of MC was reported by 28 (23.9%; 95%CI: 16.5%-32.7%) FM patients compared to 98 (11.1%; 95%CI: 9.1%-13.4%) non-FM patients. Among FM ever users, 17 (61%) patients continued use of MC. FM ever users vs. FM nonusers tended to be younger, 53 vs. 58 years (p=0.072), were more likely unemployed or disabled 39% vs. 17% (p=0.019) and used more medication types (p=0.013) but did not differ in symptom severity parameters. Cigarette smoking and recreational cannabis were more common in ever users. Global symptom relief on a VAS (1-10) was 7.0±2.3. CONCLUSIONS: FM patients have commonly used MC, with more than half continuing use. Reported symptom relief was substantial. Cigarette smoking and recreational cannabis use may play a facilitatory role in MC use in FM. Adjunctive MC may be a treatment consideration for some FM patients.