Quality of postoperative pain management in American versus European institutions.

Management of postoperative pain remains an important clinical problem throughout the world. Using the PAIN-OUT acute pain registry database to examine perioperative pain management in orthopedic surgery patients, we compared patient-reported outcomes (PROs) in a pooled sample obtained from four American hospitals (N = 473) with PROs in a pooled sample of 20 European institutions (N = 8799). Most American hospitals consistently assess acute pain in surgical patients due to Joint Commission accreditation guidelines. Therefore, we hypothesized that this practice would create a climate of clinical staff sensitivity to patients' pain and a greater readiness to intervene when pain is higher than one would find in Europe as a whole. American institutions might then provide better control of postoperative pain after orthopedic surgery than European institutions. Because of the large sample sizes, our analyses focused on effect size rather than statistical significance. Evaluation of the pain PROs revealed that European patients reported much lower Worst Pain on the first day after orthopedic surgery than American patients. The mean Worst Pain (± SD) for Europeans was 5.4 (2.5) but for Americans the mean was 7.4 (2.7), p < .0001, a large effect size. Europeans also reported significantly less emotional discomfort, less interference of pain with activity and lower Least Pain. Nonetheless, 98.3% of American patients received opioids on the ward on the first postoperative day compared to 70.2% of European patients, and 41.1% received regional analgesia on the ward while 15.9% of European patients received regional analgesia (both small effect sizes). Overall, the results are clear in demonstrating much better pain control in the ensemble of European countries as compared to the United States.

Methadone for chronic non-cancer pain in adults.

BACKGROUND: Methadone belongs to a class of analgesics known as opioids, that are considered the cornerstone of therapy for moderate-to-severe pain due to life-threatening illnesses; however, their use in chronic non-cancer pain (CNCP) is controversial. Methadone has many characteristics that differentiate it from other opioids, which suggests that it may have a different efficacy and safety profile. OBJECTIVES: To assess the analgesic effectiveness and safety of methadone in the treatment of CNCP. SEARCH METHODS: We identified both randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and non-randomized studies of methadone use in chronic pain by searching the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) in The Cochrane Library 2011, issue 11, MEDLINE (1950 to November 2011), and EMBASE (1980 to November 2011), together with reference lists of retrieved papers and reviews. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included RCTs with pain assessment as either the primary or secondary outcome. Quasi-randomized studies, cohorts and case-control trials were also considered for inclusion because we suspected that the beneficial and harmful effects of methadone in CNCP may not be adequately addressed in RCTs. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently extracted efficacy and adverse event data and assessed risk of bias. MAIN RESULTS: We included two RCTs and one non-randomized study, involving a total of 181 participants. Both RCTs were cross-over studies, one involving 19 participants with diverse neuropathic pain syndromes, the other involving 76 participants with postherpetic neuralgia. Study phases were 20 days and approximately eight weeks, respectively. The non-randomized study retrospectively evaluated 86 outpatients over an average of 8.8 ± 6.3 months.One RCT reported average pain intensity and pain relief, and found statistically significant improvements versus placebo for both outcomes, with 10 mg and 20 mg daily doses of methadone. The second RCT reported differences in pain reduction between methadone and morphine and found morphine to be statistically superior. The non-randomized study found that in patients initially prescribed methadone it was effective in fewer participants than in those initially prescribed other long-acting opioids (28% versus 42%, 33% and 50% for morphine, oxycodone and transdermal fentanyl, respectively).One RCT compared incidences for several individual adverse events, but found a difference between methadone and placebo for only one event, dizziness (P = 0.041). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The three studies provide very limited evidence of the efficacy of methadone for CNCP, and there were too few data for pooled analysis of efficacy or harm, or to have confidence in the results of the individual studies. No conclusions can be made regarding differences in efficacy or safety between methadone and placebo, other opioids, or other treatments.

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.

Methylnaltrexone for treatment of opioid-induced constipation in advanced illness patients.

Methylnaltrexone, a peripheral mu-opioid receptor antagonist with restricted ability to cross the blood-brain barrier, may relieve opioid-induced constipation (OIC) without reversing analgesia. A total of 154 patients with advanced illness and OIC enrolled in a double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial, with optional open-label phases (up to 4 months) in hospice and palliative care centers during 2003-2005. They received a single subcutaneous injection of methylnaltrexone (0.15 mg/kg or 0.3 mg/kg) or placebo. Laxation response within 4 hours was 62% and 58% for methylnaltrexone 0.15 mg/kg and 0.3 mg/kg, respectively, compared with 14% for placebo (P < 0.0001; each dose vs placebo). Approximately half of the methylnaltrexone responders defecated within 30 minutes of dosing. Open-label phase response rates mirrored those for methylnaltrexone during the double-blind phase.There was no change in pain scores or evidence of central opioid withdrawal.The most common adverse events (AEs) were abdominal pain and flatulence.Three patients had serious AEs attributed to methylnaltrexone. Subcutaneous methylnaltrexone was efficacious in rapidly inducing laxation and was generally well tolerated in patients with advanced illness and OIC.

Managing osteoarthritis pain when your patient fails simple analgesics and NSAIDs and is not a candidate for surgery.

With no disease-modifying osteoarthritis drugs on the immediate horizon, the goal of osteoarthritis therapy remains management of pain and maintenance of function. Evidence supports use of nonpharmacologic measures including patient education, judicious exercise and weight loss, and assistive devices when appropriate to reduce pain and further loss of function. First line pharmacotherapy is acetaminophen or nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs). However, toxicities are associated with long-term use of these drugs. Evidence also supports the use of opioids in osteoarthritis pain management when other interventions are insufficient. NSAIDs and opioids are mutually dose sparing and combining relatively low doses of a drug from each class provides synergistic analgesia while limiting toxicity. Alternative therapies include tramadol and intra-articular injections of steroids and hyaluronic acid. There is evidence to support glucosamine as an adjunct in treating osteoarthritis. Evidence is lacking to support the use of chondroitin, S-adenosyl-methionine, or dimethyl sulfoxide in osteoarthritis pain management.

Pain as a human right: the 2004 Global Day Against Pain.

On October 11, 2004, the International Association for the Study of Pain (IASP), the World Health Organization (WHO), and the European Federation of IASP Chapters (EFIC) held a Global Day against Pain campaign to promote pain relief as a human right. International leaders in pain management and public health participated in the full day program that took place in Geneva Switzerland and was simultaneously broadcast around the world through the Word Wide Web. The declaration and statements that were released and announced, and selected contents of the program are summarized in this report.

American pain society recommendations for improving the quality of acute and cancer pain management: American Pain Society Quality of Care Task Force.

BACKGROUND: The American Pain Society (APS) set out to revise and expand its 1995 Quality Improvement Guidelines for the Treatment of Acute Pain and Cancer Pain and to facilitate improvements in the quality of pain management in all care settings. METHODS: Eleven multidisciplinary members of the APS with expertise in quality improvement or measurement participated in the update. Five experts from organizations that focus on health care quality reviewed the final recommendations. MEDLINE and Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature databases were searched (1994-2004) to identify articles on pain quality measurement and quality improvement published after the development of the 1995 guidelines. The APS task force revised and expanded recommendations on the basis of the systematic review of published studies. The more than 3000 members of the APS were invited to provide input, and the 5 experts provided additional comments. The task force synthesized reviewers' comments into the final set of recommendations. RESULTS: The recommendations specify that all care settings formulate structured, multilevel systems approaches (sensitive to the type of pain, population served, and setting of care) that ensure prompt recognition and treatment of pain, involvement of patients and families in the pain management plan, improved treatment patterns, regular reassessment and adjustment of the pain management plan as needed, and measurement of processes and outcomes of pain management. CONCLUSION: Efforts to improve the quality of pain management must move beyond assessment and communication of pain to implementation and evaluation of improvements in pain treatment that are timely, safe, evidence based, and multimodal.

Clinician beliefs about opioid use and barriers in chronic nonmalignant pain.

A survey of the medical directors of multidisciplinary pain clinics and multidisciplinary pain centers listed in the American Pain Society Pain Facilities Directory was conducted to define those pain specialists' beliefs about the role of opioid analgesia in 14 types of chronic nonmalignant pain. Respondents also reported their perceptions of barriers to their prescribing opioids for chronic nonmalignant pain and what they perceived as barriers to opioid prescribing for chronic nonmalignant pain by other, non-pain specialist clinicians in their communities. The respondents are characterized by demographics, disciplines, specialties, and time in practice. The percentage of time that a pharmacist was available in the pain programs also is reported. There is increasing acceptance of opioids for most of the listed types of chronic nonmalignant pain, but the acceptance varies by types of pain syndromes. Opioids were most consistently accepted for sickle cell disease pain and least commonly endorsed for headaches, myofascial pain, and fibromyalgia. Factors that may influence clinicians' perceptions about opioids are discussed.

Symptom-related research from the agency for healthcare research and quality.

Recent reports on research supported by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality are summarized. These reports relate to use of aspirin for cardioprotection by patients taking NSAIDs, end of life care for nursing home residents with advanced directives, Cancer Patients' Satisfaction With Primary Care Pain Management, the need for increased medical training about adverse drug events, and dorsal root entry zone lesioning for central neuropathic pain. The research summarized in this report was abstracted from the AHRQ Research Activities.