Position paper: appropriate use of pharmacotherapeutic agents by the orofacial pain dentist.

Orofacial Pain Dentistry is concerned with the prevention, evaluation, diagnosis, treatment, and management of persistent and recurrent orofacial pain disorders. The American Dental Association, through the Commission on Dental Accreditation (CODA), now recognizes Orofacial Pain as an area of advanced education in Dentistry. It is mandated by CODA that postgraduate orofacial pain programs be designed to provide advanced knowledge and skills beyond those of the standard curriculum leading to the DDS or DMD degrees. Postgraduate programs in orofacial pain must include specific curricular content to comply with CODA standards. The intent of CODA standards is to assure that training programs develop specific educational goals and objectives that describe the student/resident's expected knowledge and skills upon successful completion of the program. A standardized core curriculum, required for accreditation of dental orofacial pain training programs, has now been adopted.Among the various topics mandated in the curriculum are pharmacology and, specifically, pharmacotherapeutics. The American Academy of Orofacial Pain (AAOP) recommends, and the American Board of Orofacial Pain (ABOP) requires, that the minimally competent orofacial pain dentist* be knowledgeable in the management of orofacial pain conditions using medications when indicated. Basic knowledge of the appropriate use of pharmacotherapeutics is essential for the orofacial pain dentist and, therefore, constitutes part of the examination specifications of the ABOP. The minimally competent orofacial pain clinician must demonstrate knowledge, diagnostic skills, and treatment expertise in many areas, such as musculoskeletal, neurovascular, and neuropathic pain syndromes; sleep disorders related to orofacial pain; orofacial dystonias; and intraoral, intracranial, extracranial, and systemic disorders that cause orofacial pain or dysfunction. The orofacial pain dentist has the responsibility to diagnose and treat patients in pain that is often chronic, multifactorial, and complex. Failure to understand pain mechanisms can lead to inaccurate diagnoses and ineffective, delayed, or harmful treatment. It is the responsibility of the orofacial pain dentist to accurately diagnose the cause(s) of the pain and decide if treatment should be dentally, medically, or psychologically oriented, or if optimal management requires a combination of all three treatment approaches. Management may consist of a number of interdisciplinary modalities including, eg, physical medicine, behavioral medicine, and pharmacology or, in rare instances, surgical interventions. Among the essential armamentarium is the knowledge and proper use of pharmacologic agents.

Opioid pharmacotherapy for chronic non-cancer pain in the United States: a research guideline for developing an evidence-base.

UNLABELLED: This document reports the consensus of an interdisciplinary panel of research and clinical experts charged with reviewing the use of opioids for chronic noncancer pain (CNCP) and formulating guidelines for future research. Prescribing opioids for chronic noncancer pain has recently escalated in the United States. Contrasting with increasing opioid use are: 1) The lack of evidence supporting long-term effectiveness; 2) Escalating misuse of prescription opioids including abuse and diversion; and 3) Uncertainty about the incidence and clinical salience of multiple, poorly characterized adverse drug events (ADEs) including endocrine dysfunction, immunosuppression and infectious disease, opioid-induced hyperalgesia and xerostomia, overdose, falls and fractures, and psychosocial complications. Chief among the limitations of current evidence are: 1) Sparse evidence on long-term opioid effectiveness in chronic pain patients due to the short-term time frame of clinical trials; 2) Insufficiently comprehensive outcome assessment; and 3) Incomplete identification and quantification of ADEs. The panel called for a strategic interdisciplinary approach to the problem domain in which basic scientists and clinicians cooperate to resolve urgent issues and generate a comprehensive evidence base. It offered 4 recommendations in 3 areas: 1) A research strategy for studying the effectiveness of long-term opioid pharmacotherapy; 2) Improvements in evidence-generation methodology; and 3) Potential research topics for generating new evidence. PERSPECTIVE: Prescribing opioids for CNCP has outpaced the growth of scientific evidence bearing on the benefits and harms of these interventions. The need for a strong evidence base is urgent. This guideline offers a strategic approach to creating a comprehensive evidence base to guide safe and effective management of CNCP.

Development and reliability of items measuring the nonmedical use of prescription drugs for the Youth Risk Behavior Survey: results from an initial pilot test.

BACKGROUND: The purpose of this study was to develop and test the reliability of self-report survey items designed to monitor the nonmedical use of prescription drugs among adolescents. METHODS: Eighteen nonmedical prescription drug items designed to be congruent with the substance abuse items in the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's (CDC's) Youth Risk Behavior Survey were constructed, reviewed by a panel of experts, and then examined to assess reliability using a test-retest survey design. RESULTS: Simple kappa (kappa) coefficients for 14 of the 18 items demonstrated "substantial" or "almost perfect" reliability. Three items had coefficients within the "fair" or "moderate" ranges and 1 item fell within in the "poor" range. Of the 10 items for which weighted kappa coefficients were calculated, 6 items fell within the "almost perfect" or "substantial" ranges. Three fell within the "moderate" range and 1 fell within the "poor" range. CONCLUSIONS: Based on the expert panel review and the findings from our study, most of the 18 items developed to measure nonmedical use of prescription drugs among adolescents appear valid and reliable. The nonmedical use of prescription drugs ranks fourth among the most abused class of drugs by adolescents after alcohol, tobacco, and marijuana, respectively. The CDC should consider expanding the surveillance of these specific health-risk behaviors that are assuming new importance by including the items described in this article in future national surveys.

Prescription opioid abuse among enrollees into methadone maintenance treatment.

A multi-state survey of 5663 opioid dependent persons enrolling in 72 methadone maintenance treatment programs (MMTPs) was conducted to determine the prevalence of prescription opioid (PO) abuse, factors associated with PO abuse and sources for POs. Regions where PO abuse was believed to be prevalent were oversampled; primary opioid was defined as the drug used the most before coming to the MMTP. Among primary heroin abusers, 69% reported abusing POs. Opioid abuse frequencies among primary PO abusers were oxycodone (79%), hydrocodone (67%), methadone (40%), morphine (29%), heroin (13%), hydromorphone (16%), fentanyl (9%) and buprenorphine (1%). Correlates (p < or = .01) of PO abuse, using general estimating equations, were: low urbanicity (MMTPs located in comparatively low population density counties), white ethnicity, no history of injecting primary drug, no previous methadone treatment, younger age, chronic pain, and pain as a reason for enrollment. The most frequent sources of POs were dealer, friend or relative, and doctor's prescription; least frequent were Internet and forged prescription. One-third of PO abusers reported a history of injecting their primary drug. PO abuse is highly prevalent among MMTP patients. Future studies should describe HIV/HCV needle injection practices, characteristics that predict treatment outcomes, and factors that contribute to higher prevalence of persistent pain among PO abusers.

Oxycodone involvement in drug abuse deaths: a DAWN-based classification scheme applied to an oxycodone postmortem database containing over 1000 cases.

An oxycodone postmortem database was created from 1243 solicited cases from Medical Examiner and Coroner (ME/C) offices in 23 states in the United States over the period from August 27, 1999, through January 17, 2002. The request for cases was specific to only those cases in which the ME/C opined that the death involved oxycodone. Each case was evaluated to determine the role of oxycodone and the specific drug product OxyContin tablets in the death. Oxycodone identification was based on toxicology testing, and OxyContin identification was based on evidence found at the scene, credible witness reports, or identification of tablets in gastrointestinal contents. A system of case categorization was developed for this study based on the Drug Abuse Warning Network (DAWN) system for reporting drug abuse mortality data in the United States, using the same standardized, well-understood terminology. Of the 1243 cases, 79 cases were incomplete and could not be evaluated. There were an additional 150 cases submitted in which oxycodone was not identified by the originating ME/C. Of the remaining 1014 cases, 919 (90.6%) were related to drug abuse, whereas 95 (9.4%) cases were categorized as not involving drug abuse. Only 30 (3.3%) of the drug abuse cases involved oxycodone as the single reported chemical entity; of these, 12 cases had OxyContin identified as a source of oxycodone. Of the 919 drug abuse cases, the vast majority (N = 889, 96.7%) were multiple drug abuse deaths in which there was at least one other plausible contributory drug in addition to oxycodone. The most prevalent drug combinations were oxycodone in combination with benzodiazepines, alcohol, cocaine, other narcotics, marijuana, or antidepressants. Using the DAWN definitions, drug abuse cases were further categorized as drug-induced or drug-related. A total of 851 (92.6%) cases met the criteria for classification as being drug-induced, and the remaining 68 (7.4%) cases were categorized as drug-related. Cause of death (COD) statements from the originating ME/C indicated a general recognition of the role of abuse of multiple drugs in causing fatalities. Approximately 70% of the 889 cases in the multiple-drug-induced categories were listed in the COD or contributing COD statements as multiple-drug deaths. A variety of terms were employed in the COD statements to indicate multiple drug involvement such as "polydrug toxicity", "polypharmacy", "multiple drug poisoning", and "polypharmaceutical overdose". The system for death classification employed in this study recognizes the problems inherent in COD attribution when multiple drugs are involved. Use of this new system for reporting mortality data in future studies involving opioids is recommended.

Pain management, controlled substances, and state medical board policy: a decade of change.

Physicians' concerns about regulatory scrutiny and the possibility of unwarranted investigation by regulatory agencies negatively affect their prescribing of opioid analgesics to treat pain. Indeed, some state medical boards have rejected prescribing practices that are considered acceptable by today's standards. This article describes a ten-year program of research, education, and policy development implemented by the Pain & Policy Studies Group aimed at updating and clarifying state medical board policies on the use of opioid analgesics to treat pain, including cancer and chronic noncancer pain. Following surveys of medical board members and educational workshops, state medical board policies began an initial period of change, drawing on guidelines from other states, particularly in California. The next phase of policy development was marked by the introduction of Model Guidelines by the Federation of State Medical Boards of the U.S. The Model Guidelines address professional standards for the appropriate prescribing of opioid analgesics for pain management, as well as physicians' fears of regulatory scrutiny. Although most state medical boards have adopted regulations, guidelines, or policy statements relating to controlled substances and pain management, to date ten boards have adopted the Model Guidelines, while ten more have adopted the Model Guidelines in part. Further actions are recommended so that state medical boards can address inadequate pain management and physician concerns about regulatory scrutiny.